The Dark Figure of South FL's US District Judge Paul C Huck(ster)

If you want to know why Miami-Dade County FloriDUH continues to be ground zero for residency restriction depravity, look no further than this US District Judge Paul C Huck crooked piece of shit. And if you're pissed off I'm cursing so much, read his recent decision, Does v Miami Dade Co., Case 1:14-cv-23933-PCH (So Dist FL, 18 Dec 2018), and I guarantee you that you'd be pissed too.

Senior Judge Paul C. Huck
Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse
400 North Miami Avenue
Room 13-2
Miami, Florida 33128

https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Does-v.-Miami-Dade-Sorr-Order-of-Judge.pdf

There is a possible tie between Paul HUCKSTER and the recent Scurich and John report. The Defendant, Miami-Dade County, used Richard McCleary as a witness. McCleary is a colleage in the same department at U. of Cal-Irvine (UCI) as Richard John, the Shiitake nominee who wrote that idiotic report on the "dark figure of recidivism." The work of these hucksters were cited in Judge Huck's decision. Huck cited the debunked Langevin and Prentky studies as well.

The ruling is 45 pages long, so I won't post the whole thing here. Below are the lowlights:

On recidivism, Huckster ruled, "lt is meaningful that while the experts disagreed as to the extent of the risk, they all acknowledged that sexual recidivism is an existential danger. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established a reliable rate of recidivism among sex offenders, but the County has a sufficient basis to determine that the risk to children 15 years old and younger is
substantial." (I've already debunked the belief of high recidivism numerous times but this judge was determined not to listen to facts.)

On effectiveness of residency restrictions: Plaintiffs also have not proven that the residency restriction is ineffective. In fact, Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Socia testified that studies show that after the imposition of residency restrictions, reoffense rates went down, although not in a statistically significant way. Moreover,Dr. Mccleary explained that to evaluate a residency restriction at the level of statistical significance, the sample size must be sufficiently large. He said that virtually all of the samples in the policy literature on residency restrictions (including those relied on by Dr. Levenson) are too small to detect their effects. Dr. Mccleary also testified that finding a residency
restriction has no statistically significant effect does not imply that the law is ineffective. Dr. Levenson cited studies to support her opinion that residency restrictions are not effective', however, these studies evaluated different laws from different states, with different outcomes. (Notice the Judge relies solely on McCleary's testimony. There is NO actual study that showed a decrease in recidivism. Instead, the judge looked solely at one state that had a decrease within a study where other states reported an increase and made the claim that residency restrictions are effective.)

Downplaying the difficulty of finding housing: Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Socia opined that after accounting for affordability and availability, there are only 338 housing rental units outside the buffer zones. The Court finds that this number is unreliable and understated. Dr. Socia did not just calculate the number of available housing limits under the Ordinance by excluding those within 2,500 feet of a school. He also added three additional criteria, only including housing that is: 1) rental in nature, 2) affordable, and 3) currently available for rent. (So the judge actually thinks a person living on disability (SSI is $770 at the moment) can afford to rent an apartment at $2500 a month. I've stretched a dollar until it hollers but I find this logic too far of a stretch.)