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


OK: Closing sex offender loophole

Legislation has been filed seeking to close a loophole in Oklahoma statutes allowing sex offenders to live next door or near their victims.

House Bill 1124, by Rep. Kyle Hilbert and Sen. James Leewright, seeks to change Oklahoma statutes to include the residency of the victim of a sex crime to the list of places that have a “zone of safety” around them. In Oklahoma law, the “zone of safety” is a 500-foot area around places that sex offenders are not allowed to loiter. However, the zone around a victim’s residence will be 1,000 feet if this bill passes. Full Article


OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victim

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

Yeah, OK, go ahead and add another ex post facto restriction that will most likely get struck down via Snyder. At least it will make the fearful public sleep a little better at night…and will allow you to say you did something, but “activist judges” overruled you.

Sorry but the ‘offender’ had done their time and paid for their crime, the ‘ EX VICTIM is NO longer above the offender in a hierarchy…

So if the EX Victim lived in Beverly hills and the ex offender has a million dollars they cant live in the same city ?
What happened to equal rights ? Not in this country ! they DONT EXIST

If the ex offender turns himself around, makes amends, and the ex victim forgives him, which does happen in rare cases; or if the victim was young, but in love and consented and later married the offender, this law would seem to take away their right to be with who they want to be with. Would there be allowances for that?

you would think that they would get sick of this drama bill passin crap , but they will never get sick of it , everyone flexing there little gavel, kicking people when there all ready down and feeling all tough and powerful , people are going to crap when they see all this ends up slapping all of them in the face when it all come tumbling down and find they are on there way to some camp , wont any of it mean anything if yellow stone blows up , or what ever , or we have a big a$$ reactor melts down here in the USA , or all of the many things that could happen , the sky is falling Pass A Bill ,look like your really doing your job , and where shades so everyone don’t see your really sleeping getting ready for the next bill to sign lol , someone said on a post here last year i think, saying it would not matter if he was to save a bus full kids on fire they would still call him a sex offender and his life would not change in the least , something like that , rang true , this is where we go into some cool old blues tune , like the sky is crying , lol Good to see you Timmr and everyone else !


I doubt courts care about victim’s forgiveness or marrying b/c only that act alone matters. No other context matters. None.

I do feel that the victim should not have to live next door to their rapist or molester. But it would be more appropriate if the court handled this with a restraining order at the time of sentencing based on the facts of the case. If needed, the victim could get it renewed if requested at a hearing like all restraining orders. Hopefully the victim will get state funded counseling (victim’s of crime funds) that would help the victim deal with the possibility of running into the defendant while out in public. This issue could and should be handled in a case-by-case basis.


Yet again, we already have things in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening and it doesn’t require a one-size-fits-none approach.

Either make it part of the conditions at trial, or get a restraining order now. Why is this so hard to understand?

Anyone find out how to look at the text of this proposed bill? Legainfo and the Oklahoma house legislative site don’t have it posted.

This sure seems like fake news.

The OK legislature meets Feb-May (, and adjourned on May 26, 2017 ( See text center-screen, below the images). The next (“Second Regular”) Session of the Legislature convenes on Feb 5, 2018 (

From what I can see, this bill died with the ending of the 2017 session. Also, strangely, this bill is not listed as a bill authored by Rep. Kyle Hilbert ( I didn’t see anything on Sen. James Leewright’s page, but given it was a House Bill, it should be Rep. Hilbert’s, if anything. Even stranger, the author of the HB 1124 is listed as Rep. Scott Biggs.

The details just don’t add up.

I too tried to look at the text of the bill. There is no bill. They did elude to trying to pass it in the next legislature session in 2018 but why attach a number to a bill that doesn`t already exist? Sloppy reporting or fake.

Good luck to them trying to pass a bill which would make it a crime to marry ones “victim”. I guess they could marry and stay 1000 feet away from each other. At any rate, permanent restraining orders aren`t passed out like candy- they need to be renewed periodically and issued on a case by case basis.
We must keep in mind that propaganda news is not limited to the visual media. There is quite a lot of it in online articles as well. These kinds of stories need to be vetted . I have become somewhat keen at discerning- if they write in an article that they are going to push for some new law and they think all States should follow their lead- it is very questionable.

In my searches for House Bill 1124, I came up with a past bill in Oklahoma, one in Colorado and Texas, that had nothing to do with registrants. I think the article made it wishfull thinking or maybe they got the number wrong, or it takes a long time in OK to update public records.
No offense, I refuse to use that term anymore, the one with “news” as the second word. It is not any news at all if it can not be verified. There is no alternative. The man who made up that term uses it all the time only to confuse and ridicule. I digress, but I am sorry that phrase has worked its way into day to day speak, along with all the other cliches, that is now making it hard to pass real information between people.


I do understand your sentiment. It is unfortunate that “fake news” has become a parodized meme and now overused to the point that it is meaningless- in the same way “conspiracies” are lampooned and anyone who doesn’t believe in the governments official narrative is simply dismissed as being a kook. I’ve been calling the mainstream news “artificial” for a decade now, but I guess I have always meant to convey that it is deceitful. To me, their “news” was always a lot of lies mixed with a bit of truth so it won’t be disregarded ( 80:20 ratio) . I can only suspect they do this to create cognitive biases and a emotionally polarized citizenry.

So now when I read an online news article, I look for the classic emotional triggers and if they are there, I wonder how much is really true.

I agree. One only has to read the ‘sensational’ tagline of an article to get you to click to see that the ‘fake news’ starts there. A recent story on the Yahoo homepage had a tagline with ‘Father of four being deported to Mexico’. Other articles are very similar. Debate all you want whether or not the guy deserves to stay here but seeing how media grabs your attention and sways you with target words to spark emotion is amazing but also cautionary, assuming one is smart enough to read between the lines and become educated on the facts through multiple sources. Not a Trump fan but he is right, at the very least, about the idea of ‘fake news’. It clearly exists.

And yet the term “fake news” is also a loaded term, and is too often used to put a negative value on a story without really going through the trouble of analysing its veracity. Simply because a tag line has an emotional response or something I don’t wish to hear, it does not follow it is fake because of that.

I’d prefer going back to the original term: yellow journalism. Not all of it rises to that level, but it quite often fits.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x