Friday, May 29, 2015

MO - My story Failure to register

The following was sent to us via the "Tell Us Your Story" form and posted with the users permission.

By SD:
In the State of Missouri those that predate January 1 1995 are not required to register under State law due to the States Constitutions 13th amendment. But they claim that there is a federal obligation to register with the State. So the State will charge and convict those that predate the law under state law due to federal obligation.

In 2010 I was charged with a State law of failure to register. By this time I had done my research and had only to put a few things together. I was ready. By 2012 my case was dismissed without a word. I can’t even find a clue as to why. But I do know why. I had forced my public defender to ask a couple of questions I wanted answers to.

My questions were simple. If I am not required to register under State law due to the State Constitution then why am I being charged under a State law? If I am required to register with the State under a Federal obligation thus a Federal law then why am I not charged with USC 2250 failure to register under Federal law?

I also gave my public defender research that I was working on. I will give you an idea as what this research consisted of so you can look things up.

According to the US Supreme Court when one case results in two upheld verdicts (both standing) that may conflict with one another the State is required to ensure that no one is charged within such a conflict. If the State fails to do so and the defendant is forced to correct the matter then the State must pay without argument.

This was the first bit of research that I gave out. So my questions were backed up by case law and were starting to cause trouble. So all I had to do was show that there was indeed conflict between the two verdicts to cause the court to try and figure out how to get around this whole issue. I knew there was only one way. That is if I didn’t bring it up formally in the court. At the time I had reason not to.

Back in the 1800s the Missouri Constitution had an amendment that required people to swear an oath that they had nothing to do with fighting against the Union Army. This amendment found its way into the US Supreme Court and the court was trying to figure out how to remove it from Missouri’s Constitution. When the court looked to Congress as a possible they found that the US Constitution had something to say on the subject. The result is that Congress can not pass a law nor be seen to have passed a law that violates a States Constitution.

That got me looking for more on the subject and I found plenty. I gave this to my public defender and the court was silent from there on. I had shown that there was indeed a conflict. So for almost a year it was just going in to get a new date to go back to court to get a new date.

I continued to give out other findings of my research each time I saw my public defender. I gave him little things that showed that I could indeed win a case against the State. There is no way I could post all my research on this matter here. But at least you got a basic idea where to start looking.


Mark said...

Hey SD: GOOD WORK! It is too bad that many other sex offenders are so inherently weak minded and masochistic, they just eat what the tate and the prosecutors shovel out to them! And I believe the case you spoke of from the 1800's is good old EX PARTE GARLAND, a Missouri case - Bills of Attainder and ex post facto doctrines! Enjoy your freedom!

yellowroselady said...

SD; Please contact me. Vicki Henry

Kathy said...

sd: can you tell me how you do research my son needs help and I don't understand or know how to what to research I am not a stupid person have a college degree but Just don't get it if it's too much to explain I understand I guess I do research on research ? Ty for sharing

Mark said...

If I may; you have not stated just what your son needs help on. Legal of course I am sure. What is the nature of any charge or allegation(s)? Is there an attorney involved? Is it registration? A criminal offense? These are necessary in order to direct you further.

SD said...

Simply put I read everything I can find and follow every lead no matter how remote it may be. I try to find ways that a lead may affect what I am trying to solve and develop theories and find cases to prove or disprove my theory. In your sons case I might even look at child labor laws and cases for clues as to what else to look for and ask questions like 'can the government turn you into a walking computer or are there limits to electronic monitoring'? I might look at minority groups and slavery laws for links or insight. Every thought no matter how stupid might hold an answer, so, I search it out. I have looked at the magna carta, the roman laws and other old systems that found themselves influencing the development of our system and try to prove both sides looking for flaws. I read the Federalist Papers to find leads. I look heavly at the laws that are the foundation of what is faced. Laws such as the Internal Securities Act of 1950 and anti terrorist laws. I try to reconcile every bit of law to the Constitution.
Every cross reference and notation is important enough to trace. I look at the bills that didn't make it into law and find out why. I look to changes in the law over time and learn why these changes were made. I try to never make the mistake of thinking that I found what I need to win and stop with that or to base my case on what I think my right is.
The most important driving force for me is; to win a case in court I must do many times over the work that I would expect of all legal representatives to do. If I pay for an hours work I would do 100 hours work or more because I don't have the luxury of a legal education or the money to pay for the real work that is needed to win a case. I don't want to loose so I must be 10 times the attorney that is needed. I don't just research I learn until I am confident that I can write the book on the subject.
Thomas Edison - Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.

Bill said...

From Jackie Patru Sweet :
"Our Constitutional rights are under attack. While we sleep, local and state elected officials are legislating away our freedom by implementing federal legislation which does NOT apply -- Constitutionally -- to the several states. The President is acting as a king -- issuing "decrees" called Executive Orders -- which we are to believe overrides the Constitution for the United States of America, bypassing the system of checks and balances. Corrupt courts prosecute on false charges, ignoring the right to due process. To what may we attribute the impending death of our once great nation and the slave status of once-free Americans? Who is to blame for her state of bankruptcy and vulnerability?
We are, by our silence. Our lack of involvement is our acquiescence."

Mike said...

can i talk to you? i have a similar case in IL where they are just stripping me of any rights with an FTR charge. email

Mike said...

yea u want to kick yourself at times because they didnt have DNA but yet u managed to plead out...same here. I was green to the system and took a plea even though most of it was false. The prosecutors dont care about any kids who arent their own. But yet they portray like its their kid when they prosecute u. Its so much BS with all this lifelong registry for even consensual relationships, but yet a murderer has an excuse to look down on someone., a sex offender....when a murderer should have NO ONE to look down on. John Walsh is a crook and the whole country needs to get a reality check when it comes to this online hit list that only goes on in the USA.