I have always had hope that a new case will come before them again and then we need to send document after document including from the US government stating the truth

But what will it take? 13 years ago in Alaska, all someone had to do was mail in a form and the information was not public. They didn't even have to appear in person at the police station. Today, we have restrictions that one couldn't have possibly imagined back then, even after the creation of Megan's law in 1997. Like watching a pot boil, I keep waiting and waiting for that case to emerge. It is so overdue.

It's that children's game of telephone except for much higher stakes! I cannot believe this is even possible in our courts today.

I was talking to my friend who is a lawyer about this "frightening and high" issue and how the court got it so wrong. He understood my frustration with it but he thought it wouldn't have mattered much in the long run. He was saying he thought it would come down to does the state have a compelling state interest in protecting people from sex offenders. He said even if the threat was not frightening or high that there was at least some level of threat and that would most likely pass for a compelling state interest.

So I said but what about the studies that show notification laws actually increase net sex crimes? Even if you consider the deterrence effects the laws show a net gain in sex crimes because they fail to allow offenders to reintegrate back into society making them more not less likely to repeat their crimes. He said SCOTUS is rarely looking to judge policy on its merits but just whether it is legal and within the bounds of the constitution. That saddened me a little bit.

I would hope SCOTUS could see that the state does not have a compelling state interest in creating a net gain in sex crimes. I pray that's the path they take next time they hear a case having to do with our cause.

I can potentially see SCOTUS taking the IML case.

Any relief from the registry or from any of the laws enacted because of the registry has been on the state level. Successes on the federal level have stalled.

One of the reasons we have had success at the state level is that the State Supreme Courts are ruling that portions of the registry cannot be applied retroactively as any retroactive application would be a violation of the STATE constitution, not the federal constitution. Since the United States Supreme Court decision in 2003, there is no real manner in which the registry can be attacked on a federal level.

Most states have a constitution that prevents ex post facto laws, which bars any law from being applied retroactively. Please note that civil laws can always be applied retroactively, which is how the legislators have been able to enact so much legislation against registrants.

The Starkey case in Oklahoma was won because Mr.Starkey convinced the Oklahoma State Supreme Court that many parts of the registry had become punitive and thus they could not be applied retroactively to any registrant whose crime occurred before 2007, when the tier levels in Oklahoma were introduced. The Starkey decision is how I got off the registry.

http://tinyurl.com/p2et7ul

Many of the states are attacking the SORNA requirements, saying the enhanced reporting requirements set forth by SORNA should not apply to those convicted before the enactment of SORNA. Oklahoma was successful with this method in the Starkey case and I think the Williams case in Ohio was decided in much the same manner. I think Maryland did much of the same thing with Nancy Forster as the attorney for the sex offenders. Pennsylvania, I think, also has such a law suit in progress at this time.

If we cannot expect many victories at the federal level, we need to concentrate on the state level.

rewdiazepam

That makes logical sense. It's too bad, though. This needs to be addressed at the federal level. Janice Belluci has been looking for the perfect case for a long time.

But victories at the state level are nothing to sneeze at. I'll settle for any kind of progress.