DEADLINE for Commenting: 7-13-2010 11:59 PM
The NEW Supplemental Guidelines affecting SORNA registrants were posted in the Federal Register on 5-14-2010. Within those proposed guideline changes are good and helpful (i.e., those affecting juveniles, ) changes. We are not suggesting ANY comments to those proposed changes as they are fine as written.
However, there are other proposed changes which infringe on registrants personal rights, some constitutional, and even curtail registrants movements in the community and on the Internet. There is one which even suggests monitoring registrants Internet usage and maybe even their e-mails. These are the ONLY types of proposed changes we have suggested folks comment on. To that end, the following are suggested comments about the NEW Supplemental Guidelines.
For those who do not know what to write and comment, and would rather use the suggested comments, and read the supporting reasoning later on, ALL of the following "Suggested Comments" have links back to the explanations, if you wish to read them. At the end of this post are instructions of WHERE to POST Comments, so folks may simply copy and paste personal or the suggested comments into the Regulations.gov form. And, "Anonymous comments" are possible, no personal information is required.
The following suggested comments is from this commentary: Action Alert: Supp. Guidelines - Section I (B Internet Identifiers) Part-3Note: To get everything into a comment that needs to be there, the following suggested comment has been carefully worded so that it DOES NOT violate the Regulations.gov 2,000 character limit. The comment is 1,984 characters including spaces, so if you modify it, be careful lest you violate the 2,000 limit.Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
Acknowledgement forms are used to prove the agency has complied with due process (notice of registrant obligations). see Supplemental Guidelines (SG) "The acknowledgment forms signed by sex offenders regarding their registration obligations are ....definitive proof of such knowledge." FR 75 at 27365.
The Kid's Act (KA) identifies a registrant's right to challenge when denied access to a social networking site (SNS)(42 USC 16915b(b)(5)). But, forms fail to notify registrants of that (forms must function for obligations and rights), and the SG fail to establish any grievance system for improper denials. The KA fails to acknowledge need for a grievance system, and further denies registrants access to courts state and federal (42 USC 16915b(c)(5)(A)) for any claims related to the SNS use of the National Sex Offender Registry (includes the checking system) not identified in the KA (42 USC 16915b(c)(5)(B))(Intentional, Reckless, or other misconduct).
Registrants -in spite of any convictions- have 1st Amend. right of "Free Speech" and anonymous speech (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)) as well as anonymous online speech (Doe v. Shurtleff, 2008 WL 4427594 (U.S. Dist Court, the District of Utah 2008) and ACLU of Ga v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga 1997)). And, registrants DO NOT lose their "rights of action" (42 USC 1983 and/or 1985 etc. or state equivalents) by virtue of being a registrant, nor can Congress or the states divest registrants of those "rights of action" for simply being a registrant in a sex offender registry. Such clearly violates ex post facto prohibitions.
Registrants need, and SG must provide a system to exhaust all administrative remedies -state and federal- before presenting claims to courts, including claims beyond the limitations set by KA (42 USC 16915b(c)(5)(B)). "Right of court actions" cannot be denied for simply being a sex offender registrant!
Thank you.
The following TWO suggested comments are from this commentary: Action Alert: Supp. Guidelines - Section I (B Internet Identifiers) Part-2
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
All RSOs -in spite of convictions- are entitled to First Amendment right of "Free Speech" and anonymous speech ( McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)) as well as anonymous online speech ( Doe v. Shurtleff, 2008 WL 4427594 (U.S. Dist Court, the District of Utah 2008) and ACLU of Ga v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga 1997)).
In spite of erroneous implications that, "all RSOs are online sexual predators," a claim which allowed the Kid's Act to become law, there is no evidence that RSOs are, or will become, such people. The implication has further damaged RSOs' Internet reputation and character worldwide, causing a hostile society, hampering rehabilitation and reentry into the community.
Supplemental Guidelines must PROHIBT ALL INTERNET -searching or monitoring of RSO Internet Identifiers found in the "checking system" (including accessing of Internet accounts)- ( all suggested by 42 USC 16915b(c)(3)(D) "Rule of Construction") absent probable cause of a crime. RSO personal rights must be addressed in the SG. RSOs regularly engage in non criminal activity and speech, conversing with family, friends acquaintances and when discussing political issues resulting from their status as a RSO.
Finally, some of the "checking system" Internet Identifiers lead to personal bank accounts, medical records and other family matters, such implicating different constitutional and statutory rights, state and federal. No one has any right to this personal non criminal information, more reasons why the Supplemental Guidelines must PROHIBIT use of the Internet Identifiers in the "checking system." Without controls RSOs have no way to protect this life critical information.
Thank you.
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
The Kid's Act vests RSOs with a right to challenge a denial to a social networking website, when the website bases its denial on information from the checking system (42 USC 16915b(b)(5)(A)).
However, there is no "Grievance System" for RSOs to exercise their First Amendment right to grieve a illegal denial by a social networking website, to the U.S. AG (or State equivalent), those who control the checking system.
Examples of Illegal denials: If the SNS website fails to provide a RSO with a timely "Notice" -or- a "Notice" as outlined in the Kid's Act (42 USC 16915b(b)(5)(A)).
The Supplemental Guidelines MUST make allowances for such a grievance system given the provisions of the Kid's Act (42 USC 16915b(b)(5)(A)).
Thank you.
The following TWO suggested comments are from this commentary: Action Alert: Supp. Guidelines - Section I (B Internet Identifiers) Part-1
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134.
To Whom It May Concern:
THIRD PARTY VENDORS and OTHER JURISDICTIONS: Prohibition of publishing registrants e-mail address and other Internet identifiers publicly, MUST be EXTENDED, to third pseudo-jurisdictions who often have or run (as a contracted service)local public sex offender websites. (ex: Offender Watch) This supplemental guideline wording appears to exclude "many" who may not protect registrants' information if they are provided registrants' information, and registrants may suffer civilly or criminally. These need to be regulated or denied registrants' information.
Thank you.
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134.
To Whom it May Concern:
DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNET Ids by means OTHER THAN PUBLIC WEB SITE: To allow such distribution -without notice and specific registrant approval- would violate all registrants' federal privacy rights (Title 5 USC 552a(b)), and the Terms of Agreements registrants have with Yahoo, Google, etc. which hold registrants responsible for their Id's security and use.
Should specific Internet Id's be released to someone, registrant would have no way to track who the unknown party is, or how they use the ID, and any misuse would make registrant responsible and may even result in criminal charges. Registrants have a right (5 USC 55a(c)(3)) to know who the unknown party is, and a system must be created to specifically notify and obtain a registrant's approval before handing out private Internet information.
Registrants Internet character and reputation have already been stained by politics and the media treatment of all registrants, a registrant does not need some unknown person making matters worse and possibly placing them or their family in harms way.
Thank you..
The following TWO suggested comments are from this commentary: REVISED: Supplemental Guidelines - Section II (A International Travel)
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
The Supplemental Guide states: "SG Section II Interjurisdictional Tracking and Information Sharing-- A. International Travel: Certain features of SORNA and the SORNA Guidelines require the Department of Justice, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to develop reliable means for identifying and tracking sex offenders who enter or leave the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 16928; 73 FR at 38066–67."
42 USC 16928 states: "REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish and maintain a system for informing the relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the United States ..."
42 USC 16928 does not permit preventing or controlling registered sex offenders who chose to LEAVE the United States.
Thank you.
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
Given that, 42 USC 16928 imposes a duty on the USAG (and other federal agencies) to inform relevant jurisdictions of persons -entering the United States- who are required to register, 42 USC 16928 -in no way- permits restrictions on DOMESTIC travel (movement within the United States) of ALL registrants in every state registry.
To construe 42 USC 16928 as the Supplemental Guideline does, is overreaching and extending it to do things, it simply, is not authorized to do.
Finally, it cannot be forgotten that many RSOs are part of a family unit, and short of eradicating these family units, these overreaching controls impermissibly affect the entire family unit.
Thank you.
The following TWO suggested comments are from this commentary: ACTION ALERT: Supplemental Guidelines - Section II (C Acknowledgement Forms)
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
State acknowledgment forms FAIL to notify registrants of FEDERAL SORNA requirements, FEDERAL Guidelines (which interpret SORNA and subtle points) and Sec. 2250 requirements, but ONLY mention what is required by State registry law.
The FAILURE of the State acknowledgement forms to notify -ALL REGISTRANTS- of the above, places certain registrants in peril of arrest, prosecution and prison for doing many things customary to daily life. i.e., registrants living near state borders customarily attend family church services, medical appoints, do shopping, etc., and these may be in a bordering state. The FAILURE to notify registrants, of Sec. 2250 at least, places registrants in peril if stopped by police. Registering in the bordering state is even frustrated or impossible because there is no residence to report in that state.
Further, a death of a family member, or friend, may require ANY registrant to cross state lines (temporarily or for several days) or may require travel to another country. The FAILURE of State acknowledgment forms to notify registrants of how to handle such emergencies, and vacations that cross state lines for more than 3 days, all place registrants in peril.
State acknowledgement forms are inadequate in many respects, mainly forms FAIL to notify registrants of SORNA requirements including Federal Guidelines interpreting SORNA, and Sec. 2250.
Thank you.
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
Neither the 2010 Supplemental Guidelines nor the 2008 Final Guidelines require states to notify registrants of changes in Federal or State laws, when they do change.
The State acknowledgement forms need to function as forms that notify, not just as forms used to prosecute registrants when they fail to follow requirements of Federal or State law.
Thank you.
The following suggested comment is from this commentary: Action Alert: Concerns with Supp. Guidelines - Section IV (Retroactive Classes)
Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
The supplemental guideline (IV. Retroactive Classes) brings sex offenders who are no longer in the criminal justice system, which includes former sex offenders whose registration terms have expired, back under SORNA requirements, if they commit a NEW felony or misdemeanor, including those which are not sex offenses.
It is discriminatory to force sex offenders to return to the criminal justice system (which includes SORNA requirements [see SG]), based on NEW non sex offenses, when non sex offenders are not required to return to the criminal justice system (in any fashion similar to SORNA), based on NEW non sex offenses.
Clearly the Supplemental Guideline (IV. Retroactive Classes) is discriminatory, based on felonies and misdemeanors, and violates equal protection under the law.
Thank you.WHERE TO POST COMMENTS:
OK, are your comments ready? Or, above are "suggested comments" (background color is yellow), you can use if you wish, but each must be a separate comment on Regulations.govSo click here:Remember, you can submit a comment as "Anonymous," no personal information is required.
Read carefully so that your comment will appear as "Anonymous."
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=OJP-2010-0001
Look on the lower left where it says "Comment Due 7-13-10 11:59 PM" just click on that and enter what you have prepared, or the above suggested comments, remember to copy each as a separate comment.END OF POST
