ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

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

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    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”).

    • Bruce Ferrell

      CDCR is a public agency. FOIA should sake the information loose. Note, I said should. You’ll most likely have to fight them.

  2. Mike r

    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.”

    • Anonymous Nobody

      In an honest judiciary, your argument would carry weight. Unfortunately, that is not the judiciary anywhere in this country at any level any more. There have been a lots of absolute argument about registration itself and each and every punishment that has been added on to it, and at every turn, at every level of the judiciary, they have simply turned them away, as I always say, they simply rule that red is blue — because that is the power of the judiciary, to interpret, to define words as they have never been defined before. Our California high court has been one of the worst in this for at least 25 years now.

      Consider, your point, “if the restriction is one without proper need to.” The court has already ruled that all of this crap is needed, as the Legislature deems it so. And the courts sidestep the issue of whether that determination by the Legislature is honest or accurate by saying it is not for the judiciary to second guess the legislature, and so they refuse to even hear argument about whether that legislative determination is justified.

      Part of the ruling saying that nothing in registration and the collateral things attached to it is punishment is that it is a burden, but too insignificant such to raise to the level of punishment. They say that all these horrors registrants are subjected to are insignificant.

      You’re talking about a restriction here and whether it is necessary. No matter the truth and facts of the matter, the courts have shown time and time again that they will rule against that argument, even if they have to rule that red is blue.

      But I encourage you to keep trying — and consider this in working to come up with something to somehow get past that — although I think that outlook by the courts is impossible to get past, but please prove me wrong.

    • Lake County

      So Mike R, why don’t YOU file suit?

  3. New Person

    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.

  4. Marc Hunt

    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.

  5. Mike r

    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.

    • David

      Mike r, I believe your cynicism is unjustified. Years ago, I worked with numerous HIV/AIDS organizations. Believe me, all the folks with whom I worked would have been very happy if a cure was found that made their work unnecessary. Similarly, I strongly suspect that good folks like Janice Bellucci of CARSOL would be very happy if they could successfully overturn all these unjust, unconstitutional S.O. laws.
      Please don’t malign those who are doing their best to help Registered Citizens.

    • Lake County

      Mike R, The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that registration is constitutional. They are not going to take up the issue again unless we have a really great case with the right plaintiffs that they are willing to consider. It will be very difficult to get the court to admit they were wrong the first time around. I believe that we may someday get the court to hear this issue again as some things have changed since the original ruling, but I doubt that can happen anytime soon. In the meantime, we need to keep working at stopping any new laws that keep coming up. I don’t think you appreciate the many things Janice has done for us so far with many here not ever contributing to the cost. I think your negativity doesn’t belong here and is misdirected towards the only people that have ever helped us. Now craw back into your hole.

      • Mike

        I understand the frustration. In 03 when the Alaska case was decided, the court in part made their decision with faulty “facts”. Everyone makes decisions based on the information that they had. It is clear now that the recidivism rate information was grossly misstated. The subsequent laws and regulations which were based on the idea that the public needed to be protected, based on those so called facts, should be revisited based on current research. The liberty interests lost due to the registry scheme are substantial. More and more courts have found problems with the new laws, even as legislators continue to curry voting favor by adding new barriers and restrictions. We now have almost a decade and a half of more data to challenge the recidivism claims. I am sure there are some good cases if there was money to pursue them.

  6. Mike r

    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!!!!!!!!

    • David

      Mike r, I encourage you to read more of the information posted on this website, especially the legal documents. I agree with Anonymous Nobody: judges repeatedly deny the very clear evidence and arguments presented to them in order to uphold unconstitutional S.O. laws.
      It is only by incrementally attacking the technicalities of these laws that we will eventually be able to defeat all these laws.

  7. Mike

    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.

    • Punished for Life

      I agree Mike- Not much hope of funding a lawsuit on my social security income. I try to donate to the cause when I can.

      My wife and I did want to put away enough to do a little travel someday. But with all of the current BS, that hope is dwindling as well. We do have passports, but I’m pretty much afraid to even try to use mine. I’ve decided I’ll just send my wife with one of her girlfriends on a cruise in the Bahamas and have them send me some pics.

      I’m thinking that just about the time all of this registration crap is finally resolved, I’ll be a pile of ashes floating on the Pacific Ocean. That’s where my Mother, Father and Brother are already. I’m not ready to go there yet, but ya just don’t know when it’s time.

  8. Mike r

    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!!!!!!!

    • New Person

      Mike R,

      Actually, Janice has denoted the CDCR report of less than 1% recidivism rate in challenging the IML. The response by the Judge was that the case wasn’t ripe – meaning the Judge can’t make a judgement because there isn’t anything there yet to argue.

      Thankfully, Janice and team denoted how the Judge failed to comply with precedent with the plaintiffs.

      Once this is finally accepted into the Federal Courts, then this CDCR report and others will then be able to use in future cases. Or at least, that’s how I see it. This information becomes officially introduced federally.

      While it may seem like it’s fringe work, IMO, it’s creating a checkmate move. The presence restrictions and the internet ban are two pieces of evidence. The GPS was ruled unconstitutional. Polygraph will soon become unconstitutional as well. Seeing all these restrictions and punishments overturned are undeniable proofs the 2003 decision was completely wrong.

      It’s a long game. It’s a lawyer game. Show holes in the law and the law falters. Show enough holes to the Federal Government, then nationwide the law will fall, especially with more empirical data informing the Govt is wasting its efforts and time on a group of people whose recidivism rates are very, very low… like less than 1% low.

      It’s a long game, though. If you read how the Judge in the IML case tried to kick the can further down the road, then you know the uphill battle Janice and team are embroiled within. Yet, the rebuttal to the dismissal put on notice how ignorant the Judge was to kick it down the road. It’s amazing the work Janice and team has done.

      The Federal government, judges, and misleading government data all have one thing in common – obfuscation. They want to confuse us and people. Hence, the article we are commenting within. Thankfully, there are many people willing to work through the muck. It’s gonna take some time, but facts are on our side and we need some very sharp people to cut through the muck.

  9. Mike r

    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!!!!!

    • Punished for Life

      Mike R-
      A+ Research and a very fine compilation of facts.
      Now, have you actually used this information to your full advantage as yet?
      Just wondering if you have found anyone in the Judicial system who actually give a heck about anything you have written?
      I sincerely hope that you are able to use this to be relieved of the registry.
      I personally am impressed with what I see.

    • Chris F

      Great work Mike R!

      It would be great if this could be tailored by a lawyer to be relevant in any state, or separately tailored to each state and made available to all.

      Perhaps if we flood the courts with filings it would only take one pushed up to the higher courts to get the attention that this needs. If something like this reached SCOTUS I wonder if they could outright rule SOR unconstitutional and require immediate removal, or do they have some mechanism to delay such a ruling to give lawmakers time to revise it so the real dangers to society aren’t also given a pass?

      Unfortunately, if given time to re-write the laws to conform to whatever SCOTUS is against, I’m afraid we’ll still be put back into this situation with different reasons noted. Then, it will take another 20+ years to get a ruling on whatever illegal regulations get added after the fact yet again.

  10. Mike

    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.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      Mike,

      The last thing we need is another ruling against us, by the courts, debunking a new report. The time is coming close that we can collectively use multiple reports which outweigh those used to justify the registry, and the blatant lies.

      Issue is that Congressional findings of fact, need not be backed up by any evidence. But, once declared a fact by Congress, the courts usually accept the fact as true and rarely ever challenge Congress on its fact finding powers.

      To challenge Smith v. Doe we must have a grand case with a solid plaintiff, and the money to go through the Appeals process. Because all the case law out there is against us, we will have to fight Motion to Dismiss, and adverse rulings, at each stage of litigation. Even then, there is no guarantee SCOTUS would even take the case if we made it that far.

      Our only hope to build case law from the bottom up, across multiple circuits, to force SCOTUS to hear the case – this will take time. It has been 7 years almost since Doe v. Shurleff, yet all other District Courts have thrown out internet identifiers and the Ninth Circuit threw it out as well. We now have a Circuit split, technically, and would have to challenge that provision somewhere else in hopes we could force SCOTUS review – but even then there is no sure victory as SCOTUS has proven time and time again, it will rule against us.

      • James

        +11 (to John Doe…as is usual)

        But it is difficult sitting back, taking these constant hits, seeing societies seemingly endless mean spirited efforts to ruin lives, or, make lives unlivable…as opposed to shoring up support systems and reintegrating RSO’s back into society and where they have an active stake in their lives.

        I am furious, but I always bite my tongue because Mr. Utah is right.
        I don’t have to like it, but true is true.

        Best Wishes, James

        • Timmr

          James, John Doe Utah is intelligent and well informed and told us what can be done right now. Raise funds. You or anyone with a few hours to spend each week can help us achieve a goal of reaching 60,000 registrants and their families. http://campaign-builder.org/volunteers/.
          Cheers,
          Tim

        • David H

          (Y)

        • Timmr

          Raise awareness of CaRSOL.
          Ask those to contribute financially and time wise to the legal, educational effort to battle these laws.
          Influence contested elections where a few hundred votes makes a difference.
          Influence legislation with enhanced letter writing, phone calls public speakers.
          It is not just me thinking this up. Listen to what HH and Roger also have said. We need a group effort now if we are going to accomplish what many here have said needs to be done.

  11. Mike r

    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

    • JohnDoeUtah

      Judges and Congress have absolute immunity from prosecution or civil liability for issues arising from the performance of their official duties. A ruling against a sex offender, pursuant to the law, and case law, would thus be protected activity.

      • Chris F

        Speaking of the government’s immunity…

        I wonder why we don’t see more arguments made about the failure of government to properly use its immunity by actually giving a potential “sex offender” his right to due process with a ruling on his potential dangerousness?

        As it is, the liability is passed from our immune government doing a single ruling to every potential and liable employer and foreign country one could travel to. Those employers and countries obviously aren’t going to take on the liability or expense of deciding on an individual’s dangerousness, so registered “Sex Offenders” are given blanket denial.

        I would love to see one high ranking court or government official explain how this is a good thing. The government can make its best guess with expert witnesses and real data and be immune if they make a mistake. Nobody else has that luxury yet they still refuse to actually do it.

  12. Mike r

    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.

  13. Mike r

    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.

  14. Mike r

    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!!!!!!!!!!

    • JohnDoeUtah

      Mike,

      Then I challenge you to sue the next judge who rules against sex offenders or legislator who pushes through a bill, for deprivations of civil right under color of law 42 USC 1983, and ask the Department of Justice to investigate criminal charges against the judge pursuant to 18 USC 242. I will watch your future case, and for criminal charges to be filed against the judge/legislator, intently.

      Put your actions into words. Until then, there is no reason to argue about it.

      • kelnothiding

        IT would be cool , Right?, it just seems that there must be some way to stop these thug judges , and some of the people that keep pushing more crap, the only ones I ever see go the hell away are the ones that end up being a RSO’s them selfs , lol

  15. Mike r

    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

    • JohnDoeUtah

      You have a three year statute of limitations under 42 USC 1983, so I’d get crackin.

  16. Michael K

    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.

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 or other website issues 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 *

.