CFC OKLAHOMA

12-14-2009 US Supreme Court Case:

Docket: 08-1301

Issue: Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant’s underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA’s enactment.

---: Brief for Petitioner Thomas Carr

---: Brief for National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner

---: Brief for Law Professors in Support of Petitioner


Earlier case which will be tested:
 

CALDER v. BULL 8-1-1798 Question:
This is the source of all ex post facto cases: The court holding a law is a ex post facto violation if any of the following have occurred:

1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.

3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.

eAdvocate Thought, if it takes several levels of state and federal courts, with qualified lawyers interpreting the law, to decide if a man is guilty, how can that reasonable man be expected to understand the law so that s/he does not violate the law? Can this man ever be found guilty?