Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
More and more states are finding that portions of the registry are punitive and cannot be applied retroactively to some registrants.
If any registrant---and that means YOUR husband, son, or daughter----- has ever had the original terms-----duration and frequency to report-----of the registration process changed, and if that change enhanced or increased his or her registration requirements, they may have a case on the state level.
If a law is considered punitive in nature, any retroactive application of that law is an ex post facto violation of the STATE constitution. This is prohibited. This happened with the Starkey case in Oklahoma and the Williams case in Ohio.
The clearest example is if a registrant was originally mandated to register once a year for 10 years, but his registration requirement was changed later to every 90 days for life. But it can theoretically be any portion of the registry OR its requirements that change the terms of registration and is applied retroactively.
In this particular case in Massachusetts, the state tried to pass legislation that would require level 2 registrants, who previously were not required to have their information posted online, to have their information posted on the Internet.
http://tinyurl.com/h97yxw3
We have to begin filing law suits against these violations. Advocacy is fine, as is educating the masses, but it is slow and even ineffective on the federal level.
Right now the easiest and quickest method to exact a change in our favor is to file law suits--and win--- against the state. The registrants in California have been successful in getting some of their legislation stopped because they are organized but more importantly because they have an attorney----Janice----who is filing law suit after law suit against the state and local governments regarding registration restrictions.
rewdiazepam
If any registrant---and that means YOUR husband, son, or daughter----- has ever had the original terms-----duration and frequency to report-----of the registration process changed, and if that change enhanced or increased his or her registration requirements, they may have a case on the state level.
If a law is considered punitive in nature, any retroactive application of that law is an ex post facto violation of the STATE constitution. This is prohibited. This happened with the Starkey case in Oklahoma and the Williams case in Ohio.
The clearest example is if a registrant was originally mandated to register once a year for 10 years, but his registration requirement was changed later to every 90 days for life. But it can theoretically be any portion of the registry OR its requirements that change the terms of registration and is applied retroactively.
In this particular case in Massachusetts, the state tried to pass legislation that would require level 2 registrants, who previously were not required to have their information posted online, to have their information posted on the Internet.
http://tinyurl.com/h97yxw3
We have to begin filing law suits against these violations. Advocacy is fine, as is educating the masses, but it is slow and even ineffective on the federal level.
Right now the easiest and quickest method to exact a change in our favor is to file law suits--and win--- against the state. The registrants in California have been successful in getting some of their legislation stopped because they are organized but more importantly because they have an attorney----Janice----who is filing law suit after law suit against the state and local governments regarding registration restrictions.
rewdiazepam
Now, after several years of hard work and less than favorable press to say the least, there is indeed a 'revenue stream', very modestly so,from settled lawsuits. The numbers leaked to the public are barely enough to make any lawyers that I know pick up the phone and return a call. One can only hope that the protagonists (main plaintiff and attorney) in all the CA lawsuits are having a fat Christmas, but the fact that they continue to file lawsuits (which is not free) leads one to believe that they plow the settlement monies from one lawsuit into the next one.
I am under the impression it is more a matter of the organization getting paid to trudge on as opposed "she" getting paid, but I have no concrete evidence.
The main lesson here is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. It is a matter of finding someone brave and qualified enough to take this on. California has been beyond fortunate to have this happen. Hopefully this will have a national ripple effect.
Every time I read one of these articles or see a case in which the judges rule that the enhanced registry requirements cannot be made retroactive, I think of you, your husband, and your family's situation.
If he was a registrant in Ohio, Oklahoma, or Maryland, he would have been removed from the registry by now. The Starkey case in Oklahoma and the Williams case in Ohio made it illegal for the state to apply the increased registry requirements to anyone convicted before the date the new law was enacted.
I am hoping that someday some registrant from Pennsylvania will sue the state as Mr. Starkey and Mr.Williams did and your family can finally have some justice and peace.
At the same time, I urge every registrant whose registry requirements were increased by a law which was passed after their conviction, to see if they can get some relief. We are making great progress at the state level.
rewdiazepam