A number of issues are directly in line for the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES at this time. I had to use a picture with RBG, because to me she will forever be the image I see in my head when someone mentions the Supreme Court.
There are a number of important issues coming their way in the upcoming months – fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!
The first one I want to mention is the challenge by State Officials from Louisiana, who somehow think it’s a good idea that every time you show your ID, the person on the other end should be notified you are a person required to register. So when I go to will call at a play, they should know I have to register? If I buy a new dress and use a credit card, and asked for ID, that clerk, making twelve dollars an hour (nothing against that person) should know that I am required to register? If I go to the post office to pick up a package, the postal worker should know I am a person required to register? Bullocks.
The Louisiana Supreme Court said they ‘Garontee’ that forcing people to disclose personal information violates their first amendment right. That right is the freedom of speech, and includes the right not to speak. That fight is headed to our Supreme Court, and may have implications for all registrant notifications.
The second Supreme Court piece in our current windshield is the Amicus Briefs of our fellow advocate Bonnie Burkhardt.
Please Please Please Pass on this information. Take 5 minutes out of your time to print out, sign, and send (snail mail please) this paper to bonnie – she is collecting signatures to submit with her brief. This would help sting victims NATIONWIDE!!
There is an opportunity to help bring a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that ICAC sting operations are violating the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Mr. Achin’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, Achin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, was denied on May 14, 2021. There is now an effort to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Achin was convicted of solicitation of a minor, when the “minor” was an imaginary person brought to life by 3 officers: one pictured in the photos, a second officer exchanging text messages, and a third officer being the voice actor on recorded phone calls. An imaginary person is not a legal “person” who can intercept and record communications, and 3 officers do not make “a person.” This violates the laws regarding electronic surveillance, and therein lies the basis for the court case.
The appeal was based on Fourth Amendment laws derived from the 1986 Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, which modernized the “wiretap” laws and protected electronic communications just like phone calls. The issue is the illegality of sting operation(s) because detectives are creating and controlling imaginary people online to intercept communications for them. Virginia interception laws are even more strict than the federal laws for there is no “color of law exemption” in Virginia, so they have no more authority to intercept communications than the average citizen.
It is my understanding that the acceptance or refusal of cases by the Supreme Court of the U.S. has become something of a political issue. Since they only accept a small percentage of all possible cases, the presentation of numerous petition signatures could persuade the Justices as to the interest in this case. Please show your support for this issue by printing out the petition below on single sided white paper, getting as many signatures as possible, and mailing the signed petitions to Bonnie Burkhardt at the following address. Signature sheets not completely filled in are still OK to send. Please mail it no later than July 1, earlier is better.
Norman Achin has no money for an attorney. If there is an attorney who might be willing to take the case pro bono or several attorneys who might be willing to write amicus briefs, please contact me. I can provide relevant court documents, my amicus brief, and answer any questions they may have. The first and most pressing matter is to get the Supreme Court to agree to hear the case. The Court may even appoint an attorney.
As for my background, I have 30+ years as an engineer building interception systems and analyzing signals for the Department of Defense for weapons analysis. I have taken over 100 DoD classes on interception and privacy laws. I filed an amicus brief for this case and another similar one, which formed the basis for my book titled: Manufacturing Criminals; Fourth Amendment Decay in the Electronic Age. Norman Achin’s case is a major one discussed in the book, denoted Mr. NNNNN.
Thank you for your support,
8402 Gambrill Ln
Springfield, VA 22153
To the United States Supreme Court
The petitioners respectfully request that Court grant the Writ of Certiorari for
NORMAN MICHAEL ACHIN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Court of Appeals Record No. 1950-19-4
Circuit Court Case No. FE-2018-0001497
The violations of Fourth Amendment privacy laws being argued affect cases in my region.
One thought on “SCOTUS”
What many people don’t understand about these sex sting cases is that the situations that police create to trap men on adult dating platforms are situations that don’t happen in real life. These cases only exist because police created them. They would not exist otherwise. It is a blatant lie to say “these men were stopped from raping minors”. How does targeting men on adult dating platforms and basically demanding sex from them help protect real children from real predators? It doesn’t, at all!
It’s a fact that ICAC task forces must show successful arrests and convictions of child predators to get and keep getting the federal ICAC grant. The federal government has incentivized this. ICAC task forces are being rewarded with millions of dollars for creating fake crimes and forcing wrongful convictions.
(See 34 USC Ch. 211: COMBATING CHILD EXPLOITATION, §21116. ICAC grant program, Reporting requirements)
It is a fact that it is very easy for police to get away with creating fake crimes and use deception to force wrongful convictions. So, why wouldn’t they be doing this to create the numbers of arrests and convictions they need in order to get these millions of dollars from the federal government? They’re doing it at the high cost of other people’s lives and increasing the risk of children online from real predators. Parents have been led to believe their children’s risk online has been decreased. That is simply not true. In fact, the opposite is likely true.