ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


SCOTUS declines to hear Ex-Post Facto case

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a registered citizen the opportunity to further challenge whether a registration law applied to him retroactively violates the Constitution.  As a result, the Court will not hear the case and his legal challenge to that law has ended.

At issue was whether the retroactive application of a sex offender program violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution where the program imposes numerous onerous obligations and restrictions upon a registrant for life, with no opportunity to terminate registration even upon a showing that the registrant does not pose a threat to public safety. Case Details
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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The cowards on the The U.S. Supreme Court would rather pretend they aren’t co-signing the BS by denying this man his rights. This country is corrupt from the president and his puppetmasters all the way down to the little town in nowhereville.

The only way to get rid of these laws is to make the people that wrote them, regret it.

By making them PAY the “victims” they have created with their law.

Here is a petitioner response that is well worth reading:

I assume that it would have been John Roberts, as Chief Justice, who decided that the case wasn’t ‘cert-worthy’ in which case it is no surprise, although I’m not sure what the procedure is exactly for accepting cases or if other justices are involved. We are up against a fairly grim array of Supremes here and I can’t see many rays of sunshine in SCOTUS. I know that past RSOL speaker and law professor Catherine Carpenter (if I recall her name correctly) had significant hope that Kennedy would tilt the Court to our side in a reexamination of Smith but they would first have to accept a case to do so. A cursory look at the Hall case makes it appear to have been a good case on which to build that reexamination. But not if they don’t accept it.

My interpretation: SCOTUS has just confirmed that politicians can continue making any unconstitutional laws they wish relating to Registered Citizens. Where is justice?

Justice is painfully obscured behind the cowardice of the electorate and the judiciary who cannot bring themselves to honor the truth for fear the tyrannic may question them too.

I suspect their reluctance to hear the case is driven by 1) their inclination to steer clear of matters that they can chock off as states’ rights to govern themselves, and 2) that by accepting this case, should they rule with true judicial conscience, they would be forced to completely unravel the federal SORNA if they ruled against a state law that was applied retroactively.

The Supreme Court is not the last word. Like my wife, the buck do not stop with man and the world systems. We have appeal this and all RC injustices to the Supreme Judge and He has accepted.

I received an email today from the attorney prosecuting this case. I asked him if he had received any indication from the US Supreme Court as to why it was denied and he said this:

“No indication. Typically, certs are denied in one-sentence orders. This one was as well.

On rare occasions, a justice may dissent from the denial of a cert, and this dissent would be reflected in the order. No such dissent here.”

This had a snowballs chance in hell of being overturned, or even considered. Don’t despair, it wasn’t realistic in the first place.

Jo, I suspect that a case will need to be very egregious and clearly unconstitutional for SCOTUS to agree to hear it. That way, they will have some cover when they make an unpopular ruling. We will get there in time.

Jo is correct ex post facto is dead

I guess the moderator must be tired of me posting my motion and opinion on this matter as they did not post my previous post about this issue……. So Ill try again…..
I don’t understand why people keep beating this dead horse.. The court has repeatedly stated that there is NO ex post facto claim to be made. It has been perfectly clear and unambiguous about their stance on this subject.. I really hope that some time in the near future someone will bring forth real issues that might actually have a chance at prevailing such as the following.. I don’t have the expertise or the resources to do it other wise i would have already done it.. These issues have not been presented to the court that I know of and they need to be addressed… EX POST FACTO IS DEAD………….Stop wasting the courts time and your resources hashing out a dead horse…….

Well, I’ll disagree with you on the inadvisability of bringing ex post facto challenges before the court. The merits of the Petitioner’s arguments were demonstrable and, had the Court deigned to consider them in open court, undeniable. Such challenges should be brought, in number, before the court, even at the risk of “wasting their time”. This IS how progress is made, not through our acceptance of injustice.

Mike maybe you should email that to the attorneys representing this fellow I believe their firm is listed on the brief.

There is an Ex Post Facto to be claimed. The problem is the State(s) do not want to challenge it. In Alaska and Oklahoma, there are cases that prove Ex Post Facto. The problem is they say it violates state’s Constitution, avoiding federal level altogether. This avoids bringing it to federal level. It’s a state, not a person that will contradicting the SCOTUS.

Unfortunately, I think California allowed registration to be retroactive. Under business contractual terms, it cannot be retroactive and it needs to be appealed. California needs to headway this cause like it has for residency restriction as well as internet.

While Ex Post Facto should work, it isn’t the only factor in play. Like mentioned, registration violates our constitutional rights. In the news recently, lots of people were in uproar about registering Muslims as it violates the constitution. Welp, why shouldn’t it apply here? Especially if your case is dismissed b/c technically you’ve never done anything wrong – except you’re treated that you have. You haven’t committed any new crime to be registered once out of custody.

Anyhow, to make Ex Post Facto work, then it needs to shown here in California. If we can win in California, then we can make the state say it violates it for all cases, not a specific one. AFterwards, we’ll have more ground to be heard and revisited.

Great post.

These are the issues that need to be brought forth and addressed by the court…….


(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

(3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

(4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

I don’t think “right to travel” issues should be attempted to be fought yet. We often only get one chance to fight an issue in the courts. The “right to travel” issue shouldn’t be tried until the U.S. actually has a law that bans RC from travel. It will be a difficult and expensive fight to get the U.S. to stop notifying a destination Country that a Registered Citizen is attempting to enter. Through Interpol, it is well established that many (190) Countries including the U.S. have been sharing criminal information about it’s citizens for decades. It’s not the U.S. that is denying entry of RC to these other countries. This is not fair to RC’s, but to many, it’s a legal way to get around the Constitution.

These Supreme court justices need to go back to Law school and retake the constitutional law courses. They obviously skipped it or failed that class a couple of times.

They know it backwards and forwards. They are simply pandering, as justices should never do, to popular prejudice. In this way, the impartiality of justice is revealed ultimately to be a lie. And justice is dead, as a result.

yes we all see that it is undeniably ex post facto but the court has repeatedly stated it isn’t……..I guess if a person has the time and money to spend beating that dead issue than go for it but I wish they would focus on the multitude of other issues that haven’t been hashed out by the court……….

Sex offender registration is the stupidest thing to come out of this country since prohibition. Like prohibition had, registration has the broad support of this culture, from progressives to conservatives, from labor to business, feminists to fundamentalist Christians. Like prohibition everyone thinks it is going to save the family and the children and any extreme measure is valid as long as it saves that one child.
When registration is finally seen for what it is, a disruption of peaceful society, then it will end; when a significant portion of the population find themselves as un-citizens, homeless, unemployed, permanently injured or dead, and it will show us to be an embarrassment to the world, and a traitor to our own principles of justice. Then the fever will break that has infected the population.

Unfortunately America is broken and will never be fixed. The downward spiral is well on it’s way and scapegoats are always useful to the powers that be in situations like this…we are such scapegoats. It is only going to get worse.

I am sorry to be so blunt but being optimistic is only being in denial. I prefer to face reality no matter how much I might wish something else – I live in the real world which is NOW.

Just look around you RIGHT NOW in America and try to fool yourself that things are getting better. Sure some of you will continue to live in a bubble of denial and false hope. Good luck with that.

Tired of hiding is correct. All the work for residency restrictions seems like a minor, futile effort. We can All say things are getting better, but I don’t think I will see it in my lifetime. And for those who say its a pity party, Be glad you have a support system like family friends, a job that doesn’t know about you.

I wake up every day wondering if this is the day I end it. Don’t tell me about hope and faith. The laws don’t support that way of thinking. People say” be strong”, easy to say!

I agree tired… Our system of gov has failed since the seperation of powers no longer exist. Our form of democracy depended upon the separation of powers and on honest supreme court justices that had integrity and were uncoruptable. Well it was doomed from the start since there is no such thing as a uncoruptable group of men. You might find one every once in awhile but you will never have a group of them.

Patience do you have a place to live??????? A income at all???I know how it is I was in a bad way when i first got out pf prison but have since been able to build a almost stable environment for myself. I really hate to see any body letting this situation take them down the path of hopelessness and despair although I completely understand how it can happen and what the results it can have. I almost jumped in the river up here in sacramento after being out of prison for a few months and barely having a roof over my head only thanks to Volunteer of America’s homeless shelter programs and the commitment of the ex correctional officer that ran the program. I was able to find a menial job after living in these homeless shelters and even a detox center even though I didnt have a drug or alcohol problem. I was able to get through parole and managed to save enough money to get into a apt. before being laid off from my job.I had no choice but to go to college and get the financial aid to pay my bills but that might all change if this presence restriction law gets passed. There are daycares on campuses so I probably wont be able to attend classes there if this law passes.IDK..any way I really hope you can find some peace in your life despite this horrific situation that we are in..If you need to talk just say so o here and ill shoot you my email………..

We all need to stick together and those that are more fortunate than others need to help support those that dont have the support ………

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x