Making the Case Against Banishing Sex Offenders

Join the discussion

1. Rick October 7, 2016

   No one needs to make a case, u.s.citizens have a constitutional contract thats supposed to make banishment illegal until it is changed legally. The simplicty of ending this nonsense is to uphold the law, nothing more is necesssary. I would like to banish all of these right and left wing crusaders for being treasonous traitors who are making an embarrassment of the laws of this country. And send them to a communist or fasist nation where they belong.

2. Chris F October 7, 2016

   It’s amazing, that after years of articles denouncing the false info and quotes used in Smith V Doe 2003 that those are still being used and relied on to thwart any legal action by sex offenders to stop residency restrictions:

   http://www.lewisvilletexan.com/xoops/uploads/476158bc-5fe3-1fd1.pdf

   This is a current case mentioned in the article where the city is trying to get it dismissed.

   Seriously, can’t the plaintiff’s attorney say something against this motion to dismiss or counter the city’s claims of the residency restrictions being justified???

   Their data is cited from 1977-2003, and most of it was just opinions of those with an alternate purpose or hearsay.

   Look, here is how they close the request to dismiss:

   The Lewisville ordinance was enacted to protect children, who are among the most
   vulnerable members of our society and who are least able to protect themselves. Exh. B. The
   ordinance protects children from those, like the plaintiff A. Duarte, who have sought to do harm
   to them. This is a legitimate governmental interest given the Supreme Court’s explicit findings:
   Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation….‘[t]he victims of sex assault are
   most often juveniles,’ and ‘when convicted sex offenders re-enter society, they
   are much more likely than any other type of offender to be re-arrested for a new
   rape or sexual assault.’ Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 4 (2003),
   citing McKune, 536 U.S. at 32-33.
   The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’ Smith,
   548 U.S. at 103, citing McKune, 536 U.S. at 34.
   When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any
   other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault. McKune,
   536 U.S. at 32, citing U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex
   Offenses and Offenders 27 (1997); U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice
   Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p.6 (1977).
   Empirical research on child molesters, for instance, has shown that, ‘[c]ontrary to
   conventional wisdom, most reoffenses do not occur within the first several years
   after release,’ but may occur ‘as late as 20 years following release.’ Smith, 548
   U.S. 104, citing National Institute of Justice, R. Prentky, R. Knight, & A. Lee,
   U.S. Dept. of Justice, Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues 14 (1997).

   • There should be a rebuttal filing to this motion October 7, 2016

     There should be a rebuttal filing to this motion of dismissal. If there is a rebuttal filing, the current and more correct data should be presented to counter the defendant’s incorrect and outdate data. They could also cite the recent 6th Circuit Court ruling in favor of RCs.

     This filing could also be rebutted in the newspaper by others with the current and more correct data. Judges do read newspapers and see what is out there.

     What is interesting is the defendant’s state they plaintiffs don’t live in the child protected zone. DUH! You want them to break the law, get caught and then file a lawsuit?

   • WantsToHelp October 7, 2016

     That filing was from 2012. Four years ago. The plaintiffs appealed and the appeal went all the way to the 5th circuit. The court ruled on the issue of standing saying that the plaintiffs did not have to break the law in order to suffer harm. They sent the case back down to the district court for trial. There, the magistrate ruled against the plaintiffs saying no rights had been violated. The plaintiffs appealed again and were recently heard by the 5th circuit. That ruling is still pending.

     The case was represented by Richard Gladden, probably the closest Texas has to a Janice, and it was funded primarily by Texas Voices, an organization much like CARSOL was before it went national. They are not active online in the way that this website is, but very active behind the scenes, particularly with monthly support meetings across the state and in lobbying in the lege. If you’re willing to get involved in the fight, they sure could use your help.

     • Chris F October 7, 2016

       Thanks WantsToHelp, I would like to participate.

       Unfortunately, the latest even I see on the web site is from 2 years ago.

       How do I find out about anything coming up in the DFW area?

       • WantsToHelp October 8, 2016

         For safety and privacy, they don’t announce the times or locations publicly. However, the contact info on the Texas Voices website is current and if you call or email someone will get back with you. If it takes a little while, just be patient. As far as I know, Mary Sue (the driving force behind Texas Voices) carries the lion’s share of the volunteer work and it can sometimes get her snowed under. It’s an active community and a solid network, just none of it is really public.

   • Rick October 7, 2016

     Heres the rebuttal to this case. The scrotus has no authority to take away the plaintiffs contractual rights. The scrotus only has authority to determine whether or not the laws are constitutional. See u.s. constitution. No citizen of the united states can lose any rights except when being punished, see 13th amendment. A compelling interest does not give the scrotus authority to take away a persons rights. To require a u.s. citizen to register and be exposed to constant imprisonment is not only slavery but is also torture, and beyond any societal norm. Any person who would subject u.s. citizens to such psychological and physical torture should be facing criminal charges and lose there positions, see any mental health treatment professional that is not biased. The scrotus has no authority to permit the public or private persons fear to allow unconstitutional laws to be passed, see, japanese internment cases subsequently determined unconstitutional, and communist subversive cases of the 1950s requiring registration, also judged unconstitutional. Child abuse and neglect cases far outweigh sexual cases related to so called vulnerable children, yet those who kill, torture, maim, starve, etc children are permitted to keep all of their rights. If the basis of a registry was concern for children it would apply to all persons harming children, see any current child abuse and neglect statistics.

     States, counties, and cities have no legal authority of any kind to determine what u.s. citizens may or may not live in them. Neither does the federal government, except in cases of illegal immigration of non citizens. Federal, state, county, and cities do not have the right to require any u.s, citizen when traveling to go to a police station and report or register, this amounts to slavery and unlawful taxation.

     I could go on and on, and provide hundreds of u.s. supreme ct decisons to back up every word of this rebuttal, but apparently the smith v. Doe decision outweighs all of the stare decisis and precedents over the past 100 years. Our scrotus is corrupted, and has allowed slavery and the destruction of the u.s. constitution and the waste of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars based upon one persons claims. You seevwhat hapens when you dant pass laws against gays, minorities, etc., they turn to whatever is left.. they say lets protect the children, but the truth is the worst thing the children have to worry about us their own ignorant parents and moral crusaders.