Sunday, June 24, 2012

Registration is not Punishment for a Crime

Imposition of registration requirements is not punishment for crime but is itself a crime. The motives for doing, however prestine, are irrelevant. The intent is plainly criminal. 

Ex-felon registration laws most heavily impact those receiving lesser access to justice in the first instance --- frequently through an abuse of the law or legal process --- which could be fairly denominated human trafficking by another name. The World Bank (pdf)  classifies all forms of non-consensual exploitation as Human Trafficking ...

Re-socialization into ex-felon status begins by detaining an individual in a cage where advised he likely will never get out unless he participates in a plea bargaining process that  authorizes judicial deprivations without jury trial or confession of factual guilt. North Carolina v. Alford. Outside the judicial process, and most recently by legislative fiat, the individual is told he will be put back in a cage or killed unless he complies with ex-felon registration laws, for the benefit of others, without means of review, or just compensation. NRS 179C.010 et seq; NRS 179D.010 et seq.

When presented with ex post facto challenges to sex offender registration laws, the Supreme Court agreed with sponsors that those laws were intended as civil public safety regulations that did not impose punishment for a prior offense. Smith v. Doe, 538 US 84 (2003). After being assured the targeted individuals in Smith were not required to appear and register in person, the Court focused on the stigmatizing effect of publishing their personal and criminal history information on a public website, which it found acceptable because the offenders' criminal history was already available at the local court house where everyone's civil and criminal history is available. Because that would include a court clerks existing website, the reasonableness of a new website limited to the limited criminal history of a limited population seems strained. And the Court openly acknowledged a potential challenge to an obvious flaw with an intent to publish data forcibly extracted from the subject population: "Whether other constitutional objections can be raised to a mandatory reporting requirement, and how those questions might be resolved, are concerns beyond the scope of this opinion." Id.

Surprisingly, despite numerous efforts, or precisely because of those efforts, the Court has yet to consider the mental, physical and economic impact of compliance upon each targeted individual, the value of that conscripted civil data service to government, and whether mandatory compliance asserts a limited right of ownership over the targeted individual to create a condition of civil Servitude in plain and direct violation of the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Nor has the Court determined whether the AWA usurps State sovereignty by requiring legislative repudiation of state court judgments or re-determination of inherent fact issues finalized during its criminal justice process: individualized offender dangerousness according to the wisdom of the law then in effect. We assert the answer is patently Yes, and further, the affected judgments of conviction are now constitutionally incestuous and VOID. 
Confusion seems to have arisen here from a focus on the ex post facto clause's prohibition of additional punishment for a past offense because a selective deprivation is punishment per se and prohibited by the bill of attainder clause in Art 1 Secs 9 and 10. See, Nixon v. Administrator, 433 US 425 (1977);  United States v. Lovett, 328 US 303 (1946); Commings v. Missouri, 71 US 271 (1867).

Registration is Laborous

Labor is defined as work of any type, including mental exertion. Black's Law, 7th Edition.

The subject registration laws impose a duty on the targeted individual to leave his home or immediate vicinity and travel to a government data bank to supply the data bank with valuable data, remain vigilant over that data to determine any material change and timely return to report any such change in order to keep the data current within a [48] hour margin of error, for a term of years or for life, by threat of death or imprisonment. NRS 179C.010 et seq; NRS 179D.010 et seq. 

Submission to a show of authority is a seizure of the person under the 4th Amendment. California v. Hodari, 499 US 621, 627 (1991); Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47, 51 (1979); Dunaway v. New York, 442 US 200 (1979). Yet the individual registrant is neither reimbursed for his out of pocket expenses nor paid the fair valuable of his or her service which evinces an intent to injure.

Compliance requires time off work and the expense and effort of travel to the local data bank where the target must remain while finger prints, photographs and other information is forcibly extracted. This is8 an infringement of personal liberty and locomotion identicle to formal arrest (walk through). The individual can only leave with a lingering obligation to return again and again -- much like returning for court dates -- to report any changes to the supplied data. Wrecking, buying, selling or renting a car requires more time off work and a return trip to the data bank to report those changes. Changing jobs or place of residence is equally burdensome. The more active an individual the more expensive registration becomes. A march from Los Angeles to Washington in protest would result in harassment, conviction and imprisonment, as would a mere hike from Las Vegas to Phoenix. Residing farther than a [48] hour walk to the nearest data bank would result in those same punishments of liberty and locomotion. The targeted citizen is thus seized and held in custody --- transformed into a delivery man or courier, non-subpoenaed witness, clerk and assistant website manager all for the benefit an upper class -- without reciprocal benefit to the targeted individuals.

This seizure of the person is NOT justified because only the Judicial branch of government can impose servitude against a citizen and only then as a punishment for crime of which the accused has been duly convicted. US Const 13.

The legislatures determination of who is a Tier 3 offender and must register for life rather than a fixed term of years clearly imposed burdens others need not endure. Punishment!

Registration is not a general duty shared by all. It does not arise from citizenship, residence, the 'social compact' or trinoda necesitas. It was triggered by a legislative application of federal law (SORNA) to state facts (criminal statutes) for the selective imposition of SORNA's graduated terms of servitude which was a legislative trial in its simplest terms.

Got public defender?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  US Const Amend IV.

The constructive impingement of liberty involved in the matter at hand parallels formal arrest, the impairments of liberty in the asportations prohibited by 18 USC 120118 USC  1584 and 18 USC 1589, as more fully described above. This constructive seizure of the person was not followed by the timely judicial check required by Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 US 103 (1975) and Berger v. New York, 388 US 41 (1967). "A person [ ] seized by the police [is] thus entitled to challenge the government’s action under the Fourth Amendment [ ]." Brendlin v. California, 551 US 249 (2007). See also Frank's v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (1979); Douglas v. California, 372 US 353 (1963) (indigent counsel on first appeal).

The seizure here represents an extinction of the subject's 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendment rights --- Outlawry; replacing the judicial finding of probable cause requirement with a legislative reasonableness standard to forge a legislative adjudication --- a constitutional Frankenstein at the heart of Attainder and prohibited by separation of powers. Nev Const Art 3 Sec 1.

Without a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, any seizure of the person is per se unreasonable. Payton v. New York, 445 573 (1980). Admittedly for effectuating a civil duty, the 13th Amendment bars an exception for that seizure now because, although punishment per se, it is NOT a punishment for crime!

Reliance on convicted rather than the 13th Amendment's duly convicted standard is a deficient, unreasonable, rubber stamp substitute for, and reckless disregard of, exclusively judicial determinations of what lawfully is or was due in a Constitutional circumstance. Johnson v. United States, 333 US 10 (1947). Just who they think they are is simply mind boggling.

Seized by the Queen herself, unchecked will, her magistys guards directly, defiance of the Kings justice, tarrif on liberty, easement, covenant and profit, taxation without representation, drug from the countryside, through briar and brush, for the meager contents of my pockets, the gold in my teeth, the content of my soul, enslaved spectacle for the masses, appeasement of a vintictve  and malicious heart.

Got Warrant? 

Registration is Valuable

Government could have assigned all data collection tasks to virtuous law enforcement or enlisted the integrity of private enterprise but did not do so, the cost would have been enormous. Instead, government imposed a continuing duty of self-reporting on an untrustworthy convicted criminal to supply critical public safety data, at his own expense. That is clearly exploitation and was no doubt intentional. 

Government utilizes registrants as an implement to acquire and maintain data. Registrants are implented and employeed and hence employees as defined by 5 USC 8101(1)(B):

"an individual rendering personal service to the United States similar to the service of a civil officer or employee of the United States, without pay or for nominal pay, when a statute authorizes the acceptance or use of the service, or authorizes payment of travel or other expenses of the individual"

Because it would require at least 3 agents salaried at $70,000 to track 1 individual around a [48] hour clock and report back the required public safety data, we estimate the value of that data service to exceed $200,000 per year, per individual, as the approximate cost to government of acquiring the required public safety data at its own expense.

Private businesses scrape the forcibly acquired data from government websites and redistribute it for profit making purposes. E.g. Registration has unquestionably been commercialized. An entire industry has been again built upon the involuntary backs of a disenfranchised subclass. Now whats that smell akintoo?

Community members no longer must travel to the courthouse for criminal history data or fund background investigations. Law enforcement uses the data for its internal purposes. The subject civil data service clearly possesses significant economic value regardless of the growing numbers who disavow the effectiveness of registration laws at preventing crime.

Your Payment Is Past Due!

Registration is Compensable

Article 14 of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 entitles workers to cash remuneration for all services they are compelled to perform:

"1. [ ] forced or compulsory labour of all kinds shall be remunerated in cash at rates not less than those prevailing for similar kinds of work either in the district in which the labour is employed or in the district from which the labour is recruited, whichever may be the higher."

Restitution for conscripted goods and services has long been awarded. United States v. Russell, 80 US 623 (1871). Victim restitution for forced labor and services is mandatory under 18 USC 1593. Because subjecting another to forced labor or services is a felony under NRS 200.463 and 18 USC 1589, we assert that fair compensation for the civil data service here should be commensurate with the cost of that civil data service to government if provided by law enforcement or private enterprise. This assertion is consistent with 18 USC 1593(3) which adjusts compensation to victim's of forced labor at “[ ] the [ ] value to the defendant of the victim's services or labor [ ].”

In United States v. Lovett, 328 US 303 (1946) a bill required non-payment for services that had been accepted. The court of claims awarded compensation to the purported communists. The Supreme Court affirmed finding added harm to the individuals reputations created an attainder. The absence of compensation therefore evinces an intent to punish. Nixon v. Administrator, 433 US 425 (1977). Indeed, the deprivation of basic rights to life, liberty or property has long been regarded as punishment. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 US 277, 321-23 (1867).

The duty imposed by registration laws cannot qualify as a normal civic duty exception to the prohibition of servitude because individuals are singled out for burdens not shared by others. Witnesses with specialized knowledge are finely compensated. Jurors are also compensated, but not nearly enough. Military conscription is likewise under compensated. No known normal civic duty is un-compensated or without re-imbursement for expenses. And the very idea ex-felons have a duty to perform a free civil data service for a system that denies them basic civil and political rights defies sound civil reasoning and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Large numbers of registrants are unemployed and homeless while subject to filth, disease and vigilantism. Some have been murdered, including innocent bystanders. Fair compensation would foster compliance and remedy those inhumane conditions of service while fair market value could remedy the subject legislation's failure to provide a means of review and counsel normally required to defend deprivations of individual liberty occasioned by arrest, booking or interrogation or a lingering pre-trial release. See e.g. Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978). Class litigation thus far has been, and is, inadequate to protect individual rights.

An exploitation driven absence of compensation for deprivations of basic freedoms being so extraordinarily obvious in the mater at hand that it's continued characterization as "civil" could arise from none other than an intent to subvert the Constitution.

Lock em up!