ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (04/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings




ACSOL Board Member Ira Ellman Publishes Scholarly Work Claiming Registry Regime Is Motivated by Animus, Should Be Stricken


ACSOL Board Member Ira Ellman has published a scholarly work that claims the registry regime is motivated by animus and should be stricken.  This conclusion is based upon an analysis of four relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions in which the Court determined what constitutes animus and struck down existing laws on that basis.

According to Ellman’s work, “(n)o similar regime has ever been imposed on any other group of law-abiding former felons who have fully served the sentence for the crime they committed years earlier”.  The work also concludes that the registry raises a “strong an inference of animus” and that inference of animus “does not survive the scrutiny of scientific studies which find the registry ineffective and often counterproductive”.

In addition to serving as an ACSOL board member, Ellman is the author of “Frightening and High,” a scholarly work published in 2017 which revealed that the U.S. Supreme Court relied in the past on unsubstantiated statements in a “Psychology Today” magazine article when it determined that the requirement to register does not constitute punishment and therefore new sex offender laws could be applied retroactively.   Ellman is also a Distinguished Affiliated Scholar at the Center for Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley.

Download a PDF of the paper


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 truly hope the right kind of people read this. Thank you for your work!

I’d donate funds for a case to the supreme court to hear this argument. But I think the counter argument is that it was created not with ill intent and but with the guise of public safety. Of course we all know it was created with ill intent and by politicians taking advantage of tragedy to secure their six digit a year job in a position of power.

Even if the intent was pure, we’re well past the point of sticking with it given the evidence.

Like, many people truly believed burning witches at a steak was for the greater good. Literally for public safety. Likewise when we had the Japanese concentration camps. That doesn’t mean we keep doing it once we have evidence to the contrary.

Once you have hard evidence (which we do in spades), the initial intent is irrelevant. At this point, harm is the only intent remaining since ignorance of reality can no longer be claimed.

Let’s not forget Chastleton v. Sinclair (, as well as later SCOTUS and lower-court decisions. From the Holding (i.e. Opinion), not just the dicta, of Chastleton: “A law depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change.” Clearly the “facts”, if you wish to call them that, from Smith v. Doe have changed, thus requiring de novo review. Though decided in 1924, Chastleton and its progeny are still good case-law, even though sparingly used.

I’m ready to donate funds as well. Glad to see others are as well.

Well if it’s counter productive that could only mean one thing. It was thought of by people who had deviant sexual interests, and were coming down hard lest anybody should ever suspect them. Just like with Dennis Hastert.

same with pages and congress and their tricks promised to move up for sexual favors within DC, Sorry Spoyses, you didn’t know? terrible…yes Jack good job ASU Alumn. Ira.
Folks, this just might makes waves and review their ignorant uneducated RULING for non factual info from a old OPINION of a writer NOT a Pyschoanalyst nor Pysch nor MD writing…How Frightening and the old Scalia and others OG believed and voted on without NO FACTUAL INFO for the numbers! Shame on the SCOTUS back then!

Looking forward to this being read among all colleagues there in the big white house.

I find this paper interesting:

1) “After reviewing these practices of other countries, as well as the social science evidence, the Council of the American Law Institute has proposed a revision to the Model Penal Code, to be reviewed by the membership in June of 2021, that would eliminate entirely all publicly accessible websites listing “sex offenders”, as well as any other forms of general public notification concerning them, and prohibits or limits other collateral consequence currently applied to them alone.” That is a follow up to the ALI article published here on ACSOL earlier this year through this paper. Good to read this.

2) The additive punishment detailed in the NY v TX example is actually possible with the US DoD (UCMJ) when the US DoD feels the civilian punishment is not enough (was actually done and noted in a Virginia military case) and the example needs to be set for the military (but is NOT double jeopardy to the military member) through a court-martial of some sort. No one told the military member that at the recruiting station, did they?

3) He should’ve called out the fact Adam Walsh did go missing but it has not been established he had been actually sexually assaulted (though his parents surely believe the fact he did) as I have read.

I’d like to see Dr. Ellman or an esteemed colleague take on the DoD UCMJ related to Article 120, etc and the miscarriages of justice happening there because those convicted there are subjected to registry rules upon release.

It is well established in law that both the feds and a state can prosecute for the same actions without it being double jeopardy. This is a result of constitutional federalism where the states and the federal government are separate sovereigns which can be “offended” independently. Those dual prosecutions are not uncommon.

Since the military receives its jurisdiction due to it being part of the federal government, it would be double jeopardy for the military and federal civilian authorities to both prosecute. However, dual state and military prosecutions aren’t double jeopardy. The registry requirement from a UCMJ conviction attaches as it would with any other federal conviction.

Thanks @Ed C. I am well aware of these facts from my time in the military but appreciate it for the others here in the forum. I just beat the drum so others will hear it to realize the military legal system is sneaky about these things and no one is the wiser until trouble is brewing.

For those who are unaware of the “firepower” of ALI:

The ALI’s elite membership includes all the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the chief judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the chief judges of the highest state courts, deans of almost all law schools, and a limited number of law professors and distinguished private practitioners. All law students study the ALI’s “Restatements” of the law of many subjects, such as torts (including product liability), contracts, and other subjects. It also frequently drafts model laws that become statutes with few questions asked.


Here’s the URL listing the members of the ALI’s current Council:


Now if ALI only would address marked DLs/IDs like OK, FL, et al have and passports too…

Last edited 1 year ago by TS

If the ALI’s proposal passes, it would certainly encompass marked DLs/IDs. Their position is all the info should be LE-only and not publicized. That would have to include DLs/IDs.

Then come on ALI, pass the proposal! We have enough splitting of hairs in the world today through various methods, there is no need for more.

Thanks @AJ

To add to what @AJ wrote:

Model Penal Code:
Sexual Assault and Related OffensesThis project is re-examining Article 213 of the Model Penal Code, which was ahead of its time when approved by ALI in 1962, but is now outdated and no longer a reliable guide for legislatures and courts.

Legislatures do read what this org puts out for the next generation of laws.

Can I make a sizeable donation if it helps Ira Ellman to try to take on the registry as a whole?

I’m in the Northeast, so it may not help me directly, but let’s see what can be done.

Let me know.

I’m pretty sure “a sizable donation” is always appreciated. Heck, if nobody else will take it from you, give me a shout! 👍 😁 💰 💰

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ

I’m not a lawyer (I don’t even play one on TV), so please take my legal ruminations with the appropriate amount of salt.

So in the 6th Circuit, at least some provisions of Michigan’s SORA constitute punishment in effect and thus can violate ex post facto. This is also the basis for the recent TN decision. A question I would like to ask is, if the registry is punishment that violates ex post facto, does it also constitute a bill of attainder? Those two are mentioned in the same paragraph of the constitution. I’ve read that bills of attainder are also prohibited in all 50 state constitutions.

In my little pea brain, if a court were to declare a registration implementation as punishment violating ex post facto, then the argument could be made that punishment is being applied without a trial. In order to give citizens adequate notification, criminal statutes must clearly specify both the elements of a crime and the punishment for a violation. I have yet to see a statute that specifies registration, and certainly not specific provisions, as a component of statutory punishment.

A successful bill of attainder attack would be more sweeping than ex post facto decisions. If registration is considered punishment and a bill of attainder, then not just those whose crime was committed prior to legislation would be affected. If considered a bill of attainder a registration implementation itself might be invalidated.

Courts are not in agreement that registries are punishment. Tactically I think that a bill of attainder argument should wait until punishment is more clearly established. The courts are accustomed to seeing ex post facto claims which only affect a few registrants. Most judges would not want to issue a decision that would invalidate an entire registry, and might be prone to an unfavorable decision. We’ve seen how the 2003 Alaska decision started the not-punishment snowball rolling.


There was also a recent case where 1-2 people got off the registry as they were able to argue that being on the registry is a form of government restraint or being in custody.

It seems the pieces for taking the current system down are coming together.

I’m not too enthusiastic about donating to ex post facto litigation as it seems to be an open and shut case at this point. It also doesn’t seem to do anything for people that it doesn’t apply to.

We are indeed getting closer, Joe. There are not a lot of cases regarding bills of attainder. In a 1977 case involving Nixon, Justice Brennan concluded a bill of attainder must have three elements: 1) the law must specifically target individuals or groups (check); 2) it must inflict punishment; and 3) it must lack a provision for a judicial trial (check).

The only variable in that list is whether a specific state’s registration laws inflict punishment. The Court went on to describe three avenues to determine whether a law inflicts punishment. That is the piece of any argument that must be carefully crafted. Ira’s article raises some tantalizing possibilities. This could be one hell of a class action suit.

My other question is if recidivism is so low and most (93% to 95%) of sex crimes are committed by persons not on the registry, how is the registry “rationally” related to a valid public interest? Related yes, rationally no.


Very interesting and new viewpoint. I’d be ready to help fund legal efforts to a challenge like this.

Analysis of Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws are the same when it comes to judges and courts. The big difference is a BofA is an unconstitutional penalty imposed by the Legislative branch, whereas an EPF is one imposed by the Executive branch. However, in today’s bastardized system of government (“Administrative Branch”, anyone?) a BofA is hard to pull off because it would be enforced by the Executive Branch, making it an EPF violation (too). This helps explain why there’s a dearth of BofA case law.

As to the rationally related argument, I go back to my favorite SCOTUS case, Chastleton v. Sinclair. In that case, SCOTUS ruled that changed conditions compel a fresh judicial review to see if the laws are valid any longer. It’s long been my position that someone should, for argument’s sake, stipulate that SCOTUS was exactly right about “frightening and high” and the 80% claim. Then, one would go about attacking that by showing the stats are not what they were when SCOTUS said that, i.e. the conditions have changed. That would compel judicial review of the validity of the laws–the rational relationship.

It’s worth pointing out, too, that the SCOTU case that birthed “rational basis review” was US v Carolene Products Co., specifically Footenote 4 of that Opinion. (Footnote 4 has long been stated to be the most important footnote in US jurisprudence.) Within Carolene, SCOTUS referenced and reiterated a certain precedent: Chastleton. It was cited another few times over the years but has slacked off; however, Chastleton is still good case law, having never been superceded or overturned. As well, the Circuit Courts and some State courts rely on it here and there in opinions.

IMO, Chastleton v. Sinclair is the weapon of choice. It would force the government(s) to show their hand, prove their cry, etc. We all know how that would go.

Excellent question!

The article written by Ira Ellman, who is a noted academic scholar, is a great asset to litigators who can cite it in lawsuits we prepare and file. By doing so, we educate the judges and legal staff who read them. As for taking on the registry as a whole, there is a significant danger in doing so because if one such case is lost, it will seriously harm all registrants and their families. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, permanent change comes about only through a series of incremental changes. If we don’t remove all of the bricks in the foundation of the registry, a new and possibly worse form of the registry could be created.

Well, considering the Registry is akin to the great wall of China in regards to the brick analogy, we should start seeing cracks in about 500 yrs.

I see your Ruth Bader Ginsberg and raise you one Michael Jordan: “I missed every single shot that I did not take” or something to that effect.

Sooner or later someone will take this on. It would be nice if it were the most expert organization or personnel, but oh well.

Time to start rooting for @Mike R?


Point of Order: It was The Great One (read: Wayne Gretzky) who said, “you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

The Michael Jordan quote is: “I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”

AJ – Good to have you back!

I certainly agree with Janice that a premature case or an otherwise unfortunate decision could seriously hamper our efforts. The 2003 Alaska decision has repeatedly been presented as justifying contentions that no registry provisions constitute punishment. Whereas the Supreme Court only said that Alaska’s implementation at the time did not constitute punishment. Even incorrect dicta, e.g “frightening and high,” have long-lasting negative effects.

Fortunately we are beginning to see decisions stipulating that some registry provisions are punishment. Implementing punishment is the central constitutional issue whether in the context of ex post facto or a bill of attainder. I’m not confident that it is possible to dismantle registration in its entirety. Perhaps the best we can do in the courts is to chip away at the constitutionality of specific provisions. This will have the effect of putting a ceiling on punishment, which can be incrementally lowered over time.


This paper backs up what I’ve been saying for years: We need to go after the registry as a whole, not chipping away at it. Chipping away at it helps only a few, not the whole, leaving far too many lives still affected negatively by this unconstitutional registry. Take it on as a whole, that’s the only relief that many of us can even hope for.

I’m sure this will go as far to helping eliminate the registry as all the other papers written by educated, intelligent scholars that base their findings on facts and not public hysteria. In other words, it will go nowhere.

Wow Eric,
I hope you’re just having a bad day,
Anybody that will do the work, put in the time, and share their findings, has my upmost respect !

I have been fighting this with lawyers starting back in 1995 when the list was started, first financially, then loosing my employment, I started doing the research, and I can say with complete confidence,,,,, researchers And science is the only way to truth,,,

You might want to ask yourself,
What has Eric done to improve a registered persons life ?

To play devil’s advocate is what can Eric do literally? In my situation if I start doing public things, I risk my wife being fired from her teaching position she’s had for 10 years. We are doing well, but we don’t have 50k to fund a project, we could donate a little but not enough to make a difference, some can’t do anything. There’s a proverb in the bible. Those who have nothing, what they do have, more will be taken from them. This is the risk. If we do something it may put a target on our head. If we decide 7 years to get a doctorate in psychiatry, the liscense board may deny us and boom now in major debt from it.
Doing things as a registrant is difficult. There have been some just for sharing their stories in interviews hoping to make a difference, only to get it twisted and turned around in documentaries to make them sound like horrible people. Those who do this for us and those who do, yes I commend you. But for those who can’t I get it. The government suppresses us with laws. The media with lies. And the public with fear.
Eric and others, some of us have tried and failed again and again.. it’s not that alot of us don’t do anything.. it’s that alot of us can’t even get out the front door to do anything without our church discouraging us, neighbors threatening us, and police intimidating us..
Hang in their buddy. There is light at the end of this tunnel. This research will pay off one day. Tesla had the world against him. Politicians, corporations, and the public. Everyone believed in DC. But he persevered. Research conquered. Truth always wins in the end.

Ok, I get that,
1st question: what can everyone do, not just Eric, look yourself up,,set the map radius to 5 miles and hand out this website on a piece of paper to those in your area,,,
2nd: it doesn’t take 50k or any k to help fund a project.
I’ve never seen a beaver dam done at once, one stick at a time one stone at a time. But the more HELP he has the faster it gets done…. none of this has to be done in public.
3rd: a proverb of the Bible ?
funny coming from the devils advocate! Is this the proverb you want to make a stand on ?
I’ll just let this one go.
4: 7 yr doctorate, That is the most positive thing that I’ve heard. Education is the only way to help anyone, either learning or teaching. I would recommend zoom type,,,do you know where this will be in 7 yrs?
neither do I, but you will be a qualified Dr with a heck of a thesis!
5: might put a target on your back, theres already a target on your back and your mugshot.
I guess the take away from this is: the more you know, the less they can take.

Well Eric, Dr., and Anklebiter although I’m not on this list I agree with all 3 of you. I fight for my grandson, I just contacted the ACLU about his issue the other day for him. I’m hoping for a favorable reply but my grandson has only gotten the typical decline from the organization for years concerning his issue (which at the time he was not clear on). I told him I would try this time because I’m determined to see him off this list and able to use his degrees to help people caught on this registry like himself that should be through serving their 10 years.
For example some juveniles caught on this registry were sentenced to 10 years reporting but after becoming an adult now must remain on the registry for lifetime. I believe no matter how you paint it, my grandson has read the amendments enough in our state to understand the ways they have been abused both in enactment and applications.
I believe if Janice saw my grandson’s issue even though she is an attorney from California that she’d want to take it because not only is his case winnable but it’s clear. Before my step son passed away both him and my grandson went to see a criminal lawyer that is considered one of the best up here and he looked into everything and agreed that my grandson had great grounds to challenge the issue because separation of powers was violated, amongst due process of law. Right after that my step son passed away before he could pay to hire the appellate attorney, then when my daughter finally agreed to help him because his uncle passed, she passed away from covid.
I admit my grandson has been depressed and feels he has lost all hope but it just takes one thing to go right, I’m trying to make that happen. Td777 has a point the whole registry should be gone after as a law but chipping away at it and showing how the police and local jurisdictions misuse it is a start.
I hope I can find help from the ACLU or even through some of our reform sites for sex offender laws. I’m trying my best but one thing I’ve learned is to never stop fighting and never give up.

Have a great day all

It sounds like you have done your research, now you have to wait like the rest of us for judge Cleland, meanwhile the onion of the registry is being peeled,,,

you nailed it anklebiter, so did Prof Ellman.

E/Med for me, starting back in 85′ Doc. I still renew docs for a living and other HCP’s. losing employment was my first when the CHP came to mom’s house and demand my licensure for Cali. Doing the research was limited during incarceration but post alot more can be revealed. Yes Eric needs some soul searching and applaud this ret/ Prof for all his work that he and his wife commit to ACSOL and the States! I ask what I have done and try, try to do more what limitations I have with finances and employment alsomt nil. Good thought Dr.

Well, besides my 12 yr military career in active zones while incurring injuries ,my 14 yr career in the healthcare field as a rehab therapist, and my monetary contributions to charitable groups, not that much. I think I did enough for this miserable species. What have you done………………

I was talking about the topic,,,,
someone who will take the time to help and in courage others,,,,,,,,,,
Not dismiss someone’s work…
And you think you’ve done enough? 👌 ok

More than……. time to take care of and be concerned with myself for a change.

In this case I agree with Eric, I do think Dr. is right that we as family and the ones that are enduring this registration issue should have empathy for others. Let’s be real and honest about the whole situation though, when you empathize with others then you stand to lessen the effects plaguing you or minimize their impact to you or your family concerning this registry. Honestly many do not empathize with this matter if they aren’t directly effected by it or a family member of someone they truly care about that is.
In saying that, I don’t think the key to fighting this negative rational is to empathize with it. For example a drink tax, the people that drink are going to care but the ones that don’t and have no relation to it are not going to give a care. That’s just obvious in my opinion. The “negative rational” that created this registry is not logical because it never has been. So trying to reason with something that has no sense is like arguing with a baby that hasn’t learned to talk yet (communication will go nowhere).
Eric is right and I have told my grandson the same, nobody will fight for you unless you fight for yourself. This paper by Ira I agree has a lot of factual and logical points that can be reinforced in a trial setting as fact. The biggest thing that gets me and should be recognized is that if a scholar can see it so can the lawmakers. The system has so many legislative punishments both added and continually notched up that they feel they have control of those punished by it through fear.
Eric and all of those punished by this illegal amended and re-amended framework should be upset. It’s not right. Everyone even the supporters for it know it’s not right.
My point is until you get enough fed up individuals to challenge the small threads that keep them on this illegal use of people’s private information as citizens and win back to back to back things will not change. Right now creating sex offender laws and being tough on this and that involving sex offender legislation gets people that don’t know anything about politics into legislative office.
I say you are both right but in this case Eric I agree, you should be trying to care more about you, they obviously don’t. Florida had people living under bridges, banned from normal living conditions.
When this whole thing is finally found unconstitutional, it will prove that this country I fought for and love has actually segregated and created a whole new race through this registry. That’s something to think about in itself (just some food for thought).
On another note to catch everyone up I have not heard back from the ACLU about my grandsons situation but I reached out to a private law firm as well, I’m hoping I can find a lawyer similar to Janice in the appellate legal practice here in Illinois. I know my grandson can win this appeal. He just needs someone to care. I hope the ACLU will care but who knows. He’s never had much luck writing them before.

“…the claim that it is justified by the clearly valid purpose of reducing the incidence of sexual offending does not survive the scrutiny of scientific studies which find the registry ineffective…”.
Moreover, there is absolutely nothing about the Registry itself that prevents any actual sex offenses.
The Registry does not “lock” a PFR’s zipper in the event the PFR were going to expose himself.
The Registry does not stop the PFR from talking to a teenager, nor stop him/her from actually soliciting the minor.
The Registry does not block the PFR’s computer from accessing a porn website, nor does it block pop-up windows linking to illegal images. Nor does it block a computer from transmitting such images.
(Nor does having “Sex Offender” emblazoned across a PFR’s Driver’s License or passport stop any of these actions.)
Point being, the Registry does not itself do anything to actually stop any illegal action.
(If the Registry were able to actually STOP sex offenses before they occurred, the government could rebrand it, revise it to include ALL people, and then there would be no more sex crimes. Period.)

What the registry does is give impetus for illegal actions against PFRs and their families because the very fine print tells people what they can’t do (i.e. use the info nefariously) but the registry can’t be held accountable for the “public data” already available or how people use it.

However, if it’s merely civil in intent, what sort of civil case or otherwise could be filed against a legislature (i.e. the state) for the actions of a few? If the safety of the masses is more important than those on the registry (state constitution safety statement) then is it an equal protection violation since the safety of all isn’t guaranteed anymore? If a tool (registry) is made readily available, then it’s used against someone (PFR) by someone (vigilante) using it, can third party liability come into consideration against the state? Does the state have immunity? They don’t if secure data is hacked or leaked and people are harmed. Is this different?


I wrote this to some “people” before and got nothing. Is this what you’re thinking? “State Created Danger”
In trying to think about what reasons and arguments there would be for the removal of the public registry, the first legitimate reason in my mind given the facts and knowledge that we have now would be the danger that it creates for the person listed on the registry, and his or hers cohabitants ie; family, friends, roommates, etc. and a danger to the property of the aforementioned.
There is now ample evidence of murder, violence, vandalism, etc. directly related to the public registry. The state has created a list of people that are among the most hated and reviled people in society with their pictures, addresses (home and work), crimes, listed for all the world to see, with little or no regard for the safety of these people and their cohabitants.
There is a special relationship between the government and the individual in this case (as the fourth circuit ruled is necessary for a state created danger) as the government has created this scheme and the individual has no choice but to comply with the government scheme or lose his or hers liberty.
Different circuit courts have come up with different tests that they say must be met to bring a case of state created danger, but there are four things that they have in common: (1) there must be some relationship between the state and the plaintiff. (2) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct. (3) the state actor acted in willful disregard for the safety of the plaintiff. (4) the state actors used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for the third party’s crimes to occur.
So we have established that there is a direct relationship between the state and the plaintiff, that the state knew or should have known that there would be danger to the plaintiff and his or hers family, friends, cohabitants, and by doing so created an opportunity for a third party’s crimes to occur, and we have evidence to show that because of their willful disregard for the safety of the plaintiff and his or her family, friends, cohabitants, murder, violence, vandalism has occurred in the recent past and will continue to cause a danger now and in the future.
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion stated that a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating danger.
In Bowers v. DeVito a Seventh Circuit opinion written by Judge Posner, he explained: “If the state puts a man in a position of danger from private persons and then fails to protect him… It is as much an active Tortfeasor as if it had thrown him into a snake pit.
The courts have held in several cases that negligence or gross negligence is not sufficient to create a due process claim, but deliberate indifference and recklessness are sufficient.
In Jones v. Reynolds Sixth Circuit, the court explained that a plaintiff may assert a state created danger claim if (1) An affirmative act by the state which either created or increased the risk the plaintiff would be exposed to an act of violence by a third party; (2) A special danger to the plaintiff specifically at risk as distinguished from a risk that affects the public at large; and (3) The state knew or should have known that it’s actions specifically endangered the plaintiff.
I believe that some of the tests the different circuits have come up with are arbitrary and without legal basis, and that the Supreme Court at some point will have to decide, but they have not taken that up as yet.
I do not know whether there needs to be an affirmative

“State Created Danger” continued: I do not know whether there needs to be an affirmative act committed against plaintiffs individually. In one case that i can’t remember the plaintiffs brought a case just based on danger without any affirmative acts committed against them. In our case, there is a real history of affirmative acts committed against our group, a group that is very different than the general public at large.


Yes, I would say what you have written here is what I was looking for. Very well written and captures what I was thinking about. Since there is harm that has been committed against PFRs, the damaging acts are real and thus give credence to a “state created danger”.

@Bobby, et al,

WRT to the “state created danger”, is there an analogous situation(s) that can be used in comparison to the registry and it’s impacts as detailed here, e.g a “tool” used in the same fashion to create punishment at the hands of others where the initial intent is civil and not punitive? If so, then please share. That could, IMO, go a long way in the argument of the actual impacts in addition to what has already been stated in court cases where the registry has been found to be punishment, e.g. Judge Matsch in US District Court of Colorado, etc.

I have not read all of the cases where the registry is being declared punishment so examples may be within I may have missed, but I am not recalling any at the moment and thus, seek input here. Thanks.

Everything you wrote is correct; however, you’re looking at it from the wrong angle. Nowhere does the State claim the registry will stop those monsters on it from doing anything. The avowed purpose of the registry is to allow the general public to be sufficiently informed to steer clear of the monsters. It’s not a “monster prevention device”, it’s a “sheeple awareness device.” That fits right in with their “incurable” narrative and also keeps the sheeple shaking in their shoes.

With the registry byproduct keeping sheeple focused on others that don’t need the focus and allowing those who do need the focus, e.g. a recent school principal, being able to offend without issue until either caught or otherwise.

Why is there no effort to watch those who are statistically greater to offend, according to the data, and not on the registry than there is to watch those who are on the registry and don’t offend again? Don’t stats mean anything?! Ugh…

TS ~ What kind of registration card are you talking about? I thought the wallet size cards that we were supposed to carry (still not sure if this was ever required) is no longer anything anyone has to carry?


Not sure where you are coming from WRT wallet cards in this particular subthread of the overall thread; however, the only cards I am referring to (in a reply elsewhere in this thread) are the DLs/IDs certain states, e.g. OK, FL, etc, have marks for PFRs which need to be done away with since they are forms of gov’t compelled speech even if coded and not in standard English or on the front/back.

My specific reply here refers to the stats of those who are more likely to offend, e.g. a principal and a LEO are recent examples in this forum and fit the stats, and not those actually on the registry where the recidivism rate is second lowest. Those on the registry are more closely watched instead of those who are statistically more likely to offend and who should be watched in my opinion. Why not focus on those who statistically have the great potential for harm than those who statistically do not? Let them feel the heat and understand the weight of it all when someone is always in their business wondering if what they are doing is an offense. That was the point I was trying to make and may have not. Focusing on the people who don’t need it by the sheeple who buy into the overall premise is promoting the narrative @AJ was writing about. There needs to be a change in that narrative.

Hope that helps.

The author makes essentially the same interpretation of the Whetterling Act as Justice Steve in his decent in Alaska v Bartello filed in 97 (Smith v Doe 2003)

Tim – couldn’t find Alaska v Bartello?? Is this a SCOTUS case? Didn’t pop up in any search

I just read footnote 1 in the article which is a brief synopsis of Professor Ellman’s bonafides. Though that single sentence is impressive, it failed to mention that he was also a Supreme Court law clerk and a legislative aide to Senator Adlai Stevenson III. I’ve tucked away all that biographical information to use against those who will invariably try to divert any discussion by diminishing the author.

“Who is this guy anyway? Probably pandering to those who fund his research.”

I have to admit I do have in mind a particular counselor who employs those sorts of red herrings.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x