IL: Illiniois Supreme Court upholds conviction of registrant who entered park to retrieve his own son
You won’t believe the absurdity of this one… The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man who entered a public park to retrieve his son.
Patrick Legoo had a 2006 conviction for a sexual offense. A decade later he rode his bicycle into a park to tell his son, who was there watching a game, that it was getting late and it was time to come home. He then left the park without incident. The whole event took less than 5 minutes.
Coincidentally, a police Sergent who was in the park with his grandson recognized Legoo, knew he was on the sex offender registry and called the police, who went to Legoo’s home and arrested him.
Illinois does have a law prohibiting a sex offender’s presence in a park, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Pretty ridiculous! The only redeeming part of this absurd scenario is the dissenting opinion, which seems to indicate that the law is stupid.
You can read the opinion here: https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2020/124965.pdf
Compliance is the key no matter how ridicules laws are.. don’t trust any cop to protect you is the bi line to this tragic story.
So he did what most decent parents would do in the same situation; yet he was arrested. If the police sergeant recognized him why didn’t he say; is there something you need to tell your son I’ll do it for you. Yet this cop calls the cops and they wonder why there’s much anger towards them. Not every damn thing needs to result in an arrest.
Seems with the the decenting opinion this case should go the the US Supreme Court…clearly there are strong Constitutional issues here!
The US Supreme Court? Really? They are the one’s that started this mess. They cant disagree with a ruling that they agree with.
And i should add that if the US Supreme Court does reverse this ruling they will be ousted by the people.
The US Supreme Court has known all along that this registry is unconstitutional in so many ways and is in fact punitive, but they can not and will not change that fore they will be ousted by the people, politics has us all branded and feared and undeserved of any pity with all the miss information it broadcast’s. All they say is {We brought this all on ourselves.} Is the US Supreme Court aware of all the study’s that have been published over the years? That in fact the registry basically does more harm than good? Common sense say’s yes they are aware, but the people scream, {IF IT SAVES ONE CHILD}
Riff Raff
I think when the supreme court justices lay their heads down at night, the registries are the last things on their minds. Maybe when a brief is sent to them they glance at it for a second and toss it into the “To do MUCH later” pile.
Then when the time passes they stamp it with a big red stamper that sends it back to the lower courts. It is like a game of tennis. It is like the child with chicken pox where both parents draw straws to see who stays home with them and risks getting it and missing work. It is like a game of hot potato and so on.
basically, they just really want it to go away, no go away as in the registry is abolished but go away as in, “it is not my problem and I do not want to deal with it” .
By they way, where are the protest for a man who, yes was on the registry, but did nothing wrong technically other than recovering his child. If I were the judge, I would have thrown the case out then told the man, “Do not enter the park again, if you want your child to play there, have another responsible adult take them there”. Case dismissed
I’d prefer the judge just toss the case and say nothing. Because the judge probably shouldn’t say what should be said, which is “The government that passed this ‘law’ is an illegitimate, criminal regime that is an enemy of all good, free people. You should take your child to a park where no one knows you.”
The crazy thing about this is that it harmed no one and nothing. It was not reckless or dangerous at all. Yet, if this where to happen to me, I would without question retaliate and there would be harm. Would just have to happen.
I’m dedicated to ensuring that the Registry Hit Lists cause as much harm to society as possible every day. I’ve been doing it for decades and America continues to devolve.
SCOTUS has never opened on the constitutional issue in dispute here— whether there’s a fundamental liberty interest to be present in a public park. They HAVE, I’m sure, opined on the other constitutional issue raised— that of caring for one’s own children— but IL court did not dispute this right, only the facts.
Even if SCOTUS HAD ruled on the issue of presence in public parks, they would remain free to reverse themselves on that issue. Historic SCOTUS reversals are well-known.
And I would love to see SCOTUS take up that issue. I can’t imagine an originalist such as Justice Thomas voting against such a right. But I’d be surprised to see them take up this particular case, due to procedural grounds (ie petitioner failed to raise the constitutional issue with lower courts first).
But we don’t need to worry about justices being ousted by the people for an unpopular opinion. That is not even a thing.
The purpose of these laws is the safety of children, right?
Safety of children? No. These are laws do not protect anyone. Study after study after study, including ones done by the FBI, all say the same thing – these laws do not protect children. Recidivism percentages for sexual offenders is actually one the lowest in the criminal justice system. Children are infinitely more likely to victimized by a family member or a trusted person then by a complete stranger. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars are spent every year to enact and enforce these laws that have zero impact on public safety. In fact evidence shows these laws create problems where none should have existed. But it makes good sound bites and great headlines for politicians – and that is the real reason behind them. Adolf Hitler himself once said you can enact any law you want – as long as you say its to protect families. Yeah thats an example we want to follow.
Oh I am under no illusions that a law preventing one from retrieving his own child is doing nothing constructive in the area of child protection. It’s like nobody even remembers what the justification was for the law in the first place, other than banishing those who make us uncomfortable.
Laws are always about the children. Let’s build some really big casinos so all the revenue will fund our schools. With all that Casino money paying for schools the old school money can buy me a second pension. Big payoff in bribes too! Too bad the children don’t get child support since Dad got carried away at the casino. Yes, every cash grab law is ‘about the children’.
Its Illinois; they are fanatical about their SO laws. For example, they civilly committed a man because he is a Christian AND a homosexual. They said the conflict between his sexuality and his religious beliefs denies him a healthy sexual outlet. Thats why I got out of there as soon as humanly possible.
Seriously? A person’s sexual orientation is none of the government’s business: get out of our bedrooms, sex life and other situations regarding sex. Government officials are the ones that are perverted not in only in their thinking; but in their actions as well.
I hope you are happier in the state currently are in.
I found many states have different laws for in-state vs out-of-state convictions. MN was reasonably unobtrusive and the police easy to work with (despite more recent incidents). Florida wasnt too bad (Orlando area) but thier travel notification policy needs work. I’m currently in AR and so far not too much to complain about. They insist on us being “evaluated” by a tribunal of sorts before being placed on a 4-tier system. It’s supposed to be done within 60days but it’s been 6 months and still haven’t gone through it thanks to Covid. So I’m duly registered but not yet tiered. In a limbo like status that actually favours me.
Kevin I was surprised when I looked this up.
Thirteen states’ statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants’ genders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina.
Funny Illinois is not on the list.
ILL-noise courts are the FloriDUH courts for the north.
What I read here was that the arresting officer didn’t witness the violation. Is the violation a felony?
Its a misdemeanor
One of you lawer types help me out here.
Doesn’t the arresting officer have to witness the offence in the case of infractions or misdemeanors?
I mean I’m sure the registrants lawer knows more than me. Maybe I’ve just misremembered this little tidbit.
Or is it a case of it doesn’t matter because a person required to register is the accused?
I would bet on the latter.
It’s considered hearsay. I’m guessing because the information came from another leo, off duty, that the arresting officer went with it.
If the person being arrested admitted to the violation… Game over.
Outright ridiculous !!!
I should not have said arrested, but ticketed. Anyhow, the Ideology is the same. There are times when the letter of the law HAS to be broken for life , property, or emergency reasons.
I don’t think anyone would agree that anyone should be ticketed, arrested, or imprisoned for any of those reasons and the judge had the power to let it go because of that but he didn’t and that is why he is a ‘letter of the law’ judge-he was one-sided and refused to be understanding in light of the situation. We don’t need judges like that.
There were many times when I was on active duty that I had to make decisions concerning individuals that were contrary to command directives/regulations. A person…in my view…is not an officer or a judge if he/she can’t evaluate a situation and come to a logical, commonsensical conclusion. The law/regulation is for those situations from which there is no mitigation. Everytime I went against a regulation I notified my commanding officer and never once was my decision overturned. Today in law enforcement, commonsense is becoming less and less common. Decisions have impact and that impact can sometimes affect a person’s and that person’s family for a lifetime. Everyday I’m starting to understand more and more what we see going on in this nation and much of it is self-inflicted by politicians who are in the “business” for themselves and not for the people they represent. It’s a dangerous situation.
It is decisions like this that make me really wonder if the register will ever be reversed other than on individual challenges. If we are hated So badly that you cannot even retrieve your OWN child, the judges are sicker than they accuse us of being. This to me is mental illness, hate bigotry, and discrimination at the highest level.
So now this man may not even get to see his son grow up now depending on what he was sentenced to.
I have even further lost faith in the system. The same system where I passed a polygraph then said “Well you are just a good liar with no conscience”. But if I had failed they would have brought it up in court even though it supposedly is not admissible.
Here, the ‘letter’ of the law has been broken, but not the ‘spirit’ of the law and they should have saw that knowing that it is the ‘spirit’ of the law that causes the ‘letter’ of the law to be written.
These obviously were ‘letter’ of the law judges who are the worst type!!
They are void of understanding and rational human compassion and only judge by the letter only.
I don’t really see the judges in this case as the villains or morons. Fault here lies with the legislature for passing idiotic and convoluted statutes, and the prosecutor who pressed charges.
Why in God’s name would a prosecutor waste time and taxpayer’s money to bring charges under these circumstances? The only answers I can think of are ambition or some personal ax to grind. Given their prosecutorial discretion, they are the ones responsible for differentiating between the letter and the spirit of the law.
I disagree with David about “letter-of-the-law” judges. That is what judges are supposed to do, i.e. to interpret the laws as written during the guilt or innocence phase. Of course sentencing is a different matter. If judges are free to inject their own feelings as to the spirit of the law, tremendous inconsistencies would result. It is worth noting that most judges in the chain expressed discomfort with the decisions they felt compelled to render.
Veritas.
Felt the need to chime in here with Ed C. Much agreed on the Judges doing what they signed up to do. And VERY much agreed that the fault lies with Legislature and the politics that lay behind it.
Ed
I totally disagree. If not for a very compassionate judge, I would be doing time at the rock with 1000 tattoos about now. The other judge sentenced me beyond the sentencing guidelines and I lost three appeals before I got before a judge who saw the sentences for what they were, Filled with emotion and not case law, evidence or fair. The prosecutor about had a seizure right there in the court room when the judge ( who know sits on the state supreme court ) threw out my sentence ( but not the charges ).
ALL judges have discretion and those judges in this case could have thrown the case out as absurd, not based on the law but based on the extenuating circumstances which absolutely be considered when overruling a law.
It is against the law to jump the white house fence but if you did it to save the life of a law maker you saw having a heart attack, would you expect that person to be charged? They very well could be by a jerk prosecutor but doubt it would ever make it to court.
Judges have more discretionary power than you give them credit for. That is why prosecutors sometimes object and even file grievances against judges on occasion if they feel the judge over stepped. Checks and balances.
Would hope this guy can appeal these charges based on circumstances of the safety of his own child.
I almost got arrested once because I broke down in front of a school. A city cop pulled up behind me and ran my tag and made a big fuss about it and told me to stay right there. He then got a 9-11 call and left and said he would be back. By then the tow truck driver had come and took me and the car away and I never heard anything else about it. if something would have come of it, believe me I would have fought it all the way to the court of Heaven LOL
Cherokee, I always enjoy your posts and your insights. Note that I was talking about the pre-conviction phase where judges really do need to follow the law, precedent, and procedure. Motions and objections preserve a right to appeal, so lawyers for both sides need to get them on the record.
In your case, a more compassionate trial judge might have given you a within or below guidelines sentence. It is in sentencing that judges essentially have unlimited discretion–statutory minimums not withstanding. Fortunately you finally got to a judge who was willing to recognize the trial judge’s abuse of that discretion.
Granted, the trial judge in this case should have leaned on the prosecutor for bringing this person to court. A judge can put tremendous pressure on either party, but dismissals must rest on the law. I think that might even be a separation of powers question. The legislative branch writes laws, the executive branch chooses how to enforce them. Judges are legal umpires.
Remember, I’m neither a lawyer nor a preacher, so please don’t take my observations as legal gospel. Keep up the good fight.
ED C
Thank you for the kind words of encouragement.
I am pretty smart cause I graduated from 5th grade 3 times. I even got a trophy for the most improved student the third time around. LOL
@Ed C and Sc, here is what i mean.
The ‘spirit’ of the law says ‘make a speed limit that is safe for commerce and personal travel on the expressway’ and the ‘letter’ of the law became ’55 MPH’ because of it.
Now, when a woman is having a child and the man or woman is caught speeding by an unbeknownst officer going to the delivery room , do they receive a ticket for breaking the letter of the law???
No!
There are situations where it is actually necessary to break the letter of the law to preserve life or property and this was one of them.
Now, if the officer arrested the man for speeding taking his wife to the emergency for delivery or if he himself had an injury or his child did and could not wait for paramedics due to its urgency, would you still stand behind the officer for arresting someone in an emergency situation because the person broke the letter of the law as you do this judge??
I personally wish more judges were “letter of the law.” Far too many of them stick to or ignore the law based on their own personal preferences, biases, or convenience. Superior/criminal court judges are elected, so politics play a role as well. Indeed, the politics of the moment swing far more discretionary rulings and opinions than the justice and fairness ever will.
There is a reason why 90-plus percent (my own personal guesstimate. It could be more or less, I really don’t know) of rulings favorable to registrants come from federal courts and state supreme courts – those judges are appointed for life. There’s no real blowback for them when they make unpopular rulings except possibly not being considered for higher courts which many of them don’t aspire to anyway.
With such a nonsensical law enforcement action it is no wonder that people are on the streets all around the country protesting the police. Don’t get me wrong, I support the concept of having a police force but with actions like this, and I do not support street riots, I’m starting to understand the anger and frustration. When common sense is removed from law enforcement the police can easily become an enemy of the public. If anyone knows the location of this action please let me know so I can hit the local newspaper with one of my “poison pens”.
Do police 🚔 make Florida a safer place when they arrest a 6 year old girl in her school and take her to juve? Watch body cam footage and decide for yourself! As a parent how do you feel about your 6 year old daughter’s hands being restrained as she is taken to ride alone with 👮 policeman.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-ne-orlando-police-body-camera-6-year-old-arrest-20200224-rlg2ukttdvhehpoj2ki7irqe74-story.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=exchange&tblci=GiDx8_AZOkzM27AuF0pHap0MqG5mgI870HFXCE8LtUi6JCCP3z8#tblciGiDx8_AZOkzM27AuF0pHap0MqG5mgI870HFXCE8LtUi6JCCP3z8
I for one disagree with the court’s contention that there is no right to be in a public park. If thw registrant pays taxes, he has just as much right to be there as anyone else.
Further, someone’s simple presence is not a danger to anyone, no matter who, where, or what they’re thinking. That others may be uncomfortable is beyond the registrant’s control. Discomfort is not danger, and whoever is uncomfortable in a registrant’s presence is free to leave if they choose.
Exactly! Why hasn’t there been a class action suit to say that if we can’t go anywhere then make us tax exempt?
Maestro
You brought up a valid point. On my taxes it states that these pay for services like policing, parks and recreation etc. If we cannot use the parks or even walk through them without being arrested by the police WE are paying for, why should our taxes have to go for these services we are BANNED from using????????????????????????? BOOM
Mind blown.
That is like an impact fee for Florida residents to pay for an airport in Georgia.
My taxes pay to secure Ft Knox, but they won’t let me in
Are you implying that is relevant somehow?
Anything that I pay for as a citizen should be just accessible and usable to me as a citizen as it is for any. I am being forced to pay for parks, schools, police, etc., and I have every right to the same use as anyone else. Anything less than that is simply theft by a criminal regime. Nothing legitimate or moral about them.
Jacob
Legal rebuttal,
ALMOST ALL people except sex offenders can go to parks. ALMOST NO ONE except verified employees can enter for knox so your point cannot be comparative in nature.
What else you got? Sound like you are sticking up for the courts instead our rights???
I am on record as winning one of the biggest landslide decisions in history against GM with NO attorney other than myself. They were so amused I represented myself that they did not even show up in person (Which was first according to the judge ) but called in on conference call)
Although any criminal matter I would for sure use an attorney. A lot of guys spent time in the law library in prison, I never did. I got jumped once and in hearing, the other inmates denied jumping me and said I beat myself up. Their charges were dropped and I was given an addition 6 months on my prison time for fighting??????????????? Who the Hell did I fight, myself?
Sometimes you cannot win even when you are right because the cards are just automatically stacked against you. I was really into a recent show call “for life”. It was a true life story of a black man locked up for life for dealing drugs even though it was his employees who were dealing, HE was held liable for it, not them.
Unfortunately, the show was not renewed which pissed me off. Although after fighting for decades, he did finally get a ruling and was released and exonerated.
Comparing the local park where one’s children play to Fort Knox is almost laughable. I spent time at the Pentagon which is paid for by taxpayers, however, just any ole taxpayer cannot roam the hallowed halls. I worked there and had to get a security pass to get to my office. There are certain places where all taxpayer support these places and can visit and other places where there is only limited entry. RSO taxpayers support parks and therefore should be able to go there or their taxes should be reduced accordingly. Quite frankly I do not mind supporting parks but at my age I really have no desire to go to one…they just ain’t my cup of tea.
There are parks I would be afraid to go to even during the day. Drug dealers and murderers are allowed to loiter in parks all day and night but an “EX” sex offender is not even allowed to go pick up their child from a park??
The courts have again gotten into a bad batch of Grandma’s special recipe.
It is even more ludicrous than that!! There are regular people who are not allowed to go into parks simply and only because they are listed on a big government Hit List!
But this harassment scheme does make sense. Its purpose is not public safety so a person should not try to think about it sensibly with respect to that. The scheme’s purpose is to make dumb people feel better. The purpose is to keep big government big, give them business/customers, and keep them paid. So, it does make sense.
Cherokeejack, I always enjoy your commentaries.
Thank you Charles.
Jacob, you are on to something! Your taxes ARE used to SECURE Fort Knox. So you then verified that Fort Knox is secure by driving to Kentucky and knocking on the door and you asked the guards if Fort Knox is secure, because, after all, that is what you are paying taxes for. You then verified this by asking if you could take a tour inside, and the guards told you “no”. Satisfied that Fort Knox is secure, you drove back from Kentucky happy to know your taxes are spent wisely as Fort Knox is secure. Thanks, Jacob for answering this burning question we all were on wondering about!
Roger, great response!
While I am understandably catching a lot of flak for my Ft Knox analogy, Maestro and Dustin do raise an interesting question: why HASN’T there been a suit to exempt registrants from taxes if they are banished from a public place? Or, conversely, why hasn’t banishment been challenged on the basis of tax paying?
FAC Legal, is it a matter of lack of legal funds, or have courts simply not been asked to look at this?
Ordinarily, I would not drag out the conversation, but these are questions apparently of interest to members and that won’t go away.
We prioritize our suits by (1) which requirements have the most debilitating impact on our population, (2) which raise legal arguments that have the most merit, and (3) which suits we can afford to bring.
There are some suits which have strong legal merit (ie: Proximity Ordinances) but they only impact select counties (ie: Brevard and Seminole) so it’s tougher to raise funds and we have fewer members who will benefit. Another example is the registration fees. That would be a great case, but not all counties charge them, so we would have to collect from only those that do, because people who stand to gain nothing from a win are less likely to donate.
There are a world of other factors that come into play. Some challenges require multiple expert witnesses ($$$) and others don’t because the harm is apparent. The Ex Post Facto Plus case is SUPER heavy on expert witnesses, whereas another challenge that’s on our radar (the branding on drivers licenses) would likely not require many experts.
It would be one thing where an elderly lady says she shouldn’t owe taxes for parks and other services she never uses. She would be told however that they are there for you IF you do decide to use them.
In OUR situation, we pay taxes for something we are not allowed to use. I agree it would be a waste of class action resources, but still BS that we have to pay to support amenities we are banned from using. Image if you got a water bill each month but the county/city never connected the pipes to your house?
AND it is not just BEING in a park that can get you arrested, some cities have distances you have to be away from a park to be arrested. Heck you could be 3 blocks away picking up a pizza and get arrested for being NEAR a park. What school did these lawmakers graduate from anyway?
We have a finite amount of resources raised to bring legal challenges. You can see the amounts on the thermometers on our site.
I think there are so many potential challenges to bring and if enough of our members feel strongly enough that the amount of taxes allocated to parks is the battle we should take on, I will defer to the majority and apply resources to that fight.
Candidly, however, laws that create homelessness, that separate families, that restrict necessities of life are the types of challenges that are more compelling when I sit down with an attorney or legal aid org to encourage them to take a case. Keep in mind, the money we raise goes towards costs, not attorneys fees.
I think you misread what I said I agreed with you :
“I agree it would be a waste of class action resources, but still BS that we have to pay to support amenities we are banned from using. ”
The ultimate goal is to do away with the registry all together and this would cover all the other issues in one clean swoop.
However, if that lawsuit ultimately fails, we may have to take on individual ordinances as with the way things are going with “Pushing” the law to the limits, we may be arrested for merely leaving our own homes.
Scary stuff
I’d be really curious to know what percentage of the total taxes we pay would apply to the tax-funded places or things that we (uniquely) are banned from? I’d imagine that tax percentage would amount to well under 2%.
Dustin, I like your train of thought on this.
While several have opined that the fault was the legislature’s, it really is up to the appellate courts to interpret the laws and resolve conflicts in the laws. That’s what controlling caselaw is all about. The simple fact that this man wasn’t reported to have tried to communicate with any other children in that park shows that he wasn’t trying to take advantage of the law’s exception. Both laws can’t be correct, because one law permits conduct that the other law prohibits. When that happens, the courts MUST fix it. Thus court failed miserably. They should have freed the defendant and formulated a rule that everyone could understand in the future.
Gerald
You said something that was what I was trying to think of and I said it but wanted a certain word but had a senior moment.
Interpretation of the law was what I was trying to convey.
4 different judges could look at a law and come up with slightly or even vast differences in the way they interpret the meaning of said law.
Also when I was in college ( majored in Criminal justice ) I remember one my law professors stating that just “ONE” word can change the entire understanding, meaning and therefor interpretation of that law.
How could your very first sentence be so wrong? Of COURSE I believe the absurdity of this. I would be shocked to find Registry Supporters/Terrorists being moral.
I pray to God that people have it firmly ingrained in their very beings that big government is the enemy of free people. We people must work them over on a daily basis. Do not float through life without attacking them incessantly. Find politicians that believe in small government and get them elected. Fight the law enforcement criminals every day. Get up their orifices and take every resource and capability that you possibly can. Make sure that they are broke and dysfunctional. Make the Registries cost.
Defund the police. Defund big government.
In Illinois RSO have to live far away from parks. If RSO lived near a park the children near the RSO would be away from RSO at the park. The RSO, who is forbidden to take his children to a public park, then assembles playground equipment in his back yard. However, since all RSO must live far away from any public parks, all the neighborhood children congregate at the home of the RSO as this is the only park n that neighborhood.
RSOs home is far away from the school where there is a line of watchful parents and teachers supervising groups of children as they leave school. Instead RSOs are concentrated where children are dropped off from a school bus without the prying eyes of teachers or parents around to interfere.
RSOs who cannot find a place on their OWN to live are forced to live with their brother and his children or sleep with alcoholic moms they meet in bars.
Despite the RSOs making it theoretically LESS safe for children, there is no evidence the laws change any actual danger.
This just shows how hypocritical our laws and lawmakers are. They will put out anything to the public just so they can appear to be concerned…facts be damned!
Registry law- Carte blanche which allows the government to deprived disfavored persons of their liberty at their every whim with a sham dog and pony show for so-called due process of law.
Another case also quite disturbing in IL is that of a registrant who went to play airsoft with friends. Airsoft is a more adult version of paintball. So he asks everyone if it is okay to use GoPro camera and no one objects. Police inform parents of two boys who were all at the counter signing release forms about sex offender and guy goes to jail since teen age boys were in view of GoPro camera as he walked out door to play airsoft. Newspaper paints story to imply worse. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/buffalo-grove/ct-bgc-sex-offender-tl-0616-20160609-story.html%3foutputType=amp
The problem is that we live in a country that passes laws without researching if the stipulations of these laws truly are working for the better. Illinois is also a state that has the strictest gun laws yet most murders. Go figure. We live next door in Indiana and there is no law against ex-sex offenders going to parks just residing near them. Does Indiana have more sex offenses in parks in comparison to Illinois. I would believe not. Therefore, such restrictions need to be abolished.
The judges, prosecutors, police officers, forensic people, supreme, and appellate court justices are all in bed together. They’re a family and more likely to support one another than rule or go against. These need to be broken up and be separate entities.
The question is who sits on the Supreme Court for Illinois. Who were the judges that made this decision? Also how did such an awful law get passed in the first place? We need to go to the sources and advocate for change at the source. Some of you on this board sound like you’ve given up and are already defeated. You say that nothing can be done. You give the government too much power and your voice too little. Everyone and our families should be at these court houses too. Quit giving up and start getting together. If blacks, gays, women’s right groups can ban together, the sex offenders and families affected by them should be able to come together against the harshness of these laws and advocate for their fair treatment too!