ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


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


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

I think years from now the whole registry thing will be thought of as vile as the whole gay scare, especially when you consider the registry was originally started in order to prosecute gay men.

Any distance is still too far.

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

And that’s why we sued the village. And won!

It’s great that other towns are now forced to repeal their ordinances. It’s not so great that they’re adding an appeals or residency boards to approve/reject SOs who want to move to their towns. Running is right to be cautious about implementing this type of board. If only the other towns used common sense before creating their ordinances.

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.

I agree. An incremental approach, chipping away at the foundations of the registry in as many different venues as possible, as often as possible, applying what we learn from previous cases as we go, endeavoring to enlighten the judiciary (who appear to be more honest and susceptible to reason than the legislatures), and never giving up. This is what we must do to win in the long term. It’s going to be a long, difficult slog,

For example, what has happened here in Wisconsin is forcing smaller municipalities to re-examine their ordinances in light of the court’s decision. As this article indicates, many of them will decide to scale back their restrictions rather than incur the costs of handling the appeals process that they feel the courts will require in order to bless their schemes. They don’t have the budget to create an appeals process and to defend it in court.

But I fear that will not be true at the state or national level. Not only can they afford to spend taxpayer dollars to create individual risk assessment and appeals processes, and to defend their practices in court, but they have the power to institute systems that will pass constitutional muster (under rational basis review) while still denying us any meaningful opportunity to escape their “regulatory” measures (also known as punishments, impairments, and disabilities).

I believe we will prevail in the long run. I just don’t think it’ll be this year or next. I hope I’ll still be alive to relish it.

That’s a great response. I do believe that state and federal governments cannot, and will not, be able to provide the assessments that are, increasingly, being met with professional skepticism. California can’t do it, even though it has been trying to do so for many years, in the case of civil commitment. Civil commitment is a house-of-cards that is about ready to fall completely apart because of the extraordinary waste and corruption and malpractice in risk assessment and everything else. And that’s just 750 or so men. Imagine trying to do that with tens of thousands. Imagine psychologists working as consultants to the state charging over a million dollars a year each to provide crooked assessments because that’s exactly what is happening today in Coalinga.

“Individual risk assessments. That is going to be key.”
Finally, someone else singing the same song I’ve been doing! Welcome, David. 🙂
“We just have to keep at this, chipping away at the foundation from different angles until there is nothing left holding it up.”
Indeed. It’s like a Jenga game (or “Break the Ice” for those of a different generation). It’ll come tumbling down.
This whole, “Mother, may I,” idea of a board is still ridiculous, and still infringes on one’s rights. They’ll dick this up, too, and get their butts dragged back into court. Here’s an idea: accept the facts and truths about RCs and MLs. I do get a big kick out of the snarled mess they’re making of it all. “More government is the only answer!” seems to be the mantra.

‘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

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x