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)

National

ID: Lawsuit over Idaho’s sex-offender registry laws expands to 134 plaintiffs

A lawsuit filed last year by 104 sex offenders challenging Idaho’s laws that require registration and community notification of sex offenders has been expanded to 134 sex offenders.

They say the laws violate an array of constitutional rights, from the prohibition on double jeopardy to freedom of religion. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. HOOKSCAR

    Can’t read the article. The page can’t be found.? If this is true, why can’t we do the same? Timing is everything. I, for 1 will gladly sign up. Should I try to call you Janice?

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      @HOOKSCAR, Mike R, Timmr, Lake County, & all other Esteemed Fellows & Fellowellas.

      I would encourage you & all to be proactive and contact the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs on the case. As their Plaintiffs are from all over the USA and it may be possible to add more Plaintiffs to their Case.

      In addition I would venture to reach the conclusion that Janice & ACSOL may not have the ability to file a limitless amount of Cases.

      —~~~<<>>~~~—

      Greg J. Fuller – Daniel S. Brown
      FULLER LAW OFFICES Attorneys at Law
      161 Main Avenue West
      P. O. Box L
      Twin Falls, ID 83303 Telephone: (208) 734-1602 Facsimile : (208) 734-1606
      ISB #1442
      ISB #7538
      fullerlaw@cableone.net

      Link to PDF:
      http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/state/idaho/article152033757.ece/BINARY/Read%20the%20complaint#storylink=related_inline

      —-~~~~<<<>>>~~~~——

      Furthermore:

      Perhaps Professor Catherine L. Carpenter at Southwestern Law School can help with her advise on beginning another group of Plaintiffs to file a additional Case in a different US Circuit Court. She may be able to refer Eager & Capable Attorneys to Champion the Cause to defend The Constitution Of The Citizens of the United states.

      —~~~<<>>~~~—
      Link to Catherine L. Carpenter YouTube video in Georgia 2016:
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-bpw5sCFcY

      Link to Students Rating of Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:
      http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=538905

      —~~~<<>><<<~~~—
      Contact info for Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:
      http://www.swlaw.edu/faculty/full-time/catherine-carpenter

      B.A., cum laude, English, 1973,
      University of California, Los Angeles; J.D., cum laude, 1976,
      Southwestern Law School; Member, California State Bar
      Email ccarpenter@swlaw.edu
      Phone 213-738-6875
      Office BW417

      —~~~<<>>~~~—
      Link to 8 Research Papers written by Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:
      SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=359075

      Elected to the American Law Institute in 2012, Professor Carpenter is nationally renowned criminal law scholar in the area of sex crimes and sex offender registration laws. Her scholarship has been cited by numerous courts and used as a guide by attorneys. In addition, Professor Carpenter is one of the foremost authorities on law school curricula and accreditation. She has served in several leadership posts within the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association (ABA). She has served as past chair of the Section’s Accreditation Committee, past Chair of the Curriculum Committee and as a member on the Standards Review Committee. As chair of the Curriculum Committee from 2002-2004 and again from 2009-2012, Professor Carpenter was principal drafter of two comprehensive national surveys: A Survey of Law School Curricula 2002-2010 and its predecessor A Survey of Law School Curriculum 1992-2002. She earned national recognition in 2013, 2014, and 2015 from the National Jurist as one of the “Top 25 Most Influential People in Legal Education.”

      Legal education, and Southwestern in particular, has been Professor Carpenter’s professional passion for more than three decades. After distinguishing herself while a law student earning several academic awards and serving as Notes and Comments editor of the Southwestern Law Review, she returned to her alma mater in 1980 as a member of the faculty and continued to add dimensions to her association with the law school—as Alumni Association President and member of the Board of Trustees, a professor and an administrator. She served as Vice Dean from 2014 to 2016. She previously spent over a decade from 1984 to 1997 as Assistant Dean/Dean of Students and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs from 1984 to 1997. She also served as an advisor to Southwestern’s Moot Court Honors Program from 2006 to 2014. In recognition of her tremendous contributions to the law school, legal education and the profession, Professor Carpenter was named Southwestern Alumna of the Year in 2013.

      —~~~<<>>~~~—

      I speak a True Song

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

      • AJ

        @SoLCof
        The article is a little unclear on the plaintiffs. From a couple readings of it, I infer them to mean that all the plaintiffs are in ID, but their convictions are from across the country. It doesn’t explicitly say that, but the article only references Does living in various ID counties, and the lawsuit only names ID officials and only alleges ID’s RC laws as being wrong.

        –AJ

        • Lake County

          “I infer them to mean that all the plaintiffs are in ID, but their convictions are from across the country.” Upon reading this, I also think that all these plaintiffs now live in ID. I do agree that we as individuals should join in any opportunity to be part of a major lawsuit such as this, but I do not think us Californians as a group should join in our own major fight just yet. There are several interesting cases in front of the courts right now and we should first see how these cases are decided. If those cases are successful or unsuccessful, the reasons for their outcome will be incredibly valuable to our State fight. CA is often a leader in forming this nation’s laws, so our failure or success will have an everlasting effect on everyone in this state and likely have a great effect on the rest of this country. When we fight the big fight, we need to be sure we have some recent successful cases to promote and have very good defendants with sympathetic cases. This fight is too important with great consequences if we fail, so we should not rush to be part of this first wave of challenges.

        • Timmr

          I see it differently. Much progress is gained by simply speaking up for your rights. The longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes. The more doing it, the greater the message resonates and will be taken seriously.

        • Lake County

          I agree that now is the time for us to stand up and speak out. And to keep fighting for legislation that is fair towards us. And we need to stop bad laws. But when it comes to trying to end the public registry completely, we need to act carefully and patiently and wait to see how the current pending court cases are decided.

        • Timmr

          That’s how I read it. I don’t think we can join their suit unless you live in Idaho. Nonetheless, nothing would stop us from donating some funds if we have them to their case or starting a similar case in California or another state. Are we any less fed up than they? Either way it is progress. If they win there the arguments can be used other places. The courts are the only arena at present that will give us anything close to an equal hearing.

        • Harry

          Even if we do not win at the court, it is a very good sounding board for the truth to enter the mainstream.

        • Notgivingup

          Timmr, I totally agree with what you say, the only way to win our freedom is to fight through lawsuits and helping with some donations might be a great way. We do not have the time to waste any more. Yes we need to be careful on what is filed but the time for all the organizations to stop talking and start filing is now. It is also the time for All RCs and their family to dig as deep as they can and donate to which ever group they want. Plus they really need to vote if they can, at every election, from local to state.

        • Harry

          The article did state, “The plaintiffs come from across the state and country.”

        • AJ

          @Harry
          Yes, and as I said, the article wasn’t written with the greatest clarity. I were convicted in CA, or NY, or TX, or VT and then moved to and reside in ID, I would be “from across the country.” That aside, how can a lawsuit against the officials and laws of ID affect anyone residing in states other than ID? It can’t, so the idea that any of the plaintiffs are anything but ID residents makes absolutely no sense. That leaves the only other conclusion: they are all ID residents, some convicted in ID, some convicted elsewhere.

          Where “from across the country” matters for the lawsuit is the allegation that ID is imposing punishment on those who were convicted elsewhere in the Union. Doing so violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the Constitution
          (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause), and 5th Amendment prohibition against Double Jeopardy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause).

          –AJ

    • 1

      I’ve been wondering why this can’t be done, for awhile now. I’d be up for it. If enough of us fight, someone has to finally listen.

  2. kind of living

    I look forward to the out come of this , all we can do is hope that some judge or judges in the long run choose not to play blind in these matters , I Say Judge ! Judge ! Stop the Hate don’t let dictators choose our Fate

  3. AJ

    Let’s see if (and hope that) judges in ID have gained some perspective from the 6th and Snyder. At some point, judges will run out of ways to twist and turn to try to keep the whole scheme alive. The ironic thing is that the rabid, salivating legislators who keep passing more and more onerous restrictions are actually setting it all up for failure. They keep piling straws on the camel’s back…

    –AJ

    • kind of living

      AJ ,,,, you would think that the dang camel would be going on strike , because they have all ready stacked enough to smash a 2 ton truck , at this point the camel needs an attorney , but the poor thing would have to wait 30 years to get to court , and if the camel is an RC he will most likely loose his job and have to move because of some restriction , but the Gov don’t care about the mess’s they leave behind any more , just the money they can make off there cash cow , but the camel has a warning for the cow ,

  4. Tired Of Hiding

    I was thinking exactly the same thing (and have suggested it and offered to have my name included in any such class action suit)

    Here is the link: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/state/idaho/article103701212.html

    Seems to make a lot of common sense to me…

    Here is how the sex offenders say their constitutional guarantees are violated:
    ▪ Double jeopardy: The laws impose new punishments on sex offenders previously convicted based on the crime originally committed.
    ▪ Religious freedom: Some churches and other places of worship fall within the places certain sex offenders cannot be, thereby interfering with offenders’ rights to practice religion.
    ▪ Due process: Idaho law is vague, and it reassesses offenders and subjects them to new restrictions without a hearing.
    ▪ Equal protection: The laws are designed to burden an unpopular group.
    ▪ Cruel and unusual punishment: The laws impose excessive punishment, community-notification requirements that can subject sex offenders to violence at the hands of vigilantes.
    ▪ Contracts: The laws impose new non-negotiated terms on previously negotiated plea agreements.
    ▪ Takings: The laws place residential and movement restrictions on sex offenders, restricting property rights.
    ▪ Separation of powers: The laws vacate earlier court judgments setting sex offenders’ classifications, community-notification requirements and length of times sex offenders must register.

    • New Person

      The complaints are all about retro-activity. (Although, why can’t this thought be used against IML as an added penalty?)

      What can be done for things are not retroactive?

      ▪ Equal protection: The laws are designed to burden an unpopular group.

      Can this be used in how 1203.4 negates the “removal of all penalties and disabilities” by keeping all registrants who qualify for 1203.4 to continue to register, which includes all the restrictions, penalties (including for failing to register), and continued in-person registration?

      If you read the exclusions of 1203.4, it just denotes who cannot get 1203.4, no possession of firearms, and cannot hold office. But if you charge changes from a felony to a misdemeanor, then you get possess a firearm. For registrants who qualify for 1203.4, you do not get to partake in the benefits of 1203.4. Why can any registrant apply for it if it doesn’t change much, if anything? A company can ask if you were “charged”, so that doesn’t do much for registrants. But it really seems odd. That’s why equal protection should be brought up for 1203.4.

      Also, 2003 Smith v Doe decision stated only convictions should be on the registry. California negates this. Well, this negation puts 1203.4 registrants still on the IML. IML is a federal law. 2003 Smith is a federal law. I read that a Judge sided with ACSOL on the NO REGISTRANTS on public schools b/c there was already law on the matter and it cannot be surpassed. Well, similarly here, convictions are the only ones relegated to the registry, thus, implying non-convictions are not. So why can’t the law of the federal law preside over state law? This is important b/c the IML is a federal law.

      But using this logic that state law cannot surpass federal law, California registration surpasses the threshold of what is deemed punishment by the 2003 Smith v Doe decision.

      California also has created an immutable class of citizens, sub-citizens. The volume of registrants grow and not many are leaving the registry. Immutable means non-changing. This should fit into a Bill of Attainder suit.

  5. Nondescript

    Awesome.

    We need multiple class action lawsuits across the country- registrants and families pushing back in droves. At the very least it will show them that they have in effect turned a group that they wanted to keep downtrodden into outright warrior activists. This is how it starts. As a spouse, (and ironically a victim) , I am further victimized by cruel and unusual treatment because of these laws. I will be delighted to be a part of any legal action taken against their creepy registry.

    • steve

      Snyder, Peckingham this Idaho suit and next month the WAR class action suit will be filed in state and federal court. it would be a great surprise if Janice filed something similar to the WAR suit to really pile it on. Multiple suits targeting the registry as a whole would garnish a lot of publicity.

      • HOOKSCAR

        Like I have insinuated before, timing is everything. We should do something here as we have an opportunity to inundate the courts with the same facts at the same time. A war is fought on fronts. The more fronts an enemy has to cover, the thinner the defenses become.
        Janice, please do not pass up this opportunity. I know for a fact that if you put out a request to RCs to participate in a similar class action suit, you would have more than 134 RCs and family members participating. Inundate the government and show the public the facts. Show them how the government has 🤥 and manipulated them. I for one would gladly sign on the dotted line.

      • Nondescript

        Does anyone really care about recidivism rates? I don’t. They could be up one day and down the next. Too much credence is given to statistics of unrelated people in my opinion. I guess real recidivism rates are certainly one angle of approach to take against the validity of the registry, but for judges that have been specifically chosen to uphold the tenets of the Constitution, those rates have no merit as a measure of any individual ( except perhaps for politicians, who have a 100 % recidivism rate of lying)

        When the Supreme Court said that the registry was not punishment, it seems like they were using the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” or something similar threshold that the registry does not quite reach. It is however a SANCTION, which is a threatened penalty for disobeying a regulation. But can a future sanction really be used in this way against ? Generally a sanction is imposed when 2 entities have entered into an agreement (and those sanctions are generally lifted once something is restored) so sanctions are usually not everlasting. The current registry for most, bears no resemblance to its original form and worse yet is that the sanctions are even more excessive. So the unusual part becomes obvious when no reassessment is undertaken at certain intervals to determine if those sanctions should be lifted. This makes them potentially cruel and excessive and a violation of the 8th Amend.

        Everything in law is about contracts and consent. That’s why they make you sign everything. And because they have always known that
        “dissent without resistance” is a form of consent, the registry can continue. When enough people ( us) start pushing back against their psychological warfare, the judges will fall in line and the registry will simply go to their game board graveyard.

        Resistance en masse.

        • Timmr

          I thought you can only suspend the constitution due to rebellion. I am with you, recidivism rates can be useful, but they are irrelevant to issues of ex post facto, attainders and other violations of rights. They are alibis for violating people’s rights. Somehow it feels like we are giving credence to the idea that 20% of a defined group can lose their rights because of the actions 80%. We are treating people as substances with measurable traits, not as humans with wills of their own. At what ratio of percents does that make sense anyway? What is the cut off? That’s just not Kosher. The amendments protect the individual from being descriminated against as a member of group. Why can’t they get that?

        • Nondescript

          They get it, but ignore it, and continue to sanction the government’s power to sacrifice individual rights on the alter of their creepy collectivism. It seems like anyone can now have their rights revoked on a whim if it serves some social purpose.

          Yeah, recidivism rates in my opinion, are a red herring for us – a meaningless distraction. And by focusing on it, we are reinforcing the illogical premise that registrants are on some kind of high wire together and if the others slip up, they should expect harsher consequences. Trends and statistics should never be used to restrict individuals. That they do, shows that law makers have quite a pernicious and oversimplified view of human behavior.

          Furthermore, if recidivism rates are in fact low , won’t they eventually just concede to that fact and attribute it to the effectiveness of the registry anyways?

        • New Person

          No.

          There have been studies before the registry and after the registry. Nothing’s really changed.

          So three things:
          1. The SCOTUS’ promotion of 80% recidivism rate is proven false by Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman.
          2. The actual rates of recidivism before and after the registration enactment hasn’t changed throughout recordings. (This makes the registration scheme useless on the basis it does not change anything.)
          3. The recidivism rates are low.

          You need context, not individual concepts with recidivism. Points 2 and 3 run contrary to Point 1, which brings into question why did the SCOTUS use only that one point of (now found false) evidence? Why wasn’t other evidence used to query the extremity of the 80% result?

          Folks, this is korematsu case all over again. The courts willfully chose one fact, neglected others, but now that fact is proven false. So registration is actually stronger than korematsu case b/c they used false evidence to consider registrants as a class and the need for public safety against one class due to the 80% recidivism rate.

          It is important to identify the courts used false facts from a non-expert in the field of statistics and research. In a regular court case, the court would review this and overturn the judgement. But while we’re at it, that same 2003 court case denoted what threshold qualifies for regulatory and not punishment. Using the context of today to compare with that threshold, we know is has surpassed all those thresholds to which we can deem this scheme as punishment. Punishment that is cruel and unusual as well as not equal to other peers.

          But there is another aspect of recidivism rates – although it’s been said the sex offender class always re-offend and cannot be rehabilitated, the states are not recording this scientifically to prove that claim. This is proof that any person or entity stating that sex offender class are highly to re-offend or calls them predators are being libel. It is facts like CASOMB’s findings to push through the legal field and start suing for libel. Any fear mongering being pushed is also a case for being libel, especially in California with a less than 1% recidivism rate.

          So yes, maybe it’s time we push back. If someone can win the libel case using the low recidivism rate, then maybe we can use that as a jumping point to note unequal protection as other convicts are not subject to any registry whose recidivism rates rank much higher or that convicts who committed murder do not have a registry and they have the lowest recidivism rates. If the lowest recidivism rate of convicts do not have a registry, then those under it should not as well. Instead, neither of those cases are true, which does bring about unequal protection… all due to recidivism rates.

          We just have to provide proper context with the recidivism rates. = )

          okay… this post made me feel happy. so i’ll stop reading on ACSOL for today. it’s difficult trying to be happy.

        • Timmr

          Apparently the danger to children hasn’t risen enough to declare marshall law on registrants, officially. It has in effect done so with special laws for registrants. The arrest rate has not risen in the past two decades and indeed it looks like the rates of sexual crimes has gone down, as has much of violent crime. So does this mean the registries are working as are other questionable police tactics? The powers can use this argument, and justify suspending rights by it. If the rates go up, they use the argument that they need to have tougher laws. You forgot that the Supreme Court ruled that rights were not taken away with registration, thatbwas tge key argument, that the disabilities it caused were not debilitating. They never said the rates were so high that rights had to be suspended. They had to have the two sides of the argument be true. If one of them was false, the other was weakened. Although the recidivism rate is small, the argument for registration is weakened, but not destroyed. You can still allow stupid regulations if they do no harm. The critical argument is the one on disabilities. If registration was as severe as it is now, I don’t think they could justify violating the constitution on high recidivism rates alone. That would need to have marshall law declared.

  6. Harry

    I believe there is more than enough face value that governments are knowingly use lies to perpetrate laws and conditions for incitement of hate and harassment. It would seem like lawsuits against every state and the US government can be lodge them on these principles, alone?

  7. mike r

    I’ve contacted all kinds of attorneys and every organization out there to rally around my motion and have even started a gofundme campaign as well as a website with my draft of that motion. I have gotten a whole five people to donate and no organizations or attorneys seem to want to touch it. I guess it doesn’t really matter because I will get it into court on my own if I have to it’s just going to take longer and is going to be way more difficult than if I had an attorney but anything worth having takes a lot of work most of the time..

  8. mike r

    all these suits are great but no one wants to address the elephant in the room the lie of high recidivism rates and pound home that argument. justification and lack of effectiveness I believe is the downfall arguments for the registry along with the overly broad and vague issues and the disproportionately of the punishment is extremely excessive and cruel and unusual. you watch these are going to be the winning arguments in a future case sooner or later..

    • Chris F

      I agree.

      If there were a “Bill of Attainder” challenge as part of a class action I would hope the first major point made would be the SCOTUS itself started the avalanche of not only lawsuits citing their “frightening and high” and “80% recidivism” falsehoods, but also Legislators when they passed literally thousands of laws across the country and down to the city level. The most damning evidence is also in many of the quotes found on Oncefallen’s web site where people admit they are passing the laws to stick it to sex offenders and don’t care if it’s unconstitutional.

      SCOTUS really needs to get called out on this. Had they done the LEAST due diligence in McKune V Lyle 2002, Smith V Doe 2003, or Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 then we wouldn’t be in this position today.

      Quick summary for those new here:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-repeat-sex-offenders.html?_r=0

    • steve

      I think in order to challenge “the elephant” and be SUCCESSFUL you need to have, many many many research papers citing the real recidivism percentages. I think we have finally got enough to go in and call BS.

  9. mike r

    If people would take seriously what I have drafted and actually read it through you would see the merit in my arguments as well as a extremely articulated set of arguments. I know I have a great foundation to build upon and that if people came together we could do something great. I suggest everyone who’s serious about doing something look at my site
    http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite and lets either get this in court or use this as a foundation to create a wider reaching class action. something has to happen and it isn’t going to if all we do is talk about it and hope someone else does it.

    • mike

      Hello, I like what u have to say, have you contacted Janice about this and get as many people as possible on board? Power in #’s and she has won restriction laws in like 80 cities stop enforcing in fear of lawsuit, so if they think there right in what there doing then why did they back down? Because it’s unconstitutional and they know it

    • Notgivingup

      Mike r, I have read your draft, who in any of the other groups with legal minds have looked at this and given you any input or advice, what is the end game if something like this was filed and what type of cost would be involved? Then who would benefit? Why can all the groups in all states not become unified for one massive push at the registry or at least a fair way to get off the registry similar to California but a shorter time frame. Then how does this tier system affect the ones who live in California and have for a long time but have their case from another state? Will they be able to enjoy the benefits of the tier system or are they left behind with this one?

  10. mike r

    I am not alone in seeing the prospective achievement in what I have drafted and even will basler from sosen who I respect immensely supports my motion and effort and he is the most articulate person i have found when it comes to making string arguments for our cause.

  11. ReadyToFight

    Time is priceless. It’s one of the most precious thing we have in life on earth.
    Time can also be a weapon used to PUNISH and OPPRESS. We can’t physically see time, but we know it’s always there.
    I’m with you Mike r

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 *

.