Force Ohio Legislators to Honor the Constitution
  • Petitioned Rep. District 10

This petition was delivered to:

Rep. District 10
Rep. District 84
Rep. District 20
Rep. District 29
Rep. District 54
Rep. District 23
Rep. District 71

Force Ohio Legislators to Honor the Constitution

    1. Petition by

      Citizens for Legislative Change, America

A number of Ohio Representative seek to circumvent not only the constitution but their oath of office which states they will support and defend the constitution by implementing retroactive law in Ohio.

How long are we, the citizens of these United States of America going to stand for politicians gutting our constitution with their lawmaking?

U.S. Constitution: 
Art I, Sec. 9 -- "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

THE OHIO CONSTITUTION: 
Article II, Sec. 28 -- "The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws..."

THE OATH OF OFFICE CONTAINS:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:

"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,...

Those concerned about this proposed legislation can use this petition to send the Representatives a message.

Just six months after having been soundly defeated in the June 2010 Bodyke vs. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, seven Ohio House Representatives have proposed new legislation to retroactively revise Ohio’s sex offender laws to re-capture all offenders who committed crimes before 2008 onto the rolls of the sex offender registry.

Those concerned about this proposed legislation must contact the seven Representatives immediately to express their opposition to this bill. If we are forced to do so Citizens for Change, America seeks to help defeat this latest attempt by the Ohio Legislature to violate the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens.

The newly proposed bill, House Bill 77 of the 129th General Assembly would amend and repeal parts of the existing Ohio sex offender statutes to:

“clarify that SORN Law definitions of sexually oriented offenses, child-victim oriented offenses, tier classifications, public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrants, and related terms include the specified offenses regardless of when they were committed and to provide for court reclassification of offenders and delinquent children who committed their sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense prior to January 1, 2008, and had SORN Law duties based on that offense into one of the tier classifications of the current SORN Law.

View proposed HB 77.

REPRESENTATIVES:
Hackett Garland Blessing Combs Grossman Hottinger Patmon

We seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio should this legislation be put into law.

We also still seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio regarding the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling of June 2010 for damages of those 30,000 former offenders who were maintained on the sex offender registry 2-1/2 years after they should legally have been removed.

We must collectively hit these legislators squarely in the “front teeth” this time to assure that we do not experience what we experienced between 2008 and 2010.

SOURCE

Citizens for Legislative Change, America

http://www.cfcamerica.org

Let YOUR Voice Be Heard!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent signatures

    News

    1. Reached 100 signatures
    2. Norm Pattis-Sex Offender Lawyer is On Board http://bit.ly/dWAg8I
      About Norm Pattis
      Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

      Scores of folks have sent me emails generated by a group called Citizens for Change. They want me to hear their cries for justice, and to sign on to the fight to have the courts declare retroactive application of the federal sex offender registration act unconstitutional. My first response to the emails was a weary sigh. The ex post facto clause is tricky, and most folks don't get just how it has been gutted by the courts.

      The last time the federal Supreme Court heard an ex post facto challenge to sex offender registration was in 2003, involving an Alaska decision. The Smith v. Doe decision ruled that requiring a convicted sex offender to register as an offender is not a violation of the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution even if the registration requirement did not exist at the time a person was convicted.

      The ex post facto clause prohibits lawmakers from passing laws that impose or increase punishment for criminal offenses after the acts are committed. But the law applies only to criminal laws, and not to civil laws. Most courts reason that registration requirements are not punishment, they are mere incidents, or consequences, of a criminal conviction. The purpose of registration, these courts say, is not punitive; registration exists merely to protect the public, and are civil in scope and purpose.

      This is, of course, threadbare nonsense to the 700,000 or so folks required to register throughout the United States. These folks are publicly identified as pariahs long after they have paid their debt to society by way of the criminal sanction.

      A recent article in the Fall 2010 edition of the Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, Putting the Brakes on the Preventive State: Challenging Residency Restrictions on Child Sex Offenders in Illinois Under the Ex Post Facto Clause, by Michelle Olson, is a model of the sort of pragmatic scholarship that litigants can put to use in test cases. Olson argues persuasively that traditional arguments about the ex post facto clause are losing their persuasive force as lawmakers yield to moral panic over sex crimes.

      Read what Norman Pattis has to say... it ends in...To all those who have written urging me to take a look, thank you. I have done so. I'm in.

    3. Reached 50 signatures
    4. Visit our website, Register, Get our newsletters... Citizens for Change, America

    5. Reached 5 signatures

    Supporters

    Reasons for signing

    • Dave Smith FLINT, MI
      • over 3 years ago

      Norm Pattis-Sex Offender Lawyer is On Board

      http://bit.ly/dWAg8I

      About Norm Pattis

      Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

      Scores of folks have sent me emails generated by a group called Citizens for Change. They want me to hear their cries for justice, and to sign on to the fight to have the courts declare retroactive application of the federal sex offender registration act unconstitutional. My first response to the emails was a weary sigh. The ex post facto clause is tricky, and most folks don't get just how it has been gutted by the courts.

      The last time the federal Supreme Court heard an ex post facto challenge to sex offender registration was in 2003, involving an Alaska decision. The Smith v. Doe decision ruled that requiring a convicted sex offender to register as an offender is not a violation of the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution even if the registration requirement did not exist at the time a person was convicted.

      The ex post facto clause prohibits lawmakers from passing laws that impose or increase punishment for criminal offenses after the acts are committed. But the law applies only to criminal laws, and not to civil laws. Most courts reason that registration requirements are not punishment, they are mere incidents, or consequences, of a criminal conviction. The purpose of registration, these courts say, is not punitive; registration exists merely to protect the public, and are civil in scope and purpose.

      This is, of course, threadbare nonsense to the 700,000 or so folks required to register throughout the United States. These folks are publicly identified as pariahs long after they have paid their debt to society by way of the criminal sanction.

      A recent article in the Fall 2010 edition of the Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, Putting the Brakes on the Preventive State: Challenging Residency Restrictions on Child Sex Offenders in Illinois Under the Ex Post Facto Clause, by Michelle Olson, is a model of the sort of pragmatic scholarship that litigants can put to use in test cases. Olson argues persuasively that traditional arguments about the ex post facto clause are losing their persuasive force as lawmakers yield to moral panic over sex crimes.

      Read what Norman Pattis has to say... it ends in...To all those who have written urging me to take a look, thank you. I have done so. I'm in.

      http://bit.ly/dWAg8I

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Pat Terril KNOXVILLE, IA
      • over 3 years ago

      My hometown state of Iowa has done what YOU propose to do in Ohio which is unconstitutional. My daughter was involved in a noninjury scuffle with 2 other adults. She plead to a misdemeanor charge rather than risk prison, received a deferred judgment and has had the charge expunged after completing probation. BUT, she is on the Sex Offender registry in Iowa for life thanks to a new law that went into effect in July, 2009. This is wrong. All legislators that vote for ex post facto legislation should be impeached and removed from office!

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Brian Yates MINDVILLE, OR
      • over 3 years ago

      Politicians are more interested in promoting themselves than keeping the public safe. These laws are backwards!

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:

    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the Change.org API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.