The order from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Millard v. Rankin was issued today and it’s not good news. The relief offered by the Colorado District Court was reversed.
A copy of the order can be found here, which is being shared without much commentary, as we are just digesting this: Millard-v.-Rankin Opinion
That’s a fact modern day lepers, punishment on a daily basis, why don’t other felons have to register as be publicly shamed
This federal court zoomed in on settled federal court rulings as they always do. This reversal is not surprising to me. The Pharisees cannot see their hypocrisy, no more than a court jester sees the strings attached to him. However, they won’t escape judgment themselves. The court’s reversal decision only reflects the hardness of their heart/resolve.
This is decision is based on ‘INTENT.’ And there is never going to be a legislator who will admit to ‘INTENT’ So, the Appeals court reverses the lower court’s ruling in favor the defendant’s, merely because nowhere in the legislated laws of Congress or the States is printed the word INTENT. What I find very troublesome with SORNA legislations and these courts double talk of no ‘INTENT’ of further punishment, is their DISCLAIMERS following SORNA laws right down to the law enforcement. These disclaimers on all Federal and State SOR’S websites reveal the legislators, before the enactment of SORNA, considered the outcome of public SOR’ registries would most likely give rise to ostracism, reproaching, job loss or unemployment. homelessness, and even VIGILANTE’s targetting those on the registries for harassment, assaults, robberies, and death. Which all the above indeed has happened. So, I believe these disclaimers do show prior knowledge of what can and will happen to those on the registries. If not malicious criminal intent perpetrated by hands vigilantes, at least criminal intent of ‘knowingly enacting laws that would give rise to crimes committed on or toward those Americans on these registries. Their disclaimer goes something like this; We cannot be held criminally or liable for any person who uses the sex offender registry to target those on the SONRA.
If you look for it, in the judgment it is openly confessed that the public can ( and does) punish us and the legislative branch cannot be held responsible because it can only be ‘punitive’ in the court if it is done by the government.
In other words, as long as it is only the public punishing us and our families, and not the government, the courts will not take our side.
I’m not going to blame that much of this on the 10th Circuit to be honest. SCOTUS already ruled that registration isn’t punishment. The 10th Circuit has to follow SCOTUS under stare decisis. And if something isn’t punishment, it can’t be considered cruel and unusual punishment, even for juveniles or minor offenders.
Unfortunately, the way stare decisis works is that bad precedent (such as Smith v Doe) leads to more bad rulings.
So because of the supreme court decision, that’s it. Never going to change, it will always be this way. All we can is sit back and wait until we die. Pray we don’t get old and need to be in a nursing facility, because none will take us. What I great future I have.
Registered and living in Colorado….very disappointed….sad…. not surprised. It was a long time coming and based on what has happened in Michigan when their Legislature was told to get in line, I am not confident it would have mattered.
They will always argue the intended purpose of these registration laws is to protect the public from sex offenders, but what the laws intentions are and what actually applies are world’s apart. We see new laws added all the time which can easily be considered punishment. We know there in no guaranteed protection with such laws and the need for them is moot at best, yet law makers excuses will always be worded as thus. Intentions and actual effects are more often than not, world’s apart.
I’m disappointed but not surprised.
They don’t consider residency restrictions as restraint.
That state doesn’t have the brightest people huh? I mean how dumb of a human being do you have to be to think that residency restrictions for people isn’t a restraint on their freedoms.
They need to get this case in front of people with some practicality in their brains.
I believe in other more civilized countries, this type of ridiculous reasoning wouldn’t work.
Hey Joe123 seems like it’s not just that state but ALL states! The fact is that Black Lives might Matter but ours sure the f^ck don’t!
Society will bend over backwards for some vandals and looters and actually reward them but do your 20 years on this repugnant hit list and what do you get? Any of those reparations for the abuse we face daily – no – didn’t think so!
Nope the entire USA isn’t very bright are they and they are only getting dumber!
I missed the residency restrictions part of the ruling. That I blame the 10th Circuit more for.
SCOTUS has never ruled on whether or not residency restrictions are punishment. IIRC, part of the Smith v Doe ruling explicitly said that sex offender registration is not akin to banishment. At least at the time of the case, Alaska didn’t have any sex offender residency restrictions.
So. It’s not punishment because the intent was not punishment. They are saying that the remainder of my life is based upon an assumption that the intent of those who wrote the laws.
I was looking into moving out of state, going to Indiana. Called spoke to someone at sheriff there. No better, a little worse some, a little better others. Why bother at this point.
So all this together and I’m having a bad mental health day, I hope you all are well and safe.
Once again, the registry is not deemed to violate the 8th Amendment as punishment due to legislative intent. Such bullsh@it.
I will assume that this will be appealed now to SCOTUS.
One difference between this case and our own Does v Swearingen (our Ex Post Facto Plus case)— here the registrants‘ lawyers “do not distinguish their case from binding precedent” such as Smith v Doe (Supreme Court 2003). But our case, from what I recall seeing in the amended complaint, does! And the facts of the Florida registry are different! They’re a lot different than what the Supreme Court considered in 2003. And am I right in observing that Florida’s registry laws are more harsh than Colorado’s?
See, this is what happens when you hire an attorney who’s an amateur when it comes to registry issues. Not just that they “do not distinguish their case from binding precedent,” but they also “fail to show,” “cite no case,” “do not connect this argument or otherwise explain,” and “fail to connect,” all of which is language contained in the above ruling. For suits such as these, choose your attorney wisely, or don’t choose one at all!
I’m grateful at least that all that 10th Cir precedent cited in the ruling, does not bind us here in Florida (yet).
FAC do we now have a circuit split between the 6th (on the one hand) and the 5th and 10th (on the other)? Or are they different issues?
Am I right that these are the first three federal circuit courts of appeal to weigh in on these issues?
The sixth circut laws are about expost facto that judge the ruled that is in visolation of constitution, what the attorney for colorado cases, argued was 8th and 14th amendments she should of argued expost facto and used michigan as an example
As usual, over-reliance on Smith v. Doe to say it’s not punitive just because the legislature didn’t intend it to be while completely overlooking that the legislature wrote out every facet that made it non-punitive to begin with. Can’t say I’m not surprised.
Same old argument that sex offender registration is NOT punishment. But when a statute makes it harder to find a job, hard to operate your own business, hard to find a place to live, impossible to enjoy public parks and recreation area paid for with your own taxes, and impossible to travel to other countries, what is it BUT a punishment. It also inflicts collateral punishment on your family members. Would the average person deem it to be punishment? That is how judged traditionally decided issues, NOT by considering the intent of the legislature. The Sixth Circuit got it right by calling it what it us, PUNISHMENT!
Disappointing, indeed but perhaps this will be the circuit split that will give SCOTUS a reason to, once and for all, decide if registries, in their present form are punishment
Let’s hope this move up the ladder.