WI: Court forces cities to revise sex offender rules

[Wisconsin Journal Sentinel]

In the interests of added protection, communities created restrictions on where convicted child sex offenders can live upon release, but something was left out of the political mix.

In short, nothing in those ordinances addressed how the rights of sex offenders might be left unprotected under the U.S. Constitution, and as a result, those local restrictions have started to fray at the edges due to a 2017 federal court decision

Following a successful lawsuit filed against Pleasant Prairie, which had required a 3,000-foot safety zone around places where kids are readily found, Waukesha County communities have begun to scale back, or are considering scaling back, such restrictions.


Read more


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The lines were drawn some time ago. Those cities DARE to cross it and now they are paying for it.

The idea of leaving a residency or presence law in place and considering it constitutional because an appeal process exists is troubling. As Waukesha City Attorney Brian Running said, finding people with the requisite qualifications to render a professional opinion and decision who are not politically or personally motivated to simply deny all appeals is going to be difficult. It would be difficult for a large city to do this. Imagine how much more difficult for every small municipality throughout the state to do it, and to do it consistently and fairly.

All that aside, residency and presence restrictions have not been shown to be effective in ensuring public safety. In fact, they likely do the opposite, and arguably constitute punishment.

Any distance is still too far.

3000 feet. Wow. Just wow Wisconsin. That’s some high quality crazy right there.

This points out that, in the absence of outright wins, increasing judicial demand for credible due process can fiscally break these jurisdictions and provide a potential means to tear down, not just residency restrictions, but the Megan’s Law website, IML and individual tier assignments. Hell, maybe even the Registry, as a whole. Individual risk assessments. That is going to be key. And very, very expensive for the state, not least because there exist no credible tools to provide them. Instead, the bogus statistics that have been used to subjugate us for decades will be replaced by genuine statistics which will not support any of their fear-mongering crap. We just have to keep at this, chipping away at the foundation from different angles until there is nothing left holding it up.

‘This fall, the city decided to establish a new [Former] sex-offender residency [Soviet] appeal board to allow those convicted to gain another opportunity to live in restricted areas”

Clearly these Wicked Servants are establishing a Institution to execute “Extra-Judicial Punishment”

In addition to Being a serious violation to the Separation of Judicial & Legislative Powers

The principle of separation of powers states that the executive, legislative, and judiciary powers of government should be divided into different branches and not concentrated in one. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. The separation of powers, often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state.

To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the “opulent minority” from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches.

Typically this was accomplished through a system of “checks and balances”, the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu.

Checks and balances allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the United States Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Both bipartite and tripartite governmental systems apply the principles of the separation of powers to allow for the branches represented by the separate powers to hold each other reciprocally responsible to the assertion of powers as apportioned by law.

For example in the contexts of the topic at hand:

Only the a Judicial Court may:

1. Determine how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners

2. Determine how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.

I speak a True Song

As Yehovah lives, so should we