ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


TX: Lewisville Loses Appeal on Sex Offender Ordinance

In a ruling released Tuesday, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling from last year that had dismissed a lawsuit against the City of Lewisville over the constitutionality of a city ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders can live. Full Article

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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The rationale that the victim of the city’s residence restrictions had not actually violated the law, therefor was not able to pursue relief, is among the most farfetched distortions capable under these draconian statutes. The registrant was trying to keep his family intact, make an effort to move forward and provide for his family. As I have previously stated, these laws implicitly bully and intimidate the registrant and their families and create an unlivable catch-22 for anyone trying to merely exist. Fortunately this was appealed to a higher court that had some time, and conscience, to help in this injustice.… Read more »

Whewwww…that’s a HomeRun right there in texas…the lawsuit may proceed…….if only the city/county stayed within the law…isn’t that what you tell everyone else..????

Even if he loses the case at least he is keeping Lewisville in a state of napping their fingers and tap dancing. The whole “rational” is nothing less that high pile of BS. I hope to hell this man wins because this will set a precident for every registrant impacted by these unconstitutional laws.

Here is another article on the reversal. The article paints a bleak picture to the registrant’s likelihood of success, but his attorney cites Janice Bellucci’s success in getting residency restrictions removed in municipalities in California.

Article located here:

Darn captcha’s are getting harder.

This statement is so far from truth and such an obvious lie; it demonstrates the rational that could conceivably be in a how to scoot around constitutional laws book. The first amendment right to seek redress from the grievance for this family has been violated. It’s sickening how these government entities have manufactured consent to skirt around our laws. “Wynjean and the kids couldn’t sue because they weren’t registered sex offenders and thus weren’t directly affected by the residency ordinance. Aurelio couldn’t because he had been grandfathered into their motel room and thus hadn’t suffered any injury.” The fact that… Read more »

And all the while these book thumpers rant about family values. That is again the disconnect between their supposed ethics and the damage they do by preventing families from normalizing at any point in time.

Jim Crow has risen from the dead and the founding fathers are turning over in their graves.

I’ve argued for years a family member should sue. A google of “skinner v Oklahoma” will explain.

I should have added In Reckless Hands: Skinner v. Oklahoma and the Near Triumph of American Eugenics by Victoria F. Nourse is an excellent book. If you need a reason to fight, there it is.

This is actually a wonderful article. First, you post a sex offenders name, address and conviction online. Then, you prohibit them from visiting parks, beaches, libraries and bus stops? Now, you prohibit them from living in certain areas? This is hateful and prejudicial at the very least! This is honestly a success story and its pretty obvious that Mr Duarte will now have money to purchase his home. Great job

Point of clarification, this is not the first time family members of registrants were recognized as additional plaintiffs. With the restraining order against Simi Valley’s Halloween sign ordinance, several family members of registrants were plaintiffs. That case was settled, leaving registrants subject to the restrictions of the ordinance without the sign, and leaving family members not subject to restrictions. I don’t know how they pull this off, unless the registrant makes his/herself scarce from their own residence while family members put out decorations and pass out candy.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x