Time to File a Petition for WRIT of ERROR CORAM NOBIS in Smith v. Doe

 

Once again we find the United States government officials have provided false information to the United States Supreme Court to justify the existence of unconstitutionally discriminatory laws, this was also just what they did in the case of the Japanese-Americans interned to the relocation camps during World War II.

The decision in Korematsu v. United States has been a very controversial one. Korematsu’s conviction for evading internment was overturned on November 10, 1983, after Korematsu challenged the earlier decision by filing for a writ of coram nobis. In a ruling by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the writ (that is, it voided Korematsu’s original conviction) because in Korematsu’s original case the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Korematsu decision has not been explicitly overturned although, in 2011 the Department of Justice filed official notice conceding that it was in error, thus erasing the case’s value as precedent for interning citizens. However, the Court’s opinion does remain significant, both for being the first instance of the Supreme Court applying the strict scrutiny standard to racial discrimination by the government, and also for being one of only a handful of cases in which the Court held that the government met that standard.

U.S. official cites misconduct in Japanese American internment cases
Acting Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal says one of his predecessors, Charles Fahy, deliberately hid from the Supreme Court a military report that Japanese Americans were not a threat in World War II.
May 24, 2011|By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

Reporting from Washington — Acting Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal, in an extraordinary admission of misconduct, took to task one of his predecessors for hiding evidence and deceiving the Supreme Court in two of the major cases in its history: the World War II rulings that upheld the detention of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans.

Now someone has looked into the information that was provided to the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe and found that the government officials have done the same thing again to justify a discriminatory practice against a class of people, they have used falsified information and hearsay not based on any reliable studies that were available, even at that time. It should be noted that there are studies going back to the 1960s . For example, the 1962 Jack study, as cited in Furby, Weinrott & Blackshaw,  “Sex offender recidivism: a review”, in 1989 looked into non-treated offenders showed the re-offense rate of 3.7% over 15 years, that’s 2/10 of 1% per year. Another interesting facet of the Furby study is how their comment was taken out of context.since the study was to see the effectiveness of treatment programs on sex offenders.  People point to the first portion of the comment “there is as yet no evidence that clinical treatment reduces the rate of sex offense.” Furby and her colleagues second portion of the statement have been omitted from the most other reports, Where they stated: “The recidivism rate of treated offenders is not lower than that for untreated offenders; if anything, it tends to be higher. quite simply meaning that the treatment programs increase the possibility of re-offense. It is now known that as a whole people on the registry have a re-offense rate in new sex crimes of less than 6/10 of one percent. (Nebraska sex offender registry study july 31 2013).

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616429

‘Frightening and High’: The Frightening Sloppiness of the High Court’s Sex Crime Statistics

Ira Mark Ellman

Arizona State University College of Law; Arizona State University (ASU) – Department of Psychology; Center for the Study of Law and Society, Berkeley Law, University of California, Berkeley
Tara Ellman

Independent June 8, 2015
Abstract:    
This brief essay reveals that the sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.

In filing a petition for writ of error coram nobis in Smith v. Doe, it should be noted there is a conflict of interest involving the Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts was the government attorney that withheld information or presented false/ misleading recidivism information that is the crux of the error, i.e., there the claim of high re-offense rates. There was enough studies pre-Smith v. Doe to show that the correct recidivism information was out there, and the information that they use from the Prentky study was incorrect and the other information that they used to support their case was hearsay, not based on any valid scientific study.

So from where I stand with the above information, I believe it is time to call an accounting of the Supreme Court decision that was based on lies presented by the Solicitor Gen. in the Smith versus Doe case , and that the Department of justice be held accountable for all of the collateral damage to offenders and their families caused by government officials  misinformation that was presented to the Supreme Court.

11 comments for “Time to File a Petition for WRIT of ERROR CORAM NOBIS in Smith v. Doe

  1. June 18, 2015 at 5:34 am

    I hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to reprint this in my inmate newsletter. This is a great article!

    • Will Bassler
      June 18, 2015 at 8:32 am

      The reason for SOSEN existence is to help educate the public on issues related to the SO Registry any of our articles can be reprinted and shared as long as they are not taken out of context. In an attempt to damage this organization. Or it’s members.

  2. Kayt
    June 19, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    So, how do we: “File a Petition for WRIT of ERROR CORAM NOBIS in Smith v. Doe” if this is in fact what we should be doing and if this is the solution to false reports that are given to the public for various reasons?

    Keep in mind that we all know that the prison industry is big business and this alone would influence government in any decision that they might make. It would take a HUGE number of signatures to make any kind of change.I think we would need a serious campaign.

    • Will Bassler
      June 19, 2015 at 4:35 pm

      first of all it’s going to take some extremely good constitutional lawyers to take this back to the Supreme Court. Secondly, we need to provide those lawyers with as much pertinent information pertaining to re-offense rates. As is possible

      • Kayt
        June 20, 2015 at 7:04 am

        Please understand that many people do not have the ability to understand political verbiage or procedure. Many do not “believe” that there is a way to effectively challenge the law.

        What would a plan look like that would educate Registrants and those who are collateral damage?

        What would it take to come up with a solid plan to go forward with a petition to sign so that people will understand the problem at hand and feel confident in signing a petition such as “File a Petition for WRIT of ERROR CORAM NOBIS in Smith v. Doe”?

    • Laurence Vaughan
      June 24, 2015 at 12:45 am

      I have to agree. I have no money for an attorney however I would try to help in other ways if needed. We really need to start something. also I agree we really need a serious campaign.

      • KayT
        June 25, 2015 at 6:58 pm

        I am asking what would a serious campaign actually look like? How would we get people interested in actually forming one?

  3. Scott
    June 22, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    When did Judicial Tyranny stop?? or when did it start…..?

  4. Mike
    July 7, 2015 at 5:32 am

    Don’t stop here. This same idea was kicked around and discussed over 8 years ago. However, back then no one was willing to listen. A lot of water has passed beneath the bridge and now there are many more studies to add to the low recidivism facts, as well as factual information about collateral consequences of applying SORNA retroactively. False information was submitted by (Roberts) back then could (and should) get a review by SCOTUS. However, Chief Justice Roberts must recuse himself from the review as his decision is biased.

  5. Tim L
    August 4, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    I would just like to say Alaska v. doe was NOT about the sex offenders. It was about the “electronic Database” & Gov’t use thereof. Sex sells in U.S.! everything from Automobiles to Viagra.*

    I’m not saying there is…but if there were a group of elites who were in power and wanted to maintain their position… is not the database the first thing such a hypothetical group would want/ check that ..need!. A way to weed out the competition, carve away at potential political competitors through marginalization. or other nefarious means.

    Keep in mind to make law in this county one needs only approval of two groups: Big Business and Big labor. Each were satisfied with respect to SOR, thus we have “Law.”

    From this perspective we can state surely the only thing worse than splitting the American tax pie two ways is to be forced to split it three or four ways.

  6. charles
    September 11, 2015 at 7:15 am

    I really don’t mean to be negative here but, I strongly believe that even if the Justices in Smith v Doe had the correct residivism rate information, they still would have ruled the same way. Why? Because I strongly believe there is a much bigger, and hidden agenda behind the establishment of sex offender (SO) laws. I say this because I can’t see how people of seemingly high intelligence, i.e., the US Supreme Court Justices, can possibly believe that sex offender registration/residency laws and its components are not punishment. I just don’t believe it! These people know damn well SO laws are not only punishement but also violative of various Constitution Rights, e.g., a) Ex Post Facto when applied after a conviction and sentence, and b) Substantive Due Process in that a person does not get to confront his accuser or get a chance to defend him/herself. And on another issue, dealing with proponents of SO laws, these people are either very stupid, very naive or flat out mentally retarded to think/believe that SO registration/residency laws can keep them safe. How can they? I’ll give 5:1 odds if any proponent of SO laws can tell me just how these laws can keep them and their family safe from a real predator. Do you really believe that a 1000 or 2000 ft restriction from a school, day care etc., will stop a real predator? You think he/she will go the 999 ft or 1999 ft and say “Oh, I can’t go over that line because it’s a violation”. Duhhhh! Of that because you banish that person to the outskrits of town that he/she will stay there? News flash! SOs travel. SOs have cars, access to mass transit, friends with cars, taxi cabs—need I say more? So please, somebody explain to me just how SO laws keeps you safe.

Comments are closed.