The Michigan Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case of a man who was placed on the sex offender registry for touching a girl’s breasts, even though his case was dismissed in 1997 after successful probation and community service. Full Article
Here is the explanation why they Supreme Court of Michigan is holding new oral arguments in this case:
“The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in 2015, and heard oral argument in December 2016. In May 2017, in light of new developments, this Court voted to hear reargument to address: (1) whether this case should be held in abeyance pending final action by the United States Supreme Court in Does #1-5 v Snyder, 834 F3d 696 (CA 6, 2016); (2) whether a criminal defendant is denied due process of law if a statute offers a benefit in exchange for pleading guilty, the defendant’s plea is induced by the expectation of that benefit, but the benefit is vitiated in whole or in part; and (3) whether the Wayne Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the defendant’s SORA claim.”
Here is a link to the live argument, which begins at 1 PM Eastern (10 AM Pacific)
Greetings Tim my name is David and I am from Michigan and have been on the registry going on two decades. I am curious about any information you might have regarding crafting new sex offender laws in Michigan since you guys won recently. Very good job and thank you.
Sincerely David M
Yes we are working on this with the State. It will NOT happen overnight. We are looking for people who we may call upon to tell their story as to how the SOR has been a hardship on them. These people may be called upon to testify before the House or Senate Committee’s that will handle these changes with our input. If you are interested please submit your name all contact information including phone and address. Also a short expiation of what happen including the age of the victim and your age at the time of the incident. This will not be a chance to retry your case only a chance to assist with some positive changes.
Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist and NARSOL Michigan contact.
KM
Guest
October 11, 2017 4:10 pm
One of the most important statements made by the Judges today was that the Court is compelled as a matter of federal law to recognize that much of the Michigan Sex Offender Registry is punitive.
I’m pretty sure this guy is going to get what he’s asking for.
Chris F
Guest
October 12, 2017 7:29 am
I would like to see more attention to the fact that the registry is mandatory even for those given a type of “deferred adjudication” and never convicted. With SORA, either the legislation illegally delegated the authority to the A.G. to define what required registration, or the A.G. illegally took that authority. He should not have been allowed to re-define “convicted” to mean “convicted, or not convicted”.
Essentially, that invalidates almost everything about taking a plea deal where you are told you won’t be convicted if you do everything right during probation. It means you are treated the same as someone the state had iron-clad evidence of wrongdoing VS a situation where there were different factors and a reason for leniency or doubt of a crime. It means more cases won’t settle for deferred now, and children and other potential victims may be dragged through the mud of a court hearing and be further damaged, all because someone decided to re-define “convicted” to mean “not convicted” as well.
In Texas, they also took away the ability to have your record sealed after a number of years if it was for a sex crime, deferred or not. How is that not a violation of equal protection? They did it with a wide brush, with no difference between a violent crime of a recidivist or a one time minor infraction. You can kill people by selling them bad drugs and get your record sealed, but flash someone and it’s on there for life.
The legislation has removed all discretion and tailoring a punishment and length of punishment from the judges, but only for sex offences. Judges are just overpaid gate-keepers now and puppets for the legislature’s amusement.
TXSO4life
Guest
October 13, 2017 6:07 am
@CR, I am in the same legal situation as you. From TX, convicted in 92, given 5 yrs sentence, completed in 97. Was made to register for 10 yrs and retroactively extended to life in 2006 due to new amendment. I had speak to a few attorneys about the expos facto issue, but they all stated it’s a settle law in TX and 5th circuit that registration and retroactively added restrictions are civil regulatory meant to help registrants being productive citizens. I questioned how it is helping us being productive by denying us housing, employment, education, chance to get involve in our children education. They simply stated it’s meant to protect the public from harms that registrants may cause them. I talked to a few more attorneys that simply refused to take a case that deal with over turning the registry.
Bobby
Guest
October 13, 2017 2:16 pm
hello every
I have just received the re-oral argument of of Mr Boban Temelkoski case: People of Michigan v Boban Temelkoski: So for those that are interested here is the link:
please let me know if the link does not work for some reason.
Bobby
Guest
October 13, 2017 10:18 pm
I just looked at Michigan registry were I live, and they did change my registration date back to 11-22-1995
were just a few day’s ago it was my conviction date 0r 6-19-1992.
Now my tier still says 3 and that I have to register for life, but that should also change soon, i’m guessing, since I should only be 25 years, which would be sometime in 2020, but was changed to life time registration and goes back to 25 years, I should be able to petition, to be removed since I am past the 10 year mark with no other convictions.
I also noticed on some of the other people on the registry in my town and surrounding area, that their registration dates are actually before their conviction dates, which don’t make any sense to me, how can some one have a registration date that is before their conviction date, but at least they are currently working on the mess, just like the state of Michigan says in the video, they have to start making the changes they have NO choice at this point. I will let every one know when I lose the tier stigma and my registry says 25 years.
TXSO4life
Guest
October 14, 2017 12:48 pm
@Chris, I had spoken to attorney regarding prohibition of expos facto in civil matter on TX constitution, and he stated that registration in tx laws and courts are not punishment and no civil disability exist to file claims in court. All the added or retroactive restrictions placed on registrants are just collateral consequences. He said there are bills in congress that would further ban registrants from malls and any public buildings that is in close proximity to parks, bus stop, shelters, nursing home, museums, and schools. And it will be made retroactive. He recommended not filing any suit and just wait and see how other cases around the country progress through courts. As for TX and those within the 5th circuit, he said just accepted it as it is, and hope one day congress might have a change of heart.
mike r
Guest
October 14, 2017 1:12 pm
I agree Chris, time management and preparation is going to have to be a top priority in oral argument. I have to force the court to consider all the violations in a way that they are all in the appeal front and center. I think I will have an opening statement and a conclusive statement, so I really need to make them count….That is (once again) where your guy’s help is going to come into play, helping me write perfect statements addressing the respondent brief and all the issues. Together we can make this happen…I know it’s a bit cliche but, United we stand and divided we fall and all that………..
mike r
Guest
October 14, 2017 1:21 pm
I need to argue that the complexity of the case, and issues and the fact that I am Pro per, demands that I have all the time I need to argue in order to satisfy my right to a fair and just judicial process, which is the foundation of ” access to the courts” and procedural due process………I am also going to argue that I want the court to redact and require defendants not to use the words sex offender, instead referring to me as the registrant, and the registry as SORNS or Megan’s law, since those monikers bring inherent biases and prejudices into the the consideration processes. I just want to do so as to show respect and integrity for the courts, so its a fine line….I think it is important though…
mike r
Guest
October 14, 2017 2:11 pm
That really concerns me that in that oral the judge stated, like it is common knowledge, that the legislature can attached collateral consequences to a conviction, even retroactively, as long as it is attached to an actual conviction…..Hmmmm……..
mike r
Guest
October 14, 2017 11:01 pm
I think you are on it Chris…There has to be some rational and nexus with the collateral consequence that you are subject to. It cannot just be arbitrary as you say….I need to think of some good metaphors for that………
mike r
Guest
October 14, 2017 11:31 pm
I think it really doesn’t matter since I am claiming that the collateral consequences are not triggered by the conviction or the criminal record, but is a consequence of the state or fed gov”s publicly accessible website, which demonstrably is what causes most of these collateral consequence, not the conviction. So, just from a quick analyst-not for certain yet, those collateral consequences that are unconstitutional are only going to apply to such arguments as my right to reputation, unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and all the rest has to be challenged under substantive due process. I will definitely research this more when I get a chance……..
Mike M
Guest
November 26, 2017 1:43 pm
Has anyone heard if the michigan supreme court ruled on Telemoski?
Im quessing Michigan didnt get the point by US Supreme Court. Who knows on this one. Definately ex post facto involved here too.
Link to previous MI Supreme Court case last December involving the registrant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaW7R3ZdrvI
Here is the explanation why they Supreme Court of Michigan is holding new oral arguments in this case:
“The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in 2015, and heard oral argument in December 2016. In May 2017, in light of new developments, this Court voted to hear reargument to address: (1) whether this case should be held in abeyance pending final action by the United States Supreme Court in Does #1-5 v Snyder, 834 F3d 696 (CA 6, 2016); (2) whether a criminal defendant is denied due process of law if a statute offers a benefit in exchange for pleading guilty, the defendant’s plea is induced by the expectation of that benefit, but the benefit is vitiated in whole or in part; and (3) whether the Wayne Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the defendant’s SORA claim.”
Here is a link to the live argument, which begins at 1 PM Eastern (10 AM Pacific)
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/live-streaming/Pages/live-streaming.aspx
Greetings Tim my name is David and I am from Michigan and have been on the registry going on two decades. I am curious about any information you might have regarding crafting new sex offender laws in Michigan since you guys won recently. Very good job and thank you.
Sincerely David M
Yes we are working on this with the State. It will NOT happen overnight. We are looking for people who we may call upon to tell their story as to how the SOR has been a hardship on them. These people may be called upon to testify before the House or Senate Committee’s that will handle these changes with our input. If you are interested please submit your name all contact information including phone and address. Also a short expiation of what happen including the age of the victim and your age at the time of the incident. This will not be a chance to retry your case only a chance to assist with some positive changes.
Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist and NARSOL Michigan contact.
One of the most important statements made by the Judges today was that the Court is compelled as a matter of federal law to recognize that much of the Michigan Sex Offender Registry is punitive.
I’m pretty sure this guy is going to get what he’s asking for.
I would like to see more attention to the fact that the registry is mandatory even for those given a type of “deferred adjudication” and never convicted. With SORA, either the legislation illegally delegated the authority to the A.G. to define what required registration, or the A.G. illegally took that authority. He should not have been allowed to re-define “convicted” to mean “convicted, or not convicted”.
Essentially, that invalidates almost everything about taking a plea deal where you are told you won’t be convicted if you do everything right during probation. It means you are treated the same as someone the state had iron-clad evidence of wrongdoing VS a situation where there were different factors and a reason for leniency or doubt of a crime. It means more cases won’t settle for deferred now, and children and other potential victims may be dragged through the mud of a court hearing and be further damaged, all because someone decided to re-define “convicted” to mean “not convicted” as well.
In Texas, they also took away the ability to have your record sealed after a number of years if it was for a sex crime, deferred or not. How is that not a violation of equal protection? They did it with a wide brush, with no difference between a violent crime of a recidivist or a one time minor infraction. You can kill people by selling them bad drugs and get your record sealed, but flash someone and it’s on there for life.
The legislation has removed all discretion and tailoring a punishment and length of punishment from the judges, but only for sex offences. Judges are just overpaid gate-keepers now and puppets for the legislature’s amusement.
@CR, I am in the same legal situation as you. From TX, convicted in 92, given 5 yrs sentence, completed in 97. Was made to register for 10 yrs and retroactively extended to life in 2006 due to new amendment. I had speak to a few attorneys about the expos facto issue, but they all stated it’s a settle law in TX and 5th circuit that registration and retroactively added restrictions are civil regulatory meant to help registrants being productive citizens. I questioned how it is helping us being productive by denying us housing, employment, education, chance to get involve in our children education. They simply stated it’s meant to protect the public from harms that registrants may cause them. I talked to a few more attorneys that simply refused to take a case that deal with over turning the registry.
hello every
I have just received the re-oral argument of of Mr Boban Temelkoski case: People of Michigan v Boban Temelkoski: So for those that are interested here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAiXuxka9UQ
please let me know if the link does not work for some reason.
I just looked at Michigan registry were I live, and they did change my registration date back to 11-22-1995
were just a few day’s ago it was my conviction date 0r 6-19-1992.
Now my tier still says 3 and that I have to register for life, but that should also change soon, i’m guessing, since I should only be 25 years, which would be sometime in 2020, but was changed to life time registration and goes back to 25 years, I should be able to petition, to be removed since I am past the 10 year mark with no other convictions.
I also noticed on some of the other people on the registry in my town and surrounding area, that their registration dates are actually before their conviction dates, which don’t make any sense to me, how can some one have a registration date that is before their conviction date, but at least they are currently working on the mess, just like the state of Michigan says in the video, they have to start making the changes they have NO choice at this point. I will let every one know when I lose the tier stigma and my registry says 25 years.
@Chris, I had spoken to attorney regarding prohibition of expos facto in civil matter on TX constitution, and he stated that registration in tx laws and courts are not punishment and no civil disability exist to file claims in court. All the added or retroactive restrictions placed on registrants are just collateral consequences. He said there are bills in congress that would further ban registrants from malls and any public buildings that is in close proximity to parks, bus stop, shelters, nursing home, museums, and schools. And it will be made retroactive. He recommended not filing any suit and just wait and see how other cases around the country progress through courts. As for TX and those within the 5th circuit, he said just accepted it as it is, and hope one day congress might have a change of heart.
I agree Chris, time management and preparation is going to have to be a top priority in oral argument. I have to force the court to consider all the violations in a way that they are all in the appeal front and center. I think I will have an opening statement and a conclusive statement, so I really need to make them count….That is (once again) where your guy’s help is going to come into play, helping me write perfect statements addressing the respondent brief and all the issues. Together we can make this happen…I know it’s a bit cliche but, United we stand and divided we fall and all that………..
I need to argue that the complexity of the case, and issues and the fact that I am Pro per, demands that I have all the time I need to argue in order to satisfy my right to a fair and just judicial process, which is the foundation of ” access to the courts” and procedural due process………I am also going to argue that I want the court to redact and require defendants not to use the words sex offender, instead referring to me as the registrant, and the registry as SORNS or Megan’s law, since those monikers bring inherent biases and prejudices into the the consideration processes. I just want to do so as to show respect and integrity for the courts, so its a fine line….I think it is important though…
That really concerns me that in that oral the judge stated, like it is common knowledge, that the legislature can attached collateral consequences to a conviction, even retroactively, as long as it is attached to an actual conviction…..Hmmmm……..
I think you are on it Chris…There has to be some rational and nexus with the collateral consequence that you are subject to. It cannot just be arbitrary as you say….I need to think of some good metaphors for that………
I think it really doesn’t matter since I am claiming that the collateral consequences are not triggered by the conviction or the criminal record, but is a consequence of the state or fed gov”s publicly accessible website, which demonstrably is what causes most of these collateral consequence, not the conviction. So, just from a quick analyst-not for certain yet, those collateral consequences that are unconstitutional are only going to apply to such arguments as my right to reputation, unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and all the rest has to be challenged under substantive due process. I will definitely research this more when I get a chance……..
Has anyone heard if the michigan supreme court ruled on Telemoski?
https://www.change.org/p/governor-snyder-allow-romeo-juliet-convictions-to-apply-to-expunge-their-records-in-michigan