ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings
Q4: [details]

Other Events
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

National

MI: Justice denies Michigan’s appeal to halt sex offender ruling

A U.S. Supreme Court justice has rejected Michigan’s request to halt a lower court decision that found the state unconstitutionally put additional restrictions on sex offenders long after their convictions.

Justice Elena Kagan denied Tuesday the emergency appeal for a stay.

In August, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said changes to Michigan law in 2006 and 2011, which included retroactively restricting sex offenders’ movements near schools, penalize offenders as “moral lepers.”

The appeals court denied Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette’s request to block the decision during appeal. So did Kagan. Full Article

Emergency Petition – State of Michigan

Related

Michigan’s request to halt sex offender ruling is denied

Michigan asks Supreme Court to halt sex offender ruling

MI: Court voids state sex offender registry for imposing unconstitutionally retroactive punishment [UPDATED] ACSOL – with other media links

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    This is excellent. Wouldn’t this line apply to IML:

    “restricting sex offenders’ movements near schools, penalize offenders as “moral lepers.””

    Substitute near schools with “around the world”. Afterall, the passage of IML is LONG after most of our convictions.

    • American Detained in America

      I agree, along with all the other things that go with it.

    • Robert

      Great news!!!! Michigan is out of options now. Seems likely that SCOTUS will hear this. If they do, we pray AWA will be found unconstitutional.

      • JER

        Well truth be told, I can tell you that the new Chief Justice of SCOTUS Neil Gorsuch, will have alot to say about the unconstitutionality of quite a few topics, including SORNA

        • Bobby

          @Jer,

          Ya, but the question is will it be in our favor or against us ALL Judges/Justices always say they follow the US Constitution or even State Constitutions and we all know that ,that is not true.

          I also think Gorsuch being a new Justice should not be involved in cases that are already waiting to be decided on, He should only be involved with new cases coming up, NOT one’s that have already been heard and waiting for a decision. Just my opinion though. I jst have a feeling his vote/opinion will go against us.

          • Gorsuch excluded

            @Bobby
            Gorsuch will not be allowed to contribute to or partake in the opinion on any case for which he has not heard oral arguments. So what you’re saying should(n’t) happen already does(n’t), and there are a whole bunch of cases with pending decisions based on 8 justices.

            –AJ

            • Bobby

              Thanks for the clarification AJ, that is what I thought, but still was not sure how that works when new Justices or Judges, take over anew position. THANKS AGAIN.

              • Gorsuch clarification

                @Bobby
                Having done a little more digging, there’s no black-and-white rule or procedure that prevents a justice from being part of an opinion, despite not being present during argument. However, it’s been a long-standing tradition at SCOTUS that one should have been a sworn justice during oral arguments:
                “Court experts agree that there is no ironclad command that prevents justices from voting on cases that were argued before their tenure began. The only thing preventing such a practice is long-standing tradition that weighs against participating in cases that were argued before a different set of justices.”
                “[T]he ‘common sense rule’ would be that a new justice would not participate. It would look fishy, especially if the newbie voted with the majority in a 5-4 decision.” (http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202776610089/How-a-New-Supreme-Court-Justice-Could-Hit-the-Ground-Runningmdashor-Not)

                SCOTUS can always order a re-argument, allowing the freshly seated justice to participate in oral arguments…and perhaps ask a question or two that could sway the court’s opinion.

                –AJ

    • Will Crump

      I hope the SCOTUS ruling against Michigan’s request for a stay is a foreshadowing of how they will rule on the appeal.

      I just wish someone could bring the same arguments that apply to the retroactive application of the registry to the registry law as a whole. The wording of the 6th Circuit’s ruling makes it sound as if they were inviting an across-the-board challenge to the registry based on the “byzantine code that dictates every aspect of offenders’ and offenders’ families. The registry now meets the legal definition and description of a traditional punishment.

  2. mike r

    it’s time janice and team….take the current registration scheme down and at the very least force the legislature to repeal and replace it with a very narrowly applied scheme that only applies to the worst of the worst that the government can prove with clear and convincing evidence have proclivities to reoffend and you will become immortalized in the history books as one of the great civil rights litigators and leaders of our generation if not of all time….you have a chance to correct the course of this great nation and put it back on the path of righteous constitutional Republic that our founding fathers meant it to be…..I know you and your team can do it and I have faith and hope that you will do the right thing for us and this country….

  3. Bill Arthur

    OMG! Such a quick decision from Kagan. Sounds to me like that means there is now no sex offender registry in Michigan. I’m attending a talk on Friday in Chicago by Miriam Aukerman, the Michigan ACLU attorney in the case, presented by Illinois Voices For Reform, and I’ll try to ask her what effect this has on registered sex offenders who now live in Michigan — and those who move there (which sounds like it might be a good idea). Isn’t this also now the law in all the other states where the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction (Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee)? Janice, could you file the appeal to this Court of does it have to be in the same circuit as the first trial? Or, maybe start a new trial in Michigan. You could get Aukerman to help, coming off her big victory.

    • Rick

      To Abolishteregistry

      What do you think? 6th circuit and justice kagan have put the scrotus in quite a predicament? I still think they will permit the registry, maybe only by mail? If this is upheld it will essentially destroy any tiered applications? But now I think the town’s, counties, and states will begin passing new laws just to make life difficult? Damn, I really want to keep hating these people, they have damaged me so badly, and my family. I feel like a tumor has been removed from my body, but the hole is still there. But I kinda predicted this in my posts on the 6th circuits history of appeals to the scrotus and the depth of the decision by them. This is what I wanted, simply to be left alone. But like I said, I hope it stands because if it doesn’t, something really messed up is going to happen, because my hatred is really deep.

      • abolishtheregistry.com

        I’m happy but nervous lol. The showdown is moving forward, I just hope the lawyers hit scrotus with facts on reoffense rates to challenge their false “public safety regulatory scheme” bullshit. I think I’ll have a shot to celebrate!

        I would like to know the specifics of how many it will effect and what they gain back in line item detail.

        Now the next question, if this is struck down, can they sue the aholes!

      • David

        Rick, IMHO, if they follow the Circuit Court judge’s reasoning, then even a mere registry of names would continue to make previously convicted offenders into “social lepers” and would, therefore, qualify as ex post facto punishment.

    • Chris F

      I wouldn’t say this takes away Sex Offender registration in Michigan.

      It merely removes the extra restrictions placed in 2006 and 2011 to those whose crimes were committed before those dates. It would still have people on public lists, thus preventing jobs and housing.

      Unfortunately, the court only ruled on the ex-post facto part of the complaints and did not rule on all of the other aspects that affect registration no matter when you got on the list.

      We need another case to address those, since the courts may now have a favorable outcome and reduce restrictions on all registered sex offenders regardless of when their offenses occurred.

      • abolishtheregistry.com

        The judge was clearly favorable to taking it further, he just couldn’t because of the case. If I remember correctly, he said as much. Hopefully a good lawyer saw that and seized on it for an upcoming case.

      • abolishtheregistry.com

        2006 was AWA right? So that would push everything back to Meagan’s? 10 years, no email, no living restrictions, it’s a pretty big difference.
        I wonder about people moving there with pre-2006 convictions.

  4. mike r

    if you or someone doesn’t act soon it is going to be to late to put this cancer in remission before it infects the entire world and becomes incurable….it maybe to late already but we have to try….

  5. Rick

    Hmm, awesome. But I’m very leary about a full u.s. supreme court decision. This will make a huge difference in terms of my thoughts about this country. If it stands I will try and make a difference now, if it doesn’t and it demoralizes me further, whatever action I take will be on their conscience. And I would think this ruling will apply to all states considering the quick decision of justice kagan. It’s makes me wonder how this will affect other federal laws like those related to public housing, which applies residence restrictions, and also the IML. I’m wondering if the us supreme court granted the state of Michigan certiorari in this case, I guess they did?

    Im so used to hating now, I hope I can change.

  6. wonderin

    Looks like we need more ladies deciding justice issues.
    It didn’t take Justice Elena Kagan long to sort out right from wrong and I’ll bet she can tell the difference between being eternally registered from joining Price Club.

  7. G4Change

    Praise God!!!!

    • David

      Why?? He allowed the Registry to come into existence in the first place. I can’t really praise Him for fixing his own mistake. 😞

  8. Bobby

    I just received this e-mail from Women against the registry (WAR) what does tis mean exactly,
    From: Women Against Registry
    Date: 11/15/2016 3:12:56 PM
    To: Bobby ***
    Subject: USSC Justice denies Michigan’s request to halt Doe. v Snyder ruling

    What We Have Waited For!

    Justice denies Michigan’s appeal to halt sex offender ruling

    Associated Press via WZZM News | Nov. 15, 2016

    LANSING, MICH. – A U.S. Supreme Court justice has rejected Michigan’s request to halt a lower court decision that found the state unconstitutionally put additional restrictions on sex offenders long after their convictions.

    Justice Elena Kagan denied Tuesday the emergency appeal for a stay.

    In August, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said changes to Michigan law in 2006 and 2011, which included retroactively restricting sex offenders’ movements near schools, penalize offenders as “moral lepers.”

    The appeals court denied Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette’s request to block the decision during appeal. So did Kagan.

    Schuette’s office couldn’t immediately be reached to comment.

    Michigan has the country’s fourth-largest sex offender list, with more than 42,000 registrants.

    Michigan prohibits all registrants from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of school property.

    http://www.wzzm13.com/news/local/michigan/justice-denies-michigans-appeal-to-halt-sex-offender-ruling/352369233

    I was convicted in 1992,before Michigan even had a registry, and placed on it in 1995 while on parole,so does this mean i should be removed from the registry,or will i have to be placed back to 25 years instead of life? does anyone have any idea.? Thanks in advance.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Bobby, you need to contact an attorney in Michigan for the legal advice you are seeking.

      • Bobby

        ok, thats fine, but what does this ruling mean exactly, i mean in layman’s terms, it still really good news right.

  9. New Person

    Wow! This is huge!

    If the additional restrictions count as punishment by this ruling, then it’s not a far leap to say anything added AFTER the 2003 SCOTUS decision is also additional punishment!

    = )

    Go Michigan!

    • Chris F

      It should also open the doors to any restrictions being able to be challenged as “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” which couldn’t happen as long as states tried to tag everything as having a legitimate civil purpose. Thankfully, all of the studies show public shaming by putting registered people on the internet doesn’t decrease recidivism and should no longer be protected from those challenges.

  10. Rick

    Hmm, I guess this is a trade-off for the residency restrictions, since I see nothing that removes them? I initially felt this was a win, but now I think it may just be fools gold. These people are clever and evil. They pass a law that has only slavery as it’s basis, and now say the restrictions violate the ex post facto clause? So if the residency restrictions and personal reporting are removed it would be okay?
    New York has the same shit as Michigan, a tiered registry, but no state residency restrictions, but there are federal residency restrictions that the state allows to apply, like in public housing? I wonder how the 2d circuit would rule? Hell, I already know, they would say it’s non punitive and legal, they’ve already taken away the entire 4th amendment to RC’s. Like I said, I filed the same lawsuit and the judge dismissed it with prejudice just aliitle over a year ago.
    I just can’t allow myself to believe anymore, you have corrupt justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Thomas, and alito sitting there waiting to overturn the stay in a ruling. In the meantime, I doubt Michigan will move with any speed to stop what they’re doing, they will claim it takes time. By the time it gets a full review and overturned in my opinion, it will be relatively easy for them to reinstate the laws. Look at Missouri, they just ignore scrotus decisions. Yea, I now think it’s premature to get too happy feel good. I don’t think it will stand for long. Especially after reading the Michigan petition which clearly shows that Kennedy will support them again.
    So don’t be surprised this is just a temporary deal, cause it’s probably already in line to be overruled. Like the scrotus says, they decide what the constitution means, not the law!

  11. Rick

    I get it now, after looking up Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagans history this isn’t a surprise at all. As a Jewish person she knows all too well the history of registries and the pain they inflict, the Scarlett ink on the arm of the Nazis has come full circle. I’ve wondered all along what the Jewish people feel about registries? Do they see the relationship between what the Nazis did to them and what the American Nazis are doing to us and our families, or do they just say well it’s nice to see it happening to someone else? Considering the speed in which she denied the stay, I think her family has has some experience with being made to feel different, not only as a individual, but as a class of persons. I’ve come to realize just how people can be influenced by what has happened to them and their families in life, and how it can affect laws.

    Like Kennedy, a classic sadist who likes to toy with people’s lives as his flip flopping with the death penalty and solitary confinement demonstrates. Thomas who went along with the registry to try and control his sex offender image, Ginsburg a classic case of women’s feelings of inadequacy and weakness, and revenge. Heck, the entire Smith v doe case is pure emotionalism, where the law was simply ignored or interpreted to fit their desires. Yea, psychological assessments can easily be made based upon ideology. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so

    • steve

      Before you give Ginsburg (who is Jewish) a bad rap. She was in dissent in Smith vs Doe.

      • Rick

        To Steve

        I am so sorry Justice Ginsburg, I was so wrong. Please forgive me! I had my facts all wrong. You, Stevens and Breyer were right all along, and I have tremendous respect for you and them. I hope this time you are in the majority and can get rid of this costly, wasteful, discriminatory slavery that is a plague in this society. Please accept my apology if you ever read this. You are right Steve, my memory failed me, it was O’Connor who went along with this garbage.

        • Rob

          Well with a new possibly even more conservative justice than Scalia who will be nominated and the possibility of Ginsburg being replaced soon,I believe we will have no chance of having the supreme court rule in our favor. A more liberal judge would have been our best bet.

  12. stephen

    I think the Supreme Court just didn’t want to deal with it at the Moment. I won’t get my hopes up, and like someone said, you’ll still be on a public registry and subject to the bull crap Rules.

  13. Bobby

    Ok, I just spoke with Ms Aukerman, and this is what she said, We have to wait to see what the Supreme Court will decide on the merits,It will take many more months unfortunately.

    i also found this article,but it sounds like she is saying to different things,does any one else see it.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/15/justice-denies-michigans-appeal-to-halt-sex-offend/#disqus_thread

  14. steve

    I just happened to be looking up the CT case about posting RSO’s online.

    “Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court today. He said Connecticut’s Web site explicitly disclaimed any effort to predict future dangerousness, containing the notice that individuals ”are included solely by virtue of their conviction record” and that the Department of Public Safety ”has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous.”

    This is why 6th circuit ruled in the Michigan case that you can’t go back and give tiers without due process, individualized assessments. This should be a reason why California will have a very difficult time passing a tiered registry. They will be telling the public who is dangerous and who is not well after the fact for most.

    • Premise then must be all or nothing...

      Based upon that premise, Steve, of what Connecticut’s (CT) website says, then ALL convicted individuals should be posted online with their convictions and by virtue of their record, not just those who were convicted of sexually (or thought to be) related offenses. Make sense?

      You cannot single out a specific set of people for the many mentioned reasons by Rick, et al, on this website for exclusive public information sharing and force them to come in on their time and money to update their conviction record. Based upon what they say about non-indication of what the future may hold, e.g. like your potential stock picks and the no guarantee they will return money in the long run, you cannot post public info of certain individuals then without posting the entire CT public record of those with criminal offenses and legitimately call it a registry. In the interest of public safety to legitimately discriminate is illegal…..falls under profiling, which is what they do here. What you have written by Rehnquist, it has to be an all or nothing proposition, I believe, when it comes to public information and the interest of public safety.

      • Timmr

        Where you live presently or what section of the internet you visit are also irrelevant to the public record. They just conote that you are dangerous enough to be located. The listing itself is the judgement.

  15. Rick

    OK, so after looking at the current supreme court, there is Ginsburg, Breyer, who can probably be counted on to vote against this nonsense again. Kennedy, Thomas, and alito against us again. That 2-3 against so far. That leaves Kagan, Sotomayor, Roberts, to determine the outcome? What do you guys think , do we have a chance. I think Kagan might rule in our favor, but Sotomayor and Roberts?. I’ve read some of the ideas Roberts claims to accept, but I wonder? Sotomayor was a member of the 2d circuit until 2009 so you can count her against us, they haven’t made a single decent decision regarding registries in NYS ever. Like I said, they stripped away all of the 4th amendments protections from us. So my final tally is Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer for us, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor and Alito against.

    Best case scenario, Roberts votes for us and there is a tie, which I think means the 6th circuits decision would stand. But does nothing for the rest of the country.

    Worst case scenario, Roberts votes against us and this whole dream is shattered, good luck to us, cause I think it’s going to be overruled based on the votes. And by the time the case gets heard there will be a Trump justice in place. Wow, looks bad guys.

    • Don't cast the votes in stone yet....

      I would not count the votes you have them…..

      Sotomayor is very open minded and willing to discuss things rationally despite her judicial history at the 2nd.

      Kagan is very rational.

      The rest may fall along ideological lines or lines they have already similarly fallen along.

      Roberts has the most to lose here because was on the Alaska case and going against himself would be an oddity, unless the arguments are so strong and profound he has no choice but to go the other way.

      If this is the time where Kennedy’s own words can be used against him, as well Robert’s, then so be it and do it….turn the stones of Thomas and Alito while they are at. Better be some strong arguments….

    • JohnDoeUtah

      Due to Timelines, the case will likely not be heard by the Court until after a new Justice is seated to make up the nine member court.

    • Rob

      Roberts vote for us? I doubt it. Roberts representing Alaska in defending the registry and was one of architects of the registry being a regulatory issue.

    • 4sensiblepolicies

      Ya, I wouldn’t expect much from Roberts – unless he suddenly is able to see the absurdity in comparing the sex offender registry to a membership in the ‘Price Club’. Oh well, at least he’ll be able to update his reference to the modern age and call it a ‘Costco Membership’. But to be serious, whoever argues this before SCOTUS better hammer on the true facts and figures, and refute with vigor the bogus stats thrown out by the government. I can’t honestly believe how little information is presented in a Supreme Court hearing. The lives of millions are often affected with oral arguments lasting shorter than a 30 minute sitcom, minus the commercials.

  16. cool CA RC

    Correct me if I am wrong, but this sound like the states are using an excuse that this costs too much money.

    “without being forced to make costly, time-consuming, and complex changes to its sex-offender registry and enforcement protocols that may prove unnecessary should this Court decide to grant review.”

    I am thinking It cost Michigan about $600,000 a year cost to operate the database. Just shut down the whole thing and you would be saving over $600,000 and this could be used toward sex offender education. (sources http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/michigans_sex_offenders_could.html)

    • Rick

      Hmm, they waste 600,000 on paper clips, that’s no amount of money to them. They also get federal money. The costly, time consuming, and complex changes argument was facetious at best. It should take no more than a week to implement, they had them up in no time.

    • Too expensive? Say what?!

      It is either too expensive to implement or too expensive to change how it is used, but one way or another it is too expensive, even with federal money assistance. Which is it? Probably was not too expensive to hand count all of the presidential election votes, was it?

      Guess what? It is NOT too expensive for those who have to register to stop coming in and registering. That would lighten the workload a bit wouldn’t it? Saves a lot of money for everyone.

      In the interest of public safety, of which the RCs are a part of – the public, cease and desist immediately the unconstitutional process in place. Contractually speaking, a stop work order immediately saves a lot of money.

  17. C L A R K

    Oooooooooooh My.
    Talk about a HomeRun…this is one here.!
    W O W.
    Thank you SCOTUS …
    Thank you US 6th District Court for defending our Constitution.
    Tremendous decision… Tremendous.!

    • C L A R K

      Thank you to all involved in putting forth on paper & voicing issues in defense of the Constitution:
      Tooooo numerous to name all here but just know as Equally Important… Thank You….ACLU of Michigan & all involved.
      Grateful.

  18. Bill Arthur

    I have read that when a Supreme Court Justice denies a request to stay a lower court decision pending appeal it is usually an indication that the Justice does not believe the underlying appeal of the case will be reviewed by the entire court. Does any legal expert know the history of this? This is good news/bad news, I guess. Would we prefer to have the constitutionality of the registry debated and decided once and for all by the Supreme Court, or have this rather narrow ruling in the Sixth Circuit left standing for the limited good it will do?

    • Rick

      To Bill Arthur

      That makes sense to me, because I see no way of winning an ex post facto challenge in the supreme Court, the votes just aren’t there. Plus, if they leave it at the circuit court level, Michigan will have time to enact a different version to continue its registries basically the way they are. All they have to do is remove the dangerous terms and a bit less reporting. They still have their residency restrictions, so what have they really lost, nothing. I think it’s all a sham. Read some of the scrotus 4th amendment decisions recently, wow there is no 4th amendment left. You can chastise me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Like I’ve said, I have no faith left in this dump called America.

    • Robert

      Could be a positive if SCOTUS does not hear this case and waits until there are more circuit splits from Smith v. Doe. Same sex marriage cases were handled that way.
      It does seems that the current makeup of the court may be more favorable now. But if we don’t get a favorable decision it may set our movement towards reform even further back.

  19. Brubaker

    In the manner of exuberant expression that erupts from this monumental ruling:
    Whewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww…!!!

  20. Rick

    Hahaha, poor supreme court caught in their own bull? There’s is no way this is going to the scrotums. The entire illegal and disgusting case of Smith v doe that enabled us to lose our citizenship, enslave us, and discriminate against us claimed we were not subject to restraint’s of our liberty because they used one case where the guy was only on a mail registry. Now they’re stuck because of it.

    Now I’m going to file a suit in NYS using this case and only this case, to prevent them from bogging it down. I guarantee it will be denied at every level and the courts will hold it for a couple years. Then without someone like the aclu on my side it will be denied by the scrotums. I was gonna try small claims but i figured they might just create compliance officers just to get even. Then again, I might still do small claims, I can then go federal quicker.

    Any advice Janice? Wow some help would be appreciated.

  21. Will A

    There are a lot of comments here. Too bad that they are not copied to the source article where people might actually see them. If I didn’t know any better and I read that source article, I would gather that due to the lack of comments that no one really cares about it, no one cares what we do to the pariah “s*x offenders”. If I changed the article to be about Trump and Clinton, there would be 1,000 comments. But harassing “s*x offenders”? No one cares.

    • Timmr

      I think we care but forget where the real fight should take place. Thank you for the reminder.

  22. Bobby

    Hello Everyone,

    I just spoke to Ms Aukerman today,and asked her what this ruling means by Justice Kagan,and if Michigan has to cease and deceased the registry,or start making the necessary changes till the final ruling comes in.
    and asked if i still had to register in December,and this is what she told me.

    The decision technically applies only to the six people in the case. We are waiting to see what MI will do. The decision does not mean that people will come off sooner than 25 years. You should register in December.

    now correct me if i am wrong but the way i read the article/decision,it applies to everyone, not just the original six. anyone have any thoughts on this ,and what Ms Aukerman said.

    • Rick

      To Bobby

      After reading the states emergency petition it is clear the ruling applies to all offenders. The petition clearly states the original court has issued blanket injunctions of certain requirements enjoining all offenders. The petition also states it will leave Michigan able to apply only the most meagre of requirements prior to 2006 to all offenders. I’m not clear as to why Mrs Zukerman is saying otherwise. Read the petition yourself, no one can claim the ruling doesn’t apply to all offenders, since it would make no legal sense for each individual to apply for reductions since it would be a huge waste if money. And like it says you have to see what the original court does with the blanket orders enjoining all offenders.

      • Steve

        I believe she says that because the law does apply to people conclvicted after 2011

      • Bobby

        Thanks Rick,

        Do you by chance have the link to that petition. I don’t know why she told me that, I thought it was like her contradicting her self,but what do i know, I also figured why would justice Kagan make a ruling that would only effect the original six,and not include ALL Michigan S.O.’s. but thanks for the reply and clarification.

        • Rick

          The link is at the top of this article, Emergency Petition-State of Michigan. And it states the law will apply to all those from 2006 forward. But what of the school safety zones, etc? Or are they a part of the registry?because if it is applied through the registry they are to be gone too. just register until the lower court does its thing. You will know when it’s been changed and is applied.a Fe months probably.

          • Bobby

            Thanks again Rick i did not notice the link till you pointed it out, I am just really curious how all this will effect me, since my conviction was in 1992,before Michigan even had a registry, then got out in 94’and off parole in 96,before all this crap was put in place,originally was suppose to do 25 yrs,then switched to life in 2011. The funny thing is they also retroactively changed my registration date from 11/25/95 to 6/19/92 my conviction date,with out me knowing till i saw it on the registry. their still playing games with people’s life’s. again thanks.

      • lovewillprevail

        After reading the emergency petition, I come to the same conclusion as Rick. Some interesting quotes from the state of Michigan in the emergency petition…

        “…the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning threatens the validity of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which imposes requirements to Michigan’s and other states’ laws.”

        The sky is falling…oh my god, the validity of SORNA might be threatened…lol

        “And if the mandate is not stayed, confusion would persist even if this Court granted certiorari and reversed, because Michigan would again have to change its registry back to the old system. What is more, the Sixth Circuit’s decision leaves the State with virtually no way to enact one uniform registry law applicable to all offenders, short of reverting to the lowest common denominator of the pre-2006 SORA requirements.”

        The sky is falling…oh my god, most of the registry requirements will have to be wiped away and the state will have to go back to just a basic registry list and nothing more with no restrictions and no punishment…lol

        “…Michigan will be irreparably harmed without a stay of mandate because the Sixth Circuit’s decision prevents the State from effectuating a statutory scheme enacted by representatives of it s people.”

        The sky is falling…oh my god, the state can not effectuate an unconstitutional statutory scheme enacted by the representatives of its people. Now I will agree with the state’s argument if the statutory schemes are constitutional. But as we all know, that is not the case.

  23. Will A

    There are 60 comments here about this. Yet there are only 3 at the actual source article. I think to the general public it looks as if few people care much about this. I think it looks to the general public as if the millions of people who are harassed by the Registries are too weak or lazy to fight back. It looks as if only about .0001 of the millions will fight back. I’m just saying what I think the general public thinks.

    There isn’t much reason to stop harassing hated people if those people won’t fight back and make it extremely painful for you to harass them. I mean, what do the harassers have to lose? They can be terrorists all the time.

    But I’m vowing that I will make it painful for them today and EVERY day after. People who support the Registries are not my fellow U.S. citizens and I do not have to have any concern for them whatsoever. They are just like ISIS to me.

    Every day that their Registries exist I will ensure that they do nothing useful and I will ensure that they cause as much harm as I can. I will do it all legally as well. America is divided and it is going to stay that way.

  24. Davidh

    i love how the State was turned back from obtaining their emergency relief! Given the significant changes to Michigan, It’s a good sign they lost on review–it’s a barometer as to opinion on the court, I feel. It helps that the lower court’s opinion was flawlessly written!

    With this matter going to the Supreme court, IML back in play, and tiered system in California coming up–I feel the head-winds of change.

    Thank you, God!

  25. Bobby

    Hello Everyone,

    I was just wondering if anyone has heard anything, in regard’s to Justice Kagan’s ruling on Michigan’s registry and the fact,that she denied A.G. Schuette’s emergency petition. Thought since the petition was denied,that the ruling and the changes are suppose to start taking effect already,even though the final ruling has not been made yet. I keep checking for new info,and even checked the registry,and my registry profile has not been changed yet. does any one one or heard anything new on this topic. any info or where i can find said info would be appreciated. Thank you. Happy Turkey Day Everyone!!!.

  26. MatthewLL

    The Supreme Court has the Does v. Snyder case on their schedule for conference tomorrow. I presume they will decide then to grant cert or not. This is it folks, either they will or will not review this case and decide Friday.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *