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


WI: Perfectly legal – Sex offenders living inside child safety zones the norm in Wisconsin, otherwise, they’d be homeless

Municipalities have ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live. Most people support the idea because it helps us feel safe, but what the politicians who passed the rules probably didn’t tell you is that sex offenders who lived near a school, park, playground, daycare or other protected place before the ordinance, can stay there. In fact, they almost have to. 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 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

Wow! This article is very unassuming, then at the end – BAM! Facts!

The data from a 12-year study in Minnesota found of the 224 sex offenders who re-offended in that period, not one of their crimes would have been prevented by residency restrictions.

I liked that the article compares the recidivism rates of registrants with general population at 3 years and at 15 years. This is extra good info that can be added to Janice and team’s thoughts to the legislators about making a tiered system with the use of data. Or maybe get rid of “residency bans” altogether.

Whoa, empirical evidence from a study across the years……what a novel concept showing what other studies have shown for years!

Shame on you Wisconsin for being blind!

man some of the hateful comments on these articles is sickening but I think that we may never be able to get those people with that type of mentality to ever even consider the facts but I will always keep educating them any chance I can..I posted the following…

hey guess what I am one of those monsters you claim we all are for talking to an underage girl over the Internet with whom i never had any physical contact with almost 15years ago and guess what I haven’t reoffended or even considered reoffending and I’m in Sacramento California where we have no residency restrictions or presence restrictions or Internet restrictions. The fact is is that none of these failed policies have achieved any positive results and have absolutely nothing to do with why I haven’t reoffended. if I wanted to reoffend I would care less about any of these laws and not one of them would prevent me from doing so…thats a fact …these laws only affect those individuals who want to be law bidding citizens and have no effect on the monsters you claim all of us are who are considering to commit another sex offense…zero effect…just so you know i did my time finished extensive parole without any incidents payed off my $15000 child support and am in my sixth semester of college. I am a father and grandfather an uncle and brother engaged to be married and all these people love me from the bottom of their hearts…does this sound like a monster that needs to be shot or locked up forever??? if anyone says yes then you have absolutely no interest in facts and have absolutely no humanity left in your cold dead hearts…I do agree with you that those who attack and rape children or adults should be locked up and subjected to intensive treatment before ever having a chance to be released and if they reoffend lock em up and throw away the key…but do you really want our limited law enforcement resources wasted on a guy like me or would you rather have that money put into monoriting the high risk offenders and into programs that actually help prevent sexual abuse before it happens??

Great comment, Mike r, I was so glad to see that in the comments section. Thank you for posting for the wider audience. Good luck on your motion. I was thinking if you need any funds to get that filed, you may want to open a gofundme account for it. I’ll contribute.

Great response Mike R!

Everyone needs to keep fighting the fight, because we know the ignorant other side won’t stop.

I wish this Wisconsin study for available online! Interesting how these studies showing ‘the truth’ are so rarely talked about. Inconvenient truth? Well, that’s about to change. We’re not backing down and won’t be harassed by our own Country due to laws that were passed based on Fraudulent information!

The primitive human part of me can’t help but want to live long enough to gloat at the people who tried so forcefully to perpetuate lies about us…

The other part of me that controls my higher thought only wishes the people who tried to portray us as less than human eventually learn from the error of their own line of primitive thought, and have the humility to seek forgiveness.

It’s been an interesting journey lately, with fascism in the White House and so many politicians falling prey to choosing what is easy over what is right, to think about how this affects humankind as a species.

It may be a quote from a cheesy movie, but it’s poignant nonetheless: “…it’s only on the brink that people find the will to change. Only at the precipice do we evolve.”

I think of such quotes and see fundamental truth within, and can’t help but wonder if these struggles are somehow in part related to our long running desire to fight against the lesser parts of ourselves.

I certainly hope that with time, those parts of our primitive nature that want to treat everything as a sex object, can be overcome at the same time as that part of our primitive nature that seeks power and retribution as an immediate response without regard to the damage or consequence of such acts.

Time will tell… Until then, I will continue seeking what real, lasting joy that can be had in this complete fiction we call life.

thanks guys…I would really like to see how anyone with a sane mind can refute that comment…I’m sure one of the wackos will post some kind of unsubstantiated emotional rant status qou response…ive been emailing fox for awhile now with the facts about sex offender recidivism rates and the collateral consequences caused by these laws ..I’m going to keep sending them maybe we can get them to go after this issue…

“There is, however, one thing that experts insist does increase the chances an offender will commit another sex crime — the very residency restrictions we believe are keeping us safe.”

What needs to be addressed is that the very existence of the registry is a residency restriction because many, many landlords will not rent to a registered citizen.

Exactly, which is why any residency lawsuit is a waste of time because it doesn’t address the real problem. Landlords can take applications, check the registry, then just not call you back. Nothing you can do. At least the restriction is lifted by law which is great but in effect it matters not. Doing something while doing nothing.

man that temporary restraining order to halt Trump’s travel ban is definitely relevant to our travel restrictions…that judge straight laid out all the constitutional fundamental rights that that ban imposed on individuals…even though it won’t hold water since these people that are not US citizens so they have no constitutional rights…but guess what people no matter how much society hates us we are still US citizens and all the arguments do apply to us

Right, they’re not US citizens and aren’t covered under the constitution. They have no right to immigrate. A process in place does not a right make.

Now in spirit, the constitution was meant as an acknowledgment that all people are born with the same rights but legally it only stretches to our sovereign borders.

We, however, are seen as a special case, even among other criminals. Although things should be equal, they aren’t.

It should be a no-brainer but even advocates look at us different.

I think we have an easy win in Alaska but nobody is stepping up. Imagine that.

The Constitution/Bill of Rights is clear about whom it applies to and there are only several instances where it does not apply to non-citizens.

“Aliens,” legal and illegal, have the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership.

“The right to immigrate” is not a right enjoyed by U.S. Citizens, either since we are already citizens and have no need to immigrate.

No David, they do not have panoply. You missed holding office as well as the fact that the supreme court has ruled on that so called panoply. May I suggest you hone up on the facts a little better before you make statements as you have?

Your last paragraph was cute.

I addressed it with “holding office.”

I suggest you read the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

And cite the evidence to refute my claims.

I shall await…

Correction: I meant to say: “I addressed it with “some government jobs.”

Sure but you made the claim. How about you back that up and I’ll counter.

Also, in regard to your exhorting me to “hone up on the facts a little better before you make statements as you have?” may I suggest you do the same vis-a-vis:

“Right, they’re not US citizens and aren’t covered under the constitution. They have no right to immigrate. A process in place does not a right make.

Now in spirit, the constitution was meant as an acknowledgment that all people are born with the same rights but legally it only stretches to our sovereign borders.”

None of that was true, except for the part about not having a right to immigrate which was, nevertheless, only trivially true since it is purely administrative.

Had you even researched your assumptions before making these claims? Or did that come from Alex Jones, too?

Now now David. My claim was correct. There is no right to immigrate, there are however policies (administrative) in place but policy in place doth not a right make.

They can easily be deported for being illegal. The people on visa can as well but only if they violate the terms of stay. As for rights, they have those that can be reasonably tied to the 14th but that still doesn’t give them a panoply. Only citizens have the panoply.

I do research, specifically the founding documents, resolutions, letters to and from the founding father’s and court cases as warranted. Per the letters, the signers said many things in favor of immigration but they warned about the dangers of it too. They spoke out against those things as well as we must to restore the republic and protect against subversion of those principles. I doubt very seriously you’ve taken the time to read past quotes from websites like salon and the hill. I say this because, although I think you’re a smart guy, you’ve clearly not put the same effort into researching constitutional history as you seem to have with your judge analysis. It’s evident from your misstatements on constitutional intent. I’m no scholar but even I can see that.

From what I read the people denied entry were already vetted. President Trump made them “illegal” by his executive order. Those sneaking into the country, that is different, those are the ones Obama deported. Can’t see how somone trying to enter a country and following all procedures set by that country is suddenly illegal because the president trumps up some false frightening and high terrorist urgency about all people coming from that country to keep them out. Sounds like what they make up about us to make us detainees in our own country.

I suggest giving the stories time to air out before making your mind up. As always, there’s lies being flung like crap to a wall hoping something will stick.

I’ve seen news outlets getting caught red handed lying. After I give David his links, I’ll show you a video where CNN got caught faking the Assad gas attacks to support war in Syria. Like the true idiots they are, they broadcast their before and after satellite feeds. Most satellite feeds are unencrypted so anyone with the right equipment can capture it.

1. The vetting was done by the previous administration. So it’s possible that this new admin doesn’t trust the old admin and their ways of vetting.

2. Some statute said the President has the right to “temporarily” ban on the basis of “public safety”. Welp, it seems as though that whole “public safety thing resurfaces”. But this thought was also used by the old admin and those 7 countries were the same 7 countries that were blocked.

Anyhow, it is a temporary ban until better security measures are up. There is a set time period for that ban, IIRC. It isn’t indefinite, unlike the IML or registries for some states.

B/c it’s a temporary ban and it is isolated to a specific group (7 countries), then it fits into the Presidential Exec Orders thing that no law can deny. Now, if the ban elapses over the temporary period, then the law can step in.

What I’m upset about is this is a California judge that suspended this travel ban, right? California is the same state that permits travel bans by proxy of IML and illegal Angel program, yet not one judge stood up to say the IML is unconstitutional.

“even though it won’t hold water since these people that are not US citizens so they have no constitutional rights”

That’s not true, Mike.

“Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights”

A: That’s an opinion piece. B: From their legal references it’s well written but it doesn’t go into history and the fact that the court has overturned itself in a few odd ways.
C: If they were really protected, we wouldn’t have the vast deportation process we have since Americans are almost immune from it.
Sounds like a case of activism from the bench rather than constitutional law.

Personally, I’m only pissed about three things concerning immigrants. They broke the law, they’re benefitting from my tax dollar and the poor vetting practices.

I bet my great relatives felt the same way once they realised they had all these pale faced people on their land. I’m sure they wished they’d had the ability to halt that huh?

Please, do share with us the ways in which the court has overturned itself. Tell us in which ways that non-citizens do not enjoy the benefits of the Constitution, apart from the ways previously acknowledged. I’m not particularly concerned with the ways in which immigrants piss you off, however, just court rulings that somehow nullify the Constitution.

Daniel Fisher , FORBES STAFF
I cover finance, the law, and how the two interact.

Play Video

Belgian protesters: Does the Constitution cover them, too? (THIERRY ROGE/AFP/Getty Images)

Four federal judges so far have issued injunctions blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration, and the reasons include one that might surprise some Trump supporters: The U.S. Constitution.

How does the Constitution apply to a non-citizen blocked from entering at JFK International Airport?

The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory. The American Civil Liberties Union and many legal scholars also believe Trump’s order violates the First Amendment freedom of religion by singling out Muslim immigrants for discriminatory treatment.

“I’m not arguing the Constitution gives each person a right to enter,” said Jennifer Gordon, a professor of immigration law at Fordham University Law School. But “when the U.S. government establishes a preferred religion, it violates the Constitution.”

From Forbes:
“Non-citizens don’t share all the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution. They’re subject to immigration law, under which the executive branch has broad authority to determine whether it wants them in the country or not. And until they’ve passed through immigration control, they aren’t technically on U.S. soil, thanks to a “legal fiction” or counterintuitive legal understanding that carves out an exception to the normal rule, said Gordon.

“When you’re standing at JFK, you stand outside the borders until you are inspected and admitted,” she said.”

Absolutely David, I’ll get right on that. I would like to point out one obvious ( to me, not you) and glaring problem with your quote. Nowhere that I’ve heard has the ban been about religion. In true liberal frothing at the mouth fashion they’re trying to make it so.

Back to your “challenge”.. Not a problem. It’ll have to be tomorrow or the next after I hunt down the cases.

For your reading pleasure concerning your previous rant about the grand ole open border early days. That no doubt will cause more froth to pour forth but facts are facts and you’re on the wrong side of history.

“I’m not arguing the Constitution gives each person a right to enter,” said Jennifer Gordon, a professor of immigration law at Fordham University Law School. But “when the U.S. government establishes a preferred religion, it violates the Constitution.”

Another little fun liberal bullshit piece. All hot air… She’s not arguing the constitution gives the right to each person to enter. Of course she isn’t because she’d lose so instead she’s political bush shaking. Lol

Spread the news folks. Stay active on social media. Stay factual.

agreed abolish….I guess the courts will have to make a current up to date decision on whether illegal immigrants or other people who are not we the people have and are entitled to constitutional rights….common sense says no absolutely not…the fact is if we kerp letting millions of immigrants and refugees into our country we are going to end up like all the other third world countries who don’t have the natural or financial resources to support them or the people who are already here…the country can barely sustain the current population let alone millions of more people from around the world…this is no longer the 18 and early 19th century anymore and what was sustainable then simply isn’t rational in today’s world…..there’s over 7 billion people in this world so maybe we should just open the door and bring them all in and let our country be so overpopulated that we end up like India with millions of people starving and sleeping on the corner in their own feces and with out any hope of a future…we need to teach them and give them the means to support themselves in their own country….

I do believe Mike that once they’re here, they should be afforded temporary legal protections but we should also be really careful about who we let in. Throughout history we’ve had various restrictive conditions so I don’t see the problem with trumps country ban. He’s not the first president to do it. People are just whining about it because their political Binky’s got dirty.

Muslim ban!!! that kind of misinformation being perpetrated by the left wing radicals and media are actually inciting riots and violence…I believe in free speech and freedom of the press but they’re walking a razors edge with their false narratives…if you don’t believe and act exactly how they want your racist sexist and so on….helll they shut down a speaker at a world famous University for free speech simply because he didn’t fit their own moral code…the reason I say the media is walking on a razors edge is their misleading rhetoric could be considered as inciting violence…and another thing Obama and his staff should be prosecuted for supplying material support to a state sponsored nation who is the main material supporters of terrorism…he gave them over a billion dollars in cash and the world is going to suffer because of that I garuantee you…

I hope Trump does what he says and cleans up some of this crap. It’s a tall order and I still hold suspicions about the guy based on things he has said. I mean real things, not the lies liberals tell.

For instance, he made comments that stop and frisk should be implemented nationwide (Fascist). Said the NSA spying was a good thing and needed (Fascist). Said torture was a good idea (Fascist) but he said he changed his mind on that after talking to experts

I’m willing to give him a chance.

David Kennerly:

Where to begin… So if you begin with the history of immigration in the last link, you’ll see things were as I said concerning “open borders”. Again, I don’t claim to be a scholar but I feel fairly confident after reading the founding documents multiple times throughout my life, having read and researched the federalist papers, the resolutions and to a degree the signers correspondences between each other and to and from other people of that time, that my constitutional radar works well. I haven’t been right in certain situations but…

To your “challenge”. If you kook again at that link you’ll also will find some interesting differences in how immigrants were seen. Back then they could be denied because a judge didn’t think they were of good character. Later on, because you were seen as an idiot, race, country origin, etc…These are the powers under that times constitution.

Now we skip ahead to 1868. The 14th amendment! This came about because before it did, blacks weren’t acknowledged as having the same rights. I posit that it was never meant to be used as it us now and the clause that refers to “persons” that people hang their immigrant argument on was strictly contextually meant to protect those born here or those that emigrated. We often see “interpretations” that go against historical intent. Even so, we still AFTER the 14th was put into place have cases that were based on race which the supreme court upheld. That’s one “oddity”


This is an immigrant that was certified, left the country, tried to reenter, was denied, filed suit for naturalization, was denied. This wasn’t mentioned in your lefty rag site. Curious no? I mean, here we have a guy that looks to be in the same or similar boat yet he was denied. Because he wasn’t Caucasian and the supreme court which “your article talks about”, upheld it. All based on your version of the constitution.

You want more? Cause I have plenty… 🙂

Well, you could begin with addressing the following, previous request:

“Please, do share with us the ways in which the court has overturned itself. Tell us in which ways that non-citizens do not enjoy the benefits of the Constitution, apart from the ways previously acknowledged.”

This was originally in response to your statement, as follows: “Right, they’re not US citizens and aren’t covered under the constitution.”

That statement continues to be untrue and no amount of blathering about disparities in immigration treatment will change that. Powers to regulate immigration as administered by government are given to it by the Constitution. Those powers are distinct from the rights afforded by the Constitution to both citizens and non-citizens.

What you continue to do is to point out the ways in which immigration is administered and who has been blocked historically while ignoring the powers given to Congress by the Constitution to administer immigration.

Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

Also “lefty rag site?” Are you talking about Forbes magazine? Ha!

So, keep trying but your arguments fail to support your, or Mike’s, original contention utterly.

Man I love your intellect abolish If we could only find attorneys with our type of mindsets we would have a chance…In fact we wouldn’t just have a chance, it would be a slam dunk…………

Thanks Mike.

I’m hopeful I can find an attorney with the balls to help and the tenacity to see the job done one day! Money should help that happen and I’m working on that.

Interesting quote here by the main drafter of the 14th.

Sent. Jacob Howard:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

These liberals also hang on other “wiggle words” like jurisdiction because there are different uses/meanings for it. Context matters. As you can see, it was used to mean citizen in this case.

Since the 14th was in response to blacks and (I left out earlier) natives, the “all other classes” was referring to them.

That strangely never comes up either. Wierd huh? Things that make ya go hmmmmm… 🙂

Mike, Abolish’s legal acumen is on a par with Donald Trump’s.

that’s pretty strong evidence of what the intentions of the framers really was on the issue….no ambiguity there just like there is no ambiguity about the statute that authorizes trump to do what he did..if you dont like the law you need to do like everyone else has to do and challenge it on facial or as applied constitutional grounds..judges are supposed to be there to follow law not their personal political agendas .it’s really sad that we seem to be living in a mob rules society now and these wacko left and right wing judges and the media are just cementing that idea in our society and inadvertently or intentionally encouraging anarchy…..

I agree. You said it perfectly.

I have my reservations about trump to but the idea of the same ol status qou just isn’t cutting it anymore…we need change in this country at the governmental level…the tyranny and oppression and corruption is beyond out of control and if Trump can go in there and shake up the status qou in a positive or negative way I’m all for it..especially when the alternative was a person that is the epitome of a currupt politician who has been involved in numerous atrocities with absolutely no conscience….i would have voted for Bernie but I would rather see the world end before I would’ve voted for Hillary….both parties are out of control and have been enriching themselves and their families and friends off the teats of the working class and poor for wayyyyyy to long and I believe we might even have to actually have a revolution or civil war again in order to have a government that’s for the people by the people once again…the three branches of power are no longer there to keep each other in check anymore as the founding fathers intended but are all working as one government split on political views and determined to keep each other in power….the courts have been corrupted by money and power, politicians are corrupted by money and power and hopefully trump won’t let power or money define what he does while in office….god speed to him if he can break up the powers that be and actually creates a new standard for all the government branches…’s a long shot but it’s the best chance American has at this time in what will be looked back on as a very important time in history….

Volunteers for the party of choice which I hope is Libertarian or Republican, Yes they have lost their way but many believe in the Constitution and I feel that is the best chance for real change. ( unjust punishment etc. ) I think there might be offices that you can run for even if it is the Water Board. Or help with Voter Registration. even if you can not vote. Take a course on the constitution and learn about your rights. Trump does not need any more money and no one would take on the fight and put his family in such danger than a true patriot. He does not scare easily and plan on loosing any fight. He just has to see the dark side of this issue and in unjust endless punishment. I did get to talk to Carlson of FOX News last year and he knew about the unjust cases as he saw a 17 year old in his kids school become a Registered Sex Offender. But then the negative of too controversy or miss understood subject???

Good luck

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x