Comments on: Patch’s bias is showing in article about transition housing for registrants.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Sun, 05 Mar 2023 17:35:58 +0000

Could the home have had a historical marker? There has to be a nefarious reason for claiming it was fire damaged. This needs to be investigated. What are they hiding? It could be the thread that pulls the whole scheme apart.

By: Jeremy from Indiana

Jeremy from Indiana — Thu, 02 Mar 2023 14:44:42 +0000

In reply to A Mistake They Made. The problem with this strategy is that SCOTUS doesn't take every case. They only grant certiorari on a little over 300 cases per year. Thousands are submitted though, including cases pertaining to our plight as registrants. The only way they'll take it up is if it's a very, very clear cut case that it will be acceptable to the public (as in Packingham v NC). If we win in the states or district courts, the opposition never appeals to SCOTUS because they know what will happen; the decision for that state will be "in danger" of being nationwide. So, in practice, nothing ever gets done. They never appeal and when we do, we're denied cert.

By: mut

mut — Tue, 24 Jan 2023 21:02:18 +0000

i remember being “free to live where they want” being central to at least one courts rejection of an “affirmative disability or restraint” argument.

like to see someone start with the citys waste of tax dollars. expose the councils misinformed uneducated bigotted decision making. sue the city. theyre the ones evicting the residents.

By: Robert A

Robert A — Fri, 13 Jan 2023 04:50:08 +0000

Usually when a property is condemned and subsequently torn down, the only value is the land. Not the buildings that sit on it. Either the city got ripped off or the fire that happened there was a sham. The police won’t tell you if there really was a fire there but I bet the fire department would or red cross who put the family up who would have been displaced from that alleged fire. If one could prove the city is using this pocket park to harass those individuals, they’ll be out more than the 80 grand they wasted on that house. Ya, it’s safe to say, the city is playing with fire.

By: Tim in WI

Tim in WI — Tue, 10 Jan 2023 19:56:03 +0000

In reply to George Simmonds.

George,
Sue who? Who is Patch? When patch uses the word sex offender or paedophile they’re not pointing to an individual, they’re gaslighting by stereotype. Only those who have grounds to file suit will be given opportunity by courts to prove to unlawful conduct against their liberty by defamation. Journalists can be subjected to such but only when it has merit. I believe Patch distorts truth and examples the worst of yellow journalism, however the Internet ( DDI) has exacerbated the disinformation problem. We still haven’t identified who actually runs Patch publishers!
Why should the remain unknown individuals. If M. Zuckerberg made such statements, he’d be called out as the leader.

By: Tim in WI

Tim in WI — Fri, 06 Jan 2023 22:16:20 +0000

Well? Who owns and operates Patch Press? It’s not as if such tactics ( yellow journalism) has been used to support a personal Agenda of very rich individuals. Patch may very well be driving a market, perhaps one exclusive to them. Who calls out FB without naming the leadership by name? If a registry can name names why doesn’t NARSOL do it with respect to Patch Publishers?

By: A Mistake They Made

A Mistake They Made — Wed, 04 Jan 2023 18:49:35 +0000

In reply to William M Hart. The fact that this is true and can be proven makes me so mad. Why could someone on the registry no sue the SCOTUS for using bad data on a ruling? You would probably have to start at the state level. A simple case that the registry law is unconstitutional because it was created based on false data. Then loose, and appeal all the way up to SCOTUS where they would have to admit the data use in the famous SCOTUS case was in fact wrong and then they would have to judge on that. If you show the actual article as evidence and the SCOTUS ruling how could this not win?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 04 Jan 2023 11:35:55 +0000

Hello, you know you would think so. That’s defimation of character. Plus where is all of there Evidence for enacting all laws aimed at All Sex Offenders. They don’t have any, but there so much evidence that’s in our corner and proves the law makers are completely wrong for enacting most of those laws aimed at SO. They knew Recidivism rates for SO’s in 1994 before they enacted that law was 9% but they enacted it anyways in 1995. After 1995 Recidivism rates have been below 5%, from 1995 -2022, but nothing changes why, a 5th grader can see this. Is there a different reason for still doing what there doing and the Evidence is right in front of them that there wrong but they don’t change it. Heck I’m innocent and for real but was arrested and convicted. When I get this off me I’m gonna fight to change the laws and help where I can,
Thanks Mike

By: William M Hart

William M Hart — Wed, 04 Jan 2023 02:39:49 +0000

The irony is not lost on me that it was a magazine article that
helped get us in this position in the first place. An uncorroborated assertion in a 1986 Psychology Today article continues to influence the politicians who pass laws and the judges who uphold them. Justice Anthony Kennedy referenced this article in deciding
two notorious cases deciding the fates of those convicted of a sex offense.
In McKune v. Lile, a 2002 decision that upheld a mandatory prison therapy program for sex offenders, Kennedy said “the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%,” a number he called “frightening and high.” He repeated that claim the following year in Smith v. Doe, which upheld retroactive application of Alaska’s registration requirements for sex offenders. As of 2015, according to a review published in Constitutional Commentary, Kennedy’s phrase had been echoed in 91 judicial opinions and the briefs filed in 101 cases.
So it comes as no surprise that the written word is still being used to malign and vilify
those caught up in these persecutions.

By: GW Teer

GW Teer — Tue, 03 Jan 2023 20:53:39 +0000

In reply to George Simmonds.

Agree! That is the problem with the registry as well. People like the editor and other news sources have long been trying to force offenders out of areas.

Offenders do have first person rights under a SCOTUS ruling. They were approved by someone to live there but now some real estate mogul or political mayor group wants to use trickery or force in removing them,

No fire next door. No complaints from others in the area. Just some loudmouth trying to start problems because they saw names on a registry.