ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments August 2017

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of August 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Mike R— Good Luck on Tuesday.

mike r: Okay, I finally put my nose to the grindstone and went over your doc. I’ve posted a PDF of it for you (and the whole world) to download at The link and doc will expire on Monday, August 28, so I hope you get it soon. (If not, I can do it again.)

I apologize for my editorial style changing between start and finish. That’s what happens between late-night and midday!

Well done, brother, and I hope it all goes well.

P.S. There must be something wrong with me, because at one point I was wishing you had provided a version suitable for court filing. I’ve read so many legal documents, I’m starting to prefer the format! 8)

Good deal AJ. I really appreciate your hard work. I know from experience that doing this type of editing can be very demanding. I will be sure to download tomorrow and make those changes. I also know what you mean about the formatting, I just couldn’t get it to format correctly when I copied and pasted on that site.

AJ, I cannot access the Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. in Snyder. Any help???? I accessed the Scotus Blog and there is no link to the brief you mention. It’s there but there’s no link…

@mike r:
Yeah, it appears the USSG amicus has been removed, at least from there. No worries, I’ve uploaded it, as well as the District Court decision (below the 6th Appeals) and one other Snyder doc. ( These files will expire on the 31st.

BTW, this “gofile” website is pretty darned handy. Completely anonymous, free file posting and sharing, with no need to supply anything about yourself!

Wow frigging ten hours later. Well I made all the changes you suggested AJ.. Very good calls and I appreciate all the hard work and time you put into that. Lost the C&U and the involuntary/slavery part too . I totally agree with your analysis.

@Mike R

For claim 5 (Substantive) point 22, the code for the 2008 law requiring passports to be revoked for those committing sex tourism is:

Title 22 U.S. Code § 212a – Restriction of passports for sex tourism

I’m not done reading AJ’s edits, but so far what he did looks great!

@Mike R and @AJ

I’ve finished AJ”s edits and agree. The sections he wants removed don’t hurt your chances of success if removed and allow the court to focus more on the big issues that are hard to strike down.

Another thing to help in case you forgot your source like AJ mentioned:

Separation of Powers/Bill of Attainder

Line 18: The source for much of this claim is:

Pepperdine Law Review 4-20-2010 Volume 37, Issue 4, Article 5

Are Bills of Attainder the New Currency?
Challenging the Constitutionality of Sex Offender
Regulations that Inflict Punishment Without the
“Safeguard of a Judicial Trial”
by Joel A. Sherwin

Please post your final edit as soon as you can!

Oh man I love this Gofile site..It shows my formatting and the works so when I get it completely revised tomorrow probably I will post it for all to see. You guys sure I should just let everyone have access to this? After all we put in the work and most of these guys have been doing nothing but bashing my effort and me personally..If either one of you, Chris or AJ say no I shouldn’t I’m not going to and I’ll send you the link privately somehow…It’s your guy’s call man because you put in a helllla lot of work just like me..If you say post it I’ll post it otherwise these other guys can you know*&^^$%$%^off. Other then the few others that have encouraged and helped in anyway I’ll be happy to help them anyway I can…….

I definitely think you should release it to all.

After all, the efforts that went into it go far beyond just me, AJ, and the others here that have contributed in some ways. The efforts are also all of the previous cases and research papers that we took information from as well as the admins and organizers of this web site. Some of our information was gathered from previous failures, and if somehow you releasing this to everyone spreads to helping one of those that failed, then their original failure but attempt at trying to fight the system wasn’t for nothing.

@mike r:
I don’t see there being a problem with posting it to gofile. You’ve already had it posted to your site for all to see anyway. Posting it to gofile lets you make and keep formatting for us to see, use, and suggest for editing.

I sent my doc as a PDF for flattening and size purposes, keeping posts shorter on here, and having editorial comments stand out better. I think I’d stay away from letting the whole world have on-line editing capabilities. Too many fingers in there will get confusing…anonymous fingers, at that! That aside, I have yet to stumble across any dishonorable person on here. Opinions may differ, tempers may rise, and words may fly, but there remains a respect among us all on here, or so I feel. The problem would arise from some nefarious unknown who happens to wander onto this site, sees the gofile link and post, and makes unwanted edits.

Ok you guys once again I agree with every thing you have stated..One of my major concerns is the nefarious or unskilled editing of this doc and it getting submitted to a court in a flawed form before we have a chance to do it ourselves…I’m filing tomorrow or as soon as I complete it in the next couple of days since I have a ton of homework and obligations I must address this week….But If you guys say post it so be it…..I want people to be able to edit it and use it but I don’t want anyone to make mistakes that could jeopardize our chances in future litigation…………So when I post this I want anyone that wants to file this especially in state court, since I am filing in federal so soon that my case will come before any others, but if you modify this to fit your situation and so that it reflects state issues and our state constitution please come on here and discuss and collaborate before filing it …That’s all I ask…..I have about 600 or 700 hours in this (or more) over the last two or three years (that’s not including the time that Chris and AJ, and all the others who contributed to this put in) so I don’t think that is to much to ask that you collaborate with us before you file it in your particular case….

Damnnn dude you can enable editing and the works. Anyone who gets this will be able to tweek it and make minor adjustments adding their particular situations and info and bam, go file it….Hmmmmi

I would like to read it once the edits are done, have read much of your work online and encouraged you along the way. I am certainly interested in the substantive due process argument since we are all individuals as stated by the constitution and should not be lumped together as one.

Alight…Here it is.. I put an expiration date for the 30th…If you guys see any changes that need to be made let me know by tomorrow because I’m filing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I fixed that last paragraph where it stated Declaratory and/or Injunction and any known/unknown legislation….Removed /or removed known/unknown………

Actually I fixed every where it stated and/or and changed it to just and where needed…also removed all known/unknown from the entire doc so disregard those….

I’ll read more tomorrow, but to start with:

#42 – You left in the Cruel & Unusual, Involuntary Servitude and Slavery parts even though those were removed from below. At least, I assume they were removed but haven’t gotten that far yet.

It really looks great, and I can’t wait to finish reading it.

@mike r:
I downloaded it, and will give it another good look-through. I have opened it and am strangely comforted by that court-required formatting. 🙂 (It does make for nicer, easier, marking and editing if printed out.)

Much nicer hey AJ??Actually court ready format, nothing left but a little touch up maybe and file it…and you assumed right CaU no servtude issues cluttering it up..much cleaner and as the courts would say much more “cognizable”..I will do a search for CaU ane servitude and delete..look forward to your comments..

I just found a great resource for Due Process citations of SCOTUS cases.

Unfortunately, it’s on Facebook and since many on here can’t use Facebook, just ask and if the moderators don’t mind I’ll post all 28 of them here or if someone can put them on another web page that would be great.

Here are a few examples of my favorites that pertain to us:

1. When a person of ordinary intelligence does not receive fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden, prosecution for such conduct deprives him of due process. U.S. v. Nevers, 7 F.3d 59 (9th Cir. 1993)
5. Due process of law is violated when government vindictively attempts to penalize a person for exercising protected statutory or constitutional rights. U.S. v. Conkins, 987 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1993)
6. Prosecution of Citizen who is unaware of any wrongdoing for “wholly passive conduct” violates due process. U.S. v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127 (5th Cir. 1995)
7. For the government to punish a person because he had done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort. U.S. v. Guthrie, 789 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1986)

@Mike R

I’ve read through it once, and didn’t see anything major wrong. I’ll try to re-read it as I can. I think it’s the best filing I’ve seen even if it still has some repetition and flow issues.

I wasn’t able to find in your filing a reference to the drop in housing value to those close to a sex offender. You may want to add that into your 1st challenge to reputation:

Being on the registry draws the scorn of nearby residents due to the fact that home values drop as much as 12 percent within a tenth of a mile, based on a 2008 report As the modern technology of smartphones makes it even easier to instantly identify a sex offender’s residence, this percentage drop of home values is highly likely to increase over those 2008 estimates.

Mike – I offer these comments from my review of your doc. Mostly little clean up details but rather offer them up to you to consider instead of not. GREAT DOCUMENT OVERALL!! NICE WORK BY YOU AND YOUR ADMIN STAFF (@Chris F, AJ, et al)

Overall, use law enforcement and not police since not all jurisdictions have police, but maybe sheriff department, etc

Overall, is there a preferred document font and font size for this doc?

Overall, you mention lines and their numbers, but don’t see any

Are the reports referenced the latest? Want to avoid looking like cherry picking data sets I would think

Overall, some of the longer lists need semicolons and not commas. When to use a semicolon instead of a comma “If the series is long and complex or any one element has a comma within it, separate each element of the series with a semicolon rather than a comma.”

Paragraph 17, use “restricted” not restrictive in the first sentence

Paragraph 34, Gulf, not gulf, of Mexico

Paragraph 69 Protectable, not protectible

Paragraph 93, should you add “substantive” to due process since that seems to be the key due process element being called for in other courts to hit upon and you reference later?

Paragraph 97, who, not whom and lives, not life’s

Paragraph 149, little v., not big V in Packhingham citation

Paragraph 151, lines 1771-172 makes no sense, meant 1771-1772 or 171-172 perhaps?

Paragraph 166, The full, not the full report

Paragraph 171, see, not see , (spacing)

Paragraph 229, appears not appear

Paragraph 248, World Wide Web or Internet, not World Wide Internet and cite Packingham decision and who said that it is the new public square (which I think is where this comes from?)

Paragraph 264, Attorney, not Attornet Bonnie

Paragraph 287, Those moments, not That moments

Paragraph 341, process which, not process. which

I, too, thought protectible was wrong, but then I did some research. It’s a word SCOTUS likes to use, and if Mike was quoting them, should continue to use it. (

Huh, learn something new everyday. ProtectIBLE it is! Just will be interesting to see if the CA Fed Judge knows it.

Yes, Alex, I will take SCOTUS words for $1000

Yeah, I learned it just this morning. Just like a learned about a year ago that the proper word for living together is “cohabit,” not “cohabitate.” Just when I thought I’d mastered this mother tongue, too…! (j/k) 🙂

Hey I hope if your going to take this to the CA courts you let us see what you do to it and collaborate with us on here…….We only get one chance with this crap in state and federal so it’s really important to all of us , as it is to you I’m sure, especially to me with all my hundreds (if not a thousand or more) hours in it and I am sure Chris and AJ would like to see it and maybe make suggestions or participate in some kind of collaboration on whatever you do with it…

I don’t know Chris that just seems a little irrelevant to me or this case just as the cost of the registry was from the Justice Institute. However, after mulling it around a little I have found a way to relate to me and how it is causing me harm.How does something like the following sound???

It is oppressive in that if I purchase a home that home will automatically lose value (as much as 12%)as soon as that address is used for registration and is added to the publicly accessible sex offender website. Therefore, the laws are oppressing (and unequally compared to other citizens not in the effected zones) my pecuniary interest. Being on the registry draws the scorn of nearby residents due to the fact that home values drop as much as 12 percent within a tenth of a mile, based on a 2008 report As the modern technology of smartphones makes it even easier to instantly identify a sex offender’s residence, this percentage drop of home values is highly likely to increase over those 2008 estimates.

Wow I just looked at the definition of oppression and check it out if you haven’t already.

prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
“a region shattered by oppression and killing”
synonyms: persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
synonyms: persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
mental pressure or distress.
“her mood had initially been alarm and a sense of oppression”
Legal Definition…
Law dictionary.
The misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inllicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury. 1 Russ. Crimes, 297; Steph. Dig. Crim. Law, 71. See U. S. v. Deaver (D. C.) 14 Fed. 597.

Law Dictionary: What is OPPRESSION? definition of OPPRESSION (Black’s Law Dictionary)
According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1993), oppression is the “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power esp. by the imposition of burdens; esp. the unlawful, excessive or corrupt exercise of power other than by extortion by any public officer so as to harm anyone in his rights, person, or property while purporting to act under color of governmental authority”.

@mike r:
I’m not a fan of adding the property-value argument. To me, it clouds the issue and in no way affects a fundamental right or liberty interest. Besides, there are any number of things that may affect one’s property values. New power lines installed near by, blighted homes, repeated police activity to homes, etc., would all have a similar (though perhaps lesser) effect.

I agree, it’s similar to the argument about how much the registry costs.

Of course the effect upon property values is a fundamental liberty interest. It can readily by argued as a government taking of the value of a home. That there are other influences upon property values does not in any way cloud the very real and tangible effect the presence of Registrants has upon them.

Further, as I just pointed out in another post, this is one of the few collateral consequences of the Registry that affects neighbors rather than the Registrant himself (see that post for why it does not really affect the Registrant). This makes it an important element in any thoroughgoing argument against Registration although probably not in Mike’s lawsuit.

But would this feed the argument for residential restrictions based upon maximizing property values and also the argument of protecting some housing values with government residential restricted areas creating a Equal Protection disagreement for home owners?

There is no doubt that maintaining property values is one of the motivations behind residential restrictions. The Registry is a perfect example of government distortion of the marketplace, a marketplace in which lots of non-Registrants participate and in which many of those respond to a public Registry by cleverly lobbying government to keep Registrants out of their neighborhoods. No intelligent person really believes that the proximity of a school or a bus stop to the house of a sex offender represents a salient and legitimate concern rather, they know that by pretending to believe that it does effectively bars sex offenders from their community and preserves their own property values.

The government is creating market “winners” and “losers” without creating actual value, instead only eroding value of particular properties relative to others with the stroke of a very arbitrary pen.

Hmmmmm, so, what I am hearing is by local governments passing potentially unconstitutional residential restrictions, they are violating Equal Protection Clause (EPC) by creating market winners and losers through unintentional housing market value manipulation based upon favorable locations, e.g. schools, which are always a top thing to seek when house buying?

If so, then that would seem to be an argument pitting neighborhood v neighborhood and continuing to perpetuate the unfounded RC fear and hysteria through the need for residential restrictions? Yes? A court action waiting to happen perhaps based upon this premise?

To reinforce this then would be for an RC or two or three go into the next residential restriction topic at the local government entity meeting and stir up the masses informing the folks of the market manipulation the local government is doing? As residential restrictions are lessened, thankfully, those who are now open areas to live in would pitch a fit about declining values to the local government and against those who are in the restricted area; thus encouraging the government either to keep the restriction in place as is (and potentially being sued costing $$$ while violating the EPC/Constitution) or shrinking it altogether to nearly zero, if not zero, to come in compliance with the EPC/Constitution and avoiding a lawsuit. I don’t know if it’d reach a fever pitch, but surely some blood pressure would rise.

Does the thinking of if it saves one child get tossed aside when it hits the wallet/pocketbook in the end?


Does this all make sense?

Yes, that makes sense provided we keep in mind that this would be a legal action to be brought by non-Registrants whose property values are affected (as a matter of standing).

But apart from legal actions it’s also a good shit-stirring point to try to cultivate amongst those non-Registrants.

“Of course the effect upon property values is a fundamental liberty interest.”
I must have missed this one in the Constitution and in SCOTUS rulings. I would love to see you try to argue this being a fundamental right or a liberty interest. It may affect your pocketbook, but big deal (legally). SCOTUS has previously ruled there is no right to an occupation, which certainly affects one’s pocketbook. So I guess the value of one’s home is a liberty interest, but being able to hold down a job isn’t? Sure.

“It can readily by argued as a government taking of the value of a home.”
Right, because the government compelled me to commit an offense, and the government compelled me to live where I do. An offender voluntarily makes himself/herself an offender. Again, I’d love to see you argue to a court how your voluntary and willful action rises to a taking under the 5th Amendment.

“[T]his is one of the few collateral consequences of the Registry that affects neighbors rather than the Registrant himself.”
So? Since when has government shown any interest or concern about *any* collateral consequences?

Since when is the Bill of Rights a comprehensive laundry list detailing what the government can and cannot do to you? Fortunately, that is not how it works and also fortunately legal issues get revisited all the time by the Supreme Court.

Regardless, the question of REGISTRANTS bringing a court case premised on these assertions of rights is not what I was referring to. I was talking about non-Registrants’ property values if you had read my earlier comments. Which renders all of this a bit silly:

“Right, because the government compelled me to commit an offense, and the government compelled me to live where I do. An offender voluntarily makes himself/herself an offender. Again, I’d love to see you argue to a court how your voluntary and willful action rises to a taking under the 5th Amendment.”

Not only silly for missing my point but seriously obtuse to the legitimate constitutional interests of ex post facto which WOULD come into play if the party were a Registrant although I just don’t really see how Registrants’ property values are diminished by their own presence in the community, only non-Registrants’.

As for “the government compelled me to live where I do.” Well, the government DOES compel many of us to live where we do through the use of residential restrictions. When we adopt the callous “we bathe gleefully in your tears” kind of dismissiveness with which we are all too familiar coming from the garden-variety psychopaths, we demonstrate a deficit in consciousness, too.

This movement needs to be as much about raising our own consciousness as it is others’.

“Since when is the Bill of Rights a comprehensive laundry list detailing what the government can and cannot do to you? Fortunately, that is not how it works and also fortunately legal issues get revisited all the time by the Supreme Court.”
Nowhere in my post did I even mention the Bill of Rights. I said Constitution and SCOTUS case law. Nor did I say anything about SCOTUS ever revisiting or changing course on anything. You stated, “of course” there is a fundamental liberty interest. I was–and am–curious from where this “of course” certainty arises or upon what constitutional or case law (SCOTUS or otherwise) it rests. If it’s readily apparent (“of course!”), it should be quite easy to point to cases that would support your statement, yet you still haven’t provided any. Also, to my knowledge there are “fundamental rights” and there are “liberty interests,” but “fundamental liberty interest” is something with which I’m unfamiliar. Perhaps you could explain what that is. Or maybe I should just go with “of course” there’s such a thing as “fundamental liberty interest.” You do get a gold star for effort on that diversionary “Bill of Rights” tripe, though.

“I just don’t really see how Registrants’ property values are diminished by their own presence in the community, only non-Registrants’.”
Talk about being “seriously obtuse”! An RC can *only* experience the negative effects an RC’s presence has on home values, as the moment s/he moves in, wherever s/he moves, *all* values go down due to an RC’s presence. Or perhaps RCs have property-value-resistant bubbles around their homes, resulting in all homes but that of the RC losing property value. Or even better, maybe there’s some sort of “Schroedinger’s RC” out there! Any positive effect on home values happens only after the RC is removed from the locale. It would be the buyer of the RC’s home, who buys at “RC-present pricing”, and the neighbors who benefit.

“Well, the government DOES compel many of us to live where we do through the use of residential restrictions.”
You seem to understand the words “compel” and “restrict” as synonyms. Just because the Government says I cannot do “A”, does not mean they are compelling me to do “!A”. Logic 101.

“Nowhere in my post did I even mention the Bill of Rights. I said Constitution and SCOTUS case law.”

Liberties are secured and government’s powers are constrained by the Bill of Rights so you didn’t have to mention it in order for me to correctly refer to it as being an affirmation of our liberty. Say constitution, then. It doesn’t matter. Stop being captious.

“Nor did I say anything about SCOTUS ever revisiting or changing course on anything.”

You did say this: “SCOTUS has previously ruled there is no right to an occupation, which certainly affects one’s pocketbook. ” And that, as well as the other SCOTUS-related conversation-stoppers you used (” So I guess the value of one’s home is a liberty interest, but being able to hold down a job isn’t? Sure.”) is what I was referring to by noting that SCOTUS can get it wrong yet manage to reexamine the issues in subsequent cases. The Court is dynamic. Justices die and some even change their minds over the years, like Kennedy.

Let’s not confuse previous rulings and failures to uphold rights with the validity of arguments to assert them, as you are doing. I think that we can all agree that SCOTUS has, at times, misinterpreted the Constitution and so we must never assume that what it considers to be Constitutional or not does not preclude us from forming arguments which assert those rights. After all, what are we doing here?

Then you go off again down this peculiar hole of asserting that the Registrant’s property is devalued by the fact of his residence in the community. Please try to do a better job of telling me how that happens (without simply asserting that it does) because you don’t seem to be grasping the nettle and certainly not acknowledging the mechanics of what event triggers which devaluation of which property. Please do tell me how “all” property values go down, including the Registrant’s. Again, it’s so obviously the neighbor’s properties that get devalued when the Registrant moves in and restored when he moves away. Any buyer with half a brain will know that the value of the Registrant’s property will remain the same while his neighbors will recover from the Registrant devaluation. It is an interesting economics dilemma: “Do I buy the neighbor’s house at a discount because it’s cheaper than the Registrant’s yet know that I will have a Registrant-neighbor or do I buy the Registrant’s house at market rates but get rid of the Registrant from the neighborhood?”

“Schroedinger’s RC”? Yeah, you’re too clever by half. You know something about quantum mechanics yet the example still doesn’t help you to make your easily dismissed point.

Finally, back to your (I’m sure, genuinely) curious request that I state the Constitutional basis for alleging that the state’s devaluations of property consequent to the Registry amounts to a taking, I offer the Fifth Amendment with which you are already familiar: “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

You can agree or disagree that my argument can find support from the Fifth but I say that it does and many would agree with me and many others won’t. Much of what we talk about here are assertions of rights and our interpretations. Citing precedent does not, by itself, undercut the validity of arguments. The Court changes and within the Court there is, obviously, disagreement. They vote. Noting past decisions/votes and imagining that they are forever fixed is not a good counter-argument to an assertion of rights.

This is getting tiresome, by the way and the moderator will very soon swoop in to shut us down so I’m inclined to give you the last word – which I know means so much to you –
unless you say something that simply demands a response. 🙂

“Liberties are secured and government’s powers are constrained by the Bill of Rights so you didn’t have to mention it in order for me to correctly refer to it as being an affirmation of our liberty.”
Oh really? Where in the Bill of Rights is the ex post facto prohibition? Where in the Bill of Rights is the Bill of Attainder prohibition? Where in the Bill of Rights is the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Where in the Bill of Rights is the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Where in the Bill of Rights are the individual States compelled to provide Due Process?

Yeah, I’ll keep saying Constitution, because it does indeed matter.

As to the Takings Clause, I’m well aware of where it’s found in the Constitution. Its existence in general does not mean it applies to this case specifically. A takings argument, threaded through and wholly deriving from the criminal activity of a citizen, is, at best, tenuous.

P.S. Still waiting on that “fundamental liberty interest” definition.

Ok guys, as two of the most intelligent and best at researching issues that we have actively participating, I would like to request that you both put you differences aside and re-focus on the recent issues. 🙂

My usual research time is limited due to kids school starting, and I would love to hear some more about the Colorado impact and especially if someone can find what arguments the lawyer used and how we, and Mike R, can use it.

Hope your Labor Day weekends are going well!

Still waiting for that property valuation analysis.

See these posts where the author discusses, and in no way refutes, disputes, or dismisses, Registrants’ effects on property values: (“Your neighbors’ property values certainly will drop”) (“the very real and tangible effect the presence of Registrants has upon them.”) (“government is…only eroding value of particular properties”) (“discounted/Registrant-degraded market value of their property” & “SO discounted prices.”) (“non-Registrants whose property values are affected”)

So, how about those Clauses? Find them in the Bill of Rights yet?
How about that explanation of “fundamental liberty interest”? Or should I just expect more deflection and redirection?

As to your takings argument (BTW, the 5th Amendment doesn’t apply to the individual States in regards to takings), I refer you to Knox v Lee (affirmed in Omnia Commercial Co. v US and PA Coal Co. v Mahon “[The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment] has always been understood as referring only to a direct appropriation, and not to consequential injuries resulting from the exercise of lawful power. It has never been supposed to have any bearing upon or to inhibit laws that indirectly work harm and loss to individuals.”

SCOTUS went on to say, “A new tariff, an embargo, a draft, or a war may inevitably bring upon individuals great losses — may indeed render valuable property almost valueless. They may destroy the worth of contracts. But whoever supposed that because of this, a tariff could not be changed, or a nonintercourse act or an embargo be enacted, or a war be declared?”

Perhaps those cases are too old for your liking or you think the Court has somewhere changed course on Takings. If so, I suggest Murr v WI ( It’s slightly more recent.

Mike, there is no reason why your property would lose any value at all. Your neighbors’ property values certainly will drop but, if you’re the only Registrant in the neighborhood, then there is no reason for someone to devalue YOUR property since any sale by you of the property would involve you LEAVING the neighborhood. Why should it be devalued?

Indeed, one can easily argue that the value of your house should be ABOVE market rates given incentives your neighbors would have to buy you out to be rid of you and the negative effect upon their own property values.

The point is, property values may be the only collateral consequence of the Registry that takes a toll on neighbors of Registrants rather than the Registrant him/herself.

I say, enjoy it. Let them lobby against the Registry if it bothers them so much.

Chances are, they may not even know it either until they go to sell. That is market property value, not assessed property value for tax purposes too if I understand correctly.

Ha! Yes, that does raise the whole property tax issue, doesn’t it? I would imagine that there have already been homeowners arguing with jurisdictions about assessed values when they know that those do not match the discounted/Registrant-degraded market value of their property.

I have argued, some years ago, and only half-jokingly, that sex offenders should buy properties in neighborhoods, the first one of which is at market value and subsequent ones at SO discounted prices. Then sell all, starting with their registered home, at full market value.

Damn that’s a helllll of an idea you just stated…..I wonder if we could actually get investors to take that bait and run with it. tell them something like “If you buy me my house that I can own out right I will move in and you can then purchase the surrounding homes for discounted prices and then, bam, I’ll move out into the next one that you buy in a different neighborhood, I move in, you buy surrounding houses, I move out and into the next neighborhood and so on and so on…” Wow you maybe on to something there….I actually know a multimillionaire that might actually be willing to do it if I can prove to him that it will work. I worked at a wrecking yard for him for over five years and he is a scandalous person and will lie cheat or steal if it will make him a profit…I seen him set on almost $2million at a time in smashed cars that I recycled for like 6 months and sell when the price of steel went up. Hmmm interesting outside of the box thinking there,I like it……..

In my experience, assessed values never are the same as market values, but usually lower always; thus creating a lower tax bill. I’d think an RC in the area could depress market value of homes, not the assessed value of a home using a government formula.

I am really glad to see that fix it list get smaller and smaller. I’m on it, see anything else let me know, I will wait till Thurs. to file to give you guys more time. If you have that cite for Packingham post it or I’ll look for it and post when I find it. I still have a ton of homework due tomorrow.

@mike r:
I’m picking through it still, but should have it done by tonight (Wed). I’ve mostly added commas where they help break of word flow. Looking good!

12 point font Times New Roman……

Texas Voices confirmed that a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI with SCOTUS was filed and hoping to be accepted on the Residency Restriction issue in Lewisville TX.

I know I’ve been very vocal about my displeasure with the decision of the lawyer to focus on only Procedural Due Process instead of Substantive, but it sounds like they have a good argument anyway. Either SCOTUS will realize Connecticut Department of Public Safety V Doe 2003 is a completely different situation and take the case, or they’ll use the excuse that it’s similar enough they don’t want to entertain another Procedural Due Process case on a similar subject.

I’ve seen the brief and if I find it in the public somewhere I’ll link to it here in General.

Essentially, Con DPS V Doe failed because being on the registry was based solely on committing a particular sexual crime and giving someone a trial to see if they were dangerous isn’t an issue because danger was not implied. With the Lewisville residency restriction, the state claims the same thing, that no trial is needed because it is based on the past crime. The difference though, is that the state is inferring dangerousness in the act of restricting where they live, so before depriving someone of liberty there should be some process. The Texas courts didn’t care though.

It’s a tough one. I don’t understand why SCOTUS didn’t see it as depriving someone of the liberty interest to privacy and reputation to put them on a list based solely on crime and not determine if they are actually dangerous and need their lives ruined by a public shaming list. Perhaps it was because, back then, they all believed in the false 80% recidivism rate that was “frightening and high”. If so, maybe they will take this case to fix that big error and horrible lack of fact checking and due diligence.

Well since Conn v dept. we have had Bani v Hawaii and Constantine which determined that Reputation is in fact a fundamental right and actually outline when that right was violated by stated that stigma alone was insufficient that you have to have the stigma plus standard. The right to reputation has always been my choice to include in a suit and luckily my suit has it… Can’t wait to get it in front of a judge….

Well, in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most backwards and most conservative court of appeals in the country, the court has ruled the following arguements against residency restrictions be dismissed with prejudice for someone not on parole or not on supervision and where a residency ordinance was adopted after a person committed a sex crime: the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article 1, Section 10 to the United States Constitution; the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment; the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; any civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So in Texas, LA and MS these constitutional issues can never be brought up again leaves little other arguements left to fight residency restrictions. The federal courts in these states will just point to the 5th Circuit Court Opinion and throw out the case if these arguements are used. If a federal court does not throw out the case and says it is unconstitutional, the city or state who adopted the law will appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals who will then throw out the case due to its prior issued opinion.

So if anyone in these states not on parole and not on supervision is filing a new lawsuit over a residency restriction ordinance or law adopted after the sex crime was committed, they better have a different constitutional arguement.

So people in these states really need the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

FYI – the TX state constitution bans the government from adopting expo facto civil laws. The registry and all its sh_t has been ruled civil. Yet a TX court has ruled that it is legal for the state to adopt expo fact laws for sex offenders. Of course the TX judges who made this decision are elected…the constitution does not matter, just the chance to be re-elected…


Thank you for that info. I was not aware it was that bad here.

Are there some cases I could look at so that I can see the arguments presented and how the judges came to those conclusions?

I did think that Texas was one of the few states that did not allow ANY ex-post facto laws, including civil, so am curious what kind of reasoning they used to justify it.

No wonder so many Texas issues end up going to SCOTUS compared to other states.

It’s probably time for a full blown Bill of Attainder challenge here. I would include not only all the laws against sex offenders and the marking of the driver’s license by it being just 1 year renewable, but the fact that all of the “registerable” sex offenses were specifically denied the ability of having felony records sealed, while other offenses of the same level of felony are allowed to seal them.

Chris F

If you read the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals May 2017 decision in the Lewisville case that is attached to what was filed this week to the Supreme Court, you will find the constitutional arguements the court threw out with prejudice. The statement is on the last page or 2nd to last page of this attached opinion.

As far as to the state expo fact, I do have a copy of that somewhere as I also want to read. I am very busy and it may be a few days for me to locate. Once located I will cite the case so you can find.


Thanks. I’ve read the entire thing now and see what you mean.

It looks like this entire thing bypasses all constitutional issues mainly due to the “frightening and high” sex offender recidivism lie from Mckune V Lile 2002 and Smith V Doe 2003. I’m not sure how that lie doesn’t get shot down since it’s been awhile since the Ira Ellman report debunked all that.

I don’t see how it survived Equal Protection though. It clearly allows sex offenders lucky enough to have requested a judge defer the 1000 foot restriction on probation to avoid this, yet those that didn’t know they needed to ask for it no longer have a method to do so.

Okay, unless someone sees some obvious flaw I am going to go print today and file Thurs. or Fri.

Just a thought, but would it be best to let the final comments come in, incorporate them, let it sit over the weekend without looking at it, give it one last glance Tuesday before printing to file? I know you want to print and file, but 106 pages is a lot of printing.

I can see also filing it to let it start the process and get a sense of relief too once it is filed. Just two trains of thought. In the end, it is you who has to do it, so folks here will back you either way.

BTW, it was Justice Kennedy who said in Packingham about the internet being the new public square. Found that on Wikipedia and other online sources. That ought to maybe raise an eyebrow and some credence.

248. First, most sex offenders are subject to tremendous scorn and shame that is associated with meeting the legislative requirements for sex offenders, whether the sentiment flows from the community being notified when they enter a new area, from being publicly displayed on the World Wide Web (which is the new public square),see Packingham v North Carolina 582 U.S. at 8 (2017) “By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge,.” or from having a specially marked identification card or driver’s license, or even a specially marked passport that you must present whenever traveling internationally.

@mike r:

Here’s the link of the document after I went through it again (, expires 9/3/17). It’s mostly the addition of commas, as well as some apostrophes and quotation marks. There are also some word changes suggested, and some noun-verb argument corrections.

I agree that setting it aside for a couple days, then doing a slow, thorough re-read may be wise. Quite often, one will find items that merit or warrant changing.

In agreement with what “anonymous” (it sure would be nice is s/he gave us a moniker to use…hint, hint) mentions, you have my support and encouragement whatever you decide to do–sit, or file.

Only the shadow knows…..

Henceforth, thy name shall be “The Shadow”! 🙂

U.S. District Court Considers
Legality of 2-for-1 Order
By Gary L. Visscher, Esq

The May 2017 newsletter reported on President Trump’s “two-for-one” Executive Order (E.O. 13771), and litigation challenging the Executive Order which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. E.O. 13771 requires that an agency or department which proposes or promulgates a new regulation must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, and requires that the cost of any new regulation must be off-set by repeal of other regulations, so that the “total incremental cost of the new regulations… to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero.” For fiscal years after 2017, the Executive Order requires that an agency issuing a new regulation identify offsetting costs from regulations that have been or will be repealed. According to the Executive Order, each agency will be issued an annual “regulatory budget” which will state the total amount of incremental costs that will be allowed the agency in issuing new regulations. The “incremental costs allowance may allow an increase or require a reduction in total regulatory cost” imposed by the agency’s regulations.

In April, the Office of Management and Budget issued guidance on the implementation of the Executive Order. Amount other clarifications, the OMB guidance states that offsets will only be required for “significant regulatory actions,” which are generally items that have an annual incremental impact of $100 million or have other substantial impacts on the economy. On the other hand, the OMB guidance allows any cost reductions from changes in regulations and guidance to count as off-set. Thus for example, any costs saved by elimination of paperwork requirements may be counted.

The Executive Order was challenged in court shortly after it was issued, on the basis that it violates the Constitution’s separation of power s by imposing factors on regulations that are in addition to and unrelated to the criteria set by Congress in enabling legislation. The plaintiff’s also argue that the Executive Order violates the President’s constitutional duty to “take care that the Law be faithfully executed,” as well as the Administrative Procedures Act.

The Department of Justice, and proponents of instituting a regulatory budgeting approach as is embodied in E.O. 13771, have argued that the lawsuit challenging the Executive Order is premature (not “ripe” for judicial review), because no regulations have been rescinded or proposed for rescission, as a result of the Executive Order (though regulations may be reviewed for other reasons and counted for purposes of the off-set). Proponents of the regulatory budget approach have noted that such an approach have been used by other countries (though structured differently) to help to control the overall costs of regulations.

The District Court held oral argument in early August on the motion to dismiss by the Department of Justice, as well as a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs (Public Citizen, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Communications Workers of America). The Court did not rule on the motions, but is expected to issue a decision soon. If the District Court grants either side’s motion, an appeal is likely to the Court of Appeals

Thought this would be helpful with the 2 for 1 regulations…..

I wonder how Registered Citizens in TX are dealing with evacuations and registration issues during all of the flooding. I looks as it will be awhile before many will get to go home. Some police departments are flooded, so they won’t be able to handle annual registrations or updates. I doubt TX will offer any leniency to registrants.
If anyone knows how this is being handled, please advise us. I would imagine that this is a stressful situation to be in especially if it isn’t clear what registrants need to do to stay in compliance with the many regulations we are subject to.

Funny you brought this up. I am from Texas and was thinking exactly the same thing yesterday. I have seen nothing in the media here in Texas concerning this issue.

You won’t see it in the TX media either. It would only create hysteria and fear at a time when they need people calm. (Bad enough the registry does that) Enough people are in shelters as is for the near term until they can get home or another place to stay, so wondering if anyone around them is an RC would be counterproductive all things considered.

I live in the Dallas area. My city has a number to call for me to set up an appointment to register. As long as I call that number before my date comes up I have fulfilled my obligation to attempt to register with them. Normally, they call me back and schedule me within a month or so to come in. I make sure my phone keeps my initial call in its logs just in case. Of course, if they didn’t call back in a week I would call again. I won’t risk not looking like I tried.

As for those affected by the hurricane, they can stay in any location in Texas for 6 days and on the 7th they need to register there. I don’t see anything to stop someone from going to a different city before the 7th day and starting the clock again. You also can’t spend 3 different 48 hour time periods in the same city in the same 30 days without registering there. I would say as long as you make good attempts at registering or keep moving, your OK, but I’m no lawyer.

Well I’m shocked to hear that TX (or just your County) will pause the clock as long as you have an appointment to register. CA is much stricter about having to complete your registration 5 days prior or after your birthday. Sometimes they might fudge the registration appointment by a day when it helps with their schedule, but usually they stick to the 10 day time span. I really think they should change it to 10 days prior to or after your birthday. There is no real justification for such a tight time span to complete our annual registration. But of course there is no justification to not allow us to register by mail, especially when they will usually conduct a compliance check anyway.

Chris F, one problem with what you stated. In Texas you must in person at least 7 days before you move appear in person where you register to tell when and where you are moving or you are in violation subject to criminal penalties.

So if you are homeless or not and where you stay is under water and you can not be back within 6 days, then you have no choice but to move without giving the at least 7 day in person notice. I would not be surprised to see law enforcement and DAs file criminal charges. But I would find it hard to believe a judge would not have some slack especially if one complied with everything he possible could.

If this is the one thing HPD et al worry about at this time, then their heads are not on straight. People are dying, including one of their own. Check on residences later. Right now, help the populace in general.

I believe a judge would throw this out and laugh at the DA even in Houston or next door in LA for that matter too, which is flooding. Wait. Maybe not, this is the Bible belt where things are tougher all over.

Wouldn’t it be an easy work around though?

Just don’t commit to a permanent “residence” and visit whatever place you want to until you can fulfil the 7 day prior requirement?

Are the legal definitions so detailed that this loophole wouldn’t work?

Chris F, that will not work. Think about it. Before the flood, one is registered at some location, even if homeless. As soon as you are gone from that location for more than 6 days, does not matter where and how many other places you stayed, even if less than 7 days at each of those locations, you are considered to be living elsewhere from where you registered. And if you did not give the at least 7 day in person notice of where you now are staying, you just violated Chapter 62 and are subject to criminal penalties including up to 10 years in prison. Hmmm, a 10 yr prison sentence for violating a “civil regulation”. Civil my as_…and not punishment per the state and oh by the way, we can apply it to you retroactively because state judges said so even though the state constitution says you can’t.
And a past treatment provider I had knew of a guy that went to prison for this issue of being registered at one place but spending the majority of time at his girlfriends’s house.


I’ll respectfully have to disagree because of two sections of Chapter 62.

Art. 62.055. CHANGE OF ADDRESS; LACK OF ADDRESS. (a) If a person required to register under this chapter intends to change address…

The key word is “intends”. Flood victims did not intend on changing their address 7 days before a flood they didn’t know was coming.

Art. 62.051. REGISTRATION: GENERAL. (a) A person who has a reportable conviction or adjudication … shall register or, if the person is a person for whom registration is completed under this chapter, verify registration as provided by Subsection (f), with the local law enforcement authority in any municipality where the person resides or intends to reside for more than seven days.

This part, and another section that describes being in any location for at least 48 hours 3 times over a 30 day period, are the parts controlling travel where, as long as you stay under those times, you don’t have to register and I don’t see what’s stopping you from still claiming your original flooded residence as your permanent residence.

I don’t claim to know everything here in Texas, though I do a ton of research for myself and others to make sure we are in compliance. If I’ve missed something, please reference where any mention of being gone from our registration address more than 6 days triggers a duty to register somewhere else, as I’ve gone on vacations approved by probation for longer than 7 days multiple times but wasn’t required to register anywhere else because I didn’t stay longer than 6 days in any one place.

You know, I forgot about the word “intends”, so you do have a good point. But you would most likely first be arrested, charged and then have to prove to the court you did not intend to move. Maybe I am too pessimistic in what I believe law enforcement and DAs will do, but then maybe again I am not. I guess if flooded out, you could say you were on vacation temporarily while my place of residence was flooded. Hopefully, there will no issues for the people in south and southeast TX regarding this issue.

And speaking of your mention of vacation, I am aware of a person who went on a two week vacation to another state, did not tell the sheriff (no legal requirement to do so), the sheriff had that person arrested and brought back to TX and registration violation charges were filed because the sheriff said the person moved. The person told his neighbor to take care of his pets and he would be back in two weeks from vacation.

It took an attorney at a trial to get him off the hook. So in the meantime, you have another arrest on your record, lose your job and pay out money for an attorney. Though I do agree with you concerning the intent to go on vacation and not actually move. It is just that law enforcement (some anyway) are just rhymes with licks.

Civilly sue the Sheriff and DA for wrongful prosecution and incorrect law enforcement (despite SCOTUS saying LEOs don’t need to know the law they are trying to enforce) and force a settlement to cover all legal expenses plus damages.

Sorry, Chris, will not work. You have to register initially so you are then registered somewhere. So once you are registered, you have a registered location. So then after that the 7 day in person notice applies.

Help me understand though. I’ve put in the relevant sections of Chapter 62 to both residency and traveling within Texas.

I live in Dallas. If I want to go to San Antonio for 4 days and then directly to Austin for 4 days, you are saying I’m violating our registration laws because I’ve been away from my official “residence” for more than 6 days, but that’s not true. The law says nothing about a timeframe that I must be at my claimed place of residence, only that I must also register somewhere else if I stay there too long.

Chris, you’re technically right according to how the law is written. There is nothing that says if you’re not living at your residence for 7 days that you’re considered to have changed residences. And there’s no limitation at all on how long you can be away from your residence before it’s considered not your residence anymore. Like you pointed out, all the triggering events are when you’re actually physically somewhere else for a certain amount of time not physically away for a certain amount of time.

But equally, there’s also nothing to prevent law enforcement from assuming that your absence for x number of days means you’ve changed residences, putting out a warrant for your arrest, and leaving you forced to prove your intent (or lack thereof). You’re still out the jail time, the arrest record, and the money.

In the case of those in Houston, technically, as long as their intent was to move back as soon as the floods receded, and as long as they’ve fulfilled all other registration requirements, then they are within their rights to have a temporary residence elsewhere. That’s where that 48 hour period 3 times in 30 days provision kicks in and they’d probably want to be doubly-doubly sure that the new registration location understood it’s a temporary thing and they plan to move back. Then, if they did eventualy choose to abandon their flooded residence, they can visit their registration office and give 7 day notice of their intent to change residence and carry on.

The sad part is, even though that technically follows the letter of the law, it doesn’t prevent some trigger happy law enforcement person from arresting them anyway. The important thing is that each individual is aware of what steps they are taking and why and when so that if they’re forced to defend themselves in court they’ve got a way to prove their intent. And hopefully they’ve documented everything they could as well.

Actually, this is the one issue where a registrant could actually get in trouble in Texas because the registrant has to notify the registration office where they currently reside 7 days BEFORE they change residences, and then notify the new residence location within 7 days after they have made the change. It’s the 7 day notice BEFORE changing residencies that usually gets people violated as it’s the only obligation that occures BEFORE an event, everything else is after.

Does anyone think LEOs are doing compliance checks right now? Besides, who are they to say you weren’t there? “I’m surprised you didn’t find me, officer. I was the one wearing the water wings, treading in place over where my shopping cart and sleeping bag are.” I’d keep registering the same address, even if it’s under water. Just because you weren’t at your mooring when the LEOs came by doesn’t mean you moved…nor can they prove you did.

AJ, Just fyi concerning compliance checks in Texas. There is nothing in the state law requiring compliance checks. I have also obtained via a public information request the state agency rules regarding sex offenders and there no rules requiring the state or any law enforcement agency to do home compliance checks. So, no state law and no agency rules which were authorized by the legislature to do home compliance checks. The only rules pertain to Internet Id notifications, which the 2016 Texas criminal defense attorney of the year has stated are unconstitutional. They just have not been ruled that way in Texas yet.

If the home compliance checks are being done, then that is just the policy of the local law enforcement agency. Now the Tx local gov code does allow cities to adopt police regulations and does allow a city to penalize one for not complying with police regulations. But to be penalized, the city must first give the required notice in the newspaper. And how many cities have done that in regards to police depart policies concerning sex offenders?

As far as I am concerned, the home compliance checks are harassment. So lots of money being wasted…

Now having said that, if one is on parole or probation, then one could be subject to home compliance checks.

Forget registration…. how about life and death? Are they allowed in shelters? Apparently not so in FL. Or is this old news?

And how about Federal loans? SBA is ramping up to process thousands of loans in the aftermath of Harvey. Aren’t those convicted of sex (and only sex) offenses against minors categorically excluded?

If you have been convicted of a forcible or nonforcible sexual offense, AND you are subject to an involuntary civil commitment upon completion of a period of incarceration for that offense, you cannot receive a Federal Pell Grant.

I think that once you are released from civil commitment, you would be eligible for grants or loans again.

Alright AJ I have already changed a lot of those mistakes and I will go over it tomorrow and finish fixing the rest that you have pointed out.. Great job dude I am really impressed with your consistent help and your dedication to this. You and Chris have been really instrumental in helping get this to the masterpiece that it is today….It really is powerful and I don’t think any professional attorneys could have done any better….Except one of the scrotus judges, maybe. So ya, I’ll fix it up and post it and let it sit till next Tues. before I file then…

Well, I went ahead and stayed up all night and fished our motion. Here’s the link…
It’s up until the fifth so everyone can see it and have a chance to comment or download a copy for themselves.
Thanks for the grammar and punctuation lesson AJ, I really needed it since I am going to be starting my English 301 next semester..Seriously though, thanks, I know you had to have spent a lot of time doing that….

AJ I just want to make sure you understood I really meant thanks for the English lesson I learned a lot about punctuation and proper grammar from your revisions. I think my post sounded a little sarcastic our something I want to make sure you understood I really meant thanks for sharing your knowledge, you’re very articulate and have been instrumental in making this as comprehensive as possible..

@mike r:
All’s good, brother. Mind you, I can get a bit “comma happy” at times, but I tried to exercise restraint in your document. 🙂

If you haven’t already, I stronly recommend buying the latest edition of “The Elements of Style” by Strunk & White. It’s been the go-to resource since 1918, though updated as time has gone by. Also, you may want to learn what an “Oxford comma” is. It’s no big deal and simple to grasp, but it can significantly change how something is understood. (

Take That, AP Style! Court of Law Rules The Oxford Comma Necessary

LMFAO…..That gave me a good chuckle….Stupid little crap that can make a person laugh…..

Make sure you guys read down to the last post for the latest revision….

fished…lol..this auto correct needs some traing or updating or something…

@Mike R

Mike, the discussion above about the drop to house prices was getting a little long, so I’ll continue it again here so it doesn’t get lost.

My reason for you including it isn’t for your personal loss in home value, but the loss of your neighbors. It makes a huge point in your right to reputation argument and points to why the people want to banish you. Perhaps something like this added to your 1st challenge to reputation:

Being on the registry draws the scorn of nearby residents due to the fact that home values drop as much as 12 percent within a tenth of a mile, based on a 2008 report As the modern technology of smartphones makes it even easier to instantly identify a sex offender’s residence, this percentage drop of home values is highly likely to increase over those 2008 estimates. Not only does this negatively impact my reputation, but also greatly impacts my right to freedom of association, and contributes to the motivation behind residency restrictions that effectively banish those publicly labelled as sex offenders.

Good point there on housing values relative to RCs

Hey AJ.. I know this maybe a stupid question but you, or someone, mentioned plagiarism, Is it absolutely necessary for a private citizen to cite every source is they use the language verbatim? I know it’s definitely good practice, and that it’s especially necessary in college or academic papers, but can I be sued, can the court use that against me in some way, what are the consequences if I quote in court docs verbatim without quotations and citing????

I found a great source about sex offenders and homelessness,
and I want to cite something like the following, which already cites the sources in its text…

For example, Florida banned all sex offenders from homeless and hurricane shelters (Levenson & D’Amora, 2007). These additional laws consequently have pushed homeless sex offenders to live in locations that do not violate residency restriction laws, including a wooded area (USA Today, 2014) on private property unbeknownst to the owner, and under bridges (see Julia Tuttle Causeway, CNN, 2007; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006).
Another example of such policy is in Columbus, Ohio, where 5 publicly funded homeless shelters signed “good neighbor policies”, which forbid homeless shelters from housing sex offenders (Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, 2003).

Man, this is an incredible paper with an abundant amount of solid citing. I want to include the whole thing in my motion, but I think I will just cherry pick some of the highlights with their accompanying sources….

@mike r:
I would guess it’s more “bad form” than anything for which you’ll get in trouble. I know you’ve pulled from a number of sources without citation; my concern where I mentioned plagiarism was that it just read too slick and smooth and screamed of being lifted without attribution. My thought is that if you have the citation source at hand, use it. Legal papers, including the one you’ve posted, almost always have a “Recommended Citation” on the cover page, giving you what to use. I say use it when you can. But would I worry my whole case is going to crash down because I omitted a source? Not a bit.

I have yet to read the doc, but it is nice to see more sociological perspective and input about RC laws and their effects.

Yep, hold up because I am revising it once again with this new info..I have it done I just have to go through and change the lines that I reference to…That sounds a lot better Chris..It can’t hurt..

@mike r

In this doc, since you are doing it and credibility of doing pro se is on you, defer to citing sources and quoting them appropriately, even if it is not an exact citation in the end. I have read a fair amount of legal docs that are chunked up with citations in the middle of the paragraphs, but still get the point across. Like the Oxford comma point, defer to it instead of not. Same should be done with citations and quotes.

Keep in mind, this doc becomes part of the public record with your name on it. So presenting it in the best way possible is in your interest since others may use it. Also, those who know the citations and quotes, etc from other legal docs you are using may read what is written and prefer to have their work cited. I doubt you could be sued since you are not making money off of this filing, but if were to be used later for damages, they might be able to claim part of them I would say.

Man it is amazing how much a like we think…I was driving to scool and was thinking, hmmm, I bet that when I win this thing I can probably sue someone, somehow, like with a motion for summary judgement , for damages…

My Annual is coming up and have to call in advance to have an appointment. I did so and asked a question over the phone, “Is it possible to come into the station days before the appointment to pick up the paperwork so I can fill it out at home? That way I don’t have to wait as long.”

I was told no. The hour scheduled for me was to process the paperwork. Then I was told that if I wanted to come earlier, then I can do that and fill out the paperwork.

I’m lost here. This is supposed to be a civil item, but I’m forced to fill out paperwork at the station that can be filled out at home. What is the purpose of making me fill out paperwork there? Note, I’m forced to fill out paperwork there when it has no consequence to my appointment time. So now it’s taking an hour plus away from my day. Last time I checked, this wasn’t probation.

I truly don’t want to spend any extra time at the station that’s making me re-live my past on or around my birthday. But seriously, it’s only paperwork. And the person on the phone said I can fill it out earlier than my appointment time there as my appointment time doesn’t have anything to do with filling it out at all. To me, it just signifies that I’m still under custody of the state. It’s a small detail for others, but not for me. My service to the state ended already and no other services should be required of me as if violates involuntary servitude. You can’t force someone into any service unless to punish a crime.

I hate this time of the year.

I’m with you on the feelings this brings up. I hate my birthday now. Sorry you have to go through this. So far I’ve been lucky and my annual is a fairly quick process. It usually takes about 15 minutes. I try to schedule for the first appointment and usually only need to initial the usual line points. Everything else I just confirm if there was any changes and that’s it.

@ New Person ,,,, , maybe if you go in early and get a chance to talk to a few people . that may have the same birthday or close to it , maybe talk about making plans for coffee of something , and who knows maybe you can help each other by going with each other on what ever appointment’s you draw every year , so your not alone on each others appointment’s . and your talking with friend rather than feeling so much of the reliving factor , and make a big deal out of when finished you go and have a beer maybe shoot a game of pool , ,, just an idea Bro , , some one once said on here a we could have bunch of RC buddy’s get together on everyone’s price club day , and when they were done go have a beer make nice little party out of it , great idea I thought , but we were talking about an RC commune , at the time , I cant remember who I was talking to , but it was a cool idea about sharing the birth day / price club day . I hope this helps you some how ,” I know that price club day feeling like ” I call it price club month ,lol good luck

Great idea, kind of living. We could also do some sort of silent action at the registering office, upside down flags, Acsol shirts, I don’t know.

I like the ACSOL shirts idea. It will appear on each of our Megan’s Law pages we occupy. I also like the idea of having a shirt which is a screen capture of the Megan’s Law website which we are not supposed to visit. That boggles the imagination.

@ Timmr and David Kenderly , the shirts are a great idea ! matter of fact that’s going to happen:)

3x LT please

Hey, you got a design? I could get some made for the next meeting. I just had my annual a couple months ago, but next year.

Sure, I’ll do it in Illustrator.

I like the concept of throwing it back in there faces with a bit of mockery. A good slogan for a T-Shirt idea would be ” What Registry Are You On?” emblazoned on the front or back. It draws people’s attention but isn’t too specific to sex related stuff. It implies that everyone is either on a registry or going to be on a registry eventually. We need to raise people’s awareness about registries in general and how easily they or their loved ones too, could be put on one.

That would be a good message to see on the mugshot.

@ Timmer ,,, , one idea I have had for a T shirt , to get donations or whear . On the back of the T Shirt you have a motorcycle riding off into a sunset with a big fat tire and the he or she is riding it says ACSOL on their vest , but over the top of the over picture you have a rocker that says LIVE FREE OR DIE , and the bottom of the Pic the rocker it would say ACSOL ,,,,,, to me it would be very important to that one depicting a women is because I have been to many motorcycle runs , and women that ride always saying its hard to find biker T’s that depict women in the light as the one being in control of the bike , and that is a fact , even women that don’t ride would love to sport a Tee like that ,, and over the pocket have ZERO TOLERANCE FOR REGISTRY’S , , the mug shot t is a great idea for going to price club day , you might want to hand out a few of those to RC’s so they get their picture taken as well on price club day , that would be a great trend / statement , fact is that T shirts are a great idea for what ever reason

In our sheriff’s office they do a lot of stuff, including taxi licenses. I don’t want to embarrass myself and others by shouting out “who here is a registrant?” I thought I could get some t shirts made, maybe ACSOL could help out with the cost. Then I could bring them to the San Diego meeting and ACSOL could sell them for the full price and keep that amount as a donation.

Continued- We must get beyond the fear of what others think. That’s the hidden power of the registry right there.

@ Timothy Moore<<<< who said anything about shouting any thing out ? simply pay attention to the forms being handed out , as well as people asking for 290 registry forms , maybe if one is sporting a cool t shirt RC folks will approach you , always be aware of what is going on around you ,

I do pay attention, but I don’t want to out an RC or approach a gang or narcotics registrant, who writes “to register” on the check in form in the “purpose for visit” column. Wearing a t shirt maybe saying something only a registrant might appreciate like “PRICE CLUB MEMBER SINCE 2000.” Or maybe COMPLIANCE CHECK THIS, followed by a graphic of the middle finger, might invite some conversation.

Timothy Moore ,,, ,, the gift of gab go’s a long way . I don’t know the layout of your cop shop , all seem to not all seem to be the same , but I can glance at a form and see who is who , as well as see if one may be open to chit chat , as well as seeing the tension we all no so well , I always say hi and go out of my way to be friendly to the tense and the open the door to chit chat

Some don’t even know what price club day means , registry’s are unconstitutional will grab the eye of RC’s even if disconnected from internet , we cant just take for granted that every RC knows about ACSOL or issues , many don’t even have a home at all , staying under a million dollar bridge , or someone’s back porch dose not constitute being home , more people need to know whats going on and open a channel , all the more reason for RC community’s , giving voice and structure , less chance of stupid registry violations ,

@Timothy Moore ,,, ,,, and its great that your going to the meeting and all , but I am trying to think of ways to turn a negative situation like the price club day into a positive by informing others about ACSOL , as well as get them active here , and as far as being embarrassed go’s , I would never embarrass anyone , my intent is to end the embarrassment by helping RC’s fight on even the smallest scale of being active , while it is comfortable and convenient to go to a meeting and sell t shirts to a room full of RC’s help get the word out , what about the people that cant make the meeting , or don’t know about it because they don’t even know about ASCOL , I would rather give a t shirt to some RC that is not hip to whats going on , do to being to poor to afford internet .

It seems to all depend on the city/department you register in I guess.

I don’t have to fill out anything in Texas. I either show up 90 minutes early, and get out in about 30 minutes of my appointment, or spend 2-3 hours waiting if I get there at my scheduled time.

They each punish us with the method they choose I guess.

Somewhere on this site, in one of the comments, I read that someone said that city ordinances can be made up by an individual city like speed limits, etc. The difference is that speed limits would apply to EVERYONE though, and not just a select group. Imagine if they say that only women have to obey the speed limit, and nobody else.

Okay. here it is.. I am not adding anymore, it is incredibly time consuming and arduous to do the line referrals. I will fix any grammar or punctuation if anyone points them out otherwise……….It’s a wrap o amigo…….
I also figured out to add to my website, ( comma– LOL..) which I will do soon….

@mike r

Paragraph 51, I will continue to lead, not I wish to continue to lead

One is wanting something, the other is something you already have, which is control to lead

@mike r

My comments offered off of the last upload you did last night:

Overall, uniform paragraph left margin formatting needed across the doc

Overall, I see what appears to me is underlining of some cited/referred to court cases and not some underlining of cited/referred to court cases. I believe the correct format is underlining them, but whatever you do, needs to be uniform. My vote, underline

Paragraph 13, California municipalities (an extra l is on the end of California)

Paragraph 51, I will continue to lead, not I wish to continue to lead
–One is wanting something, the other is something you already have, which is control to lead. You also want to show, in my opinion, that the registry does not hold you back from committing another crime, but your own moral compass does.

Paragraph 79, underline website cited since you do that in the rest of the doc

Paragraph 120, homelessness…. FYI – in colder weather climates, it is typical for emergency winter shelters to be opened, but not out of disaster status, that will decline RCs. It is not uncommon for them to freeze to death overnight when the temps really drop, e.g. NYC

Paragraph 150 needs to be listed with semi-colons between each statement, not commas or periods, which is the grammatically correct way of doing a long list like you do in Paragraph 192.

— A side note, not sure how or if want to address this, but usually long lists like you have in Paragraphs 150, 192, and 307 are usually indented to draw them out. The same is done with long quotes. It is a formatting detail that is important because of the message being conveyed and usually related to the number of lines in the list. Quotes are a touch more flexible on length before indentation. Maybe @AJ could chime in here.

Paragraph 192 (a) rat; not rat;, what is rat at the end of that?

Paragraph 231 I am entitled to relief because: not because; (colon v semi-colon)

Paragraph 251 purposes; (3), not purposes;(3)

Paragraph 263, underline website cited since you do that in the rest of the doc

Paragraphs 272-274 (and overall) italicize all spoken words by others when you are quoting them

Paragraph 275, underline website cited since you do that in the rest of the doc

Paragraph 348 with seven subparts numbered 1-7, not paragraphs 349-356

This is a great doc getting even better!! I know I missed things along the way too. But with the CO ruling now out, you’ll want to review it and see what you want to use from it.

It took me probably ten times to get my Capstone Doc finally to a place I was happy with it before submitting it in grad school, so you are on the right track.

Where are you located Newperson? I am in Sac. and I have never had to make an app. I know what you mean though about the reliving and waste of time and all that though..It does take at least two or three hours here…
I also posted the motions link to Sosen. See if I get any comments from Will or Derek….I would really like to here from Janice and team, but if not oh well….I still appreciate the platform….


Good luck. Although I disagree with some of your beliefs it doesn’t mean your hard work isn’t appreciated. Many kudos to all of those who worked with him. If I can offer any real life instances where families, specifically kids, are also punished let me know.

Steve… I am so glad to hear your positive response brother….It’s us against them man.. United we stand and you know the rest….Much love to all my brothers in arms, no matter what conflicting ideals we may have……I am telling you the writing is on the wall, the registry is coming down and we are going to bring it down in CA………..Watch, I would almost bet my first born on it, definitely bet anything else in this world on it , including my own life, because that is exactly what I am doing you know……….You ever watch the civil rights movement or more recently the Larry Flynn trials and how the dude put his life on the line for what he believed in ( free speech and his ability to produce Penthouse magazine)????Watch the movie.. I loved it .. He straight tells the court screw you suck my nu(&*%^% I have a constitutional right to free speech and did time for contempt of court and spent millions fighting for his rights and ended up being shot and paralyzed by some vigilante freak but never gave up the fight…..It’s on my brothers, and I don’t care if they shoot me, or harass me,<commas, lol) or make my life hell, it's on…..I can't wait to get into court and show them how a layman took down your stupid a$^&& registry you idiots (and just lie Flynn, there is nothing you can do about it but acquiesce and take it like a man fools) there isn’t shi^%%$#% you can do about it but take it and like it… Words have power in this country along with our constitution that our incredibly intelligent forefathers created….I really can’t wait to get in front of a judge and argue my points and show them the power of collaboration of marginalized individuals can do when the come together for a just cause……I know I may sound a little crazy and maybe I am, but hey, the country was built by crazy, hypocritical drunkers and braggarts who had crazy idea to create a new world beyond the corrupt powers of an oppressive government…Right?????????????


A federal court judge in Denver has called the public sex offender registry in Colorado “cruel and unusual punishment.”

This must be a first!

Double Wooooow. Chris……I think I have to reconsider my CaU issue….

They also won the challenge to Substantive Due Process!

Let’s continue the discussion under the comments for the news post since the moderators added it now.

There is a link to the judge’s decision which is AMAZING to read, and includes tons of quotes you could use. I’ll talk more over there.

This is just stunningly beautiful:

“Federal judge holds Colorado registry is punishment; violates Eighth Amendment”

Calling a Spade a Spade: Understanding Sex Offender Registration as Punishment and Implications Post-Starkey.

This was a good read. Covers all the basic constitutional issues with sex offender laws. Has a long list of citations.

I’m liking the T shirt ideas lol.
If there’s a way to get behind a push to dismantle the Registry in CO I’m on board. I will show up to protest, or whatever it takes.
I also find it odd that the Tiered system idea was reborn shortly after the State was FORCED to update everyone’s information. Tiered or Not…it’s unconstitutional.
I’m All for closely monitoring those that have the capacity to pose a danger to society, but that is Literally What Probation/Parole is for!!! 3-5 years of it! In some cases More!
P.S Mike r, I gotchur back.

Alright man, short and sweet CaU added…
It is up until the 5th……… Ignore the underlines, I removed them instead of going through the entire thing trying to find every web addresses……………………