NEW: (# Failure to Register Technicality
NEW: Failure to Register a Sex Offense???
CAUTION: SORNA EFFECTIVE even if state has not enacted it
Plea Bargains: Santabello v New York
Forced to Carry Gov't Message Issue: See HERE
Blog also contains "Unfavorable" and "Informational" decisions and relevant news articles. All can be useful in framing arguments for new court actions. (i.e., avoid pitfalls or inform courts.) Or refuting charges, check facts of cases v yours.
Leagle is our main court decision resource.
Find State decisions by the Federal Circuit a State is in.

CAUTION: Decisions are meant to be educational.
For "Personal Life Decisions" consult with a lawyer.

United States v Kebodeaux

6-24-2013 Texas:

United States v Kebodeaux

SCOTUS Blog explains it best:

Holding: As applied to respondent Anthony Kebodeaux, the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act fall within the scope of Congress’s authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause. (i.e., he was required to register)

Judgment: Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 24, 2013. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined as to parts I, II, and III-B.

eAdvocate Research

Did "Congressional Gremlins" play a part in the US v Kebodeaux decision?

6-25-2013 Washington DC:

There is no doubt that in Kebodeaux the US Supreme court solidified, with a healthy amount of verbiage, that Congress is using their "Necessary and Proper" reasoning to extend its powers over the land (Necessary and Proper is now the Congressional "catch-all reasoning."). This follows their use of Necessary and Proper use in the Comstock decision as well. Personally, this writer does not agree with the court and believes it will be years into the future before another set of Justices sets the record straight. How many other denials will be based on this "catch-all reasoning" in the meantime?

But that is not the portion of Kebodeaux I wish to address today. This is the portion that is relevant:
In today’s opinion, however, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, tactfully sidestepped the “Hotel California” theory by holding that Kebodeaux had never actually checked out of federal jurisdiction, thus repudiating that Fifth Circuit’s characterization of Kebodeaux’s release as “unconditional.” The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s argument that, “through a complex set of statutory cross-references,” Kebodeaux was subject to another registration requirement, the Wetterling Act, at the time of his release. SORNA was merely a modification of the registration requirements of the Wetterling Act.
Within the decision it says, Kebodeaux was released in 2004, registered then moved, and after the second move failed to register that move. In 2006 AWA was enacted, and applied retroactively to all convicted of sex offenses.

Now when the court said Wettering was still effective when Kebodeaux was released, I thought, thats impossible, AWA when it was enacted, REPEALED all prior laws, and since it was applied retroactively Kebodeaux would be correct, he didn't have to register.

So I went back to AWA to see if my memory was failing, using the Thomas Congressional website, here is what it says about the AWA law approved by Congress in 2006 (see "Text of Legislation" Version 5):


    The Attorney General, ... ... ....


    (a) Repeal- Sections 170101 (42 U.S.C. 14071) and 170102 (42 U.S.C. 14072) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and section 8 of the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 14073), are repealed.
    (b) Effective Date- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this section shall take effect on the date of the deadline determined in accordance with section 124(a).


So where did Sec. 129 disappear to? Congress approved that section, but it is not in current AWA law. Congressional Gremlins are at work again! In the beginning of AWA it shows the sections that are supposed to be in AWA:

Subtitle A--Sex Offender Registration and Notification

      Sec. 111. Relevant definitions, including Amie Zyla expansion of sex offender definition and expanded inclusion of child predators.
      ... ... ....
      Sec. 128. Registration of sex offenders entering the United States.
      Sec. 129. Repeal of predecessor sex offender program.
      ... ... ....
      Sec. 131. Immunity for good faith conduct.
What it shows is that, Section 129 was eliminated from the final law, and Section 131 was made Section 129. Who in Washington DC has the authority to override what Congress Approves?

The Office of Legislative Counsel in both the House and the Senate are responsible for drafting of, proposed laws and amendments, for Lawmakers to present to their respective House, but only the House Office of Legislative Counsel appears to be responsible for the final codification of laws presented to the President.

So we leave this issue with, is that where the Congressional Gremlins are that ignored AWA Section 129 approved by Congress in 2006, missing today, and which ultimately played a part in today's Kebodeaux decision?

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.

No comments: