ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


What You Think You Know About Sex Offenders Is Wrong, Attorney Says


As writer Alan Prendergast reported, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch has ruled that Colorado’s sex-offender registry violates the due-process rights of three plaintiffs, thereby amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. Boulder attorney Alison Ruttenberg, who filed the case in 2013, sees the opinion as the potential death knell for a law enforcement tool that, in her view, perpetuates factually dubious notions that fall apart when examined in an evenhanded way.

“Everybody always jumps to the conclusion that all sex offenders are like the type of sex offender that’s vilified on Oprah Winfrey or John Walsh’s show: the serial, violent pedophile always looking for his next victim, who rapes and murders children. That stereotype applies to maybe a handful of convicted sex offenders in Colorado, and certainly nowhere near all the 18,000 men and women we have on our registry.”


Read more


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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Ruttenberg stresses that “Judge Matsch issued a declaration that, as applied to these three individuals, the registry violates their 8th Amendment rights and their 14th Amendment rights. And you can certainly use his opinion to then argue that for convicted sex offenders who are similar situated — who are done with their treatment and are low-risk — the statute is also unconstitutional as applied to them.”‘ “Low-risk” – Even well meaning articles use this phrase but low-risk according to what? My actual risk assessment by a qualified person as well as numerous testing shows me to be a very low… Read more »

Amusing (sarcasm) how the article’s website interspersed the article with photos of Colorado’s Most Wanted (So scary!!) Sex Offenders. An article critical of the Registry and unsubstantiated public hysteria nonetheless continues to pander to that very same hysteria!! Appalling and disgusting.

I wonder if we could contact that attorney to see if she has a recommendation for someone out here in California that could help Janice and Team to file a similar lawsuit here in California?

Best bet is to start with Janice and Chance to see what they say on that.

How to you spell bias? I spell it W E S T W O R D.


“…close to 40 percent of all people arrested for driving under the influence had a prior DUI or DWIA conviction. That’s a 40 percent recidivism rate. So if you want to put a class of criminal on a registry and publish their pictures and addresses online, why don’t you register drunk drivers?”

Finally. Someone said it. FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Politicians won’t go for it. Half (or more) of them would have to register!!!!!!!!!!!


Let’s have a city enact an ordinance banning anyone that has ever had a DWI/DUI from driving on their streets. Then we’ll get to hear how unfair it is that those with prior convictions from 20 years ago now have to research every city they wish to drive through every day just in case laws change. You know…like sex offenders have been doing for 10-20 years or more!

Then lets add some 2000 foot restrictions to bars and liquor stores…

…And drunk drivers actually kill a 1000x more children every year than all the most violent SO’s combined. So really your scenario has more plausibility than punishing someone who looked at some images.

There is a DUI registry in Ohio, but you have to be a five time offender to be put on it.

I don’t see how they can skirt ex posto facto, but one of your five or more DUI convictions has to have been since 2008 when the law went into effect to count all five or more of the DUI convictions going back twenty years.

TN has a DUI registry, too. I think it has to be two within two years, but I recall there being some other way to get on the list.

thats how it all starts. 5 years then your on a dui registry. then laws get re enacted now its 3 years and your on the registery. oh and a few years later any one with 3 or more dui’s from 1902 have to be on the dui registry for life. my what a gig money maker that would be. the 1902 was for sarcasm

G4 Change…The reason is that so many elected officials drink and drive, and they realize there is a chance they could possibly get caught one day, so laws need to be quite lenient.

its not just because the politicians drink, but look at all the lobbying they get not to have a registry from companies that manufacture liquer and beer. citizen offenders do not have that type of powerful lobby

G4Change – Just about everyone in this state on the registry has been pointing this fact out in various threads (including Janice and Chance), as well as in the comment sections of lame stream media articles. Hmm… wonder why I don’t see this truth pointed out so much these days. Drunk drivers aren’t the only ones that re-offend at an alarmingly high rate, you can include many classes of felons like drug dealers, robbers, gang-bangers, etc, etc ad nausium. The only class with a lower re-offense rate is murderers. I think that’s because most of them are locked up. And… Read more »

@Chris F, AJ and mike r

Here’s your chance to get the fourth amended complaint of this case with a subscription for your reading leisure.

It is a free subscription to download it too by the way.

On it! I somehow got myself subscribed to this service when recently looking for some case or other. For those who cannot or wish not to sign up, the motion is here: (Exp. 9/9/17)


The third complaint is going to be posted at NARSOL along with the fourth you can get from the Westworld article.

During Governor Scott’s Live Press Conference on Wednesday evening at 6:40pm regarding information about the looming Hurricane Irma, there was a question from a Reporter. “Governor for any of the shelters, are they checking ID’s of people going to the shelters to see if they’re Wanted Criminals or Sex Offenders? [sic] Do you have any concerns that there could be liability issues?” The Governor basically said the Shelter would be open for anyone who needs it, and he didn’t have any details regarding the random report cited by the Reporter, regarding checking people’s ID’s who need to enter into a… Read more »

Polk County Sheriff‏ Tweeted: @PolkCoSheriff

If you go to a shelter for #Irma, be advised: sworn LEOs will be at every shelter, checking IDs. Sex offenders/predators will not be allowed

Like somehow offenders/predators are one-in-the-same.

“Sorry, my ID got lost while I was evacuating.”

So I guess FL RCs need to go to LA’s “RC storm interment camp” to shelter from Irma?

Then the sheriff better have a backup plan because not allowing them in without alternate plans when there is room to let them in is asking for big lawsuit. Cannot legally pick and chose who you help at time like that when you wear a badge. Didn’t say Roscoe would honor that of course.

Wow, so it takes a hurricane for RCs in Miami to get an actual roof over their heads for a night or two. I of course support their letting RCs shelter from the storm, but it shows the fallacy and hypocrisy of the laws, that during a storm nobody’s worried about RCs being too close to people or places.

funny- at the bottom of the article there is a link”

Denver Go Topless Day 2017 Dos and Don’ts (NSFW) ”

More RC on the way!!

All you need to know:

In Florida, GOVERNMENT officials announce anyone on the registry WILL BE TURNED AWAY FROM SHELTERS DURING THE STORM!

I think that is all you need to know about what the registry has become in America.

mic drop

So if you are lucky enough to have a family and you go there with your family… they’ll let them in but not you?

“Sorry kids, your dad’s not worthy”.


So someone explain how getting declaratory relief and not a permanent injunction affects the plaintiffs. Do they get off the registry or not?

@Timothy Moore:
In a word: Yes.

Here’s a quick explanation of the difference between declaratory relief and injunction: “the injunction is used in situations in which continuing direction and oversight of the parties are needed, and it has features that are conducive to this direction and oversight. In contrast, the declaratory judgment is used primarily in situations in which a high degree of management of the parties would be unnecessary or impracticable, and it pervasively lacks features that such management would require.” (From “The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment”,

Damn right, Jo. Maybe they can’t burn us at the stake (literally), but they can let us die in the storm. God’s righteous punishment, is that it?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x