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 NewsNational

Attorneys general fighting against 2017 ruling regarding Colorado’s sex offender registry

A group of attorneys general are fighting a 2017 court ruling that declared Colorado’s sex offender registry “cruel and unusual.” Full Article


Attorney General Hunter Leads 10th Circuit States in Opposing Ruling that Colorado Sex Offender Registration is Unconstitutional (AG Press Release)

To read the brief, click here.

Join the discussion

  1. Robin

    Cost Effective & Finance 101

    US debt 20+ trillion, makes a lot of sense when you have programs such as this where money in truth is just “tossing it out the window”
    Fiscal Year:
    Solicitation Title:
    SMART FY 18 Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program
    Estimated Program Funding: Up to $14,000,000.00
    Estimated Award – Average Amount: Up to $400,000.00
    Estimated Number of Awards: Up to 50

    Above as you can see average amount in total dollars per 50 awards (states ??) 400 million. I guess compared to the 22.5 billion for body cameras it would be cost effective…lol

    Below is just part of the 2018 budget for doj spending. When speaking of finance 101, isn’t it a given one should not spend wildly if you don’t have the funds. All I have posted here are items that, I see, are unnecessary spending when you don’t have it to spend. It is not all inclusive though, you can see more for yourselves at

    This may not be tossing it out the window but still?
    OJJDP FY 18 Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative
    OJJDP Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $63,000,000.00
    OJJDP FY 18 Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative: Category 1: National Mentoring
    OJJDP Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $63,000,000.00
    OJJDP FY 18 Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative: Category 2: Multi-state Mentoring
    OJJDP Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $63,000,000.00
    OJJDP FY 18 Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative: Category 3: Mentoring for Youth on Probation
    OJJDP Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $63,000,000.00
    BJA FY 18 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program
    BJA Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $22,500,000.00

    OJJDP FY 18 Prison Rape Elimination Act
    OJJDP Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $20,000.00

    Do the first three below have anything to do with the registry????
    BJA FY 18 Project Safe Neighborhoods
    BJA Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $6,500,000.00
    BJA FY 18 Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) National Training and Technical Assistance Program
    BJA Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $1,200,000.00
    BJA FY 18 Innovations in Reentry Initiative: Reducing Recidivism Through Systems Improvement
    BJA Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $11,000,000.00
    OVW FY 2018 Sexual Assault Services Formula Program
    OVW Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $22,750,000.00
    BJA FY 18 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program: CATEGORY 1: Joint Partnership or State-Agency Facilitated Application
    BJA Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $22,500,000.00
    BJA Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $22,500,000.00
    BJA Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $22,500,000.00
    BJA Q3: APR/MAY/JUN Up to $22,500,000.00

    • Robin

      Ooops, I put million rather than 400 thousand. And in other areas should be million not billion.

      What was on my mind was I found a page on just PA alone that showed about 12 year and it was 12 billion over that time period for all grants concerning doj grants. Couldn’t wrap my head around that figure and most was more likely unnecessary spending.

  2. T

    Sounds like fear and intimidation is trying to make this judge change his mind and manipulate him. I say be strong and stand for what he believes in and persevere.

    • CR

      No one is trying to get Judge Matsch to change his mind. This appeal goes to the 10th Circuit, not to Matsch. The AGs want the 10th Circuit to reverse Judge Matsch’s ruling.

  3. Tim L

    The political class quickly came to realize the usefulness of databases (not just SOR,but many other govt databases) to maintain their positions in our system. It became necessary given the large amount of debt being generated by overblown budgets to utilize them for full effect. If it were a private company we’re discussing then natural selection would occur forcing economic collapse via bankruptcy. However, we’re discussing something outside of that regulated by natural law, we call it politics. Much of what occurs in politics is deal making. You scratch my back and I will reciprocate. Lawyers call it quid pro quo. “Quid” being the English term for money. Lawyers thrive in times like these. The rest of us will not.

    • Happy, joyous and free

      @Tim L. I agree with your point, just a minor correction. “Quid pro quo” is Latin. It is quite likely that the English slang of “quid” (which is an English pound) came from the Latin phrase, not the other way around. I agree that lawyers will make a lot of money, we live in very litigious times.

      Having been a Federal employee as well as a contractor, information IS money. That being said, our country is broke. It has been for a long time. Nobody wants to face the reality that we cannot afford what we are doing, and the populace as a whole doesn’t understand, much less care, because the majority of the sheeple want handouts vs being productive members of society. The politicians hand out money like candy.

  4. TS

    The oral arguments from this mornings Millard, et al arguments at the Tenth Circuit are now available at:

    • TS

      I have listened to the 30 min oral arguments from Millard, et al, this morning. Interesting. I think Millard’s atty was strong in their case presentation with facts, but not necessarily through delivery. The 17 scholarly experts were referenced a bit and their particular brief discussed. I think the CO Asst AG did not provide much in a way to refute what Judge Matsch had decided.

      I find it interesting Justice Eid wanted to know the effectiveness of deterrence of the registry, whether it is for registrants or non-registrants, re-offending or offending, but no real answer can be had overall. The three appellee’s were impacted by it, but as for public at large, it is not known and cannot be quantified in my opinion.

      Not sure if the Tenth has an off season like SCOTUS, to which decisions are made by, so a notion of a decision delivery date is TBD of course.

      • AJ

        I have yet to listen to the arguments, but can answer your question regarding a SCOTUS-like term. From the 10th’s website (
        “The court does not have a term in the same sense as the United States Supreme Court. Final judgments are handed down throughout the year. No timetable exists for rendering decisions. This court has one of the fastest turnaround times of any federal circuit court. Nevertheless, factors such as the number and complexity of the issues, whether the case is to be scheduled for oral argument, the extent of unanimity among the judges, and other considerations cause some cases to take longer to decide than others.”

        • TS

          Thanks @AJ for the assist on the Tenth’s decision delivery time.

      • E @ TS

        That was judge Seymour who asked about recidivism and was the biggest WHIFF for our side. At least twice (maybe 3 times) she lobbed him a slow ball about recidivism but he only referred to the 17 scholars. He should have hit it out of the park and verbally declared LOW recidivism stats.

        Judge Eid didn’t say a word during this case. She just sat here looking on (Trump appointee who replaces Gorsuch). Senior Judge Seymour (Carter appointee) was highly alert and actually said something like “If you are asking us to strike this statute don’t we need to understand recidivism rates?” Wow and then our guy didn’t effectively walk through that wide open door.

        Judge Hartz (George W appointee) was fixated on this being an 8th amendment challenge to ongoing punishment. Fine, whatever it takes as long as you agree it’s punishment. I did enjoy when the AG was rebutting and telling inflammatory stories of child abuse that he interrupted her. “We’re not going to decide whether this is good public policy. We’re going to decide whether this is constitutional.”

        • TS


          Thank you for the decipher of who was speaking judicially. It was difficult without a transcript (which isn’t available for 90 days unless the clerk is paid as I read on the website) to understand which Justice was speaking.

        • AJ

          Spot on analysis. Our side did indeed miss an opportunity on the recidivism. From the sounds of it, CO doesn’t have the stats the Judge was asking about, either. It would have been so easy to shoot out the low rates and point out that 1) CO’s are similar or 2) CO has no idea. It seems they got a bit too bogged on the 8th/14th discussion, and our side didn’t seem very ready for that. I get that much of what they want to say is already in the briefs, but you’d still think it would be good to bring it up again, instead of vagaries.

          I, too, liked that they swatted down the AG’s attempt to shock them with the details of the crimes. They obviously weren’t buying that BS. Her comparison of the registry to Health Dept. ratings and Yelp reviews was such a crock, too. There are so many ways to shoot holes in that “comparison,” I won’t even bother. She seemed to pin their case on it not meeting Section 1983 criteria. The thing is, if it were that cut and dried why wouldn’t they just issue a per curiam?

          Personally, I don’t care if they find it violates the 8th for Cruel and Unusual. I just want them to find it to be punishment.

          P.S. How were you able to discern which Judge was which? Were you present for argument?

        • TS

          The Millard oral argument has some interesting comments over at the related SOL Florida website we discuss here and get other info from from time to time.

  5. mike r

    Look at this crap and lies with absolutely no citation or any inkling of proof of this,
    “Those most likely to commit sex crimes are
    convicted sex offenders. Decades of research have shown that convicted sex offenders
    are more likely to commit sex crimes than any other group.”

    This is a joke but they have gave me some insight into how the AGs may try to attack a decision on appeal in my case. Especially on how non state actors must be acting in concert with the state. This is interesting and requires further research….The only thing they do not cite any SCOTUS case for this but only the 10th circuit.
    “While courts may find that private parties’ conduct constitutes state action under
    Section 1983 where private parties (a) are coerced by the State, (b) act in a public
    function, or (c) act in concert with the State to deprive someone of a constitutional
    right, Wittner v. Banner Health, 720 F.3d 770 775-81 (10th Cir. 2013), Plaintiffs have not
    argued and provide no evidence that the private conduct alleged here falls within any
    of these categories.”

    Judicial Notice is mandatory and I will make it happen. Here are some facts and not from academia either… These reports, and the millions of others I have, also rebuke the assertions that the registries are working as there has been no change from before or after implementation…
    And before anyone (USA, lol) goes crying about how this may ruin this site, remember how many people agreed that this type of collaboration is useful and appreciated. Also, this is all relevant to the article at issue.
    Patrick A. Langan et al., Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003):
    “Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994, [] The rate for all 9,691 sex offenders (a category that includes the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2%.” [p. 1] visited on November 15, 2018.

    Criminal Recidivism in Alaska:
    Alaska Judicial Council January 2007
    Recidivism in Alaska Executive Summary: “Sexual offenders were the least likely to commit the same offense again.”
    “Among all released offenders “9% were convicted in 1999 of Sexual offenses (sexual assaults, sexual abuse of a minor, various levels of seriousness).” p. 3. “Sexual offenders were the group least likely to be convicted of the same type of offense that
    they were convicted of in the 1999 sample.” [p. 8]. “Offenders whose 1999 felony charges resulted in conviction of a Sexual offense were among the least likely to be re-arrested, have new cases filed, be re-convicted, or return to custody.” [p. 12] visited on November 15, 2018.

    From Justice Policy Institute.
    “Registries and notification have not been proven to protect communities from sexual offenses and may even distract from more effective approaches. Given the enormous fiscal costs of implementing SORNA, coupled with the lack of evidence that registries and notification make communities safer, states should think carefully before committing to comply with SORNA.” [Pp 1]. visted on November 15, 2018.

    Under reporting,
    David Finkelhor et al., Sexually Assaulted Children: National Estimates & Characteristics, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN 8 (Aug. 2008).
    “Using proxy interviews to obtain information on crime victimization and other sensitive topics has never been a preferred methodology and has sometimes yielded poor results” [p 10]. Visited on November 15, 2018.

    Man I have a huge list of this. I will not attempt to put more on here but you people get the point. I really hope the attorneys in that case rebuke the assertions…

  6. AJ

    I read the comments over on FAC. It seems the feeling is universal about “our” attorney’s performance. Based on some of the comments over there, a number of people don’t understand the role and function of the Court of Appeals. It is not a re-trial of the case, it’s a way to see if the Circuit Court made the right decision based on the evidence and Constitution. The Judges gave CO’s attorney a little reminder on that at the end of argument.

    In truth, I wonder how much argument really helps. In this case, it doesn’t seem it did…for either side. The Judges challenged CO on its reading of Section 1983’s applicability here, and they also challenged Millard’s counsel on the applicable Amendments and harms. Neither attorney shone well.

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 *