WHAT DO YOU THINK: Recent Congressional Hearing on the Adam Walsh Act

3-17-2011 Washington DC:

A new series from eAdvocate. What do you think?

Recently the US House, Judiciary Committee, held a hearing with respect to the Adam Walsh Act: See “The Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act”

The hearing was chaired by Rep. Sensenbrenner, and I think everyone noticed that Rep Sensenbrenner cut Panel members off when they presented their personal opening remarks; Sensenbrenner saying "Your time is up" and claiming a 5-minute time limit.

To me it was very important to hear what Panel Members had to say, and cutting them off claiming a 5-minute time limit bothered me. So I looked up the House rules to see what they had to say. Here it is:

Calling and questioning of witnesses

(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing until such time as each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness.

(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting a specified number of its members to question a witness for longer than five minutes. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.

(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting committee staff for its majority and minority party members to question a witness for equal specified periods. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.

Nowhere in the House Rules is there any other 5-minute rule, except this rule on "Questioning Witnesses" and Panel Members OPENING STATEMENTS is not questioning witnesses.

Folks may remember that, it was Rep. Sensenbrenner who got the Adam Walsh Act pushed through Congress using or misusing "Suspension of the Rules" which IS NOT supposed to be used except for noncontroversial topics, certainly sex offenders nationally WAS and STILL IS a very controversial topic, else why is Rep Sensenbrenner trying to AGAIN push the Adam Walsh Act.

While it is clear Rep. Sensenbrenner is a master at the Rules, here I feel he incorrectly applied the rule which stopped Panel Members from introducing very valuable input, especially that which Rep. Bobby Scott had to say.

Is it time for folks to start addressing issues like this with DC Representatives and Senators?

I think so!

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

---

Just a note to readers regarding points related to hearings in general:

Hearing procedures

(k)(1) The chair at a hearing shall announce in an opening statement the subject of the hearing.

(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall be made available to each witness on request.

(3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights.

(4) The chair may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the committee may cite the offender to the House for contempt.

(5) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness---

(A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session if, in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, the committee determines by vote of a majority of those present that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and

(B) the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the committee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.

In either case the committee shall afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness, and receive and dispose of requests from such person to subpoena additional witnesses.

(6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chair shall receive and the committee shall dispose of requests to subpoena additional witnesses.

(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and proceedings conducted in executive session, may be released or used in public sessions only when authorized by the committee, a majority being present.

(8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.

(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of the testimony of such witness given at a public session or, if given at an executive session, when authorized by the committee.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

What do you think: Sex Offender Registry Purpose, Information and Access

3-7-2011 National:

A new series from eAdvocate. What do you think?

The purpose of a sex offender registry:

Sex Offender notification laws provide information to the public, so citizens themselves can check sex offenders’ whereabouts and take preventative measures to protect themselves from sexual attack. Accordingly, notification is meant to encourage the public’s participation in their own safety by allowing them to access information so that they can visually identify sex offenders in the community, know where offenders reside, and monitor their activities in the community. (Sample 2008)

Starting there that means, the public is accessing the registry, and, hopefully, doing as mentioned with the information obtained from the registry. Further, based on how the registry is accessed, one or more registrant names are provided to the person performing the search. Keep that in mind, we'll come back to that.

Now, who in the community is entitled to registrant information, for the purpose of protecting etc., themselves? Everyone! That means that registrants have an equal right to the information, so that, they too can protect etc., themselves from other registrants, and? I doubt anyone would not see the equal protection under the laws, in that proposition.

Note: In California registrants are prohibited from accessing the registry. And they can wind up with a new charge if they do.

Question: Why are registrants -nationally- denied the same information given to members of the public?

You say what information? Yes, registrants do not receive access and the same information as do members of the public (Lawmakers belief, anyone on the registry might be a threat to anyone in society, hence the public gets registrants' information by accessing the registry.

But, for a registrant, the person most likely to assault them, is, someone who has already accessed that registrant's information.

Proof: Do folks remember those registrants who were killed answering their door by someone who targeted them, using the registry to find their addresses? And also the known vigilantes who used the registry to find registrant victims? A sampling f the worst:

Murderers: Stephen Marshall .. Michael Mullen .. Patrick Drum

Vigilantes: Donald Keegan .. Lawrence Trant .. Steven Banister .. Travis Martin Cody ..

Think carefully, registrants are denied access to those names (& addresses) of people in the community who previously accessed that registrant's information (most likely may pose a threat to the registrant or registrant's family). This is clearly a constitutional question (equal access).

Resolution: The Government (State and Federal) should keep track of every access to registry information, and who performed the access, why, and relevant information to identify that person!

This is not done, shows how little the government thinks of registrant lives! Also that trace information would be very helpful in cases of registrant harm..

Consider: For the general public access to registrant information is permitted, for as little as idol curiosity (Sample 2008), therefore, registrant's should have equal access to people who accessed their records.

Registrant Harm: The government definition of harm would likely be, physical harm to the registrant, but in reality registrants are harmed in many more ways than physical, and families of registrants also suffer harm in many ways. How often do we hear of someone in the general public, claiming a registrant is likely to harm based on where s/he may be at a specific moment. Registrants should be able to claim the same (i.e., protests outside a registrant's home, threatens the registrant and anyone lving with them, or in the same building). There are all sorts of perceived harm in circumstances.

Information Available to Registrants: If the public is required to signin, so to speak (as mentioned above) to get information, then so should registrants. Equal application of the laws.

There is no doubt things are about to get technical and for good reasons. For instant, registrants surely would want the name and address of anyone who specifically accessed a registrants record. And, what about that person's place of employment, where they go to school -if they do-, their license plate number, in essence the same type of information the general public receives on the registrant? Isn't that what equal application of the laws mean?

Above would also include, access by businesses, employers, financial, medical, and any other type of organization or business that registrants may use in their daily lives, and includes idol curiosity searches as well. Any of these may use registrant information negatively or improperly resulting in harm to the registrant or his/her immediate family.

Now, what about general searches by the public, say for, all registrants in a one-two-etc mile radius of a specific address, or by zip code, or county etc., or by SmartPhones (i.e., Apps installed on SmartPhones). Maybe registrants should not know specific information about these folks, but know, generally that a IP address performed such a search and the time performed, or something similar; limited information in some way, with ability to print it out.

Costs to Make These Changes: Lets say this, the public has wanted this system to protect itself, from perceived dangers, false and otherwise, and public funding has been used to setup the entire system, and it has sucked everyone dry for over 10 years now.

Therefore, equal application of the law says, registrants should not be charged to have access public records of those who may harm registrants, and those where 95% of new sex offenses come from, the general public.

The definition of Public Safety includes all who are in the community, including registrants. Right? Equal application of the laws!

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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...