Will the conclusion offered via the Brief for Law Professors in Support of Petitioner open the door for a much-needed legal clarification regarding ex post facto law?
Recently heard by the Supremes (2/24/2010): Carr v. United States, Docket No. 08-1301
(Argument Transcript here.)
(...)
29
CONCLUSION
While the petitioner’s brief makes a compelling
case for resolving this case in favor of Carr on statutory
grounds, there are significant reasons for the Court to address and resolve the Ex Post Facto Clause argument in favor of the petitioner as well.
Lower courts have created a complete mess of Ex Post Facto law in SORNA cases by confusing the rules of retrospectivity, as the Seventh Circuit did, deciding that a criminal statute with substantial prison penalties was not intended to be punitive, and that lengthy imprisonment and other restraints in SORNA are not punitive in effects. Especially because the Government has effectively neutralized the Ex Post Facto issues by not appealing any district court judgments where it lost the issue, this is an issue that should be addressed in the present matter. The Court should take this opportunity to restate the importance of the Ex Post Facto Clause and provide clear guidance to lower courts in addressing SORNA and other statutes. This will ensure that the Clause provides the necessary bulwark against ill-intentioned legislatures, maintains a proper separation of powers, and preserves the basic
30
right of fair notice. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted.
COREY RAYBURN YUNG
John Marshall Law
School
315 S. Plymouth Ct.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 386-2863
DOUGLAS A. BERMAN
The Ohio State University
Michael E. Moritz College
of Law
55 West 12th Ave.
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 688-8690
WAYNE A. LOGAN
Florida State University
College of Law
425 W. Jefferson St.
Tallahassee, FL 32306
(850) 644.4759
AMY L. NEUHARDT
Counsel of Record
Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP
5301 Wisconsin Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20015
(202) 274-1137
Counsel for Amici Curiae
DECEMBER 9, 2009
2 comments:
There's a lot I could say on this issue!
But I won't.
I want the post to speak for itself.
I have maintained all along it was a simple matter of someone taking an interest and filing the right paperwork. It's going to be over. It's getting closer all the time. Powerful judges out west took an interest and that spread through the law schools. It's an outrageous human abuse. I have been so angry that folks hear the word sex offender and what comes to mind is chester the molester. When there are STINKING, AWFUL predators that legitimately need to have their activities curtailed due to making others' lives unsafe. BUT, they haven't murdered anyone and gotten out after 7 years for good behavior.
This left the door open for what I've railed on ad nauseum. They're FRAMING PEOPLE. It must stop. The only way to stop it is to stop it. No half a loaf. You're welcome for the constant repetition. (LOL !!!!)
I'll never fully buy that john couey was the one who murdered that poor child. Too damned convenient.
If any of these attorneys read here: I do not know nor am I related to any sexual offenders. BUT I do know wrong when I see it. I also had a family member threatened by the wife of the business partner of an Assitant United States Attorney, Robert ONeill. Threatened him with placement on the RSO. So, think for a moment how EASY it is to frame someone or to plant child porn.
And imagine, if you will, how important your actions here were and how direly needed.
Thank you from myself and others.
Good catch, sunny.
Post a Comment