ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

National

MT: Judge Blocks Requirement for ‘Gay Sex’ Offender Registration

[usnews.com – 5/12/21]

The state of Montana has no valid reason to require a man to register as a sex offender based on his conviction for having gay sex in Idaho in 1993, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen on Tuesday prevented the state from requiring Randall Menges of Butte to register as a sex offender under Idaho’s Crimes Against Nature law.

“None of the governmental interests in maintaining a sexual offender registry are served by Menges’ inclusion,” Christensen wrote. “Engagement in intimate sexual contact with a person of the same sex, without more, cannot be said to render someone a threat to the public safety.”

The state was wrong in not allowing Menges to challenge the registration requirement even though his conviction in Idaho was for actions that are now constitutionally protected, the judge found.

“I guess I’m just grateful, honestly, that the judge actually listened and was fair because for the last few years of my life …. I don’t feel like anything’s been fair,” Menges said Wednesday.

Christensen ordered the state to remove Menges from the registry on or before May 21, expunge any records indicating he was ever subject to registration and alert all agencies that may have been provided information about Menges’ registration.

The attorney general’s office is appealing the ruling, arguing it weakens the state’s sex offender registry law and opens it up to additional challenges from out-of-state lawyers “who are more interested in politics than the safety of Montana children,” spokesperson Emilee Cantrell said in a statement.

“You don’t violate someone’s constitutional rights to strengthen your own laws,” Menges said after hearing the state’s reason for appealing the decision.

Read the full article

The original story:

MT: Sodomy laws that labeled gay people sex offenders challenged in court

 

 

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

WOW! How is this AG not instantly fired for stating this? Talk about doing something because you simply can. I hope he’s chastised severely by whatever judge he goes in front of to argued this super messed up case. I’m having really dark thoughts right now about what I wish would happen to this AG.

Montana AG is elected to office and last was in 2020. Governor could ask for resignation of course.

The best part to note here.

The phrase “exponge any record indicating his (the ) requirement to register from the record.”

The context of ex post facto- Failure to register claims by state also naturally DO NOT contain “a record indicating the requirement to register. ”
By record he means by trial court at the time of conviction where sentence and civil notice is given for: own firearms, vote, forfeiture etc., that all convicted persons suffer in the phase where spoils go to the victor. Nevertheless, the record remains in the clerks office which can naturally and rightfully referred too by state

Whether one choses summary judgment by standardized motion (plea)
OR by full formal process (w\o plea & standard waiver of right) that sub-planted the complaint discussed in Connecticut Dept Pub. Safety V DOE, is important too, as the two subgroups are situated differently. Meaning plainly, they also must be treated differently because in FTR context in the smaller subgroup set State has NO CONFESSION!

There is egregious error in conflating homosex as deviant ( criminal by extension) in of itself. – Lawrence v Texas- homogenized
The reason rests NOT in the type of interpersonal interaction but in the consent concerning ( plain agreement by parties) human interpersonal relation that no gov has rightful authority or jurisdiction in. The very same reason behind the necessary separation of powers between church, federal & State from the bill of rights.

I’m confused. I thought the Lawrence vs Texas case decided by the US Supreme Court made it illegal for states to criminalize homosexuality.

And as long as this man and his partner were of age, both consented and no laws were transgressed, then how does the state have the legal authority to state he violated a criminal law that would trigger registration on a public sex registry?

And why is the government in this man’s bedroom? Even though this is not my cup of tea, I strongly believe this man has the constitutional right to pursuit of liberty and happiness as long as no harm comes to the other person and the other person is seeking the same.

I see this state government as no different than ISIS, forcing the religious beliefs of those in state power on the citizens of the state.

Typical politicians, if you don’t like something, don’t do it, but don’t force all other people in the state to follow your own religious beliefs as a political leader.

Don’t like gay marriage, don’t get married to someone of the same sex. Don’t like marijuana, don’t partake. Don’t like gay sex, don’t do it. Etc…why can’t politicians mind their own business and stop forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

There is suppose to be separation of church and state. What a joke… and there should be tolerance of others and their beliefs as long as others do not cause harm to people. But if your actions cause harm to others, then I believe the state has the right to then and only then interfere.

“…why can’t politicians mind their own business and stop forcing their beliefs on everyone else.” You know the answer.

Forcing morality is throughout history a plain human condition.

Thus when American Corporations operating abroad compel foreign nationals to do ( behave or act) as American culture demands ( utilizing insurance, as example) even when the behavior is considered immoral in the local culture, a cross cultural conflict develops. This condition describes the whole tortured history of man and war.

So this:

“None of the governmental interests in maintaining a sexual offender registry are served by Menges’ inclusion,” 

So, just what are the governmental interests in maintaining a sexual offender registry? Do they have a list somewhere?

It certainly isn’t to protect children – maybe to protect politicians.

Mike G sure has the question of the day…

And Mike G sure has the answer of the day…to protect politicians.

Is that why politicians are mute on Rep. Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan along with Josh Duggar? If it were one of us they’d be on the news 24/7; while trying to make examples out of people. These politicians can’t handle the truth because it puts their agenda and greed in a wad.

I saw this article on yahoo main page, wow. Can’t believe the AG…

“In a statement, Emilee Cantrell, a spokesperson for Knudsen, said he was appealing the decision because “it weakens our state’s sex-offender registry law, making kids and families less safe.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/18-had-consensual-sex-2-151742362.html

Thats insane. I wish the best for him.

Certainly, it is the usual mantra from those supported politically by big tech. Why 1994 won’t be like 1994. Technology as a savior from humanity itself. When the is no greater threat to individual and national sovereignty present today than the database driven machines infrastructure. It is shamefully true that America has again embraced slavery to it.

There was a case a few years ago in MS where some people were on its registry for some same-sex “crimes” in LA–even though LA had changed its laws so they were no longer crimes! (With minor digging I can find the case if anyone is interested.)

IIRC, it was settled out of court but MS was clearly losing the case. Lawrence v. Texas pretty much assures that. How a State thinks it can put someone on a registry for doing something that SCOTUS has said is not illegal is beyond me. Oh wait, I forgot that rules, logic, and reason don’t apply when using the leper list.

@AJ

This is where religion comes in IMO. Idaho is a largely religious state of one specific type and their influence on gov’t is huge. Therefore, if big gov’t is wrong, they will go down fighting them with their ideology through the state law and courts even if they could lose in the end.

As for the other states, all about political cred with the population when it comes to votes and elections, even if they are going to have a losing position with the law in the end. The effort has been made; thus, good in the eyes of those votes who vote for the stooges, i.e. see LA’s recent ID/DL committee vote for markings and my comment here on ACSOL about those on the bayou who’ll look good to the masses anyway.

@TS:
You’re spot-on about ID. In fact, it’s pretty much a northern version of MS! I had an uncle who lived there (until passing in October) and my spouse’s extended family is from MS, so I’ve heard and learned much about both locations. Other than perhaps being a bit more prosperous and White, ID (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ID/PST045219) bears a strong resemblance to MS (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MS/INC110219). Strong on guns. GOP dominated government. Lower on taxes. Anti-DC, on laws but always ready to take money.

For those interested, here’s info about the MS case: https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/doe-v-hood

15
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.