Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

We, as a people, are a nation of conscience. Our nation is founded in specific principles and practices that were judged to be in the best interests of the people. But sometimes, all the best intentions can result in a perversion of what is just, and what is good.

Such as Sex offenders. Let us first discuss what a sex offender is. A sex offender is, simply, anyone convicted of what is considered a 'sexual' crime, of any kind. The term conjures up, however, a monster that is maladjusted, unclean, hiding in the bushes waiting for unwary prey. But what is the truth? A sex offender can be someone who had bowel problems in the park, and the door to the restroom was locked. It can be a child who pinched another child's bottom. It can be two fourteen year olds that decided to have sex together, along with the rapist, the pedophile, and the incest offender.

This is a difficult subject, at best, but, in the interest of truth, it must be approached. Congress is fond of statistics. They quote the 'fifty thousand' potential sexual predators online at any one time to enact a great deal of legislation. Whence, however, does this come? Is it from the FBI? Surely it's from the Department of Justice... no, it's from Chris Hansen. Ignoring his past, let us explore what he does: To Catch A Predator. Numerous shows of excessive force on this video, in spite of the lack of resistance. Could it be a marketing ploy?

Remember, now, if you will.. the 80s craze of the 'satanistic murders'. How many a year? Estimated, 50,000. Which is ironic, as to accomplish this, they would have had to murder two people for every person found to be murdered.

How about that 'high recidivism rate'? To discuss this, we must turn to the Department of Corrections.
Arizona:

http://adcprisoninfo.az.gov/adc/Factsheets/factsheet_98-06.asp

Arizona has 2444 offenders released from its custody in 1998. These offenders were tracked for ten years. The average period of follow-up was 54.5 months.

Out of these offenders, 509 returned to custody at least once. (20.8%.) Out of the offender group of 2444, 346 returned for a new felony offense. (the remainder, 163, were evidently from non-felony parole violations). 3.2% returned for a new sex offense, and 3.7% for a new violent offense.

in addition, the number of crimes decreased over time.
(quote)
Among the 78 sex offense recidivists, the timing of the commission of new sex offenses was as follows:

35 (45%) were committed within the first year after release;
19 (24%) were committed within the second year after release;
8 (10%) were committed within the third year after release;
3 (4%) were committed within the fourth year after release;
6 (8%) were committed within the fifth year after release;
4 (5%) were committed within the sixth year after release;
3 (4%) were committed within the seventh year after release.
(end quote)


State of Washington:

Http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_CY04.pdf

Out of 28,000 offenders, Sex Offenders were the least likely to recidivate for any crime. (note that this includes convictions for non sexually related crimes).

30% of Sex offenders committed a new crime. This compares those convicted of the following crimes: 26% recidivism for manslaughter, 64% recidivism for burglary, 66% recidivism for property, 61% recidivism for drug offenses, 57% recidivsim for robbery. and 58% for assault.

The state of Pennsylvania: Department of corrections, state of Pennsylvania. http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/SexOffenderResearch._2005.pdf

*Recidivism of Sex Offenders Highlights*
* The level of sexual recidivism in sexual offenders is much lower than is commonly believed.
* Studies consistently find sexual recidivism rates in sex offenders to be around 13-14% during 4-6 year follow-up periods.
* Even after lengthier follow-up periods, most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually. In fact, research found nearly ¾ of sex offenders were not charged/convicted of another sexual offense even after 20 years.
* The overall sexual recidivism rate of sex offenders is significantly lower than in other types of offender “specialists”, such as property offenders (e.g., thieves, larcenists, and burglars).
* As a heterogeneous group of offenders, not all sex offenders are equally likely to re-offend. Certain sub-types are much more likely to recidivate with another sex offense than others.
* Research studies commonly report the following results in order of likelihood of sexual recidivism from highest to lowest risk by sex offender sub-type: non-contact sex offenders (e.g., exhibitionists, voyeurs, etc.), extra-familial boy-victim child molesters, rapists, extra-familial girl-victim child molesters, then incest offenders.
* Sex offenders who feel emotionally closer to children, have paraphilic interests, and/or are sexually pre-occupied are more likely to sexually recidivate.
* Non-contact sex offenders are more likely to recidivate sexually than those who touch or penetrate their victims.
* Sex offenders who are adolescents and adults over age 50 are less likely to re-offend with a sexual crime than sex offenders from other age groups.
* Research examining the relationship between sentence length and sexual recidivism has produced mixed results, suggesting there is currently no clear, agreed-upon association between how long sex offenders are incarcerated relative to their rates of re-offending sexually.
* Sex offenders with prior sexual offense convictions have recidivism rates nearly double the rates observed for first time sex offenders.
* Sex offenders are more likely to recidivate with a non-sexual crime than a sexual crime.
* The general (any) recidivism rate of sexual offenders is lower than that observed in other types of criminals, including property, drug, and public order offenders. Both National and Pennsylvania findings indicate that sex offenders released following incarceration for rape or other sexual crimes were found to be among those with the lowest rates of recidivism.
* Research has found that ¼ of sex offenders recidivate with a violent crime (including sexual and non-sexual), and rapists are much more likely to re-offend with non-sexual violence than child molesters. As well, relatively low rates of non-sexual violent recidivism were found for those who selected related victims and male victims.
* Sex offenders who recidivate are more likely to be re-arrested for less serious crimes than non-sex offenders.
* Most general (any) recidivism by sex offenders within the first three-years following release occurs in the first year (56%). In fact, studies found 40% of sexual crimes were committed within the first 12 months following release from state prison. And, the longer sex offenders remained offense-free, the less likely they were to recidivate.


This message, of course, deals with the new S 431 law that is going through the senate today. While theoretically designed to put 'sex predators' off the internet, it doesn't simply deal with sexual predators.

Let me give you an idea. Sexual activity not in the missionary position is illegal in some states, as well as illegal in technicality under Military law. Sexual activity with any alcohol involved (no matter the degree of impairment) is also a sex offense in the military, even if both parties were consenting. Psychologically consentual (though illegal and legally nonconsentual) activity between two fourteen year olds. Patting someone on the butt. Mooning. Sexual activity between consenting adults within two degrees of consanguinuity (incest). Fellatio. Cunnilingus. Sex toys. Pornography of any kind displayed in a public place.

All these are now considered 'sexual crimes'. And that's ignoring the serious ones, the ones where control or force is exerted, or manipulation, drugging, etc. It's not all one classification, no matter how much paint you slap on it, and how broadly you brush it.

Why am I concerned about this bill? Primarily, because the right to communication and discourse is central to our country, and the statistics show (as well as evidence) that the problem is overstated. Out of the tens of thousands of sex offenders which were removed from Myspace, only one had contacted a child. He is, however, in trouble for it, as it was in violation.

It is the right for a web site to throw out any user. There is no guaranteed right for a user to use a site. There is, however, a vested interest in keeping the web open and free for all users. Part of this relates to truth, and the freedom of information. Part of it relates to the protected rights of stating your viewpoint. Part of it relates simply to the ability to compare what one news service is saying to another, and seeing what new laws are coming that will soon affect you.

The wording of the law, further, is such that it creates a standard that cannot be met. The provisions of the law in question follow.

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.) to /knowingly/ fail to provide an electronic mail /address, or other designation used for self-identification or routing in an Internet communication or posting/ to the appropriate official for inclusion in the sex offender registry, as required under that Act .


Routing or other designation for self-identification.

Definition of internet routing, by persons creating networks, and working on the internet.
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsp/article.php/3607381

(excerpt)

Before we get into the details, a clarification. When you hear people refer to "non-routable addresses," they are talking about RFC 1918 IP addresses, i.e. private addresses. Despite the misleading label, they certainly *are* routable. You can and should have some 10.x.x.x networks for local access and management. They can even be co-mingled with your real routers. They are called “non-routable” because the Internet routers will drop them. You should drop these packets at your border, as was pointed out in this Border Security article last year. This is a point of confusion for a lot of people.

On to the topic at hand.

Routing, in essence, is the act of finding a path from one place to another on which a packet can travel. To find this path, we need algorithms. They will generally be distributed among many routers, allowing them to jointly share information. Routing is said to contain three elements:

*

Routing protocols, the things that allow information to be
gathered and distributed

*

Routing algorithms, to determine paths

*

Routing databases to store information that the algorithm has
discovered. The routing database sometimes corresponds directly to
routing table entries, sometimes not.

(end excerpt)
(begin excerpt)
The previous paragraph really embodies what routing is. You get packets closer to the destination. Of course, you have to know what’s at each destination, and that’s what routing protocols tell you. It’s really easy to jump back and fourth when talking about routing, so take note that all of the above was with the picture of a single network in mind. This is also known as a routing domain. A routing domain is a set of routers that are all under the same administrative control; presumably all running the same routing protocols.
(end excerpt)

These routing informations are ephemeral. They change without notice, without any ability of the user to control them, but can be checked, using the TCP/IP trace command.

The key here is 'knowingly'. If you are a sex offender and a computer engineer, you'd be held to a far higher standard for 'knowingly' involving MAC addresses, TCP/IP routing, DHCP discovery packets, etc. Each of these can be, and are, valid internet identifiers. However, there is no way to know them prior to using them. The act of gaining an IP address is a use of the IP address. Registration of this IP address upon gaining it would become an admission of guilt before use, under the letter of the law. Further, to gain an email address, one must attempt to find an email address or identifier for the website that is unused. To do this one must create said account, but the creation is also a 'use'.

This amounts to a de facto denial of internet use for offenders who are, or have ever been, working in the computers, Information Technology, or networking industry. Further, it is a de facto denial of civil rights, when such limitations are placed without the intervention of a court, and jury.

Further, the stated goal of the legislature is to 'prevent sex offenders from communicating with one another'. This is from the senate hearings and discussion. At least if they're talking with one another, they're occupied with that. How is this wrong or immoral? Unless they're comparing notes, and revealing the statistics and double standards of the law.

For instance, the Barret case in Arizona. According to record, the son of the ex-congressman Barret attempted to shove a broomstick up the rectum of 18 youth. Further, this occurred approximately 40 times, according to testimony. He received... a misdomeanor.

It is the duty of government to establish punishments for crimes, within the Constitution. It is not, however, the job of the legislature to judge what a punishment should be, or to restrict the rights and privileges of citizens. Neither is it just, or good, for the government to legislate to one class of criminal, without affecting all classes of criminals. Selective enforcement has long been, and is against the rules.

Further, where the Adam Walsh act passed and was designed as a 'regulatory scheme' and designed ex-postfacto, there has been some argument among the attourneys general, if the use of the internet prior to the creation of the law becomes illegal. By the same token, we have 'used' these email addresses prior to the creation of the law, and not registered them. These email addresses, further, have no method for legally registering them. They literally create a new crime, which is punishable by ten years in prison, and counts as a felony against the 'three strikes' rule.

I once swore an oath to sustain and uphold the constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I swore an additional oath to bear true faith and alliegance to the same. I have devoted what remains of my life to educating people, about offenses, about their rights,a nd about the constitution, and the fact that the best way to deal with an abuser is to break the silence.

Just as I've broken the silence now about a new type of abuse, an abuse once again, against people innocent of any new crimes, and an abuse that is so egregious as to be calculated. Added to the use of the registry to create 'exclusion zones' similar to those in Russia near the turn of the last century, added to the fact that the judges have gone back to the old system of Roman law, added to the civil law of the country today sliding rapidly toward Roman Law, and rule by legislature.

Numerous laws have passed passing minimum sentences. This removes the right of the jury to determine appropriate punishment for the case, which was enshrined under the Magna Carta in the 11th century.. and restored once again under Bushnell's case in 1670, along with the right of the jury not only to try the facts of the case, but to try the underlying law itself. Since 1990, however, the right to jury nullification is largely ignored, in spite of long discussions of the right by the Founding Fathers, as being central to the nature of a jury. Judges have since that time prohibited prosecution, defense, or the judge themselves from revealing that right, and removing those who know thereof from voir dire.

From Wikipedia:

Standard jury trial practice in the USA during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury, so that the jury heard the same arguments the bench did in reaching his rulings on motions. This is evidenced by such decisions as the 1839 case /Stettinius v. U.S./, in which it was held that "The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions."^[8] Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. This transition began with motions in /limine/, to exclude evidence, on which it was felt the jury should not hear the argument because they would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later that was expanded to include all legal argument, so that today, that earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and judges even declare mistrials or overturn verdicts if legal argument is made to the jury. However, since the original understanding of "jury" at the time the U.S. Constitution was framed included the making of legal argument to them, this raises the question of whether a trial before a jury in which legal argument is kept from them is a constitutional jury trial.

End quote.

Add to this, the patterns of erosion of ex-postfacto rulings and bills of attainder under Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, and equally prohibited the states under article 1, section 10. A bill of attainder includes bills of pains and penalties, which are forfeitures of property, or rights. Perhaps the best definition thereof is the following, from Cummings Vs Missouri.

"A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

add to this the statement made by the Honorable Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, in the discussions of the Adam Walsh act.

(Quote from House hearings on HR 4472)

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill that we have before us, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act.

February 23 marked the 1-year anniversary of Jessica Lunsford's death. I knew the family; I knew the grandmother. If Jessica were still with us, she would have been in the fifth grade. She would be learning about decimals and fractions and the solar system. Instead, her life was taken by a sex offender who assaulted and murdered her, and then buried her in his backyard. That is what this bill is all about; it is going after those, as someone once described, pond-scum predators.)

(End Quote)

If this is not punitive intent... what is?


From the same record

"Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I once again skirt the rules of the House by taking note of the fact that people not in this Chamber may be watching us.And I am particularly concerned about members of the Iraqi National Assembly, the newly elected Parliament which we are trying to instruct in democracy. They may be observing this procedure by which this House deals with a number of very important and controversial issues, some of which I fully support, some of which I question. But as they watch us deal with this, it is being dealt with in a manner in which no amendments are allowed, in which only 40 minutes total of debate are allowed. And it is a bill brought forward because the committee leadership didn't like what happened when the House actually voted on it in a democratic manner"
You will remember this bill came before us, many of the elements of this bill some time ago, and the House, working its will, voted to include an amendment to the hate crimes section. That appalled many Members of the majority. In fact, we read in some of the newspapers, members of the majority of the Republican Study Committee lamented the fact that the leadership had actually given the House membership a chance to vote. They said, we can't allow that to happen, we can't allow democracy to be running rampant on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives."

Is this the part of a wise and just government? Is the suspension of the process of government necessary now to pass laws?

Further, where the votes were taken by a voice vote, and not recorded, is it a true law? Is there proof there was no chicanery involved?

And where this law has no review, and no sunset, and is written to make any effect added to it go back to the beginning of the effect of the law... is it fair and just to have a law that can be altered into an ever-changing legal quagmire, guaranteed to cause stress and harm? Is it just that even the worst offender should have their rights removed... after the end of their onus under the court, not by additional crime, but by writ?

No, ladies and gentlemen... this is tyranny, and fascism come to America. It creates a minority, names the minority, blames the minority, shames the minority, and the minority ever keeps growing. 700,000 sex offenders in the US now... and over 1% of the total population of the country in prison. Ask yourselves, if these offenders are so dangerous that they must be kept on the registry, how is it that they have not been convicted and placed back into prison, thus increasing the population by another seven hundred thousand there. How is it that we have a larger criminal population than China and Russia combined, when they have a large population to work with?

Is this sanity, or is it the last gasp of freedom? Is it just, good, or right to see these things and do nothing?

For my part, I believe that some of the vigilantes are right. *sighs* But not for the reason they think. It is far *kinder* to die, and have an end, than to be subjected to the torments of the Registry for the rest of one's life, to be extorted into paying for your own registry under pains of prison, then to be denied places to work, housing, and opportunity for being on the registry by compulsion. It is kinder to die than to live in a situation where the people from on high can remove anything that they wish, and force you to comply.

There is nothing moral, or good about these laws. While the original closed registry served a legitimate purpose, these bills have gone beyond that purpose. They have gone beyond the powers granted the Federal Government, and beyond the walls erected around the rights of the People, breaking them down and opening them to attack, not just for the offender, but for all people.

Thomas Paine said it eloquently. in his 'Common Sense' of 1776.

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."


And this is why ex-postfacto laws were prohibited, and attainder. This is why there was to be no removal of rights without a jury trial, with the right to try the law as well as the facts of the case, and why the right to speak, and assemble, and the prohibitions on searches and siezures and all the rest were enacted. It was a concern of the Founding Fathers, Federalists and Antifederalists, that these things would occur. It was a concern that the President, Congress, or the Judiciary would decide that they were above the constitution, and thus become a law unto themselves.

I am sworn to uphold and sustain the constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Are you?
Read more!

Ladies and gentlemen of the Nation:

I come before you as a man, a man who has gained conscience, and consciousness, of a problem that, by its magnitude, may be utterly destructive of both the ends, and means of our country. Were I to hold back my opinion at this time, for fear of the consequences, I would have to live with myself, and the knowledge of my failure, for the rest of my life.

So I speak, as I must, with a heavy heart. We are a nation of people, a nation of greatness, brought to life in a burst of idealism and with all of the best intentions. Our rights were, and are preserved and enshrined within the Constitution, as well as within the Bill of rights. As a representative democracy, and as a republic, it is one of the greatest experiments of all time in society.

But, as with all things, experiments often go awry, and, with observation of both the intent of the constitution, and the separation of the current usage from that intent, I must advance the possibility that our nation has fallen into error.

This is not an error of comission, but an error of omission. It is an error rooted in all the best intentions, the intention of protecting the people. But at what point do men, and women, bear responsibility for their own actions, and at what point does the government overstep its bounds, when seeking to protect?

Our government appears to grow more and more distant from the people. Political maneuvering is rife, and deals are struck to simply pass necessary laws, so other laws can be implemented that are not always so necessary. Our congress and senate appear to abrogate their duty to the constitution, in the pursuit of other goals.

Our nation is built upon the Constitution. It is the ultimate law, and by extension with the Fourteenth Amendment, it is a law which also governs the states dealings with the people themselves. We grant the government the powers it needs, as well as those we feel it should have within the framework of the Constitution.

But we forget, often, that those rights come from us. And we raise them up on the altar of necessity to sacrifice them, often not realizing what is lost. Our forefathers felt those rights were inalienable, that no man could be deprived of them, save by the due process of law, and individual trial.

We stand on the threshold of a precipice. Unless our course is averted, there is no choice but to fall therein. We, the people of the United States, have a duty, and a right to vote, and a right to have those votes counted accurately. This right may have given way to the electronic count, in order to promote efficiency, but it also makes the tracking and chain of custody of the vote nigh impossible.

We pass laws demanding more protection, and give up specific rights in order to gain that protection, but at the same point, the Supreme Court has decided that we have no individual right to protection. At the same time, Congress and the courts seem to deny our individual rights to protect ourselves, via lawsuits and the attempts at disarming the public.

At this point who is protected? Nobody, save the government, via grant of further powers from the people, and the criminals.

In this world, we seek for hope, we seek for something greater than ourselves, and in the Bill of Rights, the guarantees are given for powers the government shall not seize, and by law cannot seize.

But we, in our ignorance, refuse to look upon the laws themselves, and to determine if those rights are seized, and thus, lose them. Only one law allows for attainder.. and that is treason itself. Aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States of America.

But yet, we pass laws that effect attainder, denying criminals their rights,denying them both rehabilitation and ultimate reintegration. We pass harsher and harsher punishments until we have a system of punishment that contains the largest population of prisoners anywhere in the world, and the largest per capita prisoner population.

Is this wisdom? Is it just, or good, to create minimum mandatory sentences that force the hands of judges and prosecutors, and pervert and distort the rule of law? If the jury cannot decide upon the punishments appropriate, is this not removing the role of the jury, and of due process?

And to deny the criminal the right to rehabilitation, the right to redemption, is this not simply perpetuating the criminal act? When it is us versus them, is it not going to remain so, until we realize that in truth it is us... versus us?

Have we truly lost the realization that it is our duty to protect our families, our states, and our government ourselves? What has happened to us? Have we gotten so complacent that we feel that it is better for someone else to make the decision? Have we gotten so lazy that we forget that we are the arbiters of our future?

And have we already handed over enough of that power to the government, to make it unsustainable for us to make an effort to regain it?

Think upon it. Think deeply upon what you believe, what you trust, what you know. Look at the histories involved, look at the reasons for the institution of government, and look into your hearts and consciences, and the reasons behind this.

Look at our falling standards of education, the failures of companies, look at the way that our economy goes downhill... and then look at yourselves. Can you allow it to continue?

The purpose of the Congress is to legislate, making laws that are necessary and proper, and in line with the Constitution itself. The purpose of the President is to execute those laws, insofar as they are within the framework of that same constitution. The purpose of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court, is to simply determine if those actions are within the framework of the constitution, as it was implemented.

No contract, no constitution, can be unilaterally reinterpreted once implemented. It can only be looked upon by the light of intent of the law, and if a standard exists, wherein the intent of the law and the letter of the law fall to changing standards... then it is no constitution.

It is, at that point, at best a ruse, a tool for the illusion of choice and the illusion of hope.

While the identifiers are important, can we remain stalwart in our ignorance? Can we not accept that both sides can be in error, and both sides can be correct? If the Democrats and Republicans have fallen away from both the purpose, and the meaning of the Constitution, is it not our duty to correct them in their thinking, and to bring them back into the fold of the society from which they derive their power?

At what point does the imposition of the government into the lives of the people cease to be reasonable?

I would state, that when it starts attaining the power to seize rights in the name of security, when it has the ability to detain without due process, and without recourse, and when there is no judicial process, it has exceeded its limits. When it believes its own people to be the enemy, and to require defense against those who grant its powers, it has become far more.

It is time to look to our government, and demand back what is ours. For this purpose, I believe a new party must be instituted.. the party of the Democratic Republic. The power should be placed back into the hands of the people, and moreover, guaranteed in such a way that never again can any government trample its own people in the pursuit of power.

Thus, a statement of beliefs.

We believe that the government is instituted by the people, for the people, and of the people, and that the people are the ultimate guarantors of their own safety, property, and ability.

We believe the states retain the right to legislate where the federal government cannot, and it is the duty of the states, wherein the people have a direct vote, to legislate necessary and proper laws, regulations, and institutions, to safeguard and protect the rights of the people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

We believe that this right is ultimately the right, not only to self-rule, but self-realization. We believe that the rights of the people cannot be taken away, only given away, and that the government itself is the servant of the people.

We believe that an armed populace are necessary to the security of the borders, of their homes, and towns, and that training for the use of those arms is necessary for both responsibility in their use, and for effective use and prosecution for crime.

We believe that judges and juries should be returned to their position as the arbiters of justice, and mercy, and that all cases should be judged on their individual merits, and that there should be no minimum sentence, nor should there be attainder following the full execution of the sentence, and in proportion to this, the records of the criminal should not be open to the public after the execution of said sentence, and that their full rights should be restored.

While we believe in mercy, we also believe in justice. If continuing criminality occurs, then the judges and juries have the obligation to separate them from our societies from punishment, in a fair trial. We also believe that the defense offered should be the best possible for the case, even when the attourneys provided are from the jurisdiction, in order that justice might be served in full, but again, the separation and imprisonment is the punishment, and that the persons should be given every opportunity for rehabilitation and redemption. If they fail in this, it is on their own heads... but the opportunity was granted.

We believe that mercy, justice, and redemption must be balanced.

We believe that human rights cannot be denied for any reason, and that civil rights can only be removed for a time.

We believe in the right to self-defense, self-protection, and self-determination.

We believe that there is no fundamental difference between races, peoples, and genders.
Read more!

Trial by Travesty

I've researched, and been disturbed by something about which I dare not write... but I cannot remain, even so silent.

The writing of this passage may place me in danger, but again, silence would render me derelict in the duty to the Constitution, and to the people of the United States.

When one cannot speak for a group, cannot speak in their defense without being charged with the same kinds of crimes for which they are accused, then it is ever more vital to speak. To do otherwise would be to encourage both tyranny, and totalitarianism.

I've been watching with concern a number of laws passed by congress, and I propose a new test... a test of reasonableness, and of legality which is, prima facie, a test of what constitutes a civil right, of reasonableness and conscience.

The Wetterling Act provided for a central database of 'sex offenders' and created a system of access that allowed law enforcement to provide possible suspects for sex crimes. It was limited to only the courts, and only the police. This, I feel, was an utterly valid act, insofar as it only affected those whom were adjudicated after the passage of the law.

However, of late, myriad amendments, modifications, and adjustments of the law have passed, creating ever more draconian measures. Upon the opening of the registry (under 'Megan's Law') there have been increasing reports of both abuse, and vigilante 'justice' meted out by individuals. After the 'Adam Walsh Child Safety Act' the restriction on offenders, and the supervision was further increased, at their own expense, without the adjudication process, or a jury trial.

The latest attack comes on the internet. Though earlier references to the internet existed, the latest 'KIDS' act instantiates a ruling that, by nature of the act, substantially limits, and depending on interpretation, completely removes the rights of those judged as 'Sex Offenders' on the registry to be on the internet.

How is this bad, one might ask? It makes our children safer! Does it? Does it really provide any vestige of security?

Ask yourselves this: How common are these crimes, and how are they judged? The truth is, any question about sex, sexuality, or discussion of pregnancy or virginity is, by definition, a sex crime on the internet. Any discussion of responsible activity, the dangers of date rape, questions or surveys about masturbatory habits, and even this particular document, by fiat, are defined as a sex offense, simply because, if a child reads this article, it deals with sex.

Is this wisdom? Is it just or good?

Yes, some sex offenders engage children on the internet by deception. The same proportion equally have the criminal thinking allowing them to attack children, or adults, without regard to the internet. The criminality of the thinking does not change with the internet of without it.

However, in America, we cannot attack someone for what they 'might' do. Without regard for those esteemed congressmen who claim that we 'should' there is no constitutional power to do so, at the county, state, or federal level.

The only way rights can be removed, the only way restrictions can be placed, and the only way attainder can be processed is via the court of law, and trial by jury, including the doctrine of jury nullification that is, since the 13th century, the right by which the jury tries the very 'legality' of the law itself.

In our country, however, since 1990, and the O.J. Simpson case, we have abandoned this doctrine, and the courts are prohibited from speaking on it. The right still exists, but the defense cannot speak of it, nor can the prosecution or the judge, due to sanctions.

Is this a wise, or just course? Is it consistent with the jurisprudence to create a system by which a person is guilty, until they can prove themselves innocent beyond the shadow of a doubt.... and the shadow of a doubt bar is raised high enough that they can never again become innocent?

Were this any other class of persons, shoplifters, persons guilty of assault, identity thieves, persons guilty of banking fraud, or those guilty of gross and deliberate malfeasance of office, would we react the same?

The pertinent sections of the KIDS act (S 431) are as follows:

• 
  

SEC. 2. REGISTRATION OF ONLINE IDENTIFIERS OF SEX OFFENDERS.

(a) In General- Section 114(a) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification ACT(42 U.S.C. 16914(a)) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (5) through (8); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) Any electronic mail address or other designation the sex offender uses or will use for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting.'.

(b) Updating of Information- Section 113(c) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16913(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the time and manner for reporting of other changes in registration information, including any addition or change of an electronic mail address or other designation used for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting.'.

(c) Failure To Register Online Identifiers- Section 2250 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (b), by inserting `or (d)' after `subsection (a)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(d) Knowing Failure To Register Online Identifiers- Whoever--

`(1) is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.); and

`(2) uses an email address or any other designation used for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting which the individual knowingly failed to provide for inclusion in a sex offender registry as required under that Act;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

So.... if you are guilty of a misdomeanor sex offense (public urination, exposure 'mooning') due to Adam Walsh, you're on the registry. You may have recieved a one month sentence (or no sentence, but a warning 'not to do it again') but failure to register all online identifiers or routing identifiers is a felony punishable by ten years in prison?

Is this just? Is it reasonable for the purposes for which it is enacted? Will it be effective? Are there any less restrictive measures that could be emplaced?

The term 'other designation for routing' includes the following, off the top of my head that I know of: Anonymous UDP packet headers, DHCP discovery packets, IP addresses (often dynamic, and no notification when they change), email and email server routing systems (which are not under the user's control). MAC addresses (changes on every machine and router)

There is a further requirement to register chat names, defining a 'social networking site' as the following.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

Section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(15) The term `social networking website' means an Internet website that--

`(A) allows users, through the creation of web pages or profiles or by other means, to provide information about themselves that is available publicly or to other users; and

`(B) offers a mechanism for communication with other users.

End quote.

This defines any system (internet telephony, vocal communications, visual or optical communcations (including assistance devices for the deaf) political commentary sites, morse code via the internet, php scripts, bulletin boards, and any other potential communication systems, including games.

In effect, and in process, by writ, it removes the right to legal use of the internet by persons not convicted of any further crimes.

Let us extend this ruling to its logical ends! Since it is illegal to do any of this on the internet without registration, let us say that there is a greater danger in person. Therefore, no sex offender can go into any place without marking themselves with a tattoo, brand, or distinctive clothing, nor can they speak without first identifying themselves as a sex offender, nor can they write any publication for any newspaper without registering the article, nor can they speak in any assembly. They cannot attend churches, as they are a social networking site, and children may be present.

In effect, the law claims a clear and present danger for which these persons must be regulated, without regard for what their current actions are, and without regard for law, or due process. It creates a system of attainder with no judicial review, by which any new law can alter the original, and create a system of ever-changing laws, which must by complied with, without regard to what the prior amendments were.

In effect, it is a punishment, not for the crimes which the person has committed (For which the onus ended when the sentence did) but a punishment for the crimes which they may possibly commit in the future.

The actual recidivism rate (from the US DOJ, and the Arizona Department of Corrections) for sex offenses in specific is actually lower than for any other crime. The statistics say that sex offenders are more likely to recommit for a sex offense per capita than any other offender is... but still, and even so, other offenders account for over 92% of all new cases of sex offenses.

The specialization level of the small percentage (between 6 and 12%, depending on the population) is extreme. However, does this excuse the attainder of the rest of the population? Does it excuse marking them with a taint as deserving the punishment?

H.R. 4472 was emplaced, in the words of one of those discussing it (I can't call it a debate, as there was no room for amendment under the suspension of the rules) was, in the house:

From the Esteemed Congresswoman:
Quote:

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill that we have before us, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act.

February 23 marked the 1-year anniversary of Jessica Lunsford's death. I knew the family; I knew the grandmother. If Jessica were still with us, she would have been in the fifth grade. She would be learning about decimals and fractions and the solar system. Instead, her life was taken by a sex offender who assaulted and murdered her, and then buried her in his backyard. Tat is what this bill is all about, going after those, as someone once described, pond-scum predators.

End Quote.

The bill was described as legal in its ex-postfacto obligations because it served a regulatory purpose as well as not having any 'punitive intent'.

How is the above not a statement of punitive intent? How is a bill not punitive, when by any measure of the definition of punishment, it clearly creates legal obligations, subjects those obligations to criminal sanctions, requires the payment of fines and fees in regards to those sanctions, opens the person to both abuse and vigilante 'justice', and prevents in any way, form, or measure their self protection, in a time when the Supreme Court has judged that they have no individual right to police protection, and by the legislation, in many cases, have had their civil rights removed already, including the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms?

If such a legislation is not constitutional in any other case of offender, how is it constitutional in this case?

What makes an act punitive? Is it the intent of the act, or the way the act is used? I would argue that it is both, either, and more.

If such an act, placed up against any other class of persons, with the same penalties in a 'civil' action, can be viewed as punishment... then it is punishment.

If the act would be considered unjustified and cruel applied to congressmen, persons guilty of domestic assault, judges, murderers, city workers, bad check writers, adult kidnappers... how is it somehow not punitive here?

I concur, that the measure with congressmen, judges, city workers, is not the same measure as the others, nor are teachers, counters of the vote, or any other purpose.. but if the law would be considered punitive applied to them, the same standard applies.

In truth, though, I feel that, in spite of the prohibition in the Constitution of the U.S, under Article 1, section 9 against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder being only discussed in criminal cases, it is just as applicable in civil cases which can be no less punitive or wrong.

The attacked rights fall within the freedom of assembly, regardless of the venue. They are no less constitutional for being in a forum.

This is not to say that one cannot be prosecuted for acts done in such a forum. Slander, libel, and the like, are no less valid in an online forum than a real forum.

However, you cannot punish all for the acts of a few.
Read more!