You are here

NARSOL in Action wrap-up: Colorado deregisgration

This topic contains 9 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  James Coghill 1 month, 1 week ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #46043 Reply

    admin

    By Grant Miller . . . Attorney Colleen Kelley was our special guest on our most recent NARSOL In Action held August 15th. We focused on the section of
    [See the full post at: NARSOL in Action wrap-up: Colorado deregisgration]

  • #46049 Reply

    Timothy D A Lawver

    @Deregistration,
    Anyone who claims success via deregistration claims an empty win. There are at least 100 private sex offender databases owned by firms like offender watch.
    Anyone deregistered will remain on state systems aswell, but not suffer public display on state’s Sorna sites. One may claim the 5k a worthwhile investment but if a kid comes up missing near you, expect LEO to visit you anyway.

    @Tiered system, Tyranny V Tierany same same. No one can be sure how the 10th will rule, but I think the 10th may affirm part and reject in part. Either way SCOTUS will decline as in Michigan. Our FED has no reason to restrict and\or limit database use by states to protect the public. To do so would impact the federal ‘s basis for USE.

    • #46193 Reply
      Larry Neely
      Larry

      Timothy,
      You are correct and I agree with you that there are other databases that would still have a person’s name, photo, and conviction information after a successful petition for deregistration. I totally disagree with you in terms of your position regarding the value of deregistration. You also stated that “Anyone deregistered will remain on state systems as well, but not suffer public display on state’s SORNA sites. One may claim the 5k a worthwhile investment but if a kid comes up missing near you, expect LEO to visit you anyway.” You are correct on both points. A person deregistered in Colorado will remain in the state’s criminal repository and law enforcement may still visit him/her during a criminal investigation. But that does not diminish the overall value of deregistration. Once a person is no longer required to register, he/she will not be subject to: (1) prosecution for failure to comply with registration which can lead to a substantial term of imprisonment and habitual enhancement in Colorado; (2) banishment from living within an exclusion zone; (3) having their passports stamped because the State Department is only marking current registrants; and (4) banishment from participation in their children’s lives due school policies that prohibit anyone registered from attending school activities or being on campus. I could go on with the advantages in not being subject to registration. This does not mean that the private listings are not a problem. They are. The question is what can be done to curtail their existence in a free society?

      • #46233 Reply

        Timothy

        @Larry,
        I prefer the term indenture. Administrative sure but that is work too when you sit on a bench or do para work. You describe affirmative disabilities but that purpose is disavowed by state as intent by preamble. You claim legal threat from FTR will not insue, I agree but that ignores travel demands. Facial recognition will alert the authorities or wannabes, and naturally stops to question will occur. HOAs will make their own rules and registrants will rejected under the table. The people pay for IDENTITY PROTECTION and BACKGROUND checks. I plead not guilty in every case and aspect!
        Wisconsin Law on its face 301.45 (1g)a. rules me out by date but here I am.
        ILL defies walking your dog in a PARK.
        YOU THINK WE have a constitutional republic?
        Being on probation for FTR made it unnecessary for me to register for life in IL.
        I technically would have been forced to by IL law if I’d not been on WI probation.

        Ironically some years ago by Wisconsin law SORAGENT would be the one on trial for DOCs disclosure. This is an absolute fact. Why? Constanteneau! You ever consider using states database to defend yourself by demanding trial in such a case? Why would I be afraid to? All state does or try is redact information, I want more or all as possible! I fired one lawyer for refusing to make a potential jury member the Forman, because she was admittedly a victim of sex assault. The court rejected her not me. She walked off humiliated and I felt terrible. So sick the debate concerning human sexuality and innuendo. Every Wisconsin election is impacted by the sex issue even supreme court. Walker V Evers a prime current example. Mean and nasty as our lewdership. A man knows what he prefers and she ain’t it! Even if it pisses her off! Don’t blame I’m only the messenger. Yes I’d call her to the stand again if necessary.

  • #46181 Reply

    Glen

    Im not convinced the case out of Colorado is headed to the Supreme Court even if the 10th Circuit upholds Judge Matsch’s decision. SCOTUS may decline cert just as they did in Michigans case. At some point, I do believe SCOTUS will have to revisit the constitutionality of the registry and its ever growing restrictions but I’m not sure this is the case they will accept.

    • #46192 Reply
      Larry Neely
      Larry

      Glen,
      We here at NARSOL agree that the Supreme Court may decline the state of Colorado’s petition for certiorari should the 10th Circuit affirm Judge Matsch. The question posed to Ms. Kelley was whether or not she would expect the state to seek review by the Supreme Court if Judge Matsch’s decision is affirmed. Her answer was that she would expect that they would seek review. She did not opine on whether the court would grant review. She offered that opinion based on the previous behavior by the Colorado AG and that review was sought in both the Michigan and the Pennsylvania case. Both were denied.

    • #46225 Reply

      Timothy

      @glen,
      What Mr. Roberts labeled as “registration” was in fact plain indenture. It also collateralized, by civil declaration in Smith V Doe, certain other gov uses of the device, THE DATABASE(S) as ‘civil.’

      The first massive infrastructure was built where? Not in D.C., Arlington, or Manassas. ANGEL WATCH is housed where? Grady 1 SBM a search, Grady II SBM are continuous electronic searches. DUH!

      Scapegoats for Surveillance Saints. Opting for electronic convenience has intrinsic negative consequences. Online bankers risk period. The two parties will continue to blame foreign influence for their failures.

      That’s what happens when you buy your friends and make promises you cannot keep. 24.5 Trillion (1T = 1,000B)÷ 50.
      20B per annum paid in interest by each state to maintain that debt. Inflation is coming. FUBAR!

    • #46234 Reply

      James Coghill

      Revisiting the registry is coming. The success or failure will be determined by the case they decide to hear. SCOTUS is entirely discretionary so they are cherry picking the cases as well as the attorneys bringing the cases before them. It’s a matter of the right case at the right time and will depend on the amount of damage suffered as a direct provable result of being on the registry. Dying from a registry website vigilante would be the most likely type of successful case because nothing else so clearly demonstrates the problem of keeping this information and making it available to the public. If you know someone who meets this criteria I strongly urge you to get them to see an attorney and file a claim in federal court. If you do nothing, nothing will happen. And as Solomon Burke says, “If you don’t say it’s wrong then that says it’s right.” None Of Us Are Free If One Of Us Is Chained.

      • #46342 Reply

        Timothy D.A. Lawver

        @Mr. James Coghill,
        CHERRY PICKING!
        You got that right. Consider how Mr. J. Roberts chose not to inform the Rehnquist panel that 49 states intention to compel by law Free men to “show up in perspn”. Instead, he brought Alaska. A state with a huge geographical area making it unworkable to demand registered persons to ” Show up in person. ” Mr. Roberts also withheld scientific evidence about recidivism rates.
        THE CASE OF ELECTRONIC INDENTURE.
        States databases are properties. The maintenance of data is first submitted by registrants, then carried to market via the infrastructure and world wide web by SORNA agents. If it we’re a cotton field, SOR agents would most resemble wagon master’s who then carried the commodity to the processors. Essentially The Misters are responsible for setting our nation back to a time when indentured servitude was common place AND not seen as punishment! The database was a game changer indeed. Especially to the political decorum and discourses in our nation.
        I would be very difficult for anyone to convince me that these mega databases will not be used to maintain a non free Democratic Republic. Political security over individual liberty while the needs of machine outweighs, by law, the needs of man.
        This is an electronic bridge to nowhere.

  • #46544 Reply

    TS

    Thank you for posting this August NARSOL in Action write up and look forward to the September version as well. I listened to them both with great interest, found them to be informative, and applicable. Ms. Kelly was a great guest to have both times.

    One thing, not all non-Colorado area codes mean that those who hold those numbers are actually non-Colorado residents considering cellphone numbers do go people wherever they live, even if it is not the state where the area code is listed.

  • #46627 Reply

    Timothy DA Lawver

    @Anyone

    Wisconsin, stat. 301.45(g)a “Is convicted of judged delinquent on or after Dec 23, 1993. ” See NARSOL wiki.
    My NOC (5\20\1992.) This law on its face rules me out! Can a jury read the law in an FTR case? I’d love to put this law in front of my jury! BTW the doc form also states “an indeterminate term not to exceed sixty months consecutively.”
    Its marked with my plea NOT GUILTY trial by jury. DOCSOR SITE makes no reference to my demand for trial. N or my not guilty position.

Reply To: NARSOL in Action wrap-up: Colorado deregisgration
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="">