ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org



WI: Sex offenders challenge Milwaukee residency restrictions

Six registered sex offenders are suing the City of Milwaukee over an ordinance that virtually bans them from living in the city, arguing the rules violate their constitutional rights. Full Article

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

From the article:

Nicholas said she believes the ordinance is unconstitutional, in part, because it does not differentiate between the level of threat each offender presents. Under the ordinance, offenders convicted of relatively lower-level sex crimes in the past are treated the same as recently released child molesters and rapists.

But this is the crux of all these sex offender laws as we’re all clumped as one person type.

I’m glad they’re fighting back. The more wins, the better for all of us!

Why would differentiation between offenders who had committed sex crimes make it more constitutional unless you do the same for other types of crimes? When you look at the overall picture, other offenders, some commiting serious violent crimes are not subject to these residency laws, even if they had done harm to children. That’s not equally applied due process, is it?

Exactly. It shouldn’t matter what the level is.

The crimes chosen and length of time on the registry are all arbitrary and not related to level of dangerousness or recidivism. Therefore, unless they determine during a fair trial that someone is specifically a threat, there should be no restrictions placed on that person once they do their time.

In cases where someone is a current dangerous threat, they should go through a fair trial and be civilly committed and occasionally re-evaluated for release.

i heard that those with 3 or more domestic violence convictions aren’t allowed to live in Milwaukee either because they may find a significant other there (who will be somebody’s beloved mother, daughter, son, husband or wife) and beat them too.

If this is regulatory and not punitive, then why does it matter what level the sex offender is? Nobody that has completed their sentence successfully is being punished here. THIS IS THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TYPE GOVERNMENT THAT THE US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS ITS CITIZENS FROM!! AND THAT EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY JUDGE WATCHES OUT FOR AND SQUASHES LIKE A BUG.

Shouldnt DUI Convictions be NOT Allowed near ANY store that sells liquor for life ?

How about a Drug user ever being near a pharmacy for life ?

“Milwaukee Ald[erman] Tony Zielinski, a chief proponent of the ordinance, said the city’s lawyers told him in 2014 that they felt comfortable defending the ordinance in court.”

He may feel comfortable, but he and his city council are going to get bitch-slapped just like Pleasant Prairie did, a mere 30 minutes south on I-94.

More importantly, they are on record–video!–stating they want to get rid of RCs not due to any public safety reason, but because they think the city is hosting too many RCs versus the suburbs. Good luck defending THAT position in court, Alderman. It doesn’t even meet the Rational Basis standard of review!

Look out MO, you have competition in WI for the morons-of-the-year award.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x