6-4-17 Illinois:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a case against a Normal man to determine the constitutionality of Illinois' rules mandating that sex offenders report all their internet activity to authorities.
In a petition filed with the nation's highest court, lawyers for Mark Minnis, 24, are asking for a review of whether offenders' First Amendment rights are violated by a requirement that they report all internet activity to police who then disclose that information to the public.
Minnis was 16 when he was deemed a delinquent juvenile in 2010 for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. He was required to register as a sex offender for 10 years for criminal sexual abuse, a misdemeanor offense.
In August 2014, Minnis was charged with failure to register as a sex offender, a felony, after he failed to include a previously disclosed Facebook account on a registration form.
McLean County Judge Robert Freitag dismissed the charges on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional based on the breadth of information an offender is required to report.
The Illinois State Supreme Court reversed Freitag's ruling in a 2016 decision that recognized that the right to "publish and distribute writings while remaining anonymous" extends to internet speech but, the court ruled, that right is "not absolute."
Minnis' case is on hold in McLean County until a decision by the high court is made about whether to review the case.
In their petition, filed in February, Minnis' lawyers with the State Appellate Defender's Office note "the issues in this case have been percolating through state and federal courts for years now as variations of this scheme have proliferated across the states, part of a flood of ever-more draconian restrictions on sex offenders."
The Illinois Supreme Court decision is contrary to rulings in similar cases in other states, claim Minnis' attorneys. "Illinois is now a national outlier on this issue," said the court filing.
Defense lawyers also criticize Illinois' handling of youth sex offenders, citing research included in a state Juvenile Justice Commission report that juvenile sex offenders are "highly amendable to treatment and highly unlikely to sexually reoffend."
It opposing the review, the Illinois Attorney General's office argues that public availability of sex offenders' internet identities "allows the public to recognize sex offenders when they encounter them online, just as the public availability of sex offenders' current photographs allows the public to recognize sex offenders when they encounter them face-to-face."
People vs. Minnis is not an appropriate case for the First Amendment challenge, the state argues, because the information released on juvenile offenders is far less than what is available for adult offenders.
The Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this year in a North Carolina case involving a sex offender charged with violating the state's ban on internet access. A decision in that case, along with a potential ruling in the Minnis matter, could change sex offender rules across the nation. ..Source.. by Edith Brady-Lunny
Showing posts with label .Illinois. Show all posts
Showing posts with label .Illinois. Show all posts
June 4, 2017
Supreme Court asked to review McLean County sex offender issue
March 30, 2017
Federal judge: City of Chicago did not violate rights of homeless sex offenders
CHICAGO — A Chicago federal judge recently ended a lawsuit filed by two homeless sex offenders who claimed Chicago city officials violated their civil rights by not allowing them to comply with sex offender registry laws.
On Feb. 28, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey ruled Michael Beley and Douglas Montgomery did not have grounds to sue the city of Chicago for violating their constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and freedom of intimate association, as well as rights under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Beley and Montgomery had filed a class action suit on behalf of all homeless sex offenders in the city.
The plaintiffs alleged local law enforcement prevented them and other homeless sex offenders from meeting SORA's reporting requirements, which allegedly exposed them to criminal consequences, according to the lawsuit.
SORA requires convicted sex offenders to provide local law enforcement with identification and documentation that substantiate proof of residence. If an offender is temporarily absent from the registered address for three or more days, the offender must notify law enforcement and provide a travel itinerary.
Failure to register is a Class 3 felony and is punishable by two to five years in prison, at least $500 in fines and a 10-year extension of the offender's registration period.
Individuals without a fixed address are allowed to register if they regularly report to law enforcement. Beley and Montgomery alleged local police prevented them from reporting because they did not have a fixed address, a claim that was echoed by homeless sex offenders Adarryll Kelly, Charles Mowder, James McDonald, Kenneth Williams and Henry Hartage.
Blakey said the legal basis for the plaintiffs' claim revolved around their evidence to show a continuous policy of abuse by city officials.
The court terminated the lawsuit because the plaintiffs demonstrated “occasional lapses of judgment” or “individual misconduct by police officers,” not “systemic problems” or “institutional behavior,” Blakey said in the ruling.
Plaintiffs were represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of Thomas G. Morrissey Ltd., of Chicago. ..Source.. by John Myers
February 21, 2017
Prison sentences served, but Illinois sex offenders stay locked up
2-21-17 Illinois:
Paul Murphy was originally sentenced to three years of probation after his conviction in 2011 on charges of aggravated child pornography.
Murphy is impoverished and homeless. And after he was found violating his parole by sleeping in the doorway of a church, Murphy was ordered to serve his sentence in prison.
He finally was approved to be released from custody in March, 2014, into the state’s mandatory supervised release program.
But because he is homeless and cannot find a place to live that satisfies the myriad of restrictions and regulations, Murphy, 61, remains in prison. And unless he somehow finds housing that satisfies the state’s strict limits, Murphy is doomed to spend his life in prison regardless of what his original sentence had been.
Murphy is one of seven inmates who have turned to the federal courts, contending that Illinois is improperly keeping sex offenders in prison even after they have served their full prison sentences — with the possibility they might never be freed.
Their class action lawsuit charges Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Corrections Department Director John Baldwin with improperly keeping sex offenders in prison by imposing conditions for their housing that make it impossible to win release.
“We’re going to fight vigorously to try to change some of the circumstances to which these people are subjected,” said Mark Weinberg, co-counsel for the prisoners.
A spokesperson for the Department of Corrections said the state is still readying its response to the lawsuit, and a comment would be premature.
At issue are both the restrictions of the statute as well as the Department of Corrections interpretation. Sex offenders cannot live nearby parks, schools or day care centers. They cannot live in a condominium or apartment or trailer park where another convicted sex offender lives, with the one exception a halfway house. But there are no halfway houses in Illinois that accept sex offenders.
In the case of Murphy, the lawsuit details his plight. He has no money nor family members or friends who can help, and cannot earn money while locked up. He applied for housing at a halfway house in East St. Louis that, the lawsuit said, was the only one in Illinois that accepted sex offenders.
He was told there was a five-year wait at the time he applied; the facility has since closed. And so, the lawsuit contends, “Murphy faces imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections for the rest of his life.” ..Continued.. by Camille Darko
February 14, 2017
Illinois Court Strikes Sex Offender Park Ban
see also: IL law barring sex offenders from public parks sparking conversations about legality and Illinois Appeals Court Says Banning Sex Offenders From Parks Is Unconstitutional2-14-17 Illinois:
An Illinois appeals court (Oral argument for those interested) ruled that a state law making it a crime for convicted sex offenders to set foot in public parks is unconstitutional because it can punish innocent conduct.
Friday’s ruling stems from the 2013 conviction of Marc A. Pepitone, a previously convicted sex offender who was arrested while walking his dog in a public park in Bolingbrook, Ill., a southwest suburb of Chicago.
A Will County jury found Pepitone, who was convicted in 1999 of predatory criminal sexual assault, guilty of being a child sex offender in a public park, in violation of an Illinois law.
As written, the law at issue makes it a crime for convicted sex offenders to attend concerts, picnics, rallies, or Chicago Bears games at Soldier Field, for example, or visit popular places like the Field Museum, the Shedd Aquarium, the Art Institute, the Adler Planetarium, or the Museum of Science and Industry, all of which are public buildings on park land.
Pepitone was sentenced to 24 months of conditional discharge and 100 hours of public service and given a $400 fine, but he appealed the conviction, claiming the banishment of sex offenders from public parks is “unconstitutional on its face because it bears no reasonable relationship to protecting the public.”
Pepitone argued in his appeal that the law sweeps too broadly and therefore must be struck down. He said, “The specific issue is . . . whether an all-out banishment, of all child sex offenders, from all public parks . . . at all times. . .is a reasonable means of achieving the legislature’s stated goal of ‘protect[ing] users of public parks from child sex offenders and sexual predators.’”
The Illinois Appellate Court’s Third District agreed with Pepitone on Friday in a 2-1 ruling and reversed his conviction of being a child sex offender in a public park.
“We hold that section 11-9.4-1(b) is facially unconstitutional because it is not reasonably related to its goal of protecting the public, especially children, from individuals fitting the definition of a child sex offender or a sexual predator,” Justice Mary McDade wrote for the majority. “Nor is it drafted in such a way as to effect that goal without arbitrarily stripping a wide swath of innocent conduct and rights he has as a citizen and taxpayer from a person who has paid the penalty for his crime.”
McDade said the sweep of the law “is extraordinary.”
“Section 11-9.4-1(b) is an outright ban on all individuals with certain sex offense convictions from public park buildings and public park property without any requirement that anyone—particularly a child—be actually, or even probably, present,” the ruling states.
The appeals panel’s majority found that the law “criminalizes substantial amounts of innocent conduct” and “makes no attempt to assess the dangerousness of a particular individual.”
Quoting a previous ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court, McDade wrote, “’Statutes that potentially punish innocent conduct violate due process principles because they are not reasonably designed to achieve their purposes.’”
Justice Robert Carter dissented, disagreeing that the state law is facially unconstitutional.
“By keeping sex offenders who have committed sex offenses against children away from areas where children are present, the legislature could have rationally sought to avoid giving those sex offenders an opportunity to reoffend,” he wrote. “Whether the statute could be more finely-tuned to accomplish that goal is a question for the legislature, not for the courts.”
In December, a federal judge in Indiana struck down part of a similar city ordinance that prohibited sex offenders from loitering near parks, schools and other places children most commonly frequent, calling the ordinance “unconstitutionally vague.” ..Source.. by MARCIE SHIELDS
February 10, 2017
522 ‘johns’, 30 pimps arrested in Super Bowl sex trafficking sting
23 law enforcement agencies in 14 states took part in the crackdown
COOK COUNTY, IL (WCMH) — A national sex trafficking sting ended in the arrests of 552 would-be sex buyers or sex traffickers.
The National Johns Suppression Initiative began three weeks ago, ending on Super Bowl Sunday. 23 law enforcement agencies in 14 states took part in the crackdown.
“Sex trafficking continues to destroy countless lives, and this broad national movement should send a strong message to prospective johns that their ‘hobby’ is much more than a ‘victimless’ crime,” said Cook County, Illinois Sheriff Thomas J. Dart in a news release. “It’s particularly meaningful that this sting culminated on the day of the Super Bowl, which unfortunately has emerged as a prominent haven for sex trafficking.”
In addition to the arrests, police rescued 73 adult victims from human trafficking and 3 juvenile victims.
In the Houston area alone, where this year’s Super Bowl took place, law enforcement arrested 183 “johns” and 9 sex traffickers. Among those arrested was a Houston city employee who pulled up in a city vehicle, two firefighters, a retired police officer and a man who had his 4-year-old child in the car when he tried to buy sex.
“I’m exceedingly proud to lead the nation in targeting sex buyers and traffickers during this annual initiative,” Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said during a news conference. “Houston was home to Super Bowl LI. As we welcomed the world to our city, we made it clear that there is no place for victimization and sexual exploitation.”
In Seattle, police arrested a john who recently escaped from jail. They also arrested a registered sex offender who tried to convince the undercover detective into working as a prostitute for him.
The participating agencies across the nation have arrested more than 6,500 sex buyers and traffickers since the operations began back in 2011. ..Source.. by NBC4 Staff
December 30, 2016
Facebook stalls in lawsuit alleging its facial recognition tech violates Illinois law
12-30-16 Illinois:
An Illinois law is proving a thorn in Facebook’s side as a class action lawsuit, alleging mishandling of biometric information, moves toward trial. The latest developments in the case have the social network objecting against releasing or even admitting the existence of all manner of data, but the plaintiffs aren’t taking “objection” for an answer.
The case revolves around a 2008 state law known as the Biometric Information Privacy Act. BIPA basically makes it illegal to collect or use biometric data, such as a “scan of hand or face geometry,” without rigorous disclosure of methods, intentions and guarantees regarding that data. The class action suit, filed in mid-2015, alleges that Facebook has knowingly failed to perform this disclosure for its many Illinois users.
Separate suits have been filed against Shutterfly, Snapchat and Google. The Shutterfly suit was settled, and Snapchat’s sent to arbitration. The Google case is technically ongoing, but the company argues that analysis of digital photos doesn’t count as biometric data, nor could an Illinois law prevent a California company from performing such analysis outside Illinois. Facebook has likewise fought the suit, aiming for dismissal under similar arguments.
The clear-headed Judge James Donato determined in May that while proceeding under California law was something users had agreed to, it was unenforceable, as it would amount to “a complete negation” of non-California protections such as those found in BIPA. And as for the idea that a “scan” must take place in person, he called that interpretation “cramped” and noted that the law itself is so worded as to potentially include such “emerging” methods as bulk digital analysis. So the case proceeded, and the parties at odds have fallen to squabbling over the details. ..Continued..
December 22, 2016
Sex Offenders Say Illinois Parole System Is Broken
See also: IL: Class Action – Supervised release policies unjustly effectively keep sex offenders in prison ‘for life’12-22-2016 Illinois:
CHICAGO (CN) – More than 4,000 sex offenders in Illinois face effective life sentences despite a court granting them parole because of restrictions on where they can live, seven men claim in a federal class action.
Due to state regulations that severely limit where sex offenders can live, Stanley Meyer has served the past five and a half years of his parole behind bars and is unable to qualify for release, according to a complaint filed Monday in Chicago federal court.
The trouble begins with the courts’ interpretation of the sentencing law, which permits parole terms from three years to life at a court’s discretion.
Rather than setting determinate parole periods within that timeframe, however, state courts routinely sentence sex offenders to indeterminate parole, the complaint states.
When a sex offender serves that time outside prison, he earns credit towards termination of his parole.
But when the offender is not able to leave prison because he cannot legally live in any of his proposed “host sites,” he can never earn termination of his parole, effectively sentencing him to life in prison, according to the lawsuit.
For several of the plaintiffs, the only option for housing would be a halfway house or homeless shelter, none of which accept registered sex offenders in Illinois, they claim. They are unable to earn money to secure other housing because they are in prison.
Several other plaintiffs have family that is willing to take them in, but these proposals have been blocked by the Illinois Department of Corrections for a host of reasons.
Sex offenders cannot live in a house with a computer or smart phone, for example, or in varying distances from schools, daycare centers and public parks, of which there are thousands in Illinois.
Even if the offender passes all these tests, the department can and does deny housing plans for “any reason they see fit,” the complaint states.
“The challenged scheme results in what amounts to a Kafkaesque nightmare whereby these individuals are denied any semblance of proportionality in their prison sentences and due process of law,” the lawsuit says.
Life sentences not handed down by a judge are a civil rights violation, claim the plaintiffs, who were only sentenced for a handful of years for various sex offenses including child pornography and sexual assault.
Further, the right to release for parole is established under state law, they claim.
The plaintiffs – Meyer, Paul Murphy, J.D. Lindemeier, Keenon Smith, Jasen Gustafsen, Alfred Aukema and Kevin Tucek – seek class certification on their claims, which include violations of due process, equal protection and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
They want to represent about 4,000 Illinois prisoners who have been sentenced to indeterminate parole sentences for sex offenses, plus any who would face this punishment in the future.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Kendall is presiding over the case.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and John Baldwin, director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, are the defendants. Their media representatives did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment sent late Wednesday evening.
Civil rights lawyer Adele Nicholas, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview Wednesday that she expects the state to contest the claims “vigorously.”
Because the de facto life sentences result from several overlapping laws and jurisdictions, Nicholas said she expects an argument that it’s neither Madigan nor Baldwin’s fault that her clients’ rights are being violated.
As far as damages go for the time the men have spent in prison, Nicholas said this declaratory action will not address that.
“That’s really not our clients’ priority at all,” she said. ..Source.. by MOLLY WILLMS
October 27, 2016
Intelius hit with class action alleging their personal info reports violate Illinois publicity rights law
See also: Illinois Right of Publicity Law by Digital Media Law AND HERE10-27-16 Illinois:
The operators of Intelius, a website offering and selling personal information reports, faces a class action complaint alleging Intelius’ products violates Illinois’ law governing who can control that personal information.
Lake Forest resident Michael R. Siegel filed his complaint in Cook County Circuit Court Oct. 20, targeting Inome Inc.,of Bellevue, Wash., operator of the Intelius.com website. According to the complaint, Intelius sells personal information to the general public and uses people’s names and likenesses for third-party marketing purposes related to its products and services — all without the consent of the people whose information constitutes each report.
In his complaint, Siegel included computer screenshots to show what happens when conducting a Google search for his own name. The Intelius page for “Michael Siegel in Lake Forest, IL” was the first link, and clicking on that link brought up a list of various people named Michael Siegel, along with “approximate age, location and possible known relatives.”
After clicking on his name, Siegel said, Intelius displayed a page with a map containing a marker near his home, partially redacted email addresses and phone numbers, social media network access and alias information. Intelius also offers what information is available to website users who pay for detailed reports, advertising data such as “criminal background, record of bankruptcy proceedings, liens, court judgments, aliases, lawsuits, marriages, divorces, status as a sex offender and other identity information.”
The site doesn’t contact people to verify their information, Siegel said, and the process to correct erroneous records is “laborious.” The absence of content, and the practice of charging for access to the information, and even the advertising of that service, constitutes the privacy violation under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, per the complaint.
The class would include any Illinois resident whose information Intelius used “in connection with the sale, advertising or promotion of Intelius products and services from 2011” to the day the matter is resolved. A defendant class would include any entity in Illinois that “made public use of, or held out the identity” of any Illinoisan in connection with Intelius’ activity.
Spiegel said Intelius’ practice of creating profile pages for people on its website violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act by depriving people of “the right to control and to choose whether and how to use an individual’s entity for commercial purposes.” He also alleged unjust enrichment against Inome and requested an injunction or restraining order preventing Intelius from any further violations.
In addition to class certification, Siegel seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages as well as legal fees.
Representing Siegel and the putative class is attorney Larry D. Drury, of Chicago. ,,Source.. by Scott Holland
October 21, 2016
Illinois Supreme Court upholds sex offender internet law
See also: Supreme Court reverses ruling on sex offender's internet use also: A setback for First Amendment protection for anonymous speech10-21-16 Illinois:
SPRINGFIELD — A ruling by a McLean County judge that the state's sex offender registration mandate is unconstitutional has been reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court.
In a ruling released Thursday, the Supreme Court disagreed with Judge Robert Freitag's July 2015 decision that a requirement that sex offenders report all internet sites they use violates their free speech rights.
Mark Minnis, 23, of Normal is charged with failure to register his home address with local police, missing the deadline by three days in August 2014. As part of his registration requirement, he disclosed two email addresses but did not list a Facebook and eBay account he uses, according to court documents.
Minnis' defense lawyer Stephanie Wong argued to Freitag that the law needs to be "more narrowly tailored" to protect a sex offender's free speech rights.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court decision, finding that the internet disclosure requirement "is tailored to avoid chilling more speech than necessary, or in other words, to lessen the number of unconstitutional applications."
The Supreme Court decision comes in response to an appeal of Freitag's ruling by the state.
In May arguments to the Supreme Court, Assistant Attorney General Joshue Schneider said the disclosure of online identities used by offenders and the forums they visit is needed "to protect the public from recidivist sex offenders."
The internet must be closely monitored by authorities, Schneider said, to make certain offenders are not taking advantage of potential victims.
Online venues "allow people to interact less cautiously," said the state prosecutor, adding that "the risks are magnified in some respects online."
Daaron Kimmell with the Office of State Appellate Defender, countered that free speech rights are lost in the enforcement of the statute that "bars free speech for too many people who present little or no risk." An evaluation of sex offenders, including offenders such as Minnis who were juveniles when the sex crime occurred, could more adequately determine a person's risk to offend again, Kimmell said.
The defense lawyer called Minnis' case "a great demonstration of how this system can go wrong."
Joining the defense with supporting briefs in favor of Freitag's interpretation was the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit group concerned with free speech and privacy in the digital world.
Minnis' case was sent back to the local court for proceedings that were put on hold after Freitag's ruling. ..Source.. by EDITH BRADY-LUNNY Lee News Service Writer
The case is People v. Mark Minnis, No. 119563.
December 3, 2015
Judges: Cellphones, social media help teens commit crime
12-3-15 National, illinois:
Cellphones and social media have made it easier and quicker for teens to commit crimes -- whether they know it or not.
And once you hit "send" on a message or image, you lose control of a situation because the message or image can be saved, shared with a wider audience. And it never, ever "goes away."
Authorities can use texts, social media interactions and images as evidence in cases of sexting, cyberbullying and drug deals.
These were among the points driven home Thursday by Kane County Judges Susan Clancy Boles and Clint Hull during a presentation to seventh- and eighth-graders at Thompson Middle School in St. Charles.
"If you're involved in that activity, your young age is not going to protect you," said Boles, who is Kane's chief judge. "The communications that you think are private are not private."
In past years, Boles and Hull made presentations to local middle schools about the perils of using alcohol and drugs -- and how that plays out in their courtrooms.
But Pat Stacey, the Learning Resources Center coordinator at Thompson, urged the judges last year to talk to the students about sexting, harassment, bullying and other crimes students are committing with their cellphones. Thursday was the second year presenting at Thompson.
"She saw this as a more pressing issue than alcohol and/or drug use," Hull said. "We agreed, as we are seeing more and more cases that involve the use of cellphones in our courtrooms."
Hull and Boles broke down the ramifications of sending another person what could be construed as a simple, yet sexy, selfie. They showed examples, nationally, of how the lives of good teens could be ruined by just one poor decision. One example is receiving a picture of a person 18 or younger and later sharing it with others via text or social media.
Simply passing it along, or even saving it to a phone, can be charged as distribution of child pornography or possession of it, both felonies that can have a person branded as a sex offender if convicted, the judges said. The same can be said for texting someone a threat, or letting another person use your phone to do it.
Hull also noted that it is the policy of St. Charles Unit School District 303 to allow administrators to ask for social media account passwords from students and their parents if authorities have probable cause to investigate a potential crime.
Hull said law enforcement is one step ahead of the populace to resurrect and recover messages and images that supposedly were deleted.
"Even if it's outside of school, they can get those passwords and investigate," Hull said. "It's not an excuse to say, 'I didn't send it.' You're responsible just as if you've done that text. You lose control once you send that photograph. When you're in front of us (in court), it's too late. It doesn't matter how many tears you shed."
Boles said many juveniles convicted of cellphone crimes get probation and a heavy dose of community service; judges are more interested in preventing such behavior.
The judges want to refine their presentation and give it at other schools in the Fox Valley area. They also hope the Illinois Judges Association will adopt it as a program for other judges to reach out to students.
"We think it's powerful enough and important enough to do that," Boles said. ..Source.. by Harry Hitzeman
November 18, 2015
Appeals court orders Cook County sheriff to cease campaign against Backpage
CHICAGO — A federal appeals court has ordered the Cook County Sheriff’s Department to cease lobbying major credit card companies that do business with the online classified portal Backpage.com.
The sheriff’s department of the second-largest county in the U.S. was sued by Backpage in July after it successfully pressed Visa and MasterCard to stop processing credit card transactions for Backpage, which Dart and other lawmakers have complained has exacerbated the problem of sex trafficking of women and minors.
Both credit companies announced they would cease doing business with Backpage shortly after Dart wrote to the company’s top executives calling on them to cease processing transactions for the website’s adult services section. Law enforcement officials have complained for years that the adult services ads on Backpage have given pimps the ability to easily advertise and set up dates with johns.
After receiving Dart's letter, the credit companies decided to cut off all business with Backpage, which also publishes listings from people looking to advertise jobs, apartment rentals and other advertising. (American Express decided earlier this year to end processing transactions for Backpage before Dart started his campaign.)
Attorneys for Backpage say the campaign by Dart has had enormous impact on the Dallas-based company’s bottom line and also violated their First Amendment protections.
U.S. District Court Judge John Tharp in August denied Backpage’s request for an injunction against Dart, while the case is litigated. Tharp concluded that because the sheriff had no authority over the credit card companies that his letter demanding that the credit card companies curtail business with Backpage did not amount to censorship.
But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late Monday that Dart went too far and ordered the department to cease “taking any actions to formally or informally request, direct, persuade, coerce, or threaten credit card companies, processors, financial institutions, or any other third parties to discontinue, terminate, disallow or interfere with credit card or other financial services to Backpage.com” as the lawsuit moves forward.
At a hearing on Friday, Judge Richard Posner expressed unease with the notion, presented by the sheriff department attorneys, that Dart’s First Amendment rights protected his individual right to express his displeasure with Backpage to the credit card companies. Backpage attorneys say that the letters to the credit card companies, written on the sheriff department's letterhead, amounted to cease-and-desist orders.
“He can use the office of the sheriff to express any antipathy that he has to anything?” Posner posed to the sheriff’ department attorneys. “So you’re saying there is no limit? He can express his opinion on his office stationery on any subject that occurs to him. What if he doesn’t like pets? He doesn’t think people should have animals in their house. He can suggest to everyone they euthanize their pets?”
Dart was also directed by the appeals court to send a copy of the order to Visa and Mastercard and all other recipients of the June 29 letter within 24 hours. The sheriff’s department on Tuesday morning began contacting the credit card companies — as well as media outlets — and other organizations that they had distributed Dart’s letter to.
“We are disappointed with the court’s ruling,” said sheriff’s department spokesman Benjamin Breit, who declined further comment citing the pending litigation.
Officials at Visa and MasterCard did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday. The injunction only calls on the sheriff’s department to cease its activity and does not call for the credit card companies to take any action.
Backpage accounts for about 70% of prostitution advertising among five websites in the U.S. that carry such ads and earned more than $22 million from prostitution ads, according to a 2012 estimate by AIM group, a media research and consulting company.
The Cook County Sheriff’s Department says it has made more than 800 arrests since 2009 connected to Backpage adult services ads. Fifty of the arrests were for sex trafficking, involuntary servitude or promoting prostitution.
A federal judge in Boston threw out a lawsuit against Backpage earlier this year that alleged the website was designed to facilitate sex trafficking. Judge Richard Stearns ultimately agreed with the company’s argument that under federal law Web service companies are immune to crimes by users. ..Source.. by Aamer Madhani
August 26, 2015
Illinois Top Court Rules Online Commenter Identity Must be Revealed
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that Internet service provider Comcast must reveal the identity of an online anonymous commenter who implied a county board candidate was a child molester and had attempted suicide.
The Freeport Journal Standard published an online article about Bill Hadley running as a candidate for the county board of Stephenson County, Illinois. An online commenter using the name “Fuboy” posted the comments; “Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed. Check out the view he has of Empire [elementary school] from his front door” and “Anybody know the tale of Hadley’s suicide attempt?…”
Defamation action filed
When Hadley filed a lawsuit against the parent company of the Freeport Journal Standard, Gatehouse Media, the case was dismissed. Hadley then filed a defamation action against Comcast Internet subscriber Doe a/k/a “Fuboy.”
Hadley claimed the “Sandusky waiting to be exposed” comment, which referred to Penn State Football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was convicted of sexually abusing numerous boys, was defamatory per se because it “imputed the commission of a crime to Hadley.”
Hadley also issued a subpoena and filed a motion for entry of an order directing Comcast to turn over records and information concerning the IP address associated with “Fuboy.”
Hadley later amended his complaint to reflect the circuit court’s instruction that Illinois Rule 224 that provides a means to identify potential defendants prior to the commencement of a suit, would be the more appropriate procedure to follow.
The circuit court found that the “Sandusky” comment imputed the commission of a crime to Hadley, that it was not capable of innocent construction, and was not considered an opinion making it per se defamatory.
The court also ordered Comcast to provide identification and the last known address of “Fuboy” but stayed its order pending the appeal process. The appeals court affirmed the circuit court decision.
Suing a defendant using an alias
“Fuboy” appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, asserting that Hadley had missed the one-year statute of limitations for defamation because his original lawsuit filed was against a fictitious name for a defendant, having no legal effect. Fuboy claimed the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint that would be legally invalid, causing this action to be barred by the statute of limitations.
The court disagreed, writing that there is a “significant difference…between a plaintiff suing an unknown John Doe and a plaintiff suing a known defendant using an alias adopted of the defendant’s own volition. The court found that Hadley filed suit against an alias used for the defendant, and as valid and within the statute of limitations.
Fuboy also argued that Hadley’s lawsuit should be dismissed, as the Illinois rule required Hadley to file a Rule 224 petition as an independent action to identify defendants before commencing the separate defamation lawsuit.
The court agreed that the circuit court instructed Hadley to pursue the Rule 224 petition in an inappropriate manner after he had already filed his defamation lawsuit, but that “dismissal of Hadley’s defamation suit would be too harsh a sanction” for the incorrect order of filing.
Implied the commission of a crime
Finally, Fuboy claimed Hadley did not sufficiently meet all the defamation claim requirements, asserting that using or having the last name “Sandusky” is not a crime, and a defamatory meaning would not be discerned from the name without the use of extrinsic facts.
The court sided with Hadley, ruling that the comment, considered in context with the timing of national events surrounding the Sandusky sexual abuse scandal, implied the commission of a crime and conveyed that Hadley was a child molester, living across from an elementary school.
The court found that Hadley had established a cause of action for defamation and affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, allowing Hadley to proceed with his defamation action and requiring Comcast to reveal the identity of Fuboy.
The case is Hadley v. Doe, case number 2015 IL 118000, Illinois Supreme Court. ..Source.. The National Trial Lawyers
August 8, 2015
Elgin resident to be featured in TLC documentary on child sex abuse
Erin Merryn has encouraged schools to educate students on child sexual abuse for more than five years, and now she'll be featured in a TLC documentary on the topic set to air Aug. 31.
"It's definitely something moms and dads need to sit down and watch after putting the kids to bed," Merryn, an Elgin resident, said of the television show. "And extra points go to parents who then have a conversation on sexual assault with their kids."
While Merryn, who was sexually assaulted as a child, will be the documentary's main focus, several additional survivors of childhood sexual assault will speak about their experiences.
Merryn says TLC approached her in June after news broke that Josh Duggar, of the TLC show "19 Kids and Counting," had inappropriately touched his sisters when they were younger.
Before the news broke, Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar had encountered Merryn at an Arkansas speaking and book signing event and asked her to speak to their kids about child sexual assault.
Merryn says she spoke to nine of the Duggar kids in their living room regarding the importance of speaking up about sexual assault.
"I knew nothing about the family's secret then," Merryn said.
TLC reached out to Merryn after learning about her connection with the Duggars.
"Next thing I knew, I had 23 people in my house, and it was flipped upside down with camera equipment," Merryn said.
Merryn has traveled across the country asking states to adopt Erin's Law. Illinois adopted the law, which requires schools to teach students about sexual abuse, in 2013.
The goal, she says, is to to let people know sexual assault is something that should be reported.
"I've heard so many times when kids from the suburbs have come forward because of Erin's law," Merryn said.
Her law can only be adopted at the state level, Merryn explains, because states, not the federal government, set curriculum.
S.1665 - Child Sexual Abuse Awareness and Prevention Act introduced 6-24-15."The biggest hurdle right now is this is an unfunded mandate," Merryn says of Erin's Law. That means right now, the 26 states that have passed Erin's Law and do provide child sex abuse education require their schools to do so without any funding from the state.
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Press Release: "Gillibrand, Heller & Feinstein Introduce New Bipartisan Legislation To Help Protect Children From Sexual Abuse
The Child Sexual Abuse Awareness and Prevention Act Would Help Fund ‘Erin’s Law” Programs: Age-Appropriate Lessons for Students, Information for Parents and Guardians on Recognizing and Reporting Sexual Abuse in States Across Country" ...Continued...
(Note the Senators Press Release quotes: A 2014 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that 1 in 9 girls and 1 in 53 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault at the hands of an adult. The same study found that the total estimate of child sexual abuse was 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 20 boys; this estimate includes sexual abuse at the hands of juvenile perpetrators)
"With this funding, schools don't have to worry about how they'll pay to educate kids using Erin's Law," Merryn said.
The proposal was introduced in the Senate June 24, and was assigned to a health and education committee.
Merryn says this is the first time this part of her initiative has been introduced at the national level. ..Source.. by Erin Hegarty
July 15, 2015
Court: New trial for inmate in death of wife's sex client
An appeals court has overturned a murder conviction for a northern Illinois man accused of placing an online ad for sex with his pregnant wife and then shooting her customer at the couple's home.
The Chicago Tribune reports the Tuesday ruling means 30-year-old Timothy S. Smith is entitled to a new trial. The appeals court said the McHenry County trial judge should have let jurors consider convicting him of involuntary manslaughter in lieu of first-degree murder in the 2011 death of a 48-year-old man.
Smith's wife testified at trial that she didn't want to go through with the arrangement. The man grabbed and slapped her, and Smith came out of hiding and shot him.
Smith told police he was trying to scare the man and didn't purposely shoot him.
Prosecutors can appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. ..Source.. by bnd.com
July 10, 2015
Judge: Sex offender requirement is unconstitutional
BLOOMINGTON — A requirement that Illinois sex offenders report all Internet sites they use to police is unconstitutional because it violates the offenders’ free speech rights, according to a ruling by a McLean County judge.
Judge Robert Freitag agreed with arguments from the defense lawyer for Mark Minnis, 22, of Normal, that state law is overly broad in its mandate that all e-mail addresses and sites a sex offender uses or plans to use, including Facebook, must be registered with police.
Minnis was charged with failure to register the address of his residence after he missed his annual registration deadline by three days in August. As part of that requirement, he disclosed two e-mail addresses, but did not list a Facebook and Ebay account he uses, according to court records.
States’s Attorney Jason Chambers said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office plans to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to review the decision. The high court's ruling will impact all future Illinois cases on the First Amendment issue in sex offender cases.
Defense lawyer Stephanie Wong said Thursday the Internet portion of the law “is not well-written and provides no guidance as to what the requirements are. The statute has to be more narrowly tailored.”
According to Wong, no other court decisions have been issued on the free speech aspect of the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act. In Wong’s opinion, the opinion issued Tuesday by Freitag bars authorities from enforcing the Internet requirement at this point.
In his order, Freitag cited a federal court decision challenging a similar mandate in Nebraska (Doe v Nebraska - only the Internet portion of the Doe ruling). The court there said ordering a sex offender to report all access to Internet sites “clearly chills offenders from engaging in expressive activity that is otherwise perfectly proper, and the statute is therefore insufficiently narrow.”
Freitag noted that he is not bound to follow the federal opinion, but found the reasoning in the case “to be persuasive and sound.”
Chambers said his office “takes sex offender cases very seriously.”
The conditions imposed on sex offenders living in the community “are not meant as a penalty, but for the safety of those living around them,” he said.
The rules related to Internet access are one of many requirements for Illinois sex offenders. Restrictions on where offenders can live, work and visit puts them at risk for criminal charges and incarceration if not strictly followed. ..Source.. by Edith Brady-Lunny
June 8, 2015
Appellate Court Confirms that Convicted Felon Cannot Run for School Board Seat
On May 13, 2015, the Illinois Appellate Court’s First District held that the former Board President of an Illinois high school district’s Board of Education was ineligible to fill a vacancy on the board following his previous removal from office. The court’s ruling in Williams v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board affirmed that a conviction for an infamous crime will disqualify a candidate from holding a position on a Board of Education.
In April 2009, Kenneth Williams was elected to the Thornton Township High District 205 Board of Education. He subsequently was reelected in April 2012, attaining the position of Board President. In 2014, the Illinois Appellate Court First District removed Mr. Williams from office, holding that a 1985 felony conviction in Indiana for forgery made him statutorily ineligible to hold the position of school board member under the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq.) and the School Code (105 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq.).
Under the School Code, a person is eligible to serve as an elected member of a board of education if he or she: (1) is a United States citizen; (2) is over the age of 18; (3) has been a resident in the district for at least one year immediately preceding the election; (4) is a registered voter; (5) is not a trustee; and (6) is not a child sex offender as defined by the Illinois Criminal Code of 2012. Additionally, under both the School Code and the Election Code, a school board office becomes vacant upon a conviction of an infamous crime.
In the 2014 decision, the Appellate Court found that Mr. Williams’ crime was infamous, based on past iterations of the Illinois Criminal Code and case law interpretations. The court accordingly found that Mr. Williams was ineligible to hold the office and that the statutes in question did not violate his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because the legislature had a rational basis for excluding felons convicted of infamous crimes from the legislatively-created office of school board member. As the Court stated in the 2014 opinion, “[w]hen read in their entirety, the provisions of the Election Code and School Code at issue establish an intent by the legislature to prevent individuals convicted of infamous crimes from holding offices of honor, trust and profit without an official pardon or restoration of rights.” Alvarez v. Williams, 2014 Ill. App. 133443 at ¶ 10 (December 10, 2014).
Mr. Williams filed the second lawsuit appealing a decision by the Cook County Officers Electoral Board to remove his name from the ballot for the April 2015 election. In the second lawsuit, Mr. Williams claimed, on a number of grounds, that he was statutorily qualified to seek and hold public office and that he was improperly removed from the ballot prior to the election. The Appellate Court again affirmed that Mr. Williams is statutorily ineligible to hold office and that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because there is a rational basis for the eligibility requirements for the office of school board member.
Additionally, the Court dismissed Mr. Williams’ argument that he was prematurely removed from the ballot. Mr. Williams had argued that he still had time to seek a pardon prior to the election but the Court held that a candidate must be eligible to seek an office at the time his nomination papers are filed. The Court also found that Mr. Williams’ Indiana expungement of his felony conviction did not have the legal effect of a pardon from the Governor of Illinois. Finally, the Court rejected Mr. Williams’ arguments alleging the Electoral Board exceeded its authority during the review process.
The Court’s ruling, along with its previous ruling removing Mr. Williams from office, confirms the Illinois General Assembly’s clear intent to prohibit those convicted of infamous crimes from ever holding an office, like school board, that directly concerns the education and care of children. ..Source.. by Nicki Bazer, | Franczek Radelet P.C.
June 7, 2015
Return of sex offender from Ohio costs county $11,000
BLOOMINGTON — A stop in Bloomington to cash a check following his release from prison cost James Grimm six months in jail and McLean County taxpayers almost $11,000.
The arrest of the 76-year-old resident of an Ohio nursing home and his return to McLean County for lengthy criminal proceedings was not necessary or cost effective, said McLean County Public Defender Carla Barnes.
"He had no intention of staying here. He was plucked out of a nursing home and spent 180 days in jail. The Sex Offender Registration Act is not meant for people like this," said Barnes, whose office represented Grimm.
Grimm left the Department of Corrections on June 13, 2014, having completed a nine-year sentence for predatory criminal sexual assault in a 2002 McLean County case. Grimm, like an estimated 1,500 other sex offenders in Illinois prisons, also completed about three years of parole in prison because he lacked an approved residence when his term was served.
Homeless, Grimm signed an IDOC form that said he would register as a sex offender three days after his release.
Grimm got off a train June 14 in Bloomington and met a friend who agreed to help him cash a $855 check from his prison commissary account. After the check was cashed that day, Grimm tried to secure a bus ticket to Cleveland, Ohio.
"The bus company said I was too old to get on the bus, said I wouldn't be able to handle the trip," said the 76-year-old who battles leukemia.
So, Grimm boarded an Amtrak train on June 18 bound for Cleveland where he stayed at a shelter before being hospitalized and moving into a nursing home.
According to Grimm, he completed sex offender registration shortly after he arrived in Ohio.
The day after Grimm left Illinois, Bloomington police received a tip that Grimm had been in the city. BPD officer Shawn Albert started an investigation to find Grimm. Two months later, Albert checked a possible address in Ohio for Grimm and noted that he was not on the offender registration list.
Albert recommended Grimm be arrested for violation of Illinois' sex offender registration rules.
According to McLean County Assistant State's Attorney David Spence, the lack of verification of an Ohio registration was the impetus for the McLean County warrant.
"It took the trip back here to unravel this whole thing. The state of Illinois had an obligation to track him," said Spence.
About four months after he left Bloomington, and after Grimm had moved to a new nursing and had reported his new address to Cleveland police, he was arrested.
"They put the cuffs on me and said, 'Illinois wants you," said Grimm, who never faced charges in Ohio for a registration violation.
A van from Prisoner Transport Services took Grimm and several other inmates through five states, picking up and dropping off prisoners before arriving in Bloomington on Nov. 13.
"I was never so happy to see a county jail," said Grimm.
Plea negotiations on the registration charges included an offer of two years' probation, something the critically ill inmate turned down. "That would mean living in a tent city and I knew I couldn't do that," said Grimm.
The threat of a return to IDOC for three years was a better option than living on the streets, he said.
In the end, Grimm was sentenced in April to conditional discharge and allowed to return to Cleveland.
Grimm said he received good medical care at the McLean County jail. With the $1,437 in medical costs added to the $336 transport fee and $9,150 in detention costs, taxpayers paid almost $11,000 to prosecute the elderly sex offender.
"It's been one miserable experience," said Grimm.
Barnes said she is pleased that an agreement was reached with the state to return Grimm to Ohio.
"We wanted to do what was in the state's best interest and his," said Spence. ..Source.. by Edith Brady-Lunny
March 15, 2015
Porn and the patrol car—one cop’s 2 hour-a-day habit
"Taxpayers... do not pay you to watch pornographic images."
Pornography, though prevalent in the modern world, still isn't the sort of thing one expects to see while waiting in traffic behind a cop car. That's especially true at the busiest downtown intersection of a wealthy Chicago suburb like Wheaton, Illinois, best known for being the home of an evangelical Christian college once attended by Billy Graham.
But pornography is exactly what an irate Wheaton resident named Robin said he witnessed. On the morning of September 18, 2013, while sitting in his conversion van and waiting for a stoplight to change, Robin found himself directly behind Wheaton Police squad car 359. The height of his seat gave him a perfect view through the rear windshield of the squad car, and he could see the car's mobile data computer displaying "scrolling pictures of completely naked women."
The light turned green, the cop turned onto Main Street, and Robin drove home to fume for more than a week. He refused to report the incident because he didn't believe the police would actually investigate one of their own, but on September 27, after urging from his wife, he fired off an e-mail to Wheaton Mayor Mike Gresk. (Ars Technica acquired all relevant documents about the case from the city and the police department through a public records request.)
"Dear Mayor Gresk," it began, "I was trying to forget about this, but haven't been able to forget waiting behind a Wheaton Police car at the corner of Main and Front a few days ago and watching the 'officer' watching porn on his laptop. Very revealing. It certainly inspires me to pay my taxes for servants like this..."
On September 30, a City Hall employee forwarded the message to Wheaton's police chief, Mark Field, and an internal investigation began the next morning. Lieutenant Robert Miller of the Patrol Division took an official complaint from the angry resident and then began pulling records to see if the story held up. According to the duty roster, the day watch occupant of squad car 359 at the time of the complaint was Officer Thomas Sommerfield, an $87,000-a-year patrolman with more than 20 years of police experience.
Would a veteran officer like Sommerfield really have pornography showing on his squad car's laptop as he drove around town? A simple search would show whether Robin's story had its details right. Each city-owned police car comes equipped with an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system that uses GPS to log and report the car's location at all times.
Miller pulled the AVL records for squad car 359 and scrolled to the time and date of the complaint. Bam—on September 18 at 9:37am, squad car 359 was at GPS coordinates 41.86488 -88.1068, the corner of Main and Front streets in downtown Wheaton. The squad car had stopped there for three minutes before turning onto Main Street, exactly as the complaint had alleged.
Sommerfield was at that moment on patrol in car 359, his usual vehicle. Contacted by radio, he was asked to take his car out of service when he ended his shift at 3:00pm. The vehicle was secured in a parking lot at the Public Works department overnight.
The following morning, October 2, Miller sent Sergeant William Murphy over to Public Works to pull the car's onboard computer and its Verizon wireless data card. The devices were then placed in evidence locker #41 at the police department. ..Continued.. by Nate Anderson
March 4, 2015
Undersheriff: 'They're really not criminals; they're mental health patients'
Addressing the Lake County Board's Law and Judicial Committee on Tuesday, Lake County Undersheriff Ray Rose described a pattern of recidivism that can form when an individual with mental-health issues ends up being arrested.
"They go through this classification and recognition that there's some treatment needed, and medication is given to them to stabilize them while they are in the jail," Rose told the committee. "Once they leave, we try to get them on affordable care and give them documentation and help them fill it out, but then they leave and if they don't want to follow up on – or if they can't follow up on it – then that's where it drops off again.
"If we don't make sure that treatment and that medication continues, that's why this cycle keeps going around and around and around," Rose added, saying "they're really not criminals; they're mental health patients. So how should we be counting them, and how should we be treating them? Those are the questions that we have to find solutions for."
Committee members listened to more than an hour of discussions about mental-health issues and their impact on the judicial system as agencies from both the public and private sector embark on the Lake County Behavioral Health Treatment Court Collaborative.
Funded by a four-year federal grant, the effort was described by Steve Fabbri, the county's assistant director of adult probation services, as an attempt to recognize that "going through a county jail can be traumatizing" for someone with mental illness.
"Evidence is showing us that the majority of people who come through the criminal-justice system – especially through jail – have sustained some sort of trauma, usually in their childhood, whether it's physical abuse, sexual abuse or what have you," Fabbri said. "We're not saying you have to turn the whole system on its head. But maybe we can change some of our culture, a little bit about the way we treat these people, both in environments like jail and the courtroom and in interaction." ..Continued.. by Dan Moran
January 13, 2015
U.S. Appeals court slams handling of supervised release, reverses four sentences
A ban on “excessive” drinking that doesn’t define what excessive is.
A lifetime prohibition on a man being in contact with anyone under the age of 18 — even his own children — without the approval of a probation officer.
And an order to get his GED or go back to prison — even if he’s too dumb to pass the tests.
These were just three of a litany of improper conditions of supervised release imposed by federal judges in Illinois on convicts who’ve completed their prison sentences, according to a U.S. Appeals Court ruling issued Tuesday.
Ordering defendants in four otherwise unrelated cases to be resentenced to correct mistakes in how the conditions of their supervised release were determined, the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals says confusingly drafted laws are to blame for “inevitable” errors.
Unlike parole, which rewards prisoners who behave well behind bars with early release, supervised release is tacked onto the end of most federal prison terms as an additional punishment and attempt to keep convicts on the straight and narrow.
But Appellate Court Judge Richard Posner wrote in Tuesday’s 24-page ruling that it is often treated as an afterthought. In many cases ”district judges simply list the conditions that they impose, devoting little or no time at sentencing to explaining them or justifying their imposition,” Posner wrote.
Defendants and their lawyers are typically more worried about prison time and rarely fight over the terms of their supervised release when they are sentenced, Posner wrote.
And judges often include so many restrictions that it’s hard to keep track of them all, he added. Studies show around a third of defendants violate their supervised release, resulting in an average additional sentence of 11 months behind bars.
The ruling means judges in Chicago and Springfield will have to resentence four defendants: sex offender David M. Thompson, who is serving a 17-year sentence for child pornography; bank robber Derek Ortiz, who’s serving an 11 year sentence for three heists; crack cocaine dealer Charles Bates, who’s serving a 15-year sentence, and Domingo Blount, serving a 25-year sentence for dealing heroin.
Thompson’s supervised release, imposed by U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan, includes a lifetime ban on contact with anyone under the age of 18 without the approval of a probation officer — a ban Posner noted would include Thompson’s own children and said went too far.
The sentence U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly imposed on Ortiz required that he “notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant’s criminal record or personal history or characteristics,” an unnecessarily vague restriction that also goes too far, Posner ruled.
In Bates’ case, U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle “sprang” the terms of his supervised list on him without fair warning or explanation, Posner wrote.
And in Blount’s case, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman imposed a lifelong requirement that Blount do 20 hours a week of community service following his release, and that he obtain his GED. Posner wrote, “There is no means of ‘requiring’ that a person pass the GED tests, unless cheating is permitted.”
He added, “This is an example of an improper condition of supervised release that could be fixed by changing a single word and would have been years ago if the Sentencing Commission, the probation services, and the judiciary paid closer attention to the precise scope and wording of conditions of supervised release.”
Resentencing dates for all four men have yet to be set. ..Source.. by Kim Janssen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
