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

December 10, 2009

Patty Wetterling says it’s gone too far!

Patty Wetterling was the driving force behind the creation of the ‘sex offender’ registry.  Now with Adam Walsh Act, she is actively petitioning to stop registries, because they have gone too far.  She is now focusing her efforts to stop the tide, because it’s doing more harm than good.

To take a person who has dedicated her life to stopping child exploitation, and turn her into campaigning AGAINST Adam Walsh Act should be a major red flag to all politicians.  She hired an attorney to fight Adam Walsh Act in Ohio, and in Omaha we have been in contact with her attorney to fight in Nebraska as well.

“Everybody wants to out-tough the next legislator. ‘I’m tough on crime,’ ‘No, I’m even more tough.’ It’s all about ego and boastfulness,” says Wetterling.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/06/11/sexoffender1/

Sex Offender Insanity

A series of stories showing the dark side of the ‘sex offender’ craze.  These people are often considered simply ‘collateral damage’ by supporters of Adam Walsh.  Most supporters say it is no big deal to destroy a few children in an effort to brand the ‘monsters’.

Really?   I find that incredibly sad, to be willing to sacrifice a few children.

What if it were your children getting destroyed?  One can’t help but think that supporters of this law have less humanity than many of the registrants.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/12/01/sex-offender-insanity-2/

Society feels safer by making ‘sex offenders’ more desperate?

This story is from Texas, but illustrates the complete lack of sense that these laws make.

“If there is someone who is a registered sex offender living down the street from you, would you rather (have) them home alone, unemployed, desperate and homeless, or have a job, afford probation, treatments fees and counseling?” Molnar asked. “People can’t be productive members of society without a job. This won’t allow them to work.”

http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=33954

Blog at WordPress.com.