Calling all rSO in Texas with Deferred Adjudication

If you are a Texas rSO, granted the lie of deferred adjudication leave a comment with an email address to get in touch with you. Comments will not be published (I can see them before anyone else). I would like to discuss if any of you are interested in helping with a lawsuit against the state for the recent changes about to become law in this state. This will be a John/Jane Doe filing.

Take a look at S.B. 689 for more details.

Direct Link

If any of you have been following the work of TAJLR and Rob Sandifer, you know that the Texas Legislature has time and again refused to honor their contract with any of us that were ignorant of the real reason they allow DA. Deferred Adjudication is not a conviction according to the law, however over the past 20 years, the State has exempted the DA that we were awarded from certain crimes that we accepted the 'bargain' against.

Recently TAJLR has done a good effort in trying to get a bill passed that would allow for a final expungement of DA's, however the Legislature first ripped the bill into shreds, and then they didn't pass what they had substituted. This along with several years of work from TAJLR has been poo'd on by our elected officials. It is time for them to understand that we are tired of the promises they made to us being broken. The only way to do this is to file a lawsuit.

For those of us that have called the Reps and state senators expressing our hope for more just legislation, you know how frustrating it is to be hung up on, or ignored by them. They cannot ignore a lawsuit.

For those of us that see everyday how the constant retroactive laws affects our family's well-being, we will show the legislature and all elected officials that we have had enough. Every day, each of us have seen our children harmed by these laws. How the government threatens our family unit and the mental upbringing of our children by passing their retroactive laws.

Everyday we see how they piss on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, everyday we see more of the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness being stripped away from us. And everyday our families suffer for something we paid for years ago! Enough is Enough. It is time to make them listen, it is time to drag their asses into court and make them face their illegal behavior.

If you are serious in wanting to help plan this out, leave a message. I'll delete them after I get a contact list created, but will not actually publish them. I am going to do this, but really need the help.

If you are tired of the bullshit, or if you are worried about losing your job/home/family over more and more restrictive laws then please leave a message.

If you don't care, or believe you are not affected, then I understand you not wanting to get involved.

Either way that you decide understand that these laws are RETROACTIVE. What affects one affects all.

As a side note, You will notice they are going to have a meeting about what to do next. Their idea of a lawsuit has helped me make my decision as well, although I think they are gonna do a lawyer, and mine will be pro se. However, if you are on DA or have completed one I am sure these folks would like to see you in Austin.

Everyone is writing, but noone is doing anything about it.

Interesting writing showcasing the despicable level that we have sunk to as Citizens and members of the human race.

May 09, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Problems With the Texas Sex Offender Registry

Article provided by Patrick L. Hancock
Visit us at www.hancockcriminaldefense.com

Discretion is the hallmark of the criminal justice system in Texas. The laws are written clearly, but the decisions are left to people. Juries are empowered to examine the facts of cases and make responsible decisions regarding guilt and innocence. Judges are trusted to maintain decorum and uphold the laws so that justice can prevail. At all times, participants within the court system are expected to handle difficult and sensitive matters in the interests of fairness and justice.

The Sex Offender Registration Program is the exception to this general principle. Unlike most areas of the criminal justice system, judges are given no discretion whatsoever. Under Texas law, when a person is convicted of a qualifying sex offense he or she is automatically and permanently required to register as a sex offender.

The laws providing for mandatory lifelong sex offender registration are ineffective. For the justice system to live up to its name, judges should be given discretion over the terms of registration.

Texas Sex Offender Registration Laws

Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, anyone who is convicted of a sexual offense is required to register with local law enforcement as part of the Sex Offender Registration Program. Depending on the particular crime, the offender must register for 10 years, or for his or her entire lifetime.

The duration of the registration requirement depends entirely upon the crime; once a person is convicted, a judge has absolutely no discretion. The judge cannot decide that the registration period should be limited or that registration is inappropriate under the circumstances. The required registration period is mandated by the relevant statutes.

The Problem With Eliminating Discretion: No Two Cases Are the Same

Some may argue that the lack of discretion leads to equitable treatment; one person convicted of possessing child pornography should be treated the same as any other person convicted of possessing of child pornography. However, in criminal matters the circumstances are always important. No two cases are identical and removing a judge's discretion does not lead to equitable treatment.

For example, consider the case of a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old who are engaged in a consensual sexual relationship. Despite the laws, such relationships are undoubtedly common and rarely draw the attention of Texas courts. However, in the event that the relationship turns sour or results in pregnancy, the 16-year-old may report the encounters as nonconsensual.

In accordance with Texas law, the 18-year-old could be prosecuted for indecency with a child. Indecency with a child is an offense requiring registration; if convicted, the older partner would be required to register for life.

This hypothetical is not intended to undermine the very real threat of sex offense or to suggest that all accusations are false. However, by leaving the judges without any discretion in sentencing, people who truly pose no threat are classified and publicly ostracized with those who are legitimately dangerous. Lifetime registration as a sex offender is a tremendous burden to place on someone for a mistake made at age 18 in a consensual relationship.

An Overinclusive Registry Undermines the Intent of Notification

Furthermore, including this hypothetical 18-year-old ultimately undermines the registry. One of the primary purposes of a sex offender registry is to alert the public to local people who are potentially dangerous. When people who are not truly threatening are included in this database, the registry is overinclusive and becomes less valuable.

If judges had discretion, they could examine the individual circumstances and determine whether a particular offender is likely to commit another offense in the future. Accordingly, the registry could be limited to those who truly threaten others and therefore warrant inclusion.

Alternately, the judge could consider the circumstances and determine whether a shorter registration period might be sufficient, rather than the current lifetime registration requirement. Again, this would alert the public to people who had recently committed sex offenses without including those who haven't committed crimes for decades.

Unfortunately, judges in Texas are not currently given this type of decision making authority; they are beholden to unbending laws. As a result, it is extremely important that anyone accused of any type of sex offense in Texas take these accusations seriously and consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney. A knowledgeable lawyer cannot change the laws, but can take actions to minimize the potential consequences of any accusation.

Find the original here

I was terribly wrong

The other day I wrote or blogged about the little Cantu girl. I even went as far as to say "Dude". I was terribly wrong and apologize to any one I might have offended. From CNN:

Melissa Huckaby, 28, was booked into the San Joaquin County Jail early Saturday and faces charges of kidnapping and murder in the death of Sandra Cantu in Tracy, California.

For some unknown reason this woman grabbed that little girl, and killed her. Why? Did she think that someone else would be indicted for the crime and go to prison? And what about the 44 people that had their lives turned upside down? Did the Sheriff give them a call to say that he was sorry for screwing with their lives?

To Ms. Huckaby, I say.. Die bitch, Die in the worst possible way!

This woman makes me angry. We know this crime was motivated by some sick power thing she has going on. But all the articles pointed to the rSO's in the community. To those media outlets, Fuck You!

We are still citizens!

A ton of new ex poste facto bills in the Texas Lege over the last couple of months. Far too many to post here but a link to them is here.

Put very simply, it seems that everyone other than Dutton, is pushing for harsher and harsher laws. I'll have to see if this is an election year..

So, the call is again to you. contact your local Reps. Get involved. Write them a letter, Fax Them, Get an invite to their office, tell them of the truths that they are ignoring for far too long. They already know you are out there, you are part of their district.


Let your elected officials know that you are tired of the BullShit, let them know that if they do not clean up their laws, that WE will be voting differently next go around.

That brings us to another point.. You are voting right? Vote in every election you are eligible. If there is one for dog catcher, cast your ballot. We have to begin to show these assholes that we are here

Voting Reminder

DO NOT FORGET TO VOTE!!!!!

Ok that said, read it again. I did not say who to vote for, although I have my candidate. It is not who you vote for so much as that you DO vote.

The biggest failing of the American electoral system is that only a few percent vote every election year. We have 300 MILLION people in this country, yet every year we only see 10 maybe 20% go to the polls. Does this say to you that the will of the people has been done? No, what this says is that Americans are so disenfranchised, so disillusioned by the American Government, that they do not want to deal with it. This is why we see laws being put in the books that allow harassment of people. This is how they created the new class of untouchables, the Sex Offender.

Everyone in the nation either is related to, or knows a sex offender. I am not talking about their victims, I am talking about friends and family of the offenders themselves. Yet no one will stand up for them and help create an atmosphere where fair and just laws are created.

Folks, I am not saying that laws protecting people are bad, or wrong. What I am saying is the laws need to be just, fair, and equitable. This is all any of us ask. SO's know they did something terrible once. We know that we have broken laws, and that we SHOULD be held accountable. What we have issues with, is the constant re-enactment of sentencing against all of us when something new occurs.

You know the reports, we've seen the studies. They consistently show that those of us that are caught and tried DO NOT DO IT AGAIN. The laws created to punish those of us that have already been punished do nothing to protect anyone. The initial law is what should be looked at as a deterrent. But there are those, that no law will ever deter. You have to stop bullshitting yourself and understand that.

Angry people as a whole do not murder? It is the deterrent of death for themselves that usually stops them from committing that act. However, there are some that just don't care about that, or believe they will not be caught and they commit that act anyways. The same holds true for Sex Offenders. I am in no way saying that Murder is the same as sexually offending. Murder is the most heinous act that one can do. Bar none. Although some can do it without thought, without any compassion. And they will continue no matter what law there is. This is the same as Sexual predators. Not offenders, but predators. The 3% of offenders that will do it again and again. no matter what laws you throw on them. These are the ones that need to be on a registry, that need to have GPS, that need to be away from children in every aspect. But they are not the whole, and they are certainly not in the majority. The lie that Americans have been told, and then believe is that all Sex Offenders will continue to create deviant sexual victims. This is a lie. If it were not a lie, you would have 600,000 new victims every day. Think about that.

Sorry to get out the soapbox.

So Ok America, is it time for a change, or are you happy with invading countries that did no harm to us? Do you like having your husbands, sons, daughters killed in a foreign land for Oil and Dick Chaney' Stock Portfolio? Would you rather live in peace or do you enjoy war as a daily activity?

Copied from the blog Sex Offender Issues. Wow what a read!

posted with permission: From http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

Print this. Post it. Post it where you feel
it would be most appropriate and effective. Share it. Modify it. Make
it live, and make it an instrument of truth.



Gentlemen, I come before you, a man powerless under the law, seeking
the redress of grievances done by the legislators of the country, and
by the executive power, that impermissibly infringes upon both human rights, and civil rights.



I write this, knowing that what I am to say is true, but it is a view
that few will look at, however, I know that you will understand.



There are two varieties of court in the country, civil or escrow court (as it was termed in the days of the founding of the Constitution)
and criminal court. One tries actions between individuals, for the
remediation of grievances under contract law. The other, provides
punishments due prisoners for wrongs done against society.



The Adam Walsh act
claims to be a civil matter.. but it provides punishment more
consistent with a criminal code. Further, it impermissibly co-mingles
the civil and the criminal justice system, without the protections
granted under the Criminal Justice system for criminal offenses.



Under the Federalist Papers 83,
this separation was discussed as a necessary guarantee of freedom.
However, this act also has other, perhaps unintended consequences.



The Adam Walsh act creates a unique situation. On one hand, it attempts
to protect society, on the other, it places a vulnerable population,
which, in general has had both its capability of self-protection
removed, and in many cases the right to vote, in a position where they
are vulnerable to vigilantes.
Further, it places limits on where such people can live, advertises
their location, making them more vulnerable to attacks, financial
fraud, and property damage, and further creates situations where
friends, neighbors, and family members (including children) are
endangered without recourse to law.



Our constitution
guarantees certain rights, and recognizes that other rights exist, from
the state of humanity itself. Among these rights were the right to
life, to liberty, to property, and to security.



Removing these rights by writ is prohibited, under Article 1, Section 9 of the US consittution, as well as Article 1, Section 10.
There is no power granted to the legislature to remove rights, for any
group of people, or for all persons, by writ. Such a power was
specifically prohibited, and discussed in detail in the Federalist
papers. The federalist 48 was specific in the reasons behind the limitations to the congressional powers on this subject, as was the Federalist 83.



The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments
from other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more
extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the
greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the
encroachments which it makes on the co-ordinate departments. It is not
unfrequently a question of real nicety in legislative bodies, whether
the operation of a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond
the legislative sphere. On the other side, the executive power being
restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its
nature, and the judiciary being described by landmarks still less
uncertain, projects of usurpation by either of these departments would
immediately betray and defeat themselves. Nor is this all: as the
legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people,
and has in some constitutions full discretion, and in all a prevailing
influence, over the pecuniary rewards of those who fill the other
departments, a dependence is thus created in the latter, which gives
still greater facility to encroachments of the former.



The first example is that of Virginia, a State which, as we have seen, has expressly declared in its constitution,
that the three great departments ought not to be intermixed. The
authority in support of it is Mr. Jefferson, who, besides his other
advantages for remarking the operation of the government, was himself
the chief magistrate of it. In order to convey fully the ideas with
which his experience had impressed him on this subject, it will be
necessary to quote a passage of some length from his very interesting "Notes on the State of Virginia,"
p. 195. "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and
judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in
the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It
will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a
plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and
seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those
who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will
it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM
was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be
founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government
should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy,
as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being
effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that
convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its
foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and
judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no
person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same
time. BUT NO BARRIER WAS PROVIDED BETWEEN THESE SEVERAL POWERS. The
judiciary and the executive members were left dependent on the
legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their
continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and
judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can
be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into
the form of acts of Assembly, which will render them obligatory on the
other branches. They have accordingly, IN MANY instances, DECIDED
RIGHTS which should have been left to JUDICIARY CONTROVERSY, and THE
DIRECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE, DURING THE WHOLE TIME OF THEIR SESSION, IS
BECOMING HABITUAL AND FAMILIAR. (Federalist 48)



I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of
Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they
can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves
and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This
has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy
can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them
that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few
governments have furnished examples; but without which every government
degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House
of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of
themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius
of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and
above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of
America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished
by it.



If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not
obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people
will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.



Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and
their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the
chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the
great mass of the people. It is possible that these may all be
insufficient to control the caprice and wickedness of man. But are they
not all that government will admit, and that human prudence can devise?
Are they not the genuine and the characteristic means by which
republican government provides for the liberty and happiness of the
people? Are they not the identical means on which every State
government in the Union relies for the attainment of these important
ends? What then are we to understand by the objection which this paper
has combated? What are we to say to the men who profess the most
flaming zeal for republican government, yet boldly impeach the
fundamental principle of it; who pretend to be champions for the right
and the capacity of the people to choose their own rulers, yet maintain
that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly
betray the trust committed to them?



Were the objection to be read by one who had not seen the mode prescribed by the Constitution
for the choice of representatives, he could suppose nothing less than
that some unreasonable qualification of property was annexed to the
right of suffrage; or that the right of eligibility was limited to
persons of particular families or fortunes; or at least that the mode
prescribed by the State constitutions was in some respect or other,
very grossly departed from. We have seen how far such a supposition
would err, as to the two first points. Nor would it, in fact, be less
erroneous as to the last. The only difference discoverable between the
two cases is, that each representative of the United States will be
elected by five or six thousand citizens; whilst in the individual
States, the election of a representative is left to about as many
hundreds. Will it be pretended that this difference is sufficient to
justify an attachment to the State governments, and an abhorrence to
the federal government? If this be the point on which the objection
turns, it deserves to be examined. (Federalist 57)



The supreme court has said that the constitution and the history thereof are silent on the matter of civil law and ex post facto,
therefore it is allowed.. I'd argue the following (written regarding
the right to jury in civil trials) as evidence against this.



With regard to civil causes, subtleties almost too contemptible for
refutation have been employed to countenance the surmise that a thing
which is only NOT PROVIDED FOR, is entirely ABOLISHED. Every man of
discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between SILENCE
and ABOLITION. But as the inventors of this fallacy have attempted to
support it by certain LEGAL MAXIMS of interpretation, which they have
perverted from their true meaning, it may not be wholly useless to
explore the ground they have taken.



The maxims on which they rely are of this nature: "A specification of
particulars is an exclusion of generals"; or, "The expression of one
thing is the exclusion of another." Hence, say they, as the Constitution
has established the trial by jury in criminal cases, and is silent in
respect to civil, this silence is an implied prohibition of trial by
jury in regard to the latter. (Federalist 83)



Further, I would argue that such a law would be utterly nonsensical
under the common law tradition of civil suits. Civil law at the time
was contract, tort, property, or escrow law, regarding private
individuals, and private matters, in direct contrast to the common law
criminal law which dealt with wrongs against the society.



Under civil law no punishment could be meted, not even a moment in
prison could be assessed. All judgments were remedial, and such
judgments could only occur in explicit or implied contract.



No civil law, further, could be imposed upon any person. Civil code, as
well, was an alien issue, the first civil code (a predecessor of the
Code Napoleon) coming in with the Louisiana Purchase. (currently still
the basis of Louisiana code).



Criminal law, however, is quite the opposite. Criminal law is imposed
by its very nature, and punitive, by providing for unique imprisonment
and loss of freedom, liberties, and rights.



How then is mandatory registration on pain of incarceration civil? How
is it thus legal to restrict the rights of men, not for what they do,
but for what they may, someday, perhaps do?



There are three aspects to any criminal law, first that the law must be
clear. The second test is one of fairness. The third test is one of
assumption of innocence. In primus, is the law clear? It establishes a
large number of punishments, increases minimum sentences.. but also
leaves the interpretation and application of the law, rather than being
codified, in the hands of the Attorney General of the United States. This is a strike against clarity, and the separation of powers.



The second test, fairness, is a subjective test. But according to this
test, is it 'fair' or 'reasonable' to expose a population to danger,
simply because one believes they may reoffend? Is this just or
reasonable? When divested of their ability to protect themselves,
labeled and demonized, how is it reasonable to expose them to those to
whom they have been labeled as demons? When it has been judged by the
Supreme Court that there is no protected property interest in police
protection, and that they are in truth there to simply catch criminals
and incarcerate, the police in many cases will not protect those thus
labeled.. and further in most cases cannot.



"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to
preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the
general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)



". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide
public services, such as police protection, to any particular
individual citizen."--Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.
App.181)



Cases known supporting this:



South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882)

Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)

Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)

Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)

Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)

Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)

Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649

P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)

Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)

Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)



After these things, it becomes plain that there is a protected
interest, a substantiative due process interest, in abolishing this
law. Further, it may well be that abolishment may come too late. Due to
the decision to distribute the data over the Internet, to use the
vernacular, the 'genie is out of the bottle'. There is no way to put
the knowledge held there back away, nor to delete it from all archives,
especially that of those who would willingly put it to malicious use.



After these things, we must ask, and remonstrate for injunctive relief.
By the right to redress of grievances, as well, we must insist upon the
restoration of our rights, the abolition of this law, and further, the
restoration of our ability to protect ourselves, as the government
cannot protect us.



We must seek injunctive relief not only for ourselves, but for our
families, our children, our friends, and our loved ones. This law does
not simply apply to the offender, it applies to those around the
offender. The innocents who are bullied, targeted, and harmed, not
because of their own actions, but because of a governmental backlash of
hatred, control, and intolerance.



Should this state continue, we will be ended, and so will the lives of
others who count on us. No right can be removed from any person without
causing that right to become a privilege in the eyes of the government.
Banishment, disarmament, concentration, and limitations on free speech
and association are the tools of tyranny.



The current law stands as a legislative bill of pains and penalties,
insofar as they have judged that offenders are guilty of the
possibility of a new crime, therefor they must pay. They must register,
they must obey restrictions on their livelihood, their location, their
communication, their families, their friends, and be legislated further
by whim and writ, to limit their rights without recourse to due process
of law. Should they refuse, they should be imprisoned.



Wherein is this American? Wherein does the United States gain such
power, that the congress can ignore the very foundation of their grant
of power?



No, the congress has no such power granted in the Constitution,
nor does the states. Article 1, section 9 specifically prohibits
attainder and ex post facto legislation. Article 1, section 10
specifically prohibits the same to the states.



It is time to end this. The persons labeled 'sex offenders'
according to the GOVERNMENT'S OWN STATISTICS have a lower reoffense
rate for any crime, as well as a low reoffense rate for sexual crimes.
The lies must end. If you do not believe me, do the research yourself.
Go to the department of justice. Go to the departments of correction.
The numbers are there, and available, if you look. Look at the studies,
and meta studies. Learn and understand, and think!



The actions of few, should not destroy the rights of all.

I've been replying

yes, I think the cycle has begun again. The one where I become so upset that I have to shout down anyone that spews their lies and un-educated information on the web. I get tired of the illegal rules they place upon us, and I feel the need to vent.

I was reading that soon, one of the states is going to attempt to keep us off the Internet entirely. Except for Work purposes is how their bill reads. Well Fuck you Mr and Ms. Representative. That violates SO many Rights, I cannot ever explain them all here. But what makes no sense, is they will happily draw up an amendment to inhibit THOSE rights first so that we cannot fight their ultimate Nazi rules.

reminds me of Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Maybe this is becoming our time. It is uncertain. American Government has slipped further and further toward fascism since Gov. Bush has occupied(1) the White House.

Are we not citizens? Do we no longer count? I say yes, we are and we do. 600K of us and counting. Although this is NOT a good number to become positive, it Does mean something. 600K citizens marked, 600K silenced, 600K wronged.

(1) Used in the meaning of military occupation, one of illegal intent.