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

There is a Direction that Registered Citizens can take to become Free

[sosen.org 6/10/18]

Below is a article that was posted in August of 2015 related to another article that was posted in June of 2015, in light of recent events I thought maybe it was time to resurrect this article. We have come a long way since 2015 in proving that there never was a high re-offense rate that the United States Supreme Court was given by federal prosecutors representing that registered citizens re-offense rate was 80%, The Court use that 80% to justify the need for public safety. We now have enough proof to show that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% nowhere close to the 80% that was used to justify the decision in Smith versus Doe, in fact there were studies going back to the 1960s including the Jack study that was done in 1967 that showed a re-offense rate for sexually related crimes of 3.2% over a 15 year. That’s 2/10 of one percent per year nowhere even close to the 80%. Now this information was available to the courts at the time of the Smith versus Doe decision and it was a valid study where as the 80 percentile information was not based on any empirical evidence and since has been proved to be entirely false.

Read more

 

Join the discussion

  1. CR

    I’d never heard of it before, but based on what I came up with on a google search, a Writ of Coram Nobis is probably not applicable to Smith v Doe. The criteria are explained here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coram_nobis

    Explained more fully at the above link, Doe can’t meet any of these criteria because it was not a criminal case. That is, assuming Wikipedia is correct.

    A petition for a writ of coram nobis in a federal court must seek to vacate a federal criminal conviction.

    A petition for a writ of coram nobis must be directed to the sentencing court.

    A petition for a writ of coram nobis may only be filed after a sentence has been served and the petitioner is no longer in custody.

    A petition for a writ of coram nobis must provide valid reasons for not attacking the conviction earlier.

    A petition for a writ of coram nobis must provide adverse consequences which exist from the conviction.

    The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy to correct errors of the most fundamental character.

    Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morgan_(1954)

    According to that article, there is also a 10 to 60 day time limit (depending on the circuit) for filing such a writ. Also, it’s not clear that such a writ can be filed to SCOTUS.

    • AJ

      Here’s another link that provides further info on why a writ of coram nobis won’t work for Smith, McKune, CT DPS, or any other RC case: https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/writ-of-coram-nobis/

      From the URL:
      *****
      Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly abolished the use of coram nobis in civil cases in the United States, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b), the issue of the writ’s availability to correct fundamental errors in criminal cases remained uncertain for many years. In United States v. Morgan, the Supreme Court resolved this question, holding that coram nobis was still available in federal court for criminal cases. See 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954).
      *****
      Case closed…both literally and figuratively.

      (I believe the author made a mistake in citing Fed. R. Crim P. 60(b); it appears the reference should have been Fed. R. CIVIL P. 60(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_60. Crim makes no sense here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_60.)

  2. Chris F

    Interesting article on SCOTUS mistakes based on bad data or outright lies, including the sex offender cases like Smith V Doe:

    https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find

  3. Richard

    The only way to put a stop to the SOR is to convince the US Supreme court to over rule there prier Decision that the SOR is a public safety measure. With the new available data’ they can admit there recidivism rates used in there prior decisions, have been proven to be wrong and there is no proof of enhanced public safety there for the ex post facto rules take effect… just my thoughts!

    • Lance Sosa

      It took 17 years from when Bowers v. Hardwick 5-4 decision affirmed sodomy as illegal in 1986. 2003 is also the time which Smith v. Doe was decided. 17 years later is around the current time. One of the justices in Bowers v. Hardwick who voted to make sodomy illegal said if he had known one of his well-liked employees was gay, he would have voted the other way. With overturning Smith V Doe, its not even that subjective, the numbers should speak for themselves.

      • Roger

        Also a good example for us to Show up, Stand up, and Speak up when appropriate to those around us.

      • John

        I thought about that as well a couple of years ago. The timing of the matter. I thought maybe they wanted to wait a bit longer like 2023 as a 20th anniversary to Smith v. Doe before having to revisit it.

      • CR

        Bowers v Hardwick in June of 1986 to Lawrence v Texas in June of 2003 was 17 years. Baker v Nelson in October of 1971 to Obergefell v Hodges in June of 2015 was 43 years 8 months.

        What was your point?

  4. FRegistryTerrorists

    The recidivism rate is irrelevant because the Registries don’t protect anyone or lower the rate. Rate could be 3%, it could be 90%. Doesn’t matter.

    Personally, I am 100% sure that the Registries increase recidivism, obviously cause a very large amount of very anti-social behavior, and increase crime in general. There are no benefits except for people making money, helping politicians, and similar immoral, un-American “benefits”.

    • New Person

      On a tangent,

      I was reading a lot of the CASOMB (Ca Sex Offender Mgmt Board) year end reports. In their reporting, I think they stated that although risk assessment levels were administered, they had no bearing upon the convicted because the registry was a blanket lifetime term.

      In a 2010 report, IIRC, CASOMB denoted that the state has not created any research program about recidivism rates. Which means all the new laws they’ve created are all made without a scienter, or rather a selective scienter. Selective because the state used Dr Karl Hanson’s Static-99 to establish risk assessment, but do not use his maximum years of surveillance of 17 years, even for the highest risk. With the new proposed tier system, there is still a lifetime term.

      The state doesn’t want recidivism facts so they can continue to make any laws against registrants.

      I don’t know how, but there was once a registry for the Mob in California. But that was rule unconstitutional, IIRC. That same Mob registry started to include sex offenders before it was ruled unconstitutional for the Mob. Yet, the registry does remain for sex offenders.

      • courage!!

        there was once a registry for the Mob in California (source on this?)

        • Tim Moore

          “Although registration and community notification (SORN) is usually thought to have emerged whole cloth in the 1990s, its origins actually date back to the 1930s when local governments in the Los Angeles area, concerned that their communities were being flooded by anonymous “gangsters” from the East and Midwest, enacted laws requiring that convicted felons (not exclusively sex offenders) register with authorities. Registration laws, including those eventually enacted by states, existed to varying degrees through the mid-1980s, without attracting much public or legislative attention.”
          From: CHALLENGING THE PUNITIVENESS OF “NEW-GENERATION” SORN LAWS
          Wayne A. Logan
          I believe I downloaded the paper from this site.

  5. mike r

    “in fact there were studies going back to the 1960s including the Jack study that was done in 1967 that showed a re-offense rate for sexually related crimes of 3.2% over a 15 year.”

    Hey can you please cite these studies? As many as possible that date back to that time frame. I have all the recent but only one from back then and that is only from the 1994 New Jersey study and I would love to have these older studies showing no appreciable difference in the rates as well as showing that the legislature knew as far back as possible that the false narrative that they used for the creation of the registry was known. I would love to add these to my arsenal.
    Thank you.

  6. mike r

    See this is what I am talking about academia, Notice this is from a gov website but it relies on academic which is not facts but skewed numbers based on some special interest. I want hard indisputable numbers.

  7. mike r

    This is the only important part of that entire report. Academia cannot be relied upon by a court. Adjudicative facts, that is all that matters. Just as In Re Taylor that referenced the judicial notice of facts any court case that comes before the courts needs adjudicative facts that the courts take judicial notice of. Bottom line…I cannot wait to see how the court treats my judicial notice request and how it is used in the partial motion to dismiss.
    This is classic problems with academia compared to Docs from CDCR and other department of corrections or DOJs.
    “Because of wide variations in offender characteristics, research methodology, measurement
    definitions, and follow-up time, a comprehensive understanding of sex offender recidivism
    cannot be gained from research literature. However, a few conclusions can be made by judging
    the overall patterns of the results:”

    I do not mean to braggadocios but I am slamming the AG better than any case I have seen. I have controlled the entire process so far and have made the AG look like a fool several times. Let me list the events. I did not really have a plan when going into this and everything that I am stating is just happenstance that this occurred in the way that it did but it has been classic and if you looked at it like I meant to do these things you would think this guy is a brilliant legal strategist ( but of course it has been all happenstance like I said). Stick with me and follow along with the sequence of events.
    1. I filed an omnibus complaint that was around 90 pages long which included everything I would need to reference as the case moves forward and which was confusing and vague so as the AGs had a hard time pinpointing exactly what was being challenged and how it was being challenged which throws a seasoned or rookie attorney off kilter because they were all taught to follow certain procedures and that they cannot deviate from those conventional teachings. Big burn on the AGs.
    2. I filed against both the CA AG as well as the US AG.
    3. By the CA AG filing her “Partial” MTD (PMTD) and was depending on the US AG to pick up the rest of the claims she started the ball rolling against her that is still playing out right now and has at every stage of the proceedings so far. Big mistake.
    4. Soon then after the US AG files his MTD I turned around and dismissed without prejudice against the US AG which stuck the CA AG with the PMTD and prevented her from filing another one so she is stuck with it.
    5. By requesting a Magistrate judge the decision to grant the PMTD was not a final ruling so while it is pending for the district judge to decide I slam him with my sandbagged judicial facts which is the only thing that the court can consider outside of the original complaint when deciding the PMTD and which I am sure the CA AG never expected me to do properly because I was not proper in my request in my opposition to the PMTD so I looked like I was stupid and did not know what I was doing (which was kind of true lol) until I slammed them with a proper request for judicial notice.
    6. Then because she did not move to stay the proceedings (another big mistake because I am sure the court would of granted it) the rule 26(f) status conference went forward which opened up discovery.
    7. Now I can slam her with all the discovery tools available to me such as most importantly my Request for Admissions and guess what? she has to answer and she cannot just deny, she has to address every request I give her with substantial answers or it will be admitted as true and undisputed. Brilliant.
    8. So now she is stuck answering my discovery request and she cannot even file anything but a summary judgment until she files a complete answer to the rest of the claims, as the court reamed her about it at the status hearing. Beautiful.
    9. So now, no matter what, if she disputes even one of my request for admissions than there goes her summary judgment out the window as she will be admitting that there are disputable facts. I swear I could not have planned this it is so classic. So now she has to answer the complaint in full and I will have all my admissions and whatever discovery I get out of her as well to use against her in any subsequent pleadings.

    • pat

      mike r,
      can I have your e-mail?

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      You left out the best part where the Librarian for the California AG was supposedly supporting the AG’s motion to dismiss with her legislative history of sex offender laws, but instead provided you with that gem quote that the legislature knew of the “scholarly research” that showed the high recidivism was a complete “myth”, yet chose to ignore that and move forward with no further vetting of facts.

      That’s my favorite part so far, but who knows what crazy stuff is yet to come on your case. It’s quite a ride. I’m glad everyone that’s been on this web site the last 4 years has been able to see and contribute to something that could possibly have historic implications.

      • mike r

        You like that Huh 🙂 Me too…..This entire case has been classic so far. If I prevail it is definitely going to be one for the cannons or annals or whatever. Loving it so far. Feels good to just do this. Striking back from a offensive is is just a great feeling. Take it to them and am not waiting around my friends. Someone has to do it so what the he*((*^^&.

  8. mike r

    Academic report you guys cited from ACSOL. No solid numbers from CDCRs which are solid man. There is no questionable methodologies. Like I said we will see how much effect my judicial notice have an effect and I am hoping as much as the reports in the Taylor case about the efficacy of the residency law which is basically exactly what I provided except about the entire registry. I am REALLY interested to see how they handle this. The efficacy issue with the registry is just as bad or worse I would say. Check out what they took judicial notice of in Taylor. They are from the same entities and are stating the same crap about the registry. If this was in state court they would be thru instantly just because of this with the reports I provided.

    • mike r

      Taylor https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-taylor-34391

      “The trial court took judicial notice of the final report issued in
      October 2010 by the CDCR Task Force, a multidisciplinary group comprised of CDCR
      staff, law enforcement personnel, and other outside participants charged with making
      recommendations to the CDCR on various sex offender issues. The Task Force‟s final
      report concluded that the Jessica‟s Law‟s residency restrictions failed to improve public
      safety, and instead compromised the effective monitoring and supervision of sex offender
      parolees, placing the public at greater risk. A specific finding was made that “[h]omeless
      sex offenders put the public at risk. These offenders are unstable and more difficult to
      supervise for a myriad of reasons.” (Task Force, Rep., supra, p. 17.) The report further
      found that homelessness among sex offender parolees weakens GPS tracking, making it
      more difficult to monitor such parolees and less effective overall. CDCR has conceded in
      its briefs before this court that “[t]he evidence . . . demonstrated that the dramatic
      increase in homelessness has a profound impact on public safety,” and that “there is no
      dispute that the residency restriction[s] [have] significant and serious consequences that
      were not foreseen when it was enacted.”

      • mike r

        This sure seems to mirror the judicial facts in the Taylor case I will put them side by side. This is a letter to the Assembly member but just as effective I am sure if not more so because it shows that the legislature was aware of these issues. Of course all the others mirror this as well.

        My report, and this is just the one.
        California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB). Letter to Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher Regarding Chelsea’s Law (AB 1844):
        “CASOMB has seen the unintended consequences of well-meaning laws intended to protect communities from sex offending, which in some cases have made are people less safe.” (emphasis added) [Pp 1 ¶ 2]. http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB%20Letter%20to%20Assemblyman%20Fletcher.pdf [visited April 4, 2018].

        Taylor report.
        CDCR has conceded in
        its briefs before this court that “[t]he evidence . . . demonstrated that the dramatic
        increase in homelessness has a profound impact on public safety,” and that “there is no
        dispute that the residency restriction[s] [have] significant and serious consequences that
        were not foreseen when it was enacted.”

        • mike r

          And if the letter is not good enough we have solid reports as well. This is just one that pretty much mirror those in Taylor:

          California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014:
          “Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those – such as families – whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.” (emphasis added) (p. 12) http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB_End_of_Year_Report_to_Legislature_2014.pdf [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint pp 4 ¶ 12.

  9. mike r

    Alright peeps. Just mailed off my RFAs to the AG. I guess we will see haw well they were done and if the attorneys at AVVO were any help. I finally got it to where they were stating “why do you think they would not be proper? they are simple admit or deny questions so yes.” Here they are.
    https://ufile.io/avje8
    I bet the AG is going to like these……:)

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 *