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


NC: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Absurdly Repressive North Carolina Sex Offender Law

North Carolina’s efforts to drive sex offenders out of public life hit another roadblock on Wednesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that two key provisions of a repressive sex offender law violate the Constitution. The ruling marks the second time this year that a federal appeals court has issued a harsh rebuke to a state for enacting outrageous restrictions against former sex offenders, after the 6th Circuit upbraided Michigan for turning sex offender registrants into “moral lepers.” Wednesday’s decision is also a victory for reality-based jurisprudence: The court refused to accept North Carolina’s baseless assertions that former sex offenders are dangerous forever, instead demanding evidence that its draconian infringements on constitutionally protected liberties actually help anybody. …

In 2017, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving the First Amendment rights of former sex offenders. It’ll mark a prime opportunity for the justices to reiterate that a former criminal’s constitutional liberties do not disappear simply because his name appears on a sex offender registry. Full Article


Janice’s Journal: The Many Wonders of a 4th Circuit Decision

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

“former criminal’s constitutional liberties do not disappear simply because his name appears on a sex offender registry.”

Jedi mind trick in action…

But the registry is solid proof they have disappeared. If we are free and equal, paid our debt to society for our wrongs, aren’t being punished… Why are we on websites? Why do some have to be so for life?

Radicalism not incrementalism should be our goal. I’m not in any way talking about violence. I’m talking about change. A 180 from the opposition. Don’t accept less or you’ll get less.

We all deserve to walk completely free after we’ve served our jail sentence, probation/parole and/restitution.

We deserve our right to work, go to church, raise our children, travel and simply live freely.

Slap repeat offenders with longer sentences, lifetime if it warrants it but don’t dare tell us, you can constitutionally publicly shame us with a straight face.

I will never accept that as truth, no matter how many “legal scholars” try to sell that shit.

Incrementalism is fine when the end goal is to collect all the evidence of incremental wins to make a radical win.

More research brings about the incremental wins. More research has been able to give proof that the 2003 decision had “false information” and, in fact, used said “false information” to come to its conclusion for one of the supporters of Registration on SCOTUS. Professors Ellman and Ellman discovered this.

Residency restriction was won in Cali. Now, many states are following suit. Cali (actually whenever I say Cali I mean Janice and company) also removed internet disclosures.

More and more states are calling registration punitive, but only one has challenged the 2003 SCOTUS decision – Michigan. Alaska and Oklahoma called it punitive, but refused to say it’s punitive at a federal level, only state level.

Both recent decisions for (Michigan and this NC decision) are asking for empirical data. California courts will cede incremental wins, but avoid big wins. See IML dismissal and housing restrictions only pertain to Parolees, not anyone else. But our small wins here may help in another state. Just b/c IML was dismissed here in Cali, that doesn’t mean someone from Michigan can’t throw in a complaint against the IML.

It’s frustrating and slow, but there’s progress. California and Arizona courts will always support the 2003 SCOTUS decision as regulatory – they won’t be dissuaded. CASOMB has recorded under 1% re-offense rates for two consecutive years, but the tiered proposal they recently put up doesn’t reflect such empirical data was used in making the tiering. So it’s up to other states to take Cali’s incremental wins to further a bigger win.

I believe Kansas did the same, if I recall properly, but stopped itself short of crossing the finish line in striking the law.

There is also the possibility that incremental wins will whittle the requirements down to where they’re “tolerable” in the courts eyes. Some things happen incrementally, but not all things have to. I’ll never agree that the registry has to go that route with the lies of the 2003 judgement hanging in our face. That is the avenue. The direct path… no need to sweat it out over the next 50 years. No need to falsely compared us to other groups fighting for our rights to get us to swallow the idea of dying of old age before change comes.

The courts are signaling a drastic departure from the status quo concerning the registry. It’s as obvious as blue sky.

Well, the 2003 decision is a black mark on SCOTUS… and that whole “it’s not a tax, but it’s a tax” SCOTUSCARE.

In both decisions, Stevens inserted himself to re-write law as opposed to judge the law. Hey, didn’t the SCOTUS also say internment camps were constitutional at that time?

“Alaska and Oklahoma called it punitive, but refused to say it’s punitive at a federal level, only state level.”

Isn’t that what matters when challenging state law(s) on grounds that the law(s) violate state constitutions?

E.g. SCOTUS believes SORNA to be constitutional. The PA Supreme Court disagrees and held it violates the ex post facto clause of the PA constitution. Now SORNA, and the Attorney General issued rule extending SORNA to “all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment of that Act,” ONLY applies to anyone convicted, in prison or on supervised released on or after 12/21/2012.

States are not obligated to enforce federal law, nor are they obligated to pass laws that mirror federal law. Attacking the laws on grounds they violate state constitutions is a more effective way of laying waste to the registries.


my god I love this statement by the court..

“The State tries to overcome its lack of data, social science or scientific research, legislative findings, or other empirical evidence with a renewed appeal to anecdotal case law, as well as to “logic and common sense.” But neither anecdote, common sense, nor logic, in a vacuum, is sufficient to carry the State’s burden of proof. Thus, while the State’s argument may be conceptually plausible, it presented no evidence or data to substantiate it before the district court.”

Beautiful music to my ears….these words need to be cited in every csse going forward…

I like that too, mike r. They finally stumbled on this new fangled method called science to determine objective truth. Heck, people have been using it to advance the civilization for centuries. Who would have thought one could apply it to making good law.

Stats, yes…

but fear mongering has always been a civilization past time. = (

Big brother got a brand new toy. It’s called a database. BB uses the database for “Public Safety.” BB also uses it for surveillance, tracking and memory. (see Some use them to make profit or political advantage. (see FB, AMZ, SOR) What applies in this context connotes an indentured servitude to a ‘state’ database/property. All this incongruent with fundamental liberty interest of individual citizens.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x