Families Affirming Community Safety (FACTS)

December 17, 2009

John Doe and Jane Doe 1 through 20 et al v. State of Nebraska et al

Filed under: Legal — constitutionaldefense @ 11:41 am
Tags: , , , , ,

On Wednesday, Dec. 16 a complaint was filed in federal court to block the implementation of LB 285 and related legislation. The complaint says that the law is unconstitutional and asks for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the law until many questions about its constitutionality are settled by the courts.

They have requested:

  1. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution;
  2. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the ex post facto clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  3. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution;
  4. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the double jeopardy clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  5. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the United States Constitution;
  6. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  7. A declaration that LB 97, as amended by LB 285, violates, both facially and as applied, the search and seizure clause of the United States Constitution;
  8. A declaration that LB 97, as amended by LB 285, violates, both facially and as applied, the search and seizure clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  9. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the due process clause of the United States Constitution;
  10. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the due process clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  11. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution;
  12. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the equal protection clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  13. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the special legislation clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  14. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the freedom of speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution;
  15. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Nebraska Constitution;
  16. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the contracts clause of the United States Constitution;
  17. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the contracts clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  18. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the separation of powers doctrine of the Nebraska Constitution;
  19. A preliminary injunction prohibiting each Defendant from enforcing LB 97 and LB 285 during the pendency of this matter;
  20. A permanent injunction prohibiting each Defendant from enforcing LB 97 and LB 285;
  21. Reasonable attorney fees; and
  22. Other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nedce/case_no-8:2009cv00456/case_id-50706/
https://constitutionaldefense.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/complaint.pdf
https://constitutionaldefense.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/brief-main-one.pdf

Advertisements

December 15, 2009

Consent To Search Under Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act

Filed under: Legal — constitutionaldefense @ 9:42 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

As part of LB285 all registrants are required to sign the below consent form.  If they refuse to sign this form they will be in violation of the act which would result in a felony charge.

When you read this, I want you to envision a registrant who is married with children that owns a business.  The state is FORCING him or her to sign away the rights of their family’s privacy as well as every employee of their company.  The state will have the legal right to search and monitor the registrants spouse, children, and employees activities because these computers are owned and in the possession of the registrant.

Consent To Search Under Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act

I,____________________________________________, acknowledge that
pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006 and the remainder of the Nebraska Sex
Offender Registration Act Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4003 – § 29-4013, I have a legal
obligation to provide the Nebraska State Patrol any and all remote
communication device identifiers and addresses, including all global unique
identifiers, serial numbers, Internet protocol addresses, telephone numbers, and
account numbers specific to the device. I further acknowledge that I must
provide all e-mail addresses, instant messaging identifiers, chat room identifiers I
use or plan to use, all domain names registered to me and all blogs on Internet
sites to which I have uploaded any content or posted any messages or
information.
I hereby consent and agree to allow a law enforcement agency to search all
computers or electronic communication devices possessed by me; and, to allow
the installation of hardware or software to monitor the Internet usage on all the
computers or electronic communication devices in my possession.

Signed Date___________________
Witness Date___________________

December 14, 2009

Nebraska Secretary of State Interpretation of LB285

Filed under: Legal — constitutionaldefense @ 12:45 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/regtrack/proposals/0000000000000791.pdf

December 10, 2009

LB-285 Sacrificing constitution for money?

Filed under: Legal,Research — billorights @ 5:10 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

LB-285 violates 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 10th, and 14th Amendment of the registrant, as well as 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Amendment of spouse and children.  So what is the price that our Senate puts on striping the constitution?  You might be surprised.

LB-285 was implemented in response to the Federal government’s Adam Walsh Act.  The Federal government mandated that states implement the Adam Walsh Act or lose 10% of their Jag Byrnes funding.  So Senators say ‘their hands were tied’, and they ‘were forced to do this’.  Because ‘in this economy, they can’t lose 10% of their funding’.

Ok.  So how much do they lose if they don’t violate the constitution?

According to the Department of Justice, Nebraska’s Jag Byrnes Funding was $1,288,957.  If they do not implement Adam Walsh Act, they stand to lose 10%, or $128,895.

So what is LB-285 going to cost?  According to the same Department of Justice figures, $2,878,281.    But other estimates put the number closer to $6,000,000 of tangible costs, not counting all of the intangible costs.  Such as registrants who are no longer employable and live on welfare.  Bankruptcies when registrants can no longer work.  Court costs as the state has to defend LB-285.   And if Ohio is any indication, you can expect 911 and law enforcment to get taxed to breaking points as the public panics over the number of registrants that will go public.

Even taking the low numbers.  Our Senate signed a bill into law to save $128,000 knowing it would cost nearly $3,000,000 to save that $128,000?  And if they bothered to check ANY of the studies on the law, every study shows that the law doesn’t work, and makes the public more at risk?  Or is it possible they signed a bill not even knowing it would cost 20 to 40 times what it would save?

If your Senator tells you they did this for the money, then you need to ask them if they checked ANY of the facts behind this before signing this.  It’s no wonder our state is in financial turmoil if we make it a habit to spend $3,000,000 to save $128,000 on a law that every subject matter expert says is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Click here to read the report

https://constitutionaldefense.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/jag-byrnes-funding.pdf

So what price does Nebraska Senate put on shredding the constitution?  They are throwing money away just to be able to take away rights of individuals with no victims.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.