This Just In...

From Kevin Fischer's blog: "Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John Franke has ruled against

"The judge spoke at length on the issue of assessing risk – what is the risk of injury if the injunction is not granted? While there is a “chance” of child assault, it is too difficult to apply recidivism statistics to one individual without expert witness. The risk over a short period of time is very small. Hanke committed his crime against someone with whom he had a very long-term and close relationship, thus lowering the chances that he would assault a child at random."

This judge is playing a dangerous game of trying to predict the behavior of a convicted predator.  He seems to be very comfortable getting inside the mind of a child predator and attempting to interpret their thoughts and sick desires.

I also don't understand how he can push aside the Franklin ordinance that is similar to the one that has been upheld in the US 8th District Court of Appeals and just randomly pick and choose which parts of the lw to uphold.  

I think Judge Franke needs to hear from all of us again about his decision.

Franke has a point, unless you want the State (or subdivision thereof) to control all citizens' activities based on 'possibilities' or even 'probabilities.'

That's part of Statism.

I agree with all of the comments regarding Judge Frankes decision, however, this issue involves all citizens residing in Wisconsin.  I hope to see a bigger representation of people from all cities at the next hearing.   Judge Franke needs to realize that he is dealing with more than Franklin families.  Please bring as many people as you can to the next hearings to support our kids saftey.  We need to stand united.

What about all the murderers, carjackers, and other criminals that statistically commit far more offenses against children?  Do you know where THEY live?  Of course not.  They are not on a registry, and certainly every one of them can live as close to a school as they please, once they are clear of the correctional system.

But I won't bother looking at the glaring lack of consistency the public has with regard to former offenders.  Rather, let me respond point by point to Kevin's assertions

1) Clearly Franke could have and should have ruled in favor of Franklin. I submit that no appeal would have overturned his ruling. Hanke is in clear violation of a constitutional ordinance.

STORAC: Of course, Franke as a judge should rule in favor of something.  But Kevin is wrong by stating that no appeal would overturn his ruling. Kevin asserts that Hanke is in "clear violation of a constitutional ordinance."  But on the same token, an ordinance can NOT usurp the constitutional rights of any citizen, including former felons, that aren't part of the state compact in the first place.  For instance, there are laws restricting firearm possession, contraband possession, and other reasonable limitations.

But when Kevin asserts that Hanke is in clear violation of a constitutional ordinance, he doesn't take into consideration that the law repeals segments of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments that has consistantly been upheld for all citizens throughout US history, including felons.  Finally, there is the ex post facto clause of the Constitution that prevents the individual from being punished twice for the same crime.

2) Once again, the rights of a convicted criminal are paramount to those of law-abiding citizens.

STORAC: "Paramount?" You mean the ex-criminal, currently law abiding citizen has LESS rights (than the aforementioned ones given above) than the NON-ex-criminal, law-abiding citizen?

Please note my very exacting terminology. Once an offender has completed all court-ordered sentences and is clear of the system, his rights are JUST as valid as other citizens whom are not currently breaking the law.

Bad argument.

3) Hanke (sic, I assume Kevin meant Judge Franke) ignored the mountain of evidence and studies that show offenders like Hanke are likely to re-offend.  One of my sources at the Courthouse wrote me the following, summing up what Franke said in court on this part of the ruling:

The judge spoke at length on the issue of assessing risk – what is the risk of injury if the injunction is not granted? While there is a “chance” of child assault, it is too difficult to apply recidivism statistics to one individual without expert witness. The risk over a short period of time is very small. Hanke committed his crime against someone with whom he had a very long-term and close relationship, thus lowering the chances that he would assault a child at random.

That is an absolutely outrageous assertion for this judge to make, essentially minimizing and trivializing the potential danger that is real.

STORAC: ANOTHER blatant misrepresentation by Kevin!  Seriously, what "mountain of evidence and studies" does he refer to? In fact, there is a "mountain of evidence and studies" that prove JUST THE OPPOSITE: that former offenders convicted of a sex offense are the LEAST LIKELY group of former offenders to reoffend. The most notable statistic in play here is the Department of Justice followup studies that indicate that all registered sex offenders reoffend at a rate of 3.6%.  In addition, the TYPE of offense also affects the rate. A crime against a family member is actually closer to 1% than 3% in the liklihood of reoffense.

The only "outrageous assertion" made here is the fact that Kevin is trying to fabricate a myth: that all sex offenders reoffend at an alarming rate, and has no basis in rational statistics.  The REAL "trivialization of the potential danger" is actually being done by Kevin, not the judge.

4) Franklin lost in a big way today. As this case drags on, and it will for some time, possibly until August of next year, it allows Hanke to remain in his Franklin home, 600 feet away from a Franklin middle school.

STORAC: This is an inexcusably ignorant statement. As the "case drags on", Hanke will be allowed to stay at home, but if he reoffends, he not only will default this case in which he's paying his legal counselor thousands of dollars, it completely flies in the face of his actual crime.  He offended against a FAMILY member, not a child walking down the street.  

Now, I'm not minimizing Hanke's original crime. But he WAS convicted, and he DID spend time in jail, he completed his sentence, he acknowledged his crimes by working with therapists to understand his earlier motivation at offending, and, more importantly, to prevent future offending. His victim has moved on, but apparently the city has not.

5) Franke sent a loud message to other sex offenders that it’s ok to challenge and defy laws established to restrict where these perverts live.

STORAC: No, Franke sent a loud message to city officials and apologists like Kevin that it's ok to defile and ignore the constitutional rights of former offenders because of misguided and hysterical reaction to "protect the children." And yes, it's not only ok to challenge laws (and defy them, if necessary), it's vital to do so, so a properly conducted process to determing constitutionality can be done.  

Finally, the fact that the city tried to prevent the ordinance from being challenged in the first place underscores the obvious lack of faith the city has in DEFENDING the ordinance, which is (by far) a more glaring example of the incompetence of boards that enact such laws in the first place.

STORAC: 6) This is another example of why people lose faith and trust in their government and legal system.

The arguments given in the 5 preceding points actually assert the OPPOSITE.  People lose faith and trust in their government and legal system when the government ABUSES its power as Franklin has obviously done, and creating the lack of trust in its population.  Finally, the hysteria and lack of societal reintegration for former offenders only lead to GREATER loss of faith and distrust of MANY individuals.  

STORAC: 7) Franke has now in three major cases involving dangerous sex offenders. Every time he has ruled in favor of the criminal.

I will only comment on Hanke's case, in which case the counsel for Hanke, Andrew Arena, has provided a "mountain of evidence" (don't you just love that term!) to prove that the STATE is acting with accordance to constitutional disruption. The fact that the case can now go forward only shows that the merits of the original ordinance is not only on shaky Constitutional ground, but that the focus should shift from the CONTINUAL re-punishment of former offenders to that of actually PREVENTING abuse in the FIRST place.

Finally, I'd like to close by saying that the "mountain of evidence", all 15 megs of it, is provided at this link: www.4shared.com/.../Franklin.html

In addition, here is my contact information:

miker@soclear.org

Phone: (503) 389-7679

www.soclear.org

www.sohopeful.org

Mike,

I happen to know of few people in Franklin who would be willing to sell their house near Steve Hanke to you.  Would you and your children like to live there and walk past his house on your way to school daily?  Actually your opinions lead me to believe that you are not yet a parent.  Well, it is a parents job to do whatever necessary to keep their kids safe.  A 13 year old child should be responsible and independent enough to walk home from school without a parent.  In Franklin the middle schoolers are not comfortable to walk home past his house anymore.  They have rerouted their trips home.  It is not fair that a child "adolescent" sex offender who did or didn't finish serving their parole time is allowed to live in such close proximity allowing themeselves to be "tempted."  Just as it would not be a good idea for a recovering alcoholic to rent a flat upstairs from a liquor store.  Sex offenders do often reoffend and the people of Franklin and many other cities across this country are aware of this sick behavior.  For example, the Dateline series.  I am not saying that Steven Hanke is or is not going to reoffend, however, if the state sends the message that offenders are free to live next to our childrens safe places we are leaving them vulnerable.  It is probably much easier to sit at home as a predator and watch the daily routines of any one child from a window and become very familiar with them, therefore making abduction easier.  With these safe zone restrictions in place a potential offender would forced to lurk in a parked car or wooded area to become so familiar with a potential victim and risk being seen.  These are all what ifs.... but why make it easier for our kids to POSSIBLY get hurt.  Especially because they are the innocent ones, not the exconvicts.  

Your statements are the classic reactions and assertions to the myths, hysterical statements, and irrational behavior that has permeated many municipalities and towns for the past few years. the fact that you did not refute any of my previous statements, nor read any of the volumes of literature I provided at the link, and instead have caved into the fear and apprehension that has culminated in Franklin setting policy that flies in the face of logic.

Before I answer your points, let me acknowledge your thinking process here.

A. Steven Hanke is a registered sex offender.

B. You do not want Steven Hanke living in your neighborhood.

C. Therefore, you will try to do anything (legal) to remove Hanke from your neighborhood.

From that standpoint, I can completely understand where you are coming from.  However, your arguments are in complete opposition to the facts, both from a rational basis and an empirical basis. Let's review a few of them, in no particular order.

>Sex offenders do often reoffend and the people of Franklin and many other cities across this country are aware of this sick behavior.

There is no statistical, empirical, or rational basis that registered sex offenders, or former offenders, commit reoffenses at a high rate, (or "often") once they are out of prison. The most exhaustive study done by the non-partisan Department of Justice proves that a rate from 3.6% to 5.2% reoffend.  Granted, that does not translate to 0%.  But that refutes your point that infer that most offenders reoffend.

>It is probably much easier to sit at home as a predator and watch the daily routines of any one child from a window and become very familiar with them, therefore making abduction easier.

This is another classical hysterical reaction. Other than the fact that Hanke did not offend against a stranger, what logical basis in fact do you have that he will fantasize about abducting a child? The offense was against someone he knew and was a figure of authority, not from a complete stranger. This in itself is laughable in a way, but it becomes troubling because of this statement:

>In Franklin the middle schoolers are not comfortable to walk home past his house anymore. They have rerouted their trips home.  

Now WHO is putting fear in their heads?  Certainly not Hanke himself. It is the parents who are doing that.

OK, let me take it a step further. Do you know that 7 felons live closer to the middle school than Hanke, felons who have sold drugs to children, have abused children (non-sexually) to the point of hospitalizing them, and have killed 4 people?  What?  You don't know of them?  Of COURSE!  They aren't on the REGISTRY, that's why!  But those kids walk by their houses all the time?  

I won't release their names or addresses here, but the point was that there is danger everywhere, and in point of fact, every one of those seven felons have actually HARMED children, in fact, all of the victims were not of the violent offender's families!

FINALLY...let's say Hanke is forced to move.  Where will he go?  Most probably to a rural neighborhood.

Farther away from Law enforcement response, and if were truly someone who would reoffend, then he would more likely do it out there than near a school.

And this is the POINT: the registry does NOT make neighborhoods safer, they make them MORE PARANOID...who are the REAL threats?

Incidentally, you mentioned the Dateline series.  Of all the offenders that were caught, in all the shows through all the years, only two...TWO...were registered sex offenders. In other words they weren't on anyone's registry yet.    

In any case, you rambled on and on about whatif's, rants, etc, without providing any proof.  Why not read what I posted in my earlier post?

And finally... I'm a parent.  If I lived near Hanke, I would meet with him, and get my OWN idea about him.  But I would do this for ANY other person.  Keep in mind that over 30% of registered sex offenders have, and live with, children.  Are THEY being abused?  If they were, the multiple sex offender would be in jail for a LONG TIME.  And that's the point... over 96% of registered sex offenders are, in fact, one-time offenders, with little incentive to offend again.  Those are not MY statistics, those are the statistics of the US Department of Justice, located at the convenient link above, or you can look it up...if you care to.

Or you can maintain your ignorance, and pass the hysteria to your kids, so they have to reroute their walk.  

Perhaps you will re-routed them to walk by drug dealer, one of the seven felons mentioned above, who spent 8 years in prison after their drugs killed 4 people. But watch out!  He may get an urge to sell drugs again to your kid.  You don't know about this because he's not on a registry.  

Be aware that Michael Storac and his organization are working with Hanke's attorney.  (See the second to last paragraph)  He is also probably a sex offender himself and I truly doubt that he has read our ordinance.  He has provided detail in his post that has not been made public.

I give him credit though, for providing his identity.

Given that his organization is based in Oregon and I assume he is as well, I doubt that he's in a position to characterize the sentiments of our community.  Were there "hysteria" in our community the treatment of Mr. Hanke would be quite different than the mature and responsible reaction of the community toward a sex offender who chooses to openly violate a city ordinance.

I'd also like details on "fact that the city tried to prevent the ordinance from being challenged in the first place underscores the obvious lack of faith the city has in DEFENDING the ordinance, which is (by far) a more glaring example of the incompetence of boards that enact such laws in the first place."

Steve O,

Thanks for the background on this previously unheard of commenter.

Storac's groups motto is below. How convenient that the mission statement uses children again to achieve their personal goals. As if the 1st time wasn't enough!    

We are a group of "LIKE MINDED" individuals consisting of people from all walks of life who share a common, genuine concern for the well being and safety of children across the nation as well as the betterment of society as a whole. We are former offenders, family members of former offenders, victims, mental health professionals, and legal professionals. Our goal as concerned citizens is to address and advocate for the safety of children and against the legislatively mandated obstacles to successful re-entry of former offenders into society

Steve, credits to you and your "detective" skills.  I am very happy to provide my real identity.  Although I'm not a registered sex offender myself, I do know of several former offenders who have been treated with outright hostility, some decades after their crimes, along with their families (including, and frankly especially, children) who suffer the same stigma with regard to having their house targeted on the Internet with regard to the registry. Such actions invariably lead not to community safety, but to paranoia, and result in communities creating residency restrictions. That is why such laws must be stopped in their tracks, and resources directed to actual safety of children, rather than the continued and unconstitutional re-punishment of former offenders.

As far as community "sentiment": When a community decides to ignore scientific, rational, and empirical evidence and instead create laws based on fear, sensationalized stories, and understandable parental angst, then while on the surface the "response" of the community may appear "mature and responsible," in fact the community is exhibiting its disregard for the rule of law, with tenets based in the Constitution.

But that is neither here nor there.  When laws are created based on irrational and unprovable statistics, then such laws must be challenged. When over 90% of allowable places to live in a community, in a state, in a region, or in a country are "outlawed" for a certain segment of law-abiding ex-offenders, and considerable amounts of resources are redirected from community chests and tax collections, then how does this help the community? As I stated before, former offenders have to live "somewhere".  Using your logic, why should rural kids have to live in "terror" because a hugely disproportionate of citizens are former offenders? In fact, if you review many of the arguments that have gone on in Green Bay and its satellite communities, that very phenomenon has come into play.  It's called "clustering," and does nothing to prevent the community and their children from safety.

Sometimes, though I do have to laugh.  The fact that the community tried to stifle the ability for a citizen, albeit a former offender, to challenge an ordinance that constitutionally has more holes than a Packer cheesehead hat does not speak well of the ordinance itself.  Why NOT let it go to court unabated?  If your city felt so sure of the ordinance, you'd have no trouble in expediting the trial.  But in fact, the technical maneuvering is being performed by the city, not the defendant, so by deductive reasoning, it appears the city has very little to stand on.

Having said that, I would challenge Kevin to actually wear his journalistic hat to research the statistics regarding the actual recidivism of former offenders, starting with the information in the earlier link. He could search out the felons I mentioned earlier, as they are easy to come by in court searches. In short, be part of the solution, not part of the problem.  

But if he's like everyone else, and I have no doubt he is, then the end result of all the ordinances, not just in Franklin, but in all of the country, is located here:

soretra.50webs.com/faq.html

I am not going to discuss the specifics of the case, but what is said above is factually incorrect.  The City filed suit...  THE CITY FILED SUIT.  Here's the official COURT record.  Note that the delays are by the defendant.  See item's 5, 7 and 13.  Yes, the City filed as well for substitution on Item 9 but the chain of events were started by the defendant.  The City was prepared on 8/21/07.  In addition, note that the defendant did not provide their answer to the court until 4 days prior to the initial hearing.  

I would place the "stifle" lable on the defendant.

Sorry, here's the court record:

What is RSS?  

Date Event Court Official Court Reporter

1 08-21-2007 Filing fee paid  

 Amount  

 $ 259.50

Additional Text:

07RV034370

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 08-21-2007 Notice of motion, motion  

Additional Text:

for Temporary Injunction, filed.

Motion Hearing set for 10/8/07 at 11:30AM. mr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 08-21-2007 Affidavit  

Additional Text:

of Assistant City Attorney Scott A. Mielke in support of Motion attached, filed. mr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 08-21-2007 Summons and complaint  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 09-11-2007 Request for substitution  

Additional Text:

filed by Defense counsel. mr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 09-11-2007 Answer  

Additional Text:

filed. mr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 09-11-2007 Notes  

Additional Text:

Due to the request for substitution, the Motion Hearing set before Judge Lamelas on 10/8/07 at 11:30 has been vacated. mr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 09-13-2007 Judicial transfer Kahn-24, Charles F.  

Additional Text:

The above-entitled case has been transferred to Judge Charles Kahn, Br. 24 for disposition due to the substitution/disqualification of Judge Elsa Lamelas. Any papers filed after the date of this Notice must be filed with the clerk of the newly assigned Judge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 09-20-2007 Request for substitution  

Additional Text:

filed by the City of Franklin against Judge Charles F. Kahn, Jr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 09-21-2007 Application for general judicial assignment Kahn-24, Charles F.  

Additional Text:

Case transferred to the Office of the Chief Judge for reassignment.

jms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 09-26-2007 Judicial transfer Franke-25, John  

Additional Text:

The above-entitled case has been transferred to Judge John Franke, Br. 25 for disposition due to the substitution/disqualification of Judge Charles Kahn. Any papers filed after the date of this Notice must be filed with the clerk of the newly assigned Judge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 10-04-2007 Answer and affirmative defense  

Additional Text:

Plaintiffs to Defendant's Counterclaim, filed vk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 11-01-2007 Memorandum  

Additional Text:

of Defendant, Steven Hanke, in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction, filed vk

The bottom line here is

OUR CHILDREN ARE OFTEN VICTIMS OF MANY SICK OFFENDERS.  THEY ARE THE INNOCNET ONES.  THEY HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS OR SERVED ANY TIME IN PRISON.  Your label of parents as "paranoid" suits me just fine.  That is our constitutional right.  I don't care about recidivism percentages, or if there is little chance for harm.  Knowledge is power, and we will do everything we can to protect our kids from all dangers, not just Steven Hanke.  OUR KIDS DESERVE PROTECTION FROM ALL EVILS.  It is a shame that your kids aren't afforded the same right.

As I post every Sunday, here are the top five most popular of my blog entries from the previous week