Is it constitutional to FORCE sex offender registrants to carry the governments message?

QUESTION:

During oral arguments of Smith v Doe, US Supreme court case (2003), there were things said by the Justices and lawyers which TODAY makes us question the legality of certain things registrants are forced to do TODAY which was not part of registration at the time of the US Supreme court case (2003).

We will not be able to answer these questions, but, lets say this is a heads up for folks to get lawyers to look for the source of the US Justices comments, and raise them in a new court action today.

The FULL text of the Oral Argument can be found HERE, however we are only addressing the portion below. Further discussion after the Justices' comments:

Mr. Roberts: Could... could the State require a special mark on your license plate?

Mr. Olson: --No, I... well, I don't know, Justice Kennedy, but I would say that would be considerably different than what's here because that would--

Mr. Roberts: I don't think it's very different.

Mr. Olson: --Pardon me?

Mr. Roberts: I don't think it's very different.

Mr. Olson: I... I respectfully submit that it's a great deal different.

That mark on your license plate, or mark on your forehead would go wherever you would go.

It would require you to carry the government's message rather than the government supplying the message.

Mr. Roberts: Well, this statute requires you to make the government's message four times a year.

Mr. Olson: It only... it doesn't require you to make the government's message four times a year.

The government's message, I respectfully submit, is made when a citizen submits an inquiry to the State through the Internet listing.

All... it is required four times a year is to advise the government of a current location or current information so that the information on the registry is accurate and... and up-to-date.

This is information that citizens have requested of their government.

Their government has the information of people who have committed certain types of crimes, who society has perceived as particularly dangerous.

It's a self-protective mechanism.

The... not only the--

Mr. Roberts: But they... the Megan's Laws are not all one size and shape.

I mean, some of them have the disclaimer right on the page saying we're not labeling this person dangerous and... and have a chance for a person to get off it.

Here, because there's no give, it does have a punitive feel.

I mean, as far as the Federal legislation is concerned, a State that tells the whole truth... is that... that kind of law is totally acceptable within the Federal requirement, isn't it?

Mr. Olson: --It... it would seem to... well, I think the answer is that yes, it would because the Federal statute simply prescribes a floor.

It's going to be virtually impossible and quite burdensome for the State to supply what you suggest would be complete information about any individual.

What the parents and the--

Mr. Roberts: It doesn't... at least to say what... whether the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony, the disclaimer certainly to... to say, now we are not labeling this person a forever sex offender.

We are labeling this person a convicted--

Mr. Olson: --Well, and that is all that the registry does, and I submit that to the extent that your question goes to any of the seven Kennedy Mendoza-Martinez factors, it's excessiveness is... on... on the scale.

Mr. Roberts: --Yes.

Mr. Olson: And I would submit that this registry and this information, providing truthful, public record, readily accessible information is... is minimal.

Mr. Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Olson.

In the minds of the Justices and lawyers there is a difference as to "who carries the message" the registrant or the government? That sentence implies there is something obscure in law on that point, and very likely one is constitutional and the other not constitutional. Better minds need to grasp this and resolve that distinction. With that said, here are some examples:

UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Judge nixes graphic anti-smoking ads " A federal judge has snuffed out a government mandate requiring tobacco companies to place graphic images about the dangers of smoking on cigarette packs. Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon said in Wednesday’s ruling those requirements were a violation of free speech." See also: Government Speech and North Carolina's 'Choose Life' License Plate

CONSTITUTIONAL:
Sentence for theft is humiliation in Bedford town center; or Poetic key to justice? Creativity (Various types of Public Punishments as their sentence).

Traditionally when someone is forced to carry the government message it has been as part of the punishment for the crime convicted of.

Today this is important where registrants' State IDs, Drivers Licenses, License plates and more recently -social networks- are concerned.

---

Further excellent research by a reader:
Wooley v. Maynard 430 U.S. 705 (1977)

eAdvocate Note about this case: However, I see a couple of concerns:

1) A license plate is displayed publicly, designed to be that way. A driver's license is not meant to be displayed publicly;

2) The government does not require a person to show anyone other than police. their driver's license, merchants are the ones who want to see a DL, thats not the government, neither does the government require the merchant t do that.

Same Reader brings us this:
Signs of the Times: Scarlet Letter Probation Conditions (Note: Buried in the links of this document is further documents on this discussion)

Additional research we found this:
Do judicial "scarlet letters" violate the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the eight amendment and in it is this case: GOLDSCHMITT v. STATE about putting messages on drivers' licenses. Must read...need to do other things right now. grrrrrr

---

DANGEROUSNESS Footnote:
Further, notice carefully that Justices were of the belief that the state was NOT declaring registrants as being dangerous. TODAY with tiers they are!

Do you believe Tiers and Levels have the same meaning and purpose?

TRUTH: No, Proof follows:

No, tiers and levels have different meanings and serve different purposes.

Traditional Risk Assessments:

Compared to clinical methods, actuarial risk instruments are a preferred method to discern sex offenders risk for sexual as well as violent recidivism because, unlike clinical practices, they are considered inexpensive, objective and modestly accurate. Scientists argue that risk instruments that employ only static, or historic measures of offender characteristics, rather than dynamic, are certainly sufficient for the purposes of gauging individuals’ likelihood of recidivism. See Sex Offender Risk Assessment Institute of Public Policy Truman School of Public Affairs University of Missouri – Columbia

Risk assessment systems result in defining "Levels" of risk:

Level 1 (low risk of repeat offense), or

Level 2 (moderate risk of repeat offense), or

Level 3 (high risk of repeat offense and a threat to public safety exists).

See NY Risk Level & Designation Determination

All traditional risk assessment systems will use words like, risk, assessment, dangerousness, recidivism etc. which defines their intended purpose. The result of these assessments are levels of risk likelihood of recidivism, clearly defined.

However, under the Adam Walsh Act we find something never before heard of in history. A tier assignment system, a wolf in sheep's clothing, without any stated intent of risk assessment, in fact, its stated intent is otherwise.

SORNA's Tier Assignment System (TAS): Everything you thought you knew is about to change, truths revealed, this is an expose of its real -but hidden- purpose. It is cunning, devious, cruel, and genius at the same time; its real purpose is not what it seems.

SORNA does not use these words "classification, risk, dangerousness, punishment or 'offense based'" in its discussion of tiers! Accordingly, tier assignment purpose has to be other than flagging registrants as dangerous or a risk. Right?

In SORNA it clearly says, tier assignment is used to inform registrants when they are required to verify their information, in person(42 USC 16915(a)), and their term of registration (42 USC 16916).

So why does the public need to know something, whose only purpose is, to tell registrants when to do their verification and for how long? Registrants' tier levels have no public safety value?

Public Perception of Tiers: There is no doubt the SORNA/TAS system is a risk based classification system of a devious kind, a wolf in sheep's clothing, resulting in a dangerousness rating, even though certain words are purposely omitted from SORNA discussion on tiers. Historically the public has been primed to believe "Levels" meant levels of dangerousness, because of states that have/had traditional risk assessment systems (which arrive at dangerousness levels of 1-2-3, meaning likelihood of re-offense). Now with the coming of SORNA/TAS tiers and all the political and media hype, tiers are now believed to have the same meaning and purpose as levels. Levels 1-2-3 = Tiers I-II-II.

In a recent news article Target 8 News had this to say:

"One of ___' rape victims says he's dangerous and belongs on the list as a predator, though she'd rather see his name in an obituary. But there is nothing on the registry that actually says Tier 3 is the most dangerous. That's something you have to figure out for yourself." "Michigan sex offender tiers confusing" (5-8-12 by Ken Kolker)

Here we see a law firm believing -tiers mean dangerousness-:

Michigan law calls for sex offenders to be registered in three tiers, based on the crime committed, their risk of reoffending and their perceived danger to the public. For example, Level 1 offenders have a low risk of committing future crimes and pose a minimal public safety risk. Each tier has different requirements, particularly concerning registration and reporting.

All offenders must report, in person, to law enforcement officers on a scheduled basis. Level 3 offenders have the most rigorous reporting schedule. They must report during the first 15 days of the months of October, July, April and January in order to confirm their addresses. Level 2 offenders must report in January and July, while Level 1 offenders must report once a year in January.

Offenders convicted of a Level 3 offense are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives. Level 2 offenders must register for 25 years, and Level 1 for 15 years. Registry Reporting Requirements for Michigan Sex Offenders (6-17-12 by Garton & Vogt, P.C.)

SORNA/TAS does not command lawmakers or others to explain the real meaning and purpose of Tiers, as it is written into SORNA (a system of notifying registrants when they are to report to verify their information (42 USC 16915(a)), and their term of registration (42 USC 16916)).

Absent from SORNA is any command to show the tier level on the public registry, in fact, SORNA only requires "The jurisdiction shall maintain the Internet site in a manner that will permit the public to obtain relevant information for each sex offender ..." 42 USC 16918(a) and as to the National Sex Offender public registry "The Website shall allow the public to obtain relevant information for each sex offender ..." 42 USC 16920(b).

Given the SORNA stated purpose of "tiers" why is that information not exempted from the public registry? It is quite apparent that Lawmakers want the public misconstruction to continue. Why?

Because it suits the hidden purpose of further punishing registrants, by the community where registrants live, work and go to school, without lawmakers saying, that is what TAS was designed to do. Think about it, why does the public need to know about tiers, if their purpose pertains only to something the registrant needs to do at specified times?

And, until you fully analyze SORNA/TAS and its -intended effects- you will not see this subtle and onerous gotcha system. The gotcha is, that, Lawmakers through TAS do not inflict further punishment, TAS is DESIGNED so that registrants are further punished by the community where registrants live, work and go to school. It took genius (many legal minds) to design this gotcha system, and TAS also effectively TAKES AWAY from registrants, and public view, registrants' efforts at rehabilitation during serving of their sentences. This places registrants in a PERPETUAL FALSE LIGHT before the public eye, many for the rest of their lives; if that isn't further punishment, nothing is.

Tiers and levels have different meanings and purpose, need more be said...

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate