ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

Conference Videos Online

General NewsNational

Attorneys general fighting against 2017 ruling regarding Colorado’s sex offender registry

A group of attorneys general are fighting a 2017 court ruling that declared Colorado’s sex offender registry “cruel and unusual.” Full Article

Related

Attorney General Hunter Leads 10th Circuit States in Opposing Ruling that Colorado Sex Offender Registration is Unconstitutional (AG Press Release)

To read the brief, click here.

Join the discussion

  1. LostandDevastated

    Ugh the cost effective comment is ridiculous

    • Robin

      Yea as long as it is fed money and not their millions of income CO gets from legalized pot sales.

      • David

        Good point. CO opposes the Feds on marijuana…. for the $$. CO agrees with Feds on SOs…. for the $$.

  2. Henry

    This is not good. I was wondering when this was going to happen. It seems as though court cases are going so very very slow. The 11th Circuit has held on to the McGuire case for months now. McGuire will be another Snyder case and should be a win in the 11th Circuit based on Snyder alone. Why these attorneys are holding on to this hate filled registry is beyond me. It’s like America is MAKING the law stick no matter how unconstitutional (against the law) it is. No other group of convicted felons are treated like we are. By law, this is not right! But “they won’t let us win”. Something is defiantly wrong the the United States.

    • Tim L

      If you can use a database to INDENTURE INDIVIDUALS then you can do just about anything with a database. To paraphrase Justice Scalia, I should think the government of the United States can use a database anyway they damn well want. So congress has began doing so.The same can be said for the deep state. So today we see databases used to maintain political security.

      If they decide that there are unconstitutional uses, then their desires are quashed. Can’t be having that right!

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        IBM was an indispensable vendor to Nazi Germany by selling them punch-card systems for selecting citizens on religion and other parameters such as criminal offense. This served an essential role in the Holocaust and was a direct predecessor of the data-driven oppression we now experience. We now know that if technological developments can be used by government to enslave its citizens, they WILL be used and jurists like Scalia will never see any need to counter these emergent imbalances that were unanticipated by the Founders. An excellent example of this oppression is IML which would not have been technologically or economically possible twenty years ago.

    • Robin

      @ Henry

      ” Why these attorneys are holding on to this hate filled registry is beyond me.”

      It’s simple….elections. They have to be seen as the ones that fight for the public.

      • Facts should matter

        Alternatively, how these politicians that circle the wagon around – and vigorously defend Megan’s Law – have managed to cloak themselves behind the mantle of Christianity is beyond me.

        This is about protecting thousands of security theater jobs nationwide, not children. That AG from Oklahoma is just trying to shore up the fissures by bad-mouthing and delegitimizing the Colorado ruling.

    • Bobby

      Just so your aware, even though we won the Snyder case here in Michigan , 6 months later we are still waiting for the Michigan Legislature to get off their ass’s and revise the registry and remove people from it such as my self. Now supposedly the Michigan ACLU is filing a lawsuit, which will more the likely drag things on even longer if not years.

    • Robin

      @ Henry

      Oh and also it is not just felons on the registry. Remember some states have misdemeanors on there as well, like taking a leak in public, goosing someone in a bar setting and the person didn’t like it and reports it.
      I for one agree with a registry for certain crimes, but not for the public’s eyes, nor for life if the person has proven they pose little risk.

    • David

      (Actually, there is another group: those accused of DUI driving have also had numerous constitutional protections denied by the courts and that continues to be the case to this day. I’m not defending DUI drivers, I’m merely saying that unfortunately there is other precedent for the government denying individuals constitutional rights. But, of course, they are not subject to a registry as we are.)

  3. Robin

    “This ruling undermines the rights of victims and survivors of sex crimes, who must forever endure the trauma caused by horrific acts,”

    How does it undermine their rights?

    “Hunter says undoing the registry in one state compromises the integrity of the uniform registry system, and jeopardizes the ability of states to obtain federal funding.”

    OOOOps there it is….$$$$$$$ the truth behind it all.

    • AJ

      @Robin:
      “Hunter says undoing the registry in one state compromises the integrity of the uniform registry system, and jeopardizes the ability of states to obtain federal funding.”

      OOOOps there it is….$$$$$$$ the truth behind it all.
      —–
      Yep. And in his Snyder amicus to SCOTUS, the USSG found such a claim “does not warrant review”; “is speculative and premature and may well be incorrect”; and, “the State would not necessarily lose any federal justice assistance funding. Under 42 U.S.C. 16925(a), the Attorney General has discretion to determine that a jurisdiction has “substantially implement[ed]” the requirements of SORNA notwithstanding some degree of deviation from SORNA’s requirements.” He then wrapped it all up nicely with: “Petitioners’ claimed practical effects***therefore are speculative and may never occur. Accordingly, review is not warranted on that basis.”

      • Robin

        @ AJ

        Yep…I had read in Fed code that if a state could not be fully compliant because of state law/constitution, they would not be penalized for not being such.

        I was pointing this out to show that the money seems to be more important when looking at, if public notification out weights the needs of those on the registry. As PASC did in Muniz.
        Clearly here they place the funding with higher regard.

    • Facts should matter

      Megan’s Law never had credibility, much less “integrity.” The registry never has and never will be a safety vehicle to protect the family unit. If you’re a private citizen and a civilian, no one should have unfettered access and free rein over your life.

  4. Brian

    I don’t think it’s America my friend, I think it is people in positions they don’t deserve to be in to be passing these laws, it’s all about feel good effect, politicians don’t want to looses their seats so they pass whatever they want to, the high courts rule unconstitutional and these assholes go and redo a law that is the exact same as the law before they just call it something else, they need to be prosecuted, someone should fight the immunity laws they have in place and remove immunity so we can prosicute these assholes who keep doing this ILLEGALLY, let me say it again, ILLEGALLY!!!!!!

    • Civil rights first

      I agree and I believe there is a way… just need a good team and money to look into 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights

      • Brian

        Found this nice little tidbit
        18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
        If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

        If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

        They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
        (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

        • TS

          @Brian

          Is the 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights implication that the Feds and States are conspiring against the rights of their people? If so, interesting argument. It is one that makes you think they would want to say they are immune from it for the safety of the people, etc. The ol’ “Do as I say, Not as I do” because I am the gov’t, who is here to help you.

  5. TS

    FloriDUH leading the way again with what the doc states as the first SO registry in the nation (1937), pg 8 of the argument, Sec B, subsection 1.

    @mike r – do you have just the statistic section of your filing that counters these claims easily retrievable for us to read again and possibly include the latest BJS and SMART data provided here?

  6. Robin

    Here we go again….I hope the attorneys are aware of the new DOJ statistics.

    From the Amicus Brief

    Third , numerous courts have recognized that sex offenders exhibit unusually high rates of recidivism. 1
    Studies confirm that “compared to non -sex offenders, released sex offenders [are] more likely to be arrested for a sex crime.”
    Kebodeaux , 570 U.S. at 396.
    Sexual recidivism rates overall “are four times higher for sex offenders compared to non sex offenders.” Patrick A. Langan et al., Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From Prison
    in 1994, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003),

    • Robin

      As some from CO may not read other states forums here is a link to the “latest” DOJ study on recidivism. DA’s keep bringing up old reports that were not entirely correct and the new report need to make it to higher courts. Maybe they will stop using the phrase “high” when in fact they are low.

      https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510_st.pdf

      Hopefully the attorney for Millard and the others will get this in time to use it to debunk the myth the AG’s are quoting. Anyone knowing the attorney/s please see they get this ASAP

    • Jason

      And of course let’s not forget Scotus’s decision not to deny the 6th circuits ruling! These AG’s are being paid from some victim rights org. that don’t like to lose and the AG’s are Aiding and Abetting.

      • Jason

        They’re complaining that they need the funding for the Registry??? Ok then, lets take the ruling of Cruel and Unusal and reverse it because they need the money. Not a very good idea AG’s.

      • CR

        Let’s not forget that a denial of certiorari has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and does not imply that SCOTUS agrees with the lower court’s opinion.

        • J

          I absolutely agree but that decision was in our favor. I truly believe SCOTUS is trying to fix this registry albeit slowly. As much as I know the registry should end I also know it’s been here for years now and the research has showed it hasn’t worked. With this in mind I see SCOTUS (I pray) slowly tearing it apart!!!!

    • New Person

      Here’s an article that describes the use of those high recidivism rates were not wholly truthful to the sex offender community. The article was posted on here:

      Link: http://law.emory.edu/elj/elj-online/volume-67/essays/briefing-supreme-court-science-myth.html

      Those stats were created using on the extreme of the group. Also, that 4x’s is quite misleading.
      From the linked article:
      ===
      North Carolina points to the DOJ Recidivism Study’s finding that the sex crime rearrest rate for convicted sex offenders was four times higher than for non-sex offenders. 28 The multiple of four that North Carolina highlighted is correct, but the State’s lawyers were also hiding the ball. The given result is not directly applicable to registered sex offenders, as the DOJ Recidivism Study did not differentiate registered from non-registered. Further, the DOJ Recidivism Study indicated that 5.3% of released sex offenders were arrested on a new sex crime. 29 Then, as a sign that recidivism studies that rely upon arrest data may overreach in counting failures, the reconviction rate of sex offenders for new sex crimes was 3.5%. 30 This means that one-third of those arrested for new sex crimes were not convicted of those charges. 31 Moreover, neither statistic—rate of arrests or convictions—supports any type of “notoriously high” risk designation for sex offenders that North Carolina trumpets.

      The Petitioner also cited the DOJ Recidivism Study, but to highlight additional results. He found it confirmed that “empirical evidence refutes widely-held assumptions about dangers posed by registrants.” 32 In this respect, Packingham promoted two findings from the DOJ Recidivism Study: (1) the general recidivism rate (i.e., reoffending with any type of crime) for convicted sex offenders was significantly lower than for those convicted of other types of crimes, and (2) offenders previously incarcerated for nonsexual crimes accounted for six times more new sex crime arrests than those whose prior convictions were for sex crimes. 33 The implication from these results is if the government truly hopes to target reductions in general recidivism and in sexual recidivism specifically, then it ought to focus more on non-sex offenders.
      ===

    • Brian

      Let me say this, if probation officials and parole officials did their jobs with other offenders like drug dealers a whatnot those statistics would go way way wayyyyyyy up, when I was going to consoling there were other people who had to do urinalysis and failed, did they get violated? No and I have seen this hundreds of times, I have talked to people who were on probation for other offenses that told me, oh my Po is awesome I gave a dirty urinalysis and they didn’t violate me, I do it all the time, so with that said I think the probation and parol departments need to be looked into a hell of a lot more when they come up with these bs statistics about so’s and none so recidivism, I would say for the past 20 years I’ve been hearing people say this, no it’s not committing a new crime but if it were an SO then that would be non compliance right off the bat and adding to the recidivism statistics..

  7. Ron

    The next step:

    I am surprised no politician has dones this yet, but I see it coming as court cases build.

    I bet they enact laws that hinder or prevent cases filed by an RSO.

    • Brian

      That’s why people need to read up on the laws so thousands and thousands can’t constantly combat this, when one is shot down, another needs to take a different approach, and so on.

  8. Ughhhhhh

    It’s like one step forward, two step back.

  9. AJ

    “It also obstructs citizen access to public information on sex offenders in their communities and threatens public safety.”
    —–
    What a load of garbage. How is anyone obstructed from getting this information? Last I checked, SCOTUS said registries are merely a compilation of already public data, already available at a courthouse. So all Chicken-Little-soccer-mom has to do is turn off Dr. Phil, slip on some yoga pants and Crocs, and go look in the public records. Not one bit of obstruction. Convenience perhaps, but convenience is not a right.

    • Robin

      @ AJ

      I saw that too!

      What gets me is most of it is just pure rhetoric and pointing out items where there is no solid data, just theroy, and or opinions.

      Like the comment it is “believed” that only 15%-??? of all sex crimes are reported. I can see where holes can be punched into their case, but is Millard’s attorney good enough to do that alone.

      I found it is just one attorney that works alone, she has no partnership. Maybe NARSOL can jump in and offer her help.

    • Joe

      Criminal case details are “public information”. For any case that is prosecuted in the name of “The People of ____”. This HISTORIC data about all criminals is available to all at the jurisdiction of prosecution, as well it should.

      Someone’s CURRENT address, current weight (Ladies, how ruuuuude!), recent surgical scars and last week’s tattoo, etc. are not “publicly available data”. Therefore the public has no Right to it. Otherwise why would I not have the Right knowing about any criminal’s like information?

    • Brian

      @AJ
      They don’t even have to leave the house as far as I know, they have home advisor, BeenVerified, what else? Oh the registry…

    • Nicholas Maietta

      Then the same argument can be made about all other criminal data. It’s public record, so it should ALL be published because the people have a right to know!

      All or nothing. All or nothing. Murderers get far better treatment and often far less time.

      • Tim Moore

        They should make the other “criminals” update their present addresses, scars, employers, internet identifiers. As Joe pointed out, the registry is about disclosing private information not public records. The public record part is just the alibi for publicizing personal data.
        Really, the state is incarcerating us without building any more prisons, because incarceration is deprevation of one’s privacy, one’s ownership of one’s identity. The physical prison serves as consequence to enforce our compliance with the theft. They’ve stolen that personal identity.

  10. New Person

    I find the coalition against Judge Matsch’s decision to be going beyond what the case was ruled upon.

    From the article:
    ===
    Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said although the ruling involves only one Colorado case, it has wide-ranging implications for access to sex offender registries nationwide if upheld.
    ===

    If this is truly the stance that AG Mike Hunter is standing upon, then he confusing an individual case decision with a class-action case decision. There really is no leg to stand upon as those are two different types of cases.

    Then later in the article, AG Hunter was quoted with, “It also obstructs citizen access to public information on sex offenders in their communities and threatens public safety. ” According to the same BJS reports, only 5.3% were re-arrested for a another sex offense, but only 3.5% were re-convicted. Is there truly a public threat when 96.5% of the registrant community does not recidivate? Again, registrants are the second lowest group of convicts that recidivate, murderers being the lowest group to recidivate.

    Now, if you factor in the NJ 21-year research study about Megan’s Law’s application, then one will realize that the registry (Megan’s Law) did not affect the recidivism rate. The study conducted chronicled the recidivism rates 10 years before the implementation of Megan’s Law and 10 years after the implementation of Megan’s Law.

    It is very important to have astute social scientists at your disposal for the defense so that you can refute the manipulation of the stats that is being pushed. Remember, no one substantiated the “80%, high and frightening recidivism rates” where were debunked to be false by research work by Dr.’s Ira and Tara Ellman.

    BTW, am I the only person annoyed with so many defenses stating that the recidivism rates are higher because people are not reporting it? Is this not also true for all of the other crimes?

    • CR

      No, you’re not the “… only person annoyed with so many defenses stating that the recidivism rates are higher because people are not reporting it”. The problem with that assertion is that there is no way to quantify the degree to which that may be happening. There is no way to know if the rate of non-reporting of sexual offenses is greater than in the past, or if it is statistically significant.

      If it is true that non-reporting of sexual offenses is greater now than in the past, perhaps the state’s should ask why?

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        It’s a shamelessly bankrupt argument that only started being used after decades of absurdly exaggerated statistics were widely revealed as lies.

        Ask them how it is that they know that these crimes are “highly underreported.” Tell them to cite actual studies that have withstood peer review and that support their contention.

        Ask them if they really believe that sex crimes, after thirty years of extraordinary levels of hysterical press and legislation, are being underreported more today. That, alone, is clearly enough to discredit this stupid allegation. People were FAR less likely to report these acts as crimes back when I was a kid (fifty years ago) than they are now.

  11. Robin

    It was posted the AG intended and had filed with 10circuit. In some ways I am surprised that they accepted it, but then again the District Court was just one judge.

    What will be great is if our side wins this one.

  12. AJ

    I’ve posted the AGs’ amicus online at https://uploadfiles.io/szqkc, and it should be available for 30 days. (I’ve stopped using gofile.io, as it will tries to infect visitors with a cryptomining JavaScript.) Note the new case number (17-1333), if you’re going to search for it on PACER.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      You really should consider something like OneDrive or Google Drive. They are permanently “free” and don’t have any restrictions on downloads, speed or expiration dates. They also certainly don’t have anything malicious going on either. With both, you can share a direct view-only link.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        Google Drive IS malicious. It scans any images that you upload to check for “child abuse images.” And what it considers to be “child abuse images” includes famous 19th Century paintings of boys swimming, etc. I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. You shouldn’t either.

      • AJ

        @Nicholas Maietta:
        I have, and use, both of those for various, limited purposes. However, since I don’t know the ins and outs of how easily the world can find me by using those services, I’ll stick to the ones I’ve used. This way, too, I can upload the file and never have to mess with it again.

  13. Jason

    I live every second of my life on this despicable registry. The politicians constantly change it to fuel the fire of their voters and they use it for a money scheme. I can say with Absolute Authority that the Honorable Richard Matsch’s decision was 100% percent accurate and the thought to change one iota of that ruling is TERRIBLE, DISGUSTING, ABHORRENT and EVERY other cuss word I can think of. I live this!!!!! I’ve lived it everyday for 15 horrible years. It is every single thing Judge Matsch said it is!!!

  14. Jack

    All right I just read the amicus brief and I think the only thing that’s going to convince the court of anything is the “long term” recidivism rate cited here.” A comparison of child molesters and nonsexual
    criminals: Risk predictors and long-term recidivism” however, that study’s from 1995, so I have no idea if it’s been discredited by now or not. Any idea on that Janice?

    • mike r

      I would assume Janice cannot answer any legal questions at all I am sure. No lawyer would unless they are actually retained if they care about their career.

  15. Jack

    Page 17 of the brief says “52% reoffend within 25 years.” Can anybody figure out which of the studies they site says that figure? Or even if it’s still credible anymore?

    • Robin

      @ Jack

      If I am not mistaken it is not really reoffend but offend counting other crimes including minor crimes against the pulic. They seem to always throw the high numbers out there where they don’t really apply.

      Yep, I look at table 2 on the newest report and that is what it has,,51.4% (see link in one of my other posts) crimes against the public, crimes such as public intox,loitering,contempt of court, maybe even FTC/R with the registry it self. I don’t think they got the numbers from that report but I am sure it is similar on other reports.

      They really lean on the higher numbers to make it appear that it is re-offenses of the same nature, in this case sex crimes, when in fact it is not.

      That is on a 5 year study…I don’t know where they get a 25 year study.

      • Jack

        Well if they’re going to twist figures that much in open court and expect it to fly, they’ve got another thing coming.

        • Robin

          Jack
          April 7, 2018

          Well if they’re going to twist figures that much in open court and expect it to fly, they’ve got another thing coming.

          _____
          That is the problem, they have done exactly that, and it did fly, not just once mindyou. It has flown many times, but now the tables are starting to turn where more and more judges are begining to see the light.
          It takes a lawyer having the correct data and knowledge of data the DA/AG present to rebute it.

  16. mike r

    Every aspect of this brief is easily rebuttal lets just hope the attorney are up to the task. The Hanson study for one rebuffs their claims and everything they use is conclusory and anecdotal and academic research that is not evidence that the court can take judicial notice of and is reasonably questionable in their methodology whereas state and gov. reports are. The under-reporting is speculation, the efficacy is in serious question, the funding and acceptance is irrelevant, I can go on and on and I will in time as I digest this brief more intensely because this is very important to me and my case even though it is in a different district….

    • HOOKSCAR

      @Miker
      I follow you and your case with intrigue. Have you thought of sharing your data, that I know you have been acquiring over the last couple of years, with this attorney? Seems to me that a shared “database “ of precedence and studies would be beneficial to any and all attorneys accepting these types of cases. Yes you would be doing a legal assistants job, but a phone call to this attorney can better arm them for their battle.
      I wish I had the money, I have limitless time, not the retention. We are at war my fellow RCs, arm the soldiers that can and choose to fight with empirical studies , research and precedence. I may not be able to fight alongside them, but I will give my two cents.

  17. mike r

    Um how bout the states own go o source that has been presented and cited in the CA supreme court to the contrary of anything they state in Millard…. So if they want to continue to use non-governmental scientific studies and anecdotal speculation on under-reporting then we have to throw that right back in their face……

    https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/asset_upload_file398_12137.pdf
    B. Recidivism Rates Vary Among Sex Offenders in Predictable Ways
    Extensive research demonstrates that recidivism rates are not uniform across all sex
    offenders. Rather, the risk of re-offending varies based on well-known factors and can be reliably
    predicted by widely used risk assessment tools such as the Static-99, which classify offenders into
    varying risk levels. See Dec. of R. Karl Hanson ¶¶ 2, 14-19. Indeed, outside of the context of its
    sex offender registry, California uses these tools to distinguish between sex offenders who pose a
    high risk to the public and those who do not. For example, California law mandates the use of the
    Static-99 to determine which offenders require a high level of supervision and which do not. See
    § 290.04(b)(1); see also §§ 290.04-290.07, 1203e, 1203f, 3008; Hanson Dec. ¶ 18. The majority of
    felony sex offenders sentenced to prison and released on parole in California after 2005 are
    classified as posing a low or moderate-low risk of reoffending under Static-99 (scores 0-3). Abbot
    Dec. ¶¶ 9-10. Less than 10% are classified as high risk. Id.
    1

    Research also contradicts the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of reoffending through their lifespan. Most sex offenders do not re-offend. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 19-25;
    Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 13-15. The longer offenders remain offense-free in the community, the less likely
    they are to re-offend sexually. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 7-13, 22, 26-38; Abbott Dec. ¶ 16. On average, the
    likelihood of re-offending drops by 50% every five years that an offender remains in the
    community without a new arrest for a sex offense. Hanson Dec. ¶ 27. Eventually, persons
    convicted of sex offenses are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an
    “out of the blue” sexual offence. See id. ¶¶ 28, 31-33. For example, offenders who are classified as
    “low risk” pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a
    sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶ 30. After 10 to 14
    years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more
    risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have
    been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶¶ 30, 34. The same is true for high-risk offenders
    after 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense. See id. ¶ 35. Ex-offenders who
    remain free of any arrests following their release should present an even lower risk. See id. ¶ 39.
    Importantly, post-release factors such as cooperation with supervision, treatment, can dramatically
    reduce recidivism, and monitoring these factors can be highly predictive. See id. ¶¶ 23, 39-40;
    Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 17-18.

    • mike r

      Apparently I forgot to include the following para from that case.

      Based on this research, criminal justice and recidivism experts recommend that “rather than
      considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when
      legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking
      and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of highrisk
      sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.” See Hanson Dec. ¶ 41.

      Also this part debunks their 4x higher than other offender comparison crap.

      For example, offenders who are classified as
      “low risk” pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a
      sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶ 30. After 10 to 14
      years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more
      risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have
      been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶¶ 30, 34. The same is true for high-risk offenders
      after 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense. See id. ¶ 35.

  18. mike r

    And this scientific gov report… This totally debunks their theory about cost efficiency or the efficacy of registries. This is just one gov. report out of a consensus among recent relevant unquestionable research which can reasonably be reliable for court review NOT academic or speculative and anecdotal assertions such as the way out speculation that there is under-reporting..Also as stated in my brief>>>
    1. We now know, through multiple studies and lots of number crunching, that the absolute re-offense rate for people on the registry is as low as or less than 1% in any given year.
    2. Therefore if there is under-reporting, then it also has to follow that particular logical progression that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry.
    3. Here is the primary issue that should be pointed out, nowhere in the under-reporting study, or for that matter any accredited study, was there any proof that any portion of the under-reporting was due to people on the registry reoffending.
    4. Therefore attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or misrepresentation of the facts and evidence.

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf

    Document Title: Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy:
    Phase One was a 21-year (10 years prior and 10 years after implementation, and the year
    of implementation) trend study of sex offenses in each of New Jersey’s counties and of the state
    as a whole. In Phase Two, data on 550 sexual offenders released during the years 1990 to 2000
    were collected, and outcomes of interest were analyzed. Finally, Phase Three collected
    implementation and ongoing costs of administering Megan’s Law.
    The following points highlight the major findings of the three phases of the study.
     New Jersey, as a whole, has experienced a consistent downward trend of sexual offense
    rates with a significant change in the trend in 1994.
     In all but two counties, sexual offense rates were highest prior to 1994 and were lowest
    after 1995.
     County trends exhibit substantial variation and do not reflect the statewide trend,
    suggesting that the statewide change point in 1994 is an artifact of aggregation.
     In the offender release sample, there is a consistent downward trend in re-arrests,
    reconvictions and re-incarcerations over time similar to that observed in the trend study,
    except in 1995 when all measures spiked to a high for that period. This resulted in significant differences between cohorts (i.e., those released prior to and after Megan’s
    Law was implemented).
     Re-arrests for violent crime (whether sexual or not) also declined steadily over the same
    period, resulting in a significant difference between cohorts (i.e., those released prior to
    and after Megan’s Law was implemented).
     Megan’s Law has no effect on community tenure (i.e., time to first re-arrest).
     Megan’s Law showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses.
     Megan’s Law has no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first time sexual offense
    (still largely child molestation/incest).
     Megan’s Law has no effect on reducing the number of victims involved in sexual
    offenses.
     Sentences received prior to Megan’s Law were nearly twice as long as those received
    after Megan’s Law was passed, but time served was approximately the same.
     Significantly fewer sexual offenders have been paroled after the implementation of
    Megan’s Law than before (this is largely due to changes in sentencing).
     Costs associated with the initial implementation as well as ongoing expenditures continue
    to grow over time. Start up costs totaled $555,565 and current costs (in 2007) totaled
    approximately 3.9 million dollars for the responding counties.
     Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan’s Law on sexual offenses, the growing
    costs may not be justifiable.

  19. mike r

    There we go in minutes their entire case goes out the window………..Fortunately the idioticccc AG’s cite Hanson!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They can not refute Hanson !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Case closed about efficacy, $$$$$$$$, recidivism, and potential immediate or long term public safety……..

    • mike r

      That citation by the AG’s is exactly what I needed to debunk everything………..They cannot use Hanson and then turn around and try to debunk his findings. It is irreparable to their case and a slam dunk on those issues in my case and in Millard if the attorneys are smart enough to use it against them, especially since multiple AG’s from those states are using it. I am emailing them as soon as possible what I am stating with the citations……….

  20. mike r

    I need the email of the Attorneys in Millard since I do not have their original complaint or briefs with the attorney’s emails……..??????????? AJ, Chris, anyone, post it if you find it or have it already……..

  21. mike r

    Oh and of course lets not forget the latest coming out of:

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510_st.pdf
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics:
    Highlights:
    *Among prisoners released for rape or sexual assault in
    30 states in 2005, an estimated 5.6% were arrested for
    rape or sexual assault within 5 years of release.
    *Given the changes in the characteristics of the
    U.S. prison population, an increase in the number of
    states participating in the study, and improvements
    made to the nation’s criminal history records since
    the mid-1990s, direct comparisons of the recidivism
    estimates from the study on prisoners released in
    30 states in 2005 should not be compared to those from
    the 1983 and 1994 BJS prisoner recidivism studies.
    In addition, this study employed a 5-year follow-up
    period, 2 years longer than found in the previous BJS
    recidivism studies.

    • mike r

      Notice “gov.” This is empirical evidence that the court must take judicial notice of, at least that it what I believe to be the case according to the AG in my cases assertion that judicial notice is required for any gov. administrative agencies such as the one that are in charge of the Megan’s Law website, well this is an gov. administrative agency such as the administrative agency in charge of the Megan’s Law website………

      The only concern about Millard is the cruel and unusual punishment bar. It is extremely high and the court may find it a far stretch considering the other cases that they have upheld on the issue. Any other issue concerning punishment, such as Ex Post Facto, Bill of Attainder, Separation of Powers, Double Jeopardy (which I wish I would have included in my case, but whatever), Involuntary Servitude (kind of a far stretch but cognizable) is a slam dunk though.

  22. E

    This is all they’ve got, folks. And let’s admit it’s a strong read. The OK AG has layed it all out here… everything they can point to and throw at a case, including a full “explanation” of underreporting and that we should assume people who’s civil rights were restored (RCs off paper) are guilty until Proven innocent. Makes me sick.

    This string of comments has some good links in it and should be shared with the attorney, Alison Ruttenberg. At the same time, if these arguments and issues can be overcome in a similarly compelling way as the AG wrote, maybe we can keep moving forward. The AG wrote this well and is pulling on emotions. May FACTS prevail.

    • Robin

      Here is a good article on the case, where Alison Ruttenberg states she has help from friends in CO. Criminal Defense Bar.
      Her phone # Office (720) 317-3834

      http://www.westword.com/news/the-truth-about-sex-offenders-9449138

    • TS

      @E

      Actually it is not all they have. Look below for the entry by @AJ on the CO AG filing to read what they have filed and the Millard team will need to rebut in addition to the OK AG, et al filing.

      BTW, NARSOL is aware of what is going with this case. They had Ms. Ruttenberg on a conference call last Sept/Oct, IIRC, to discuss it.

  23. Robin

    Could/Should we call this posturing by the AG’s.

    The Millard case was over not getting relief when each of the plaintiffs did everything they were supposed to as required by the government and rules to only be denied their due relief. For the judge to rule they were still a risk to the public and anyone that posed a risk should be kept on the registry, was both out of line and vindictive, not to forget punitive at that point.

    So The Federal district justice did the absolute correct thing in ruling the way he did and by awarding damages, it in turn ticked off the AG.

    The AGs’ are more attempting to protect the registry in whole it seems, as the brief is written, and not appeal the decision that was made by the district court. Granted the win in district sets a precedent for other law suits, but would this not be considered procedural error in how they are basing the appeal?

    The money is the issue long term. What I mean by that is the way the federal funding works is they take the total population of a state then they look at the numbers on the registry. Within that is a formula as to how much the state will get. Every state wants to keep as many on a registry as possible no matter how they have to do it.

    At this time all states see case by case the chipping away at the registry, and the laws that govern the registry. Now it is the attitude of “protect the registry at all cost”.

    With AG Hunter banding his little group together, shall we say forming a gang, so they can stand together as said gang as an intimidation tactic against the 10th Circuit, and any would be lawyers that may want to go up against them. I would call this posturing, yes?

  24. mike r

    Check this out…LMFAO…The very fist academic report stated in the table of authorities which I am going to debunk one by one is debunked in the following quote….Amazing how they manipulate reports to their advantage. This is going to be great because I will be able to absolutely prove beyond reasonable doubt that the legislature intent is punishment………

    Making the Case for Megan’s Law: A Study in Legislative Rhetoric:
    “Clearly, Megan’s Law supporters used rhetoric designed to make opposition to the law politically impossible. They employed a three-part rhetorical strategy that
    advocates have used previously to push public support for other child protection
    legislation: typification, statistical manipulation, and melodrama. During the late
    1980s, for instance, advocates argued for new stranger child-abduction laws by
    making these same three claims. First, citing particularly horrible, well-publicized
    abductions-cases like the Jacob Wetterling incident-they argued that these
    incidents were typical of the broader abduction problem1 6 Second, they grossly
    exaggerated the extent of the crisis, pointing to the high rate of total child abductions (a number which consisted largely of parental kidnappings) as evidence of a massive stranger abduction crisis.” 7 Finally, they described their political struggle as a melodrama: a battle of good (child protectors) versus evil (child abusers).”‘ As a result of this effective rhetoric, activists successfully convinced the public that stranger child abduction was a scourge sweeping the nation.1 9″ pp 362-363. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1977&context=ilj [visited on April 7,2018].

  25. mike r

    My god people wait until you see what I am preparing. Beyond a reasonable doubt I’m telling you……………..Been thru 5 reports so far and all have the same conclusions……..I hope all the attorneys out there are ready to have a list that is so powerful that it could be plausibly used in a statement of undisputed facts which could be used for a motion for summary judgment it will be that cut and dry………No matter what or how it is used it will be indisputable in any case……Man they made it to easy for ma too. All I have to do is cut and paste….LMAO again………

    Wayne A. Logan, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: Past, Present and Future, 34 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 3 (2008
    “One of the most striking features of the nation’s modern rush to embrace registration and notification is the utter disregard of empiricism. One would be hard-pressed to identify a public enterprise of similar national scope effectuated in utter disregard for its efficacy or impact.59 Yet at the same time, registration and notification laws have blanketed the nation precisely because of the perception, repeatedly parroted in legislative findings supporting the laws, that sex offenders recidivate at a far greater rate than other sub-populations.” Pp15 https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/criminal_and_civil_confinement_vol_34-3_logan_re_sex_offenders_past_present_and_future_2007.pdf [visited on April 7,2018].

    • Robin

      @miker

      So what are you saying, these idiots didn’t read all of the so called supporting documentation in full, and all of this was right there for them to see. Also that all they did was pick, what they would consider damaging to SO’s and supportive of the overall scheme?

      • mike r

        Absolutely that is what I am saying…Every single citation they use simply and indisputably refutes everything the AG’s state…It is insane man..I really hope the attorneys in the Millard case do their homework like I just did and in the matter of a couple of hours and debunked every one of the AG’s claims. It is so blatant all you have to do is go straight to the conclusions or the abstracts and there it is. And think, this is the best multiple state AG’s from the surrounding states can bring. It is another pathetic attempt to justify the laws by deceiving the courts. These attorneys have to slam the AG’s with their own reports and not let up at all. Pound it until they submit… I was going to move on to the US AG’s motion to dismiss in my case but it isn’t necessary because they do not even attempt to refute any of the reports…………

  26. mike r

    I am sorry if I am taking up a lot of space on this issue but it is all incredibly relevant and everyone has a illusionary “right to know” like the people have a illusionary “right to know” our info….lol…After I am done I will post this on my site or on the one AJ used or somewhere that you guys can access it…But look at the samples that they are admitting to be using in their methodology…

    Patrick A. Langan et al., Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From Prison in 1994,
    BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003)
    “Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994,” “The rate for all 9,691 sex offenders [] was 2.2%” pp 1
    “The 9,691 released men were all violent sex offenders. They are called “violent” because the crimes they were imprisoned for are widely defined in State statutes as “violent” sex offenses. “Violent” means the offender used or threatened force in the commission of the crime or, while not actually using force, the offender did not have the victim’s “factual” or “legal” consent.” pp 3 Id. In other words, they are cherry picking and using violent contact offenders with higher base recidivism rates than the majority of released sex offenders or the majority of those on the registry. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf [visited on April 7, 2018].

    • mike r

      And it is still an exponentially and extraordinarily lower rate as espoused by any proponents of the registries and is in fact 2.2% percent for some of the highest risk offenders out there…….

  27. mike r

    I think the courts are going to be pretty ticked off when I present these reports in the actual context which prove (or at least “incredibly” persuasive) beyond a reasonable doubt that all the proponents and most importantly, all the gov. officials are manipulation the reports and cherry picking quotes, and using them out of context, in an attempt (and as of so far successfully) deceive the courts (ever since the beginning of these laws starting in McKune and every subsequent cases) into upholding these unconstitutional laws…..Very disturbing and undoubtedly pointing to something other then pubic safety was at work here…

    • mike r

      I shouldn’t say gov. officials, it is more like the legislative and local county boards and the gov. AG’s and solicitor generals who are being duplicitous and not the gov. agency such as all the department of corrections for every state who are all on the same page in contradiction of the others and which are providing solid facts.

  28. AJ

    I overlooked it earlier when scanning the Docket, but here’s CO’s brief to the court: https://uploadfiles.io/7llon. It’s a long doc (144 pages), which I have yet to read. According to the Docket, Millard, et al, have until April 25 to file their response brief, barring a time extension. Also, Ms. Ruttenerg is not working alone. According to the docket, the following are also involved:

    From Denver law firm Haddon, Morgan, and Foreman: Ty Gee, Esq. & Adam Mueller
    From ACLU-CO: Sara R. Neel & Mark Silverstein

    The law firm appears to have some pretty good chops. Their site says they “selectively take on compelling civil rights cases.” Hopefully that bodes well for this case!

    • Brian

      I hope it goes all the way to SCOTUS because SCOTUS will deny cert, they did it to Michigan and pa, but these people won’t let the laws be even though it was ruled in favor of SO’s. Once cert is denied they will be quick to make another (SCHEME) / law which someone needs to get right on top of challenging, we have learned that we don’t need lawyers, we are allowed to file writs and mandamus under laws in different states..

      • TS

        @Brian

        One step at a time. Let’s stay at the Tenth Circuit for now and see how it goes. Depending on the ruling and when it is published, there could be a new AG in CO since the current AG is running for Gov (though not polling well within her own party).

        • Robin

          @ Brian

          This is not the kind of case we would want SCOTUS to deny a cert. This kind of case would have great potential to win and SCOTUS finally rule something in our favor.

        • Brian

          @Robin
          I see, that could make a big impact on things, that AG looks like a sociopath or psycho to my, I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the CO case in a while.

          TS
          I wander if a new AG will have the same mindset or different, I’m betting the same so that that person won’t loose they’re seat in office.

        • TS

          @Robin

          There would have to be a fundamental difference of the Tenth Circuit’s ruling from the Sixth Circuit’s ruling for SCOTUS to want to accept the case for hearing.

          “In United States federal courts, a circuit split occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue.[1] The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case.[2] Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason.”[3] (Circuit split, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split)

          A home run case would be nice for the nation, and anything is possible, but the best case here is for the Tenth Circuit to Affirm Judge Matsch’s ruling. It could possibly help anyone else who wants to file in their respective Districts. However, one step at a time and this is the step currently in front of everyone.

          If I am off in my thinking, I am sure someone will speak up here.

          @ Brian

          It will depend on the new Governor too since AG and Governor are up for election this fall in CO. Anything is possible here, too, but we, all, can guess what the thinking could be. Again, one step at a time and this is the step currently in front of everyone.

        • Brian

          @TS
          Your right, anything can happen that’s for sure, I don’t know who’s running for those seats up in CO but they could end up being like the new Philadelphia DA, seams to gave a good head on his shoulders as far as I can see but I could be wrong about that.

        • Robin

          TS

          So I’m confused with the statement, there would have to be a difference between 6th circuit and 10th circuit for SCOTUS to accept the case”.

          Is there a case that went to 6th circuit on appeal that was a suit to get people off the registry that had filed petition for relief and were denied after doing everything that was required to get relief?

          Not doubting what you say, just trying to understand it and learn.

        • TS

          @Robin

          I was merely laying out the path for SCOTUS to hear a case using the Sixth and Tenth Circuits RC cases respectively as examples without getting into the particulars of each case in a direct comparison. Snyder (Sixth Circuit) is the most recent RC case through a Circuit Court with the Tenth (Millard) now in view with great interest. Bottom line, you want like items being ruled differently to have the case accepted to be heard. I could have made that a clearer. My apologies.

          I agree with your thinking this is the type of case SCOTUS should hear because of the great potential it has for RCs nationally.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          Snyder and Millard cannot be a circuit split, as they address different legal issues. Snyder was ex post facto, Millard is 8th Amdt. That SCOTUS denied hearing two EPF cases (Snyder, Muniz) that are contrary to Smith says volumes, IMO.

        • TS

          Thanks @AJ for that clarification on Snyder and Millard WRT SCOTUS.

        • TS

          Current Colorado Attorney General who is appealing the Judge Matsch ruling did not make the final ballot for Colorado Governor she was running for.

    • TS

      @AJ

      Did you get a chance to read the 144 pg CO AG doc they filed you posted here? Be interested in hearing your thoughts.

      • AJ

        @TS:
        I have not yet done it, no. I still plan to, but managed to get sidetracked reading a bit of the ID case and also plain old enjoying life. Honestly, I was kind of hoping someone else would dive in! The doc really is “only” about 60 pages, as the first 15 are glossary and such, and pages 73(ish) onward are appendices such as CO’s SORA

        • TS

          @AJ , et al

          It appears to me in reading the CO AG filing, they are crying sour grapes left and right. They state Judge Matsch was not in his right for many things and did not test for various things throughout the proceedings when making his decision.

          The state does not like the fact Judge Matsch listened to non-state actors, e.g. others impacted by CSORA, and not just state actors, e.g. those directly impacted, Millard, et al. The state does not want to know or have anyone else know what the true impacts of CSORA are on people who have to register and those who associated with them. Tunnel vision to say the least.

          I would recommend everyone read this doc if they can, especially @AJ and @mike r. It is informational and useful to see the arguments used by the CO AG countering the other arguments that have been mentioned before. I could see some of these arguments being used by others who take on this topic and don’t want to lose the registry.

          The talk of recidivism is not mentioned and neither are any related stats. The other AGs have taken that on in their brief submitted. This brief merely takes on tactics & thinking of Judge Matsch and tries to make him sound crazy for what he did.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          I noticed your above came one minute after mine below. Too funny that we came to the same conclusion and voiced it around the same time!

          I have a hard time believing a Senior District Judge would repeatedly and blatantly go off the rails as the CO AG suggests has happened.

          One thing I’ve noticed, both in this doc and elsewhere, is the drone of, “Smith is controlling and cannot be challenged.” If that’s the case–and it would certainly hold true for other suits on other topics–how does *anything* ever get changed or overturned?!? It’s such a BS, tired claim. As I’ve said before, Plessy v Ferguson was dispositive…until Brown v Bd. of Educ.; Buck v. Bell was dispositive…until Skinner v. OK neutralized (though never overturned) it; Pace v. AL was dispositive…until Loving v. VA; Bowers v. Hardwick was dispositive…until Lawrence v. TX (a mere 17 years later). This claim that a SCOTUS decision is set in stone is total falsehood.

      • AJ

        @TS:
        Okay, you shamed me into reading the CO AG’s brief. The basic argument is that Judge Matsch ignored and violated all sorts of requirements. He ignored dispositive precedents (Smith, and Shaw(a 10th Cir. case)), he went beyond what 42 US 1983 allows, he improperly blamed the State for activities by non-state actors, he decided a state issue outside his jurisdiction, etc. Pretty much the AG says over and over that the judge has no idea what he’s doing and violated every judicial standard there is.

        Some of what’s written did raise my eyebrows with the thought of, “what was this judge thinking?” But, that judge certainly knows the law better than I *ever* will, and the AG’s filing is of course heavily slanted in one direction.

        Countering the AG’s doc is the fact that a high-profile law firm has agreed to aid in the case. Those lawyers, like the judge, know the law pretty darn well, I’m sure. If even one of them saw half of what the AG claims, you gotta think they would have taken a pass on it.

        Also in the back of my mind is the possibility that the judge intentionally set things up in a way to *try* to get the case before SCOTUS. If so, he’s one sly old fox! I also wonder if part of the C&U argument relies on the laws being excessive when considered in the light of correct data, instead of “frightening and high.”

        I definitely look forward to the reply from Millard’s attorneys. I just checked PACER and see that Millard, et al, have been granted a filing extension. Their reply is now due by May 25 (it was April 25).

        • TS

          @AJ

          Shame was not intended here, but it appears we drew similar conclusions unintentionally within one minute of each other.

          The extension is great to see, IMO, and would like to attribute some of it to @mike r emailing his stats doc to the Millard team (though we will never know). I do hope the Millard team sees the Pepitone blow back from Bill Dobbs (posted by David K), along w/the associated Reason article too on bad data.

          As for your statement on trying to possibly get it in front of SCOTUS to see, Judge Matsch did take a swipe at the “Mighty 9” as noted in the CO AG brief. That did raise my eyebrows. Is there some backstory here in the judicial waters we don’t know of?

  29. Gralphr

    Can anyone rationally tell me why I’m wrong to hate the us government? These same so called authorities in another time would have been fighting for separate but equal, Jim crow, and a host of other obviously unconstitutional laws in order to get votes. These laws have all but trampled the constitution in that they CV old care less what it says since votes and being liked is more important than the rule of law. These same people would pass a law to have us rounded up and killed if they could get away with it. I wish there was a country I could immigrate to. I’m sure they’d be able to put my college education in computer science to good use there.

  30. mike r

    Man look at this one that they cite. What idiots……

    U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Abstract:
    “The results of the research indicate that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders were not rearrested for another sex crime. This finding is surprising given the way in which DNA collection, registration, and notification policies have come about. Research would indicate that robbers may be better candidates for DNA collection, registration, and community notification than sex offenders. The results offered little support for the notion of predicate or “gateway” offenses to sex offending.” https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=203427 [visited on April 7, 2018].

    • Robin

      @ Mike

      I just went to the link and read all of what is there.

      WTH! Why in the world would they use anything that totally says the opposite of what they are claiming. I am dumbfounded on this, and their ignorance on what they cite actually states and that it is a 180 from what they claim!
      Unreal. Do they secretly want to lose so the entire scheme goes away?

      • steve

        This is very similar to IML. The State department claimed IML would have zero impact.

  31. mike r

    Aj that is most telling and definitely a good sign. It is the one of the best argued cases so far lets hope it keeps going.

  32. mike r

    Here we go, I truly hope the attorneys do what I just did or get a hold of this. Debunked everyone…..And notice the two office of justice programs reports one has some lame researcher citing like frigging hundreds of academic crap ant the other one from the same department totally contrary and is one of the strongest statements against these laws. Incredible………..You guys are going to like this and look how fast..thanks to the Net who needs an attorney??????????..LMAO….I seriously cannot believe how bad this is for the other side man. it is absolutely crazy my friends…

    https://ufile.io/aemdh

    • Robin

      @ Miker

      Let’s just hope the attorneys are good enough to dig into this as we do.

      I see where AJ found that the attorney does have help, which is good, I hope. But getting this information to any/all of them would be good, if they actually look at it rather than brushing it off, since it would come from whom ever.

      I can see they would give more thought about looking at it if it came from someone with a standing, or another attorney. Maybe if you got with ACLU there in CA, they would be able to talk to ACLU in CO. I would still send all of them something and hopefully it will intrigue at least one to where they all start looking.

      This case can not be lost because of the precedent it will set. I hope, no, pray, these lawyers are good enough to cram all the rhetoric back down the AGs throat, so far that it leaves a sour taste for years. I feel if it is a win for our side it will be the pivotal point for many more cases to get wins and get the entire scheme to crumble.

      If this case loses and the TX case loses, it will be a huge set back.

  33. Chris F

    About the AG comments on how under-reported sex crimes are…

    Why wouldn’t they be under-reported as long as the public registry exists?

    Do they really think, with over 90% of sex crimes being committed by friends or family, that the victim or the family is going to report it to the police and subject themselves to potentially making the primary bread winner un-employable for the rest of his life and his family unable to find housing?

    No. Then, since they can’t even get him psychological help without that being reported to police, they try to just keep it to themselves. That leads to even more sex crime victims.

    So yes, sex crimes aren’t only under-reported due to the registry, but there are more and more victims because of the hugely disproportionate punishment and humiliation the registry dishes out. Sorry, but victims of sex crimes don’t have a right to dictating a punishment that creates more victims of sex crimes.

    • mike r

      Excellent Chris…….Noted……..What do you think about those scathing reports. Take the table of authorities from Millard and put the side by side with my findings since they are in order of their table and look how idiotic stating anything to the contrary is. It it wasn’t such a serious topic this would be comical it is so stupid……………..

  34. mike r

    Hows this sound Chris addressing just one of the under-reporting studies?????

    Wolitzky-Taylor et al., Is Reporting of Rape on the Rise? A Comparison of Women with Reported Versus Unreported Rape Experiences in the National Women’s Study Replication, 26 J. OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 4 (2010). Once again, these studies rely upon complete speculation, conclusory, and basically anecdotal of unreported rape cases since the entire under-reporting claims are based on self-reporting and have no scientific methodology and no reasonably reliable facts associated with them. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260510365869 [visited on April 7,21018].
    Furthermore, with over 90% of sex crimes being committed by friends or family, the victim or the family in many cases undoubtable are not going to report it to the police and subject themselves to potentially making the primary bread winner un-employable for the rest of his life, and his family unable to find housing. That leads to even more sex crime victims. So, if sex crimes are under-reported it is only reasonable and cognizable that any under-reporting may be due to the registry itself because of the hugely disproportionate punishment and humiliation the registry dishes out, discouraging a very large number of the 90% of family members from self-reporting. Then, since they can’t even get him psychological help without that being reported to police, they try to just keep it to themselves. This is reality and not some illusionary speculation such as proponents of these laws regurgitate endlessly in an attempt to justify these laws.

    • Chris F

      Looks great Mike R!

      Thanks for getting all this in front of them.

      At some point, the entire issues of AG’s and lawyers trying to justify the registry using completely outdated or misleading reports, as well as the legislature using them in defending easy “feather in their cap” legislation against sex offenders needs to be the focus in courts, and not just brushed aside. Typically, the court doesn’t want to look into anything so they just chalk it up to both sides are going to twist stuff, so ignore it all and defer to legislature. That needs to stop.

      This is probably why a Bill of Attainder challenge needs to be included. Those challenges work to expose the reasons behind bad legislation and force the truth to come out. Judges need to do their job and quit being lazy and looking the other way while legislature diminishes their power and takes over all control of the government, and its people.

  35. mike r

    Here is what I emailed the attorneys for Millard of course with all the reports attached…
    Hello, my name is Michael and I am writing you concerning the Millard case you are working on out of Colorado. I understand that you are a seasoned and very experienced attorney and you have done a incredible job in that case and I am only writing you to maybe provide some information or insight from a Pro Se who has been working on this for over three years and have accumulated an extensive data base of research debunking the AG’s claims and the efficacy of registration policies. The following is a list of the reports from the Attorney General’s table of authorities and as you can well see, if you do not just disregard this email, that everyone of their reports and studies are refuted. And not just refuted but show a indisputable pattern of the duplicitous attempts being made by the AG’s in your case. If you look at my citations they are correct and they correspond with the AG’s table of authorities respectively. I had to email you my findings and implore you to hammer the AG’s on the recidivism and efficacy issues until they submit and concede the issues.
    Thank you for your time and I hope you can use this info. Also if you would like state studies from multiple states I have them and they all come to the same consensus that are completely contrary to the AG’s assertions. Just email if you want them.

    • E

      @Mike r. Excellent. Thanks for doing that. Did you get Alison Ruttenberg’s email? Or did you email her colleagues? She’s been the voice and face on this case.

      May I ask you to upload this on your site for those of us tracking with you, and include the link? Grateful to you for your work and passion in this, as well as others.

    • Robin

      That is fantastic Mike. I do hope they look at it with the mindset maybe he’s got something we missed.

      BTW Thanks for being here and having the drive and determination that you do, it is inspiring!

  36. E

    @Janice:
    Can ACSOL file a similar brief as this on behalf of our side? I’m pretty sure you and Alison know one another… please let me know if you need an ACSOL member in CO in order to file something like that. It would be awesome if there could be multiple briefs from credible sources debunking the AG brief line by line. Please consider this. Thank you very much.

  37. David

    “This ruling undermines the rights of victims and survivors of sex crimes …” Attorney General Hunter said.
    How does it undermine their rights? And, if it does, don’t the victims of a violent assault or domestic abuse have the same rights? So why isn’t there a registry of people convicted of violence or domestic abuse?? Aren’t the rights of those victims being undermined by not having a registry for those offenses? ( I love to hear the AG respond to that! Oh, I forgot, the difference is the mythical “frightening and high” recidivism rate.)
    “It also obstructs citizen access to public information on sex offenders in their communities and threatens public safety.” A police-only Registry would serve the same purpose.
    “Registry systems are one of the most cost-effective ways to protect the public while reintroducing sex offenders into society.” So Registries have prevented sexual abuse/sexual assault? There’s no empirical evidence to support that claim. “Parents and victims have the right to know.” Again, a police-only Registry would serve that same purpose.

    “[A.G.] Hunter says undoing the registry in one State compromises the integrity of the uniform registry system…..” False: absolutely NOT “uniform”. Every State Registry has different requirements, definitions, time periods, information disclosures, etc. “…. and jeopardizes the ability of states to obtain federal funding.” Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for finally stating the real reason: money (and blatant political posturing to intended to enhance your career)!

  38. David

    From the A.G.’s press release: “The brief also cites statistics as to why registries are important, stating estimates of sex offender recidivism rates range from 30 percent to as high as 80 percent. These are likely underestimates because around 85 percent of sex crimes go unreported.”

    The classic argument the mythical “frightening and high” recidivism rate.

    “The brief concludes by quoting a judge in a 2016 Wisconsin case who wrote, even assuming much lower recidivism rates, ‘readers of this opinion who are parents of young children should ask themselves whether they should worry that there are people in their community who have ‘only’ a 16 percent or an 8 percent probability of molesting young children.'”
    Yes, your honor. And those people in the community with that probability of molesting the children includes family members, friends, acquaintances, teachers, coaches, clergy, etc. – the perpetrators of 95+% of all child sexual abuse (NOT individuals previously convicted a sex offense.)

    • Robin

      @ David

      This is a problem in itself. When the judges think that all on a registry are pedophiles, just like the public does.
      They don’t sit there and consider the ones that are on registries for minor crimes such as taking a leak in public, custodial interference, etc. They only comment on the most serious ones, not giving consideration to all others.
      They keep doing this to raise panic and fear in the public, making them believe every single person on the registry is after their child.

  39. David

    Will ACSOL also be submitting an amicus brief?

  40. Only ME

    how in the heck can anyone with a straight face state that ______ % go un reported? how do they come up with this BS %? straw poll? weigh the clump of BS they are dumping and however many tons it weighs that’s the % they proclaim as fact?

    • Robin

      Only ME April 8, 2018
      how in the heck can anyone with a straight face state that ______ % go un reported? how do they come up with this BS %? straw poll? weigh the clump of BS they are dumping and however many tons it weighs that’s the % they proclaim as fact?

      Very simple, they have heard it repeated so many times and it was published in this or that so it has to be true. When they look at a document and their eyes almost automatically zoom to that and focus only on that being blind to all else, it makes it true, at least in their mind.
      So if they believe it to be “true, and factual” though no real data exists backing the claim, they can do it with a straight face and put it out there as factual truth.
      That is the problem with some of the judges too, they have blinders on and only look at what they perceive to be true when presented to them. Then you have judges like the one in Wisconsin that sates even if it is a low recidivism rate what mother would not want to know her child is in danger. That is clearly a judge that did not do his job in looking at fact and basing it on fact rather than his feelings of hate towards SO’s.
      That is why the newer reports that are available have to be presented and drummed into their thick skulls to debunk the old information that was not put out correctly or rather where facts were twisted in such a manner as to deceive, both to the public, to instill fear and panic, and to the courts.

  41. mike r

    Yes it is completely insane Robin. I dont think it is because they want to lose it’s just that they have nothing, zero, notta, and what I found and compiled is exactly what is out of their own citations, absolutely insane sittuation…

  42. Never Quit

    The following quote is from:

    “A Multi-State Recidivism Study Using Static-99R and Static-2002 Risk Scores and Tier Guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act”, pg. 28.
    link: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240099.pdf

    Quote:
    “It should be noted, however, that under-reporting may be less of a problem when sex crimes are committed by individuals who have already been detected; sex offenses committed by registered sex offenders may be less likely to go unreported and if reported may be more likely to result in an arrest. Thus, recidivism rates as defined in this study are probably less likely to be effected by under-reporting than overall sex crime rates.”

    The over-riding point here is that ‘under-reported sex crimes’ are less likely to have been committed by known sex offenders, thus making the ‘under-reporting issue’ far less relevant to arguments seeking justification for the continuance of registry schemes.

  43. Never Quit

    Correction to my comment in my post above. What I had meant to say was that ‘under-reported sex crimes’ are less likely to have been committed AND less likely to have gone un-reported if committed by a registered citizen. And while I am aware that an argument may be made that this could be used as some justification for registry schemes, I would argue that the ‘unreported’ issue would not be relevant when debating all other issues (presence issues; ‘punishment’ issue; ex-post facto issue; due process issue; all first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment issues; delegation of authority issues; etc etc etc).

    • mike r @ Never Quit

      Those under reporting studies are hearsay and anecdotal, conclusory…..Also see my Judicial facts…

      Reports concerning alleged under-reporting:
      The following are governmental reports conducted concerning only alleged high rates of under reported of sex crimes, and even though not relevant to recidivism rates, they are relevant in that the authors concede the fallacies in such research because the methodologies use anecdotal and conclusory self-reporting for their statistics. These reports are relevant since the proponents of these laws often use under-reporting as somehow justification for these laws.

      Michael Planty et al., Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2013).
      “The data in this report were drawn from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police from a nationally representative sample of persons age 12 or older who live in U.S. households.” Pp 2.
      “Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based on the results presented” pp 10. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf [visited on April 7, 2018].

      Concerning under-reporting only:
      David Finkelhor et al., Sexually Assaulted Children: National Estimates & Characteristics, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN 8 (Aug. 2008).
      “Using proxy interviews to obtain information on crime victimization and other sensitive topics has never been a preferred methodology and has sometimes yielded poor results” pp 10 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/214383.pdf [visited on April 7,2018].

  44. Registry need to go it is unlawful

    I feel The Registry was made up. T(0)(0) help mothers who have boy’s with out fathers. If you do this! You Will be on the sex offender Registry! See all those people! You want to be like them! The Problem is! No one knows when any Child / Adult! Will Rape or kill or Molest or Steal from YOU. A Registry can not stop that Ever Each Day a New killer>Rapist> Molester>Thief Is Born < People don't wake up at 50 years old and say Gee !! what will i do to day! (HMM Think i will kill someone just for fun) Or (HMM Find some random Kid To get my jolly"s off with) What i am say is People Are Born In to this world And maybe the child got the best parents and have the best school in the world . And Then out of Blue you got a 11 year old monster who tried to have sex with a 9 year old girl. To the boy he thinking was! i am just trying to learn? But to the Girl she was just shocked and didn't understand. she told her mother mother goes off the deep END AND she report it to cops who take the boy to jail and later add him to the registry for a sex offence Yes like the old saying goes SEX PAYS And Or government is trying to cash in on it!!! Shame ON them!!

  45. Follow the footnote

    Mountain state Atty’s General example of sex offender stamping on DL leading to catching someone is debatable.

    They got a description of a car possibly a ford focus from the crime scene witnesses. Then, a caller said someone with a sex offender drivers license bought coloring books. It was a DUI call to the police about someone in a Ford Focus at a burger joint that led to identification and later capture where they got the tags off the car at the burger joint.

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/leads-fell-into-place-to-guide-authorities-to-suspect-girl/article_b61eef8e-d4cf-11e3-bbb7-001a4bcf6878.html

    ironically, this link was embedded in the Attorneys General’ brief footnoted link

  46. Registry need to go it is unlawful

    Don’t understand Victim;s If you tell someone! (NO)leave Me Alone!!And the Person Walk’s Away and you call the cops and tell a lie But the lieder don’t get in trouble for the made up lie something is so wrong No balance here at all

  47. Brian

    So if assaults aren’t being reported how the hell do they have any evidence that they even happened? I know stuppid question, they just want to pile on as much bs as they possibly can to me it look as bad as possible.

    • Robin

      @ Brian

      I think somewhere I read in all this that it was written by some group this is how it is, because people were disclosing in counseling they were assaulted etc.

      I think that has to be old as in today’s laws it is mandated reporting, so there is no way it would go unreported if someone said something in counseling.
      There is of course inner family stuff that happens that most likely goes unreported. At least until the person becomes an adult then reports it. Like in the case of that Family singing group from TN.

      That still wouldn’t be in the numbers they are talking about.

  48. Facts should matter

    “Parents and victims have the right to know.”

    No. They. Do. NOT.

    • Robin

      They have the right to lodge the initial complaint, show up in court to testify, and for a restraining order.

      Anything more, they absolutely don’t have a right to.

  49. mike r

    Man unfortunately the AG or the Magistrate in my case did not address the recidivism issue at all and did not try to refute the facts with bogus reports such as they did in Millard. As soon as they do that I am going to HAMMER them into submission and not let up or hold back until that happens…………..Cannot wait because eventually they are going to have to and if the AG citations in Millard is any indication what the AG’s are going to bring it is going to very scathing to their position and incredibly persuasive of the intent and duplicitous attempts by the AG’s.

  50. T

    It’s like David fighting Goliath!

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 *