ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


WY: Sex offenders now pay the cost of supervision

Previous source of cash has run dry, so the state charges registrants for every change of status.

A new Wyoming law means sex offenders must now pay to register or make changes to their registration. If they ignore the new law, they’re subject to criminal charges.

It’s a big change for both offenders and law enforcement. In Teton County, where many residents are transient, the law was already tough to enforce.

“Say we get a tourist come in from out of town who isn’t currently registered in Wyoming,” Teton County Sheriff’s Sgt. Todd Stanyon said. “It’s going to cost them $150 bucks to register with us for initial registration. Say they stay for two weeks. Then when they deregister to tell us they’re leaving, they’re going to have to pay the $31.25.” Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. kat

    Once again, registrants are the CASH COW for government.

    • Tired Of Hiding


      More importantly it is about the “value” that sex offenders are to the political machine as a source of fear mongering not unlike the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” – we are used as a valuable political tool to manipulate and control the population with FEAR.

      This registry has NEVER been about protecting kids or anyone at all. It is used to 1) declare and dictate moral behaviours with the harsh and ever harsher punishments for those caught breaking these moral taboos. 2) to create an “unwinnable” war that appears to be real but is not. How is this done? By lumping so many “crimes” into a broad category and then labelling ALL those caught up in the trap as Sex Offenders. A meaningless term synonymous in the general public’s mind with a child molestor even when the vast majority of those with the label did NOT do that and in fact, in most cases they are are guilty of totally victimless crimes!

      Now this – they are basically forcing you to pay for your own punishment and abuse by the state. Talk about adding insult to injury! First the take away your ability to get a job with this label then the pass a law forcing you to pay for it…with what?

      You got it…an easy way for the state to violate sex offenders who cannot or will not pay THIS new punishment raising the reoffense rate artificially to make it appear that these added punishments are needed! Bullshit on a mind blowing level that only politicians could possible come up with! A self sustainable neverending and unwinnable (by design) “war” that works just like those on drugs and terror to manipulate with fear.

      Only from the twisted mind of a politician can come such utter logic defying crap!

      • The Unforgiven

        I follow this site daily and today, your post just stood out. I enjoyed the read and wish I could have it all memorized when the next person tells me all about the ‘great’ registry. Thank you.

      • Timmr

        Yes, it can’t be much about money. How much money are they going to get from 15 registrants in Teton county? Say those 15 change their information on average of five times per year. That seems pretty often, but let’s be generous. That is $2,343.75 at $31.25 each change. The sheriff gets to keep 25% of that or about $586 per year. One violation is going to cancel that sum in cost of processing the violation. The court costs are going to cancel out any fines and if they send the offender to jail, they are going to pay 1000’s. I guess they are betting they will extort the fees out of lots of registrant tourists at $150 per head. Good luck getting registrants to visit Wyoming now and if they do, they just won’t notify — if caught, more court costs and possibly prison time at $60,000 per person per year. Yeah, that pencil out.
        They don’t know how to think things through, when it comes to registrants in Wyoming or indeed the rest of this sex panicked country. All they see is it harms a registrant somewhere in some way, that’s the only criterion.

        • Arax

          Don’t forget, all these laws are targeted towards sending registrants back to prison! They don’t consider registrants as humans who have rights.

  2. AJ

    This is ridiculous. And they say RCs are predators? What about the State, with free will to take as much money as they wish from people who have no escape from paying? What’s to stop them from making it $1000? This points even stronger towards the registry being like supervision. Plus, there wouldn’t be the need for all these fees if they didn’t make so many stupid hoops for RCs to jump through!

    • i can't wait to die

      ex post

    • kind of living

      Its never going to end I am afraid , all regulations I know of you can walk around in some way , like driving you can simply not drive , or fire arms you can just not own one , but its not like the gov’t has not been working hard to keep all people paying into many things that we use to be able walk around , like rather than paying crazy tax on food we could put in a garden , or raise beef of chickens only to have to now have to fight to be able to do that because of new Regulations in many places , off grid living now has become a thing with the gov’t so they can keep people subservient to paying water / power bills and bigger tax’s , we as RC’s are not only being minded , but also a cash cow , like all ready stressed ranchers and farmers being taxed for cattle farts , it WILL get worse before it gets better for us because we are an easy target ,, the old saying is you cant get blood out of a turnip , but you can lock it up , still a cash cow , this country has become exactly what England was when people cut out from there to what we called the new world , now it has become the old one in many ways , last time it took a frightening war to brake free , I hope I am wrong about the possible out come for us and most other unsuspecting Americans

      • Timmr

        Actually, I think it is a debt cow, that’s stumbling around anemic from the vampires sucking out its life blood. The lawmakers are devaluing a section of the productive capacity of the country –us, You can’t make a whole group of people unemployed or underemployed without affecting the oveall economic and moral progress of the nation. But they are doing it, destroying a large part of the human infrastucture (more than 3/4 of a million registrants now) law by law. They did it with drugs before. The decay spreads. They are overregulating the small, productive sustainable farmers and energy producers in favor of the big corps agribusiness and fossil fuels. That’s who we have leading, feeding or rather poisoning and indenturing the population, politicians enriching themselves and their big corp donors.

        • Tired Of Hiding

          Do not forget the massive amount of law enforcement that is required to monitor nearly 1 million citizens! Think of the overtime alone. My “incident” was 20 years ago and a few months ago I had a surprise visit from the assholes. At least 6 officers showed up…why is that?

          Overtime…more guards…more prisons…because they can get away with it. We are a cash cow for LE and without us think of all the wages that these guys are counting on to pay for that second home or drugs or a mistress whatever…the point is that the bottom line is that government has never worked with a real budget. They just go further in debt so they are not worried about the cost and in fact the more restrictions the easier it is to violate us on.

          That is why they monitor people who pose no threat whatsoever to society and have already paid their debt to society (in many cases decades ago) and do not want to let them go or even treat them as human.

        • Timmr

          I call for an audit of all these expenses. It may be a cash cow for all the government employees and contractors who profit off of the registry. The rest of the population are suckers. Looking at the whole picture it most likely impoverishes the country economically, because you are creating an unemployed class and morally, because it is setting a precedent for removing people’s rights.

        • kind of living

          your right guys , that’s for sure ! the elites are making big money while kicking the poor and middle class in the teeth , as well as maintaining grip on RC’s setting the ground work for controlling many more people that are all ready building fences around them selfs in there gated community’s , all of them sold fear of the sky falling and looking for someone that fits there description of a bogyman ,

        • Timmmy

          20 years ago? The you sound like a possible candidate to move to a state where the registry was created after your conviction, and a state Supreme Court has deemed anymore placed on it after the creation of it to be ex post facto, or retroactive punishment.

      • AJ

        “this country has become exactly what England was when people cut out from there”

        IMHO, SCOTUS is to blame for this, allowing such wide latitude to legislatures under the guise of “civil” laws. How do we know they legislature means for it to be regulatory and not punishment? Why, because they said so! Who would need further proof than that? So all any legislative body has to do is preface pretty much any law with some form of “this is regulatory” and the Courts go, “oh ok, nevermind us then. Carry on.” Then the harm and damage goes on for a number of years until the Courts then go, “wait a second, I think you fooled us.” Do the Courts learn from this? Nope. It’s like shampoo: lather, rinse, repeat.

        I would love for some sort of challenge to civil laws and ex post facto to come before SCOTUS. When you have both Thomas (furthest right) and Ginsburg (furthest left) saying Calder v Bull ( needs to be looked at again, there’s a problem waiting to be addressed. Calder was decided in 1798, which on one hand makes the argument that Justices so close in time to the Founding knew better than we do now what was intended in the Constitution. However, that overlooks the issue that legislatures no longer operate as they did in 1798, or 1789. The culture back then was different, “legislator” was not a full-time job, and every citizen had an inherent fear of Government intrusion and over-reach. There just wasn’t even consideration of some ideas that now seem commonplace. So it’s a bit of a stretch to keep Calder as gospel. Finally, the last time there was any significant Calder-based case (which happened to involve a sex offense), SCOTUS split 5-4, and outside the standard ideological lines (Rehnquist and Ginsburg together? Breyer and Scalia together?). See Calmer v Texas:

        • Chris F (@AJ)

          Interesting case.

          Again, I’m surprised that I started agreeing with the majority, but after reading the dissent, I’m starting to lean more that way.

          The dissent states:
          The mere fact that the new version of Article 38.07 makes some convictions easier to obtain cannot be enough to preclude its retroactive application. “Even though it may work to the disadvantage of a defendant, a procedural change is not ex post facto.”
          I am a firm believer that you can’t change the punishments or make something illegal that was once legal and charge them for past actions. I am having a harder time though to agree with the majority that ex-post-facto should also cover changes that allow for an easier conviction. It isn’t like the person committing the crime was thinking, “As long as I don’t leave any additional evidence, her testimony alone can’t convict me so I can keep doing this and not be charged”. The underlying crime was still a crime. Changing the rules of evidence in the future for a crime from the past might seem bad, but is it?

          OK, while typing this I am starting to switch back to the majority. I am thinking, if we go with the dissent, and allow future rules of evidence to change, then technically, they could allow the police to hook up to your car’s computer, and charge you with speeding even though back when you were speeding that wasn’t a legal method of gathering evidence, or you may not have committed the crime in the first place. Hmmm… I’m torn now. Maybe you can’t change the rules of what is allowed as evidence for a past crime.


        • Chris F

          In thinking more about this, I’ll reply to myself. 🙂

          I’m more with the majority now. While I can see where unwritten rules of evidence could be altered over time based on society’s understanding of what evidence is enough to justify conviction, this case in particular is about rules of evidence codified by legislature and very specific. If we allow that type of change retro-actively, then we interfere with the concept of “finality” and “general fairness”.

          Back to my example of speeding… If presently my car’s computer can’t get me convicted of speeding, and they can suddenly retro-actively allow that at any point in the future to be used against me in a past act, then my act of speeding, though illegal, will forever cause me grief for not knowing if evidence gathering will change to get me caught for a past act. I don’t think that should pass constitutional muster.

          Though..we have a BIG problem here too. What about DNA evidence? Past rapes and murders have had people convicted using methods that didn’t exist when they committed their crime and they will forever wonder if they will get caught. I guess the difference is, it wasn’t written by legislature that future scientific breakthroughs weren’t going to be used to convict anyone of past crimes within the statue of limitations for that crime.

          So in effect, does this mean only things written by legislature governing methods of evidence can’t be changed and used ex-post-facto, but unwritten things like scientific advances can be? In that case, just like DNA, my car computer could be used against me for long ago speeding violations unless legislature ever said it couldn’t. I guess I just need to destroy my car to be sure and stop forever fearing they’ll get me. 🙂

        • AJ

          @Chris F:
          I think you’re outsmarting yourself. In the case of DNA, it’s not that LE is now using a new way of collecting evidence; they are processing currently held evidence in a new way. That’s perfectly fine with me. To me, that’s no different than Lance Armstrong and his doping. WADA “convicted” him based on evidence (blood samples) given years ago, and technology at the time couldn’t detect the drugs in the blood. Yet it was still evidence, properly collected and held. Your speeding car analogy would be where the police have collected your car’s data, but aren’t able to make sense of the information. Later, when someone figures out a way to process the data, they are able see you sped. Another analogy would be with fingerprint fuming. There were all sorts of pieces of evidence in crime labs across the country that had undetectable fingerprints on them–until someone figured out fuming. Nothing about the evidence changed, not its existence, not its collection, nothing. What changed was LE’s ability to process it. No different than when LE first used a microscope to look at hair or carpet fibers they already had in possession, or a black light to look for bodily fluids on items in possession. For me, any changes to the “rules” after the fact are unconstitutional. The presence of that later-introduced element may be the one thing that (finally) makes it a deterrent for someone. That society or the Legislature didn’t think of it or couldn’t do it when I chose to commit whatever offense is neither my fault nor theirs, it’s just a fact. For me, I don’t care if it’s evidence, ML, or whatever, retroactive and retrospective laws are wrong. (As an aside, I wonder what kind of legal angle can be gained or lost by parsing retroactive vs retrospective. There must be a difference.)

        • Chris F (@AJ)

          I think a better way for the majority Justices to defend their ruling would be with more relevant examples. If legislature deemed it important enough to create a law that for evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt it must include certain elements, like their old example of requiring two witnesses VS one witness for treason, then the court needs to use the standard set by law at the time the crime was committed. To do otherwise doesn’t work in a system of ordered justice because prosecutors could purposely delay a case until the evidence law can be changed, and two people that committed the same crime at the same time could get a different result based on when it went to trial.

          If the dissenting justices got their way, then legislature changing Miranda rules or rules about the wife not being forced to testify would unjustly affect crimes committed before the changes. That doesn’t work.

          Had the legislature not made any law on the age of the witness, then the outcome would rely on the jury and judge using all of the facts in front of them to decide if the witness was viable, and would go with whatever the current unwritten standard made most sense to them. But, since the legislature thought it important enough to set the rules, those rules that are in effect at the time of the crime must be used.

          Anyway…I can’t stop overthinking it, and am kind of surprised the justices didn’t do as much thinking on either side, or at least didn’t write it down in the opinion if they did. It’s apparent some Justices don’t care about what is proper, but will just twist logic to make sure a particular accused person is free or in jail based on their own prejudice.

        • AJ

          @Chris F
          Maybe this will help with the Carmell case:

          Personally, I think it was ex post facto, as it reduced the burden of proof for the prosecution. The argument that it’s not ex post facto because they still need to establish reasonable doubt is moot…they used evidence that, when the offense happened, was deemed invalid. Applying your speeding case here doesn’t work so well, as the computer is not an eyewitness, it’s data. The more applicable example would be where you got a speeding ticket based on VASCAR*. In this case, both officers–the one in the airplane and the one who pulled you over–are necessary to convict. If you went to trial and the law had since changed to say only the airborne officer was needed to convict, it would be ex post facto.

          Should the evidence (testimony) in Carmell have been considered valid? Probably, but for some reason TX had decided against it. That is not the defendant’s fault, and comports with our justice system leaning towards letting guilty go free over convicting the innocent.

          In the end, the 5-4 Opinion from SCOTUS was a very weird mix of middle versus right-left ends. So don’t feel bad that you bounce back and forth on majority and dissent. I did too, for a while, but finally settled.

          *Funny story from a friend years back who was busted by VASCAR. He challenged, and had the airplane pilot/officer on the stand. My buddy had the pilot go through extensive detailed testimony of having watched his car, and only his car, from one side of the airplane, briefly losing it under the fuselage, then continuing to watch it on the other side. The pilot/officer on the stand was pretty full of himself, thinking my buddy was sinking himself. My buddy then pulled out the FAA regulations that say a pilot is required to be constantly vigilant to see and avoid other airplanes. Suddenly, the pilot on the stand wasn’t so cocky, realizing he had under oath stated he broke Federal regulations (i.e. law). The judge apparently saw that the pilot was going on, and promptly dismissed the case.

        • kind of living

          AJ ,, thank you for the much need info , about Calder v Bull , and giving the brake down on ex post , I had no idea that it was applied in 4 different ways I only knew what it said when talking about 2nd and 3rd , I have years of reading to catch up on , reading the comments help a lot

  3. DavidH

    Once again we witness that the federal government is behind all this outrage; a legal war needs to be declared on the feral government!

    • Tired Of Hiding

      You are correct. We need deep pockets instead of begging for change on the street corner to pay legal fees. Janice and her team are great BUT lets face it. We live in the most affluent state in the country and with many of the best constitutional law specialists and yet we are essentially ignored!

      Pretty hard to fight a war when you have sticks and stones and your opponent not only has guns but also makes up the rules of the war in their favor! This is a fight that should be fought and won in California if anywhere!

  4. AlexO

    I wish the state a nice and swift crumbling of its infrastructure.

  5. WY makes no sense

    Why is the grant money dwindling? What is the calculus behind such a weird amount for initial and recurring fees? This isn’t unheard of, but aren’t you paying the staff already anyway to be at work? Makes no sense…..

    • $$ dwindles, but why?

      Makes no sense just because the USG DOJ funding is dwindling. Realize you raise taxes when other taxes don’t bring in as much anymore. This is similar. Would be interesting to see the history of the DOJ funding for WY and the true trend. Is it really dwindling? If so, why and how much? Does the new funding source, sorry for that term, equate to the loss of funds? Where does one look this up? With the small amount of RCs in WY, this cannot be a meaningful source of funds annually.

  6. Registry Rage

    The word “deregister” is so dumb, overwrought and self-serving. The cops might as well be saying “deJewing..”

  7. Tired of this

    It’s a good way to encourage RC tourists to simply fly under the radar there, and a good way to encourage homeless and indigent RCs to abscond. After all, many or most of us Price Club members aren’t very well off financially to begin with, for obvious reasons. I wonder if those peabrains ever considered this.

    And I wonder how constitutional it could possibly be to force people to pay for a product or service they don’t want under penalty of law.

  8. Stephen

    So Anyone coming into Wyoming to Campaign for someone must pay to do it.

  9. David

    Wow! “Price Club” memberships are pretty damned expensive!! 😠 I guess we can’t travel freely if we can’t afford to pay these fees. I hope someone sues the sh#t out of Wyoming!

    • AlexO

      I fully expect this. I can’t imagine this is legal. At least not for those no longer on supervision.

  10. JohnDoeUtah

    I believe this approach is crossing the line from Administrative to Punitive.

    In Utah, they have fees, but you cannot be in a FTR for failing to pay the fees. $125 goes to the state, and the local PD gets $25 annually. If you fail to pay the state, they take your tax return and send you to collections (credit report). However, it is easy to challenge it because they go through a third party collection agency, and they are horrible at responding to investigations from the Credit Reporting Agencies. If you refuse to pay the local PD the process it much the same, but by law they still have to register you.

    One city here tried to make a Misdemeanor for FTR, which included failure to pay the fee, and tried to refuse registering you if you didn’t pay. That was quickly resolved prior to having to sue.

    IMO, the fee are FINES! Whether failure to pay includes jail or not. However, it makes it VERY VERY similar to probation/parole if you have to pay fees and can have your freedom taken it you fail to pay. It operates in the same manner as a parole revocation for failure to pay supervision fees, but is worse because it is a crime to not pay instead of just a parole violation. So, I would surmise that it is both punitive in intent and effect.

    We have had courts say that the fees are not punishment, but that law centered around that case did not include jail time for failure to pay. Indigence aside, it again operates like parole. You are paying for your freedom.

  11. kind of living

    they need to stick this law where the sun don’t shine , Jacksons hole Wyoming

    • AJ

      Years ago, whenever VP Cheney would go home to WY, he would fly into Jackson Hole. A friend of mine in Government service who had reason and place to know said the phrase, “Dick’s in the Hole,” became common to indicate where the Veep was. 🙂

  12. AJ

    Since apparently the State is free to replace “dried up” funding by increasing the burden on those obligated to abide by the program, what’s to stop the State from completely de-funding it and making the RCs pay for 100% of it? From their actions, there would seem to be no difference, yet I’m guessing a Court may think otherwise. Would SCOTUS find that to be rational and public-safety related? Perhaps, given Roberts’ twisted logic in making the Obamacare mandate a tax. (Some of the worst jurisprudence in recent memory.)

    Interesting, too, that the article calls it supervision. Hmm, what else associated with the law enforcement and criminal justice is called supervision…’s on the tip of my tongue. Starts with p, I think…

  13. It doesn't work

    The Director of the department “creates” an $87k year “title” for his political donors son. The secretary asks if her daughter can “apply” for a job. They department needs office supplies so they overpay because the field supervisors uncle owns a business. The lead I.T. guy is sleeping with a female officer and prodctivity is way down because the office flirting and kissing is getting worse. Been there, Done that. Seen it all in local government. Oh, and people start getting “official” cars to take home. Yep, seen it.

  14. Q

    Sounds more like a scam than anything else.

  15. G4Change

    How can this be legal/constitutional????????

    This is a FINE! It’s not a fee! A fee is what you pay for something that is optional. If you decided against the product or service, you don’t pay the fee. But, you don’t go to jail.

    THIS IS A FINE and it is retroactive!!! Why do I keep reading about this happening in more and more places???

    Will CA be next????

  16. Harry

    Where are you WY-ACLU?

  17. FRegistryTerrorists

    There are a lot of good comments here. It is a shame that they are not also posted at the actual source article. That is where people would see them. I think it would be quite good if every single time a “s*x offender” BS article is posted that 1,000+ comments would be posted very quickly opposing it. The un-American scum bags that support the SORs need to see that they are in a war that they are losing.

    I posted the comment after this paragraph at the source article. But it is not there now. I guess the crybabies removed it. They don’t care for facts and reality, they love their Registry Fantasyland.


    The criminal regime of Wyoming should be sued for this ASAP. And for that matter, they should be sued for anything possible. Simply because they are a criminal regime.

    Today, there are no informed, intelligent, moral, un-biased Americans who support the S*x Offender Registries (SORs). Experts never did. There are no people who are serious about public safety or protecting people who support the SORs. Therefore, we should pull ALL support from any organizations, governments, or people who do support the SORs. The support should be given to the informed and moral.

    We all have to ask these big government criminal regimes – where are the rest of your Registries? If the SORs are so glorious, where are the rest of them? There are no legitimate excuses to not have millions of Americans listed on a big government Registry. And no American will support that.

    The good news is that the SORs are negligibly beneficial and if we get rid of them, all U.S. citizens will be safer and better off.

    Given that the SORs are immoral and un-American, any family that is listed on one should do everything that is legally possible to ensure the SORs are neutralized and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. They should also do anything legally, every single day, to retaliate for the mere existence of the SORs. Every single day.

    These SORs “fees” are nothing but pure theft. People who are stolen from should retaliate by any legal means that costs the criminal regime an amount that is 12 times what was stolen. If the initial “fee” is $150, then the criminal regime should be cost $1,800. It is much, much easier to do than a normal American would think. Think about it. Treat it as work that must be done. Put effort into it. Break no laws, but do it. Every time.

    Do not support the criminal regimes. Do not support their law enforcement criminals. Time to run them out of America.

    • Timmr

      Done. Although I didn’t really want to subscribe to that paper. Then again I love the real Teton area. Would’t mind finding out what she’s doing. It maybe will bring back some pleasant memories of that area. I have a lot of sacred memories of those mountains. If I didn’t say something, I am letting these registry goons stamp all over my memories.

      • FRegistryTerrorists

        “Registry goons” is a great description. We all need to think of them as thieves who are attempting to steal our lives and the lives of our families. They are harassing terrorists.

        I tried to re-post my comment again and the site responded that I’ve been banned from posting! So funny. I truly don’t see anything wrong with what I said. I guess I hurt their weak little feelings. They’d rather stay in Registry Fantasyland and believe it’s all wonderful. “Registry Snowflakes” is a good name for them.

        • Moderator

          Obviously you are not *banned* from posting on this web site. However, we declined to publish one of your comments, as it did not adhere to our discussion guidelines (civil and courteous) – including calls to violence. You specifically were provided a detailed explanation as to the reasons – in excess of our guidelines and resources. If this does not meet with your approval, you are always free to take your communication needs elsewhere – beyond this private and volunteer-run discussion board. In the future, we would also appreciate not being called names. Any further discussion please address to the email provided. For the time being… ***Moderator***

        • AJ

          Thank you to all the unseen volunteers supporting our rants, raves, and the occasional beneficial comment. 🙂

  18. Stephen

    One of the Supreme Court Judges once said that the states can probably Charge a small fee.
    This was back in the 2003 ruling. I don’t think the fee will be thrown out, just maybe cut back.
    Their thinking will be we caused the problem, and Dogs and cars pay Reg fees.

    • AlexO

      But those are a choice (just like being a Price Club member). People who can’t afford those fees either don’t have those things or have them illegally.

  19. WY co-culpable laws

    Read that anyone who travels with an RC to and through WY must know the laws too or they can be brought to justice with charges if the RC fails the law. Just like that wife in PA the cops said had to know the laws pertaining to her almost married to RC husband.

    You might as well make everyone who rides with someone that’s speeding culpable too for not having them slow down by using any force necessary.

  20. In WY, Sex offenders helping pay for record keeping

    In Wyoming, Sex offenders helping pay for record keeping

    They want their money and want it from everything!

Leave a Reply

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 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *