NY: But seriously folks – SORA is punishment

2012 – New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) imposes a lifetime of police supervision on tens of thousands of persons who have already served their sentences. It is applied retroactively to people whose offenses were committed before its enactment. A person pleading guilty to a SORA-eligible offense need not be told that this additional sanction will be imposed. His or her risk level may be assessed based on charges that were dismissed as part of the negotiated plea. Statements that he or she has never had the opportunity to cross-examine may be considered “clear and convincing evidence” of their truth. Indelible, lifetime deprivations of liberty are made in 5-minute hearings where the defendant has fewer rights than an insurance company contesting a payout.

How is this possible? Because, we are told, SORA is not punishment. It’s strictly regulatory, like labeling a poison and putting it on the FDA registry for the safety of the public. Full Article (from 2012)

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

Alaska Citizens Action Network “The “individual” may stand upon “his Constitutional Rights” as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his “private” business in his own way. “His power to contract is unlimited.” He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. “His rights” are such as “existed” by the Law of the Land (Common Law) “long antecedent” to the organization of the State”, and can only be taken from him by “due process of law”, and “in accordance with the Constitution.” “He owes nothing” to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case. Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. “The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”

The Law of the Land – Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not the law of the land. (Sedg.St & Const.Law (2d Ed.) 475.).
“…That statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.” (Hoke vs. Henderson, 15,N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec 677).

The legal principle underlying this case and the one to be applied to the facts is firmly embodied in the roots of the common law, which has been handed down to us from early times unimpaired, in its full vigor, for the Protection of personal liberty, against illegal arrests. The liberty of the person is too important a matter to the state to be interfered with without the safeguards with which the law guards such invasions. This court has said: The limits to the power of arrest by a constable, without process, was well defined at common law. The regard for liberty of the person was so great that the common law did not confer upon a mere conservator of the peace the power to touch the person of the subject, of his own volition, except in those cases when the interests of the public absolutely demanded it. — Collins v. Cody, 95 N.J. Law 65, 113 Atl. 709, 710 (1920).

The limits to the power of arrest by a constable, without process, was well defined at common law. The regard for liberty of the person was so great that the common law did not confer upon a mere conservator of the peace the power to touch the person of the subject, of his own volition, except in those cases when the interests of the public absolutely demanded it. — Collins v. Cody, 95 N.J. Law 65, 113 Atl. 709, 710 (1920).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit APPROVED AND ALLOWED THE USE OF THE “COMMON LAW LI D” that was filed in the deed records office in Denton, Texas against a criminal investigator with the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service. U.S. vs. REEVES, 752 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1985).

This means no judge decides what the facts the jury should hear as they are to decide the law and the facts (The common law right of the jury to determine the law, as well as the facts remain unimpaired. State v Croteau 23 Vt 14, 54 AM DEC 90 (1849).

The state government did not create the common law, so it has no authority to abolish it or control it, unless we allow ourselves to be tricked to putting common law under statutory law, where it’s “their house, their rules.” However, if we operate outside the statutory rules by invoking common law, no state government has the authority or jurisdiction to dictate, control or abolish what we do. They only have authority to enforce our decisions.

“The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.).
With such overwhelming case law there is no question about the fact of the claim made here statutes are not law. Plaintiff/the court now challenges prosecution and Magistrate to prove the statutes apply to plaintiff/court. Plaintiff denies being a government employee if the prosecution or state or Magistrates wish to say different then prove I have been a paid employee of federal or state Government. As well article 1 section 8 clause 14 says clearly the government makes the rules for the government not the people.

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby… The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3.5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331,

To protect the people from their elected and public employees,,Many of our people seem to believe that their state government has jurisdiction to stop the common law Grand Juries. However,the state government only has authority over statutory (ie. State) law, not common law. The common law of England was used to establish the U.S. Constitution, so it existed before it and, thus, it is superior to it. The common law is time immemorial.

“The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957.

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute and codes, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. 20.181-192United States Code: Title 28a,Rule 5.1. Constitutional …

We gonna do something about that NY BS.

Amen , Pat.
There are other pillars of granite so to speak,
That can stop this nonsense of mistreatment of civil rights, human Rights, & our Constitutional Rights this country is SUPPOSED to represent to the world it protects.
The iml is mistreatment in one issue of several that can be stopped by some pillars of granite arguments that have not been utilized.