You are here

BREAKING NEWS; NARSOL files amicus in Colorado case

NARSOL . . . Thanks largely to the efforts of NARSOL’S legal committee chair Larry, and with the assistance of Prof J. Thomas Sullivan (Distinguished professor of law at the University of Arkansas), NARSOL filed an amicus brief before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday in support of the appellees in an important case out of Colorado styled Millard v. Rankin.  This effort was fully funded by NARSOL’s foundation, Vivante Espero.

For a refresher about the case see https://narsol.org/2017/08/federal-judge-holds-colorado-registry-is-punishment-violates-eighth-amendment/

To read the amicus see https://narsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Amicus-Brief-10th-Circuit-7-25-18.pdf

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.
EMAIL
Facebook
Google+
https://narsol.org/2018/07/breaking-news-narsol-files-amicus-in-colorado-case/
PINTEREST
LINKEDIN
YOUTUBE
RSS

This topic contains 26 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  WC 2 months, 3 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #44074 Reply

    Glen

    Frankly, I’m not optimistic that the 10th Circuit Apeals Court will uphold Judge Matsch’s ruling. Either way, I feel its a case that will ultimately be presented to SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS accepts the case, or if they decline as they did with 6th circuits decision. If 10th circuit court of appeals rules against Judge Matsch’s decision, and SCOTUS does not accept the case…wouldn’t that leave two major court decisions (6th & 10th) in direct contradiction? I feel like SCOTUS will ultamately have to adress this case.

    Question? Is this the premier case to present to SCOTUS? Why or why not? What’s everyone’s thoughts?

    Thanks

    • #44167 Reply

      Tim L

      Glen,
      Roberts himself now sets the agenda ultimately. Sure they convene and decide, but what gets on review See:Oxford handbooks online of U.S. Agenda -Setting on the Supreme courts, falls inconveniently in his lap.
      IMHO this is not mere coincidence and why the court took the position it did in MI case -to decline! The record shows the Alaskan Supreme Court rejected Doe right after SCOTUS approved, as state courts are free to do.Remember, Doe reviewed the power of states to regulate or punish via the database\website. Beware the collateralized FEDERAL ATTACK and other civil implications for government USE that also flowed from it.

      If a state can enslave a man to a machine and it’s maintenance hence the more powerful FED can go how far with it’s use? More importantly can the devices actually improve conditions? So far No!

  • #44069 Reply

    Saddles

    I am glad to hear about this amicus brief as even Thomsas Jefferson was worried that courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would soon begin making law an oligarchy. I am glad someone stepped up and said hey “wait a minute”. I hate to say this but sometimes its better to hollar uncle than have the great cure all fix.

    Yes we all need to speak up and tell courts to lighten up in a lot of these idiotic ordeals Boy I hope I still have a brain left. Maestro your a tough cookie but , ” thumbs up” guy.

  • #44093 Reply

    Tim Lawver

    The people’s INTENT as always was to punish AND punish more with their electronic lists. The proof is there, just need to put it before a judge in plain sight.

    OPT FOR TRIAL FOR SOR VIOLATIONS.

    The data can and does get misused from any database. Registrants are on both public.gov sites AND Private databases too. None are really secure!

    • #44254 Reply

      Glen

      Tim,

      I agree that the real intent of the people was/is to Punish. No doubt; but, the stated legislative “Intent” was to protect the public. SCOTUS in 2003 basicly said they were fine with that to a point; until and unless it became (more) obvious to them that the registry is punishment. I think the courts are starting to recognize that we’ve reached that point, especially with all the legislative restrictions that have been added since 2003. Legislative bodies interpreted SCOTUS’s 2003 decision as a “Green light” to keep pounding out more punitive and restrictive laws applying only to one group. The last 15 years have been very hard on registrants. To be honest, there are so many laws – especially here in NC – as it applies to registrants, I’m cannot even be certain I’ve always been compliant, in spite of my effort to be a law abidding citizen. In other words, I try not to break the law, but the restrictions have become so massive and many, I can’t even be reasonably be sure anymore that I havent broke the law.

      In retrospect of the last 15 years since the 2003 SCOTUS ruling, I think the courts may now clearly be able to see the burdens imposed since are punitive. That, and regardless of the “Intent” stated regarding the registry, it’s shown little effect toward public safety. Finally, in 2003 SCOTUS also based their decision when weighing intent vs punishment on the false reports of recidivism being “High” – that we know are one of lowest rates of any offender. My point is, the wheels of justice turn excruciatingly slow; but I think we are at point where we will begin seeing them go in a very different direction.

      I think you mentioned it in a previous post, but I think it’s worth mentioning again…anytime an offender is charged with violating the registry, it’s very important that we take it all the way to trial and get every case possible in front of the court.

      • #44551 Reply

        WC_TN

        Glen, I’d love to see the courts start calling a spade a spade with regards to the punitive intent of the S.O.R.
        However, haven’t you noticed that judges can conveniently overlook even the most germane of arguments?

        https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/11/court-says-relying-on-fake-recidivism-nu

        • #45362 Reply

          WC

          WC,
          Our founders also understood that financial corruption could quickly overrun the judicial branch. Much care was taken to insure the credibility of the judicial. While Marbury is most known for establishing the courts AUTHORITY it was also the test case for independence from the other branches. ONE way the founders thought of to check the wrongful financial influence upon the judicial was TRIAL BY JURY OF PEERS.
          If you would permit a long digress, I may explain how Byrne Grant manipulation can arise in a FTR case scenario. It took me three Qs\As to get Agent to mention Whetterling Act. Byrne Grant flows naturally because it’s funding. Funding is fodder for a jury. The Byrne folks don’t hide who they are! In my eyes states could have and should protected their own predisposed folks from the ex post application. Upon the original act95 WI law forbid disclosures by LEO under penalty and I believe it had to do with constanteneau. mentioned in SMITH V DOE. This makes WI more vulnerable to attack as FED completely reversed established WI law and precedent. It’s an absurdity. In laymen terms it’s best described as THIS WEEK ALL CITY DOORS OPEN FROM the right side, next week all city doors hang from the left side. Both cannot be morally correct-presuming SO laws really about morality. Such actions are “rule by fiat” by definition. This is a point for closing arguments as due process has the same role. Each state has its own particulars, so each defendant in FTR cases would have to prepare himself for his state. I’m not talking about clogging the courts I’M TAKING ABOUT WINNING.!

          For my close I’d like to tell you people can do the same and opt For TRIAL. Before you do yourself in TAKE A SHOT. Give your peers a chance to redeem themselves if not you.

          P.S. Gee, I like to tell y’all bout the jury member who expressed guilt as judge polled the jury. I missed an opportunity to swing her vote, I won’t make that mistake again. I Indeed learn.

  • #44116 Reply

    Sadd;es

    Glen the courts can do anything they want. One is that a person is at the mercy of the courts and Tim even said it right its all about intent. And what do we mean by intent. Could it be we intended to set that person up with the opportunity. Did that person intend to rape actually rape that girl. Did one intend to say you can actually grab them by the pussy if you are rich and famous or use that as an example. Maybe that was one’s intent. people don’t know people’s intent or thoughts.

    Sure we all want questions and answers isn’t that what heing human is all about when drama unfolds. I’m just glad that the courts have the opportunity to come to understand this brief a bit better which may help others strivig in this sexual endeavor.

    One can call a spade a spade but when a house of cards begins to fall it tumbles. No one is wanting to know all the answers are they. If thats the case we all are more smarter than the Creator. The main thing is for true unadultrated justice or are w all the poor and oppressed?

  • #44154 Reply

    TS

    Thank you NARSOL for the support in the generation and filing of this document while seeing it gets to be part of the record in this important case.

  • #44231 Reply

    Kendal

    This was a good brief. I kind of wish it had more about the misconceptions of recidivism, as that was the crux of the other brief by the AG’s of the surrounding states.

    I actually came full face into that misconception when the sheriff came out this weekend to do the quarterly check. I ended up calling the sergeant to complain about this guy, and he mentioned the high recidivism rate. I corrected him, and he said he had personally arrested a bunch of them. Of course, this was also after he told me he didn’t really work with the sex offender unit. So if he didn’t really work with them, how did he arrest a lot of them. I don’t think he appreciated me correcting him, but I take the chance when I can.

    So yeah, we need to keep spreading the word that the high recidivism rate does not exist.

    • #44252 Reply

      Glen

      Hi Kendall,
      Agreed, the recidivism rates are important. It’s interesting; I’ve seen a couple of different reports lately stating the rates are between 1-5%. Assuming it’s in the middle, say 3% of the 1 million registered citizens would be 30,000. Granted, that number sounds high. However, an even higher number is the 970,000 that have a zero recidivism rate. Add in the over 90% chance that most sex crimes are committed by someone close to the victim, and basically the obvious question becomes…How do we justify taxpayer money, police time spent monitoring and public disemination of information regarding 970,000 people that statistically will never commit another sex crime?

  • #44255 Reply

    Glen

    Understanding the Amicus brief was filed, any word as to if it has been accepted by the court? Or is this a given that it will be? Forgive my lack of understanding court procedure relating to submission of Amicus briefs….just curious if by filing, means the court will give it some consideration in weighing the case?

    Anyone here know?

    Thanks.

    Glen

    • #44319 Reply

      TS

      “The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court.”

      “The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court in which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal; attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients. Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to articulate those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal or public policy ramifications of the court’s anticipated decisions will not depend solely on the positions and arguments advanced by the parties directly involved in the case. ”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

      I would venture to say, the Tenth will consider what is submitted in these briefings as the deliberate.

  • #44288 Reply

    David

    The Sex Offender Registry is virtually completely punitive-both domestically and socially, and also does much more harm than any good and here are some reasons why:
    A) The registry has never saved anyone from being molested or raped whether unregistered or registered. If it did, there would be no sex offenses at all for fear of being registered, and arguments from silence are unacceptable-there must be irrefutable evidence that it has, but there is none, and it unfortunately it leads a community and the public to believe it provides a sense of security, but there is no evidence to prove it makes a neighborhood safer.
    B) The Sex Offender Registry is an ‘after-the-fact’ law. People are sex offenders ‘before’ they are caught and put on the registry, thereby proving the registry does nothing to prevent sex offenses in the first place.
    C) For the many sex offenders who have not re-offended and never will, the registry inhibits and even prohibits those from becoming part of social, athletic, and at times, religious activities. Where I live, there are places that prohibit a registered sex offender from joining their gym or their public swimming pool. How is that fair to a sex offender who is no danger to anyone?
    I know a man who attended a religious group for 8 years and was devout, and a leader, who’s life was obviously changed and someone decided to do background checks on all the leaders, and when he was found on the registry all of the sudden some of the women became afraid of him, even after 8 years of lively Godly and devoutly before them and all the others, and he had to leave in order to avoid embarrassment and further scrutiny, so now 8 years of his life at this place is gone due to the registry.
    D) The registry also makes it hard and sometimes almost impossible to find love. All a person has to do is type a person’s name and city on the internet and if they are a sex offender, it will come up that they are WITHOUT going to the sex offender registry, thereby annihilating even the possibility of finding love for the many sex offenders who have never re-offended and never will, therefore, the sex offender is condemned before they even have a chance to prove themself.
    E) Because Social Media has wrongfully biased people that all sex offenders are going to re-offend and the information about sex offenders is so easily attainable it places an extreme strain on the sex offender’s mentality that they are going to be found on the registry if they do join a social group, and be scrutinized, rebuked, and even ostracized, therefore causing the sex offender to wallow in fear and live a reclusive life and not become the socially productive citizen they should after their incarceration.
    The real punishment for a sex offender begins AFTER they get out of prison.
    They are scorned, rejected, and condemned by the public they are released into when they are found on the Registry and sentenced to a social hell.

    • #44883 Reply

      Facts should matter

      “The real punishment for a sex offender begins AFTER they get out of prison”

      The registry is the REAL prison sentence. I have 10 years experience on this subject!

  • #44290 Reply

    Tim L

    Glen,

    Opting for trial in registration cases must be done with caution. In my state a man faces a class H felony and up to 6years prison if convicted of said offense. Personally I would only do so when the option of calling the original complainants to the stand in defense is available. For ex post registrants the law may be in your favor.

    • #44374 Reply

      Glen

      Tim,

      You’re right. I should retract that, and do. The better way is to consult with an attorney because there are so many factors. My apology, I didn’t think it through at all.

      I am optimistic things are beginning to change, but I should know better than to expect anything immediate. Thanks.

  • #44348 Reply

    David

    If the Sex Offender Registry is only remedial, why then are sex offenders sent back to prison if they do not register???
    This clearly shows the Sex Offender Registry IS punitive!!!

    • #44375 Reply

      Glen

      David,

      I agree. I never understood the civil regulation argument. Basicly, they arbitrarily removed us from criminal punishment by simply declaring that we are required to submit to civil regulation; with criminal penalties.

      For my charge 16 years ago, I received no prison time. I received 2 years probation which I completeted successfully. My charge is classified as a non-contact misdemeanor, and there was never any physical abuse alleged. I had no prior involvement with the law, and….stupidly…ignornorantly I never even retained an attorney. I plead guilty to the full original charge. I didnt even realize i would have to register until days after court. And, because it is considered a misdemeanor, i only had 10 days to appeal; which i missed the deadline. I am required to register for life in SC.

      Now, however, because I’m subject to this civil regulation scheme for life, if I violate any of the myriad of civil regulations (ie. Go to the park to walk my dog), I can be arrested and expect to serve a much longer prison sentence than my original charge from 2003. It’s insane…

  • #44427 Reply

    Tim L

    Saddles, Glen

    What I know is that I can pound them in the head with their own sticks. Just wish I could get some pub during the effort. I have have opted for trial on two occasions. I’m 1-1.

    • #44457 Reply

      Glen

      Hi Tim. Are you an attorney, or were you representing yourself in the 2 cases? Regarding the one that you won, what was the issue and what evidence did you think persuaded the judge in that case. I’m curious to know what works. Thanks.

      • #44533 Reply

        Tim

        Glen,
        Win was pre-03 & a long story, too long for this venue. If fact it is a book in itself tho I’ve yet to write it. There is a very old case CALDER V. BULL 3 U.S.86 (1798). Of particular interest in (4,). While no motion was filed or reviewed by the court the case ended in dismissal. But I messed up by not getting the “with prejudice” part.
        Live and learn.

        In #2 The D.A. threatened me with a 980 commitment ( stat used for civil commitment in WI) just prior to a 2011 preliminary hearing. That is how bad he wanted my plea AND why I know my case is a threat to their golden goose. that loss got me 3years probation and you can get your bottom I spent that three years busting their hump on every visit. Including handing out flyers advertising NARSOL, ONCE FALLEN, SOSEN, INNOCENCE PROJECT, to others. My probation officer implied treatment mandatory and at my expense! You should have seen hear face when I said no fn way lady! They gave up on that idea. You see Glen I refused to plea. Once they know you’ll demand trial they think much longer before issuing complaints. Do NOT be low hanging fruit.

  • #44596 Reply

    Saddles

    Hey Tim, To confess to you guys I sort of knew what I was getting myself into, sure I had had some criminal justice way back in my college days I overcame a lot of obstacles. They didn’t even have internet back in my days and this sex registry was a new thing. Sure I liked to talk to girls, what bachelor wouldn’t. I even knew to stay off of kids sites.
    Oh well things happen but I was trying to clean up my situation getting into the word a bit more and things of that nature. I know you talked about sex treatment. They wanted me to go a second time and said this time its free. I really didn’t want to go, so after two weeks me and another dude in there had some words in front of the instructor which was of a biblical nature and believe it or not the DA, my instructor, and my PO decided I didn’t need it. Police will scan you anyway they can if one lets them. really they didn’t give me a real concrete reason to justify their reason. I had two people go with me to this interview if you want to call it that.

    • #45193 Reply

      Tim Lawver

      Saddles,
      For me it’s simple
      1) Creator
      2) Humanity
      3) Self
      You post about 1,2 a lot but not much about 3.
      Is three Not worth mentioning in the concrete opposed the abstract? Can, in your estimation, a man like me @ others gain from such disclosure?
      This is TBD, however I already know what I’d possibly learn from such is far more valuable than any DATA fleshed from a database such as SOR. All the people cannot extricate themselves from the embodiment of the device, as us;is them. They merely have not yet internalized it. Shiny bells and whistles are inherently attractions to man the animal, like martens to feathered snare.Truth told, immediately upon discovering fire; man burned man. (Pardon me feminists maybe it more accurately put, man burned woman) I digress.

      Anonymous speech Saddles has its rightful place to be sure, but never a placebo for ego. Thus J.C. never partook of it with good reason. More secular reason relies on the free speech notion to append the anonymous but this neglects the implementation of delta, that is to affect change. Anonymous speech questions change, while public speech makes it happen. Indeed this is the crux of opting for trial in FTR cases. This org has yet to embrace the notion, it’s a scary beast.

  • #45290 Reply

    TS

    May this be the start of a long and fruitful life for Judge Matsch’s decision…first time I have seen it used in support of another effort.

    Public Comment — Registering College Students as Sex Offenders

    https://medium.com/@jimpreston_36730/public-comment-e156ead8dc20

    • #45336 Reply

      Tim L

      @TS
      Great post!
      What judge describes here is exactly my beef with JJ Roberts. He had to know when contemplating AK v Doe that he was not putting all of the facts to the Rehnquist court. HE HAD TO HAVE KNOWN!
      BUT like many unscrupulous prosecutors he hid the facts. Wrongful convictions occur by the same means. DNA comes up missing, or an inconvenient report(s) get lost, etc. I give my schwantz to get a peak at his stock port folio. IMHO the AK case was hand picked precisely because Alaska could not in good faith and consciousness force the AK registered to be required ” to show up in person”. Just plain not possible when folks live in the bush like they do in Alaska. You follow? Conn DPS cases are dime per dozen.
      Any thoughts?

      • #46670 Reply

        TS

        @Tim L

        You may be right on in the “appear in person” point considering the AK logistics. I am sure you are correct about the cherry picking of what to show and not show in a court when the time comes to go “showtime”. Seen that myself. Did SCOTUS CJ Roberts do that? I obviously don’t know, but it would not surprise me one iota if selective data presentation was used. This counters, IMO, the premise of the ethics needed to be followed for such a case, but that is why there is opposition to counter the “missing” data.

  • #46669 Reply

    TS

    Oral Arguments, 15 min per side to present, in this case are scheduled for Nov 15, 2018 @0900 in the Byron White Courthouse, Denver, CO with them being recorded and available for all to hear within 48 later through the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals website.

Reply To: BREAKING NEWS; NARSOL file amicus in Colorado case
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">