http://robert-tronge-news.nfshost.com

We have the court saying that restrictions unrelated to the crime are unconstitutional, and if that is so for the court then it would also follow through that it is unconstitutional for the parole and probation department to impose them. It would also follow through that it is unconstitutional to pass laws imposing them. For example residency restrictions against a person who is involved in child pornography, or for that matter, a person involved in incest. Residency restrictions would only seem to apply to people who were strangers to the victim.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Court-Sex-offender-law-unfairly-restrictive-3261045.php

Remember the recent Supreme Court decision http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/03/supreme-court-rules-for-pro-se-prisoner-in-sovereign-immunity-case.php That basically said that any official of the government, who steps outside his legal boundaries, can bring about a suit against the organization that he represents. In other words, if the parole officer steps outside his boundaries in ordering something that is unrelated to the crime then not only he can be sued but all the organizations that he represents, all the way up through the state or federal government

Remember having a restriction on a person is denying them a portion of their liberty. And if it is done without proper need to do so then it opens up the door for a constitutional tort and by filing a USC 1983 action. The minimum damages that you can receive ,000 per defendant and organization. Let’s say it was a parole officer who authorized these restrictions, that would mean that you could sue the parole officer, his supervisor, their local department, the supervisor for the local department at the state level, and the state level department,all the way up through the governor of the state whose responsibility is for all departments under him and you can sue them in both their personal capacity and their official capacity. Easily running the damages up to a couple hundred thousand dollars.

The other thing that hasn’t been brought up yet is the fact that not only can they be sued, but they can be charged with a federal crime under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights and  Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Under section 242 it lays out quite plainly who can be held accountable for the attempt to deprive a citizen of their rights. This would include individual legislators and city Council members etc. who pass laws with the intent to deprive a citizen of their constitutionally protected rights.

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than  those prescribed for punishment of citizens

“Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority,  but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority;  provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under  “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is  purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official  duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials,  individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home  Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.”

Robert George Tronge, Robert G Tronge, Robert Tronge