ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


MI: Sex Offender Fee Changes Take Effect Next Month

LANSING, Mich. (AP) – Registered sex offenders in Michigan are required to pay an annual fee starting April 1. Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation in November requiring Michigan’s more than 40,000 registered sex offenders to pay an annual $50 fee. The new fees are intended to cover the $600,000 a year cost to state police to operate the sex offender database.

The bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Rick Jones replaces the system under which sex offenders paid a one-time $50 fee. The law only applies to registered sex offenders who are out of prison. People who prove that they are indigent can get a fee waiver.

Snyder says the law brings Michigan in line with neighboring states that require sex offenders to pay for the operating cost of sex offender websites. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. mrspot1985

    So first they lable us, now they are going to bill us.
    Whats next? They want us to do their farming too?
    When is all this harrasment going to stop?

  2. Brubaker

    Well the governor there knows a money maker and taking the …what’s that two million dollars for that scheme ..??…goes against several laws and the very foundation of laws…the governor just might have freed the current registry with that taking…I would say he just did.

  3. SkeletonLander

    Maybe they can start making scarlet letters to be affixed to their clothes, identifying them to everyone as “Dirty, filthy sex offenders”.

    Maybe they should work in quarries breaking up the rocks which later will be used to stone them to death during the harvest festival…

    Just gotta love how progressive our laws are getting.

  4. nk

    Isn’t this the same as sending the family the bill for the bullet after they shoot a person for a crime?

  5. Jason Wilson

    A friend keeps saying “Bill of attainder”. I don’t know what it means, but i think it has something to do with the fact they are forcing a person to pay for something that person them NO benefit. Janice… do you know what this means and if so.. is there a possibility that can apply here?

  6. Bobby

    Jason, BILL Of ATTAINDER, is suppose to mean that they can NOT pass retroactive laws,but yet they do. It means that they are NOT suppose to be able to force a person to pay for a fee he already paid for, and then make him or her to keep paying after the fact. It’s like saying we pass this law today,and make it illegal yesterday. so when they pass a law they want to make illegal yesterday as well,even though it wasn’t,i hope that makes sense.

  7. Timmr

    ”’Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.” 1701 The phrase ”bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder. 1702

    The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept.
    – See more at:

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 or other website issues 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 *