Comments on: IN: Appeals Court Rules RSO Parent Can’t Attend Son’s School

By: NothingToLose?

NothingToLose? — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 02:20:16 +0000

In reply to Florida Action Committee. Could this be, theoretically, appealed all the way to the SC and serve as conflicting Ex Post Facto decision (vs 6th circuit)?

By: ms

ms — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 16:14:38 +0000

In reply to Florida Action Committee. Smith v. Doe is what I meant

By: Florida Action Committee

Florida Action Committee — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 15:43:14 +0000

In reply to ms. Doe v. Snyder is the law in the 6th Circuit. SCOTUS denied cert in that case.

By: DavidM

DavidM — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:32:45 +0000

As the world turns the marry go round goes round and round and the circus just keeps on going. Can’t these judges see the the insanity and hypocrisy of of there flip flop decisions. And there mindless ability to toss out the constitution and replace it with their emotional opinions based on former false assumptions that were based on false information.

By: Debbie

Debbie — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:03:37 +0000

He was allowed or received an exception to see his son and now taken away from that. Even when finishing probation they added this law that would affect something that he was already doing with no incident ? It’s crazy.

Howard superior court is correct and called it for what it was….BS…. But that Indiana superior court ruling is just straight up idiocy.

By: ms

ms — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 13:58:25 +0000

Unfortunately they took this train off the Ex Post Facto rails in Doe V. Snyder long ago.

If they do not overturn that in SCOTUS, this will be a lose. It sucks for the kids who are collateral damage, but that will not be enough to change this. Especially if they are delineating for minor victims.

Case in point here: felons of any sort cannot chaperone, coach, etc in schools.

I know it sucks. I know change happens. I know people rehabilitate, but they see it as letting the wolf loose in the henhouse. That will be a tall, steep hill to climb.

By: C R

C R — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 05:02:05 +0000

So it seems that there is NO consensus among these judges as to what is unconstitutional in Indiana.
Maybe the NEXT one will reverse this finding.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 01:49:21 +0000

So banishment laws protect children and are non-punitive.

Hasn’t this type of thinking already been debunked?

By: Jm

Jm — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 01:09:51 +0000

Inhumane and a punishment to the child….. when do they realize the collateral victimization they are causing

By: bob

bob — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 00:40:51 +0000

This is so sad… We get so excited when it seems the wheels of justice are finally going our way. But, then we get a ridiculous ruling like this. We are simply going one step forward, but the system is fighting us to two steps backward, and we are losing the war.