Tulsa Police Worried About Sex Offender's Legal Victory

9-14-15 Oklahoma:

TULSA - Tulsa Police are worried now that a convicted child molester has won a legal victory against the Tulsa County District Attorney's office.

Stephen Barnes was convicted in 1999 of rape and lewd acts involving a minor. According to Department of Corrections records, he was released in 2012. He's a registered sex offender, but now that he's out of prison, he wants to live with his mother in east Tulsa.

A 2003 Oklahoma law prevents sex offenders from living near schools and daycare centers. In January 2015, Barnes asked the courts for an injunction against the Tulsa County District Attorney's office, Tulsa Police and the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, arguing that since the law was passed after he committed his crimes, it didn't apply to him.

Earlier this month the judge ruled in his favor, saying he can live wherever he wants.

Tulsa police fear this will lead to a similar situation for many more convicted child molesters.

"The whole premise of the sex offender registry is to protect our children. Safe zones were created for families to at least feel comfortable knowing there were no sex offenders living nearby. The ruling will open the door for sex offenders to file similar lawsuits and be granted the freedom to reside next to an elementary school, if they so choose," said Tulsa Police Sgt. John Adams. ..Source.. by Lori Fullbright

Judge orders D.C. to pay record $9.2 million in wrongful conviction case

2-28-15 Washington DC:

A D.C. Superior Court judge ordered the District government Friday to pay a record $9.2 million in damages to Kirk L. Odom, 52, who was wrongfully imprisoned for more than 22 years in the rape and robbery of a woman in her Capitol Hill apartment in 1981.

The amount, set by Judge Neal E. Kravitz, is the second — and largest — award in a case tried before a District judge under the District’s wrongful conviction law, which was approved in 1980. It also is one of the largest non-jury awards in an exoneration case in the United States.

“Mr. Odom spent more than twenty-two years of what should have been the prime of his adult life behind bars for a crime he did not commit,” Kravitz wrote in a 37-page opinion that recounted Odom’s “profound” physical and psychological suffering over the decades that included several prison rapes, his diagnosis with HIV — the virus that causes AIDS — suicide attempts, depression and family estrangement.

“It was readily apparent to the court at trial that Mr. Odom is only a shell of the young man he was at the time of his wrongful conviction, and only a shell of the grown man he would have become had he not been wrongly convicted and unjustly imprisoned,” Kravitz wrote.

In an interview , Odom, who was 18 at the time of the crime, said he welcomed word of the award from his attorneys, but added, “They can’t pay me enough money to give me back the years that I’ve lost.”

Carbondale approves settlement in lawsuit

3-17-15 Pennsylvania:

CARBONDALE — A lawsuit against Carbondale moved one step closer to settlement after city council approved a $50,000 payment.

In a suit filed last year, Leo Conway of Archbald claimed his son, Patrick, was among 15 sex offenders registered under Megan’s Law in the city but the only one forced to move under an ordinance that precluded registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, park or other areas where children might gather.

In July 2012, Mayor Justin Taylor contacted the Conways’ landlord and advised him that Patrick Conway’s presence violated the city’s ordinance and directed him to evict the men, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Conway argued a 2011 state Supreme Court decision in another case made Carbondale’s law unconstitutional.

Henry Ford College settles suit with sex offender

See earlier story: Sex offender suing HFCC for kicking him out and Henry Ford Community College Faces Suit After Kicking Sex Offender Out and Sex offender with high GPA wants back into college (Attorney Shaun Godwin)

5-5-15 Michigan:

A convicted sex offender who sued a suburban Detroit college over his dismissal settled the case for $36,000.

An agreement obtained by The Associated Press says the payment came earlier this year from Henry Ford College’s insurer. In exchange, Michael Branch has agreed to stay away from the Dearborn campus.

Branch claimed his rights were violated when the school removed him in 2011, despite good grades in a heating-and-cooling program. But in court filings, Henry Ford said his enrollment was terminated because of parole requirements. Branch had to stay away from minors and child-care facilities.

Henry Ford denied wrongdoing but settled the lawsuit solely for “business reasons.” Branch was convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2004. by The Detroit News

Illinois high court: Comcast must reveal anonymous commenter

6-18-15 Illinois:

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. The Illinois Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court opinion ordering Comcast Cable Communications to identify a subscriber who posted an anonymous message suggesting a political candidate molests children.

The court said Thursday that the internet service provider must identify the subscriber who commented on a 2011 article in the Freeport Journal Standard about Bill Hadley's candidacy for the Stephenson County board.

The commenter, who used the online name "Fuboy," wrote that "Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed" because he can see an elementary school from his home. The comment was an apparent reference to former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky who was convicted of child sex abuse in 2012.

Prepping to pee in park wasn’t perverted, jury says

11-22-2013 California:

Pinching a homeless guy for pointing Percy at the park instead of the porcelain was ultimately pointless because it wasn’t perverted, a San Francisco Superior Court jury said this week.

The homeless defendant, Miguel Hernandez, was accused of flashing a mother and her 4-year-old child on August 11 when he pulled out his penis to, by his account, pee at Franklin Square Park on Bryant and 16th streets. The 29-year-old woman said she thought the 38-year-old Hernandez had an erection when he swung his male equipment within her view — but Hernandez told the jury he only turned because he heard an eruption of noise from a nearby soccer game and wanted to see who scored.

Hernandez — who wound up on the streets recently when he lost his job as a wine buyer — told investigators he thought everyone nearby was too absorbed in the game to notice what he was doing. He then took off his shoes and sat down to also watch the game, his defense attorney said. That’s where police officers who’d been summoned by the outraged mother arrested him.

US v Thompson

1-13-15 7th Cir.:

US v Thompson

We have consolidated for decision four appeals, heard on the same day, that present issues relating to supervised release. In a recent opinion, United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir.2014), the court expressed concern with how the district courts of our circuit are administering supervised release.

To recapitulate briefly the fuller discussion in the Siegel opinion, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 replaced parole for federal crimes with supervised release (to take effect in 1987). 18 U.S.C. § 3583.

Parole of federal convicts is granted (though nowadays only in a very limited class of cases, see United States Parole Commission, Wikipedia, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Parole _Commission (visited Jan. 11, 2014, as was the other website cited in this opinion)) by an administrative agency after a convicted defendant begins serving his sentence.

An inmate granted parole is thus released from prison before the expiration of his term, but becomes subject to restrictions imposed by the agency on his conduct between his release and when, had he not been paroled, he would have been released upon the expiration of his prison sentence. The restrictions are intended to reduce the likelihood of his committing crimes in the future.

In re Oliver

3-8-1948 Michigan:

In re Oliver

A Michigan circuit judge summarily sent the petitioner to jail for contempt of court. We must determine whether he was denied the procedural due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In obedience to a subpoena the petitioner appeared as a witness before a Michigan circuit judge who was then conducting, in accordance with Michigan law, a "one-man grand jury" investigation into alleged gambling and official corruption. The investigation presumably took place in the judge's chambers, though that is not certain.

Two other circuit judges were present in an advisory capacity.1 A prosecutor may have been present. A stenographer was most likely there. The record does not show what other members, if any, of the judge's investigatorial staff participated in the proceedings. It is certain, however, that the public was excluded — the questioning was secret in accordance with the traditional grand jury method.

After petitioner had given certain testimony, the judge-grand jury, still in secret session, told petitioner that neither he nor his advisors believed petitioner's story — that it did not "jell." This belief of the judge-grand jury was not based entirely on what the petitioner had testified. As will later be seen, it rested in part on beliefs or suspicions of the judge-jury derived from the testimony of at least one other witness who had previously given evidence in secret. Petitioner had not been present when that witness testified and so far as appears was not even aware that he had testified. Based on its beliefs thus formed — that petitioner's story did not "jell" — the judge-grand jury immediately charged him with contempt, immediately convicted him, and immediately sentenced him to sixty days in jail. Under these circumstances of haste and secrecy, petitioner, of course, had no chance to enjoy the benefits of counsel, no chance to prepare his defense, and no opportunity either to cross-examine the other grand jury witness or to summon witnesses to refute the charge against him.

Three days later a lawyer filed on petitioner's behalf in the Michigan Supreme Court the petition for habeas corpus now under consideration. It alleged among other things that the petitioner's attorney had not been allowed to confer with him and that, to the best of the attorney's knowledge, the petitioner was not held in jail under any judgment, decree or execution, and was "not confined by virtue of any legal commitment directed to the sheriff as required by law." An order was then entered signed by the circuit judge that he had while "sitting as a One-Man Grand Jury" convicted the petitioner of contempt of court because petitioner had testified "evasively" and had given "contradictory answers" to questions. The order directed that petitioner "be confined in the County Jail . . . for a period of sixty (60) days or until such time as he . . . shall appear and answer the questions heretofore propounded to him by this Court. . . ."

The Supreme Court of Michigan, on grounds detailed in the companion case of In re Hartley, 317 Mich. 441, 27 N.W.2d 48,2 rejected petitioner's contention that the summary manner in which he had been sentenced to jail in the secrecy of the grand jury chamber had deprived him of his liberty without affording him the kind of notice, opportunity to defend himself, and trial which the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires.3 In re Oliver, 318 Mich. 7, 27 N.W.2d 323. We granted certiorari to consider these procedural due process questions.

... ... ...

It is "the law of the land" that no man's life, liberty or property be forfeited as a punishment until there has been a charge fairly made and fairly tried in a public tribunal. See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 236-237. The petitioner was convicted without that kind of trial.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan is reversed and the cause is remanded to it for disposition not inconsistent with this opinion. Case is reversed and remanded.

I Saw a Man Get Arrested For a Sex Crime Because He Made a Scheduling Error

7-17-2014 Texas:

When I agreed to keynote the Reform Sex Offender Laws conference this week in Dallas, Texas, I didn't expect it to hit quite so close to home.

But before I arrived, I got a phone call from a soft-spoken, super-articulate young man, Joshua Gravens, who is a Soros Justice Scholar based in Dallas. His specialty is the injustice of the sex offender registry and the fact that it isn't making kids any safer (see this study and this article). He was also on the public sex offender list until recently and still has restrictions on his movement.* He invited me to come with him to the police department to give notice he had moved. Who could resist?

Josh became a sex offender at age 12. That's when he touched his sister's vagina, twice. His sister told their mom, Josh said it was true (he was too embarrassed at the time to mention that he himself had been raped as a young boy by three local high school kids), and their mom called a counseling service for advice. The counsellor said Josh's mother was required to report his crime to the authorities and the next day, he was arrested.

Maryland officials begin removing some names from sex offender registry after court ruling

8-12-2014 Maryland:

TOWSON, Maryland — Corrections officials say they have started the process of removing more than 800 names from Maryland's Sex Offender Registry.

The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services said Tuesday that other sex offenders are also being reviewed for possible removal for crimes that occurred before 1995.

In May, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that retroactively requiring sex offenders to register for crimes committed before the registry was created in 1995 violates Maryland's constitution.

Corrections officials say the criminal histories of those being checked for removal to make sure they have not committed other sex offenses. Officials say victims will be notified before the names are removed from the registry. ..Source.. by The Republic

ICE Released 2,837 Convicted Alien Sex Offenders to Comply With Supreme Court Ruling

9-13-2013 Washington DC:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has released 2,837 convicted criminal alien sex offenders back into American communities in order to comply with a Supreme Court decision authored by Clinton-appointed Justice Stephen Breyer, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The 2,837 sex offenders represented five percent of the 59,347 deportable aliens that have been released from detention under the supervision of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to the GAO report, which was released Thursday.

“There are circumstances in which criminal aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States – including those convicted of a sex offense – cannot be removed,” the report states. “For example, a criminal alien may not be removed because the designated country will not accept the alien’s return.”

The GAO report refers to the 2001 Supreme Court case Zadvydas v. Davis to explain why ICE is required to release foreigners who have been convicted of sex crimes. In its 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the indefinite detention of removable aliens for greater than six months is unconstitutional unless there is “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”

Edmond Sex Offender Cites 'Starkey' in Failure to Register Arrest

8-1-2014 Oklahoma:

Edmond police responding to a public intoxication call discovered a transient sex offender living within 2000 feet of a school. Police say Shaun Anthony Head, 38, had failed to register as a sex offender and was staying at an apartment complex near Edmond Memorial High School in violation of sex offender residency requirements.

When an officer asked Head why he had not registered as required, the suspect responded that he no longer had to register as a result of the state Supreme Court's ruling in Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Unfortunately for Head, although the Starkey decision will allow thousands of convicted sex offenders to come off of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registry, the decision does not take full effect until the DOC has had time to review a list of more than 10,000 registrants who may be eligible for removal. Since the Supreme Court's order on June 25, 2013, the agency has whittled the list down to just under one thousand registrants remaining.

So what is the Starkey case that will allow some convicted sex offenders to be removed from the state sex offender registry?

Hurley acquitted on two felony charges

8-1-2014 Colorado:

A Jefferson County jury found Gerald Hurley, a convicted sex offender, not guilty of two felony counts for failing to register as a sex offender with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office on Friday, July 11.

Hurley’s release from prison last year prompted a community meeting notification after his decision to live in Golden. After his acquittal on Friday, Hurley was released and given five days to register as a sexually violent predator in his established residence.

It is unknown where Hurley will be living at this time but it seems he many be leaving the state once again, according to the Jeffco Sheriff's Office.

Jeffco District Attorney Pete Weir stated that although he is disappointed in the verdict, he respects the jury’s decision. “It’s a very complicated statue,” Weir said. “It can be complicated factually.”

Detective Stacy Galbraith of the Golden Police Department was the state’s sole witness during Hurley’s preliminary hearing back in February. Galbraith testified to the investigation leading to Hurley’s arrest warrant dated Oct. 3, 2013 in which Hurley failed to register as a sex offender with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s department after obtaining a fixed address in unincorporated Jeffco with a Golden mailing address, according to an affidavit. Galbraith was able to confirm Hurley’s alleged established residence after discovering he renewed his driver’s license with the Golden mailing address.

Sex Offender Can Sue Town Over Residency Ban

7-23-2014 Texas:

A Texas man can sue a Dallas-area suburb over the constitutionality of its ban on registered sex offenders living within 1,500 of children, the 5th Circuit ruled.

Registered child sex offender Aurelio Duarte and his family sued Lewisville, Texas, after he tried and failed to find a house to rent or buy in the city that complied with the ordinance. He had earlier served eight years in state prison after a conviction of online solicitation of a minor.

Duarte returned to Lewisville upon his release in 2009 and learned of the ordinance enacted one year earlier that bans registered child sex offenders from living within 1,500 feet of "where children commonly gather."

The family currently lives in a one-bedroom motel room to comply with the ordinance.

The trial court later dismissed they family's constitutional claims, concluding they lacked standing.

A three-judge panel with the 5th Circuit disagreed, unanimously reversing and remanding the ruling Tuesday.

Writing for the panel, Judge Edward C. Prado said Duarte and his family have standing because they had "concrete" plans to live in Lewisville as opposed to indefinite plans.

A.A. v New Jersey

Research into this 2001 case is ongoing, so be aware of that until further notice which we will post here when research is done.

12-6-2001 New Jersey:

A.A. v New Jersey

The litigation before the Court is the most recent constitutional challenge to New Jersey's "Megan's Law." Plaintiffs, all of whom have been convicted of sex offenses in New Jersey and are subject to registration and community notification pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 et seq. (collectively referred to as "Megan's Law"), instituted this suit on October 15, 2001 challenging the constitutionality of Article IV, Section 7, Paragraph 12 of the New Jersey Constitution and recent amendments to Megan's Law authorizing the development and maintenance of "a system for making certain information in the central registry ... publicly available by means of electronic Internet technology." P.L.2001, Ch. 167 (codified at N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:7-12 to - 19) (hereinafter referred to as the "Internet Registry Act").

Soon after filing an initial complaint, Plaintiffs submitted an application for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to prevent the implementation of New Jersey's Internet sex offender registry, which is statutorily authorized to become effective on January 1, 2002. P.L. 2001, c. 167 § 10.1

For purposes of this motion, Plaintiffs' claims can be divided into two categories.

• First, Plaintiffs allege that the Internet Registry Act, by allowing unlimited public access to certain information collected pursuant to Megan's Law's registration provisions, violates their constitutional right to privacy in: (1) their home addresses; and (2) the totality of the information assembled and posted in the Internet sex offender registry.
• Second, Plaintiffs contend that the retroactive application of the Internet Registry Act to those members of the plaintiff class whose underlying sex offense was committed prior to the law's enactment violates the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution.2

For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant, in part, and deny, in part, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

... ... ...

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OF THE INTERNET REGISTRY ACT, N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:7-12 — 19

This matter having appeared before the Court upon Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Court having reviews the submissions of the parties and having heard oral arguments, for the reasons set forth in an opinion issued by this Court, which findings of fact and conclusions of law are incorporated herein by reference, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS on this 6th day of December, 2001,

ORDERED THAT: Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of P.L. 2001, ch. 167 (codified at N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:7-12 to -19) is DENIED provided that the Internet Registry MUST EXCLUDE information identifying the home or apartment number, street, zip code, and municipality in which Plaintiffs' reside.

---

As to "Home Addresses" see also Schiller v INS

State court tosses out sex offender's conviction

3-1-2014 Massachusetts:

The state's highest court this week reversed the conviction of a Level 3 sex offender for failing to register as a sex offender after the justices ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove he was living at his aunt's home in Lowell and not in the homeless shelter.

In a decision issued on Thursday, the state Supreme Judicial Court overturned a judge's 2011 ruling that Jose Armando Arce was guilty of failing to register as a sex offender. The judge had sentenced Arce to one year in a house of correction and lifetime community parole.

While the jail sentence may have been completed, the lifetime parole is vacated.

Laurie Myers, of the Chelmsford-based Community Voices advocacy group, said, "It has always been difficult to prove a homeless offender failed to register, but it looks like the SJC made it a little more difficult. Yet another way for sex offenders to manipulate the system."

Arce, 44, who lists his address at 260 Middlesex St., was convicted in 2006 of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14. He was convicted in 2012 of indecent assault and battery on a person 14 or older.

He was arrested by Lowell police on July 20, 2010 and charged with failing to notify police of a change of address as required under the sex offender law.

Lawyers Lawyers Lawyers and then the ACLU

National and State:

We are often asked if we know of a lawyer to help in a case. Well here is what we have developed and we think this will give folks the best chance to find one that can help with their case.

Our lawyer lists are broken up as follows:

State and National

Civil Commitment

ACLU Chapters and Affiliates

Now, if you know of a lawyer that should be shown, please let us know and we will review and place it on the appropriate list. Simply e-mail eAdvocate@Gmail.com

And if you know how we can improve this site, we would like to hear from you too.

Thanks
eAdvocate

Nevada Supreme Court orders delay in enforcement of sex offender registration law

See 5-2-2014 UPDATE: Officials push to amend Nevada’s controversial sex offender law

2-3-2014 Nevada:

A new legal challenge has delayed the start of stricter registration requirements for sex offenders in Nevada.

The law, modeled after the federal Adam Walsh Act, would require many offenders who judges have said are not dangerous — including some who were as young as 14 at the time they committed a sex crime — to make their names, photos and addresses available to the public. Since Nevada lawmakers approved the law in 2007, pieces of it have gone before courts from the district to federal levels.

It was set to go into effect Feb. 1, but the Nevada Supreme Court put a temporary stop to it Thursday following a lawsuit filed by Las Vegas firm Langford McLetchie on behalf of 24 unnamed clients. The lawyers filed suit Jan. 16 in Clark County District Court to stop enforcement of the law, but on Jan. 28 Judge Douglas Smith rejected their request. So they went to the state’s high court.

Supreme Court justices said the lawyers raised more questions that deserve a second look. Among them: Is it constitutional for sex offenders who have already served their court-ordered time to have the rules changed at this point? And did Nevada legislators overlook public safety voting in this law?

The law applies to anyone convicted of a felony sex crime or crimes involving children since 1956. About 3,000 are on Nevada’s sex offender rolls now, and the Walsh Act is expected to dramatically increase that number. There’s no state estimate on how many more names could be added, or how much tracking them will cost.

Maggie McLetchie, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, said Nevada’s version of the Walsh Act “is a mess.”

“Nobody really knows what to do with it,” she said. “We don’t have the resources to enforce it.”

Legislative records show state lawmakers signed off on the federal standards because they were worried Nevada might lose grant money for law enforcement. But they never discussed how much was at stake.

A 2008 report from the Justice Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, said it would cost more than $4 million to enforce the toughened registration requirements. The penalty for not doing that: the federal government could withhold about $180,000.

The latest suit to stop the Walsh Act in Nevada is against the agencies responsible for enforcing it, including the state attorney general and Division of Public Safety, the Clark County district attorney, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Henderson Police Department.

A spokeswoman for Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto’s office pointed to previous court rulings, including one from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that upheld Nevada’s law requiring sex offenders to be retroactively classified according to their crimes, not by their risk of re-offending.

“The Nevada Supreme Court entered a stay of enforcement so they have an opportunity to review this law and determine whether it should be implemented,” spokeswoman Jennifer Lopez said.

Under Nevada’s existing system, judges help determine whether sex offenders present a risk to the public or have been rehabilitated – particularly juvenile offenders.

The Walsh Act’s requirements can’t be changed. Beyond having their names listed on searchable websites, offenders must check in with police or probation officers more often and must register for 15 years, 25 years or for life, depending on the crime. They also cannot knowingly be within 1,000 feet of a place designated primarily for children. That won’t apply retroactively to the new class of offenders who already live near sites such as schools, but it will come into play if they move.

Opponents of the Walsh Act say it endangers those who appear on state websites and also puts their families at risk. It can also make it more difficult for offenders to find jobs.

In October, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, but justices questioned whether lawmakers gave any thought to its effects on juveniles and public safety. ..Source.. by Adam Kealoha

Sex offender can continue to post photos, judge says

1-28-2014 Washington DC:

A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that a convicted sex offender can distribute and post photos of court employees online to protest the city’s sex offender registry.

Dennis Sobin, a former pornographer who served more than a decade in prison for a sexual performance using a minor, posted the photos of employees from D.C.’s Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) on idiotsregistry.info saying that sex-offender registries are unfair. A court employee filed for a civil protection order, accused him of stalking and asked the court to have Sobin to remove her photo.

But Judge Todd E. Edelman said that Sobin’s actions were protected by the First Amendment.

“Mr. Sobin’s conduct could be criticized,” said Edelman. “I think it’s unlikely to be effective. I think that criticizing lower-level court employees is puzzling. But that’s not my place to say.”

The unusual case garnered the attention of the ACLU, which filed a brief on Sobin’s behalf. Tuesday’s hearing also drew interest from other sex offenders and anti-registry activists.

“I’m very happy the judge understood and abided by the U.S. Constitution that gives citizens the right to protest, even in a personal sort of way,” Sobin said.

Sobin, 70, thought the decision could inspire similar protests elsewhere.

“The judge’s opinion will be used as ammunition around the country,” he said.

Stephanie Gray, the CSOSA employee who sought the protection order, and her attorneys declined comment.

Vicki L. Henry, president of Indiana’s Women Against Registry, welcomed the decision, saying people are not aware how much sex offender registries damage families.

“There’s no empirical evidence supporting these registries,” said Henry, whose son is a sex offender, outside the courtroom. “We need to promote prevention.”

Derek W. Logue, a sex offender from Ohio who was there to support Sobin, said that registries prevent criminals from moving forward. ..Source.. by Justin Moyer

Bloggers have First Amendment protections, federal court rules

1-17-2014 Oregon:

Obsidian Finance Group LLC; Kevin D. Padrick v Crystal Cox

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.

The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice, but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard applied.

Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.

"It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."

Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., now living in Port Townshend, Wash., was sued for defamation by Bend attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, after she made posts on several websites she created accusing them of fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities. The appeals court noted Padrick and Obsidian were hired by Summit Accommodators to advise them before filing for bankruptcy, and that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court later appointed Padrick trustee in the Chapter 11 case. The court added that Summit had defrauded investors in its real estate operations through a Ponzi scheme.

A jury in 2011 had awarded Padrick and Obsidian $2.5 million.