NE: State told to pay $292K to firm that challenged sex offender laws

A federal judge has ordered Nebraska to pay more than $292,000 in attorneys’ fees in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of changes to the state’s sex offender registry laws. But it was a fraction of the amount sought by the attorneys who represented the sex offenders who sued.

The laws, the most recent changes to the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act, were passed in 2009 but put on hold as a result of the lawsuit before they were to go into effect in 2010. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great! Money talks people. In fact it is the ONLY thing that matters in Amerika!

What impressed me was "It also involved about 50 John and Jane Doe clients" that has a much better sound than 2 anonymous sex offenders sue…I al perfectly willing to be represented in every possible lawsuit here in California. I am sure I am not the only one out of over 70,000 RSO.

Let’s put numbers behind these lawsuits and show them that we have a true voice that needs to be heard and will be silent any longer!

True, large numbers do make a difference. I for one, am willing to stand up and count as a voice for our rights. One challenge we face is it seems the “Federal Government” has made it a crime for RSO’s to meet en mass for any purpose. We have been stripped of more than basic civil rights to include the right live peaceably with out harassment or profiling from anyone. We have many hurdles to jump and bridges to cross to get the courts to realize the true nature that has been created by the registry requirements. I think the toughest battle will be convincing the courts to acknowlege the fact that registration is in reality more punitive than anything else.

In reference to punishment, someone some time ago said something worth thinking about. If you consider registration, halloween ordinances, meetings, internet restrictions, residency restrictions, etc ALL COMBINED, it constitutes a punishment.

Remember …couple years back…that jessic law electronic monitoring could not apply retroactive to those free Americans no longer on parole probation … the same ruling even on that issue has to apply…the Constitution Works.

I note, this story indicates the Nebraska law will provide for publishing ALL sex offenders names. I don’t know who they require to register in Nebraska, but that could mean even misdemeanants! In Calif., for now, misdemeanants are not published and made available to the public, although that has been proposed in recent years and might come back again.

The parts of the law the court overturned did NOT include the part calling for publication of ALL sex offender names. So, it appears they have no problem with that being too much punishment for a misdemeanant.

That ’35’ part is massively un-Constitutional ….injustice … that denies free American citizens the elementary right of free men…and that is to express…speak…communicate as other free men.