NARSOL files amicus brief to Supreme Court, joins another

By Robin . . . The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL), along with its North Carolina affiliate NCRSOL, has filed an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in an ex post facto case that originated in a North Carolina Superior court in September, 2014.

The case is styled In Re: Anthony Rayshon Bethea and was last considered by the N.C. Court of Appeals, which published its final judgment on October 3, 2017. The case was subsequently appealed to the N.C. Supreme Court which declined to consider it.

Both NCRSOL and NARSOL were approached by Emory University Law School’s Supreme Court Advocacy Program (ELSSCAP) in late August to become “friend of the court” clients in the case.

At issue in this case is the retroactive application of federal sex offender registration standards in violation of the ex post facto clauses of both the federal and North Carolina constitutions. In deciding the matter, a panel of the N.C. Court of Appeals unanimously held that there was no ex post facto violation because the N.C. Legislature never intended for the sex offender registry to be punitive and that the effects of the law are not punitive.

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s more recent refusals to accept petitions from Michigan (Does v. Snyder) and Pennsylvania (Commonwealth v. Muniz) in cases where an opposite conclusion was reached, this case appears to have some merit. It has attracted the attention of a national group of legal academics.

Attorney and N.C. Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding is involved with the case, and Atty. Jim Grant, one of his assistant defenders, is representing the defendant. Mr Gerding was responsible for representing Lester Packingham at trial and throughout the state appellate process that would inevitably end up at the nation’s highest court where, to the shock of some, a unanimous bench struck down North Carolina’s law prohibiting registered people from accessing social media (See Packingham v. North Carolina).

The four-part brief relies heavily on anecdotal support in its argument that the outcome below is unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s application of Mendoza-Marinez factors to the facts of Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). The brief primarily argues that the enactment of so-called “second generation” sex offender statutes (laws that greatly enhanced the punitive effects of registration laws in a multitude of states) are in stark contradiction to the Mendoza-Marinez analysis the Court applied in Smith.

NARSOL is grateful to the contributions of many of its members who responded to a request for anecdotal narratives about the types of harms people are suffering as a direct consequence of being required to register as sex offenders. NARSOL would also like to thank Rashmi Borah (J.D. Candidate, Emory University School of Law) and her team of law student colleagues in addition to Professor Sarah Shalf (faculty advisor for Emory University School of Law’s Supreme Court Advocacy Program).

NARSOL has also joined with seventeen organizations on another amicus brief filed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This is an important case in support of Prison Legal News (PLN), which circulates to thousands of inmates in hundreds of correctional facilities throughout the nation. The case originated in Florida where that state’s Dep’t of Corrections has, thus far, successfully prohibited the circulation of PLN to its inmate population on the basis that it poses a threat to prison security and public safety. NARSOL’s interest in this case stems from the fact that it also circulates its bi-monthly publication, The Digest, among thousands of inmates in state and federal institutions throughout the United States.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Robin Vander Wall

As vice chair of NARSOL, Robin is the managing editor of the Digest, director of development, and provides assistance to the webmaster in keeping our websites running smoothly. He also serves as founder and president of Vivante Espero, NARSOL's 501(c)(3) foundation and legal fund.

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • Author
    • #47628 Reply

      The S.C. is long over due to correct this tyranny and gross violation of Ex Post Facto. I am actually quite surprised there hasn’t been a violent insurrection of any type especially in Florida over this tyranny.

      • #47637 Reply
        James Coghill

        From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots (Thomas Jefferson) I was shocked when I learned about what’s going on in Florida. I couldn’t believe this was happening in America. S.O.’s are part of the problem. As a group we are too eager to please and too ready to comply. Standing up for yourself and your rights does not equate to an endorsement of deviant behavior. One thing is certain, if you don’t stand up for yourself and your rights nobody is going to do it for you. How are you going to earn someone’s respect and their attention if you don’t make yourself worthy of that respect?

      • #47672 Reply
        Robert Steele

        My alleged crime (early 1982) happened nearly 40 years ago when I was 20 and I am now almost 60. In a few days, I will have reached the 2-year mark- I was given an immediate release from the BOP on an unconstitutional (U.S. 922(g) ‘ACCA’) 35-year federal sentence. However, that immediate release came at a high price! I served 25 1/2 years on that sentence. Meaning: I served 20 years above my sentence, but that wasn’t enough for them. Shortly after my release to 3 years supervised release, my federal supervised release officer made me register as ‘SO’ under the threat of being violated and charged with non-compliance (felony) for a conviction many years ago. It just shuck me to my core because all of my state and federal crimes happened long before any federal or state ‘SOR’ laws existed. Now, each day of freedom I live has become an invisible chain. Always having to spy over my shoulder or look before I step or drive. So many ‘SO’s’ have already been extorted, robbed, verbally/physically assaulted, maimed, or right out murdered as a result of all their ‘personal’ (esp. their home address) info posted on these Sheriffs Departments ‘SOR’ websites all across America. Each Congressperson (whether state or federal) who legislated, supported and voted the enactment of ‘SORNA’ and the Law Enforcement Agencies that enforce this nefarious ‘SOR’ are just as culpable and guilty as the persons who committed crimes against people placed on their ‘SOR’s’ website. On all their websites, they post their disclaimer: cannot be civilly or criminally charged for carrying out their ‘SOR’ law in ‘GOOD FAITH.’ And here is the kicker for me: the Sherriff Department tells me I am on the lower end of the ‘SOR’ and do not have any restriction. But overlooks the fact, they have me registering for life. Yet, they have the nerve to call themselves the good guys or upstanding members of the community. They all, for the most part, profess to be Christians or members of a church and either dont practice it or pervert it, just like they are doing to the CONSTITUTUON.

        • #47684 Reply
          Joseph Park

          It bears repeating. The sex offender registry is an atrocity committed by the government upon its own citizens, with laws by lawmakers, designed to destroy their own constituents. It’s all a corrupt scheme . Millions of jobs across this country are at stake if the SOR is ever thrown out by the court. Just think, every sheriff’s department across this country has a dedicated staff just for the registration and tracking of sex offenders. It’s a pie job. Some sit at the office all day doing paperwork, registering sex offenders. Others call themselves investigators who go out to the sex offenders’ homes to verify that the offender is actually living at the registered address. The are actually investigating a crime that has not even yet occurred to their knowledge. This is also a pie job. Who is less dangerous to others than someone who has committed a crime of “Make Love, Not War?” In prison, there are no more compliant inmates than sex offenders. But, Lord help you if you are in prison on a sex offense. Everyone needs someone to look down on and so sex offenders are subjected to beatings and robberies on a much larger scale than actual violent offenders. There’s nowhere to run, nowhere to hide when you’re in prison. Sex offenders are acutely aware that no piece of tail from an underage girl is worth one night in the county jail, much less state prison. There will be no recidivism for me. You couldn’t roll a teenage girl in a ball and throw her on me.

      • #47681 Reply
        Joseph Park

        The Sex Offender Registry is, plain and simple, an atrocity committed by the state upon its own citizens. It’s all about money. I know you’ve heard that before, but that won’t make sense to you unless you know its origins. Somebody somewhere came up with the idea that private industry could run prisons more cheaply than the state could run its prisons. But, the state already had prisons, fully staffed, but in most cases the prisons had empty beds. It could not be justified to spend $20 million+ to build prison with private money when the states had no demand for the extra beds. So, an elaborate multi-faceted scheme was devised. The federal gov’t. passed the Violent Offender Incarceration / Truth in Sentencing Act, or VOITIS (1996 – 2001). VOITIS offered the states millions of dollars to build new prisons but there were strings attached – the state had to agree to keep incarcerated certain qualifying prioners for at least 85% of their sentences. This included people convicted of assault, murder, battery, robbery, burglary of an occupied dwelling, etc. It also included ALL sex offenders, regardless of whether the criminal act was violent or mutually agreeable. This VOITIS ensured that any state complying with the conditions to receive the money would soon have overloaded prisons, which would soon justify private prison beds. And to ensure that there would be a steady return of prisoners, recidivism was almost assured for sex offenders through the sex offender registry scheme, making it a felony to do nothing. That’s right, a person who fails to register has literally done nothing. But the criminal penalties for failure to register were made even more harsh than the crime originally committed that made the offender have to register. This scheme was dreamed up by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.
        Not to be outdone, the psychologists and psychiatrists saw a great boon in all this. They lobbied for the forced Sex Offender Counselling that all probationers and parolees are familiar with. That’s right, folks. Starving psychologists could now have their offices overflowing with sex offenders, each forced by a condition of probation or parole to sit through an hour of bullshit once or twice a week at $50.00 or more per session. Most are unable to afford this, so guess what – back to prison for violation of probation (or parole) for not attending – and paying for – “treatment.”

        I sat through several of these sessions. It was farcical with 12 to 15 men sitting around looking at each other while the psycologist/facilitator had everybody go around a circle of “patients” and tell everyone why he was guilty of looking at young children with longing for illicit sex. I kid you not, I was there and saw it for myself.

        I know I’ve left some things hanging here but I’m not a writer and I’m tired of writing. I gained a lot of knowledge about these matters through 12 years in prison with others who knew a lot about these things.

    • #47638 Reply
      Dr. Michael Christianson

      A BIG thank you to everyone who is showing the courage to confront this intolerance and pedocentristic injustice in America.

    • #47636 Reply
      Jeremy bowman

      I’m a victim of the law changes in Michigan of 2006 and beyond. I have been arrested 3 times and drug across state lines for not registering in one state when I had moved and was registered in another state. I didn’t break any laws in moving but o lost my job, home, car everything… I also had to pay for expenses involved with me getting home. I was convicted for not having the 50 registration fee even though that law was added to me after the fact as well as I was homeless and indigent… I don’t know how to make the state abide by the courts decision about the law being unconstitutional… And I’m poor and can’t afford an attorney…

      • #47655 Reply
        erich raulfestone

        Well, if its one thing most RC, (registered citizens) are dirt poor so they cant challenge the registry even in large numbers. The registry is a money scam, nothing else. And i bet the politicians will NEVER give up free money!!

    • #47635 Reply

      In reference to:
      “Appeals unanimously held that there was no ex post facto violation because the N.C. Legislature never intended for the sex offender registry to be punitive and that the effects of the law are not punitive.”
      Of course it is easy for the legislators to say they did not “intend” for the registry to be punitive, just as it is easy for them to say the effects of the law are not punitive, especially since they themselves do not have to suffer from the effects of being on the registry as a sex offender!
      They certainly intended it to be punitive, and they know that it is punitive, just like any reasonable person can see that it is punitive.
      However, as long as society continues to support the false narrative that all sex offenders are evil predators who are more than likely to reoffend, then there will continue to be little public concern for sex offenders suffering from any punitive effects of being on the registry.

    • #47647 Reply

      Why isn’t there a comment section on the story about that piece of trash Ryan Will who is helping build playgrounds in communities for the purpose of increasing exclusion zones for sex offenders?

      It’s unconscionable that the state would allow the law to be manipulated in that manner, but where this is taking place isn’t surprising at all. I’m sure Ron and Lauren Book are sitting back laughing their butts off at this situation and saying, “That’s genius!!! Why didn’t WE think of that earlier?” Flori-duhhhh is one of the most vindictive states in the union toward registrants.

      Why are you guys just now picking up on this? This took place back in 2013.

    • #47646 Reply

      That the registry was “never meant to be punitive” is the biggest lie ever told in the history of American jurisprudence. It was designed from the ground up to ensure we NEVER have ANY SEMBLANCE of a normal peaceful life.

      Judges have been so dishonest on the bench and the following quote proves they are just as personally biased against us as is much of the public at large!

      “One of Will’s activities outside the courtroom is helping communities build parks in locations that use state law to keep sexual predators from moving into the neighborhood. Will led the effort to build the first one in his own neighborhood”

      When a sitting judge has been instrumental in building small parks or playgrounds in his own and other communities FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF KEEPING SEX OFFENDERS FAR AWAY that speaks volumes of their dishonest, totally DISHONORABLE character….and then they put on a robe, sit on a bench in judgment of others and call themselves “The HONORABLE….” Yeah, right!!!!

    • #47645 Reply
      Jan Young

      So as a newly arrived to Florida sex offender, This rule that the PO communicates that we are allowed “No Internet Access” at all is in clear violation of our ability to even apply for a job, conduct on line banking, get discounts from our auto insurance companies for taking their on line driver training. Access communication related to weather and storm evacuation instruction. How much more punitive than this does a law have to be in order to be unconstitutional in this State?

      I am new to Florida, having recently arrived thru an interstate compact program to be with my family. In addition to the punitive nature above, as a business owner, I cannot build a website to provide communication and information about our company. Therefore the revenue I generate in order to survive is negatively impacted. That is me personally, Then as an owner, in order to conduct business with any customer my PO is saying that she must contact each client and make sure they know that I am a registered sex offender in the State and they are doing business with me. ?

      If this is not punitive what is?, Do people convicted of theft or drug charges have this same requirement when they are a business owner, ? In Florida the answer is no, the PO does not have to do this for them.

      Another punitive impact is not being able to leave the County with out a specific reason, approval, and travel document from the PO, for any reason at any time. So if I wanted to attend a conference or go to a doctor appt. outside the County, the PO will contact that place, verify my appointment , inform them of my status, before issuing the permit. Again punitive and again do people convicted of vehicular manslaughter have this same stipulation? the answer again is no.

      When and how do we address this in the State of Florida, Talk and whining about the situation helps everyone understand whats going on, when do we start taking action? Is there any current challenge to these laws in Florida. There is no point in arguing with the PO, she is only doing what her boss tells her to do. Enforcing what they tell her to enforce.

      This is a great organization for communication, who in this or any other organization is willing to take action? I don’t have the resources for another attorney, another $ 25,000 out of my pocket alone or more after already spending over $ 100, 000 personally to fight pre and post trial to get here. between trial, appeal, Habeas, and post conviction remedies that got me released 6 years early, cut my sentence in half and allowed me immediate release and to Interstate Compact here to Florida, Now this fight, I’m willing to provide time, effort, and attention to my case and name. Its already been run thru the mud so whats the harm of any more publicity to a case against these injustices, I just need guidance or direction on where to find the organization willing to help, ACLU, not really, tried them, Southern Center for Human Rights, nope, not interested, Innocence Project, sorry can’t help. Someone give me information about where to go based on their experience and perhaps we can all get back to Rational Sex Offender Laws in Florida?

      • #47832 Reply

        Jan, in Florida we have the Florida Action Committee who is doing great things for us. Here is a link to the website:
        Things are looking up.

        • #48321 Reply

          Do you have anyone in Texas?

          • #48708 Reply


            Texas – Texas Voices for Reason and Justice


            Address: PO Box 23539, San Antonio, TX 78223
            Phone: 877-215-6688

    • #47653 Reply
      Jack League

      I am ashamed of the people in this country who pass these laws. they think these law protect people they do not, they do more harm then good to society. The problem is how do we educate people these laws , making it impossible for people to make a living or rehabilitate does no one any good. I lived this, I am now off the registry, put if people don’t think this is unfair a added punishment they are crazy. Good luck everyone.

    • #47658 Reply

      The claim for that Ex Post Facto doesn’t apply because the registry is not punitive is undone by the simple fact that what happens if you don’t register? You go to jail and that is punitive!! In its original form, failure to register was only a civil crime keeping it from being punitive, but then it was amended to become punitive. Why hasn’t anyone argued this?
      Also, Ex Post Facto means ‘after the fact’. It is meant ‘No new law shall be enforced after the fact’. Once you have paid the penalty for your crime under the current law you are not to pay again under a new law made Ex Post Facto. Legislators have said this only has to do with punitive laws, but nowhere in the clause does it say it is only referring to punitive action. Ex Post Facto is meant NO LAW (Punitive or Remedial) shall be enforced after the fact! If the legislators who wrote this clause meant to exclude remedial laws in Ex Post Facto, they would have stated that in the clause.
      Let’s say you get a parking ticket in 2014 and you pay the fine of $15, but then in 2018 the law changes and the fine now for the same parking ticket is $20. Do they contact you 4 years later and demand another $5? It’s not punitive, so why not? Because it you don’t make people pay again for the same crime even if it’s only a measly $5.
      Laws are written to interpreted and enforced by what they say, NOT what they do not say!
      The speed limit signs says 55 and so does the law. It doesn’t say 55 unless you are late for work or have to go to the bathroom. Couldn’t I use the same argument and say that 55 is meant only for people without a need to go faster because it is not written in black and white that it isn’t??

      • #47773 Reply

        I agree with you. However, much of the arguement has centered upon its a civil regulation matter. For example, some comparisons have been made that it’s similar to filing your taxes. Citizens are required to or face potential imprisonment. I disagree with the comparison, but it seems our battle will be tearing apart the civil regulation scheme that “wasn’t intended” to be punitive. The fact is, it is punitive. In many cases the consequences of anything construed to be FTR can result in imprisonment for many that far exceeded even the original offense.

    • #47664 Reply
      Eric Knight

      It will be interesting to see how Brett Kavanaugh will opine with the way his confirmation hearings were brought out. I’ve scoured his entire caseload as much as possible and haven’t found any registry-related case history, so it will be interesting to see what questioning he gives to the litigants in the case.

      • #47666 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall

        At this point, it’s important for everyone to know that the Court has not granted certiorari in this case. It is merely on petition. The Court will conference about the case at some point to decide whether or not to take it up (same as “granting certiorari”). Regarding Justice Kavanaugh, there’s no way to know how he might view a case related to the sex offender registry. However, I know that he is a close professional colleague of Professor Eugene Volokh (UCLA School of Law) and follows very closely Volokh’s blog, the Volokh Conspiracy (Washington Post). Another professor at UCLA is coordinating amici efforts in the Bethea case. So, there’s a considerable amount of support for the advancement of this case coming from some of the same law professors and attorneys who were involved in the Packingham effort. This, of course, is no indication about how Justice Kavanaugh would view the merits of the questions presented, but I think we can rest comfortably assured that Kavanaugh will be familiar with our legal issues, and will certainly have had occasion to appreciate the Court’s reasoning in Packingham as well as the Court’s reluctance to interfere in Snyder and Muniz.

        • #47667 Reply

          Is this a case that would offer people whose registration period was extended from 10 years to having to petition for removal?

          • #47812 Reply
            Robin Vander Wall
            Robin Vander Wall

            It’s really impossible to provide a definitive answer to your question. The question presented in this case is more or less whether or not these so called “second generation” laws are punitive and whether, as applied to the facts in Bethea, violate the Martinez-Mendoza factors. So, depending on whether or not the Court grants cert (and then depending on what the Court were to decide), the best you can hope for is that the Court agrees with the petitioner which, in effect, would open up the floodgates for similar challenges throughout the nation. But, I don’t think it would have the immediate effect you are seeking in your question.

        • #48993 Reply

          @ Robin:

          If Eugene Volokh’s relationship with Justice Kavanaugh is even close to how you have characterized it, then I would think that we could count Kavanaugh in the “against registrants” camp, based on Volokh’s position on Arizona V. Goodman (linked below) supporting the recently overturned Arizona state constitutional amendment.

    • #47675 Reply
      Jeremy from Indiana

      One thing that occurred to me recently that I think would be a good analogy on how the registry restrictions are indeed punitive is comparing it to voter’s registration. Voter’s registration is said to be the most secure it can be without violating the rights of the voters themselves. Then why do SO registrants have more hoops to jump through to register their status? Here’s some interesting comparisons I’ve made:

      Voters can register online or by mail. Registrants MUST register in person.
      Voters can vote in absentee ballots so they don’t even have to show their face. Registrants have their picture displayed online that shows with a search of their name from anywhere in the world.
      Voters can vote early if it’s not convenient to vote on election day. Registrants must register at a specific time frame and cannot register early (at least where I live, I’ve tried!)
      It’s considered racist by some to require ID for voting (huh?), but in my state it’s the law that registrants have ID on them with their current address, so every time I move, I have to get a new ID.

      So, to recap, a voter can vote for the most important jobs in the country without an ID, without showing their face, and without leaving their chair, yet it’s secure. Registrants, on the other hand, have laws that restrict their movement (liberty), where they live, how they live, where they work, how often they change their ID.

      I’m just saying that voter’s registration should be just as strict as the SO registry. If the excuse is that it violates rights, then guess what? The SO registry violates rights.

    • #47677 Reply

      Everything is good if used right even government. Now everybody likes to win and who doesn’t. Ex post facto laws are forbidden unconstitutional crap. I wonder what is forbidden today. Is it one’s liberty, or one’s american jusrtce, or ones unalienable rights endowed by the creator, I sometimes want to say what creator are they talking about. Does one have a right to take all your property away. Guess they have the right to do anything we want when you break the law. I wonder who broke the law when this hurricane came down that distroyed and caused damages and lives. Do we call it an act of nature or an act of man? Is breaking the law to enforce the that is a good thing for greedy government or does government need a huricane to come down on them.

      Robin said this kavanaugh thing probably wouldn’t make much difference if any, and he has his point, but who is the one that belittles each other in these court room drama’s such as the one American just saw. Is a lot of this sex offender game a mission impossible event to solve or is it a whats fair is fair or a just and honorable way to say justice has sunk to its lowest. Sure we could all go with the heart is deceitufl and wicked, or does that exclude government officals. Breaking the law to enforce the seens to be a good thing for greedy government.

      Should we post signs of tie a string around our finger when we get out of line or are these govermental behavior type causes and effects. I hope we are all not back in Rome or should we do as the Romans. When government declines to hear one’s appeal were is our unalienable rights, or is due process the devil’s leverage today with the take a plea deal. One has to wonder about the song God Bless America. I wonder what God they are talking about today in America. Seems since this whole ordeal of this sex offender situation. Government has lost a foot hold with their behavior problem, behavior science, and a lot more. So who’s conscience is seared today?

      • #47689 Reply

        What the public and/or society need to see is that the actual rescidivism rate for a sex offender is less than 5%. They need to see the facts!!! Also, they need to come to their own conclusions. You cannot escape your own conclusion. If the rescidivism rate was high as some talk-show hosts, media programs, and so-called newscasts were true, the news, as it is so-called, would be overwhelmed with sex offenders who re-offendeded, but it isn’t. So ask the question if the rescidivism rate is supposedly so high, why isn’t the news overloaded with sex offenders who re-offended??
        Not in any way to justify sex offenses or lessen their impact on victims, but drug dealers have the highest rescidivism rate of ALL criminals and their offenses affect far more people on a larger scale and people are dying left and right from the drugs they are selling. Drug dealers are in essence guilty of attempted murder.
        In the Columbus newspaper it was written in 2016 ‘An average of 11 people died each day in 2016 from heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil or other drugs.’ That’s an average of 4,016 people a year!!
        In Cuyahoga County alone this year there have been 367 deaths from fentanyl and 329 deaths from cocaine!!
        But, only 1 combination rape and murder reported in Cleveland for 2017, that’s right, only 1.
        That’s almost 700 illegal drug deaths to 1 sex offense death!!!
        Society and Lawmakers are hating on the criminals with the lowest rescidivism rate while those with the highest rescidivism rate and atrociously cause the highest amount of death are relatively overlooked.
        When someone has been raped or sexually abused, they have a chance to recover and lead a normal or close to normal life, but someone who has died from an overdose from heroin or some other illegal drug bought from a dealer has NO chance to recover-it’s GAME OVER!
        No more dad, no more mom, no more brother or sister-they are gone FOREVER!!!
        So why aren’t drug dealers forced to register when the drugs they illegally sell kill tremendously far more people and affect far more families and individuals than sex-offenders??
        If you have children, wouldn’t you like to know if a drug dealer was living next to you??

    • #47680 Reply

      In Pa if you are labeled as a SO you must go to counseling every other week, and group sections every week. You must also take a polygraph and if you fail you take a Hit. Your Parole Officer will make you aware that you failed. This is after being told that you passed. You will immediately be sent to Prison for whatever time that they think is good like 6 months. This is after you have been out for a year and have just started to get your life back together working 40 hours a week. Do you think this is Punitive damage?

      • #47686 Reply
        Joseph Park

        Your probation officer or parole officer feels it is his or her duty to knock your legs out from under you every time you try to recover from your ordeal at the hand of the government. As long as the sex offender registry lives, you will never have paid your “debt to society.” The U.S. Constitution supposedly guarantees the right to be let alone by the government. But, the government uses your past crime to say NEVER will I let you alone.

        I can see how the government can prohibit certain things like the possession of firearms by convicted felons. That is the government telling you what you cannot do. What I can’t see is the government telling you things that you MUST DO. Our rights are based on the precept that anything not prohibited is lawful. It would make more sense if the government prohibited sex offenders from refraining to stay in your home without visiting the sheriff’s office for the 72 hours preceding your birthday.

        The sex offender registry is the root of all our problems. We must get rid of it if we are ever to be free.

    • #47714 Reply

      Go Robin Go!!

    • #47742 Reply

      This amicus brief does sound good and our hope is that it speak volumes to the courts, nation, and all states combined in this injustice of the sex offender fairness. True justice and mercy are good for any government , yet American government tends to seeks power and dominion and has always wanted to overthrow the little person. I wonder today if the nation is still devided or is it the battle to enslave the slaves again with this new thing called the sex offender ordeal today. Would one ever think that justice would be going against justice?

      Now all these comments are good on here and a lot speak truth about this greedy capital gain by this unethical government. I wonder who renders to who today by this injustice of man.

    • #47806 Reply

      Another simple example to use for the “not intended to be punitive argument”, which I have yet to see ever brought up.

      Suggest that the individual you are speaking with, or one of their beloved family members, be placed on the registry for ten years. Or for the rest of their lives. And they have to walk the walk of someone on the registry in terms of travel requirements, living requirements, reporting requirements, the whole nine yards.

      See how they react. “No! I/We/They didn’t do anything wrong!”

      Your response: “And? It’s not punitive, right? Why does that matter?”

      If you tell someone they have to be on a voter registry the rest of their lives, I’m sure they wouldn’t mind. If the sex offender registry isn’t punitive, then why would they object to being on it?

    • #47817 Reply

      To me, I want to send out congrats on the movement to settle this so battle once and for all. The government is a corrupt organization all together because it’s about money and power. To me sex offender registry is NAZI Germany all over. Also I see that states are using us as a HATE CRIME against one kind. We should sue the states for putting us at large of being singled out. I’m in PA, I’m very fortunate that I had a good Parole Officer, I got my life back, got a great job, just bought my own house and just got a new vehicle. I also got two great attorneys that are a phone call away in case I experience any back lash from the police. I was a 10 year registration, then went to life, then to 25yr, and now back to 10yr. I take fight to anything that legislation might throw out there. You must have attorneys that will fight. My crime involved an internet sting by the AG of PA. I cant understand how cops or investigators can lie under oath on legal paperwork that they assume identity of a minor, that’s pure falsification. Also with internet stings they are violating terms and service agreement with the provider if you read the print. What a shame to prosecute people for money and labels. What I do believe is the Megan’s Law in any state is a HATE CRIME because we are the only ones labeled and forced do obey their laws if not we get punished again. My question to Megan’s Law is that, isn’t this double jeopardy clause for the fact it stems from the first conviction, where the states just pushes the Megans Law, then that turns into a new crime code its self. The states should be held reliable for a HATE CRIME not safety. If anyone wants to get in touch with me let me know.

    • #47814 Reply
      Hostage in Texas

      I have been a follower of this site for some time. I am a registered SO. in Texas. The opinions that I read on this site are intelligent and insightful. Why not take this group we have here and publish these opinions to all the major news outlets as op-ed pieces and get some traction with this. as it sits now, we are all preaching to the choir! Activism is alive in America, believe it or not. We need to use the correct vehicle to garner attention. Good or bad!! Keep pounding the facts. They pound the lies and are winning.Where is Abbie Hoffman when me need him!!!!

    • #47824 Reply

      The Politicians and law enforcement should register for the fraud they have created through fear of sex offenders!

    • #47866 Reply
      King Alexander

      I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court will see fit to grant certiorari in the Bethea case. That Emory Law scholars sought out NARSOL for its imprimatur on an amicus brief is auspicious for the organization, and that Prof. Ilya Shapiro filed an amicus brief for the Cato Institute also goes far to show that serious constitutional scholars have begun to take the civil liberties of registered persons seriously. I’m also glad to hear from Robin that Justice Kavanaugh is a close follower of Prof. Eugene Volohk’s blog.

      I suggest rebelling against being called presently kind of a “sex offender,” conviction notwithstanding. I am reminded of President Clinton’s much-repeated remark in his civil deposition, “it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” What he meant was, “If you’re saying _now_, the answer is no.” Let’s encourage use of the phrase “a person who is required to register.”

    • #49416 Reply

      Can anyone update us on when the argument date for the case vs. the Colorado registry is? I thought it was scheduled for mid-day November. However, haven’t seen anything.

      • #49425 Reply

        If you are referring to 17-1333, Millard, et al. v. Rankin was argued November 15th. You can listen online at the 10th Curcuit site if you choose.

        • #49453 Reply

          Yes. Thank you very much, Charlie! I did take a listen. It was pretty bland from both sides. So hopefully all the briefs are received well. Do we have an idea on when a decision may be made?

          • #49832 Reply

            Hi Jim, I have been watching the “today’s opinions” link at the 10th daily for news. I also have been trying to glean from other decisions any pattern to determine when we might see something. It seems most if the cases are ruled on within one to two months following arguments. But, there is no rule that I have found that says when they must decide a case. So, at this point all we can do is wait. As a RC originating in Colorado, I’m particularly interested in how this comes down.

    • #49891 Reply

      Thanks so much for looking into it, Charlie. It will certainly be interesting to hear. Although I assume it’s going to SCOTUS either way.

      • #49915 Reply

        My pleasure Jim. We are all in this thing together after all! Charlie

Viewing 21 reply threads
Reply To: NARSOL files amicus brief to Supreme Court, joins another
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *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.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *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 contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

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