ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at



ID: Judge Rejects Idaho Sex Offender Registration Lawsuit

A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s sex offender registration laws, but the 134 anonymous sex offenders who brought the lawsuit have the option to refile the case if they can show the current laws caused them actual harm. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I would bet my life savings all 134 can show harm, YES, I SAID ALL 134!!!!

Simple enough. Unfortunately the judge would have to be open to actually seeing the truth, and as he is more than likely politically influenced that won’t happen.

Actually the Registry requirements were ruled to be punitive by another court decision recently. This judge seems out of touch with current events. Maybe this group failed to mention such precesnt.

All 134 experienced harm but proving it is another matter. They may be able to start by submitting sworn testimony in the form of dispositions if not done already, but they have to have corroboration to have a strong case. Like eviction notices. Family burdens. Employment loss. Short story: keep records.

@Not Really

What you are saying is the Millard model currently being used in CO by the Millard atty, et al. @miker (where is he anyway?) used the same model in his doc that’s being used currently.

ID atty should be using this model to get somewhere.

Easy enough to prove submit into evidence a copy of social security input reports that we all get annually. The economic impact of felony conviction drives down personal income. Poor people pay no tax when they are unemployed. The impact upon my income is dramatic in before\,after compared. The same is for anyone connected to sex misbehavior.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Idaho, Colorado, Pa. et all can bring class actions against the registry, why can’t we in Ca? I mean, really. I am sure that we can scrape up more than 134 plaintiffs. Can you imagine a class action suit with a larger group and the effect it would have. I think it is time Janice. We cannot sit on the sidelines and pea shoot the residency restrictions. The registry itself needs to be challenged. There are plenty of precedents and studies.
This is Ca.. we have the biggest pool of plaintiffs in the country and it would not be that difficult to find any.

I agree with Hookscar, and as I said before ‘the roots need to be pulled, which is the registry. without the registry there would be no IML, housing restriction and etc. As I am saying this and I am and have appreciated the work that Janice and team have been and are doing, which is remarkable. I am setting here, today, unable to attend our daughter’s graduation from Doctor of Medicine, in the Philippines, because of the registry and its stepchildren, the IML and etc.


Class action lawsuit will not do it. The challenges via that method have always proven to be failures. You can get a group of people together to challenge the registry but you have to show individual harm per person within the group. That is how the Millard attorney has put together the case that is currently being appealed at the 10th circuit in Denver by CO AG.

As long as each individual person within the group has viable, documented, and able to be testified to through either verbal, recorded, or affidavit methods, you can have a large group and show the harm that was caused by the registry.

You have to challenge a registry on its face with the method that is described above. That is what Millards team has done.

This article has a few more quotes:

Like this:
“One cannot simply name a large group of Plaintiffs, allege a dozen causes of actions, and expect the Court to figure out which plaintiffs have suffered which harms,” the judge wrote in the ruling released May 17.

They’ll also have to show any harm they suffered outweighs the benefits sex registration laws offer society, Nye said.

“While the outcome of certain regulations may negatively affect a person socially, economically or even legally, the Court must weigh any competing interests,” the judge found. “Time and time again, Courts have found that the protection of society outweighs any inconvenience or diminution in rights suffered by registrants.”

It doesn’t sound like a very well done case. I hope it wasn’t a scam like the Estes-Hightower one in Texas/Florida and that the Idaho attorney is at least legit.

I don’t think any large cases will win, unless they target Substantive Due Process and Bill of Attainder. All the other attacks you’ll have to specifically show and prove all individual burdens and compare them to the crimes. With SDP and B of A, you can attack the core problem. No matter how minor, or major, the crime, there was no Substantive Due Process to determine the level or duration of punishment, or civil regulation needed to “protect the public” and that is the common denominator to attack the registry on.

They’ll also have to show any harm they suffered outweighs the benefits sex registration laws offer society, Nye said.

It is frequently claimed by legislators and by judges and by the media that sex registration laws benefit society. The public believes it too. Yet no evidence exists to substantiate it.

On the contrary, scientifically conducted studies have shown that there is little to no benefit to society from the sex offender registry. Therefore, any harm suffered by a registrant because of registration laws outweighs every one of the unsubstantiated imaginary benefits that do not exist in actual fact.

This is how the lawyers for the parties to the suit need to respond on appeal of the dismissal.

and yet Judges are still human beings and subjected to their emotions. so the question is, how do you introduce logic over emotion and not pizz off the Judge(s)?

I believe the likely effective method is attacking the claim that society actually benefits by focusing on data that shows it may, in fact, actually cause greater harm to society (false sense of security when most offenses are committed by people not registered; inability to reintegrate into society can cause some registrants to commit crimes that integrating would prevent; lumping everything remotely sexual into the registry makes the term “sex offender” meaningless, etc).

Judges and others need to be constantly faced with the question “why do you defend a registry that places society – and children – in greater harm? Is your desire to punish greater than your desire to prevent?”.

If the registry actually prevented sex offenses I think even most of us would grudgingly accept them as a necessary evil. The vast majority of people on the registry do not reoffend and it is not because the registry magically causes them to behave.

Avoid emotion. A soundly-reasoned and well-presented case that relies on legal facts and reputable studies and social science is the only way. Nobody is sympathetic to the plight of sex offenders, so emotional appeals, besides being legally irrelevant, are useless. Millard is a model.

@Chris F

Thanks for bringing that up for us to read and show it will take a Millard model case filing to get anywhere at a minimum with additions of SDP and BoA challenges. Well written. Individual harm suffered with documentation needs to be noted.

I’ll also mention that those who really want to understand how to fight, must read this article from Catherine Carpenter posted on this very web site:

So why doesn’t’ it have to first be proven that a blanket SO registration actually makes a society safer? How can registering people who had no contact offenses protect society from a person doing a contact offense? How does registering people who had a single offense with a family friend in their home actually protect society from someone who might kidnap? Should we classify all politicians who engage in untruths or unethical acts with those that have felony convictions? True justice will weigh each case by its own merit. Hysterical justice will engage in witch hunts.

I am here TS. I have just been really swamped with this lawsuit and school finals. The rules of evidence and surrounding discovery are complex and are taking every moment of my time. I check in every once in a while but since these rules are so complex and specific a lot of what I am doing is not stuff that many people want to get into because it is so complicated. But never fear I am on it. I am just beginning to understand the entire legal process for litigating a civil case. Whenever I am done I really hope my records that I am keeping on the process will be of great benefit to others as Emily Horowitz suggested. I am keeping a complete chronological document of the entire processes.
By the way when I went to the scheduling conference the judge once again spanked on the AG. After we could not agree on the scheduling the judge stated she would issue a standard scheduling order and this is where I stated “your Honor, about this partial motion to dis” and that is far as I got at which point the judge kind of put her finger up and interrupted me and started drilling on the AG. The judge answered every question I was about to ask. She stated to the AG in no easy terms “about this partial motion to dismiss Miss Boutin, you mentioned that you maybe filing a subsequent motion to dismiss and let me tell you right now you have a high hurdle to clear when it comes to Rule 12(g) that unambiguously states that you cannot do that once you have brought such a motion and did not plead your defenses in that motion. Furthermore, you mentioned both orally and in the status report that you maybe filing other motion or what have you and I want to remind you that you cannot file anything else until you answer the remaining of the Plaintiff’s claims 1-5 in his complaint.” OMG if i lost right now just these two hearings that I have been to so far would have been worth all the effort and that is not an exaggeration. It is classic when you are on the other end and you get to see them squirm, which is exactly what she did as she was being berated by the judge. I know it doesn’t matter what the judge states or how she bashes the AG, what matters is the rulings and she has the first hit from the Magistrates order but it isn’t sealed until the district judge rules on it. It is John Mendez and he has been known to be a free thinker and from what I have read he is not afraid to go against the grain if he thinks it will serve justice.

As far as these broad lawsuits in class actions, good luck. The courts keep telling these idiots haw to fight this but the idiots don’t seem to care or are just to ignorant to realize it and run with it. I really do not see how many more ways the courts can tell people that there has to be actual or imminent harm to YOU and not just some overly-broad anecdotal and conclusonary statements or claims. These attorneys should be disbarred or severely reprimanded by the courts and the state bar associations for bringing these frivolous and foundation-less cases. These guys and girls, including everyone of us, have cases based on individual merits.


Keep shaking the legal tree because eventually you’ll get something good to fall for you. Best of luck on finals.

Just as an example of the complexities of the discovery issues can anyone tell me, without a doubt and cite any source, if the following is subject matter that can be judicially noticed by the court????
8. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014: “Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives 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.” [P. 12] [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 4 ¶ 12.

This is what I am going to state in my response to the objections from the AG on my motion and request for judicial notice.
Plaintiff wants to be clear, he requests judicial notice of the following determinations and conclusions in the following governmental reports found on government websites; See RJN EFC no. 29. Plaintiff is Pro Se and unsure if the Court may recognize and take judicial notice of determinations and conclusions based upon indisputable facts and for which such conclusions are presented by governmental agencies.

I cannot tell you how long it took me just to find out whether I have to respond to the AG’s objections and am still not sure if I have to or not but I am going to anyways. Check out Zuckerberg’s response to the objections to his request for judicial notice, this is the only thing I can find on the subject and like I said it took forever to find this case.

I can tell you guys and girls, in my opinion and case some of the most important issues seem indisputably unconstitutional without further due process and a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that the feared characteristic that the government is attempting to prevent, I.E. recidivism rates are justifiable in your individual cases just as Chris states. Good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are dangerous. Even using so called hearings with psychs or whatever they cannot contradict the stats. Those are hard numbers. just think about it, the stats that are of all released sex offenders and are still an incredibly low at around 1%. So it is only reasonable to infer that rate includes the highest risk offenders so all those re offenses were most likely committed by high risk offenders so all the rest are completely negligible if not non-existent. All the cases have been shepherdized as well. so it is all good law. This is just barely touches on tow of the issues that effect most of us.
Some of the real issues for most CA’s:

Ca. Civil Code § 1786.18 (7) Records of arrest, indictment, information, misdemeanor complaint, or conviction of a crime that, from the date of disposition, release, or parole, antedate the report by more than seven years.
Presence restrictions cover vast swaths of areas barres Plaintiff from limits. I have three refusals from adds on craigslist stating it is because of these laws that they cannot hire me. Plus>>
EEOC (US Equal Opportunity Commission) web site specifically lists government registries like the Sex Offender Registry as valid research tools to deny employment, even though the lengths of time on the registry far exceeds the time other criminal convictions can be used to deny employment. [visited March 20, 2018].
See Humphries v. Cnty. of L.A., 554 F.3d 1170, 1191 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that loss of future employment was sufficient to satisfy stigma-plus test); Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 1002 (2d. Cir. 1994) (mentioning briefly that there is no significant distinction between losing one’s current position in employment and losing one’s potential position in employment). See Ky. Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976) (clarifying that procedural due process protections apply when individual suffers stigma from state instituted reputational harm that results in loss of certain rights); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-71 (1972).
Also see Doe v. Snyder (834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016)) holding that “no disbarment case we are aware of has confronted a law with such sweeping conditions or approved of disbarment without some nexus between the regulatory purpose and the job at issue. SORA’s restrictions are again far more onerous than those considered in Smith. And this factor too therefore weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor.” Id.

CA Family Code section. 3030(a) (1) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person is required to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code where the victim was a minor, or if the person has been convicted under Section 273a, 273d, or 647.6 of the Penal Code, (2) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if anyone residing in the person’s household is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code.”
Id. at Section (3) The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk.”

See, Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (“the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”).
See also, Plaintiff is entitled to “enjoy[] the full protection of the First Amendment.” Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563, 572 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original; emphasis added). Plaintiff is also entitled to full protection of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Clauses of the United States Constitution as well.
Cameron v. Tomes, 783 F. Supp. 1511, 1525 (D. Mass. 1992) (holding that prohibiting visitation with grandchildren restricts one’s liberty).

Hi group,

As I read this article I was thinking this could happen in Texas. I am one of the John Doe’s in the lawsuit.

There’s a better than fair chance of that, sadly. If the lawyer filing your case studies the Millard case from Colorado and follows the same playbook, it may increase your chances of success.

Good luck to you.

sorry, there I go posting all kinds of legalese.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x