Comments on: U.S. Marshals Arrest Sex Offender On Federal Charges

By: Polythenepam

Polythenepam — Mon, 02 May 2011 06:53:52 +0000

The National registry says he did register in 1998 ???? Registry mandatory in 2006????? He is listed with a Floirda statue number for a crime in Pennsylvania? Bucks county Penn public records, no mention of sexual assault? “Travelling”???? for work returning home after each job, permanent address in Milton? Several traffic tickets since list his address at Milton?
Just for the record I have run accross this person in my own travels.

Who? What? When? Where?
Too many loose ends here.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:03:55 +0000

REGARDING:
“But if he was overseas for years and came back, and then moved around, how can he be held responsible for something he wasn’t aware of?”

Despite the claim “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” most juries would take it into account. Nonetheless, he’d have to convince a jury he was ignorant of the law. Even if you did, at best he’d just be judicially innocent rather than factually innocent. The only way he would be factually innocent would be if he didn’t change states since before the law went into effect.

And that doesn’t matter, anyway, you claimed the law didn’t apply to him because his crime predated the law, but it doesn’t because his crime is not registering. The case you cited makes that clear.

David considering crime and punishment

By: huh

huh — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:10:29 +0000

But if he was overseas for years and came back, and then moved around, how can he be held responsible for something he wasn’t aware of? Its different if he signs a paper or statement agreeing, but otherwise not. Considering how long ago his offense happened though it must have been a bad one, I would think he would be released by this time if it had been consensual. So maybe thats the reason

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:01:34 +0000

REGARDING:
“Just saying if he did it before the law took effect they how can they hold him accountable?”

It’s an interesting question. But let’s look at the wording of the very case Huh cited:
“ Holding: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, a 2007 law that requires sex offenders to register, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect..”

So they say the law does not apply to TRAVEL which occurred before the Act went into effect. They agreed the law DOES apply to travel which occurred AFTER the Act went into effect in 2007.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1301.pdf

So if the fellow moved across state lines in the past four years, he violated the law for which he was arrested and the US Marshals aren‘t stupid after all.

David considering the law in question

By: JIM W

JIM W — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:01:59 +0000

As much as I dislike a sex offender I think this one will be won by the offender. The law as sited by huh will win it for him. Just saying if he did it before the law took effect they how can they hold him accountable?

By: Kay

Kay — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:18:45 +0000

Just sounds like a good scam to me. He is a convicted sex offender and
then he traveals all over the U.S. and Abroad so he doesn’t ever have
to register. Sorry, It makes me wonder how many others he hurt and
then left those towns and just never got caught. Maybe they never knew
he was even IN TOWN. If the Federal Marshalls still thought this guy
should be picked up, I wonder if they suspect him of more crimes.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:35:46 +0000

looks like 1983 was his crime time, or at least sentence time, so maybe this doesn’t apply, unless he violated some probation or something.

let’s see, he’s 52, it was 27 years ago in Pennsylvanias would have made him 25 at the time.

It just seems unlikely federal marshals and federal judges wouldn’t know the applicable law.

David for non sex offenders

By: huh

huh — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:34:06 +0000

“In Carr v. United States (08-1301), the Court, on a 6-3 vote, reverses and remands in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Scalia concurs in part and in the judgment, but joins most of Justice Sotomayor’s opinion. Justice Alito dissents, joined by Justices Thomas and Ginsburg.

* Holding: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, a 2007 law that requires sex offenders to register, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect.”

By: huh

huh — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:30:13 +0000

He might win this case, if he was punished before the Adam Walsh act went into effect in 2006, then it can be listed as ex post facto. A similar case was won recently regarding this.

How can this man legally be held to something he was not aware of , that was passed far after his punishment was enacted? He needs to lawyer up