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

CO: Decision in Millard v. Rankin (10th Circuit US Court of Appeals)

Plaintiff-Appellees David Millard, Eugene Knight, and Arturo Vega challenge the constitutionality of Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Act (CSORA).

The district court held CSORA was unconstitutional as applied to the Appellees because the statute inflicted cruel and unusual punishment and violated substantive due process guarantees.

Additionally, the district court held that the state courts’ application of CSORA’s deregistration procedures to Vega violated his procedural due process rights.

Defendant-Appellant, the State, appeals from the entirety of the district court’s decision. Because the district court’s ruling contravenes binding Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent, we reverse. Decision

Join the discussion

  1. Randy

    Millard v Rankin decided today in the 10th circuit. Not a favorable decision. Hopefully can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

    • M C

      @Randy, I read this decision and this exactly was my point in the thread about the federal proposed changes to SORNA in that they use language to rationalize the registry where the reasoning is actually irrational. If these consequences were applied to any offense other than sex I think they would not rule this way.

      That said, it is time for the Supreme Court to revisit what is and is not constitutional with the registry because it seems like the appellate courts in different circuits AND state courts are not all on the same page with what is or isn’t punitive. At the very least we ought to have consistency and the court can better clarify where the line is between punishment and non-punishment.

      • Resident

        I have my doubts with this current bench. Roberts has been shown to be overly concerned with his legacy, much less arguing the law. Alito and Thomas have been shown to be supporters of the punitive state. Sotomayor hasn’t been great here either. Kavanaugh is spineless.

        Breyer, Ginsberg, Gorsuch, and maybe Kagan would see this argument, just maybe.

        We need to vote so that we can get more favorable people on that bench!

    • TS

      Someone at the National office website said they thought maybe an “en banc” review (entire bench, not just panel of three) could review it. Interesting thought on that route before considering SCOTUS. I’d be up for that to give time to help settle SCOTUS because there could be a seat or two opening soon enough if one listens to the winds from WDC. It would certainly be an interesting guess as to the final decision and the impact it could have.

      Speaking of SCOTUS, as mentioned, read this SCOTUSBlog posting about precedent, stare decisis, and justices sticking to their decisions…or not: Empirical SCOTUS: Precedent: Which justices practice what they preach https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/empirical-scotus-precedent-which-justices-practice-what-they-preach/ I bring that up because CJ Roberts would probably not want to hear Smith v Doe (AK 2003) being challenged again in this case and thus, votes “no” on hearing it; however, the politics of the court and our nation today needs to be considered in whether it is time to appeal there. The 90 day clock started yesterday (21 mos 2 days after oral arguments and nearly 3 years (21Aug2017) after Judge Matsch ruled.

      • TS

        It is actually 31 Aug 2017 but who is counting here anyway when Judge Matsch ruled…

  2. Read the Decision

    I read the decision.

    Basically, the court is saying the registry is legit, and what the plaintiff is going through is no worse than what is happening elsewhere and has already been adjudicated as permissible.

    Finally, it holds the state isn’t the one doing bad things, it is simply making information available, and it is the public who is doing what they do.

    What the court ignores is that the harm is real. The suffering is real. The struggle is real. What is needed then is some kind of law that protects RSOs from added discrimination. While RSOs are not a protected class, the public perception that they always reoffend and the unique regard for SOs in society (unlike robbers or murderers) means they should be held in a class of their own. Added protections against discrimination in employment and housing would have the net benefit of facilitating rehabilitation and reintegration. Not to mention, the secondary benefits for family members.

    I get the idea that a person who is convicted of an offense with a child should never be permitted to work with children in any capacity. It might be reasonable to restrict their interaction at a school. But unless a job specifically entails that kind of interaction, then a background check should come come back green, not red.

    Employers and renters should be limited in how they perform background checks, so they only query a central database with limited information. Barring a sex offender from a job at a school or church sounds reasonable. Being passed over for a job at Home Depot sounds ridiculous.

    There’s no reason why each offense cannot also carry some kind of tailored sanction. Not all RSOs are pedophiles or rapists. Some could be flashers, nudists, people who view pornography, or attempted to break the law in some foolish or loathsome way. But that should not result in facilitating additional public discrimination based on mythology or erroneous reasoning.

    The harms are real, so something must be done. If striking down registration requirements isn’t a possibility, then the state should consider measures to protect those who are attempting to reenter society as better citizens.

    • Will Allen

      The criminals regimes have enabled, promoted, and encouraged the hate and harm. It is their fault.

      Each offense can “carry some kind of tailored sanction” and I think they do. Then probation or parole ends. After that, NO sanctions are acceptable. Registries are not acceptable. It’s easy.

      “Barring a sex offender from a job at a school or church sounds reasonable.” I don’t think they are talking about “sex offenders”. They are talking about People Forced to Register (PFR). So no, it is not reasonable to bar a PFR from anything. And there obviously is no need.

      Take any teacher, for example. It doesn’t matter who the person is or what they may or may not have done in the past, that teacher might try to harm a child. Perhaps that person has molested 10 children. So the ONLY thing that actually protects children is to monitor that teacher. All teachers. That is the only thing that works. If you don’t do that, you can exclude 1,000,000 people from being teachers, and children will be molested. If you do monitor, then anyone can teach.

      It’s very simple actually. Registries aren’t needed. Schools will always have to do background checks and if they aren’t comfortable with a person, don’t hire him or her. But obviously even if a person has a perfect background, that person could be an active, raging child molester. PFRs haven’t been hired for teaching forever and it’s not affecting the crimes or safety.

      Meh, tired of these criminal regimes and their harassment. I’m going to start my weekend right NOW!!! If COVID wasn’t raging, I’d be hanging out with all kinds of families and children who have no idea that I’m Registered. I’ll return back to that soon enough. Just because Registries exist, I’m going to be around children all the time.

    • Tp

      Why should someone with a sex offense be barred from working at a church? Even a school? Individuals who have multiple DUIs, even a felony one with injuries, aren’t banned from either and they drive children around in vans/busses for each mentioned institution.

    • David

      🤔 10th Circuit COA: “We didn’t cause this train wreck – we just turned off the switching signals*.” 😠.

      *Then just walked away from the ensuing mess.😠

    • David

      @ Read the Decision: Very well-stated arguments! 👍

    • JohnDoeUtah

      One of the argument of the Amici brief on behalf of the state, was the the current registration scheme is the most “cost effective” way of managing sex offenders. They don’t want tailored laws because it would be to expensive to administer.

    • Dustin

      What I find extraordinary is that courts continue to cite Smith v. Doe as binding precedent that the registry is not punitive. Smith also detailed the characteristics of the Alaska’s registry at the time in order to support its conclusion – the freedom to go, live, travel, and work wherever one wished among them but certainly not all – each and every one of which has been legislated out by every lawmaking body in the nation to various extremes.

      Reiterating the claim that the registry isn’t punitive merely because the legislature didn’t intend it to be is simply absurd, like saying the 49ers should have the 2020 Lombardi Trophy simply because they intended to win. Not to mention that the USSC has held that legislative intent is irrelevant when evaluating if a law is constitutional or not (don’t recall the case – it’s somewhere at SOSEN).

      Discrimination is another angle that should be explored. Pretty sure all states have statutes forbidding discrimination in all forms, if not in their constitution. Showing that registry laws are discriminatory is child’s play – just change “sex offender” (or any synonymous term) to “black” (or any other minority). That registrants aren’t a “protected class” is irrelevant because determining who is worthy of protection against discrimination is itself discriminatory.

      No sanctions should apply once sentences are served, period. REASONABLE restrictions while on paper are one thing and should be based on individual circumstances, not the crime of conviction. Using the so-called reasoning applied to registrants, convicted burglars would not be allowed within 1000′ of any government, commercial or residential building, convicted arsonists wouldn’t be allowed to possess or be within 1000′ of anything flammable, and convicted car thieves wouldn’t be allowed within 1000′ of any vehicle or place where vehicles might be (such as parking lots and home driveways). Several state supreme courts have already held that blanket restrictions are unconstitutional, but I’m still waiting to see it filter down locally.

      Striking down registration requirements (as you put it) is going to have to come from the courts. Legislators are cowards. None of them want to lose their seats and face the possibility of returning to private practice as lawyers (90 percent of them have failed there already), particularly if they haven’t fluffed up their Rolodex enough to make a living as a lobbyist. Federal courts are probably the way to go, but only in front of judges that don’t aspire to higher courts. Terribly pessimistic, I know. But there it is…

      • USA the 2nd

        Your comment is absurd! Comparing sex offenders with blacks. They didn’t choose their skin color. But you chose to commit a sex crime against a child. See the difference? People tend to get comfortable on this forum and start believing they can get away with making dumb comments without somebody checking them.

        • Austin

          @USA the 2nd, i do agree that this is not the same. I am on the registry for something that i did not do while in the military that i contested. I served the entire sentence that was handed out and Over a decade later it still impacts me, my kids and my wife. There is no method to be removed, ample evidence that it doesn’t help society and hurts others.

          The scary thing for anyone who is familiar with the real impact on lives is that the government can get away with something that is fairly easy to identify as punishment by saying that it is civil. Although this is easy to apply to a group as loathed as people on the registry, the impact is they will now use the precedent to apply retroactive “Criminal” laws and all they have to do is add verbiage to the law explaining how it is only civil. They can now do whatever the hell they want.

          The right answer here is to stop this nonsense, if they are going to punish people write it into the sentencing, let the judge/jury decide on duration and methods based on the person and their crime. Then it is completely legal and doesn’t give the government a blank check for this type of activity.

        • Huh?

          And that’s going to be you?

        • Dustin @ USA the 2nd

          I wasn’t comparing sex offenders to blacks. I suggested changing the term in whatever statute to show that the statute is discriminatory. A law or rule doesnt become non-discriminatory by simply changing the affected target.

          And no one chose to become registrants, whether they chose to commit the crime that put them there or not.

        • Will Allen

          Dustin did not compare “sex offenders with blacks”. Try harder. Be smarter.

        • Gralphr

          No, his comment is correct, because the registry IS a sort of jim crow 2.0, and the same lies used to discriminate against black people in the past are being used against people on the registry. Breaking the law does NOT give the excuse to deny constitutional rights. The Nazis pretty much considered the Jews criminals and in their mind justified what they did to them. One can compare sex offender laws and SORNA and they are extremely comparable (minus the gas chambers).

      • Ed C

        Dustin I generally enjoy your comments. I think in this case, a better analogy could be drawn between sex offenders and pre-Stonewall gays. In that era, gays were arrested, harassed, banished and marginalized merely for their sexual orientation. Sound familiar? They are now a “protected class” as embodied in both law and court decisions. It will be a long fight before SOs could obtain that status, if ever. Although I’ve read that some psychologists consider pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Even with that, the very rare true pedophile is not punished for his/her sexual orientation, but for actions.

        Millard is another example of how difficult a frontal assault in the courts will be. Registration cases turn on the individual details. The courts rarely make broad findings, but tend to focus on individual claims in a particular case. The SC did not say that registration is not punishment. It held that the Alaska implementation did not constitute punishment. Nor did it draw a line in the sand by saying what would constitute punishment. The Millard case dealt with relatively benign SO requirements compared to the more draconian states like Florida.

        In one of these blogs, someone suggested that a lawsuit could be brought by family members rather than the registrant himself. The initial hurdle would be with the question of standing, as the legislation is not directed at them. However they suffer direct harm from residency restrictions perhaps leading to homelessness. There are other collateral harms such as loss of parental income and school participation. Courts would view children in a much more sympathetic light than SOs. Just a thought, but I’m rambling.

        Veritas.

    • New Person

      @Read the Decision wrote:

      “Finally, it holds the state isn’t the one doing bad things, it is simply making information available, and it is the public who is doing what they do.”

      ***
      I want to amend that to say “making private information public”.

      If this is the tactic, then I suggest, again, that ACSOL emphasizes the California 1972 amendment of “inalienable right to privacy”, which is to be left alone. It is the only privacy right that stands alone and doesn’t need any other amendment to support it. If this right can be lost, then it can also be regained.

      In 1972, there was no Megan’s law and only the local PD had that private information. Also, registrants who earned 1203.4 had a way off the registry, though it was due to in-person re-registration as a form of punishment as it was quasi-criminal such that it restricted travel and intrusive into an individual’s life, which was decided in 1958, Kelly v Municipal. No one really addressed 1203.4’s second immunity, “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.” Remember, ‘the inalienable right to privacy’ was not amended into law until 1972 and Kelly decision was in 1958.

      The current registry now posts private information for all to see as well as shares private information to many agencies despite some registrants having the immunity to not have their private information shown. Also, the current registry prevent a registrant from looking at their own information online, deeming it a criminal act. THIS IS IMPORTANT: The right to privacy protects accurate information. The state of California is denying an individual from reviewing their personal information is accurate. Janice had caught the state not updating its information.

      Link to CA’s right to privacy academic law review: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Kelso-Californias-Constitutional-Right-to-Privacy.pdf

      Why are California registrants excluded from this inalienable right that should not only help protect registrants, but also give a proper pathway to regain the lost inalienable right now that the registry has expanded from only the PD having that information to distributing that information to several agencies as well as to the world? Why are those who earn the 1203.4 not earn the Constitutional right to regain said privacy when it is specifically stated within the 1203.4 statute said information is dismissed which is supported by the 1972 amendment? (Also note, the state of California has not recorded any recidivism tracking since 1958 to the present to identify the need to push de-registration from probationary period to 10 years.)

      Why are we not putting California’s ‘inalienable right to privacy’ to the test? The loss of that right is punishment as it is a specifically stated right to all Californians. Maryland used its specific constitution to win cases. We have ‘the right to pursue and obtain’ written into CA constitution and there exists a lifetime term to distribute private information. The moment distribution occurs is the moment ‘the right to privacy’ law should be enforced. The loss of privacy for a lifetime term removes the possibility of ‘pursuing and obtaining’ said constitutional right and should be deemed “cruel and unusual punishment” since losing a constitutional right is punishment.

      Also, despite that some CA registrants can be removed from the registry via the CoR (Certificate of Rehabilitation) or a Governor’s pardon, the blanket labeling of ‘a lifetime registrant’ in California is an inaccurate record. If one has the potentiality to be removed from the registry scheme where the term is binary, the lifetime term or CoR/Pardon, then the labeling is false. That labeling has prevented the ability to restrict registrants such as restricting access to HUD help.

      CA’s ‘inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy’ is a constitutional right that stands on its own. Losing that constitutional right should be deem punishment. Also, 1203.4 inadvertently aligns with CA constitutional ‘right to privacy’ specifically with “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.” How can the state distribute information or accusation that the court explicitly declares no longer exists?

  3. Brandon

    Same song and dance Smith is the law of the land it’s civil not punishment. I hate this country with a passion and even if I wasn’t a registrant I would feel this way. Since I’m a monster in this country allow me to move and give up my citizenship; which I’m more than happy to do. Screw the United States and every institution of this evil corrupt country!!

    • Gralphr

      I totally agree with you. Why should I have any respect for a country that continues to harass me over 20 years after my conviction and 13+ years after my confinement with zero problems with leo. I got out, went to school, have married, have children, and work a job. I was in my early 20s when convicted and am approaching my mid 40s and still I’m harassed, with lies of being dangerous, all by a country that goes around the world bullying and bombing others into submission. I too spit on the fake flag of justice and liberty of all.

  4. Resident

    Smith v Doe needs to be overturned. A bad decision influenced by poor statistics and worse judgement.

    If the feds get their way, the punishment will be more onerous than simply mailing a form, like what was described in that case. Dual citizenship will need to be reported, we will have to report everywhere we go, and we will never be free from the long arm of the government.

    What has to happen for this to be ruled punishment? Do the stocks need to come back? Do we need to be paraded through the streets? I am at a loss as to how this can continue.

    If that’s how it has to be, we will continue the fight.

    • w

      They’re doing it to protect their system and cut down the chance of any registrant rising up and getting strong enough to challenge it. Keeping registrants subdued by a civil system that they want to be able to enforce with prosecution now.

      And they’re doing it using whatever case example will convince the people that the registry is needed, be it Epstien or a homeless offender with a crazy booking photo. It’s about reinforcing the image.

      • Resident

        The state wants to continue the carecal state, no surprise. The registry is really just bad precedent. Then again, it wasn’t as if black codes were struck down in a decade….

        I honestly think this needs to be attacked by an outsider. A spouse, child, or someone who lives with a person under this. It will much, much harder for the courts to say “legislative intent” for bystanders. Especially in CA with right to privacy enumerated.

        • SR

          I think so as well. A mother and her children being the plaintiffs will make it a lot more difficult for the judge to say “All the BS you’re experiencing is fine because it’s not directly meant to be punitive. It’s just collateral damage that we’re totally cool with because it’s supposed to protect children. And your and your children’s sacrifice is needed”.

        • Brandon

          How can courts say it wasn’t the legislators intent as punitive; yet the rules keep getting worse each year? You can call something anything you want; but this is complete incompetence and this country deserves to be burnt to the ground. Ed Snowden was right about the government and its intrusion on our privacy. Special place in hell for these traitors!!!

        • Will Allen

          @Brandon:

          Yep.

          Timothy McVeigh was right also. Government is the biggest bully around. Bullies understand one thing only.

          Remember that Registry Supporters/Terrorists are not people. They are not our fellow citizens. They are not Americans. They are harassers who cannot mind their own business or leave other families alone. We need have no concern for them or their families. They harm People Forced to Register, their spouses, and their children. They deserve the same.

      • David

        For my next Registration photo, I want to wear a high-necked shirt with the collar bearing the words: “My offense was 25+ yrs ago. When does punishment end??”

        • M C

          @David, I think that’s an excellent idea. Everyone should do this. They will probably make you cover it somehow though.

        • SR

          I like that. I might do that as well. Maybe add to mine “Level 3 for an upskirt photo”.

        • Will Allen

          I’ve thought about some nice shirts as well. But my local criminal regime only photographs the face.

          I’d like “Fuck Registry Supporters/Terrorists”.

          Or perhaps “People who support Registries are dumbfucks.”

        • Brandon

          @ David

          Or you could have a t shirt with “ lowest recidivism rates” or “Supreme Court got it wrong” or “ Registrant lives matter” ?

  5. JohnDoeUtah

    I contacted Ty Gee to see if they plan to appeal.

    My fees challenge was stayed pending this decision. I might have to consider dismissing my case if they don’t appeal.

    • TS

      @JDUtah

      Did you ask Ty Gee about an “en banc” review by the 10th? Maybe query the ACLU who worked with him?

  6. JoeHillsGhost

    Of course, the registry cannot possibly be punitive because the (insert your state here) legislature says it isn’t meant to be punitive.

    This decision seems to be the difference between judges who consider the law to be so many words on paper and a judge who takes into account the real world effects of those laws.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      This court ignores the effects, and writes them off as non-government actors policies.

      I’m not sure that the effects test cares where the effects arise? If the law cause the general population to severely marginalize those subject to the law, the effect is punitive.

  7. Tim in WI

    The purveyors of database will use every excuse to maintain their ungodly authority upon the government ” of the people . ” Ubiquitous nature or not the system is corrupted by profiteers.
    The people know it and they will continue to protests and if necessary burn it to the ground.

    • David

      @ Tim in WI: Interesting that you should mention that. Maryland decided to contract with one of those corrupt database operators, “OffenderWatch” which, in its operations, failed to provide for the public safety by not listing information required by the State of Maryland. So OffenderWatch gets the contract and the money but fails to do what the State requires …. yet gets to keep the contract?? How does that work?? And will OffenderWatch also be taking over the registration process and address/compliance verification?? Hmmm, that very much does sound like a money-making scheme to me.

      WJLA: Maryland mom discovers vital info vanishes from Sex Offender Registry.

      http://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-side/maryland-mom-discovers-vital-info-vanishes-from-sex-offender-registry

      • Brandon

        Offenderwatch is as useless as putting Lysol on you to prevent COVID or using a plugger on a toilet where water is already above the rim with water all over the floor.

        Maryland gave away our privacy in a decision in the 1970’s where it was decided that phone records don’t belong to you; but the phone company. So big government can get your data anytime they want it; even when a crime hasn’t been committed. Personal data belongs to human beings not companies or government!! Sounds like those sci fi movies are getting closer to reality.

        • TS

          But wait, @Brandon, the Lysol label (spray or wipes) says it kills coronavirus, so it must, right? Just like the registry makes people safe with public info being readily available to all because no punishing harm is done to anyone on the registry, right? Asking for nearly 1M registry friends (and their families)…

          OffenderWatch appears to be in direct competition w/SMART from DOJ with the ability to share info via their portal instead of the USG SMART portal (which @AJ shared with us recently). Wow, not wanting to use big brother’s data system….who woulda thunk?!

        • Tim in WI

          David & Brandon,

          It is referred to as ” commoditization ” of citizens personal data. As part of that strategy one must also secure ( by law) the free flow ( unfettered by regulations) of potential information data and secure ( by law) certain liability protection (Fed Sec.230) from any potential consequences from tort claims sustained entirely from the flow of information data.

          Judge Matsch expressed his rightful opinion in Millard as a well trained & experienced litigator that began with the advantage set in the states favor.
          This is not unlike the case here in WI visa 2nd circuit reversing the Decision in Ramesch. That circuit court ruled the annual registration fee (WI $100.00) cumulatively punitive and in excess of the law regarding forfeiture limits on class B felonies that in WI Angeles.

          In a nation of free men, women and children subservience to database machine properties is an unnatural disposition humans would reject it outright if not marketed correctly. Naturally such an inhuman relative disposition would need tending.

  8. Saddles

    @Tim in WI. May I ask you how did you come up with this data base theory. When I was in my criminal Justice Classes back in college still wondering about the vocation that many want to persue. Did we ever study to get caught up in this registry. One wonders fi many thought about actions.

    Justice is as easy as one saying guilty or not guilty or do we all hide with second thought theories. I had an comment about this Mcenery, this presidents press secretary that I was ready to bring to ASCOL but I decided that that would not be wise to present on ACSOL and disrespectful in the issue we are all concerned about.

    Even the sex offender registry can effect other aspects of life, government, political views, and is not just a one sided affair. Sure people will run the gamet with and say well we are doing these operations to protect. One can even wonder why some letters or e-mails if thats the case never get noticed and are brused under the rug so to speak.

    One wonders if those without sin cast the first stone was a database theory or a dose of truth? Now isn’t government about truth and true justice or should we all stand up for life, whether its black lifes matter, killing babies as some view, abuse of power in many governmental forms or just be silent and be of good cheer. We all try in doing the best for our fellow man and we can all have mis-guided views at times and yes even government can cover up in many ordeals.

    Many can case shadow’s and many can cast justice so who is mixed in this view or does “We the people” have any say today when government goes in a kayos. Should we call in agent 99.

  9. Joe123

    They don’t consider residency restrictions as restraint.

    That state doesn’t have the brightest people huh? I mean how dumb of a human being do you have to be to think that residency restrictions for people isn’t a restraint on their freedoms.

    They need to get this case in front of people with some practicality in their brains.

    I believe in other more civilized countries, this type of ridiculous reasoning wouldn’t work.

    • Tim in WI

      Joe123,

      There is affirmative disability in the loss of the right to remain silent as to: Where one reeides, works, volunteers, groups associated & participate, attend school, etc, etc etc….!

  10. M C

    @Brandon, I’m not sure half the legislators that have voted for strict registry laws even agree with them. They just don’t disagree enough to put their job on the line. When I had to go through a treatment program years ago, I had to attend a quarterly workshop which normally involved a guest speaker. One time they brought a state legislator who had actually worked on the judiciary committee and talked at length about them. During Q&A he basically admitted that they weren’t useful but that if he took that stance he wouldn’t even get past the primaries. So while he wasn’t adamantly opposed to them he still thought they were useless but had to vote for them so he could continue his political career.

    • Brandon

      @ MC

      I don’t doubt that legislators think the registry is useless; yet use it to advance their career. I blame this on the United States Supreme Court using false statistics from Psychology Today; which has been carried like gospel since 03. What happens when half the country is registered and the legislators along with government officials painted themselves into a corner. I hope Cobras are in the corner with them because they deserve to be scared. They put people’s lives in jeopardy all because of hate that they created.

  11. Saddles

    @ MC. You make a good point about these classes one has to go thru. I have even mentioned about my classes in this tug of war game of freedom and human justice. The overdog fights the underdog in this political pawn game. So were does that leave the sex offender, stripped of rights, freedom, having to ask premission to wear a mask before walking out his or her front door. One wonders how many sleeping pills one has to tell their PO they take.

    Sure we all can talk about civil rights, BLM, Cherokee tribes, go back to the Rifleman days or Don King days of boxing promotions or live with a internet bible thumper type of knowledge. So where does one look for the brightest star in todays undercover-up ‘s.

    The sex offender is a good issue starter or someone is not eating his spinish. I’m sure many don’t understand the values of life today or are many things played out in court procedures today.
    Seems guessing games are for light weights or where is the heavypwweights today. Stand up is everyone’s right. One wonders today who studies to shw thyself apporved today in many matters. Wether its buying boot-leg wiskey from those moonshiners in WV,KY or carring it to the men in the California Gold rush days.

    Seems people are so fixed and fascinated on this internet that that is the common defeensse today and the voice of reasoning has lost its power. In the end who brings back liberty and justice for all. Believe it or not this virus is hear for a reason that mankind has no control over.

    When government usurps their authority in any matter some crazy and bias things can happen. United we stand or divided we fall its up to every one no matter what situation one is in to bring to the table justice for all.

  12. G4Change

    Now we have to federal circuits (this one and the recent Michigan one) with two very different outcomes. NOW WHAT?????

    • M C

      @G4Change Eventually that is one reason that can be used to get the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

  13. JohnDoeUtah

    Notice they didn’t mention Does v. Snyder even once, even though Judge Matsch referenced it several times in his reasoning.

  14. AERO1

    If sexofenders really wanted to bring down the IML punishment BS all they have to do is follow the blue print Africa Americans have set.
    In the very beginning of the civil rights movement people were to scared to stand up and speak out against LE and the government who oppressing them but when people started geting together organizing and protesting thats when they started getting the government’s attention and things started to change.
    Sexofenders obviously have the numbers and the government knows this there literally afraid of a up rising and as the registry grows bigger the sexofender community grows bigger and Washington’s plots to contain them gets even bigger that’s why they keep adding new laws every day.
    The government isn’t stupid they know this whole situation is a ticking time bomb that’s why their trying to relieve pressure by leting people off the register after years of proclaiming in the name of Public Safety life time sexofender registration is necessary.
    If you don’t think the FBI is watching ACSOL Janice Bellucci and her team you are highly mistaken just look at all the hard work this organization has done for registrant’s in the state of California that scares the crap out of them their biggest fear is ACSOL.
    They’re afraid of 100.000 sexofenders showing up at the state capitol demanding there civil rights they know that would change the public’s perspective on the whole situation and that would differently destroy lML.
    The government uses fear to keep sexofender in line and their #1 fear tactic is incarceration everybody knows how prison gangs feel about sexofenders and there’s a 50% chance they could be raped and killed while in prison because every person forced to register in California knows the sheriff’s department turns a blind eye to sexofenders be attacked while in custody.

    Good luck

    • TS

      @Aero1

      Not sure about FBI watching ACSOL, NARSOL, FAC, et al, but certainly some in DOJ could very well be considering there are some very sharp minds in the forums of those entities who bring cred to the discussions and possibly ideas which other did not think of.

      • w

        We’ll get there but it’s going to take some bold actions now. You have to be willing to risk being in violation for EVERYTHING. You have to become a ghost, give up your old life and any hopes of ever seeing it again, and just straight up exist as the odd one out.

        All million of you guys need to throw-in with the effort. Even those who were making it just fine in the system. It takes an all-out refusal of compliance. Which at this point was going to be inevitable since they can’t bare to see even ONE out of compliance anyway. You guys don’t get that YOU DONT MATTER. Yes, the compliant ones skirting by and jumping as they’re told don’t matter. As long as ONE or a few are out of compliance THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE. The “free” ones are the threat, they know and see the truth. The system is rigged and they can keep rigging it at will, no matter what you’ve been led to believe or what they’ve promised.

        It’s a decision each person has to face but regardless the pyramid-scheme is easy to see. Why play nice if they were never intending to do so from the start?

      • Gralphr

        I agree. There needs to be a real march on Washington or the state capital of California with speeches, etc. By professionals, families affected, and registrants. Only then will this subject be forced into the media and pointed out as the illegal/unconstitutional law that it is. All news programs would have it on TV, the world such as places with real human rights like Europe would comment on it being a human rights violation, and people could even show how in ways its comparable to jim crow and Nazi Germany. Right now the government gets its way due to very little resistance and no real media pointing out the constitutional violations. Being on TV like that, it woukd show how its changed drastically through the years, and show the Supreme Court as corrupted in that it willingly ignores constitutional rights in its quest to only rule favorably what the public wants and not what the rule of law says.

  15. texasdude

    “Today’s ruling is a major victory for public safety advocates,” Attorney General Hunter said. “Sex offenders are violent, and are statistically speaking, some of the most likely to reoffend. Online sex offender registries allow the public to know who among them is a child predator or has been convicted of rape. To hide this information in order to make individuals convicted of these crimes feel more comfortable is utterly irresponsible. Anyone advocating for this position should talk to victims and survivors of these types of crimes, who will forever remain scarred by these horrific acts, to find out why the registry systems are important.”

    Wow! Ok… still using the old line, hook, and sinker

    https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/524456255/attorney-general-hunter-comments-on-10th-circuit-ruling-colorado-sex-offender-registry-must-remain-available-to-public

    • SR

      He’s stating a bold faced lie without any ambiguity. He might as well have declared the Earth is flat.

    • AG Hunter is full of lies

      If survivors say they want a registry what is the Attorney General smoking. Most want to ask the person why they did the crime and how it impacted their life. Not every survivor is a victim. Just like not every registrant is a threat. Irresponsible no good pompous attorney general that needs to be disbarred for spreading lies.

    • Will Allen

      Attorney General Mike Hunter is a lying P.O.S. He desperately deserves consequences.

      Today, I ensured the Registries were worthless. That isn’t going to stop. As long as Registries exist, I’m going to be around random families and children all the time. It is trivial to do. It is the proper, moral thing to do.

      Wage war.

      • HopingForHope

        @Will Allen- You know it’s interesting when you think about it. We hear all the time about people being charged for FTR when what they’re doing is clearly over the line, ie, moving without notifying authorities, taking a job at a day care center, spending 5 days a week at your girlfriend’s house along with her two very young daughters when you were charged with a 288(a) and not disclosing that, etc. I get that stuff. But I have never seen a case where someone gets prison time for FTR because they stopped at a McDonalds while taking a long road trip so their kid could go to the bathroom when that particular McDonald’s happened to have a play area, or getting arrested for spending 3 and a half days instead of 3 in a state where you are required to report within 3 days, or you stayed at a hotel that happened to be 1,000 feet instead of 2,000 from a playgound in a state that prohibits you from staying closer than 2,000 feet, etc. There are thousands of these laws across all 50 states, some completely ludicrous. I have researched Google, and you will be very, very hard pressed to find ANY news coverage for someone being arrested and charged for something other than things that we all agree would be over the top. And believe me, if someone was arrested for any of these minor infractions, it WOULD be covered. Arrests are in the public record. Media organizations cover it. The reason you don’t hear about it is because everyone is doing these things anyway. The authorities cannot possibly monitor the activities of a one million registrants. This is why the registries are such a joke. Throw someone in prison for stopping at a McDonalds? Throw someone in prison because their business trip lasted 12 hours longer than they could have planned for?
        What a f@%* up set of priorities.

        • M C

          @HopingForHope, Some of what you are talking about are violating restrictions rather than FTR but that’s largely irrelevant to this response. I am speaking from the standpoint of being out of the area where people are likely to know you however. I’d imagine that nearly all of these violations go undetected because unless you actually do something wrong or someone there recognizes you it would be difficult to for anyone to even know. Even if you have relatively minor contact with the police, chances are good if you are out of state they would not be checking your information in the FBI database that would be required to look at in order to know that you are actually violating their rule. They would only probably find you out if you actually committed or were believed to have been committing some sort of crime. Additionally restrictions placed by local authorities such as cities may not even be able to be prosecuted as criminal and may only involve fines depending on what authority has been conferred to the local governments by the state. I wouldn’t assume that they wouldn’t prosecute this sort of thing if it is discovered though.

          The other thing is that in most instances and especially when traveling out of state you still have your rights and this is especially true if not on probation. Because of these rights, none of us should talk to the police and in many cases may not even have the requirement to identify themselves to LE. Even in Stop and Identify states LE must still generally meet the Terry Stop requirements (Terry v. Ohio) for detention before they can make you ID yourself. Even then to expand the stop to check your offender status may still not be permissible. Criteria while driving may be different than this so be aware of that. If you happen to be in a place where you don’t know about prohibited areas at the very least you can always fall back on these rights to avoid detection and potential prosecution for a law you don’t know. Coincidentally, these rights are the same reasons that I think you don’t have to respond in any way to compliance checks for the most part while not on probation.

          Its probably impossible to actually get caught in for these relatively minor infractions unless you are doing something illegal, around someone doing something illegal or someone who knows you are on the registry claims you are in violation of the rules. That is highly unlikely when you are out of your local jurisdiction and even less likely out of state.

        • Will Allen

          Hmm, I don’t know. It would be interesting to see all of the stats/details for specific jurisdictions. I do feel like I’ve read of some really, really outrageous arrests. Too late to think much about it though. One that comes immediately to mind though was when the criminal regime of Georgia arrested George Edenfield for not moving out of his home quickly enough (because it was suddenly “too close” to a park) and 3 days after they convicted him of that “felony”, he retaliated by murdering 6 year old Christopher Barrios. That was an idiotic, useless arrest.

          But I don’t know how often nonsensical arrests happen. I certainly would never assume that the douchebags will not arrest you just because something is stupid and trivial. In fact, just as I right this, I do recall reading not long ago at all about a guy being arrested just for eating in a fast food restaurant.

          You gave a bunch of examples of “what they’re doing is clearly over the line”. I guess that you mean they are over the line simply with respect to the illegal “laws”. Because I don’t see anything actually wrong with doing any of the things you listed.

  16. TS

    Here are my thoughts after 24 hrs of digesting the bad news on a road trip to relax the mind and body from the world of today…

    1) What are @AJ’s thoughts on this?

    2) Based upon my discussions with some legal folks familiar with the 10th Justices, one of the Justices was already against this appeal from the beginning and a “reverse” vote. We don’t see what the vote count actually was in the end or a published dissent (obviously or if any), so the 10th is hiding behind this basic opinion piece regurgitating cases to fit a popular narrative.

    3) The opinion author cannot get it right when the registry concept started in CA (1947) as mentioned here recently, not the 1990’s. (A ticky tacky point but if you are going to discuss the idea, discuss the true genesis of it and it’s growth since)

    4) When will the courts mature into cogent thinking entities of today with today’s matters at stake with today’s realities when it comes to understanding not all intents are described accurately using ordinary English but do provide real punishments anyway and the public acts as they do?

    5) Would like to know why the court did not address any of the Amici briefs detailing facts of today and other court opinions, e.g. 6th CCoA, etc, as @JDUtah noted, when writing their opinion here? They just fell into the shadow of other established cases giving them, in my opinion (and maybe their minds), solid ground to opine from. That begs, in my mind, “Why take nearly two years to reach this point and only provide this doc?” Seems any fresh law school grad new to clerkship could’ve done this in 90 days after oral arguments. Something is missing here. Judge Matsch is probably shaking his head in disappointment at his fellow jurists. Critical thinking appears to be MIA.

    I won’t miss the daily checking of the 10th CCoA appeals opinions published page for the opinion, but it was part of a long established 18 mo daily routine. Glad I check here first for the scoop after seeing the opinion had been published so I knew what I was going to see (and easier to read on a phone outside of a gas station restroom when I checked).

    Side note – Can anyone get this doc (I cannot) from Harvard Law Review: Prevention versus Punishment: Toward a Principled Distinction in the Restraint of Released Sex Offenders (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1342027?seq=1) An interesting first page clip to read if you are interested and should lead to more thinking on this topic.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      The judge in Snyder specifically stated that the decision was not contrary to Smith v Doe. They stated that based on the framework of Smith v Doe, and the evidence, that the registry today is punitive.

      The other Circuits fail to actually look at the case, and lazily use prior cases (which are highly distinguished) to keep these laws in place.

      • Tim in WI

        Bio157,
        Thx for posting the link. A must read for those here.

        Courts still fail the contemplate the role of the database and it’s use. No reasonable person can object to anyone from having a database of PROVEN had actors(criminals).
        One may however contest it’s accuracy, efficiency and it’s obvious collateral misuse.

        Registration IMHO is plain indenture to STATE property maintenance. In other words, slavery repackaged in cyber terms. Many, many, many business types initially rejected the idea of profitable E-Biz. They did not believe it would work and BE profitable because it required free input from users- free labor input. They were wrong because they held onto the common thought (traditional notions) of property maintenance where folks would demand pay in E-Biz the same way all demand wages for performing tasks. About the time Rupert Murdoch @580million(2005) the people began to see just how viable and formidable E-biz can be.

      • TS

        Thanks @Biol57 for the link to the doc I asked about and ability to read it at my leisure through downloading.

  17. Ditto

    The lower courts have to abide by Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 and have no choice until it is revisited or overturned by SCOTUS, which isn’t likely to happen to a satisfactory degree (even if it does get chipped away a bit without states patching the “loophole”).

    The best bet would be a whole new attack by families of RCs who have well documented facts that prove the public registry is an excessive burden on spouses, children and possibly other friends and family. Then the government would have to limit the registry to a non-internet one that required “concerned citizens” to visit police stations, show IDs, state a risk reason, and then they could view the state or national registry, which is how it began in the ’90s.

    “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly or otherwise invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws. The guaranty of ‘equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.’ …. When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as an invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment.”

    SKINNER v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, Decided June 1, 1942
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/535

    The key here is that the family is de facto listed on the registry as being at the same location under color of the same regulation, and has committed NO OFFENSE AT ALL. How that equal protection?

    • David V C

      If you look for it, in the judgment it is openly confessed that the public can ( and does) punish us and the legislative branch cannot be held responsible because it can only be ‘punitive’ in the court if it is done by the government.
      In other words, as long as it is only the public punishing us and our families, and not the government, the courts will not take our side.

      • Ditto

        @David V C,

        Your comment could be a little too vague to know if it is a reply to my comment above. If it is a reply, please quote the section you refer to. But the essence of the Skinner argument is in the concurring opinions pertaining to due process, which should have been an issue in Smith vs. Doe. Was it Justice Breyer or Stevens that said he would consider a different outcome on due process grounds if that were before the court?

        A family that lives at the same address as that listed on the registry should have due process rights. It is the government that publishes the address on the Internet, not the neighbors or public. Can the government justify that on due process grounds? Is that more than is necessary to accomplish its public safety ends? The court could weigh the burden of the public visiting a police station to view the registry verses the burden on the family that happens to also live at the same residence listed on the Internet. While it is true the state would not be cutting to sterilize, it would be death by a thousand cuts to a child bullied due to the registry.

        • TS

          @Ditto

          Great thinking and some I wish a legal professional would look into for possibly following up in court. While the family does not register, they’re impacted all the same by the registry’s legislative non-intended actions to those on it at the hands of society.

        • M C

          I don’t know if anyone has read this but this is an interesting article about how one could attempt to change the narrative for what is considered punishment and have it accepted by the courts: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2431318

      • TS

        @David V C

        Please cite the section(s) to which you refer or where the tone you mention is prevalent. I did not read it the same, but it does not mean it is not there and I could if i know where to look. Thanks.

      • Ditto

        @David V C

        Read it, got it. You are referring to Millard v. Rankin and you got it right. In fact, it looks like most (all?) of the arguments were already settled by 10th Cir. precedent, mostly relying on Smith vs. Doe.

    • Tired Old Man

      Florida has been accepting donations for exactly that family members of RC’s

  18. Saddles

    @ Austin. I feel sorry for the way military treated you and the reprocussions and what you had to endure. Banning someone out of the service is bad enough but government seems to want to make an example out of many of these ordeals. While these ordeal can effect anyone no matter what race or religous afficlation they are in. And yes even discrimination and homelife is bad enough it is a bit too much. The United States Government should be ashamed of itself. Much of this is ensnarement.

    Sure A.D.A.T. and many of you all talk about this hyprocricy and it is that. Thats why speaking out is so important, Writing letters, etc. All I had was a potty tongue , their was no children involved. So who can tame the tongue. Even the bible can tell one that. So were does the sword of true Justice Come in.

    Even many police will cover up their actions. And now we all look for positive answers to reason this out. I have no ill grudges against anyone but being taken advantaged of – is what it is untill it is – what it ain’t.

  19. Brandon

    What Americans need to understand is these laws deal with regrants now, but will creep on your doorstep before you know it and then you can look as dumb as you do now. Wake the fuck up!!!

  20. Saddles

    I’ve tried to stay out of this case issue that people are talking about with this CO: decision. I myself can’t even understand this myself. Excuse me if I’m not that bright at law cases. See I never looked at this with case reviews. The bible’s case reviews and examples are good enough for me. Even the bible says the wisdom of this world is foolishness to man.

    While the bible says beware of the scribes and Pharisees. Seems like we are all smack dab in all this mess one way or another. So who’s playing with who’s conscious to put this mark on you. As Will Allen said its too late to think. Its never to late to use truth and understanding. Hey I wanted to go to court but one had to reason this all out. One wonders if more people are standing uo in court today than taking a plea deal from say 8 or 8 yrs ago. The courts know how to railroad people and I suspect many were railroad in this mess. True understanding will come out in the wash.

    Yes we all try to find the answer, even the answer to make peace with each fellow person but remember Jesus came with a sword. So who’s playing the prostitute in this registry game while we all look to find a reason to understand to find the truth of this American Justice. Even Brandon says to wake up in all this craziness.

  21. M C

    @Gralphr, the media wouldn’t even pick the story up unless there was no way they could avoid it. If they did pick it up they would spin the story as a bunch of pedophiles demanding they be allowed to hide so they can get at children undetected.

  22. Brandon

    I guess more civil non punishment restrictions will be flying across governor’s desk across the country. Don’t really except freedom from a country that considers Saudi Arabia a friend. Buckle up folks it’s going to get bumpy as we continue whack a mole with the government and whack a troll online!!

  23. TS

    The national office pub’d a good write up on this case which provides perspective on it if you are interested in some leisurely reading: https://narsol.org/2020/08/registration-not-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-says-tenth-circuit/

    • JohnDoeUtah

      I still think Judge Matsch had it correct when he said that by putting people on the registry, they are saying “danger-stay away,” but then don’t want to take responsibility for the public’s reaction.

      The effects, are a direct consequence of the government’s action. Passing it off as a collateral consequence is B.S. They know the effect is punitive, but they claim ignorance and hide behind it like a shield.

  24. JohnDoeUtah

    Contacted that ACLU of CO attorneys of the case on Thursday, still no feedback.

  25. JohnDoeUtah

    Just received word from CO ACLU, no en banc, no appeal to SCOTUS.

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 *

.