Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
While this thread is not to go outside the scope of this forum in promoting "advocacy" it is to inform you about an important matter of widespread interest, in the following:
On July 3, 2014, a federal court hearing occurred. The President of W.A.R., Vicki Henry, was present and ready to testify as an expert witness. Testifying in such a capacity, if permitted, will advance the strength , credibility and advocacy of W.A.R. significantly.
Unfortunately, the Judge elected not to permit Ms. Henry to testify at trial, though he opened the door for her to file a report later in the case, as an expert witness, for the Court's review, consideration, and determination involving the rights of S/O's in their housing opportunities and the interplay of state registration laws.
The case involves the rights of a sex offender under the federal Fair Housing Act - not as a sex offender but as a class protected under the Act, that alleges the landlord, who is also a registered sex offender ,invoked discriminatory housing practices because of disabilities or disability association to deny the person housing.
The landlord testified under oath that he did in fact impose a discriminatory housing practice with purpose to impose higher rents to be paid than he requires from all other tenants whom he rents to in the same housing facility. Therefore, the sex offender was to be financially penalized in renting a dwelling from the landlord.
The case also alleges that the sex offender was forcibly placed in a situation where he would then sustain immediate irreparable harms of severe and pervasive proportions because of state laws that restrict where he can and cannot live if he did not permit the landlord to extort money by charging higher rent prices.
This case also raises the question in whether the government can deny a sex offender or any person associated with them publicly funded housing when doing so discriminates against the sex offender or the person whom they associate with, because of disabilities and / or disability association.
It is a first of its kind legal challenge that - win, loose, or draw - will set precedence in housing rights for those labeled as sex offenders within their respective communities.
W.A.R's role is particularly important in this case because if permitted by the Court, it will get things on judicial record that Court's and government officials refuse to even consider when enacting and enforcing their laws, i.e. the detriments of the laws have upon sex offenders, those associated with them, and upon the public.
On July 3, 2014, a federal court hearing occurred. The President of W.A.R., Vicki Henry, was present and ready to testify as an expert witness. Testifying in such a capacity, if permitted, will advance the strength , credibility and advocacy of W.A.R. significantly.
Unfortunately, the Judge elected not to permit Ms. Henry to testify at trial, though he opened the door for her to file a report later in the case, as an expert witness, for the Court's review, consideration, and determination involving the rights of S/O's in their housing opportunities and the interplay of state registration laws.
The case involves the rights of a sex offender under the federal Fair Housing Act - not as a sex offender but as a class protected under the Act, that alleges the landlord, who is also a registered sex offender ,invoked discriminatory housing practices because of disabilities or disability association to deny the person housing.
The landlord testified under oath that he did in fact impose a discriminatory housing practice with purpose to impose higher rents to be paid than he requires from all other tenants whom he rents to in the same housing facility. Therefore, the sex offender was to be financially penalized in renting a dwelling from the landlord.
The case also alleges that the sex offender was forcibly placed in a situation where he would then sustain immediate irreparable harms of severe and pervasive proportions because of state laws that restrict where he can and cannot live if he did not permit the landlord to extort money by charging higher rent prices.
This case also raises the question in whether the government can deny a sex offender or any person associated with them publicly funded housing when doing so discriminates against the sex offender or the person whom they associate with, because of disabilities and / or disability association.
It is a first of its kind legal challenge that - win, loose, or draw - will set precedence in housing rights for those labeled as sex offenders within their respective communities.
W.A.R's role is particularly important in this case because if permitted by the Court, it will get things on judicial record that Court's and government officials refuse to even consider when enacting and enforcing their laws, i.e. the detriments of the laws have upon sex offenders, those associated with them, and upon the public.
It would be nice to see some headway made here and maybe this case will take a step in the right direction for the good of everyone involved.
Rather, the secondary affect of the suit is that it raises questions about adverse affects that discrimination has on those labeled as sex offenders and those whom they associate with because of registration laws.
When discrimination occurs against someone because of race, religion, disability etc., the adverse affects are more severe when the person is also labeled as a sex offender because registration laws are so restrictive in where a person can live.
Thus, the suit seeks to have the court recognize discrimination claims in a new light by virtue of the more severe harms discrimination in housing because of sex, race, disability etc., has on sex offenders and those who associate with them, because of the added laws governing where they can live.
I am a 67 y.o. polio survivor. My disability is being used as a weapon against both me and my son and he is being denied the ability to live with me because of differences I have with his P.O. and lies.
He is my ONLY caretaker. He is being forced to live with his mother 8 miles away and now must change his license, car insurance, tax info, etc to his mothers house and VISIT me every day.
NJSPB has threatened me to either accept their narrative and lie or both my son and myself will be punished.
Im not the criminal.
We must do something to change these laws. Takes money and I dont have any..
While it is true that PO's have a great deal of authority to approve or deny where a parolee / probationer can live and more so with an S/O, I am uncertain as to why the PO is denying him to live with you as you have not disclosed what differences you and the PO have.
Have you spoken with an attorney??
The only difference the P.O. and I have is that I asked him politely why he lied about what I said to him and then used MY testimony to help convict my son. WE were not permitted to testify on my son's behalf so as soon as the decision was made and a copy forwarded to my son I immediately objected to the lies that the P.O. told.
The P.O. Was pissed because I caught him in at least one lie and later more than 4 lies.
I went up the line. His supervisor backed him and said to my lawyer "not to bother pushing it as the rest of the NJSPB will back up the SUPV not matter what"
I truthfully expect my son to be violated a second time based on my accusations to them. Therefore we will be video taping and taping the P.O. every time from now on.
Getting an attorney takes money. Im a senior citizen and living on fixed income and on a month by month basis. I WISH I could afford an Attorney.