The Department of Justice is proposing a rule that specifies the registration requirements under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (‘‘SORNA’’). The rule in part reflects express requirements of SORNA and in part reflects the exercise of authorities SORNA grants to the Attorney General to interpret and implement SORNA’s requirements. SORNA’s requirements have previously been delineated in guidelines issued by the Attorney General for implementation of SORNA’s requirements by registration jurisdictions.
NOTE: This appears to be in response to the Non-Delegation issue that was before the SCOTUS in Gundy:
You can read the full notice here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-13/pdf/2020-15804.pdf
AP tries to make sense of this:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/feds-release-nationwide-sex-offender-registry-regulation-72418254
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/13/2020-15804/registration-requirements-under-the-sex-offender-registration-and-notification-act
You can submit your statements online with 5000 character limit, however, you can add up to 10 attachments so if you write a longer statement like I did, you can just send it as an attachment in addition to the statement you can add under 5k characters.
I sent quite a bit of info including entire articles from my site. Not sure any of it will be read but at least it will be on the record.
If you want to send it in the mail, the address is:
To: Regulations Docket Clerk
Office of Legal Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 4234
Washington, DC 20530
Thanks for the information.
They should get well over 1 million comments. I will be sending plenty.
Regardless of any comments that are sent, it is far past time to continue to allow these harassers any peace. I am going to keep delivering real consequences.
I HIGHLY recommend running any comments past an affiliate org.
Not quite sure what FAC means by this comment.
Resist the temptation to harass, insult, or threaten the regulators, as they have the discretion as to whether or not to take our comments seriously.
If that’s not what FAC meant here then I’m sure they’ll correct me.
That’s what we meant – plus to make sure what you are writing is factually correct and relevant.
The Federal Register and SORNA…
I am completely confused…can someone help me out here? Many thanks
Where is the email address to email these worthless pieces of sh*t a few thoughts from our minds? They just won’t let human beings live in freedom and peace after carrying out their punishments hm?
Thank you
All Members,
after a Quick Read, the proposed changes Give The US Attorney unbridled powers…It expands the law of strict liability and basically gives the US Attorney a ‘Carte Blanche’ to do what he/she wants to do…
It creates a wider band in which the US Attorney general can squeeze the States and US Territories in order to comply with stiffer laws and languages in an attempt to with hold their annual payments for enforcement, aka JAG Payments!
Of course, there are NO Facts related to persons who are required to register like Recidivism Rates and all the other DOJ statistics that most of us use on a daily basis etc (Quite an oxymoron, as the Attorney General’s office which is under the guise of the DOJ, does not even use it’s own facts!)
Therefore, perhaps, both FAC’s and NARSOL’s legal teams can join together to figure out the proper response to these illogical proposals that the DOJ’s Attorney General is trying to mandate
Time is of the Essence.
The only saving grace, maybe, if and when the NEW POTUS is elected, the person really that will be running the USA will be the new Vice-President (the first State Attorney ever to gain top political office), who appears to have sympathy and believes in Criminal Justice Reform, so therefore, the actual new mandates may never get enacted in time
Again, time is of the essence, while disregarding the new political movements that may be about to occur!
Perhaps, FAC can set up a New ‘News feed’/posting, just to allow submissions by those members who have critical and factual information to share
Compilation of Factual Historical Data will be the key in submitting the ‘Requests for Proposal’ while citing case law, precedents etc!
I’m no Trump fan by any means but let’s not forget Biden helped push all the main registry laws through Congress, and Harris tried banning registrants on social media.
Trump’s administration passed SOSTA/ FESTA, internet censorship laws passed under the guise of sex trafficking, and he’s a big believer in QAnon, and QANon is going to be a major headache for use because we won’t be dealing with intelligent people (we’ll be arguing with tinfoil hat wearing, Alex Jones gay frog water drinking, flat earth underground illuminati satanic pedophilic cannibalistic lizardfolk conspiracy theorists).
I’m voting third party this year.
Good Day
This is also a reaction to an impending case that got standing with SCOTUS, which postponed oral arguments resulting it into the next term.
‘They’ were told this last month, and as a result, Politics seems to be a William Barr, kind of thing, granting this legal perversion!
Do NOT FEAR, as ‘THEY’ are actively on this as we saw this coming
Thank you FAC for your fast footing!
This will be sliced and diced to the bone!
Stay Tuned!
Which case are you referring to?
Here’s the list of oral arguments scheduled for the next term: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalOctober2020.pdf
Please let us know which case you speak of.
I read thru it but very legalese so not sure I fully understood it. Will this implement new substantive restrictions on us?
I read in it that “courts have consistently rejected ex post facto challenges to SONRA itself” and references US V Felts. Does this have any effect on our ex post facto challenge?
In essence… any Ex Post Facto challenge will fail and your Federal Government requires anyone, regardless of when sentenced as well as disregarding what your State requirements or lack thereof, to register for the time period of their choosing according to the Tier System.
Also, the AG has the authority to add anything they want to the requirements to register.
Neat huh?
Oh, the 7 day temporary address requirement to register is lovely due to “[t]he benefits of having this information include facilitating the successful investigation of crimes committed by sex offenders while away from their normal places of residence and discouraging sex offenders from committing crimes in such circumstances.”
If only there was so much concern for the multitude of other crimes being committed in the U.S. for those who have prior felonies with much, much higher recidivism. This conclusion flies in the face of logic and reality. I am confused by the continuous pursuit of the illusion of public safety by focusing on a group of citizens that have proven (for decades), repeatedly I might add, that the levels of new laws aimed at monitoring them are grossly unnecessary and do absolutely fuck all in addressing the prevention of new crimes by those who are not being monitored.
Sigh…. I want out of this “great nation” more and more every day.
/rant off.
This ties into what I was referring to in a previous post about a Federal AND a State registry by the way.
I wish they would put it more in layman‘s terms. I get lost in the legalese. From what I gather everybody must register regardless of when the offense took place, Retro active as well.
You gather correctly sir!
@SC.
“Also, the AG has the authority to add anything they want to the requirements to register”.
No. I don’t believe the AG has this authority, because some were sentenced under different laws with different requirements.
In order for him to do this he would be, in essence, modifying the sentence or even vacating the sentence handed down by the judge, which would mean he now would be in violation of ‘separation of powers’ by becoming a judge himself, and overruling the previous judge’s judgment and an acting ‘judicial’ branch of the government, which is not only unconstitutional, but a governmental violation.
He cannot make his own laws either, because he is not a legislative branch of the government either.
This is why we have separation of powers, and it doesn’t matter how big you are, if they are violated, then it won’t fly.
The US attorney general has to appear before SCOTUS and can be denied.
David, I think you are not quite on point. Remember registration is not part of the punishment stipulated by the court. It is a civil regulatory measure. I don’t see any separation of powers question here. Please let me know if I am not interpreting this correctly.
Veritas.
@Ed C
Hi, Ed. For those who are labeled Sexual Predators under Megan’s Law, the judge tells them they will have to register the rest of their life at their sentencing, so, it is part of the sentence handed down, as well as PRC.
In most felony cases, it was mandatory that PRC was given, and if it was not given by the judge, then the sentence was void and felons actually had to be brought back to court while in prison, and their sentences vacated, and re-sentenced with PRC and then sent back to prison.
I don’t see much, if any any difference here.
PRC is not part of your imprisonment, (non-punitive) but part of the sentencing, and follows it the same as registration and is handed down orally upon sentencing.
Similarly, if it was mandatory that someone was to be on PRC, but got out of prison before it was found missing on the docket, then they were free from PRC-the court could not impose it, yet now the AG is trying to impose the registry for thousand’s of people that never carried it in their sentences regardless that it is a civil regulation. He is adding to the sentence an ordinance that did not exist, and in order to add anything, just like the PRC, you have to vacate the previous judgment which only a judge can do.
If someone under a previous law which did not carry a lifetime registration though the crime was the same as the one under the newer Megan’s Law or even the most current AWA, then in effect, a new judgment has been rendered that has been added to a past judgment that the judge nor the law required at that time and therefore the Attorney General has, in essence, re-visited and un-finalized the courts’s sentence and amended what was handed down by the judge which I see is a disgusting separation-of-powers violation.
I hope this makes it clear what I am getting at, and thanks Ed, for being so kind in your words 🙂
They know its unconstitutional so they are trying whatever they can do keep it justified in the minds of public policy makers, judges, and the citizens.
Thanks FAC for getting this out so quickly.
Who here’s good at this stuff?
Load of crap stuff, as this is just minimally required BS, and notes that all jurisdictions can impose further laws as they already do.
What’s your bead on this… a good thing? Bad thing?