ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: August 17 – San Diego, September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings: Los Angeles – July 27

National

ID: Sex offenders ask court to revive Idaho registry lawsuit

[washingtontimes.com – 5/6/19]

A group of 134 sex offenders have asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court to revive their lawsuit against the state of Idaho because they say they were denied their constitutional rights when they were forced to register as sex offenders.

The group, referred to only as John Does 1 through 134 in the lawsuit, notified U.S. District Judge David Nye on Sunday that they would ask the appellate panel to review Nye’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit.

The group originally filed the lawsuit in 2016, contending that Idaho laws requiring them to register as sex offenders for life violated their right to due process, subjected them to double jeopardy and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment among other problems.

Some plaintiffs said rules requiring them to stay at least 500 feet from schools prevented them from exercising their religion because their preferred churches were near a school. Others said they were convicted of misdemeanors or lesser sex offenses but years later were forced to register as sex offenders when lawmakers decided to reclassify the crimes as felonies.

Read more

 

Join the discussion

  1. Tim

    Lots of arrows but we’re any on target?
    Judge said no.
    Property maintenance, plain indenture, to a database.
    FREE men are paid to maintain machine properties.
    A sound arrow, just take my word for it. Man will never be truely subservient to machine.

  2. Chris f

    So let me get this straight…

    The judge says the suit is being dismissed because they didnt specify exact instances of hardships no matter how obvious and unavoidable (like being shot with a gun does nothing to you unless you specify which organs were destroyed). Then, when they ammend and add the specifics he says “oh, my bad, it doesnt matter because other cases that outlined actual damages were dismissed by other courts so I will also.”

    What an idiot. This is the problem when a judiciary already knows what it wants it’s decision to be regardless of facts and just needs to find the excuse to rule that way.

    I am betting the cases he is referring to, if disected, would not be an apples to apples comparison too. Most times I trace bad caselaw backwards to its source you end up at some original case 100 years ago that was against a business instead of a person and recieved less constitional protection.

    If anyone with legal research skills can find what cases this judge is referring to it would be appreciated.

    • TS

      I find it interesting he ignores the Fed District of CO (which he’s on same judge level with), Muniz (PA), and 6th CCoA rulings but stays within his in 9th Circuit and SCOTUS overall to rule here. Judges shouldn’t wear blinders.

      • AJ

        @TS:
        Persuasive vs. Binding.

        • TS

          @AJ

          Ah Yes, P v B case application along with where they come from and that they can swing for and against at times (meaning, choose carefully). Just want this judge to step up here in line with others. Wishful thinking. (Hint hint 9th CCOA)

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Well, its true that these points have already been decided, and appellate and Supreme Court decisions must be followed by the lower court. The challenge here is absolutely the right strategy, but it is framed wrong, it must be framed to overcome the prior decisions, either showing undisputable punishment and/or articulating a strong case that the previous decisions were wrongly decided for this or that undisputable reason. That is a very difficult articulation to come up with, but nothing less will prevail, so do the even harder work and get to that articulation. And the district court can go against the appellate decision if it finds sufficient reason and distinction in the argument to a the difference. It can’t do so simply because it does not agree that red is blue, it needs to show matters and arguments that have not been considered. The district court here is saying that that has not been done by these plaintiffs.

      In fact, the previous decisions are ones I always refer to as an example of the courts ruling that red is blue; when the court rules the color red is blue, then it is blue no matter what your eyes and senses and intelligence tell you. When the court rules it is not punishment, it is not, no matter how much everyone knows it really is serious punishment.

      This approach to deciding things like punishment and due process has been rife in sex offender cases. This is why we cannot win in the courts, and they are only becoming even more fanatic about this under Trump’s appointees; even before Trump, the courts already had pretty much been completely taken over the the right wing, at federal and state courts and at all levels. The Republicans have been working on that takeover for decades, and they have accomplished it, and now are making it only more solid and long lasting. At this point, and for the rest of our lives for many and or most of the rest of their lives for most others, pretty much no matter what we might win at district or appellate level, SCOTUS is a lock against any of it, we cannot win — because they will rule that red is blue, as they did even when they had a swing vote on the court. And Trump likely to have more SCOTUS appointees, at least Ginberg, whether in his next two ears or a second term; he now is in good position to be re-elected, with a higher approval rating that ever.

      So their case is correct, but unless they come up with a much better articulation and evidence, they stand no chance as their arguments have already been decided.

  3. mike r

    Sure to be watching this case closely. Anyone have citation to the briefs? I would like to see exactly what they are claiming so if the 9th rejects them I can be sure to make different claims and points when I get there.

    • mike r

      Guess it really does not matter now as I have specific arguments and claims that are already in the make. Cannot really go outside my current claims and the fallacies of the district court. Course we are not there yet, there is still hope from the real district judge in my case, we will see. It would sure be out of the ordinary for a judge to go against a magistrate’s recommendations though.

  4. mike r

    I really do not like the fact that they are including so many plaintiffs in the case. This leaves to many opps for the judge to deny which will make it that much more difficult for the next guy.

  5. G4Change

    “Others said they were convicted of misdemeanors or lesser sex offenses but years later were forced to register as sex offenders when lawmakers decided to reclassify the crimes as felonies.”

    Are you friggin’ kidding me??? Idaho thinks it can take a misdemeanor and just upgrade it to a felony retroactively???? What the hell kind of crap is that???

    “…the challenges the Does allege are the same as those raised by sexual offenders … across the country that have already been considered and rejected by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court.”

    WOW…so, apparently Judge Nye doesn’t consider Colorado or Michigan to be part of the United States then. What planet does this idiot judge live on???

    • CR

      “Are you friggin’ kidding me??? Idaho thinks it can take a misdemeanor and just upgrade it to a felony retroactively???? What the hell kind of crap is that???”

      A crime can be reclassified, just like new crimes can be recognized by law. But a judgement can’t be retroactively changed when a crime is reclassified, nor can a past act that wasn’t a crime at the time be prosecuted when it is later declared a crime.

      I’m not sure, but I don’t think Chris F meant that literally. It’s more a matter of effect. It is a real effect, based on legal artifice. Registration laws are deemed to be civil regulatory laws, not punishment. So to require that a criminal act committed in the past suddenly subjects a person to registration today, even though it wasn’t an offense requiring registration at the time it was committed, is legal. It doesn’t change a past judgement, just imposes a non-punitive civil regulatory requirement that is based on a past act. And the regulatory law that requires it is presumed to be constitutional and is subject to only rational basis review when challenged.

      Anyone thinking person who is honest knows that sex offender registration laws have an effect that is punitive, and that they are unjust when applied retroactively. Yet the legislature continually expands the laws, the news media feeds the frenzy, the courts turn a blind eye, and the general public goes along or doesn’t care.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.