- This topic has 4 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by Tim L.
August 6, 2018 at 6:19 pm #44453
By Susan Walker . . . In Colorado the Coalition for Sexual Offense Restoration continues to work with men and women in prison and coming out of prison
[See the full post at: Colorado’s CSOR involved in multiple advocacy initiatives]
August 6, 2018 at 8:38 pm #44455
Any thoughts toward her taking a seat on a bench once the issues are resolved?
My gut tells me she’d make a formidable Judge! I’m going to send her a thank you card myself. I do not currently live in CO myself but have twice in the past. Colorado is a great state. The legal community and justice suffers a blow by her absence. Good luck CSOR. TIM L.
August 8, 2018 at 9:04 am #44490
I have not talked with Alison since she announced that she would be leaving her practice due to health issues, so would not venture a guess at this point whether she would be available for any other appointment. It was my privilege to be present for all of the argument in this case, and she did do an amazing job, as did her clients in their testimony.
August 19, 2018 at 7:34 am #45169
“as did her clients in their testimony.”
I sure wish more Ex post FTR defendants would opt for trial.
Most fail to realize they can put the law itself on trial.
By definition they are easily identified even by laymen (jury)
“On its face ex post” is a big problem for the other side. & they will move to quash constitutional argument via limine. The phrase should be used AMAP in the presence. A direct comparison can be made between what the NOTICE OF CONVICTION content reveals and the statutes applied.
State cannot extricate itself from the ex post stat but motion to exclude the staT based on conviction date which BTW could be read plainly to absolutely exclude. My state law uses December 26, 1993. Since notice date always predates Act implementation date, reasonable doubt rears defacto. Depending on states choice for admin of SOR another issues favorable develops. DOC, DPS defendant are advantaged precisely because it’s the same agency used to punish AND term of commitment length plainly conflict.
You don’t logically call a plumber to do your electrical work & Who pays more than they were told they had too?
Pro se defendants can expect some leeway in cross IF foundations laid properly during states open.
August 8, 2018 at 9:04 am #44494
I lived in Colorado for 13 years, that’s where I picked up my charge, at the time I was not required to register because there was no registry when I lived there, once Pa started sorna in 03 that’s when I had to reg, currently have been removed from the reg in Pa last week, I have seen a few people get put back on and then removed and then put back on for whatever reason, hopping that won’t be the case with my case..
Would be nice to see them knock their sorna reg down like Pa and some other states have, at least Pa is taking some sort of action unlike Michigan.