ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly MtgsJuly 14 – Phone,
August 11 – San Diego, September 15 – Berkeley, October 6 – West Sacramento, October 20 – Los Angeles [details]

National

ID: 104 sex offenders sue Idaho over its registry laws

A lawsuit challenging Idaho’s laws governing registration and community notification of sex offenders seeks a permanent injunction to stop the state and counties from enforcing portions of the law.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Boise federal court on behalf of 104 unnamed sexual offenders, identified as Does 1-104, argues that Idaho’s sex offender registry laws violate the U.S. and Idaho constitutions. Full Article

Lawsuit

Join the discussion

  1. Eric Knight

    Great! Too bad I don’t see the 9th Circuit Internet decision as part of Attorney Greg Fuller’s litigation requests, but I’m sure the decision can be used as part of the overall ex post facto issue as Idaho requires extensive Internet identifiers from every registrant. In addition, he should have a boatload of information with regard to residency restrictions and extremely low recidivism rate arguments in his arsenal as well.

  2. Notgivingup

    I am glad to see this, Maybe more RCs are waking up and see the brutal truth about the registry and all the damage it does long after you serve your time.

  3. Chris F

    I’m hoping someone can find the actual lawsuit so we can see what evidence they are using. I really hope the lawyers are as good as those from the 6th circuit case.

  4. nomore

    Now that’s a lawsuit. Look forward to reading the entire PDF if I can get a good link.

  5. Kris Klein

    When I read some the comment section in some of these articles (like this Idaho one) many people tend to blame liberals & Democrats for not being tough enough on sex offenders. Either there’s some truth in what they say or you have a lot of completely delusional people out there

  6. mike r

    wow a bunch of great useful post since I was gone for the weekend….this is extremely helpful as it gives me an excellent template for me or anyone to use in preparing a challenge in court…excellent…

    • Chris F

      Yes Mike R, when I was reading that from the link “Punished For Life” posted above I was thinking the entire time how you needed to structure and take some of that suit. It’s really good.

      Now, add that to “Bill of Attainder” stuff from the IML posts and hit them with everything!

      I really hope you can get your issues added to a large group of people like the Idaho suit and it not just be you against the government alone.

  7. mike r

    this is a weak challenge though as it doesn’t bombard the court with factual empirical evidence that would make it impossible for the courts to ignore….single studies and reports can easily be disregarded as contradictive and that the Court is not a fact finder to determine the validity or conclusions concerning legislative acts…facts have to be so clear and convincing and a general acceptance as truth by credible sources as to be indisputably truth…this is key to success….kind of a conundrum here since im glad to see someone with experience stepping up and giving it a shot but on the other hand if it isn’t argued correctly and isn’t successful it just sets more precedents against any future arguments…

    • Chris F

      Actually, I think it may bombard them with good evidence Mike R.

      The references to mostly studies by Prescott and Levenson appear to be studies that include many, many other studies. I don’t know if they’ll actually need the authors to be present for cross examination, but it would make sense to limit your evidence to the fewest authors and have them available, especially when their research encompasses vast pools of research.

    • mike

      You are right Mike. Like Smith v Doe in the first place. Allowing the high recidivism claims to be virtually unchallenged. Price Club membership my a$$.

    • nomore

      Actually Mike r,

      If you’re looking for a slap in the face for your court challenge regarding studies… Check into their claims for “high and frightening”. Bringing up their bullshit and debunking it while adding yours in would be a good start, I think.

  8. Jay J

    I am actually one of the 104. The suit does go into detail when you read the full 70+ pages. I think there are places it could have done better, but we will have to see.

    One of the key points is the fact that the Idaho courts already ruled against the registry a few years ago on a due process suit where an ex offender was labeled as a VSP without any chance to defend himself. The courts agreed and nailed the registry and the sex offender classification board. What the legislature did was nothing more than thumb their noses as the courts. They renamed the sex offender classification board to the sex offender management board and classified everyone as a VSP here in Idaho with no options to get it changed. The suit points this out well. Should piss off the courts in our favor.

    It also goes into great detail about how the registry does not accomplish what it was set out to do, and is in many peoples belief actually counterproductive. It shows that it is punitive as enforced today.

    It is a good read. Not perfect in my opinion, but I am not a lawyer. Now we sit back and wait.

    • Chris F

      Great job getting a good suit like that filed Jay J! Congrats on that big step!

      If you are still reading these messages, I would love to know how your suit became so organized to have 104 people. Were you all cherry picked as good candidates for the challenge or how did you find out about the suit to join it? Who paid for it and how? I would love to get one of these organized in Texas.

      • Jay J

        Chris F,
        I received a letter from the attorney who filed the suit and asked if I wanted to be included. It cost me $$, but I had to take the gamble. Too much at stake not to.

        Just because some, or most attacks on the registry fail, does not mean we should not continue. It is the only way we find holes in their armor so we can finally take down the beast some day.

  9. mike r

    I did actually read the entire 70 pages and I agree it’s powerful but I am sticking to my guns here that there was to much left for interpretation rather than Indisputable facts backed with the maximum amount of empirical evidence from the maximum number of credible sources especially government agencies….i believe we need massive amounts of indisputable empirical evidence admitted into the record which would help force the Court to either accept as facts or force them to require an evidentiary hearing to determine such facts…..youve seen how judges will use any technicalities or any possible escape route to avoid being in our favor….. to much to chance and way to many outs for the judges….just my opinion like it not…..

    • Chris F

      I am sure they could have added more, but they also need to consider quality and showing value to the judges time.

      Here is a report done by the same Prescott that provided the data for this suit:

      https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jrockoff/papers/Prescott%20and%20Rockoff%20jle.pdf

      Looking through it, it uses lots of data from government and private research and examines all of it, not just what benefits us.

      By consolidating the information and people presenting it to just a few of the best available that can speak for the entire scope of the data, the other side can’t do much to counter it. Remember, if this gets to SCOTUS they have a strict limit to time and pages that can be submitted. You have to make every sentence count.

    • I can't wait to die

      mike r,

      instead of just flapping your fingers on the keyboard here bitching about it, why not contact the plaintiff’s attorneys and provide them with your 2 cents and offer to supply them with supporting documents

      • Joe

        Yeah… and be sure to make it crystal clear that going to law school, passing the state bar and practicing actual law for years / decades was a complete waste of time.

        Because the Google and copy & paste is where it’s at….

        • Chris F

          Here we go again escalating something that Mike R stated as his opinion and turning this into an unproductive, sarcastic, Mike R bashing instead of actual useful dialog based on experiences and facts.

          It’s many of those attorneys that “passed the bar” that have screwed sex offenders over the years with inadequate defense because they were either inadequate attorneys to begin with, or were a wolf in sheep’s clothing purposefully giving us poor representation and helping to set bad precedents. I know. Of the 3 attorneys I’ve used, 2 of them gave me poor representation that is just barely good enough to keep the bar association from addressing any complaints. Most people don’t even understand how bad representation is unless they are lucky enough to get a good attorney at some point to compare them to.

          I would assume in Smith V Doe, that there was an attorney present representing our side when 80% recidivism and “least likely to be cured, most likely to re-offend, and they prey on innocent members of society” were stated as fact and not challenged? Somehow, the Justices and clerks that I assume went to law school missed it too. Now, it’s been used in over 91 cases to justify the registry and make it worse. Thanks law students.

          It’s been 13 freaking years since those horrible flawed decisions of Smith V Doe and Connecticut DPS happened and so far, none of the lawyers that “passed the bar” have succeeded in overturning them, so, I for one am open to new and outside thoughts from anyone that actually wants to initiate change and stop the status quo.

          If you find what Mike R says doesn’t sound like a good idea, how about telling us why and your alternate solution?

        • wonderin

          @Chris F.
          Obviously the whole situation is very frustrating but without a dog to kick, I guess some folks find a substitute? Fortunately, mike r and USA are pretty tough dudes and add texture.

        • nomore

          You nailed it. I don’t always agree with Mike r but I’ll always support his right to speak his mind. I really enjoy most of what he says though.

  10. David

    Why can’t we file a similar suit in the California courts …. and have 200, 300, 500 registered citizen plaintiffs?? Not to mention, the publicity surrounding such a many-plaintiffed lawsuit could really help our cause.
    I am becoming increasingly angered by the endless stream of Ex Post Facto horeshit they constantly dump on us and their terrorist threats of imprisonment if we don’t play by the ever-changing rules they impose. 😠
    It’s like living under some Kafkaesque, fascist régime. 😖

  11. mike r

    give me a contact for them I’ll gladly send all the data i have…its doesn’t matter no one seems to want to include empirical evidence in their arguments or are afraid of using to much evidence for some reason beyond reasonable beliefs….they all just keep hypothesizing and making insufficiently supported statements…whatever you people are just intellectually deficient and cant debate without regressing to personal insults….pity you really sad

  12. mike r

    I was absolutely correct on the iml suit I hope this is successful all I said is i believe there needs to be massive amounts of indisputable empirical evidence admitted into the record…dont give judges any openings for them to use as excuses to deny anything….

  13. nomore

    Let it roll like water off a ducks back bud. You haven’t done anything wrong.

  14. mike r

    people love to try to beat up on me dont they..lmfao…what a joke..most lawyers are mediocre at best and down right incompetent that barely stay on the state Board and include massive amounts of useless info in order to bill by the hour…..anyone that trust an attorney unconditionally is a naive ignorant imbecile….ok I got it out of my system…these guys are hallarious….once again thanks for the support you guys let’s see how far this goes before the moderator starts censoring

  15. HOOKSCAR

    After all this time being a registered citizen (17 years), I would not mind being part of a class suit in Ca. I’m tired. I have a brain tumor. I just want peace in the last part of my life. I’m 51 and do not see being around in 10 years. It sucks dealing with this and having a 14 year old son. If we need extra, I’m here.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *