ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (01/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Recording of Emergency ACSOL meeting about new SORNA regulations



SCOTUS asks US Solicitor General to weigh in on Ex Post Facto case

News from the U.S. Supreme Court – the court has NOT decided whether it will review Doe v. Snyder, last summer’s ground-breaking decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review an important ruling (Doe v. Snyder) which was handed down last summer by a federal appeals court, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The request was discussed in a private conference last Friday and today we learned the result – the Supreme Court has made NO decision on the request for review. They did not reject it, they did not grant it. Instead the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General for their opinion, in the form of a legal brief. The Solicitor General is the lawyer who represents the federal government – the Trump Administration — in Supreme Court matters. What does this mean? The Supreme Court did not outright reject the request for review but they apparently have some interest in this case and might still decide to grant review in the near future. So stay tuned for further action by the Supreme Court.

What’s at stake: Doe v. Snyder is a big victory and when the 6th Circuit issued its decision it became the first federal appeals court to rule that parts of a sex offense registration law are punishment, and unconstitutional if they’re applied retroactively – see the news headlines, below. Michigan’s sex offense registry law was challenged and it was cut back by the 6th Circuit’s decision. Michigan lost so they’re hoping to undo the damage to their registration law by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuit decision.

What about Supreme Court review of this case, good or bad idea? If the Supreme Court rejects the request for review, the 6th Circuit decision stands and is in effect for Michigan and the other states (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) in that federal circuit. If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, anything can happen – the Supreme Court could uphold the 6th Circuit’s decision or change it or even uphold the Michigan registration law. If the Supreme Court grants review, by the time the case is actually heard the currently vacant seat on the court is likely to be filled with a Trump administration nominee. With so much uncertainty, some would prefer the Supreme Court refuse to review the case and just let the 6th Circuit decision alone. The 6th Circuit decision means that a number of people will be freed from the registry but that is up in the air while the Supreme Court decides what to do. Bold and ground-breaking, the 6th Circuit ruling is already influencing other courts. –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire


The order from the US Supreme Court in the case of Doe v Snyder, the challenge to the Ex Post Facto application of Sex Offender registry conditions, reads as follows:

“The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.”

I believe it’s fair to say what the Solicitor General’s position will be. It’s difficult to formulate an opinion as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing – comments are welcome. From FAC


Commentary from SCOTUSblog:

And in Snyder v. Doe, the justices asked the federal government to file a brief expressing the views of the United States on whether the application of various provisions of the sex-offender-registry laws to individuals who were convicted before the laws were enacted violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on retroactive punishment. There is no deadline for the federal government to file its brief, although it is likely to do so by fall.

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.
  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
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

Soooo….the acting solicitor general took office about 2 weeks ago. Is this just a stall tactic or standard procedure?


It did appear that way on the chart I posted before my post was deleted or a malfunction occurred.

The current acting SG is Jeffrey B. Wall but President Trump is nominating Noel Francisco, that being noted…Both persons seem to be Acting SG’s

I suggest contacting & education The Solicitor General & his or her Assistant, Manager, & Staff.
On the correct Probability Judgments as opposed to Limited Human Intuitive Judgments of the matter so a Correct view will be reported to SCOTUS by this department.

As Yehovah Lives So should we

Here is a additional Audio link to Noel Francisco & Ted Cruz in 2007

Noel Francisco is a former Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, and was central in developing the Bush Administration’s strategy for dealing with the legal issues raised by Medellin. This event was [Audio] recorded for the University of Chicago’s chapter of the Federalist Society on October 30th, 2007.

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law.

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

It will be someone in the SG office who will do the work when they write for the USG and the Acting SG will need to sign-off on it before it is submitted.

Additionally, Justice Elena Kagan was the SG from March 19, 2009 – May 17, 2010, so it could be very interesting here soon….

Well if SCOTUS is asking the solicitor general for their opinion it sounds as if we are will be screwed, I mean the Government came up with the STUPID Registry in the first place, so of course they will be on Michigan’s side, as long as they can keep making that illegal money. So does anyone know how long it’s going to take for SCOTUS to make a decision now? will it it be another 6 months? another year?. it’s obvious that it is Punitive, what’s the hang up. I guess I need to contact Ms Aukerman and find out what is going on.

I think the court was right to seek the opinion of the Solicitor General since the Ex Post Facto challenge can affect SORNA and provisions of the Adam Walsh Act. If the SG is wise and fair, he will acknowledge that the recidivism data is persuasive and help brief the court how to untangle this mess. Do I think the SG will take that position? Not really but I can dream.

Not necessarily. Gorsuch might be key in ruling against retroactive application of SORNA, at the very least.

In a CNN’s write-up of Gorsuch’s key rulings:

“In this [United States v. Nichols], in a dissent from the full 10th Circuit’s refusal to rehear a three-judge ruling with which he disagreed, Gorsuch strongly objected to how much regulatory power a federal statute — the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) — gave to the Justice Department to apply its rules to those guilty of sex crimes predating the act’s enactment.

In his words, ‘the framers of the Constitution thought the compartmentalization of legislative power not just a tool of good government or necessary to protect the authority of Congress from encroachment by the Executive but essential to the preservation of the people’s liberty …'”

I am not convinced that he would rule on the side of government in the retroactive application of SOR laws.

As far as a timeline goes, if the SG takes until fall to submit an opinion, I wouldn’t expect any answer on this until 2018.


Janice? What do you think about this development?

Well everyone I just heard back from Ms Aukerman and she said that now that SCOTUS asked the Solicitor General for his opinion and if he wanted to file a brief on this matter, it will probably be months before SCOTUS decides whether to deny or grant a review, so he we go waiting even longer and longer.

Thanks for doing the legwork, Bobby. And waiting is not necessarily a bad thing.

your welcome TG

Who is Ms. Auckerman?


she is The Attorney from Michigan’s ACLU, who has been working on this case since the very beginning
I have also stayed in contact with her since the very beginning,so every time I have news from her or I have questions like days decision on asking the S.G. for his opinion I as her for clarification.

I thought scouts would decide based on the merits of the Case? Not based on someone else’s opinion, much less the opinion of the government who came up with this feel good legislation in the first place?

Well, I never heard of the Solicitor General being a member of SCOTUS.

My guess is they are giving the Solicitor General the opportunity to introduce new evidence, that Michigan failed to conjure up, to debunk the scientific evidence against the registry – ya know like, how it is disputed how much humans contribute to global warming. Be prepared to see some new number and studies being cited we have never seen before. After all, the integrity of the court is at stake here – science has thrown egg of their faces and we can’t have that.

They would just have to show doubt, just like with climate science denial. No science is 100%, it is probabilities. You can always one study in a hundred that refutes what all the others say. And judges are not generally scientists, as we have seen with Smith vs. DOE. A little bit of doubt and judges may imagine children being abused surreptitiously all over the place and no real record of it, because it is unreported. Who has historically lost because of shades of doubt? Will they chance it? Putting that one child in danger? Latest doubt technique is the unreported reoffense rate. Wouldn’t be surprised if the state uses that in its defense.

If the Solicitor General plays the “child sexual abuse under-reported” card, then I hope someone can file a rebuttal brief.

All they need to point out is the high likelihood that the registry’s horrible stigma, loss of job opportunities, and loss of housing opportunities is what is triggering the under-reporting. With 95% of the abuse occurring by someone they know or close family, doesn’t it make sense that they don’t want to turn in a primary bread winner and instead deal with the problem internally? Of course, since they still can’t seek professional help without them mandatorilly reporting it to the cops they will most likely offend again and again just to add to how the registry exponentially destroys lives and families.

Yeah, I’m sure they will tell how under-reported things are. Well, I know of and can personally attest to all sorts of crimes and activities that are under-reported. In fact, I would speculate that every single crime is under-reported.

How they will be able to say, “yeah, but this one is different,” is the question and concern.


Rebuttal briefs would be allowed to be entered into the record should the SG add anything.

This SCOTUS has not forgotten the misinformation that it was given back in 2003, not to mention the hysteria it caused in Doe v. Smith, which it took into consideration in making a terrible decision about the freightening empiricle evidence that was discovered in that Alaska decision. Which eventually sent a ripple effect all across the country causing most of these states to ratchet up and get this SORNA thing in high gear. When after all, had evidence been accurate back in 2003, we might all be off this registry, at least most of us anyway. The justices were lied to.

Also you can thank that Attorney General John Ashcroft to allow that crap in 2003. But it doesnt surprise me though. He uses the same tactics and deception that most district attorneys use all around these United States. Sometimes knowingly putting innocent people behind bars without concience. Well John Ashcroft allowed misinformation to be used to further this somewhat fascist/nazi SORNA to ruin many offenders lives, and the lives of their families.

Right now EVERYTHING is speculation. We have been waiting on this(Ex post Facto) for a long time and now it’s here. We are all use to being absolutely trampled on and humiliated based on an error stating a high risk of recidivism made by the Supreme Court. I’m scared myself but I believe in the system and feel that it was an innocent mistake from the Justice’s ​that got us here and they NOW know it. That’s why they are doing what they are doing. They will fix this. It’s easy to be miserable because of what we have ALL endured and continue to endure but I see this as a time to be Optimistic. Godspeed to all who are for us!

@ J. Sorry but if you’re an RC you of all people, should not trust the system. It starts with the RC’s and then it just moves on down the line…

No way Jose- I trust NOTHINGGG about the United States. Their Legal System, Political Motivations they’re all horribly dishonest and UNJUST! You kind of get a sense about why other countries feel the way they do about the United States ie Russia and Iran. Do I love my country?
I agree 110% with you.

Really? You are in denial…you are on a list because of a corrupt immoral governmental system that is not going to change anything.

Justice…not gonna happen. I have lived too long. I don’t believe in Santa Claus (or God for that matter) and I certainly don’t think that reality – justice – or even just plain old common sense is going to be used for this decision.

Sorry but that’s the way that I see it – I hope I am wrong but I am too much to a realist to allow myself such foolish thoughts. Lee

Yeah, your right…. We’re all screwed… Thanks for trying Janice.

I wouldn’t call it innocent.

The SCOTUS and system did not do their job. Because they did not do their job, they affected thousands of citizens who are no longer under custody to re-live their past offense everyday. The SCOTUS dictated that all the concerns brought up in 2003 was simply conjecture as the SCOTUS bent over backwards to make registry constitutional despite all the traits of it being unconstitutional (Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.)

Fast forward to today. All those conjectures have been proven true. The SCOTUS specifically stated that the registrant does not have to annually register in person, which is punitive, in their factors of why registration is regulatory and not punitive.

Everywhere, registrants are known to be unable to rehabilitate b/c of their frightening and high recidivism rates cited by the SCOTUS.

Is this an innocent mistake when the SCOTUS uses unsubstantiated information not conducted by experts? Last time I checked, any information cited not by an expert is an unsubstantiated information that cannot be used in the court of law.

High recidivism rate = need for public safety

That was the premise for registration and the so called regulatory scheme that infringed upon a US citizen’s constitutional rights once relieved of punishment custody. Now, we know that rate was false, not conducted by experts, and not substantiated at all. The recidivism rates are low. CASOMB has documented less than 1% recidivism rate. Yet the fear perpetuates – especially in California.

Any type of banishment is punitive – that’s what is implicitly implied in the five factors the SCOTUS used to bend over backwards.

I don’t know why California hasn’t utilized the same tactics as Michigan or isn’t using Snyder case in refuting ALL NEW LEGISLATION against registrants. Other states already have. And here’s the kicker, California’s own research team, CASOMB, refutes the need for public safety – but the courts, DA’s, and police dept do not care about CASOMB’s expert findings, which also is corroborated by many other research papers denoting registrants have a low recidivism rate.

Hell, California negated the right to obtain privacy from registrants by negating the benefits of 1203.4 dismissal. Remember, the registry is about public record. If you’re on public record, then you’re on the registry, according to the 2003 Smith decision. A dismissal of record means your record does not exist and, therefore, must not be on the registry. The 2003 decision set the threshold of the requirement to be on the registry (a conviction on record). Anything above that is unconstitutional… that’s just based upon the unconstitutional 2003 Smith decision. Yet, in California, no one is able to bring those facts to light to compare such unconstitutionality – but Michigan has.

California is bandying “public safety”, which is code word to registrants as “frightening and high” recidivism rates. Well, let California revisit it. I want a California judge to continue to promote a “frightening and high” recidivism rate with it’s own research team, CASOMB, expertly reflecting different on record as well as have Dr Ellman and Ellman’s research to identify “frightening and high” was an unsubstantiated piece of information from non-experts. I want a judge to specifically read aloud that registering in person is punitive from the 2003 Smith decision and then tell registrants that it’s not punitive to register in person annually – then apply this thought to “conviction on record” from 2003 Smith decision with “record dismissed”, but still on the registry.

Are we not supposed to follow the statutes set forth in the 2003 decision? That’s what Michigan is now attacking. Maybe we should follow Michigan’s lead b/c California is still running amok such as Leyva banishing all registrants from public schools and a bill to make all registrants show up on the registry. And then, concurrently, have the state back up it’s claim for the necessity of public safety. That will revisit 2003 Smith decision, have to utilize CASOMB’s expert findings, cross-reference it with other findings corroborating the low recidivism rates, and put the onus back on California to explicitly state empirically why public safety is a concern.

Why isn’t the California ACLU working like the Michigan ACLU?

The SCOTUS did not do an innocent mistake. It was conniving in reaching its conclusion to registrants and its falsified premise is being propagated in the IML, which was recently passed. Their job is to uphold the law correctly, not abuse it to their own conclusion. Not a single one of the justices nor their attendees did the research that could affect people… in fact, their premise allowed them to treat registrants as one group, not individuals.

You truly need to read the 2003 Smith decision to see how smug the SCOTUS was in refuting that registration was punitive. You truly need to read it in light that they did not substantiate facts that should only be coming from experts to rely upon the premise that due to public safety that these “frightening and high” recidivist group of convicts must lose their constitutional rights as citizens. Then compare that to what’s being done to registrants today. I’m aggravated.

Also you can thank that Attorney General John Ashcroft to allow that crap in 2003. But it doesnt surprise me though. He uses the same tactics and deception that most district attorneys use all around these United States. Sometimes knowingly putting innocent people behind bars without concience. Well John Ashcroft allowed misinformation to be used to further this somewhat fascist/nazi SORNA to ruin many offenders lives, and the lives of their families. Dont forget also, that the 2003 decision in Doe v. Smith that the Supreme court held a 6 to 3 vote. So 3 justices said, hey wait a minute here. But there just wasn’t enough votes. Also, alot of states whose offenders, and offenders family’s just cant afford retaining counsel for such a colossal endeavor. But what is happening is, many of the of the ACLU’s around this country are keeping their eyes on what happens in Michigan. 4 or 5 states have accomplished what Michigan is attempting. And I can mention this with extreme confidence, that with Gorsuch on the bench, he will be that 4th person that was needed back in 2003 to swing that court to a 4 to 3 decision in favor of Doe v, Snyder. We all have to be patient and keep our nose to the grindstone and stay humble. I swear


Gorsuch is NOT allowed to vote on Does V Snyder, or any other case that has already been argued before he became a SCOTUS Justice, he is ONLY allowed to vote on cases from here on out case’s after he became a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Does V Snyder has not been granted Cert or fully briefed so Gorsuch would be able to help decide the case. You may be thinking of the Packingham case, which was argued before Gorsuch was on the Court, however, my understanding is that if the vote is 4-4 and tied, the Supremes could reschedule arguments so that Gorsuch could participate in the decision.

@Biol57, CORNISH: But can a new justice actually vote in cases that have already been argued even if they’re not yet decided?
TOTENBERG: No. Those were heard by a different court, as it were. So the new guy can’t vote in cases he wasn’t on the court for. But if there are tie votes in those cases the court would likely order them reargued next term. And then he could and would participate, and might very well cast the deciding vote.
CORNISH: So looking forward to next term, what’s on the

Gorsuch is not prohibited from joining in on any case before SCOTUS, argued or not. There are no specific rules, regulations or laws that prevent that. However, *tradition* at SCOTUS has been that unless one was a sitting justice during oral argument (Rehnquist was sitting, but absent due to his health, and still partook in decisions), one sits out. You are correct that SCOTUS can order a re-argument.
Here is the Google-cached reference,
to avoid your having to sign up for access:


The Does case has not been argued and is not officially before the court.

If and when the Solicitor General files a brief, will they give rebuttal opportunity to the Appellee? Any further briefing allowed?

Yes, the appellant and others can file briefs to counter what the SG submits.

Does everyone realize this is EXACTLY how our registry was found constitutional in the first place and infected thousands of laws as discovered by Ira Ellman?

Prior to Smith V Doe the United States solicitor general’s office was asked to do the same thing in McKune v. Lile. He was able to claim the “80% recidivism” rate and start the false “frightening and high” myth that is totally debunked by any real studies or experts, and the Justices bought it hook-line-and-sinker. There was no fact checking. The Justice’s used this reasoning again in Smith V Doe, and it became “truth” used against us in thousands of cases and to create thousands of laws that reference Smith V Doe’s falsehoods.

This could go horribly if history is allowed to repeat itself. I don’t know if the Justice’s are truly dumb enough to believe whatever the SG says or if they simply want to use the SG report as their scape-goat to rule against us even though they know the registry is unconstitutional.

For those that missed the Ira Ellman report for 2015:

The courts using information that was unsubstantiated nor corroborated by non-experts would be enough reason to throw any case out upon judicial review.

BTW, shouldn’t there be judicial review of all cases. As registrants, we actually have standing as we are hurt from information that is false and is the premise for unlawful statutes that has created a sub-class, as witnessed by the numerous new laws going above and beyond what was designated as regulatory in 2003. Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman did the extensive research that disproves the pinnacle information that set the premise of the need for Public Safety against registrants. Then include all the research supporting the low recidivism rates (that do not include ‘not registering’ as a re-offense, which CASOMB initially did).

So… why isn’t the 2003 Smith decision not under judicial review with Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman’s expert research paper, with corroborated sources? Upon that matter, why isn’t California’s RSOL using Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman’s research to throw the gauntlet down to have the state prove “public safety” notion. There’s no need for a tiered registery if there’s no need for public safety. Heck, there’s no need for a registry if there is no need for public safety. It’s all about public safety. Well, ram it down the State of California’s throat to prove it public safety is necessary against Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman’s research, CASOMB’s expert research of less than 1% recidivism rate, many other expert researches corroborating low recidivism rates, and Michigan’s Snyder case querying about the need for public safety.

Chris F

I concur with your statement “There was no fact checking.” during the Smith v. Doe travesty of Justice but we must acknowledge that ACSOL & the other Groups of people fighting to correct InJustice did not exist or were enabled with Knowledge as well at that same time.

Today these People Exist Being Capable to Act against & v. Evil (Want Invoking) Acts.

I suggest contacting & educationing The Solicitor General & his or her Assistant, Manager, & Staff.
On the correct “Probability Judgments” as opposed to “Limited Human Intuitive Judgments” of the matter so a Correct view will be reported to SCOTUS by this department.

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives So should we

I see SCOTUS asking for the SG opinion as the Court simply being slow, prudent and…judicious. I think it may also signal a little bit of their thinking, since I doubt SCOTUS asks the SG’s opinion on every Ex Post Facto lawsuit. It strikes me as odd that SCOTUS wants Federal input on a State suit. So, are they giving the SG’s office a chance to correct their lies from before, or does SCOTUS see Snyder as a keystone piece in the SO version of Jenga? Who knows, the SG may decline to offer opinion, saying it’s a State, not Federal, issue. I still think that if Snyder is affirmed, the whole SOR laws and schemes start crumbling as fast as lawsuits can get filed. I’m hopeful, but I also cringe at the possibility that the 6th Circuit gets overturned, as some stats show happens more than other circuits (


Maybe they’d grow a pair and uphold our constitutional rights if we riot in the streets. Hope it doesn’t come to that, but I’m done taking it up the tailpipe.

I feel like this is bad for us because…if they were leaning towards voting in favor of Michigan, why wouldn’t they just do so? My thought is that they can’t, in good faith, deny that this is punitive/ex post facto. Therefore, they’re putting the onus on someone (Solicitor General) who probably doesn’t care and will support Michigan. This is complete BS and spineless of the scotus to not make a decision. It’s basically come down to the scotus now seeing how all of this is unconstitutional, yet don’t want to allow it to be overthrown.

I wonder why they asked the SG to weigh in. I think that they understand clearly that to sustain the 6th Circuits decision, that the entire registry is in jeopardy. The argument by Michigan so far is not compelling and they ask the SG to weigh in in order to get the best argument possible before making a decision.

1 Help me understand?

You are saying that your Limited Human Intuitive Judgment (Feelings) is more reliable then enabling the use of Probability Judgment to indicate to you what your next cause of Action will be in regard to what Unknown Action the SG may decide to take regarding the case?

Do you believe that you can make a Convincing Argument to the SG, his or her personal Assistant, Manager, & Office Staff, Yes or No?

Well, at least we may know where Justice Kagan stands. She almost immediately denied the Michigan request for an emergency stay of the lower courts ruling. The fact that the 6th circuit was unanimous speaks volumes of this case. Does everyone remember how the judges; who are all conservatives…totally lambasted the registry. Originally the registry was not supposed to be public at all; it was originally only open to law enforcement. I think they invited the solicitor general because this case would more than likely affect the whole United States.

In Smith vs Doe The Supreme Court concluded that “monitoring” registrants was not retributive by noting the “minor and indirect” nature of the “disability or restraint,” which allowed registrants “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision”

High/ low recidivism, propensities to engage in this or that, sex trafficking statistics, public outcries, community safety, the cessation of current or future funding- NONE of it is relevant and they know it. The retroactive application of these laws is the scaffolding of a virtual prison. Mr Wall will have to reconcile their previous conclusions with todays reality. That will be a tall order.

That last sentence about a registrants illusory freedom will come back to haunt them.

You should review the five factors the SCOTUS used to manipulate registry as regulatory. Two of the five are based upon the premise that the recidivism rate is at 80% (code word for this is “public safety”).

So it’s not just that one factor you’re showing, it’s all five. Recall, many have earned case dismissal, which implies their record is no longer public.

yep can’t wait to see how the AG tries to defend this beast…

Sure makes one think about why the Supreme court needs to hide behind an administration’s interpretation of the Constitution. Isn’t the SCOTUS ceding territory and aren’t they the all knowledgeable and final word of all things Constitutional

The more I read things about the S. G. and SCOTUS and Does v Snyder, and the fact the S.G. is now been thrown in the mix, I have to admit I am extremely nervous. I had high hopes that the decision would of been made already, and I still don’t understand why the S.G. is even involved, but hopefully we will have a final decision by late spring or at the very least some time this summer.It maybe wish full thinking but maybe he won’t even write a brief on Does v Snyder.

Doing a little poking around, apparently the SG is commonly known as “the 10th Justice.” That’s a bit disheartening, for sure. However apparently SCOTUS only calls on the SG for opinion in something that could have federal impact or in order to let the SG correct previous falsely presented information. I think we have both of those here, as SORNA/AWA are certainly at risk, and we all know they lied with the 80% number.

Finally, I had previously suggested that perhaps the SG would not chime in. Apparently that doesn’t happen. Though a request, in practice when SCOTUS “asks” the SG, it’s essentially an order.


Hi Everyone,

I just read an article that gave a example of the Solicitor General and SCOTUS that is suppose to give us an idea on the Does v Snyder case, I’m guessing.

I don’t under stand how it’s suppose to help us or how it’s suppose to give us an idea on how it works but just look up the case NICHOLS V UNITED STATES.

Please let me know what you guys think, and how this example is suppose to help us Thanks.

The only thing I really get out of it is that SCOTUS will rule on the law, despite how “horrible” or “destestable” the appellant is. And this was a slam-dunk 8-0 decision from a conservative court! They also seemed to have concern as to the complexity inherent in these laws that can easily trip up a layperson. These both certainly lean in our favor, but I don’t feel they do anything as far as predictive information.

My strongest feeling remains that the current laws and schemes (very key word) are well beyond the decision in Smith where they held it was all okay since basic registration didn’t impose any undue burden on the registrant. Well, as we all know, we’re under significant burden now and our freedom has indeed been curtailed.


hello everyone,

Just in case anyone was wondering what was going on with Doe v Snyder, I e-mailed Ms Aukerman yesterday and asked her that very question, along with what it means when SCOTUS gets the SG invovled, and this is what she wrote back to me.

The fact that the SG is weighing in means the chances that the Supreme Court will take the case go way up.  It is unlikely we will have a decision from the Supreme Court until the fall.  It is hard to know how this will affect  Temelkoski.

Sorry I don’t have a better update for everyone, but I hope this helps a little bit.

Do you really think that the SG’s office would listen if we were to call them? I know they need to be educated on the truth about who really reoffends. And we all know that it’s not the sex offenders who use the prisons as a revolving door.

@Ann thank you for putting forth the question.

“Do you really think that the SG’s office would listen if we were to call them?”

If my “Thinking” takes into account the efforts of Janice (Deborah*) & all other persons who have taken Asserted Action which have lead to positive change for True Justice and my thinking utilizes Probability Judgement, I have & all others should have a Reasonable Expectation that the SG office will hear & listen to a multitude of harmonious voices.

Knowing this, we can now focus on what should the multitude of harmonious voices Sing.

Sing more then a song which has a “Ring of Truth” – Sing a Convincing & Persuasive Song.

A Song that Attracts the Hearers, that is to their Minds Eye, Shinning Like True Gold, more than shinning like gold but Truly a Gold Coin that the SG’s Office can redeem for their reputation before the SCOTUS.

Its is so Clear too not only call but also write them and visit in person to build True Rapport and educate for the mutual benefit of all parties involved.

* / Deborah (Hebrew: דְּבוֹרָה, Modern Dvora)

The Only Eternal Father Possessor of Heaven and Earth Who formed light and created darkness Be with us Yehovah

I Speak a Truth Song!

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

I was coerced into taking a plea bargain of deferred adjudicated probation on 02/28/94. For a crime I did not commit, supposedly happened on 03/12/91. The law I pled under was very specific, a dismissal without prejudice upon completion. I successfully completed the 5 year term on 03/02/99. The end, so I thought. Fastforward to 04/29/09. I was arrested for my ex & her son-in-law conspiring on the same phone call to a narcotics officer that misled the judge by concealing they handed the phone back & forth. Making it seem they were two independent sources. Now, Louisiana has forced me to register as a convicted sex offender for a charge “dismissed without prejudice” (dismissed without any disabilities or disqualifications for the conviction of the offense) over 18 years ago, a charge from over 26 years ago, and in another state. I have even been “told” this does not violate “expost facto” or the 4th Amendment. I have a sworn document from the very court where the charge was dismissed stating, “THIS IS NOT A CONVICTION” dated 05/01/14, that Louisiana has accepted on record. Yet, still forcing me to register as “convicted sex offender”. Please explain how this is legal?!

It isn’t but that is the Bayou State of LA for you among other states who do the same. The sensibility just has not caught up with the system yet unfortunately. Leave LA if possible. They are one of the worst states for RCs.

What can I do to get the courts to recognize the unconstitutionality of forcing registration on a non-convicted person? I have went all the way to the 19th District Court of Louisiana & gotten nowhere. Actually, “We are not violating Louisiana Laws.” was the reply. Am I now to go federal with this? I have been dealing with the registration & parole conditions since 12/18/13, & have been making so much lemonade that I had to buy a second pool. I’m considering carving the seeds to have something else to make with the lemons I keep being thrown. Please advise!

Have you exhausted your legal options all the way to LA Supreme Court? Once that’s exhausted, I think you’re option would then to appeal their decision to SCOTUS. (Ooops, there I went assuming LA would find against you…huh, wonder what made me think that?!?)

@Clifford Ray Irby II

Good Day Sir
And with regard to your question:

“What can I do to get the courts to recognize the unconstitutionality of forcing registration on a non-convicted person?”

First & For most confirm for Yourself that your sight and foresight is Clear & Unobscured by only Utilizing “Probability Judgment” & Abjure form the Jurisdiction and Institutions of Limited Human “Intuitive Judgment”.

That Being confirmed, move forward down the following path of Gideon¹:

I suggest having an Audit performed on your particular case history by a proven practitioner in that field of Law at the National Level would be preferable or in collaboration with same in your State of LA & TX. This analysis will expose any & all debts or credits and how to transform such into an Asset or Liability and vice versa to your benefit of course.

That being ascertained or nearing that junction proceed down the path of Gedeon to Contact the following persons and their personal assistants, managers, & staff:

1. Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson in Washington at

2. Congress New Jersey Senate: 113th-115th (2013-Present) Website 359 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 phone (202) 224-3224

3. Senator Booker spokeswoman Monique Waters or current peroson in position.

It is irrefutable that history serves humanity to help guide all into the paths of correct conduct for all who can see let them see, for all who can hear let them hear, and for those who live let them live.

¹Gideon or Gedeon (Hebrew: גִּדְעוֹן, Modern Gid’on, Tiberian Giḏʻôn), also named Jerubbaal (יְרֻבַּעַל Yĕrubba`al) and Jerubbesheth, was a military leader, judge and prophet whose calling and victory over the Midianites is recounted in the chapters 6 to 8 of the Book of Judges in the Hebrew Torah.

As is the pattern throughout the Book of Judges, the Israelites again turned away from Yehovah after 40 years of peace brought by Deborah’s victory over Canaan, and Midianites, Amalekites and other Bedouin peoples harry Israel for seven years. Yehovah chose Gedeon, a young man from the tribe of Manasseh, to free the people of Israel and to condemn their idolatry. The Angel of Yehovah or “the Lord’s angelic messenger” came “in the character or HaShem … of a traveller who sat down in the shade [of the terebinth tree] to enjoy a little refreshment and repose” and entered into conversation & negotiations with Gedeon.

The narrative has echoes of the meeting between Abraham and the visitors who came to him in the terebinth trees of Mamre and promised Abraham and Sarah, in their old age, that they would have a son.

In Addition the negotiations of Sodom & Gamorrah for the life of Abraham’s nephew Lot should be brought into light.

The Angel of Yehovah greeted Gedeon:
“Yehovah is with you, you mighty man of valor!”


I speak a True Song
As Yehovah Lives, so should we

For anyone wondering about the people SoLCof mentioned, this article may help: .

Sen. Booker definitely has defendants’ rights in his sights, as Ms. Strawbridge Robinson details in her writing. FYI, this is apparently the same Strawbridge lineage from the 1806 SCOTUS case, Strawbridge v Curtiss.


“03/09/2017 Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Action By: House Judiciary”
I have found the bill is not yet law. Shouldn’t we contact our representative and ask to support this Supreme court public defender office now? If this was law, SCOTUS would also request a brief from this new defender’s office as well as the US solicitor general, would they not? This could affect NC and Michigan cases, possibly? ASCOL is a national organization, shouldn’t we be getting the troops writing letters to their federal representatives? Act locally, yes, but this may help level the field and change the whole game.


Hi is what your talking about have to do with Michigan or N. C. where can I find the info you were talking about, I am just trying to learn as much as possible until SCOTUS finally makes a decision on Does v Snyder. Thank you

Timmr is talking about HR 969 and SR 330 in the US House and Senate. They are companion bills. Sen. Booker reintroduced this legislation, as his previous attempt died with the previous Congress.

@Timmr and ALL
Yes, Yes, Yes, we all need to contact our Senators and Representatives urging them to support this bill. It’d probably be prudent to urge their support purely as a way to give defendants’ similar standing as the Government has before SCOTUS. Avoiding any talk of ML or RC issues is also probably wise.

To find your representatives:


Thank you AJ and Son of Liberty. Love your elaborate language SoLCoF, but there is substance there, too. Bobby, I just came across this, but I remember somewhat when it was proposed. In effect, the Solicitor General’s office is an advocate for the government position. The bill proposes creating an office for those who challenge the government, kind of a national public defender. That is as far as I got. Would like more to chime in, who have the time to research this, say what committee or representatives to send letters to.

Also, a defendant can be a small company without much means, it just levels the field with the government. That could get bipartisan support.

Yeah, LA is really bad. Case in point: there was a guy living in MS who got caught up in one of those “catch a predator” stings. He moseyed over to LA, where he was nabbed. He actually–and successfully–lobbied to get the case moved to MS. He did this because MS would be more lenient. MS lenient?!!? Apparently when the comparison is LA, the answer is yes.

I was going to help a Christian charity that’s going to LA to help rebuild homes from flooding, but decided no F’in way. LA has so many presence restrictions that I could end up in jail if I happened to be doing helpful, charitable work near a useless, flooded out park. Sorry, LA, you can drown in the swamp you are.

When I’m in a charitable mood toward another adult, I sometimes ask myself if they’d be as charitable toward me or another RSO? The answer being “NOPE!” helps me hang on to my cash and use it for the important people in my life who will really benefit from it, my kids.

It is only legal and not Ex-post facto as long as Louisiana can get away with calling their entire sex offender scheme “regulatory” and not “punitive” since Smith V Doe 2003 declared registration as regulatory. However, since challenges in other states are succeeding like this Doe v. Snyder case in the 6th circuit, you could challenge in the same manner. It is clear the the test used in Smith V Doe is not passed by the current registry scheme and a judge should see it as a punitive scheme.

States get away with this in cases of deferred adjudication by saying you need to be registered if you even just please guilty or no contest to a sex offense no matter what state. This was due to the US attorney general re-defining “convicted” in SORNA guidlines to mean just pleading no contest or guilty even if deferred meant there was never a conviction.

The only relief to the plea of no contest or guilty is if a judge in the original jurisdiction uses judicial clemency to allow you to remove your plea and “releasing applicant from all penalties and disabilities after deferred adjudication”.

That is what the law stated would happen upon successful completion of the deferred term. That was the only reason I took the plea & pled no contest: “dismissal of the indictment…No disabilities or disqualifications imposed as for the conviction of an offense.” Why wouldn’t Louisiana have to follow the “Full Faith Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution? Also, Louisiana Law states: “committed on or after June 18,1992” as a defining quality for a registering sex offender. This was supposed to have happened on March 12, 1991! Well before the June date.

@Clifford, I agree! I took a plea over fifteen years ago based on the deal presented to me. Not to have my deal redone and make it longer and more difficult for me than when I was on probation. I got let off probation one year early. Now I have a crazy cop as my probation officer/compliance officer talking to me about failure to register and the punishment is three times longer than my original charge. These people are crazy! Nutty cop is trying to convince me I get more dangerous the longer I’m offense free.

I guess I’m missing something, or haven’t explained the statute I plead under clearly: “A dismissal & discharge under this section ‘may not be deemed a conviction’ for the purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed by law for the conviction of offense.” Texas never required registration & the 18 years after the charge, I never had “sex offender” on my driver’s license. It is AFTER those 18 years, that Louisiana claims to have jurisdiction to alter the res judicata of the case from Texas to label me as “convicted”. Texas followed the letter of their law with my case (for some miraculous reason). While I was incarcerated, even after being forced to register while on bond, the State of Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections always stated on my “rap sheet” “sex offender: N” & “sex offenses: 0”. So, they were acknowledging the Texas Court’s ruling. Now that I am on parole, they have instituted sex offender therapy & conditions to my parole. I have a 5th Circuit US Supreme Court case that states absent a conviction the State of Texas Parole Board has denied Due Process to Plantiff (Detryk or Dyterk) & must hold a hearing to determine whether or not Plantiff possesses said offending quality before sex offender treatment & conditions can be added to the conditions of his parole. Texas dismissed my indictment without prejudice. Louisiana 22 years later forces sex offender therapy & conditions on my parole. That’s the rub, as well as having to register as having been convicted.

How did LA find out about the TX case? And someone, somewhere, changed you from a “no” to a “yes” as far as SO status. I think you’re going to have to go Federal, as LA is following their laws, and TX theirs. You, meanwhile, are trapped in the middle. You’ll have better, though perhaps slim, luck in Federal court.

Sadly, your best hope probably lies in SCOTUS ruling favorably in Snyder.


Hi Everyone,

I know we are still waiting to hear from SCOTUS concerning Does v Snyder, which as we have all heard we won’t have a decision until the fall. So does anyone know if The Michigan Supreme Court will wait till SCOTUS makes a decision on Does v Snyder before they make a final decision on The People of Michigan v Temelkoski or will they have to decide Temelkoski soon. any thoughts on this situation? It just seems like we should of heard something on Temelkoski by now.

I’m wondering about the same case. A verdict was due soon.


Well People, for those that are interested or wondering about Temelkoski or Snyder,and I know David M. is along with my self. I just got an e-mail back from Ms Aukerman and she said we should hear something from the Temelkoski case by July, but Snyder will take longer.

I guess my question is if the two cases clash with one another what happens then? but from the Temelkoski argument that is on audio by the way and then way the Snyder case was argued both courts seem to be on the same page.(in our favor) but I guess we will see soon.

Just thought you would all like to know the latest concerning Temelkoski and Snyder.

@Bobby & David M.
Thanks for bringing this case to my/our attention. From what I’ve read of the amici briefs, things do indeed look in our favor. As to what happens if they’re in conflict, my personal opinion is one nasty legal mess for those wizards in Lansing to try to figure out and navigate! Maybe they’ll simply realize how ridiculous they’ve been and give up the fight (a guy can hope!).

I gotta think that conflicting opinions will play to the favor of MI–and perhaps all–RCs, as there will be some sort of state or federal restraint on what hi-jinx can be pulled by legislatures. Given the overwhelming input from law professors and social scientists refuting the Smith data (the only thing upon which any of these laws rely), I don’t see how any objective (I’m looking at you, NY and FL) court can find anything besides punitive.

It really seems the MI and PA courts are leading the charge and change on things for us on the legal side, and CA is doing likewise administratively. God bless them all, and keep the faith, brother and sister RCs!


I read the Temelkoski documents through, and one thing caught my eye. On page 11 of the AG’s amicus brief, he mentions that SORA is a way to keep the public informed. Ooookkkk….so I guess keeping someone off the Internet (Packingham), or out of a school or library or museum, or from living within a certain distance from somewhere, or denying someone federal housing, are just ways to inform the public? Hmmm….methinks the AG is either lying, or supporting our cause about movement and presence restrictions.


I just registered in Michigan and paid my yearly $50 fee to register. The lady registering me said…. “You just got a new license and didn’t let us know of the new experation date.” I replied… I didn’t realize that’s something I had to even do.” The truth is I lost my license and had to get it replaced. My birthday was four months after replacing my lost license and Michigan renewed my license changing my experation date. I thought I was just replacing my license. That is what I asked the DMV to do. I also noticed the three pages of registered citizens in my zip code is now just three people including myself. So I checked other nearby zip codes as I had done in the past. I was kinda shocked to notice most the previous registered citizens had vanished off the registry. Moved? Taken off the registry? Or what I think…. Nit picked back to jail by a much more aggressive attitude brought on by a police force that is becoming more and more aggressive and destructive thinking that rounding up and locking up all RSO’s is somehow doing society a favor. I also noticed the few registered citizens free are much lower crimes and have been on the registry for decades.

I sure hope these Michigan cases in high courts continue down the path of sanity or else I might be the only registered citizen free soon in my zip code. It is a enormous waste of resources locking everyone up as long as humanly possible. Of course I wrote all the Michigan ACLU lawyers to tell them of my on going enhanced registration aggressiveness by my local law enforcement.

@David M
So just to get things straight, the State chastised you for not telling them that they failed to tell you they changed your DL expiration? You should have told her there are infinite things you don’t know that you’re unable to tell her. 🙂 Nothing like some double speak to make her head explode!

We wouldn’t want the State to find and use data from records they create, hold and manage. Way too much sense.

I gotta say, I was fearful of the Southern state in which I live when it comes to RC harrassment. But from what everyone else seems to encounter, I’m doing pretty well. Aside from the PITA of appearing at DMV and paying $11 every 90 days to “re-enlist” in this exclusive club, they completely leave me alone. I guess there is an upside to budget problems.


Certainly not an expert in MI law, but new drivers license does not appear to be something worthy of instant notification.

If I read this correctly, you may kindly suggest to this woman to pound sand? Know the law, know your rights, stand up for your rights. If you don’t, no one else will.

One also notes that the verbiage in that section reads “(1) An individual required to be registered under this act who is a resident of this state shall report in person and notify the registering authority having jurisdiction where his or her residence or domicile is located immediately after any of the following occur:…”

“Immediately after … in person” is physically impossible. Simply impossible. Just another indication that these laws are punitive and designed to incarcerate perfectly lawful citizens. Hopefully Does v. Snyder will sort this out.

My thoughts.

I noticed this exchange on twitter from a Michigan registrant that is very accurate regarding compliance checks in Michigan.


“Exactly. Ultimate goal=lock em up, make them targets for vigilantes or make their lives so miserable they off themselves. Entrapment much?

I answer the door w/hubby because cops openly lie/deceive about his responsibilities. They hate it when ppl know their stuff.”

@AJ Louisiana “found” the incorrect information from my case on watchdog. They attempted to prosecute me for failure to register. They were so distracted with the “intent to manufacture” charge they were fabricating on me to be too concerned with the “failure to register”. I ended up beating the failure to register while I was incarcerated on the other charge. Then, when I was paroled, it became a “requirement” for my release from Angola. I didn’t have “sex offender” on my RAP sheet & didn’t even want that to b the reason I was kept at Angola. That’s not a good place for any sex offender, or even someone “believed” to be a sex offender. So, I registered.

@Clifford Ray Irby II
Your situation sounds like it has a lot of moving parts. I still think you’d be well-served to hit up a decent criminal attorney or two, ideally with time in Federal Courts, via the semi-standard free 30-minute consult. You could also try Avvo (, but I’ve found that gives mixed results, depending on the topic and state. Avvo is completely anonymous to post questions.

As I’ve said before, you’re stuck between TX following its laws, and LA following theirs. Neither may be violating their own laws, but your rights may still be getting abridged federally. It may help to look at your situation as if it had happened entirely in LA (Equal Protection Clause). Be warned, you may not like the outcome of that exercise, but at least you’ll get a bit more clarity!


@ AJ Where my concern & issue is: how can same sex marriages be protected under the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution and not apply to this charge dismissed 18 years ago? How is it not an “ex post facto” violation to alter the dismissal to a conviction? How does Louisiana even have jurisdiction over a Texas case? The charge was from 03/12/91, in Texas. Louisiana Law is clear on defining a registerable offense as: “having been committed on or after June 18, 1992…” I am at a total loss & state of confusion.

“How does Louisiana even have jurisdiction over a Texas case?” They don’t, but they have knowledge of it and can use it, just as much as any crime one commits in another state will show up as a prior.

The charge was from 03/12/91, in Texas. Louisiana Law is clear on defining a registerable offense as: “having been committed on or after June 18, 1992…” Only LA can answer why your case applies. My conjecture is your being incarcerated either stopped or reset the clock in some manner…which may well be a constitutional issue, but given it’s viewed as “regulation,” that may be tough.

Again, I think your best bet is to contact an attorney (or two or three) for the free consult and ask her/him the question about the dates.


@ AJ: How could the clock have been “reset” by my incarceration? I never had the defamatory label “sex offender” on my license until 18 years after the dismissal of the indictment. And it is another state that has labeled me as such. If I never had the “clock” on me to reset, how can it even be added now without it violating “ex post facto”? Muchless the dismissal being altered to a conviction. Texas dismissed the indictment. Louisiana claims “convicted” & has yet to produce the FIRST legal document to support their claim.

I have never had a conviction. Yet the US and I guess other states still count it because I have to register. I checked on my FBI record and it is clear. Good ole USA

About this part:

The charge was from 03/12/91, in Texas. Louisiana Law is clear on defining a registerable offense as: “having been committed on or after June 18, 1992…”

Them making you register for an offense before that data, but not making it’s own citizens register for offenses before that date, is a clear constitutional violation of equal protection. Other states have done that same thing and lost in court. Hire or consult with a good civil rights attorney.

I have been hearing a lot of news regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on which cases they will take up in their next session, which would be in the Fall of 2017.

I have not heard anything regarding this case. Does anyone know the status of this?

Snyder is still sitting with the US Solicitor General’s office. SCOTUS asked them for their opinion (called a CVSG), but have yet to render it. That they CVSG’d it is a good indication they will take it, but they’re giving the Government time to put forth its position and opinion on it (read: get the lies straight).

There is technically a chance USSG would say that yes, it is punitive and violates ex post facto. In that case, SCOTUS would probably skip hearing it, and just issue an opinion for Does. But, I severely doubt USSG is going to say that the public safety restrictions of the dozens of SORAs are unconstitutional. I do feel USSG is kind of cornered due to the 80% lie from Smith, so their reply will be interesting to say the least.

In short, expect no action on Snyder until Sep or Oct. USSG may reply sooner, but that’s it.


“expect no action on Snyder until Sep or Oct.” I think that the Supreme Court already announced yesterday, the cases that they would hear in October, and this case wasn’t one of them.

“I severely doubt USSG is going to say that the public safety restrictions of the dozens of SORAs are unconstitutional.” I would tend to agree, especially after the House re-authorized Adam Walsch.

SCOTUS can, does, and probably will accept more cases for the fall, come the fall. They’ve simply stopped court activity for the summer so they can vacation, and get boondoggles to speak around the world.

Here are all the pending petitions and CVSGs for SCOTUS to consider for the October term: Unless and until SCOTUS outright says “no” to these petitions, they remain before the Court for possible opinions, either via summary or oral agrument.

Regardless, do not expect SCOTUS to make a decision one way or the other, no matter what month it is, until they receive the CVSG response.

Thank you. Yes, I know. Technically responding to a CVSG is optional, but it’s tantamount to “failure to appear” and “default judgment” (using terms loosely) on the part of the Government. USSG is likewise often called the 10th Justice due to its influence. USSG is also, to my recollection, the only entity outside SCOTUS and staff that has an office in the Supreme Court building.


@AJ and @PK and while SCOTUS “asked” for there opinion, it’s taken as an order to reply… So its not really optional

I know a lot of people are going to laugh at me, and that’s fine but would some one please dumb this down for me and please explain what this means exactly. I know my question is dumb but I want to make sure what I read I am comprehending correctly. Thank you to everyone in advance to anyone that answers my question.
Sorry it is about what Tuna is speaking about concerning the SG opinion

Your asking of questions like you do is a good thing because there are folks who won’t understand it and that is ok because there are good folks here who are savvy enough to help the understanding process. Frankly, I don’t want to read their doc because it is mind numbing and my eyes cross, but am relieved there are folks here who do read it and can explain it for the rest of us. I put these fine folks in the Paul Harvey category of “The Rest of the Story” for everyone.

Hello everyone,

Well I Just looked on the scotusblog, and it was finally made public this is Michigan AG’s supplemental brief to SCOTUS asking to “GRANT REVIEW” of Michigan’s SORNA. Now I read it, but don’t really understand it, so if some one would kindly try to explain it to me, and what they think about the brief I would appreciate it.

Since I am from Michigan this is very important to me since I have now been on this stupid thing for 25 years, my original registration even though Michigan had no registry in 92 when I was convicted, so I went from 25 years to life. Any way here is the brief .


They make 3 points of which the 3rd is most telling. The first they are complaining that registration based on conviction should be allowed. The court said that just registering based only on conviction is unfair but the state says they should be able to any way because if they can’t no one can. (Bad argument)

The 2nd point is interesting and is the reason SCOTUS should take the case. The lower court splits that have nothing to do with Michigan specific law but rather law’s around the nation that some courts say are punishment and others say are civil in nature.

The 3rd point and the most important point, Michigan is afraid of losing money. The federal government won’t say they won’t lost money if this case is upheld and they really really really want that money so please SCOTUS let us have our money.

To be honest the best line is at the end: “This case is a good vehicle for resolving whether basic
components of modern SORA laws are punitive for ex
post facto purposes because Michigan’s SORA includes
many of the components over which the lower
courts have disagreed.” They aren’t even arguing they are right any more, just they should be able to for money and bc other people can, but that the court should decide what can be and can’t be ex post facto and I agree.

The court should remember the constitution and stop most of this BS

Hope that helps even with the sarcastic tone.

Great analysis! Look forward to hearing more from others here in this forum.

Your monetary point is excellent as it mirrors, in my mind, the USG’s ability to confiscate property taken as evidence in an investigation and sell it as they want under civil forfeiture even if no charges are levied or someone is found innocent. Turning around the money of course and splitting it with various entities. Let’s take more money from people because we can and need to augment our short budgets. Not the right way to run a legal operation.

Wow! What a horrible reply from MI, with lack of focus and really no rebuttal of or support for its own law. Must suck for MI to have to fight the ACLU *and* the USSG over this case! 🙂 What’s funny is MI seems to be saying, “if you take us down, we’re taking AWA/SORNA with us,” whereas USSG is saying, “sink MI, but keep AWA/SORNA.”

I don’t even really know where to start to address their reply, nor am I sure I can do so succinctly. But, let’s give it a try.
1.) MI is kind enough to reiterate what the 6th said about “frightening and high” being wrong and that it was mistakenly accepted as fact. MI then goes on to complain about what the 6th found regarding offense-based registration. “Under this reasoning, all offense-based SORA laws—including the federal SORNA—are in the cross-hairs, not just Michigan’s.” Why, yes MI, that is what the 6th said, and it’s true. This, I think, is where the dormant SDP issue from CT DPS will come back to bite the State and Federal Governments. The idea of offense-based registration is always supported using CT DPS as the precedent. But CT DPS didn’t address the constitutionality of the law itself; that was explicitly (and foolishly) avoided by Doe, who instead argued only that the application (PDP) was unconstitutional. AWA and MI-SORA are both going to be subjected to the SDP that was left unanswered in CT DPS. Thank you, MI, for raising this point!

2.) MI argues that because other decisions have upheld residency restrictions, this one should be too. Well, no MI, that’s not what the answer is. The decisions upholding residency restriction could be wrong, and the 6th right. Nowhere does MI rebut the irrationality of a blanket residency restriction. Nowhere does MI say it is rational that someone who sexually assaulted an adult should be banned from being around kids. Taken to extreme, you could have a gerontophile subjected to residency restrictions applicable to pedophiles, keeping said person away from kids (of no interest), but allowing him/her to live next door to Sunny Acres Retirement Community (of extreme interest). Explain that one under rational basis, MI. MI then says, “even if this concern does not implicate SORNA [which has no residency restrictions], it implicates much of the country: 20 other states have residency restrictions[]—a fact the federal government does not deny.” You’re exactly right, MI, it *does* implicate most of the country. TYVM for highlighting this, too. In fact, not only does the federal government not deny it, they say it’s punitive.

3.) MI complains that the 6th didn’t address the MI-specific in-person reporting requirements, instead opting to declare that in-person reporting requirements (in general), “appear[] to have no relationship to public safety at all.” Umm, MI, I hate to tell you this, but if an entire category of something is found to be unconstitutional, so are the specific items within that category. IOW, if all in-person requirements are bad, so is yours.

4.) MI does go on to make some sense in Section II when it says the court decisions are all over the place and need to be decided once a for all. They get there in a rambling way, but they do get an A for effort. 🙂 However, Section II is nowhere near spotless. MI stupidly raises conflicting decisions in CA where residency restrictions were found both non-punitive and punitive. Quoting, “[i]t is one thing to hold that a residency restriction may be punitive in one city but not another, based on adjudicative facts.” Yes, exactly…*based on adjudicative facts*! That sure sounds like a judge deciding a punishment for a specific situation. You just argued the exact thing we’ve been yelling for years: this needs to be done in the judiciary, not the legislature. This one almost deserves a floral arrangement send to the MI AG’s office. You see, MI, this is kind of like when you have a vat of wine (non-punitive), and a vat of pig slop (punitive). If you add wine to the slop, you still have slop; if you add slop to the wine, you now have slop. IOW, even *one* instance of a law being punitive makes the whole law punitive. As a friend in HR always told me, “there’s no such thing as an exception, there’s only policy change.”

5.) Section III is where MI looks like a complete idiot. As I and others have said, here MI simply argues, “you have to uphold the laws, because otherwise we lose funding.” Regardless of whether that’s true or not, it has *no bearing* on whether a law is constitutional. If anything, it will point suspicion towards the law (i.e. AWA) that withholds funding if you don’t do something unconstitutional! Again, thank you MI, for pointing out that not only is your law an unconstitutional farce, but so is AWA. Want the easy answer how to keep your money coming MI? Make your law exactly like AWA mandates and allows. No more, no less. That is entirely within your ability. That does not, however, mean AWA is constitutional.

Whew! Sorry for that length, folks! What’s important to keep in mind is that none of the existing laws, not even AWA, align with what existed when Smith and CT DPS were decided (and again, CT DPS said nothing about the laws themselves). In both cases, SCOTUS remarked in ways that indicated where their “lines in the sand” may lie. In Smith, it was in-person requirements, freedom of movement, etc. In CT DPS, it was the abandoned SDP issue. So for legislatures to rely on those cases as their bedrock is dangerous, IMO. Finally, regardless what any Legislature has said, regardless what was found in Smith, no matter how honorably they may have been enacted, it is clear that the effect of the registry laws, however “weak” or “strong,” is punitive. Effect matters, even under rational basis review.

The only point that MI makes which is unarguable, clear, and true is, “[t]his case is a good vehicle for resolving whether basic components of modern SORA laws are punitive for ex post facto purposes.” Yes, it is indeed an excellent vehicle. MI is going all-in not just with its own SORA law, but every single SORA law in the country, AWA included.

I can hardly wait to see ACLU-MI’s reply to USSG’s brief! It has to come out this week, if my recollection of a 30-day window (Aug 6) is correct.

AJ, you have raised some really good points there! Reading the reply briefs by both the State and FED, it seems like they are (sis) doing the arguments for us. In my opinion this back and forth arguments between them only make our case stronger for SCOTUS to accept the case. I surely hope ACLU will file a final reply brief and attacked with all its mighty at the deficiencies of both government briefs that AJ mentioned. On a side note, I have heard the 6th circuit audio argument by the lady representing ACLU and she seems to fought with teeth and nails for us. She was very vocal in stating the registry is indeed punitive cloaked in civil disguise. I am crossing my fingers that SCOTUS will accept the case and will see that registration is indeed punishment and not just some regulatory that states kept piling on us. IF we lose at the COURT this time, I can not fathom what will lied ahead for us in term of NEW legislation by the states and FED!

Re: ACLU Supplemental Brief to Snyder CVSG. From what I read in the SCOTUS rules, there is no time restriction on filing a brief while a petition is pending. “Any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is pending. . . .A supplemental brief shall be restricted to new matter.” (, Item 8)
So really, ACLU-MI safely has until September 25 (SCOTUS’s first conference for the October Term) to reply. That kind of makes me wonder why MI jumped so soon…though in my opinion, MI hasn’t exactly shown stellar abilities in their handling of this case. (Or, perhaps they simply don’t have solid arguments to support the regulatory claim.)


Well I was on NARSOL Website and came across this about Michigan’s AG Schuette’s brief ,and the few comments from people about it. I thought I would post it,for those of you who are interested. it’s not long at all but this Robin explains it pretty well. So here it is, for those of us interested.

I am seeking an attorney that is willing to attack this “ex post facto” issue. My charge was dismissed on Mach 2, 1999. The accusation was from March 12, 1991. The Texas Laws of deferred adjudication state “A dismissal under this section shall not be deemed a conviction for the purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed for the conviction of an offense.” As I interpret that, not being a lawyer, I don’t have to register. Texas never required me to. However, Louisiana has forced me to do so on December 23, 2009, more than 10 years after the dismissal. I even had my father go to Texas, because Luoisiana

This has been discussed before. TX is completely out of the loop on it. LA is where the attack needs to be done, as it is their law that has you ensnared. I recall your having tried to do so, with no luck. The problem almost assuredly lies in LA including “deferred adjudication” as a “conviction” when it applies to their RC laws. This is a huge part of the problem with RC laws: they can be made up pretty much any way a legislature wishes to do so. As long as courts keep accepting the “public safety intent” argument from legislatures, there’s little room to maneuver. Your best bet would probably be to try to sue in Federal Court, thus avoiding the partisan judges in the LA court system…though with the Feds sited in NOLA, it may not be a whole lot better.
As to your statement, “[a]s I interpret that, not being a lawyer, I don’t have to register,” you’re exactly right…if you’re in Texas. But LA doesn’t have to follow what TX says when “regulating” a RC.

I am 144 days away from completing my parole for a drug offense. I am being harassed daily, if not hourly, by the CYBER CRIMES DIVISION OF THE STATE POLICE OF LOUISIANA. Trying to entice me to sign up on social media websites. Which would enslave me to DOC for another 10 years. I am tired of being harassed, defamed, & labeled as a convicted sex offender when I have no such conviction. HELP!

Stay the course and beat’em! On Jan 1, you are free of their crap! Don’t let’em get to you!

Hang in there, brother! We all know they’re doing everything they can to keep you on as a “frequent flyer.”

Hello everyone,

I was just on the SCOTUS blog, and I came across all the case’s for conference on the 25th, and as we all know does v Snyder is one of them. Now what I did notice and don’t understand, because I am not court savvy nor do I claim to be, but I noticed they have Does v Snyder under Calls for the Views of the Solicitor .
General. Now does that mean it is just under that title for people to find, since the SG already gave his opinion? I also noticed that on the 28th it says orders, with nothing written yet. I was just wondering will SCOTUS actually make there decisions that fast, and put the order out with in 3 days of the conference, or does it take longer then that, I hope I explained that clear enough for people to understand, Does anyone know if it actually works that fast, or is that for other orders in from earlier this year. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Snyder has already once been in conference on Mar 24, 2017. The outcome of that conference was that SCOTUS requested a CVSG. The USSG submitted its response (amicus) on Jul 7, and on Jul 25, MI filed its supplemental brief in reply to the USSG amicus. (As you were able to find out, ACLU-MI declined to file a supplemental.) Snyder has been put back on the calendar for SCOTUS’ first conference of the 2017-18 term, which is the Sep 25 date. That Snyder is on the Sep 25 calendar doesn’t mean a thing, as SCOTUS can keep kicking the case down the calendar for whatever reason it feels–including into the 2018-19 term! A prime example is the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which was initially distributed for the Sep 26, 2016 conference (the first one for the 2016-17 term). It was then delayed somewhere around 15 or 16 times, before it was finally accepted for the 2017-18 term. (Take a look at how many “DISTRIBUTED” statements it has: Some of this delay was certainly due to SCOTUS awaiting a 9th Justice, but who knows why the many other delays. Maybe they were waiting for some other legal action to be decided, or maybe they didn’t feel they had enough time left in the term to give the case its just deliberation, or maybe some other reason. My point is that Snyder being distributed for conference gives no indication if, or when, SCOTUS will accept the case. Personally, I think they will accept it, and quickly. It’ll be interesting to see if SCOTUS delays Snyder past Oct 17, thereby forcing PA to “sh!t or get off the pot” with any Muniz petition.

What 28th are you looking at? Dec 28, 2016 is all I see. That was merely an order granting a time extension to the parties. All deadlines have passed for the parties to file briefs, unless SCOTUS asks for more for some reason. Everything with Snyder now just awaits a decision by SCOTUS about accepting it or not. If they do accept, hopefully they schedule oral arguments early in the term.

Ref. URLs:

@ AJ,

Thanks for the info, I was looking at the Sept, 28th order that is only 3 days after the Conference

I asked Robin, from NARSOL, about it as well, and this is what she wrote back to be in case your interested.

First she wrote this explanation: The Court never issues orders on the same day that it conferences (unless it’s an urgent/emergency petition….such as a death penalty case or a question critical to the foundations of our democracy–which was the case during the Bush v. Gore fiasco). The Court normally (but not always) conferences on Fridays and the Court normally (but not always) issues orders related to those conferences on the following Monday.
Yes, the categorization of the case under “Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General” is merely to remind the Court that his opinion of the petition was requested. It will likely elevate the Court’s focus on the case for purposes of the September 25th conference.

then she wrote this as well :

Yes. The Sept. 28 Orders will most likely mention Snyder. There are four options: 1) the petition is denied, 2) the petition is granted, 3) the petition is rescheduled for another conference, or 4) the petition is not mentioned at all which would most likely mean that the Court plans to issue a “per curium” decision (highly unlikely).


Robin is a HE over @NARSOL

Just thought you’d like to know…. 😉

Could you please supply the URL that shows the Sep 28 “order” item you mentioned? I haven’t stumbled across it, on either the SCOTUS or scotusblog sites. Or are you referring to the generic calendar to the bottom right on scotusblog? If so, you’ll see similar indications throughout the months ( Thanks.


Sorry AJ, I am referring to the generic calendar towards the bottom I know there is nothing there right now, but according to Robin, that is were the opinion on whether they deny or take Snyder will go. Sorry I have trouble expressing things in writing on what I am trying to say vs verbally. My bad. So in other words their decision on the 25th will be posted in the orders, on the 28th of this month. If I understood Robin correctly, is that right or make any sense to you.

Any updates on this? Is it waiting on any dates for an update?


Well The Conference is set for Monday the 25th this Monday, and the order is Thursday the 28th I personally hope it is denied, but at the same time I hope it is accepted for everyone’s sakes.

Thank you for that information.

I am not familiar with all the lingo, but on the NARSOL website is this case listed as “Won”. Doe v DPSCS, 430 Md. 535, 62 A.3d 123 (Md. 2013) (Full challenge of retroactivity and enhanced requirements). Maybe, this is not really related, but in skimming through it, does it not show that the State had to remove the registrant since he was not required to register at the time he took a plea deal? I am sure I am missing the fine print. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can take a glimpse and crush my hope?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x