In addition to your donation, there are many ways you can help support the Campaign for Legal Services Running for Justice:
- Host a fundraising telethon: Call friends and colleagues to ask for their contribution to the Campaign
- Serve as a volunteer attorney for the Pro Bono Referral Program (for causes and challenges, not for individuals)
- Host a luncheon/dinner/office reception/house party
- Sponsor a Campaign fundraising event
- Join our “Running for Justice” team
Join Our Team
Interested in volunteering for the Campaign for Legal Services? Contact Terry at info@NJFAIR.org. Attorneys interested in volunteering for the Pro Bono Referral Program should understand that this is not Pro Bono work for individuals, but rather for causes such as:
- Due Process–
- Assigns tier level based on mere fact of conviction/enumerated offense; provides no relief to petition for relief for any reason other than a “clean record” for 10 or 25 years in a narrow set of cases; in certain cases, this violates Due Process and state constitutional or statutory law. [We have a list of overturned/expunged/pardoned cases, clerical/administrative errors or regulations not on the books.]
- Conflict with State Constitution and Statutes–
- Automatic registration and no relief provision conflicts with many states’ statutes and constitutional law [In re. JG, 169 NJ 304 (2001); Doe v. Portiz, 142 NJ 1 (1995); ….and we have more from other states.
- It also compels states to conform to its standards or lose 10% of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants funds [42 USC Sec. 16925 1-b]. Offenders may seek declaratory judgment under state constitution from the state’s highest court.
- Separation of Powers –
- If AG is given power to designate sex offenses, it unconstitutional delegation of lawmaking to the Executive in violation of Separation of Power [Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293, US 388, 421 (1935)… and we have more examples.
- Retroactively –
- Law must be punitive to violate ex post facto. Smith v. Doe 538 US 84 (2003) was deeply divided on the issue, but in light of new evidence laws cause harm, such as homelessness, public ostracism, unemployment, and vigilantism and death. It would be harder for government to claim SORNA/AWA is not punitive when notification is based on conviction/enumerated offense, and decision was based on high recidivism rate.
- “When a legislature uses prior conviction to impose burdens that outpace the law’s stated civil aims, there is room for serious argument that the ulterior purpose is to revisit past crimes, not prevent future ones.” Smith v. Doe at 109
- To compel the states to pass SORNA/AWA or lose 10% of the Byrne Funds is coercion and violates the 10th Amendment [New York v. US 505 US 144 (1992)…. and we have more.
- A person on supervised release cannot be forced to submit to a polygraph [US v. Antelope, 395, F. 3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2005)
There have been a number of court victories against the AWA/SORNA, and there can be more if there are attorneys out there that really want to impact millions of people’s lives. For, you must remember, it is not just the offender who suffers through a lot of these punishments, but it is the loved ones also – the unmentioned victims.
Help us be victims no more.