CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
I Anthony J. DeNoma duly cautioned of the penalty of peijury do hereby solemnly declare,
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 44.2 that the grounds of this instant Petition for Rehearing are limited
to intervening circumstances of a substantive and controlling effect, and that it is presented in good
faith for expedition and not for delay. akl(44. 'Oct&eiz5 Anthony J.ôeNoma 308-83 P.O. Box 7q0, Mdison C-ecf1c,i Iicih%de Lohcloh, OJio q31q0 P!ohe (7'1o)852-777; Fax: 85234a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Anthony J. DeNoma, duly cautioned of the penalty of perjury do hereby solemnly declare that on this date, O4oL,er I , 2018, as required by Supreme Court Rule 291 have placed the enclosed Application for Rehearing in sealed envelopes deposited with designated prison mail clerk, with payment for required First Class Postage, one addressed to this Court, and the another addressed for service to Defendants attorneys:
Ohio Attorney General Eric E, Mphy, SM-e 5olc+or 30 East Broad Street, 17' Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -3 4f 2iB
aj40U-j,'51 O&Wt"O~ Anthony J. beRoma,
/0. COMPLAIN-r AEF1PAVrr Ste4rP The Caeatid &4s
I Awihohy J. PeNom (affinthe-eih, herea#el-DeNoIb1A) beJ duly c4ut,nedot'1he pehalfy ofp.rjurydo hereby sole rnnlydecloa-e 411 sidements rnJ lb i4i het-&n ud 22 f'oIlowYi page S1ateme,t of 1I,e Case'facts lo be f-ue, fct ,o.J qpij etccurafe. S0 help me GOD j i) Oh aiicl evei-5,ice Septenbar 26) 2001 Ram; lt4n County, 'iid Ohio state ucl;c;a(nd executive of)ls have co,duced a cowf;nusngsbve-sive Conspi?-acy 4galh$f DeNomcts ts cctus the depI-i4tIon of De.Nomas subsh five h'ts Uhdet- ccloi- o4 /W, h Vs0i4fi0fl Afhe tJ&feJ 5f4es Ct-nng1 Code Tt+Ie 18 Sectohs 2'4 I, 1242, 5371, 5/001, 1/581, S I58 4 § /5'4, nd J79(o2, khewin9ly 4"d willfully srept-eseiti'g, -PA(5fyihg, concegli, covei- op by fe-;ck, scl,etne) a' 4evice,1/e matet-la! 4ct 1 Ii-audQIenfIyobt411 'md willoily Iv1i5a9ply federal funds fi-om Ifte Department fJvctice Violent Offendei- Xncarceoon and Tiuth-hr$ehteftcng Incentive Qi.atit,og i-am under 3'l (/1SC /2103 and 5 ILO. 1 cort;nue 1hc4rceratoft of PeNo'na by c,nconstilvtional State custody, beyond the xptt-atin of his caSe-14W tei.m ofincsi-cet-fjon5 failing to simplemet7f Ike Trut1rI1rSenteMcthg" obecfsves to cissute proportona/ity, -eotsonab/e use of cot -ec/on4( 4qcii'#ies and progl-aPnS, tcI ciff?er lii'ness ,,, ct-tnInaj seh*ehthg in v,ok'jon Of 3g USC, f 10274 1 /0272J/ 2 35
2) tet46mq has L,eeh, and cotitue$ to be subjected to ex po.ct different uncoiist,W,Vonql UPH-atsoh4bIe hfuous arMli-at-y inkrp-e*tohs oft-rner laws,atd pun n'a've new/aw sex oetde- seritenci,g cmd post-t-eieace gtratio po1sees, un/flw fully i&n,ot- coned 9'? Yo pe-cenf, day -Pot- day of the ho"-man1otory 1nde4)nle /0 257'eaIr tnathnum sentence, and t)eNorna has nevt- seen ieleasecl fim pt-'son
3), PeNoma hos been, an contwe +o be s'vbjected fo manifest ;vs4e, Oh/a ul de vo.tfon of hs h4tjuc1gh1ent1h1frnOfl;fr1 Ate ctec&;s case-law &st /i,ne dfender re('af' /eal s1tus, ncL unlawfully deprived of his acguii-ed Statutory enfi4d su,stoj,tive one-thit-d deduction of $eiitCItC.e, Old 1eNorno, has heyet- beeh re/eased foni pt-;son;
DeNohia suffers confnun9 ii+eparable ijut-y and hi-t-n from false 1rnprsonnie4 4onalanJ dspipor#on4te c-ueland uitosua(puiiihment.s lliat could not have Leen Aocseeatble aflhe ne of DeHrnns Apt,;( 16; 1995 f 'nal joci8metifr, t-ehder~nS DeNonia's5o/typlea a-eement u&ntellØ/e, onknoi-dn3, and involuha,v, "nd dey;n, eNoma hs 4unc6mehQsvW,4j1t,'e -13hts of eivaI pt-ofecVon;
5) Foe twot-ethan 177ea1-s, 5sice The Ocfoet- ZOO/ exprat;on O NNornas case-iawtei-m of itwm-cet-afion and su1stantive parole etzrl;fy t-eease date, DeNob,q has been unbwifully ,-estt-amned of his I;berty by concti'futohal Oee cus1dy and subjected to slavery of hwofuntary servilude, cnc de&ed t-enedes of due course of law and redress n 1he coutd;
See following 22.pae 3tteenenf of -lhe Case and Facts; STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Ohio's old-law existing and operating prior to July 1, 1996, provided for certain substantive rehabilitation of first time offenders, including: a.) exemption from sex offender registration under former Revised Code (R.C.) Chapter 2950, 130 Ohio Laws, 669, Ohio's Habitual Sex Offender
Registration Law existing prior to January 1, 1997; and b.) the statutorily entitled substantive one- third deduction from sentence parole eligibility liberty right, that by law shall not be forfeited for any reason, created by former R.C. Sections 2967.13(A)(L), 2967.19(A)(E) and 2967.193(A)(C) existing prior to July 1, 1996; together with the reasonable expectation of the implicit protection of the family victims from public exposure and humiliation of a trial, which induced DeNoma's negotiated guilty plea agreement, and of which all was instituted by final judgment as the law of DeNoma's case in State of Ohio v. Anthony J. DeNoma (April 6. 1995). Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas No.
B951322 and B952232. Judge Thomas H. Crush of the original sentencing court entered its judgment of sentence in DeNoma's case without any duty to register under the existing laws, implicitly incorporating into the judgment a finding that DeNoma had no duty to register, establishing DeNoma's stare decisis case-law rehabilitation legal status and final judgment immunity. And Ohio Constitution
Article II, Section 28 prohibition against retroactive laws, or laws impairing obligation of contracts, established and define DeNoma's Article I. Section 1 inalienable rights. See State v. Williams (2000),
88 Ohio St.3d 513, 521, 523, 524.
Wherefore Ohio's Constitution Separation of powers Doctrine and Article I. Section 10 Double
Jeopardy Clause prohibited both: a.) a trial court from reopening or reconsidering any issue of
DeNoma's case; and b.) any remedial or civil administrative actions that further effectively disadvantage and / or deprive DeNoma of his case-law rehabilitation legal status and final judgment immunity. See State v. Lovejoy. 79 Ohio St.3d 440.443; State v. Gustafson (1996). 76 Ohio St.3d 425,
437. 440-442; and State v. Raber (2012). 134 Ohio St.3d 350.
1. "In 1996, the General Assembly rewrote R.C. Chapter 2950 as part of Am. Sub: H.B. 180 ("H.B. 180"), 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2560, 2601 ... Some provisions became effective January 1, 1997, including the classification provision, R.C. 2950.09. Section 3 of H.B. 180, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2668. Other provisions, such as the registration and notification requirements, R.C. 2959.04, .05, .06, J, and .,fl, became effective July 1, 1997. Section 5 of H.B. 180, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2669." State v. Cook (1998). 83 Ohio St.3d 406.
In the above controlling case-law Cook. supra, Tony Cook's plea and sentence were accomplished after the January 1, 1997 effective date of Ohio's Megan's Law H.B. 180 R.C. Chapter 2950 Sex Offender
Registration and Notification (SORN) requirements. See State v. Cook (1998). 83 Ohio St.3d 404.
Wherefore the registration duties, obligations, and liabilities have never been properly determined to be constitutionally retroactive in cases that were previously final under prior laws.
Only the R.C. § 2950.09(C) Classification provision was specifically made retroactive providing for adjudication as a sexual predator or a habitual sex offender, only for offenders who were not first time offenders previously exempt from registration by final judgment under the former law immediately prior to the January 1, 1997 effective date of Ohio's H.B. 180 Megan's Law. See and State v. Bellman (1999). 86 Ohio St.3d 208; Mason v. Griffin (2000). 90 Ohio St.3d 299, 302; State v.
Taylor (2003). 100 Ohio St.3d 173-174; and State v. Champion (2005). 106 Ohio St.3d 120, and the
July 31, 2003 Senate Bill 5 amendment R.C. § 2950.09(C)(1)X3) clarification.
In 1997, pursuant to the H.B. 180 Megan's Law R.C. § 2950.09(C) the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), submitted to DeNoma's sentencing Court Judge Thomas H.
Crush, its recommendation that DeNoma be classified as a sexual predator, and subsequently (6 1/2 years after sentencing in Case No. B952232, and after DeNoma had successfully completed the 12 month Polaris Phase I Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program from 3-25-1997 through 3-25-
1998), on October 5, 2001, expecting DeNoma's imminent release on parole, Judge Thomas Crush denied the recommended reclassification of DeNoma, by a final judgment determination finding that
DeNoma was not likely to reoffend, neither a sexual predator, nor a habitual sex offender. Thereafter,
2, implicating equal protection of the doctrines of stare decisis law of his case, final judgment immunity, issue preclusion, collateral estoppel, and resjudicata. See State v. Dick (2000). 738 N.E.2d 456.
"One study suggests that sex offenders (a category that includes a great diversity of criminals, not just pedophiles) are actually less likely to recidivate than other sorts of criminals. See Lawrence A. Greenfield, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (2003). Even more troubling is evidence in the record supporting a finding that offense-based public registration has, at best, no impact on recidivism. [R. 90 at 3 846-49]. In fact, one statistical analysis in the record concluded that laws such as SORA actually increase the risk of recidivism, probably because they exacerbate risk factors for recidivism by making it hard for registrants to get and keep ajob, find housing, and reintegrate into their communities. See J.J. Prescott & Jonah E. Rockoff, Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?, 54 J.L. & Econ. 161 (2011)." Does v. Snyder. 834 F.3d 696 at 704-705 (U.S. 6th Cir. 2016).
"Research has consistently shown that sexual offender recidivism rates are among the lowest for any category of offenses, and that this lower risk of sexual offense recidivism steadily declines over time." Doe v. Miami-Dade County. Florida Dept of Corr., 846 F.3d 1180. (U.S. 11' Cir. Court of Appeals 2017).
"Most sex offenders will respond to intervention and that the likelihood that an offender will re-offend decreases with time," was "the uncontested declaration of therapist with twenty years of experience treating and examining sexual offenders." Doe v. DeWine. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112949 [*3334] (U.S. Dist. Ct. Southwestern Ohio, 2017).
See also the 2007 study (Research Bulletin: Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial
Assessment, New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives).
By DeNoma's good behavior and accomplishment of certain rehabilitation programs pursuant to former R.C. Sections 2967.19(A) (E) and 2967.193(A).(C) DeNoma acquired his case-law statutorily entitled substantive one-third deduction of sentence (October 2001 parole eligibility release date). But the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) administrative personnel conducted an organizational conspiracy of manifest injustice against DeNoma, to circumvent DeNoma inalienable final judgment immunity case-law rehabilitation legal status civil rights, failing to appropriately calculate and administer DeNoma's acquired statutorily entitled one-third deduction of sentence, and subjecting DeNoma to different, unreasonable, ambiguous, arbitrary punitive new statutory interpretations, and punitive new law sex offender sentencing policies. And on September 26, 2001 the ODRC staff personnel, vicariously instituted sham legal process through and by its Parole Board members who conducted the first of many successive hearings to unlawfully deprive DeNoma of his acquired statutory one-third deduction of sentence that by law shall not be forfeited for any reason.
Unlawfully arbitrarily abrogating the operation of DeNoma's case-law non-mandatory indefinite 10 year minimum sentence and State-created liberty right. Unlawfully changing DeNoma's old-law non- mandatory indefinite 10 to 25 year sentence, to a 25 year definite sentence under punitive new sex offender sentencing laws, depriving DeNoma of his case-law statutory right to qualify for, and hence earn parole, in violation of Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) Sections 2921.52 Sham legal process, and
2921.45 Interfering with civil rights.
And 13 years after DeNoma's sentence of final judgment (after DeNoma had successfully completed an additional 30 month residential Comprehensive Sex Offender Treatment Program from
May 11, 2005 through November 15, 2007, for a total of 42 months of sex offender treatment), in violation of the Ohio Constitution Separation of Powers Doctrine, and Article II. § 28 prohibition against retroactive laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, and R.C. 2921.45 and 2921.52, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) administrative staff vicariously acted to entrap and falsely imprison DeNoma, through and by its Parole Board and Mental Health Services
Department personnel, instituting sham legal process, conducting a corrupt organizational conspiracy implementing misrepresentations and false written. statements that DeNoma was not fit for release from prison in a fraudulent Clinical Risk Assessment under Ohio's new law Violent Sexual Predator
Sentencing provisions of R.C. Chapter 2971. Sections 2971.03, 2971.04, 5120.49, and 512061 to circumvent and interfere with DeNoma's case-law parole eligibility and rehabilitation civil rights, effectively changing DeNoma's legal status. And further conspired, after Ohio's repeal of Megan's Law, with former Attorney General Marc Dann to unconstitutionally retroactively reclassify DeNoma as the most dangerous Tier III sex offender subject to registration and community notification on the Attorney General's new law public interstate Sex Offender Registration Notification (SORN) computer internet registry website.
And when DeNoma filed his court challenge of said reclassification by the Attorney General and ODRC, claiming violations of the Ohio Constitution Separation of Powers Doctrine, Article I. § 10
Double Jeopardy Clause, and Article IL § 28 Prohibition against retroactive laws, and laws impairing obligations of contracts, with manifest disregard and deliberate indifference, Judge Ralph E. Winkler Jr. acted to interfere with DeNoma's final judgment immunity civil rights, abusing authority and process, conducting malicious prosecution double jeopardy successive sexual predator proceedings against res judicata; under the new law Violent Sexual Predator Sentencing provisions R.C. Chapter 2971.
Sections 2971.03, and 2971.04, in Hamilton County Common Pleas No. 5P0800368, implementing the
ODRC's R.C. § 5120.49 and § 5120.61 Clinical Risk Assessment, re-litigating in a public trial, past issues previously resolved by prior final judgments in Case No. B952232, under Ohio's repealed
Megan's Law, expressing the intent and purpose to change the prior final judgments, and to subject
DeNoma to community notification and duties, obligations, and liabilities of new law registration requirements after the maximum 25 year sentence, which he effectively unconstitutionally accomplished by his two different October 29, 2008 Orders citing the new law Violent Sexual Predator
Sentencing statute R.C. Chapter 2971, causing the posting of DeNoma innocent elderly parents address on the Attorney General's new law public interstate Sex Offender Registration Notification (SORN) computer internet registry website. Causing irreparable harm to DeNoma and his family victims which
DeNoma's Sixth Amendment negotiated guilty plea agreement and Judge Thomas H. Crush intended to protect, even despite the court's finding that DeNoma was the lowest level sexual oriented offender, not likely to re-offend, with the lowest risk of recidivisim, STATIC 99 "Zero" Risk Score pursuant to the
2004 research study "Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question" by Andrew J.R. Harris and R. Karl
Hanson Sollicitor General of Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness).
5, The Ohio Supreme Court determined that the new Megan's Law sex offender registration
requirements did not retroactively apply to persons who had been released from prison prior to the
law's July 1, 1997 effective date, despite their classification. See State v. Bellman (1999), Ohio St.3d
State v. Taylor (2003). 100 Ohio St.3d 172; and State v. Champion (2005). 106 Ohio St.3d 120. But later without substantive process of law, unconstitutionally unreasonably arbitrarily decided that
the new Megan's Law sex offender registration requirements did retroactively apply (without any pre-
or post-deprivation hearing), as a rubber stamp operation of law to all other prior law sex offenders
who had not yet been released from their term of imprisonment before the July 1, 1997 effective date,
simply because they were still in prison for their past offense, regardless of their substantive legal
status as a prior law first time offender exempt from sex offender registration by final judgment under
the prior law, egregiously contrary to the clear long standing legal principle that a "new judicial ruling
may not be applied retroactively to a conviction that has become final." Hernandez v. Kelly (2006). 108
Ohio St.3d 395. 399. Unconstitutionally depriving DeNoma and other old-law sex offenders of their
substantive inalienable civil liberty rights and equal protection from retroactive laws, and laws
impairing obligations of contracts, and redress and remedies by due course of law provided for under
Ohio Ccnft#uoh 4fick ii, f 2-8 cffid At; /e I. 1, f21, f /,. See S7We v. W;//i'qm.ç (2000), 88 Ohio 5f 34 5/3) J Sfcife v. l4o..yde (2002), % OhIo St. 34 211,
Ih Oho's July l 1996 Sep,a±e 5;I1 2 "Ti-ufh ?h' Seiiteici3" RevtseCode (ftC) Setons 2967.021 sand 5/20.021 he Gehet-cJ,4c5eh,I1y explkth'ydeciaj?4+ed '1i.phcse "lel-r,, øf
+0 Jefine 0 Sehtehce 1 niposedp-io-fo Joly I, 1996, 1111d #Iie phi-ase "pl-koh Ièi1" +o defiie o, setence imposed on o- affet- July I, /996. Thei-ef*e put-suctnf* R.C. §l,'/2 Contnor, qhd ted7nkcI Use) 1/,e Jonuru-y /., 1997 Me.civi's Law House 8111/80 R.C. f 2950.010YJ)
"joe-rv" de4'es o.sehtence mposed o i at- ctf#et- sJhoiI-y!,I997effectIve dcde, Oh!)' R1C, f Oq()(3) 2950. dett w;7hpeso,s who we-e sen1nceJ vhderpttsoP /4W/Thot-#o tJ4iiu4vy 1, 199am uhder Ae fot-hlet, Icw1 w*e,t'i-ey.ovsfy eyJl-eo Ia esti-. See S*tlë v Cook. (1998), 83 Ohio $*34 at '108., ee cilSO Me Je'Iy3l, 2003 Senate B1115 RC. f 295o,01 (A) 0)4) oond (c), t*n4 § 2950.09(C)(/)
W;#h pinui1'esf sl-e3ct-L wid 4ek,et4fe ;hd;cfe,-ence Ae OhoS,1*ee Cow-f ddso ;mp(ebehted uncohst,#o+aoticI dfe,-en# cubth-at-y Uh-ea5ohabk a.1h;guus s1d-D7-y
Me uhlAw -fu /dep ri v4*oh of W,e olcj-iqw fi*me R. C, f 297d 19(i4)(E) on 4 §2947,193 (A)(CJ su6stq,+;ye c&se-l4w slifu1*;Jy eh'tT/ed tebqb?!**oti chI l;'ypecen-t fo e-fht-d senteice deJuctoiis, cxwshiq PeNLn1 lii be ;hcctecepoifed Ay fo day of 1?ie
257eat- tnvimwn seti1ce (Jhdet- puiiht4'e hev law sexo1'fende- sentehc/npJkes.. See
v. Moiey(20O'O,IO'I Oh;o-S*3d 322; oihd Stfe ex rel. tAIeowe v Ohio AIiPro1e Akoty(2OO7) 11(9 Oh;o Sf3J 3 101 Solsetuehfly lie OWo Supt-evne Coot -0k4 4lf .e ogcf.?e ppIs'cc*oii of 1/ie tiew 20072008 AcJn WIs i1 Sex OffeucIe- Re sta+ich eieeIitr was cotislilutionoj vo!atin: f"nctljudyr,ehfs;
At Cehslth't.oh41 Sepi.tion of Powers Doctthiej thd %e Oh;0 Consu1'oh /b4'kle 1t2 4n aciinst +kcfftve laws,. c11i?9 Gohlpf v, Wol,e- (1902), 67 Oke, Si, /'/'/, -a"J t'U1/et- v. 090/) G Hsoh ) I Oh,'o S#. 39,51 See SMe v. 0o4yke (1010), 124- Ohl-05t, 3J 2, ocf
3t4+e y. W;/Jrms (2011),, 129 0ho S1 3d 3'1'/ir
The Iowa. State Sup-ene Cow-f found I4xf p-efrt,tcfIvt 4pp1k&tin of q ne.'iv Icw wac
OhSfrh,#ohaI ih vt014ti0n of Iie Iofrv4 Cohg So Ay11e 1,121 Ex Pest Fgcfo Cfcwce, lecause * fmthet- Jiyq JvaLfffqqeJ 1lit p-kol7er depSvth him of his case-law st4tutoly dUCOh of sentence., enhiahc1h5 and mot-e 6u1-dthso,ne the measuee ofpuniihment SMe of Iowa v. Iowa Ptst C1 1i- Heny Coemly (2009), 759AW 24 793., ctht Beaze)1 jh; (I2) 11 Z9 U.S. 1674 1 16 3.-6-68 Weaver v, Grahan (1981) '150 OS1 21, 2829) /0/ S. Cl. 9O, 96 And Lyhce . 4dhs (1997), 519 U.s '133. 117 £C+, 89!. 7' A wa-d of h4be4s' corps ':w4t.i-4ifed Itt cei4 edt-ao-d;nmy circumsfqtices 4vhee thett is in unLwfuJ ,-egti-ain+ of 4t pei-son's Idefty and lhere is ho ol(htucLte 'emedy ;, Me o1-diaici-y course cf law.'.. Rat becks cot-pus wrlllte#a ch4)teh$e ee-tthi decsohs of the Adult Pat-ole AuThoi-:ty becotue 6e.-e is no remedy of4ppeal See '9#ai '. _ 4vaI4b(e. ext-el. Jo.cic5on frkFaul (/995), 73 Ohio Rai 5 167-' Ho v. kelly' (200(o), 108 Oho S* 31 396-37.
The Ohio Supte.me Caultlso held Ihat Ohio Ct-;minal Rule 32.1 w:dt-4wa(ofJ;I/pIe4 was at
-emecly for pt-is who hid been denied pat-ole affet- The xpit-4on of -Kieii- old-law sMt0 -y
ndefcn;+e 1flinilnUhi Seh'tehce. See Se;ki,ee-t v Wlk;nsoe, (199'/), 69 OhioSi 3d £189. 1d Sfqfe v.
Bosh /iVoi*ie-n (200Z. % 01,oSt3d 237-239.
"Ct-tn. R. 32.,! 41(ows offendet- 1 w+hc1t-aw at- vctete a p/ea qf cinytirneto cowect manife.t injustice. The tu1e pt-avIdes: A mo#ion to wthci' a plea of 9uHy at- no coctest rncy be made otily befo*-e se11tehce is inposed; tvH; cot-t-ecf mm4est ;hJus+ke %e cou%-f oLf+ei- sen-tencin my se-t cisicie 1e 3uceviie1tt of can vict'on and pet-tni++!le defedan* fo wiThcLi-aw his oi- hev- plecO% $fafe V. Pei-t-yinn, Z0I3-0ho-I087; 988 N.E.2l 9)B 923w
Yet, i ii ck vk oori vus c of judicial bias pt-ejudce, i,,an;4es#c&st-ecv-d qnd del;bet-#e indifftrenc.e Ohio Coul4s dept-Tve substavilive and pt-ocedut-al clue Cool-Se of Icw.'
%-ePnedie5, dept-lying DeNofr14 of Ms Equal Pt-o+ec1n, and Inalsenabje RgMts. and C;v;! Li1,et-tt, and dehyn DeNo?nc t-edt-ess in+he coot-fs in v;olafio °f OhIo Con l.1ithon At-t;clell, J 28, anJ At*icle I, §lx U, 15, f(ó, f 9, lO, fi, /9. See fcllowhi:
DeNomo y. Deters, Sa.te of Ohio, Hai'fll*On Co4' Coin man Pleas Coui-t No. 1% 1001030 Septem bet- 4, 2011, Appeal Fit-3't Dist. Ct; No, CilO 616, Ohio Sup t-ene C't. No, 2-012- 10 73 (20I2)
DeNorno v, R&sich, Habeas Cot-pus, 0hiosort-ef"p- 0 No. lq-02qo(201'/)1
Scfe y, DeNoma Hcmthrn County Common Pleas No'.g. B 95/3.22 /B9502232_ July 3, 20V1 amd July 8, 201'1 Motion wt44idi-w 9u;lfy p/eq dsm;sseJ, App'eal F;rt Asf. Ct. No. C,'oo590 Octobei- 2.9, 201'i, Ohio Sop-erne C-t ,4o. GEN-2o/q- Zool Januat-y 2, 2015;
q. DeNoma v. kciskh, U.S. Dist C1 Southwecfern Ohio No. /:15-cv-59q U.S. 6's' Cii-. Ohio, Appeal No's. /6-31201 and /6-3839(20/7). "A constI+ut;o1141 h4y cause ;jtivev ho a Iellyprotec+ed ej-esl lhat;s not ;lse/f 8OQI-m#eed by the Coti50ution, 's when The 3ove -fttnentc/eIvS a class ofpersons A t- .statafoi-y beneftf -to whch lhey could otIe,-w1se 6e ent;lled buflot- the aove.*-ntnentc v;okd;oh Qfher co #uoncl A - - - ,-;-*htfo eU4lpI-ote4oh I I I - - - i.' is- - I' & 1 £ A - - - .L...I - 1 .- I ,-ii
20 (D. N.M. 2.007) ... Whei llie 6ovemmebtereAs If Moredffkufffot- ,iembei-s ofone 9rovpto obtetin benef;Hhmn ;#k-p- of onofhei-group, o mem bet- of -Me i-met- group seekhgh, Cl1Q(le9e barrIe- heed nof alleje that he ou14 have obined the fenef;l- but for 1k bi4er n ot-de- to esfbl5h stotnd;mS.The 'iijvt.y ii ct th an ertuc41 pi-otect.on ce of This vcrefy is the cieiihd of eV41 t-etme+ le5vI1h3 -F.-orn lbe irnposttpn of the
a,.
t-o)e DicLLE)fiS !165
`7 17 6-nolA v. Cleveland (1993), é7 Ohio St,3d 35, (Wo N.E+24 163 the Supreme Coui-t nofec qtt-end amotyS 5t4fe cout-i's ló rely on WPeir oWn state cogfi1-ottos when Iecid1n ch'il liberties cases... 1+ uoted, wi#h approval, lhe S1teSnehf in Dc*.veiiportv. Gat-ca. (Tex, 1992) 83q 5,W.2.d '1J2. 1h4t ;nterpi-et;n a S+a+e con slththon as met-ely a res1teinentofHe federal Contitutio 'Iro1) fr,oI* llle dini-fy of The sitte chas-tei- cid clenes c;t,zeng Ilie protection fullest of lh&t- -ijhf' Al-hold 4f2. The cout-t the,e42ote joiied -the other slêdes, and out-justices Ofla(lfriouSly CohC ut-i-ed iii thelhe f Stpat-A?aph of +he syllabus, which states: 'Tie Ohio Cons*tvtion is a docwvienf of inEIepellde.nt f1 In the 41-eaç of Jv;duahiIts and6v#t6et-fes... rtat ccuYtc 4I uegMded h acc ot-d 1h3 t-eate- civil libertaes and protecfabiis under s+ate cohsfi*U#iot7slb Thd1v1d041s anc.t grotlps.\.. Section 1, At-ttcle I.,, Consfr1-utkp,. Ohio +6effier with Se4on 2; At-ficle ], 0ho Cons ff#ul7an... make it u+e clear that, uiidei- Ohio's B11 of Rights, every person has u,alienal,le 4hts under riatui-ctl 14w which cannot be ündoly restrIcted by c,yerhw1el,t, which c 4rt,ied for ffie put-pose of secui-2n9 ahct pt-otectin8 lhose i-Ms4. .Tf5uo.i-antees that o.11 c*en $ kave fii e rht to freedom ai4 +o the pt-0 fectron 0f pro perty and reads: 'All neii are, by ncitw-e., fi-ee and ndependenf, cind have cet-tain n4lienabJe t-ht5, amoh6 which are Nose o ehjoy(n5 cthc defetidne 1A 'ItIJ ( berty,actu,i-tii, possinq , and pi-otecttn pt-opet'fy, qndseekng and obtatp, h4ppiness and safe-l'. ..In l4oush y, Peth (195, I(o5 0h10 35, 133 thE. the Sup-ee Ccvi-t St. .ffQ, held that all pet-sohc have a t-iht of privacy. Ituoted +he syllabvs of RwescW v, New England Life Ins. Co. (1905)) /22 Ga. 190, 50 LE -fot- the poposr1-toi. that 'A right of pa-ivacyis dei4ved -Fi-om ha*jl-a. Thet-efot-e, 1 14W\.. tke riglf of p4vicy s an inaIieit4le r;ht-fhatspt-ofected by Ohto's The rht o4?psii-acy lnetms a t-htt0 Le I4a1one. Moos/i, 4t llie syllabus. Fui-1 erinop-e, 41(p&-sotis i have 4he t-iIlt+o 'adopt a fife of secfus/oh with t-;9ht to reMq jjj uhdi56,-be4 iP he e.- she so.desi.-es. /65 Ohio St at35."$fafe of Ohio V. fr;lI(amsf1999)41999 ChioAD,3..LEXIS 217E*l58 16-171. " 'lei Kihtz v. fl4,-et- (1919). 99 Ohio St. 2'/O, 2gq, /2',' M 6 llie ccx*t c(Ied the fh# ID Peputcitioh a 'pimai-y øind pre ciouS 5hfsoleinnlypoclainied hi Iloly WI4+, in 47e lives and life t4vre of oui- own peoples '_Id. 42 151 We undepstapid 1hee cornrv*Mfs hs me4m f6t A peP-son's - 9hf to %e ehjoymebf of hs epuifo s as fuiid ,en+41 qs the i-;hf 0fp14vc4cy %-eco$flzec( ih 'Roush. 1+, foo Ic i1Atw-ial Mvht th Is pi-otected by &c+iot, 1 AifkIe I, f fhe Ohio Con stttution. Th e -;9ff0 one' epuifrcn is aJso 'xpWc*ly p.otecteJ in Secton Ito, Af;de I.. '.Th e Hooch con-tc1w held Ihditc4ny cc'uduc, tJjgt would cuse &hcinie o humiliation +o 4 person of c*dunze-y sensibift#ies o- +hat would subject him to pub//c Actrassmehtis ai atefionct6fe toi-#. 11o5 Ohio St of 39s Li 4GIOn, Sectioh ho, A-ticle I, of the Ohio ('onti*,fron u4pawfeeg 61 foe 1tiiy iijvi-y done to pet-sc' eput4tkn, he shall hove ck teiiiedy by due coos of 14W1" WiIlims5upa /999 OhIo App. !_gX1S 217 £* I921j
OhicA' Jaiiucty 1, (997 Meg's Lw louse Bill IO Revi.cecl Code (c.) 5ectsi 2950.02 (05) oIy '4 sexcl(4 p-e44*r rovidehot o. habitual sex offendei- bs4 i-ec.tuced iwpeefaii6n of
See S#dite .Co ok (1998) $3 Ohio Sf4 3d 4 Ofpq07. ,4,d like the 4ormep law
R.C. 2950,08 the subseuer J4hut-y /; 1997 Meois L*w R.C. 12950,00 , 41c0 stt-ictly
ph+l public unspecton of sex offetide I-e3Sf4+oii ioI-Sv4+toh.
Whetefore wiThout sobsimfAve st4tu10r7 otndjul1511ct0ei41 cwtlioii+y Ihe Corporcdioti of
Uani1*rn Couiity VkoJ-IOLJSly conducted Sh4rn Ie34I pt.oceSS 4hct beNOfli4 and his #iexfo4 k;n e(4ei-Iy p4renfs, 1hi-ou, h cnd by ;1s Sheriff Simoii L. L&s .Ii-.; Common P/es Jud8es RlpJi E.
Win k1erdt; No-beet A. Ncdet; Pt-ocecuftig At!-ot-neys Joceph T. Pete'-s; Faft-;c k X. P-essii;
jtuk E. Adcns; ud Fob/;c Defe#,dei- DanIel E, But-ke J4., caU5;ne 1nappt0p64+e cThc un Iw4uI And posthg of DeNomcs persoh ql 1Fw10d1n3 his tiext 0f kh eMei-Iy
tents Kdimitfn Coin4 f-esideti*41 tckLt-es oh the Attotney GenetI'.cpublk Mtei'-site e(ecti-onk..
Sex Oft'endei- ReSistmticti Nots'ftcation (S. 0.R.N.) computer nrhetfreidiy websi+e, WI#1POUD
EeNomd.s jnvofvevent ofps'011A1)eStrdi+;6n tvij w;1hout teNonici's fcnowJecte. Ctrwi,3 qcfua
n-epo4t-Ab1e qnd cohtunung inivey 4iid harm +o tepthifioiis,.pi-h'acy and i-efationhips of DeNomna, h& eIde.t1y Par ertt id eni-e family, b7 qcuiesceflse of I i,;lto*t County AppeaIsCoutJodes
Peie!ope R. Cunnham, F1t-kk 1. Din keIacke, Lee H. H,jdebl.o.ntJ...) Mike Powell, J. &woj1 Sondenai, J
I0 SylAS;eve fiendrn, P4f;k F Fschee-, &tPeW',e, a nd Gove nor s Ted St'fckI4nd and Jok R. k&d?, 1fr cohspro.cy wh former ikt-ecfo's Offhe NO, De.pa.-fmerfr of /?ehqk'l/16froh 414 C0 ect,c*, Tei+y Collns, ctncl Gary C, Mob- and A1toihey GenerQls /ticu-c Davin, Rrhoj-d Cod-y and Mike C)eW;ne ad
Jog+ces of-fhe OltiaSupt-eme Cow-f F-nc1s E. Sweeney S; Thotus J. fl4oye-; C. J. Res&ck;
J.J. Lund he- tr4ftø1; Iou9las1 ,.Lc). Cook; Aiaueeeti O'C,onno Paul E. Pi",eife; Tepi-ence
ODonneIl; iudJ+h Anh L4nzJneI-; RoIe-f R. Cupp; • Evelyn Luhd her8 5t -affoh; Yvefre McGee
-own; Sharon L. kennedy; JudiTh L F-ench; and Wtlfram Al, O'MeI.
-#'An AlIelion of Jefonafion bl-i94 Jed wiTh ofhei- 5ovel-flPnehtacfroh odvetsely affecf lhe plati+ffc lntei-est5 property tnfrokes fhe pote4ons of 4he Due Process Clawse and +he-efoie sfcfes ot clapn undep 1983 '.e hs1jifj'e due process vioIo.ios are 'complete as soon as lhe pohthited acf;on Is taken' and there fore do nof depend upon Ihe 4deQj'acf of any pre - or post dept-h'al!on .emed;e. McClaty, 786 F 2J4t 86 n,3 uotn5 Daniels, '17/ U.S. 4f338., We ai-ee wtfh 11e drs1icf court ihccHhe statutory i-e9 s*-4t;on duties imposed Ot7 the p tiff 5 con cti'tute a 'plus' factor. Those obl;ga+sons (I) alter The pkiiitfVs legal statuand (2) re 'govern pnentct/ i1 cf. McCli-y, 786 E24 at 89... The rnposti'on on a pet-.SOI? of a. hew set of le5o.i dufès -that 14? dis.e5ar8 ed, .object him or er fo 4dony prosecution, consf;tates q 'chariqe of #hafpea-so&s S+a+us' under state /4w. A& 1,£/.24 0.5. 4 712.,.. Three other districf courts.., have used simiiai- reaso&ng +o idetth'fy api-o#ected kberty ;nf&-estundei- The ct.gnia plus' 1vst. See Doe Y. fly0*) I ESu,op.24 1224, I231 (M.t'.Aia. /99)(conclodin H,af '!he imposi&on of new lena! d ufse s and the exftnutsh inehl' of other rhtg, includn9 'the -;9Iitto estaWsh ci new t-esktence w;fhout9;v,n9 prior notketo govern menl of1cials' concfrhite a 'plus' factoi-); Doe v. Poctak;, 3 F. Supp2 ci. £J5 %8 Cs. D.N.Y. 199s) Cm l 5hf4 1hese rquiremehfs placed on reisti-anfs, there cavi he no genuine Jspvte that fre95tr4+ioh alters the lea.t status of all convicted sec offenders subject lo the Act. ..These reuls-ements obviously encroach ch the l.ierfy of convicted sex ofi'enclers, and, e-e4t-e tieysuff'e- ato.iqb1e hnpaii-inenf of right n qdditron to Thei-e /iart je, reputaton); W1 fi v Pori#z 3l R5upp 1/99, 1219 (.N.J. /99(a) ('notin9 That 'stirna plus' can be establtshed 'by coupIiii.j the -ep(#tafona.l da,na9e willt the ., dfltrht legal status &s a re&st-ahf and The duf(es imposed as a result.')..,. fhe Up,ifed £tes j)Is1-lct Court fthe Dsti-ktof Cot VInb14 has held that 4 5X offeiider &sh-ystatiite s;tnlar to Cotmectcutc infirlh9es upon a protected liberty interest because if$ tequirernenfs and (ohs period of super vised release tnpose an hi-eaTh and ethnt of.' burdens' whrch, when coivb;ned wthi t-eputatiol7al harm, satsfy the 'sl1tncrp!os' +est. Poe v VI ;il;anis, /lfSupp.2d q5... Co. D.C. 2001). 4e Thrc1 C- cu+ has idenfrfied a. protected !ibei-fy interest in these C:I-cuPnsithCec... See E, B. v, Vet-niero, 119 F3G( /077,I105(3d C;r.1997);see aJ Rcey, Fat-well ,999 E$upp. 17, 196- 97 (D. Mass. 1998) (gaine)."Doe i. Dept. of Public S4fetv. 271 F. 39 38 55, 5, S7.50 (U.S. 2 Crr. Connect,c&st, 2000 clt;ng also Albt49htr, Oliver (199'i), 570 US 2(a, 2 In /9951he Hew JereyMe Sup-erne Coul-tema6eAfhe csfr;on41;4 of New Jet-se/s He3on's
L4w A1d found li1ct a "Ihe h rm to i-e3ste-n1? I-eputofiohs, when coupled the inco,-5rn cfl his
of 1wvccy.. Coflsti#ufes pt-otectib/e ;nteest" under both lhe 4dei cuid New Jersey Cohstthltiorls.
Dot V. Por;fz, 112 NId.l) 42A.2d 37, 1I9(/995).. Ad ;h 1994 Ihe Xcu1s4sSt4teSupreme Cautf
held fhctubI;c pio)'sioh of kans&c e stt-h 4 's 4ppl!ed , lb sex offendei who co,;1id fi1e c14,nes before ctk eifecte c1ite, vjolcde.s expostfto ckuse of lice (ihited SMes
Cogtivti State v. M ei-2foO Kcu 923R24 102'/, y 469, /O'/3-qq(19%), cel denied, U.S. 1118, 117 S.C1 52? 2508 0997) Subegueidly teh other- Sttfe Sop-ete Courts hctve 'Rund sex offenjet- I.egSti-atE'oll 1e?uieI.neMfs lb be punuli've and un ohct ts0h41 when applied t-e*-ocicive1y nctuftng: IGssow-i, AMcic )Msth?, kehfvsky,Indiorr4, 011o, bi o'-y/o.nd , OklAtutna, New Ho iiphi re, 4hd Pehn511v4ni, See:
Doe v. Ph;II;ps, 19'! S. W 31 833 (fv11csoui-i 2O0(); Doe v, $14e, I69 f?3d 99, I017(,4 let 5i(4 2008). Stafe. LetJ/e'7, 85A.2 '/ Zé(Moi 2009; Com,nonwea,lth v. 84ker 295 £W.34 '137(Kehfucky. 2009); Woilace v. State, 905 N.2d 3711380 (ZhdF4I1 2009); 51te Y. Bodyke, 12-to Ohio St 3d 264 (0h0 2010; State v. WIII;arns, /29 Ohio S# 3d 31"! (OMo 2011); Doe v. Dept of PublicSccfety, 42 A. 3d 123, 1110 (fVicuylctiid 2013); SihIrkey v 0klAhornot Dep't of Co* 305 R 3 too'! (Ok14bornc 2013); Poe v. StAte, II! A3d /077, 1/00 (New !lawFshir-e 2015); CornI-nohwe4lth v Muni., 169 A3d 1189 Pet1?A SYlvcII7;c1 20/7);
Ap,J Veiet-oj Courts have fouiici sex offendet- I-estrafioh -ejui-enents to be puhl ve €rJ unocti+ut,o*l in four other- states ir4uJ(:Mkhi3qh, Color-ado, F1orcLc, 4hcl Tehrieslee. See:
Doe v. Snyder-, 8311 13d 69(o) 700 (U.S. (0Th Ch-. Mchi8 r 2010 ('4Ulatd v. Rrkh, 265 1Supp. 3d /211 (U.S. Dsst. Colorado 2017); Doe Y. MinOcdeCty 8'10 F.3d IIBO, 1185-1/86 MS. Il' Cr. FIor-4 2017); Doe v, H4ngMrn, 2017 WL '#782853 (o.s. Dist. Tennesjee 2017).
Yet by Uttcliecke4 5epavafiah ofpower; v:obdon,s n Ohio) DeNo flcJ otIei- old-law sex offender-c 41-e
Leh u)ectefo 47uir i*epcit-oble :tljur-y4flJ 110-tn by 4lcL*;otiaJ m€i eescIveckcroportIrn4fe ciue,I cd uJprnshments, by The. uhcohs1WuhOii4/ ir!thz-y dept;wth of heir- Ohio Consfr+vtcon an4lehoJJIe i-cjh* 417c1 eQu4ip-oteci'c'bl horn 1-etro4éave /4w5 411d 14w5 4tf-1n the 0bk98*oh 4 contp.4c
/2.. Ohio procured federal crime-control funding by its July 1, 1996 enactment of its Senate Bill 2
"Truth in Sentencing Law" under the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive
Grant Program which among other things required incarceration of offenders for at least 85 percent of the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.
"In 1990, the General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing the creation of the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission and instructed it to develop and recommend to the General Assembly a comprehensive criminal sentencing structure. R.C. 181.21;
181.23. This sentencing policy was to be ... a reasonable use of correctional facilities,
programs, and services... R.C. 181. 23(B), ... to assure proportionality, uniformity, and other fairness in criminal sentencing, and to provide increased certainty in
criminal sentencing. R.C. 181.24(A) ... one of the over riding goals of SB 2 was 'truth in sentencing,' meaning that the sentence imposed by the judge is the sentence that is served, unless altered by the judge. This was primarily accomplished by two methods: eliminating indefinite sentences and eliminating parole." Woods v. Telb (2000). 89 Ohio St.3d 504. 507-508.
"The General Assembly effected significant changes in Ohio's criminal code, modifying the classifications of criminal offenses and corresponding sentences. See 146 Ohio Laws, Part IV. 7136; Legislative Service Commission Analysis of Sub. S.B. No. 2, Parts II and V (1995). Ostensibly, S.B. 2 reduces the terms of imprisonment for many offenses from
those possible under the former statutory scheme ... The original language expressed the General Assembly's intent that the provisions of S.B. 2 be applied only to crimes
committed on or after its effective date ... Section 5 of S.B. 2 ... 146 Ohio Laws, Part VI, 7810." State v. Rush (1998). 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 55-56, 57.
"Because Ladson had not previously served a prison term, he was entitled to a presumption that the minimum term was sufficient. See R.C. 2929.14(B); State v.
Montgomery, 159 Ohio Al2p.3d 752, 2005 Ohio 1018, 825 N.E.2d 250 ... We held in State v. Montgomery, supra, following Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000). 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435; Blakely v. Washington (2004). 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531. 159 L.Ed.2d 403, and United States v. Booker (2005). 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621, that R.C. 2929.14(B) is unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment when a sentencing court imposes more than the shortest prison term on an offender who has not previously served a prison term based upon facts, such as a finding that the shortest prison term would demean the seriousness of the offense, that have not been found by a jury or admitted by the offender. The sole exception is where the trial court expressly bases its findings upon evidence of the offender's history of prior convictions or juvenile adjudications." State v. Ladson (2006).165 Ohio App.3d 590, 592-593: 847 N.E.2d at 493 [IJ 8-91.
"Une the old sentencing scheme, a defendant might receive a longer term of incarceration, that longer term was often indefinite and could be reduced by 'good time' credit. See e.g., former R.C. 2929.11 (143 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1433). See, also, former R.C. 2929.01(C) (145 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2088-2089) and 2967.19(A) (145 Ohio Laws,
/3, Part IV, 6437 (reduction for good behavior)." State v. Rush (1998). 83 Ohio St.3d at 56.
"An offender rarely served the time actually sentenced for three main reasons. First, indefinite sentences were prescribed for most serious felonies. Second, upon entering a state correctional institution, an offender's sentence was 'automatically' reduced by thirty percent for good behavior. Former R.C. 2967.19, 145 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6437. Finally, the Ohio Parole Board ('APA' herein) reviewed all prison sentences for disparity among offenders and attempted to abate inequities. Former R.C. 2967.03, 145 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6428." Woods v. Teib (2000). 89 Ohio St.3d 504 at 508.
"The Ohio General Assembly acted with greater ambiguity when it came to the delegation of administrative and interpretive authority between the State's judicial and executive branches. The General Assembly empowered the State's Criminal Sentencing Commission, whose members included representatives from the Ohio Supreme Court and the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to 'assist the general assembly in the implementation of those aspects of the sentencing structure that are enacted into law.' OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 181.25(A)(1) (1996). Thus, the statute foresees cooperation between the judiciary and executive in securing the
law's objectives. However, ... the statute's plain language did not make clear the division of power between the two branches of government. The Law's equivocation on the respective roles of the State's judicial and executive officers led to different interpretations and applications of the statute's requirements. In large part, this fundamental ambiguity created the basis of this lawsuit." Hernandez v. Wilkinson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85506 [*45] (U.S. N.D. Ohio, 2006).
"The act of holding a hearing to decide whether one convicted of a crime shall be held in confinement or granted parole constitutes an exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power; it is precisely' the act which a judge performs when he pronounces sentence, and the hearing itself results in decisions which affect fundamental rights of the prisoner." McKee v. Cooper (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 65 at 68.
Egregiously contrary to the July 1, 1996 Ohio Senate Bill 2 Truth in Sentencing Law Section 5 of S.B. 2, 146 Ohio Laws, Part VI, 7810 explicit language and clear intention that its provisions only be applied to crimes committed on or after its July 1, 1996 effective date, clarified by Section 3, Am. Sub.
No. 269, 146 Ohio Laws, Part VI, 11099; State v. Rush (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53 at 57, and Ohio
Revised Code (R.C.) Section 1.15 Effective date, priority of legal rights; §-L22 Change in judicial construction does not affect prior valid obligations; §-L.47 Intentions in the enactment of statutes;
§-L49 ambiguous statutes; L1.54 Continuation of prior law; §_L58 Effect of reenactment, amendment, or repeal of statute on existing conditions; § 2901.04 Rules of construction; § 2967.021 and § 5120.021 Application of provisions, Ohio's judicial and executive officers conspired in a continuing corrupt Or pngi;4est c1s-egArJ Det.el;c+ron of duty de/ibe-fe ;n 4FeI-ence cruel omd utiusuoi I
pwl5h1)ent Sep4-+voI of Powers v,014+ions implemetifing Qflcon5tftufco7(j dfepeh/ qrnJ,ruou,
&nn-ecsoh46le, iIr.y st ?*,r-y rnterpetAtIohs cndpoitcIes cus the mnco.'-cei-ation of De MCI
other e14-I4W offenders kokeftth 8 5pei-cen# of 1heit-sehtehce % fi-wcIuIen/y gc*uhe
Federal c-iine-co4i-o1 Pt-opn 11e (199',') Wolent Ofendei- Incat.cet-xt,'o'i cwd Trot!, ;, Se,tencin3
Incentsve Grant Pi-oycun. VnconsMutiócd/y reft-o actively o.-bth-ai-7!y abrogating 1ie cperoon of DeNoncs cise-law iatufo'-uly eht -ied - -t,vpe i-cenf fo one-fh;rddeduc-hor, of
SI-4e ci-eated liberty rgk*. Uncohstatio1I/y 4+rAt-iiy reh-oac1ve1y eIiminAttn lb ope*-aton of DeNofnas C4Se-IQW ho ti74hdctorp incIefjn+e at I- mninum senitence +erm 4
U'nprisoh rnent StAte - ct-eqted S+4tut0t-i ly ehti+Ie4 i-ehe I lifaf,on substh five parole eI,' b;Ih'y kbeb-ty ri3 hti C;1-cumvehfin5 DeNotnds f(nq1jud5t,eht ihmwni#y lc3cI stctu$ inaltepi able And c1pal protectioh eh 1+a.t,*oh ch';i i-ht in ;ld-;0,1 of Ohio Revise4 Code (R-C) Sectoh
2921.'Y5 Inter4er413 w;lh cfr;I 5ht and Secln 2921. S'Y Dere/khon of du*y ejI-e(ou5/y
to 1h'e lotj3 Amidihg clear legal prnc7p/e 11ctta. 'lie wjd;c;aJ rulihg may not be applied t-eti-oad:ve)y to a cohVicoh lhcf has become naI"He-hapjclez. Y, kelly (zoo(), /08 Oh;o st.3d
395. 399 Ef4ec1ve TanpefrTI1 wH, #le 1-eCoI-ci of DeNoirus f(naljud5nehtinmnunHy case-law je0j status; (lb/awfully i-gfr4Iiin5 aeld Endqn5ermn9 DeNon,c* b7 crnd Iht'rndat1o)7;
Ob'h-uct;oh of officcj busIp,es nd Fa.iure to t-eporta ci-,me; and Cow7plk;+,v in apattei-n of Corropt a.cfivi+y Conspiracy VioI+aoii of Ohio LAWS inc/odin5: Revised Code I 29/3. 12905.03;
2909.0&,; L2-105 -,// 12921.03; 5 292l,O'/ I 2921.3!,' I 292/s 22; 1 2923.03;
2923.31(E) ar,d (1) (1) mJ(2)()(c); f 2923.32 f 292301; cwd f 2921.05Refalsaton.
Excessively pamish7n PeNan'ia by Cohtiawous irnpiionment day -For day ntoe'e+hah 23¼ ,vet-s,
914 perceit of #ke 257eai- b4XIIWh7 sentence umder pull +ive new sex offender ;e4encn9 poIces, and u,iconsti+utionally t-e*t-octctively SUhjeCtin De.Nomq to add ionalyeai-s of post— t-ele4se corn,n4 no and ;n-person repot-trn duftes, oh1ictfions, di.cak!T+;ec And WANS General's Maklites on lhe Mot-hey new p0 h/ic infet-sMe elect-&7k 5e' Offender Re, istv-toh Nocthot ($0 RN) computer intei-nets-e sli-y webs+e wiTh f1wet of felony pr05ecut10h qnd rmprisDhmeht -For non-compliance, eff'etiveIy 117C4 ihj pQiSIh!eflt a9o.1hSt, DeNo,na 1y mat-e 400 lcUj 1 pet-c.ent 5uLjec1' DeNo'no% fo excess-;ve and cidditornl ctuel cuid unuualpuhisbinents t,tf could hot have ,eeP, foreseeable at*,etme of t.'el1oM4s cf.i5e5, heotIoJd ple4 4t3reesnent tmcl Ap-1l 6, l95 fihctljad$rncwti.
Eiid4iie,-1h, DeNoina ;n ctpeisonsysfem overcrowded with unreformed and I-epeat hew- kw of'fendet-s sevin5 si4qhfic4ntfy 3170rtep- Sentehces, msreprasetilTh5 DeNotnai as the worst of Ike wot unftf for s-eh.b!ikfioh and JeSetYin the na)Cipnum #et-n, of impt-soh1neift. Cqussn9
DeNotnex fo suffer extreine despair and aniciety 'PId to live cohstan feat-46r Ns life, health tud safey: ) qnsferin3 C)eNorna from he Lebanon Corecfiona1 1_eve! ONE single 4enc.e
Mintnum Secin-ty Camp, cohfillih9 C'eNoma,cr away from his now disabled altn5 elderly p.aients.
Thcl sopportive family and 4t-;ends, in -the double feiice Madison Cob+ecfIoncd TnsthLot:bn (IiaCI)
Zone B, and denyin C)eNomeA 2nd htsfamly me ei-spai-ticipalfon fti the IvsUli
FarnUy Day Event b.) denyin3 ()eNo,na The doily qccess lo lhe ins#th,tiofs Zone 5 laW
(ibrary 1e3al Services, t'esepcJ, cnd lypewritng machines w11.4 -eas-ohabIe op ob-tuni+y '1-a
his le9i documenis w*hout hoi-asstr,ent, -epi4s4ls or punshments of any kid) as
-etui -e4 by Ohio A nnsti-atIve Code (A-i.) Rule 5/2O-920(B)O)(3)(6) Policies
59-LE 6-0! Y V1. Procedures A. and 5P,-L1301 7. YL Procedtn-ec (B) 1, 24, b.d; c.) vico.t-ious-ly ceafin kodile hazardous enth-onmenf a Inst Detloma 1,y dan ot'ahIzqf'o A) cohplI-acy of sta& Fir) otppropekte svpei-visToiz harassment and jnftrnicLthcrn Coiduct Reports wiTh ps-oressive and collates-al pirnishrneMts, and tnisi-eps-esenftng DeNop'o4 to lhe ini,ate popvlaflon as a snitch -Ia incte 1t7m4te hth'ed and v,olence ccinst DeNo ma, it, el(tg1on fat-
eNot-ncs use ofegt-ievqnce procedure, lb silence,deter, and prevent 1)ei4ortia from
Ks' cv;l rights Ie3cl action challen5)n5 the du'-at,n and Cohdthohs of Ms senlnce;
16, d.) denying DeNoma his State-created exempted interest right under R.C. § 2329.66 Administrative
Rule (A.R.) 5120-5-03(A)(D)(E) to retain $25.00 exempt from garnishment for court costs, for, inmate expenditures including medical, healthcare, hygiene, and legal stationery, printing, photocopying and postage costs for accessing the courts; e.) denying DeNoma eligibility to participate in the Institution's
Religious Services KAIROS Retreat Program; f.) denying DeNoma eligibility to participate in the
Institution's Dog Training Fresh Start Canine Program; g.) arbitrarily removing DeNoma from his preferred housing bunk spaces and work job training assignments, and depriving DeNoma of his pay income, and old-law rehabilitation seniority status contrary to Department Policy 54-WRK-02 VI.
Procedures; h.) denyiiig DeNoma his earned rehabilitation R.C. § 2961.22 Certificate of Achievement and Employability; i.) denying DeNoma the waiver for continuing vocational career technical education provided for by Department Policy 57-EDU-01 VI. D.5. a. ii, I. 1. and 57-EDU-12 VI. E.3. b; j.) denying 'DeNoma housing in the Institution's Veteran's Dormitory despite the fact that he is a veteran honorably discharged from 15 years of U.S. ARMY active duty, givingbeds reserved for
Veterans instead to non-veteran inmates; k.) denying DeNoma his old-law eligibility under former
R.C. § 2967.26(A)(1)(C) for furlough outside the prison fence for education and employment
Opportunities: 1.) denying DeNoma eligibility to participate in the prison system's Commercial Drivers
License (CDL) Training Programs; 2.) denying DeNoma eligibility to participate in the ASE
Certification Program for automotive brake and engine repair; 3.) denying DeNoma eligibility to participate in the Water Treatment Certification Program; 4.) denying DeNoma eligibility to work in the Institution's Tan Pants job assignments outside the prison fence in the Institution's Warehouse,
Garage, and Administrative Buildings for job skill experience in forklift operation, mechanics, landscaping and community services work crews.
DeNoma had diligently and successfully reformed his life and ways of thinking, accomplishing his case-law rehabilitation by obeying the institutional rules and successfully completing all programs
17. required and available to him, acquiring his substantive statutory one-third deduction of sentence unchangeable October 2001 parole eligibility release date, and has maintained the lowest criminal history and security risk scores remaining at the Level ONE Minimum Security Status, and has acquired the highest assessment of 'Asset to Community' in all eight dynamic domains of his ODRC
Institutional (RAP) Reentry Accountability Plan.
Under Ohio's former indefinite sentencing scheme the Parole Board had no authority to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power to hold a hearing to decide whether one convicted of a crime shall be deprived of his statutorily acquired deduction of sentence, or to deny DeNoma paroled release at the expiration of his non-mandatory indefinite 10 year minimum sentence term of imprisonment imposed by the sentencing judge. Only if a parolee violated the terms of parole, did the Parole Board have authority to hold such a hearing. See McKee v. Cooper (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 68-75.
"The Adult ParoM Adho+y perform s 44ii7 sfi-afve andnot 4 jucIki4I at- fuicfi'o." McKee v er (/97 4&,40 Ohio
"The 0ho Pct-a1e oc!('APA'hereTh) t-e.v;ewecl all prison sentences 4* qtnotiS offenders cthJ aflernpted *' de hep+es. 1o1-rneg-R,C12967,03 (q5 0h6 Laws, P 1V) 6qza" Wooc1 v, Tefl,(2000),89 Ohio St. 34 4t508
'N's lnguce -o-ds bod discet,oI-o -the Authorfy to pct-ol.e pt-s This discretton is not utilirnited. Fo-net- R. C. 29 67. 19 pi-ovided: (4 pee-son c-f'rnecl i,, a stcfe penct nsft10t-€rn' is etlitled to certh dfrniiwtiohs of Sen+ence foP good behqv;or' Mckee, Supret, qo Ohio St. 24 7/-72.
PSUWt to the former Ohio Rev:s ed Code (RC.) $eclph 2967.19 00(E) S*e createct liberty rht, sobsfahfve 'Hth-t7 pe.t-cent de4ucfion of Se hfece that ShAll not be 4orfeifeA oi- any reosoh, operating priot- to July 1, 1996, the Ohio Court of Cla.irns defei-jnined 1hf the Ohio
Eepartmetitof Re ha bd;hafioii ohd Cot-i-ecttoti (O R.C.) f4ilei ; bLs le3at chJ1y, olljiaf,ohg qhcl t-espoli5iiIT+y fo cciculate an t4 ad rnin-istet- The stat utot-y dmnuf1oj, of sehtence aiij ferefot-e was stripped of *s immunily and was 4und to be liable - injury nd datnees Pot- false tmprsonInent See 13 v. Ohto Departrnento-f fleiabiliMiop ahcl Cot-i-ecfioii, 200l-0hio-3839
D*1331 2004 O/7;L) /4i.c, LE XIS 37 C 73. Sex offender registration resembles parole and probation by its requirement of years of post- release in-person reporting to law enforcement with. threat of felony conviction and imprisonment for failure to comply. Arbitrarily imposing additional punishment without fair warning prior to the commission of offenses and final judgment of conviction and sentence, and without any fmding of dangerousness or objective threat to society such as material risk of recidivism, and despite convincing evidence that DeNoma is completely rehabilitated and poses no danger to public safety, but based only on the fact of DeNoma's continued imprisonment for a past conviction. Violating the privacy and imposing additional punishments upon DeNoma, his elderly parents and family members beyond what could have been expected at the time of DeNoma's April 6, 1995 final judgments and sentence, by the pervasive misuse and dissemination of information published on the Attorney General's public interstate electronic Sex Offender Registration Notification (SORN) computer internet registry website, and exposure by in-person home visits and public humiliation by over-zealous, malicious, or at least insensitive law enforcement personnel making checks of his residence, affecting all persons who support DeNoma with housing. Threatening DeNoma and all persons who support him also with uncertain and unpredictable punishments disproportionate to the offenses committed. Knowingly placing DeNoma in peril of additional punishment at the random whim and caprice of unknowable and unpredictable members of the prison population and public. Subjecting DeNoma to actual and potential dangers of ostracism and shaming; effective banishment and shunning in the form of limitations on his ability to live and work without fear of arbitrary and capricious eviction, harassment, job relocation, and or firing, and actual and potential physical and mental abuse by prison inmates, and members of the public who for whatever reason became aware of his status as a registered sex offender. See also
Millard v. Rankin (2017). 265 F.Supp.3d 1211 (U.S. Dist. Colorado) citing Doe v. Snyder (2016). 834
F.3d 696. 703-704; and Doe v. State. of Alaska (2008). 189 P.3d 999, 1017.
9i It !s self evklevitby l/e S/%tU*/ I4hjuci5e of the Iqtv dDeN€*ru ctue, O1üo5 old-/4w :hc1ef)n;te sen-feiictn8 scf,epne th1 t),e We hgj the owed 1e3oJ l4,obI;ait,on cv,d 'eponsb;I;/y to 4dhi;h'ct&
1)eNoms cued stqfotot-y ohe-third cleduct"oii of senleizce byp4o/ed -eiecxce of he Octobe 2001 expirof(on Of his on-n,qidajoi-y iidefi1e lOyectt- I:hhInuTh .ce'iteice tel-in of imprisotrnieiit, fbi- L)eNoin4's
an i-eidey-Af,oh 1nt0 Socie1i. Wilhout this teJucti6h of Sentence Thet-e is- he rehibli?*1;oh, 6c1 only excess lye and hmcu1purnshinent See Ivlckee v. Coope- (197q) O Ohio S/ 2d 68-7s
But Instead by ,on;fegf s- -d offiifs- of lhe Ohio Depa nent of Re habilt+4#,ot, and Cot-t-ecfro,7 includin3:
-ne t-ecft Re5in4ic A. WIklnso,, Deputy D#"i-ectot- Doug Fot-bes, &#-q Anch-ews,114iiy //a3em4h,
in-eau of 5enfene Compvtton and Recoi-dg ttlanagemen* tvleliss4 AJo.ivs, N. aInkensIp, Ltai'rn 0, Bow er;
Suecw of Class-Ific4ot, W;ffi-up WiiI(4n A. E14, Rob L. JePA-eys; Meh*i Health Se,-v;ces ------
Dr Hammond, Dt, ai-;gj Pr. Castel, /43-. a Walkei-, /4s.2izelmati; P't-oIe 80rcI Mai-at-efGhee,
Ga-y cr0P1, CYA10, Mausse,Evic G-;ffifh, T. Conklii,, Kctfhi/eei, /c'OVCh, Ellen W. Venters; 34b7 oan,
Ro6+/V1ciszcynsk, Jose A. Tories, li-acyT4cdheiniei-, /Yl4rc C. //o'k, Ms. Htm cA wet-k, An4eIinbi-ono,
R. Fi42 Raushenber3, zinc Ron Nelson togethet- w;th a1-e-s,Yid cou4 and slatejudk;al And execui'e off'kei-g vicqt- ous!y cod uded cm tmcheckecl cotifilhvihq cot-tup* orn;zaloh a! coni!-a C/ ofSepcw4ln of powe-s v dions, hnp1e me*'nj uncon uton4( otlreasohable ambiguous at-IUi-ai-y Sto'futot-y iiiterpt-el1onc, wllh nanifestd;s-eat-cl, coith-at-y t sobsf4(ye stMot-ypocess to intei-lere wth, Ch-cunivenf and depi-ive
De Noin4 of his 5ubst4ti1'e Pvndou-neiSJ Cobs-illVtion4l Inal(e,al,le tights of due 0001-5e of !cw Alid
C0115tr-luft0h al I; bet-f,es of eualpf-oteC1ioh f-oi-n t-th-0act1re /4W$ JclifiO4/ and ri.ispl-cpol-tloncite ctue/ "MI tlhuffualpohishlv?ehfs. UnIwcuI1y dept-whi3 DeNot a of h fctiIjvdgmetd un;fy case-law
legal sltus, qid stqtut-;ly enMe4 s'btqtS?e one-llth-d c1ec1uci,'n of sentesce liberty i-qht
Su6jec1 feNorna to conl3jun :t-repcn-4Ie hat-tv, atu injury -1-otn unlawful t-estt-aitvt 1)7 Va/v Wtar,y servitude,
severe JemotaIizn5 ku-a csineht, tnt and unchec(ced Pefalt^afioti ty falSe tinprsontnent of uncchsth,tionat Ate custody ander punitive hew /4W sex offtndet- Sehtencin 1oo/kies deprvi'115
DeNonia of any and all hope cinc! ehabIi-tatIon ncent1ve. Cauç,',9 DeNon,afo live in constwt't -sear
20. I.c 1;4, he4Hi a.nl s4fety, qvJ suffe- exti-em e cl&j3r hJ crnxeety. Ahd w;#h de l;kr4e ;n4f1erehce diy;p79 DeAlomet ctzy 4oe course of 14w remedies, and ,-edress hi lhe coo ts, E-e&ovs/y1IhS 1 i1eneiit llie objectaves of "7i-ah n Seiitencif *o issuv-epvopot-4oi7,qhbe, 4hd ofher lth-hec.c h,
CHTh41 seIdeIic;h, yeagoputhle use ofccni-ec,nqf 1c#i1fes 4ftdpOPt-cct1151
The docft4ne Of Sep4ri'oh of powers fraplelnehted 1y hUhiler of cohctf/utoric( proVsSiOh$is 8;IIs of 4t0611der expo$f-fi.cto laws, 4nd /a WS ;npa -;n, the obft34tits of coitcts." Uh;1ed Statesv. Bowh (195.), 85 S, Cf. /76Z /711-/7/5.
CONCLUSION
Whee4-e DeNomot suffers cohf1nu1n3 jvf' cold rt-epo.rctble harm Of f4lse iinprsoiunent aiid uncouftoncti gtafr custody f'-on, afore-scaJ cohspd-qcy of .cübversi ye seprtion ofpowers Vs'olafiohs mpLernenii unconslNtñ;oti4 dffei-e. tiguooc till meo.soncd,ig) t-l#i-ai-y ietroaTve ih#et-petations of
Pone- lows aiid uhcoiisti#o1ioi, unitw'tal iefro4cdve applictioii of new low sex of endei sewtecin3 onc meS+rcfoh poJtces b tofletbocfroii of afoi-e--scdd coutif and stctfejtsdicfI anl exectiWve oThcLg to
Jepve DeNoma of his lhaliviq6le -;Wfs 4nJ eqyi pofect(on -i,ts of his Pmaljudentinnun;1y, case-lAw .-ehobil;#oho, legal stafus, oictuit-ed s1tulry etit;fled suI,stofrve oI1e46-d dedoc1on of
Sentence, aiicl etuaipmol-ectIo of DaNOnc*S sus/inve consfr#u?Yona( fund4rnetial ;n4enctble
of I;tetty 4-ovn excessive, addihon4 cu,c( dspmopoi-t/oti.t'e c-uel and rnosC4lpUmS'hlvefts; iM Yola.ioh Of Olihis Cot,sfr1ufiorn/ Sepr4ion of Powe-s Docfrn, and; 40 Article U , 26 I)4h
4CuflSt mekoo.ctive laws, ah4 laws mpairn the cbltja*on ofcontracfs; b) Ati'cle I, S 1 IncJ;en ql,Ie tits; c.) A44e I. 12 Eual1. pro#ec*ion rigM; ci.) 4i4'cJe I, f5 In&'olate ItofiaIbyjuy; e) A-tkIe 1, f4 agwict slwemy 4hc1 nVoIU,jfqt-y se -vth4e; fi) Acle I, f 9
cruet and uPwsu4lpuhishtnent; 3) Artcle 11 s /0 Double Jeopardy Clouse; b.) Atc1e I) § I RLfs 1 L-eclmess in CoOts anl fo i'evrzedy by due covt.ce of tow;
ì.) MicIe I, J 1, Invio!41,iI;y of pr;vte p-operty cd r# fo just compeIls€dioh.
2(. DeNo-no heehy Jec14re5 Iii# his Sentence is ec4'civey /013 exp;ed #!iat lie .sffers
fl7cjfe5f njus1ce ft-om unI4fu/ i'-eSiraiht4oPn upon S1'#ut,onaI stqte CoSt2cJy 4hci continun3 irreJ3cth1ile
inju y fic'n f4Ie npi4so7v e nt ky cospcicy aytimftks -;3htc 4nd deptva.tton dhi vights under
color of Iwn y;of-Ioi, of Hie Ubiled SC-imiqj Code /BU,SC, §2!l knJ 212 i'enderi.i
DeNonds plea of guilty unnteIi&hIe, onkno wing, ihvoIu&cu'y, no/I and yvid
AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION
Being JuIy ctned of lhe pen41t1 of oerjuy, I AitIony ). DePJomc do hee1,y solemnly decia-e
All the 1n-e9oih5 Atferm-ehfs and included iiifot-vnalion to J'e ft-ac, Actuqf nd acc,fe.
Executed th;s 57:i A/ 0P October, 20/0.
Ahtlicrny J ceMdinc 4t A 30B-83( P.O. 130x 7'jo) !1d,con Cot-rct/onI nsMe I85/ 51feITh56; Londo,OhTo '/31q0-07q0 Phone (7110) 852 9777; FAX (7q0) 852-3644
CLF DAWN ThURI €- I Not.. jhIir. State of Ohio I My omtmuion Expires JM 14, 2W @cA.s', lois
22.