Newly Released Report Reveals Misleading Government Data for Registrant Re-Offense Rates

Although statistics demonstrate that there is a low rate of re-offense for registrants, reports released by the government often conveys the opposite, according to a newly released academic report.  The report concluded that the government’s use of untrue or unsubstantiated ‘knowledge’ can have deleterious effects such as the passage of new laws that violate registrants’ civil rights and do not increase public safety.

In addition to a comprehensive analysis of statistical data, the report includes quotes of false information regarding re-offense rates from federal and state legislators that led to the passage of new laws.  For example, Congressman David Hobson testified in 1993 that 74 percent of all convicted child abusers are repeat offenders and that the average child sex offender will molest an average of 117 youngsters in his or her lifetime.  And Congressman Mark Foley, who later resigned after sending text messages to teenage boys, testified in 2005 that there is a 90 percent likelihood of recidivism of sexual crimes against children.

Full Report

Bad Data – May 2016

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  
 

37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Just wow…

When we asked for the data that would provide the detail inside the “other” category, we were at first told that our collaboration in helping them analyze their data would be appreciated. But the next day, the researcher who told us that would no longer talk with us and we were told to submit a formal proposal for the data. We did so and the proposal brought a response from the deputy director of research for the CDCR, who told us that, although the proposal was “well-organized and strong methodologically” and the “CDCR supports your research objectives,” they did not have time to provide these data (“your research imposes a significant impact on limited staff resources that cannot be justified as ‘mission critical’ at this point in time”).

someone who can afford to do so needs to use the following and Sue the government in every compacity possible thereby putting the first and last nail in the coffin and burying the entire registration scheme forever.
Remember having a restriction on a person is denying them a portion of their liberty. And if it is done without proper need to do so then it opens up the door for a constitutional tort and by filing a USC 1983 action. The minimum damages that you can receive $10,000 per defendant and organization. Let’s say it was a parole officer who authorized these restrictions, that would mean that you could sue the parole officer, his supervisor, their local department, the supervisor for the local department at the state level, and the state level department,all the way up through the governor of the state whose responsibility is for all departments under him and you can sue them in both their personal capacity and their official capacity. Easily running the damages up to a couple hundred thousand dollars.

The other thing that hasn’t been brought up yet is the fact that not only can they be sued, but they can be charged with a federal crime under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Under section 242 it lays out quite plainly who can be held accountable for the attempt to deprive a citizen of their rights. This would include individual legislators and city Council members etc. who pass laws with the intent to deprive a citizen of their constitutionally protected rights.

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens

“Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.”

Amazed!

I love the analogy with the “heliocentric v geocentric” example to reporting the recidivism rate of SO’s.

What I was surprised to hear was the CDCR presented a completely different interpretation on recidivism on its recent report and the less than 1% recidivism rate was just a blurb at the end of the report. I get all my info from here and didn’t understand why there wasn’t more noise about the less than 1% recidivism rate all throughout California. In this report, we now know why – the reports are hiding so much information to continue the thought that registrants recidivism rates are “frightening and high”.

From this report, it reiterated the following:

As quoted above, the 1988 report to the California Legislature stated, “the more
recidivistic a group the greater the need for monitoring their activities. Recidivism thus
addresses the issue of appropriateness for registration” (Lewis, 1988).


So why can’t we use the report that registrants/SOs recidivism rate is less than 1% as empirical proof to relief of monitoring by vacating registration altogether.

There are more and more reports about SO’s and false information. First academic paper was by professor Ellman from Arizona State. Now this with Ackerman and Burns. This is amazing to see, despite the snail pace of change.

Mike r this comments to you. I took a screen grab of your post, saved it as text too and when Calligraphy and Talent co-incite; I want to handle the road show.

new person you’re exactly right. I don’t know why nobody will bring this challenge to the courts my only conclusion is that none of these organizations really truly want to end registration since they all have a stake in keeping registration alive or they wouldn’t have a organization. I hate to think that but why else would they not ever challenge the Courts on any substantial issues that could topple the entire scheme. I appreciate what they have accomplished but I just feel that it isn’t really out of the goodness of their unselfish hearts but aligns with their agendas.after all without registration there is no RSOL,SOSEN,TEXAS VOICES,FAC,WAR,and how many more countless organizations. I wish I was wrong but it’s pretty obvious.

all these lawsuit that only challenge technicalities instead of the real issue of practically zero recidivism rates therefore absolutely zero rational basis and absolutely zero justification for these laws.just like the iml suit that stood absolutely no chance of prevailing on the issues raised. all these useless hopeless suits that just reinforces precedents for registration seems extremely counterproductive to trying to end registration. even frank Lindsey must have some stake in keeping registration alive because there is ABSOLUTELY no way a court could justify keeping him on a registry if challenged on the real issue of no rational basis argument. nobody in their right mind would conclude that people like Frank need monoriting after decades of law abiding productive citizenship.NO ONE OF A SOUND MIND COULD JUSTIFY IT I REPEAT NOOOOOOOO ONE!!!!!!!!

I think that maybe the biggest barrier to filing suits to challenge the registry itself is the lack of funding. Very few RC’s belong to an organization and many of those do not or can not contribute much money. If there was money, I think there would be suits filed. I do agree that we need to attack the registry itself. I am getting old and would like to have some type of life, before I am no more.

i hate to tell you David but I challenge you to find one and I mean even one incident where any of these organizations have challenged the courts on the lies and false statistics used to justify these laws. no one ever has NEVER!!!!! i challenge any of these organizations to challenge the Courts on the following issues and if they don’t then they are pro registration bottom line!!!!!!!

This court has jurisdiction because ________________________________________________________________

I the plaintiff ______________________do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief.

Introduction.

This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) as applied to me.

I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.

Issues.

(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

(3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

(4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

Facts.

(1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.

These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).
Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.
The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the Internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harassment and vandalism. These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
These laws affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws also restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megan’s law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the second incident simply because my information is on the Megan’s law website. My family and I have had our vehicles vandalized and our life’s threatened because I am subject to these registration and public notification laws. These laws cause me severe psychosocial stresses that cause major mental disorders such as major depression and anxiety disorders which can and do affect my ability to perform job duties or perform normal daily activities and to reintegrate into society. Once again these are not hypothetical, exaggerated incidents that have happened to other people but personal experiences in my case. I cannot move forward or successively reintegrate back into society because of all the collateral consequences caused by the registration and public notification laws.These collateral consequences will continue to cause me irreparable damage to my liberty interest as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.
I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.
The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.
The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.
I am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)
Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)
The full report is available online at
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf
.
Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013
Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf
Bureau of Justice Statistics
5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.
The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm
Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.
A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%
Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf
Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.
The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%
Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf
These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.

All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.

These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s 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.

The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

Conclusion.
The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.

From Justice Policy Institute.
Estimated cost to implement SORNA
Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The laws effectively bar me from attending higher education institutions simply because there are day care centers on most college campuses therefor curtailing my ability to obtain a higher education. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

(4). The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense.

(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts. When “particularly important” interests are involved in a civil proceeding, whether or not physical restraint is threatened, the United States Supreme Court has mandated a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof and stated that, “[n]otwithstanding ‘the state’s “civil labels and good intentions,” ‘ . . . this level of certainty [is deemed] necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with ‘a significant deprivation of liberty’ or ‘stigma.’ ” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (requiring clear and convincing evidence standard to support termination of parental rights), quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426, 427 (1979) (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). A registrant’s liberty interest is seriously infringed in the creation of a long-term relationship with the police, in the potential criminal sanctions overshadowing that relationship, and in the stigma of notification – all penalties that are “more substantial than mere loss of money.” Santosky, supra, quoting Addington v. Texas, supra at 424.

The court also too easily confines the State’s interest to a single dimension. While the primary purpose of the registration statute is to protect the public from sexual predators, the State also has “an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate.” E.B. v. Verniero, supra at 1107. The State has no interest in making erroneous classifications and implementing overbroad registration and notifications. Id. See Doe v. Pataki, supra at (slip op. at 32). Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the burdens on the government are great, without any likely benefit, when it holds hearings for and maintains the registration of thousands of registrants for whom there is no clear evidence that they pose any danger to the public. Requiring the government to assemble and present clear evidence of a sex offender’s dangerousness would ensure that limited adjudicatory and police enforcement resources would be concentrated on those individuals who realistically may pose.threats to young children and other vulnerable populations. As observed in an altogether different context, but oddly apropos of this classification system as well, “when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless.” New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 729 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring).

Conclusion.

(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.

(2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.

(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.

(4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.

(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense even further. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

Prayer.
I pray the court grant me Declaratory relief and/or Injunction relief or any other relief the court deems necessary and to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) .

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________
no one will because they’re all pro registration sorry i wish i was wrong but its an obvious FACT!!!!!

I read the entire report and the conclusion that I have is that it is astounding to me that government officials can state as fact, blatantly untrue statements. These statements have devastating effects on US citizens. These statements show a careless disregard for the truth in their best possible light. In this country where you can sue just about anybody it seems like there would be some way to sue via a class action law suit, these officials which make very powerful untrue statements. Our entire political system encourages untruths. Lie in the present, then deny or minimize later. Trump and HC are good examples of the now from both sides of the spectrum. The press has become sheep and do not press for the truth, so much for being the watchdog for the public.

Remember having a restriction on a person is denying them a portion of their liberty. And if it is done without proper need to do so then it opens up the door for a constitutional tort and by filing a USC 1983 action. The minimum damages that you can receive $10,000 per defendant and organization. Let’s say it was a parole officer who authorized these restrictions, that would mean that you could sue the parole officer, his supervisor, their local department, the supervisor for the local department at the state level, and the state level department,all the way up through the governor of the state whose responsibility is for all departments under him and you can sue them in both their personal capacity and their official capacity. Easily running the damages up to a couple hundred thousand dollars.

The other thing that hasn’t been brought up yet is the fact that not only can they be sued, but they can be charged with a federal crime under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Under section 242 it lays out quite plainly who can be held accountable for the attempt to deprive a citizen of their rights. This would include individual legislators and city Council members etc. who pass laws with the intent to deprive a citizen of their constitutionally protected rights.

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens

“Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.”

EXACTLY

hey john civil servants only have absolute immunity if they are acting in good faith when they are acting in their official capacity. once they step over the threshold and and become derelict in their duties they lose their absolute immunities. just as a military personnel who’s commanding officer who orders his underling to commit a war crime or act in anyway against the military code of conduct that underling has the authority to and an actual obligation to deny that order and report the incident to the proper authorities but he also has theathority and obligation to remove that commanding officer from his command for deriliction of that officer’s duties.the same holds true for any civil servant that is not acting in good faith in the performance of his or her official duties.without acting in good faith that servent is in deriliction of their official duties.and their absolute immunity no longer protects them from civil liability for damages occured because of their unlawful actsor from prosecution if their act deprives anyone of a constitutionally protected right.that is exactly what what that law is on the books for. i know it may seem a long shot to enforce these laws but someone of high intelligence and an ability to articulate well can definitely use this facts against these civil servants. these counsel members,legislators,and even the lowly registering officer can be sued in both their official and personal capacity once it is on the record that they are not acting in good faith.hhow do you do this? well lets consider a hypothetical counsel meeting where some members are considering passing some type of ordinance or legislation regulating,restriction,or prohibiting an rso in their jurisdiction.just like in the recent Sacramento meetings. now once someone sranda up and states on the official record that the ordinence or legislation that is being considered is not in the best interest of the people or the state and is actually counterproductive to those legitimate legislative objectives and makes these mambers aware of the fact and provides the actual empirucal evidence and factual data compiled by the legislatives own appointed body that was appointed to research and conduct studies and report thier findings to these governing bodies and that evidence and those facts prove beyond a reasonable doubt and that know individual of sound mind could dispute that the law or ordinance that is being considered is in fact counterproductive and doesnt achieve the legislative objectives that the legislators or council membersare claiming thet achieve. then guess what? that person is in deriliction of there civil duties and are not acting in good faith if theycontinue to attempt to pass that ordinence or legislation and are not acting in good faith in their official capacities so therefore they lose absolute immunity and become civilly liable for any damages both officially and personally that is caused by their official action that they have taking that any reasonable mind would consider not on good faith. AND if that same act causes any individual to be deprived of any of their constitutionally protected rights because of that officials actions that was taking in bad faith than that person then becomes criminally liable under the law for deprivation of rights under color of law. that is EXACTLY what that law was intended to be used for.another words any action taking out of bad faith whwtgwr it was authorized or ordered by an government entity or a person’s surperior is in violation of that public servant’s oath to protect the Constitution and their oath to swrve and protect the people of and the state of CA.

all that has to be proven in a civil civil court is that any reasonable person who by the preponderance of the evidence that they currently have in front of them is acting in bad faith by either pushing this harmful legislation forward and are extreemly culpable if they purposly continue in their misrepresentation of the facts and data to advance thier own official or personal agendas at the expense of the well being of the state or the tax paying citizens of that County or state.

they absolutely DO NOT have absolute immunity and if they did their would be no statue that allows for the prosecution of individuals for deprivation of rights under color of law!!!!!!!!!!

true true believe me I wish I had the funds or the ability to do exactly that Im in college and am going for a paralalegal in constitutional and civil law as soon as I am able to format court docs I will be filing all kinds of suits

You are wasting your time if you think any official in the US will help. We are misled to think our country has so many rights and freedoms, and that we can use those right to drive change via the judiciary. I’ve lost all faith in our justice system, and as long as there are registries, it obvious to all that the members that comprise the system have lost this faith as well. Their own data and studies show with scientific fact that registries don’t work. On top of that they destroy more children’s lives directly or collaterally than they claim to save. Just about every day on the news there is a mugshot of a gruffly wide eyed person deemed a ‘sex offender.” How many of those news stories include an actually chilled the was rescued!? Where is all this success the blatantly avoid talking about?

I am going to petition the United Nations. The US government officials that push for stronger SOR laws despite being proven otherwise will be held accountable. I intend to prove that their actions constitue Crimes Agaist Humanity. We need people, a lot of them to flood the UN and our Presidents inbox wil this same claim.

These laws force good people, good families, into the shadows, afraid of the stigma that comes with them. Come out of the shadows, open every detail of how you became a sex offender, no matter your charge. Honesty regains credibility. Credibility founds strength and vigor. The justice system does not belong to these ‘lawmakers’. It belongs to us, let’s get it back.

I’d like to point out Michigan Senetor Rick Jones. He must be held accountable for ruining Zach Andersons life. He’d rather crush a child’s spirit than admit the laws he wrote have been a collosul failure. Every other lawmaker will think twice about continuing this circus once we prove that men like this are not above the law. And, hey, let’s prove that his actions are severe enough to put him on the sex offender registry. There’s a remarkable parallel of his actions versus those of a ruthless child molester. He’s exploited children for his own sick gain, but justifies this by showing how munch loves them.

Also, send messages to every politician and press member demanding they define the term ‘sex offender’ and post their answers everywhere, in every way, you can. We all know the answer, because there is none.

Contact me here;
Mjkelsey81@gmail.com

I have nothing to hide, and so many of you have been pushed in a life where you have nothing to lose. That’s power, harness it.