Our Apologies and Our Corrections in the Paris, Wisconsin Case

Attorneys with the Paris case (6500-foot residence restriction) have contacted us to correct misstatements that were made in our most recent post.  They let us know there is much to be optimistic about in the court’s decision as they are putting some brakes on municipal ordinances that have spiraled out of control in Wisconsin – something they have never done before.

We should not be reading this decision as countenancing 6500-foot zones more generally.  Attorney Adele Nicholas will be continuing to fight these restrictions.  Even though it is often an uphill battle, Ms. Nicholas does not see this decision as cause for despair but is optimistic the residence restriction of 6500 feet in Paris will be lifted.  Other affordable rental properties will also be back in permissible zones.  Progress is being made and will make a big difference for registrants in Paris.

All of this is due to Ms. Nicholas’ work.

We appreciate the following corrections to our post that were sent to us:

“In this post you write: ‘The petitioner here did not appear to have invested in expert witnesses. He did not appear to use any of the studies on the efficacy (or inefficacy) of residence restrictions. He did not even appear to argue that such restrictions had no legitimate non-punitive purpose. Instead, he conceded (incorrectly, we believe) that such restrictions may have a rational relationship to public safety. But he argued that the distance used here by the Town, 6,500, was excessive in relation to that purpose. Again, he did not attempt to prove this, and apparently felt the respondent— the Town— should have been required to justify the distance. The court felt otherwise.’” 

“NOTE: All of the facts stated in every sentence in the above-referenced paragraph are FLATLY untrue, and I’m very disappointed any blog, particularly this one, would factually assert things about which it has no clue. Maybe the writer should have read the pleadings that led to the summary judgment in the District Court. Or maybe the writer should have realized the Court of Appeals actually DID remand the case so that the Town (not the plaintiff) could carry its burden by attempting to ‘justify the distance’ concerning that part of the ordinance that prohibited registrants from living less than 6,500 feet from each other. Do you even know who the plaintiff’s attorneys are that you have disparaged? HINT: they are both highly-skilled and experienced attorneys who were both featured speakers at the last NARSOL conference in Houston. Shame on the writer.”

We very much take to heart the above comments that were sent to us and humbly apologize to Adele Nicholas and all attorneys involved in her work.  There are steps being taken within Florida Action Committee to make sure this never happens again.   The writer greatly feels the shame that has been suggested.

Adele Nicholas is our hero.  If we had 100 more attorneys just like her fighting for our cause, there quite conceivably would not even be a registry now.