ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


PA: Legislature to address Pa’s sex offender registration laws

A bill introduced this week in Harrisburg attempts to fix flaws in the state’s sex-offender registration system identified in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in July and could affect more than 10,000 registrants. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. who removes from list

    My husband doesnt see SCOTUS acting on Muniz on the 22nd. He believes they will sit and wait and see if HOUSE BILL 1952 passes and then they will deny CERT of WRIT. Which then who has to register under HOUSE BILL 1952 has 90 days to register under new bill. It is easy to SCOTUS to wait.

    • CR

      So your husband thinks they’ll relist for a future conference. It’s a reasonable thought, but I think they’ll deny cert, since the outcome, no matter what they do, sets no nationwide precedent and cannot even affect what happens in Pennsylvania. That is because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision rests not only on Federal law, but also on state constitutional grounds.

      Denial of cert for the state’s petition in Muniz doesn’t stop the state from enacting new sex offender registration requirements.

      Regardless, I agree that it is easy for SCOTUS to wait.

    • Mike s

      Not a chance that scotus does not rule one way or another on Monday. I believe it will be denied based on the case and scotus history. They would never consider states legislative process when making a decision.

      • Brian

        I am hoping your right, all though from what I read in all the posts here and there it would make sense that they denied cert, judging by SCOTUS history it would be out of the ordinary, but anything can happen but I hope and pray for the best. You may be right about 1952 and state legislative process, why would they want to stoop that low anyhow?

        • AJ

          Actually, accepting the case would be out of the ordinary. I forget (again) the term, but there is a list of four specific reasons for a SCOTUS denial. One is that their ruling on the case would be advisory only, due to activity or decisions at the State level. That is exactly what exists here: regardless what SCOTUS says, the PASC has already ruled it violates PA’s constitution. Assuming SCOTUS hears it, there are two outcomes: 1) Reverse/remand, in which case Muniz wins only on the State issue, and SORNA is struck, or 2) Affirms, in which case Muniz wins on both the State and Federal issues, and SORNA is struck. For those outside PA, a reverse/remand would strike a hole in our hull, but I don’t foresee that happening, given SCOTUS denied Snyder. Therefore, my logic says acceptance would be SCOTUS snagging the case to make an affirmative statement about RC laws in general–but SCOTUS doesn’t “reach out” for cases, so that’s doubtful.

        • Brian

          Exactly, Snyder vs Doe is a perfect example, they are still in a fight to get everything figured out in Michigan, seams like they weren’t worried about a fix like Pa is. Like you said the ocean is unpredictable, there can be a title wave or the tide going back out to sea, anything could happen, but I just have a good feeling about this though, I do think however they will redistribute the case again, I just have a feeling that that will happen.

      • Paul 2

        Mike ay idea why the new HB 1952 is still sitting in the Senate Judiciary comity there is no calendar for it yet, could they be banking on something from SCOTUS now? Or just maybe waiting to see what happens because the judiciary could make some changes to the bill based on what happens maybe.

        • Mike s


          The senate is not meeting right now. They did their 30 minutes right after the new year, not hyperbole, and now they are back home.

          Checked the year over year calendar and this is business as usual for Sentate. January is a “off” month that we pay for but nothing gets done.

          I’ll have a draft letter that is going to PSP on Monday, if/when cert is denied. I’ll post it at that time for anyone that wants to attack PSP on their own and get in the front of the line before PSP starts their PR campaign about how this is SOOO much work and they have been caught completely off gaurd by Muniz and how they need to protect the children, yadda yadda yadda (fill in normal BS here).

        • Pantry Boy

          Awesome Mike thanks

  2. Brian

    Paul 2
    Would be nice to have the answer to that question for sure my man, they could be waiting for the right moment to strike like a rattle snake, all we can do is have educated guesswork for the moment,we may find out Monday though, we could only hope.
    But I am really feeling confident about SCOTUS track record and this sexoffender deal, I mean they didn’t grant cert to any other states unless there was a split in which they did grant cert in that case.

  3. Brian

    Stupid question, does anyone know why when looking at the SCOTUS calendar Muniz doesn’t show, but when I enter the docket number in the case shows up?

  4. CR

    @Brian, what calendar are you looking at (link)? Is it possible that the calendar you are looking at shows cases scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court? Those cases are ones for which a petition of certiorari was granted.

    No cert decision has been made yet in Muniz. It is being distributed for conference for the first time this Friday. Cert could be granted, denied, or the case could be relisted for a future conference. It will only show up on the Supreme Court’s argument calendar if cert is granted. That is not likely to happen.

  5. Mike S

    To make things easier for everyone, here is the link to the “Order List” for Monday.

    SCOTUS posts this list at 9:30am (Eastern) on the Monday’s following the conference.

    Anyone that goes to this page with a calendar handy will notice that a Grant of CERTIORARI often times is announced on the day of the conference, Friday 1/19/2018. On Monday, is when you see all the denials, orders on pending cases, and other housekeeping items.

    Like everything with SCOTUS, there is nothing that is 100% true or false. That being said, take a look at the site below later on Friday for a possible list of Petitions that are grated CERTIORARI.

    • Paul 2

      The only one I see granted today is Trump as of 3pm

      • Mike s

        Check after 5pm.

      • Brian

        That’s the only one I see also, wander if the rest are denials and continuences.

        • Mike S

          I guess we have this weekend to wait.

          It is going to be a very interesting day on Monday, if this thing is denied. I, for one, am going to start with the letter from the attorney to the PSP. I got a copy today and went back and forth a couple of times with my attorney and I think it tells the story correctly. We had some words about how strong to make the threat and I think we landed in the right place. Made PSP know that they have crossed the line and that refusal to move on Muniz with some BS about HB1952 is an excuse that will trigger legal action with damages that exceed 6 figures.

        • Paul 2

          Mike on Monday will we get a look at the letter to use as a guide thanks.

        • Mike S

          Yes, I will post it later on Monday, while I am happy to help everyone, I am still a lying narcissist that only thinks about myself.

          Anyone who has been subjected to “treatment” in PA should fine that one amusing.

          I almost think we need the “Government Shutdown Countdown Clock” in this site with the countdown to 9:30 Monday, like all the news stations!

        • AJ

          @Mike S:
          Post it? How about “by fax, email and certified mail”? 🙂 That way there’s plenty of paper trail to show they got it…and no delay!

        • AJ

          …also, speaking of Gov’t Shutdown, will that delay any posting of SCOTUS stuff? I’m guessing the Justices continue to work and have skeleton staff, but the office types who put out this type of info will probably be at home.

        • Brian

          SCOTUS has up to three weeks of money or funds to operate with, they will operate as normal till they run out I’m guessing, that’s what cnn said yesterday.

        • TS


          Judiciary Open During Government Shutdown

          Shutdowns don’t impact Judicial work.

        • Mike s


          By post it we are talking about posting the letter that my attorney is writing to the PSP so that others may use as a template. Last time it was sent certified and followed up until I got the BS template letter. 36 days later.

  6. Brian

    I was looking in the wrong place, are we missing a blog from pa?

    • Mike s

      No PA blog, we have the actual Docket Look up site that provides WAY more info than SCOTUS provides to the public.

  7. Brian

    Mike S
    Sorry I meant that one of the PA blogs on this website is gone, the one that said PA Megan’s law is in limbo. Hope we get some good new tomorrow or Monday.

  8. Brian

    Pantry Boy
    You welcome.

  9. who removes from list

    My husband just wanted to allow everyone to know that this is the new case decided today! Muniz 2017%22

    Superior Court vacated Lower Courts Order that stated not to remove and Superior Court vacated the order and sent back to lower court in the light of Muniz to Remove this Man from SORNA!

    • R M

      Great news.

      • Who Removes from list

        Then this happens, convicted in 2001.

        They are still arresting people who are not supposed to be on SORNA and until you locate an attorney who knows the law, like my husbands did and gets the case dismissed because SORNA is illegally applied.

        • Paul 2

          This guy is an out of state may be considered different. His start date was 2013

        • AJ

          @Paul 2:
          If SORNA is punishment, it cannot be applied to someone convicted outside PA. That would be, at minimum, at 6th Amdt. violation. Possibly a BoA, and maybe even Double Jeopardy. No matter what, a State cannot punish someone for a crime committed outside the State.

          He cannot use the ex post facto decision from PASC, but he can use the punitive determination for other constitutional protections.

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          I see what you are saying but his start date in PA is 2013 So it would be the same as me getting off now from PA reg but then moving to FL where they say out of state offenders reg for life or NY. I think its because he came here after SORNA and he is a tier 3 Not sure but must be how they are doing this

        • AJ

          @Paul 2:
          It shouldn’t matter, because it’s punishment. The State cannot impose punishment for his out of state offense, period. That does not, however, preclude PA from passing something that passes the regulatory sniff test. That would then ensnare him…and probably others.

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          I agree but I think they are looking at the fact that he decided to move to the state after SORNA was in effect choosing the “punishment” If he had moved to the state pre SORNA then that would be ex post facto punishment in their minds.

        • AJ

          @Paul 2:
          That makes absolutely no sense. There’s no “choice” about it. Punishment can only be given as the result of a trial and sentencing. Under your logic, if I steal a car in Kansas, then move to Wyoming where they have a stricter law on the books–enacted after my offense but prior to my migration–Wyoming can impose the harsher punishment on me.

          Please read up on Double Jeopardy, Sixth Amendment, Full Faith and Credit, and may as well toss in Equal Protection and the Fourteen Amendment, too.

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          Sorry AJ but your wrong any state can make a reg law how they want if a PA guy gets off reg this year and moves to FL they will put him on reg its up to the state on how they apply their reg laws has nothing to do with the crime it self but the regulation this guy made the choice to move to pa in 2013 after SORNA was in effect make sense now

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          AJ understanding how things work is much different than referencing cases its kind of like how a person can be good at memory and spelling but still have a low IQ IQ is not what you know but what you understand. It’s simple they wouldn’t be charging this guy if they couldn’t the variables are out of state and 2013 deduce from that I can see now you struggle with diagnostic ability you should practice up on that if you can

        • @paul2

          You should practice tact and being constructive instead of being a condescending individual. That might help with your presentation and thinking around these parts.

          If you are a bad apple, do the bushel a favor and squeeze yourself out so the whole damn bunch can continue to work together.

        • AJ

          @Paul 2:
          I’ll let your words and previous tact speak for me. I’m also quite fine with my God-given IQ and deductive (“diagnostic”) abilities.

          I stand by my words. Punishment cannot be imposed in PA for a crime outside PA. Regulation can. That is all I’ve said, nothing more. I never said word one about moving from one regulatory situation to another, and I’m quite clear on how that works.

          If SORNA is punishment, it can only be imposed for an offense in PA, with said offense committed on or after SORNA’s enactment. Does the gentleman meet those criteria? From what I’ve gleaned, no. If SORNA is punishment, which PASC says it is, it doesn’t matter when I commit my offense, if not committed in or against PA. PA cannot impose more punishment (SORNA) on me.

          As I have said, if the legislature fashions a law that PASC finds suitably regulatory, that’s a whole different situation.

          “Lighten up, Francis.”

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          I believe I am not being condescending I have only responded to condescending posts directed at me For some reason some of you feel its ok to be condescending and get your panties in a bunch when you get a shot of your own medicine, as far as bad apples there seems to be a few in here that like to say things like, don’t drink the kool aid, and seem to support people that clearly are dangerous to the community and to the cause of us getting off the reg. I and others on here know who you are and will be called out, If you don’t like it, see if you can apply for a moderator position on here, because some of you have some serious dilutions of grandure Take a look at what I respond too and you will see who really is starting the so called problems. If you can’t see it then maybe you are part of the rotten bunch and should take yourself out.

        • David Kennerly, Me Think Thou Doth Protest Too Much

          BoA? Bank of America? Yes, I know; Bill of Attainder. Still, you make us work for it, don’t you? 🙂

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          Follow the yellow brick road

        • Michael

          You can’t only consider conviction date. He is a tier 3 offender, so was he required to register for life before SORNA??

        • who removes from list

          @Michael – You are so wrong on this, my husband was convicted of IDSI in 2006. He was required to register for LIFE, One time per year.

          He was forced to be on SORNA in 2012 making his TIER 3, like this man from the article I posted for my husband.

          My husband was then arrested for failure to register his internet identifiers in 2016 per SORNA Rules.

          And then the Muniz Decision came our during his pre trial phase, right before his Bench Trial. And the DA, Judge and his attorney didnt know what to do so they postponed my husbands case “until further notice”.

          Then on Jan 2 2018, the charges for failure to register under SORNA were dismissed because per MUNIZ it is unconstitutional to apply SORNA Requirements to my husband who was convicted in 2006.

          My husband still complies under SORNA, per his attorney, but legally they cant arrest him.

          My husband is a TIER 3, because of his 2006 conviction.

          So @ Michael, you are incorrect if this man was a resident in 2012 and was convicted in 2005 by law SORNA is unconstitutionally applied to him and therefore he should not of been charged with FAILURE TO REGISTER UNDER SORNA.

          Hope this helps.

  10. Brian

    How late will they wait to add anymore orders?
    Thanks for the updates also most appropriated.

    • CR

      If you are talking about SCOTUS, watch for the orders to be published at 09:30 ET on Monday. Muniz will most likely be on the list of denials of cert.

  11. terry brunson

    Monday January 22, 2018 A.M. 9:30 is the MUNIZ Cert denial list. . . . . Muniz case will be a denial win and DA Freed will have the end of the line finality on MUNIZ. The SCOTUS will issue a remand order returning jurisdiction to the PASC to order Muniz mandate to PAG who in turn must issue order to the PSP – and the PSP will act confused about which order to follow? Do they wait for HB 1952 to become law or follow the MUNIZ mandate?
    When HB 1952 becomes law – the PSP will issue a 90 day enforcement notice to all they think are under HB 1952 requirements.

    And that is when the case by case BS will start. These non-precedent cases only ordered to an individual will be required by HB 1952 page 111 as a judicial determination requirement to get off the registry for those that still have time left to be on the registry.

    The challenge will begin – Muniz will play apart- but it will not be automatic.

    Mandamus is the writ to file.

    The challenge to the HB 1952 law will be for pre – SORNA people.

    The attack will be under the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 Reputation shaming of being put on a website without due process of showing reason other than Pa. statute requires it. Must show proof of being a danger to Pa. public.
    The next attack will be Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 17 (Ex Post Facto) on date of effect is applied in a retroactive way to Pre-SORNA people.
    The last attack will be under Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 26 – The Commonwealth nor any political subdivision like the PSP and PAG shall not deny any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right. (The key is HB 1952 picks on a key group _pre-SORNA people in a discriminating way.)

    The PSP is banking that with all the Punitive stuff off the HB 1952 that it will pass the muster needed at the PASC. The provision in the HB 1952 page 109 will kick in for pre-SORNA people to get a court order – they can claim Muniz – I don’t see why Muniz cannot be applied automatic . . . . . They want a case by case Judicial determination by a court.

    This will flood the court docket – and that is their objective. Overload the court. But I think the PASC is ready for that BS….. They will put in the MUNIZ remand order that Muniz is the Judicial Determination that HB 1952 seeks to fix pre-SORNA issues. And that is to remove pre-SORNA people off the PSP registry.

    • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

      That is the problem they can’t send a letter out to people for new bill if they haven’t verified the person will be on it first

    • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

      Terry are you saying the can add stuff to the order before it is remanded?

  12. steve

    “The attack will be under the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 Reputation shaming of being put on a website without due process of showing reason other than Pa. statute requires it. Must show proof of being a danger to Pa. public.”

    This is interesting. So could this be argued in California. Anyone pre-website could argue no due process?

    • terry brunson

      California has no reputation rights in their Constitution.

      This shaming is only for PA. people. California has to fight like we fought for our rights

      • steve

        “California has no reputation rights in their Constitution.

        This shaming is only for PA. people. California has to fight like we fought for our rights”

        Uhh are you insinuating ‘don’t ride our coattails figure it out yourself..’ because it sure comes off that way and I believe the people here in Ca are on the forefront of the fight. So take your PA win and create your own website.

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          Don’t be a hater Steve you didn’t create anything He didn’t mean anything other than CA is a libtard state lol

        • kind of living

          it seems to me that there plenty is to go around here , Because it was Oliver Wendell Homes that pushed for stylization , and he was appointed by Roosevelt , and look at who all the people were that fought to keep Buck V Bell , they were not the so called Libtards of the west , and some of that still stands , even if it was over turned 1974 , seems like RC’s are eating some of this old law , Buck V Bell , and many more since , that came from back east , now we have the stupid ass reach across party lines circle jerk thing going on these days cant even tell who is what anymore

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          Greenbackers rule Bill Still 2020

        • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

          Progressives need laws and benefits for everyone

        • kind of living

          well its the people that they get the money from , their still making boat loads of bucks off of the get tough on drug laws , big pharma will see to it , but it still comes from the people in the long run , because we pay big pharma full price + 150% to cover what they give uncle Sam to control what people can have and what they cant , plenty of Welfare CO jobs and LE , with huge benefits , progressive thinkers like Ragan and his wife ,as well as Bush sr , Bush jr , HR 645 , fisa , patriate act ,Fisa court , all get tough on something , all costing us much more than money , hell after HR 645 RC’s are surprised ? hell yeah ! they were bizzy as bees rooting for their team , not even thinking bout the rights of all people

        • kind of living

          don’t even call someone a Hater when its you refer to people in the west as tards , it makes you sound like our eugenics loving Prez

  13. Brian

    Cert denied !!!!!!!!

    • terry brunson

      Brian this is Terry I told you from the beginning what the out come would be. I am in the Pa. Commonwealth Court with my case. I will give an update after 5 Feb 2018 . But I and Chuck and other knew what the SCOTUS would do with Freed’s Cert Writ.

      I cannot say Freed fought a good fight. There was no fight at all. The Cert was a time delay to get a head start on HB 1952

      That HB 1952 is good for some but not all and it too will soon be knocked down. To keep it from going to the SCOTUS – challenges should be based only on Pa. State grounds alone. it is a win for ALL IN PA.

      • Brian

        @Terry Brunson
        Yes you did my man much props to you, now we deal with 1952.

      • Gary Evans


        Can I contact you about my issue with Megan’s law?

  14. who removes from list


    House Bill 1952 is trailing close behind and hopefully the Senate does not pass this bill!

    My husband has a hearing to be removed from SORNA, and since Megans Law 3 was in place at the time of his sentence hearing in 2006. He like many will be removed from the registry, and we will wait to see what House Bill 1952 has in store for everyone.

    Have a great day!

    ANOTHER VICTORY, I am a Woman Against the Registry.

    God Bless you all!

  15. Chris

    Cert DENIED!!!! YES there is light at the end of the tunnel. Now that it’s denied what happens now. Does PSP have to start making moves or do we have to wait for HB 1952 to be become law.

    • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

      Wheels up MFrs Everyone call PSP to get off Reg

      • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

        The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma
        pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari
        is denied.

  16. AJ

    I think it would behoove every RC in PA to get a judgment releasing them from registering ASAP. Taking the example displayed in KS, where the KSSC overruled itself the *same day* regarding RCs (, a judgment cannot be undone. I don’t know the mechanics of it, but a judge in one of the latter dissent explicitly wrote that the RCs who won in the earlier case were not affected by the overrule (see the last sentence of the URL’s fourth paragraph), as their judgment had been completed. This makes sense, or else every single time a judgment is issued, people would want to go back and be made whole retroactively. Anyway, something to think about–and something PSP, et al, are probably aware of and intentionally dragging their feet about.

    • Paul 2 One bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch on

      Just received an email from Theresa Robertson NARSOL PA Contact with a template to file for relief not sure how to get it up on here

    • Brian

      Did Kansas go to SCOTUS or did they stay within their own jurisdictions is the question, I don’t recall them going to SCOTUS for cert and whatnot, I could be wrong though, If it was going to be turned around that easy one would think SCOTUS would have accepted the cert and made an opinion on it. Like I said I don’t remember Kansas going to the SCOTUS and I could be wrong.

      • AJ

        The KS cases were KASC, no further. It appears there was a change in the justices who heard the cases–*four* of them in the same day–and that tipped the KASC from one direction to the other. They still look like buffoons, IMO.

        The direct quotes read: “To be clear, this Petersen-Beard opinion does not change the result for the Ex Post Facto defendants, i.e., John Doe in Doe v. Thompson, No. 110,318; Joseph M. Buser in No. 105,982; and Promise Delon Redmond in No. 110,280. Likewise, Leonard D. Charles, whose case No. 105,148 was heard on the same docket as the Ex Post Facto cases, will be governed by the holding in his case. Plainly stated, all of those litigants won on appeal, and the KORA amendments cannot be applied to them.” & “Moreover, I want to assure that the defendants in the Ex Post Facto cases obtain the relief to which they are entitled.” (

        • Brian

          So sense it went all the way to SCOTUS I believe PASC wouldn’t turn thing around honestly, KC was just a state only fight then I guess. I’m really not familiar with the case honestly, I for the most part just stuck to the pa problems because it was hard enough to fallow and catch up on you know. Some of us are almost finished.

        • AJ

          I only gave the cases light reading, but I believe the KS cases were about the KS constitution being violated. Muniz also implicated not only the PA constitution, but the US Constitution too, so that made appeal to SCOTUS possible. SCOTUS, or any Federal Court for that matter, has no say in a state-only issue such as violating a state constitution.

        • Brian

          Shows how much I don’t know lol I thought it was completely about the state rights and constitution.

        • AJ

          That’s the beauty of what little federalism remains. The States are not beholden to the Federal Gov’t. in most matters–and definitely not when it comes to regulations or State law(s) (assuming the law doesn’t violate the US Constitution).

    • David Kennerly's Spectral Evidence

      In the case of the Kansas Supreme Court: someone got to them. So much for the judicial branch being “above the fray.”

  17. AJ

    1. Condescension isn’t always Person A directing it at Person B. Sometimes it’s Person A. Sometimes it’s Person B. Sometimes it’s both Person A and Person B. But, if everyone around you is condescending, it might not be everyone around you who is condescending.
    2. “I believe I am not being condescending I have only responded to condescending posts directed at me.” Me either, and me too.
    3. “[T]here seems to be a few in here that…seem to support people that clearly are dangerous to the community.” “Clearly” by whose standard?
    4. “If you don’t like it, see if you can apply for a moderator position on here.” a.) Right back at you.
    b.) Sounds like it’s already been filled: “I and others on here know who you are and will be called out.”

Leave a Reply

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

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