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
Showing posts with label Lawsuit - IL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuit - IL. Show all posts
February 21, 2017
Prison sentences served, but Illinois sex offenders stay locked up
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
