Reply To: 2018 NARSOL board retreat paves path for future growth, success

Tim Lawver


In Connecticut V Doe
The similarly situated were those under plea agreement. The guilty.

Not before the court? Those who had not waived right to contest civil action.
All commitments to states, even those of civil nature, require process unless otherwise knowingly waived. While the victor gets the spoils hope is not lost, appeals remain. Even those found NOT GUILTY are open to civil action- see OJ. His civil trial had a defense table. In Wisconsin 980 commitments GET PROCESS & Representation. Some pre-Whetterling Act; OMNIBUS94 registrants, the actually not guilty & the absolutely guilty, had no process nor opportunity to introduction of exculpatory DNA analysis nor defense of any kind. The new commitment was imposed without an original awareness by the registrant.

Since SOR requirement IS a commitment to DOC and involves affirmative restraint like incarceration, P&P a process is lost.

Reading the 9-0 Connecticut v Doe case rightly paves my way and yours. SixZeroEightThreeSixThree8553. Tim