US DOJ SMART Office SORNA Case Law Study 2023 revisited
The US DOJ updates this publication each July. Previous year’s issues have been written up. Even if covered already, please find a reminder to take a look at this document. Recent case decisions and the anticipation of potential new case activity are good reasons to revisit this publication.
The document does a fair job of compiling and organizing case law. It helps seeing cases listed by federal district and state. Relevant topics are also included. Some search functions can be done, but a more interactive version would be more helpful.
Being a DOJ publication, the focus is Federal SORNA. This is best illustrated in the section on Ex Post Facto. Starting on page 104, you can see this bias in the descriptions about the extra-constitutionality of Federal SORNA versus the bag of cats that are the 50 different state SORNAs. There are very strong statements about court cases at the state and in Federal District courts not making a dent in the constitutional strength supporting Federal SORNA. These statements are both tone deaf and overly simplistic.
Of course, no-one directly registers with the US Government. States register those with state level convictions and those with Federal convictions. Not having any day to day interaction with Federal SORNA is great insulation from having to justify in court the validity of each item required for registration. Federal SORNA is mostly enabling legislation which is an additional layer of insulation from direct harm. This simplifies the truth a bit, but that is for shortness of explanation and not for misdirection like the DOJ publication.
The publication also has tremendous shortcomings in providing direct links by issue to the real vulnerabilities of SORNA at the state level which will have a direct impact on Federal SORNA. Commonwealth v Torsilieri is cited in the index as a case addressing reputation, but text describing defamation and reputation on page 134 fail to cite this watershed Pennsylvania case. That is just baffling.
The 2024 publication will be an incredibly important tell. The clarity of impact from cases in Tennessee, potential further direction on Clements and litigation in Florida and other states will be examined closely.
⭐⭐⭐ California’s lawsuit against Federal SORNA – filed and being fought by the Pacific Legal Foundation with ACSOL as a plaintiff/party – is also notable. Here’s a link:
https://all4consolaws.org/2023/07/ca-federal-court-denies-governments-motion-to-dismiss-sorna-claims/
The suit remains active and is slowly progressing.
Thanks, David!!
It is reassuring that we are not being dismissed out of hand; but rather, we are at least being given a chance to be heard by (some of) the judicial.
I still assert (everybody), though, that we will need to (at some point) resort to civil disobedience. FED DOJ (Bureau of Justice Statistics) formal reports, farmed out to be written by SMART, continue to twist, tilt, and slant the clear evidence and research that proves SORNA has been a Failed public policy experiment!
They continue to shout that the earth is flat despite the clear evidence to the contrary.
[Moderated]
It appears that Clement has lost his case at the Supreme Court.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/clements-v-florida/
It was a long shot always but it would have been interesting if it would at least got a dissenting mention in the denial part with at least Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson giving us her view. Hopefully one day a court case comes up that allows us to challenge our lifetime placement on a purely punitive system that goes by a civil name.
[Moderator’s note: To clarify, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case].
My hope is that will be the Torsilieri case that hopefully comes to a conclusion soon. With us winning the lower courts in that case looks like the state has the burden there. With an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States being Pennsylvania only remedy if we win, maybe that case will end up at the Supreme Court. All we can do is keep our heads up and keep trying to find a way to bring down this registry.
It is paramount to recognize the difference between A. The people having an electronic database like SOR, versus B. Having that database + enslaving the human to the machine’s extensive maintenance. The minority in Smith V Doe ( Alaska) recognized that fact calling the regime’s intent ” unquestionably punitive in effect.” That the Rehnquist(WI) majority of the U.S.C.S. failed to acknowledge, or even weigh for that matter, all other traditional forms of punishment as described in the 13th Amendment proves the abdication of duty in the favor of big tech & social media. That is to say, In favor of purveyors of database culture extolling virtue upon the machine infrastructure.
If the very early advent of the sex offender registries says anything at all; It is that both Major Parties agreed to utilize the internet to divide the people. That is to State affirmatively, Congress is united in their intent to be divisive via the database driven infrastructure.