ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


MI: Does v. Snyder brings changes to state’s Sex Offender Registration Law

Six people who filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan, challenging the constitutionality of its Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), have been removed from the public sex offender registry after a final order in their case, Does v. Snyder, was issued in January.

The judgment, signed by The Hon. Robert H. Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan, enforced a unanimous panel ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court held that the 2006 and 2011 amendments to Michigan’s SORA violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore cannot be applied retroactively to people convicted before the changes went into effect. The court said SORA “brands registrants as moral lepers solely on the basis of a prior conviction. It consigns them to years, if not a lifetime, of existence on the margins, not only of society, but often…from their own families.” The decision became final last October when the U.S. Supreme Court denied the state’s petition for certiorari. As a result, the Michigan legislature will have to rewrite the state law. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. TG

    I’m not sure how to feel about this. I was convicted in Michigan, but was kept on the list there – even though I was living – and still live – in California. That changed in 2011, when Michigan removed me. In addition, I could have been removed entirely after 25 years in just a few years under the new Michigan laws. Now, is it going to revert back, making me publicly listed again? Am I going back to a lifetime requirement there?

    On the other hand, this ruling seems like it could be good news for registrants in general.

    Another thing to worry about was just what I needed.

    • Don’t tread on me

      Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. I refuse to believe any of this will benefit us in any way. Our attorney general Bill Schuette is now running for governor. If he is elected we will have the worst kind of political enemy in Michigan’s top seat.

    • E @ TG

      Hey TG, why did they remove you in 2011? Was a part of that year’s law-change the removal of out of state people from the registry? Presently, I am forever on the WI registry (conviction there), though I have not lived there for decades… looking for any parallels to my situation that have changed for further understanding…

      • TG

        @ E, to be honest I’m really not sure why they removed me. I didn’t want to poke that hornets nest for fear they would realize it was a mistake and put me back on.

      • Wendell Smith

        Hey, T.J. I was also convicted in Wisconsin. I asked for my probation to be moved to Michigan, which was accomplished. Unbeknownst to me, doing so placed me on the Michigan SOR for life, due to some “administrative rule” requiring the same. The judge in WI said that my inclusion on the SOR would do “nothing but make it difficult to find work or residence”, and that “the public does not need to be protected by you”. Two psychologists in Wisconsin, including the one that the State of Wisconsin uses to make their own determinations, I am next to NO risk of recidivism. I came to Michigan, where one can be assigned to 26, 39, or 52 weeks of counseling, I was released after less than 8 weeks, with the counselor stating it was a “waste of both of our time” for me to continue. I am interested to know if there’s anything you’ve been through that may help me. Now, I want to return to WI to be closer to my kids and grandkids, and am being told that I would have to be on the WI SOR for life by returning, BECAUSE I WAS ON THE SOR IN MICHIGAN! (Remember I was only on it in Michigan due to some administrative rule). Please respond. I need your help! Thanks.

        • AJ

          @Wendell Smith:
          Depending on the facts of your case, there may be some hope (no pun intended) in looking into Hope v. Indiana ( In that case, a Federal District Court (in the same Circuit Court of Appeals as Wisconsin) found that treating someone who had left and returned to Indiana differently than someone who had never left was a violation of the Constitution.

          What does that all mean? Well, it depends. If WI is requiring you to register ONLY because you went to MI (long enough to trigger registration) and would not otherwise require you register, you may have a case. However, if WI would have forced you to register had you opted to stay in WI post-conviction, things are a bit bleaker for you.

          Others on here who know the WI rules better than I can probably chime in with some perspective. At minimum, I suggest you take the court case above to a WI lawyer and see what s/he thinks about your plight.

  2. Bobby

    This article is nothing new,they are just repeating what we already know, that is why the Michigan ACLU, has filed a Class Action Lawsuit against the state of Michigan. The Class Action is called Does 2, is to force Michigan to make it apply to all of us who are pre-sorna. My Conviction was in 1992, before a registry even existed in Michigan. I’m not sure if I am saying this correctly, but Does 2, is scheduled to be heard October 17th, at 2:00pm with Judge Cleland. I believe it is so he hopefully certifies Does 2, to apply the 6th circuit to all of us who are pre-sorna. I hope that makes sense to everyone.

    • Timothy

      1992 a suffered a wrongful conviction for molestation. I refused plea offers of defferred prosecution and demanded trial by jury. I waived no rights but Wisconsin just waived them for me behind my back. Whether one was actually factually guilty seem conceitedly relevant to the intent of the state and the question at hand in Connecticut DPS v. Doe. Too bad I didn’t get to ask the question myself.

    • bill

      Funny they postponed the case until the election , I think the ruling will come down after the election, hopefully it can over with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Bobby


        So are you saying they moved the date again, the Class Action was or is suppose to be heard on October 17th, at 200pm. ? If it did get changed then what is the date now.

        This whole thing is getting ridicules, it’s clear that 6th Circuit’s ruling applies to all of us that are pre-sorna, yet everyone continues to drag their feet, I also don’t understand why they sent out this article, when it seems ti me that it is just repeating older article(s) so can anyone explain what is going on and did the class action get moved again. Hope this makes sense to everyone.

        • Josh

          Unfortunately, I think Bill is right…the hearing has been pushed back until January 9 2019 as near as I can tell..I think the class action was certified a couple weeks ago. I’m waiting on my attorney to confirm this tomorrow…..just more waiting…a quick google search was all it took to find this info

        • Bill

          Not that I know of, I thought it was postponed still in Oct?

        • Bobby

          @Josh, I heard from Mrs Aukerman that it was in fact certified, and the motion hearing is in 1-9-2019. So here a couple questions since when it comes to understanding this stuff I am about as dumb as a box of rocks. Lol. What does it mean exactly now that the class action has been certified? and and what is the motion hearing about on January 9th, is it to see if the class action will include all Michigan registrants or is that what being certified as all about, and did you hear back from your lawyer yet and if so what did he have to say about all this stuff.

    • Timothy Miller

      could somebody please tell me I was wrongfully convicted in 2007 was my conviction why am I on the 2011 registry part of the SOI can I get relief from that and just only be part of the private aspect of the registry anyone can help me thank you greatly

    • Wendell Smith

      I am confused. Is it the date of conviction or the date of the infractions that are the key point here? I was convicted in 2016 for a crime that convicted around 2006-2008, somewhere in there. Please advise. Thanks.

  3. Matthew

    I want to get in on this civil case. Thanks to Snyder I went from 25 years to life. I am also wondering if it applies to fees that were put into place requiring SOs to pay $50 every year. I was convicted in 1997 and would be down to 4, almost 3 years left.

  4. NY won't let go

    Was it Snyder that signed it in? I thought it was Granholm, She didn’t like us very well either.

    While I was in and waiting to see if I should plea out or go to trial, my lawyer told me that my evidence wasn’t admissible for trial because it discredited the victims story. (some law passed in 2007) meaning my only defense wouldn’t be admitted because it had proved that she lied about her age to begin with, but by law we are supposed to get like three forms of ID now, make photo copies and do a background check.

    Because you know people under 18 have tattoos and piercings and it doesn’t matter if they present themselves as older, have an ID that says they’re older, or all their social media accounts say they’re older. You still have to already know. 😂😂

  5. Bobby

    @josh, I found out that the class action was certified by Cleland. and the motion hearing is on January 9th, so since I am as dumb as a box of rocks. Lol. What does it mean exactly now that Cleland certified the class.2) what us the motion hearing about, is it so Cleland can rule on whether it will apply to all pre-sorna Registrants. Just trying to understand what all this is going to mean. So any help you can give Josh or any one else I would appreciate it. Also Josh , did you hear back from your lawyer yet, and what did he have to say about all this if anything.

    • Josh

      Since it was certified as a class action it now means that we all win or we all lose together…as to the hearing on the 9th of January, this is the hearing for the partial summary judgement that the Aclu filed basically requesting the relief due to those of us whose convictions came before 2006 & 2011….the way it’s written to the best of my understanding is that we get our relief on a temporary basis while they try to hash out a permanent solution with the legislature hence the partial summary. My lawyer was aware that the October 17 hearing was adjourned but didn’t know the exact date it was rescheduled which I found through a quick google far as what it all means to all of us who were waiting it’s just more of the same….

      • Bobby

        @josh,. Thanks, for explaining all that, I honestly can’t see how we can lose, being that ruling from the 6th circuit, and basically being backed by SCOTUS, clearly states that it applies to all pre-sorna SORNA registrants who’s convictions were before the 2006 and 2012 amendments put into place. So if you don’t mind me asking and if you actually know the answer to these question. After Cleland rules on the 9th, what would happen next, and how much longer after the 9th till a final decision is made?, I can’t see how he can rule against us,.but then this Is Judge Cleland, the 6th circuit had to over rule his last decision, on does 1, when he ruled for us and against us, until the 6th stepped in and said he was wrong and that Does 1 was in fact punishment and unconstitutional. ALL OF IT, not just parts of it.

        • Josh

          I don’t know what’s going to happen….I don’t know if he (Cleland) is going to hear the case and make a decision that day or sit on it for a while…I just have no earthly idea. What you said in your last post is accurate though, in regards to the 6th circuit overturning Cleland on all counts. I’m interested to see how he’ll react THIS time around. Every factor should be in our favor but honestly I’m losing optimism…there is too much money involved and too many political careers at stake..we all know that what’s right & constitutional can be subject to any one person’s interpretation…I guess we’ll all see in three months…

  6. Josh

    Sorry y’all….I wasn’t trying to be negative or pessimistic because on paper our case should be a slam dunk….the motions that were filed by the Aclu are really well written and reasoned…they’re also backed up by the 6th and scotus. I want to believe that justice will prevail and some of us can get some semblance of our lives & privacy back…After 26 years, I know that it’s too late to ever re-gain my reputation or the experiences that have been lost due to restrictions imposed by these FARCES of laws…I’m praying daily for all of us to keep faith that we get the result we deserve..

    • Bobby

      @Josh, I completely agree with you, mmy original registration date was 11-22-1995. but since they moved my original registration date to my conviction date which was 6-19-1992. So according to that date I have been doing this registration crap since I was 23, and next year June 2nd , I will be 50, so I am really hoping they fix this stupid thing soon , hopefully before I met my maker anyway. So 26 years i have been putting my private info, for everyone to read. You would thing we would get some sort of compensation, besides being removed , or having our registrations put back to wre they were to begin with, mine was 25 years and that would if been over in 2020. So when everything is finally settled and fixed I hope I am just removed from the whole danm thing, since I and many others are pre-sorna.

  7. Bobby

    Hello everyone.

    Well I was finally able to get an answer from Mrs Aukerman as to why the October 17th hearing was moved to January 9th 2019, and here was her short reply back to me.

    You must continue to register.  The hearing was moved because we are negotiating with the state to see if we can get a new, better law.  That law, or any decision in the case, will affect everyone.
    Why she would tell me to continue to register, I don’t know I’m not going to stop registering now after I have been doing it since the early 90’s. I just want this case over.

    I just thought you would all like to know what she said to me.

    • CR

      “The hearing was moved because we are negotiating with the state to see if we can get a new, better law. That law, or any decision in the case, will affect everyone.”

      That doesn’t sound encouraging. Maybe it’s just me, but that kind of language, especially the word “negotiating”, just rings of compromise.

      If the ACLU is “negotiating” for something even better for registrants than what the 6th already said, then why would the state entertain it? Why is it even up to the ACLU to negotiate with the state for a new law? That sounds like legislation. This is supposed to be about enforcing a judicial decision.

      How about the ACLU just stick with the original plan and force the state to conform to the 6th Circuit’s opinion?

      • Josh

        I agree….who are they negotiating with? I’m guessing it’s not Snyder because he’s all but done. I can almost guarantee it’s not Bill schuette our illustrious current attorney general…he has no comment on this topic due to his upcoming election. Not to mention he has a big hatred for us indentured registrants…let’s not get this twisted because the odds of the the state & legislature just giving in and releasing us from the registry willingly are NONE & NONE…this will go until the hearing in January and likely beyond. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t have any confidence when the state should have done what was right and constitutional from the jump…

        • Bobby

          @Josh, I agree they also can’t be talking with that idoit Rick Jones, because he issue also on his way out, even though he claims he tried to get everyone together to hash things out and fix the registry. He claims no one wanted to meet, but I bet that is just a lie they haven’t tried to fix anything because this is a election year. I do plan on asking Mrs Aukerman tomorrow, who and why are they negotiating, with to trying and get a better law. The 6th Circuit had already said that the #006 and 2011 Amendments are in deed punishment and unconstitutional, and that they can NOT be applied retroactively to pre-sorna Registrants. So I am going to bring that fact up to her and see what they she says, also am going to ask her why negotiate, when she should be forcing the state to comply with a court order. I also agree with CR it’s a judicial order case closed. The ACLU needs to force the state to comply not negotiate.

    • Bill

      Thanks Bobby for the info, I think the state will agree or work out something out before January 9th 2019, I know this wasn’t part of a lot of ours sentence, and we were put through Hell, it is so sad for a lot of family’s etc…

      • Josh

        I’m not understanding the aspect of legislating this at all….if you were pre-registry all together than you should come off all together…If you were pre 06 than the residency restrictions and whatever else came along with that should be removed…if you were pre 11 than you shouldn’t be placed on a tier based on the type of conviction you had along with email addresses, workplace, & vehicle information etc. My whole point is that whoever is running this damn registry in Lansing needs to start sorting through it and removing people who never should have been on it and removing personal information from people who haven’t completed their 25 year initial(additional) sentence on the registry….if their conviction fell before 2006…again, just fix what you were ordered to…and then if you want to negotiate better laws for the other people whose convictions came after 2011 then I’m all for it..

    • AJ

      “Well I was finally able to get an answer from Mrs Aukerman as to why the October 17th hearing was moved to January 9th 2019[.]”
      Here’s my amateur guess as to why the dates changed: October 17 is too close to Election Day; January 9 is when the newly sworn legislature will open its session.

      • Josh

        The part about the postponed October 17 hearing being too close to a election doesn’t make any sense….Bobby mentioned in one of his previous posts about Rick Jones and his supposed willingness to sit down and hammer out legislation but nobody else wanted to come anywhere near it. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion that it shouldn’t matter who sits in the state senate, House of Representatives, or the governor’s chair…a court order is a court order. Why wait until the next governor is seated? Why wait until the next attorney general is in place? If elected, Bill schuette isn’t going to help us….he hates us and he’s corrupt as hell. He’ll oppose us at every turn and I have absolutely no idea what Gretchen Whitmer thinks about us. I’m pretty sure it’s not good though, her being a former prosecutor….Again…don’t look for any help from politicians because unless they’re banging their drums about more restrictions and being tough on crime just so they can look good for their constituents there will be no politician sticking their necks out for us…the courts are where our relief will come from..

        • AJ

          “nobody else wanted to come anywhere near it.”
          Does this not indicate to you how toxic it would be for a politician to be “pro pedophile” right before ballots are cast? You cannot be that woefully naive about politics, can you?

          You’re right, it doesn’t matter who sits in any of the elected officials’ chairs, because they all want to stay away from it at all costs…doubly so right before they are trying to win an election.

        • Josh

          I’m not naive about politics at all…the point I was trying to make was that it doesn’t matter if there is an election or not…for our state senators and representatives there is always another election ahead. Their voting records are there for everybody to see…they’ll NEVER want to appear “pro pedophile” at any point if they want to be elected again….you have a tv? If you do than surely you’ve seen every attack ad from Flint water, Nassar, etc…am I making my point? Rick Jones even said that he couldn’t get anybody to the table, period. He said it was going to be up to the courts and that’s all I was trying to emphasize…

  8. Don’t tread on me

    This whole thing depresses me. If we are successful and many are removed from the registry, then our army of anti-SOR warriors will be radically reduced. The noise being made will only be a whisper. Those of us left behind with convictions from 2012 and on will be left to suffer through this incredibly onerous experience. I am glad there are so many that will benefit from this ruling. Our prayers may yet be answered. I guess I only ask that once you are removed from the registry please do not forget those of us left behind.

    • Liberty or Death

      Take solace, in the fact that, arguments made were claiming the rules are cruel and ambiguous. I believe much of the negotiating being done is about the new law. Not whether it will be imposed retroactively. If the state is to avoid hundreds of lawsuits it best fall in line with the ruling to remove any additional conditions imposed on registrants convicted prior to amendments. Therefore the “negotiating” they refer to should be about a useful registry, removing the rediculous limits and rules, and arguing their true benefit, if any, to society, for those convicted after the last amendment and going forward.

  9. Bobby

    Hello again everyone,

    Well I was able to get another clearer response from another person at the ACLU, about why they are negotiating a new better deal. I still don’t understand why we need to do anything since already won.

    So here is another response to my question, WHY ARE WE NEGOTIATING FOR A NEW BETTER DEAL.

    His response back to me:

    Good afternoon Bobby:  
    I understand your frustration, however we are trying to get the best for the most people on the SOR and that is the best way I can put it.  You have every right to sue the State if that is what you wish to do with your funds.  Having been on the SOR myself I get it that every day is  punishment for you, and the sooner you are off the better you will feel.  We have to look at the whole situation and try the best we can to get this issue resolved doing the most good for the most number of people.  Also realizing that if we do not negotiate we may not get as much as we would like. It will work out but it is not something that has moved along as fast as any of us would like.  Please understand that you are not alone in this endeavor and we will keep working toward the best outcome for the most Registered Citizens’.  Respectfully Tim, ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist

    • Josh

      Thanks for the heads up on that response you go from the Aclu guy….but what the hell does any of that mean? I understand trying to help for the greater good of as many as possible but I’ve got to agree with you Bobby….enough is enough…all of us who are supposed to come off the registry shouldn’t have to wait over a year for The state of Michigan to do what they’re supposed too…Pennsylvania did what they were supposed to do after the Muniz decision so why can’t Michigan? It’s real easy to be told that you need to be patient when you’ve been waiting for 26 years for something to be over that should have been over in 3 years…

    • CR

      It’s still a vague answer, and it is still not clear what it is they are trying to negotiate with the state for. They shouldn’t have to negotiate with the state to get it to comply with at least what the court said. Are they trying to get the state to go beyond what the court said, and reduce restrictions and requirements on a broader basis, maybe applying to more people? Why would the state agree to do that?

      • Josh

        Exactly….the state has shown no inclination to even comply with the specific post facto elements that the 6th circuit ruled on and scotus declined to hear. Those parts should be non-negotiable and already changed. We can’t even get a firm answer as to when or even IF it’ll ever be corrected…they just keep kicking the can down road. There’s no guarantee that we’ll get what we’re due on January 9 and it pisses me off to no end. But hey, let’s negotiate some more…..Oh, and one other thing, don’t expect the state to roll over if Bill schuette gets elected as our next governor

  10. Tammy

    I’ve been fallowing this since the jump. I am advocating for someone who has registered since 2000. Long story short, was 18, she said she was 16, turns out she wasn’t. Bam hit with 3rd degree csc. I have solo many questions. Who would I contact , in need of advice. Thanks

  11. Bobby

    Hello Everyone,

    I wanted to send out a quick update, I got an e-mail the other day Mrs Aukerman and attached was a PDF concerning Does 2. It was sent to a Adam Sandowski, Michigan Department of Attorney general. It is entitled Re: Does #1-6 v. Snyder
    For Settlement Purposes only; Subject to Fed. R. Evid. 408′ it was sent to him on 10-10-2018, the problem I am having is trying to share the PDF with all of you, I have no idea how to turn a PDF into a URL, and I certainly don’t want to copy and paste 34 pages. So I will share it with all of you as soon as I figure out how to do it.

    • David M

      Hi Bobby…. I got that email too. I don’t know how to post it either. It’s very interesting and well written. Michigan ACLU is really first class in legal battles on sex offenses.

      • PK

        ” Michigan ACLU is really first class in legal battles on sex offenses.”

        How about the NYCLU ?

        • NYLEVEL1

          NYCLU only interested in lesbians who cannot find stores that do not stock size 16 EEEEE Birkenstocks

    • AJ

      You can anonymously upload the file to Just drag and drop it into the big grey-shaded area in the middle of the page. It’ll upload and then give you a URL to use and share. (It’ll be shortened a bit to “” and some string of characters.) Just post that URL here and anyone can view it for 30 days.

      • Josh

        If you can’t get it posted, can you summarize the jist of what was posted? I’m in one of the sub-classes of the lawsuit but I don’t get email updates from Miriam or the aclu. I know there is a status conference on the 28th and the state has to respond by the 1st of December according to my attorney. I don’t know what that means for all of us? You have any ideas Aj?

        • AJ

          A Status Conference is just that, a pre-trial meeting of the parties and the judge to see if and how things are progressing. It doesn’t mean a whole lot as to the case itself, it’s administrative and way to avoid snags (read: wasting the court’s time) later. See:

  12. Matt

    Please forward me a copy of the email directly to me. I recently got convicted for 5 felonies for failure to register and need all documents I can to overturn this farce.

  13. Bobby

    Hi Everyone, Well I took AJ’s advise and uploaded to and got a new URL for it, so I really hope I did this correctly, because I really want to share it with all of you so everyone knows what is going on.

    So here it is I hope it works, please let me know either way thanks.

    • AJ

      I checked out the URL and it worked fine, with a 35-page PDF for viewing. Well done, friend!

  14. mike r @Bobby

    @Bobby. Hey can you pass along the Tim persons email address as I would like to contact him about possibly getting the ACLU of Northern Ca to chime in on my case. I understand they are not the same orgs really since one is there and one is here but still they do share a common interest and are both part of the national ACLU I would think. Also people, AVVO attorney questions are a great place for those with attorney questions. They must be precise questions and not long legal theories but they have responded to every ? I have ever asked and quickly as well. There are several attorneys that have helped me a lot for free. I do not know how they get away with giving legal advise but they do….

    • Chris F

      Avvo is good for short procedural questions and specific advise.

      I have gotten incorrect and rude advise though if anything in my question exposes a sex offence. They wouldnt want their peer friends to bash them for helping us.

      They do it for free to show off their knowledge and potentially get clients.

    • Bobby

      @ Mike R.

      I do believe this is the correct e-mail for Tim.

  15. mike r

    This is ridiculous. Why are they even wanting to meet with these legislators or other stake holders? They won, end of story. Remove these individuals and let the remaining petition on a class action now. Screw this working with anyone trying to create a legislative fix. They mean a legislative work around the court is what they are stating. It just makes me suspicious when anyone wants to get together to draft legislation after a court decision n o matter what side they are on… I am usually a positive person but I am cynical of situations and people in situations like this where the plaintiffs have already won hands down…

    • Chris f (@mike r)

      The only reason to work with them is the courts have no way to enforce their rulings.

      Look at Brown v board of education that ruled segregation in schools was unconstitutional. Texas did nothing to change. It wasnt until 10 years later when Congress created legislation making segregation illegal that things changed. At best, the scotus ruling affects the specific plaintiff or plaintiffs and maybe affects future lower court rulings.

      The best we get from scotus is an excuse legislators can use to go against popular uneducated opinion to create more constitional legislation. Without that scotus excuse, the legislators that try to do the right thing will be defeated in their next election when their opponent calls them pro offender.

      My bet is the legislators wont work with them and just create new laws as bad as the old ones and have to go through all this again.

      • Josh

        I understand the skepticism but what does it really hurt for the aclu to try and negotiate…Cleland still has to hear the case and make a ruling. From what I was led to believe, he’ll hear the case and make a decision within 45 to 60 days and hopefully not much longer than that. If he rules in our favor(knock on wood) and we win yet again then people should start coming off the registry…the precedent has already been set…Michigan has lost at every turn and I hope to God that it happens again. I know it’s easy to lose faith and I have many times myself but this last election couldn’t have gone any better for RCs in terms of who our new attorney general and governor are. I could be wrong or naive but I’m choosing to stay positive

  16. mike r

    Thank you Bobby, and yeah I have found two people on AVVO specifically a Fred Isquith and a female attorney who have been very respectful and helpful and knowledgeable on technical issues. that is what it is good for, tech questions…

  17. Dennis

    I really wish they would’ve waited for the New Attorney General Dana Nessel who will be taking office January 1st. She is a lot different than Bill Schuette. Unlike most Attorney Generals, she was a defense attorney immediately prior to her running for office. Prior to that, she was a prosecutor. If you look at her attorney website and read up on her, you will see that being an attorney, she defended clients against the registry, so she DEFINITELY knows the issues behind the registry. If you read up on the Larry Nassar case, then you would know that she was opposed to much of the new legislative bills being passed as a result. Her reasoning was that accusers are not always truthful. She also believes in second chances. She was one of the ONLY runners for election who did NOT have to use the typical “Lets Get these Predators”, to get elected. Her opponent did, and he lost!

    She was also the attorney who took the same -sex marriage issue to the US Supreme Court when Bill Schuette was fighting it, and SHE WON!

    I’m sure she will be tough on crime, but fair. Its good to have an Attorney General who has been on both sides.

    To answer your question regarding why the ACLU does not just have the courts enforce the decision immediately, they CAN do that. However, most people will go back to the old registry, where it was 25 years. For most people, that’s still a long time left. Not only that, the registry needs to be changed. Going back to the OLD SORA would put all those back on who were removed as a result of the new Sora.

    The ACLU is trying to work with the legislators to pass a better law (ie, risk assessments, removing those who were convicted under HYTA, etc). If the state doesn’t agree to make changes, THEN in January, the court will most likely enforce the Snyder VS Does decision.

    The only reason the legislature is acting tough is just to get re-elected, but they can now easily say that they made changes to the registry because “the court made them do it” (which if you were someone from the general public reading the Snyder Vs Does decision, you would definitely assume that).

    You guys have to look at the bigger picture, and not just about enforcing this decision, which takes us back to the OLD Sora. The old version of SORA was still a MESS! Yes, some folk’s who only had to register for 25 years will be removed as their 25 years will be up, but it doesn’t help the remaining 40,000 on there.

    • Josh

      I am one of the people who would go back to the original 25 year registration….I’m also one of the people whose offense pre-dates the whole damn thing along with Bobby and several others on this site…..I’ve watched the whole thing from the start up until now and I would happily go back to the old SORA because at least there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Nobody was telling me where I could or couldn’t live, work, worship, or attend my kids events..nobody was putting my email addresses, vehicles, tattoos and whatever else they put on your page. In 2011 I watched my 25 years turn into a life sentence in the court of public opinion. I care as much about the greater good for ALL of us as anybody on this site but don’t tell me it’s not a good thing that we’ll probably go back to old registry rules because with those rules there was a way out….

      • Dennis


        Since your offense pre-dates SORA in 1995, I suggest you keep an eye and follow the 2 cases pending in the Michigan Supreme Court that will mostly likely be heard this term. I’m hopeful they will rule in your favor for people such as yourself.

        Whatever decision they make is binding on all registrants in the state whose offenses pre-dated SORA in 1995, as this is a State Supreme Court ruling and would not be an “as applied to xyz” case. Here are the 2 cases below. The last link just search for “Snyder” and “Betts”, and you will find all briefs, etc that have been filed so far.

        • Josh

          Thanks for the links to those cases. I wasn’t aware of either one of those…that is exactly what happened to me. I was put on the registry because I was on probation at the time the registry went into effect….@Aj do either of those cases interfere with what’s going on in the Does 2 case? Or is it a good thing that cases keep getting thrown at the wall like spaghetti to see what sticks…I was under the impression that post facto had been decided by the 6th and denied cert by scotus…wouldn’t that decide/supersede these 2 cases That Dennis informed us about?

        • AJ

          I haven’t read the cases, and probably won’t since they are MI State Court cases and therefore have no impact on me (I’m outside MI). But, my personal take is that any suits filed in State Courts within the 6th’s turf are a good thing.

          The 6th’s Snyder Opinion is only persuasive for, not binding on, a State Court. (Only SCOTUS can override a State court decision, and even then only on a Federal Constitutional issue.) But one has to think it’s quite persuasive–especially with SCOTUS having taken a pass on it.

          Given a Federal court has found MI’s SORA violates the Federal Constitution, there’s really no where for the State to run or hide. All State constitutions must provide *at minimum* the rights of the Federal Constitution. They may add more rights, but cannot take any away. Put another way, MI’s constitution cannot take away one’s Federal right to be free from Ex Post Facto laws.
          The benefit of having a MI court also decide (in our favor) is that a State may well respond a bit quicker to its own courts than to a Federal one (except SCOTUS).

        • Bobby

          @Josh and @Dennis

          I talked to Mrs Lewis today about the two cases pending in MSC, Betts and Davis Snyder, from what I read they wre waiting for the outcome from the Temelkoski case, and now that they and we know he won, what is takeing so long to argue these two cases. Well this is all I could get out of Mrs Lewis on those cases.

          We are aware of and currently involved with those cases. The Michigan Supreme Court is hearing argument on whether to even take the cases, and it is unclear if they will do so.
          Best regards,

          So what happens if they don’t even hear those cases, and how long will it take if they decide to hear those cases.? If they do hear them, will we have a decision by June, any one have any idea. Thanks in advance.

        • Bobby

          Hello Everyone,I

          well got this in my email today,

          Also I did see something on the net earlier, that of course I can’t find noe, but it did mention something about Bettts, and David A. Snyder being argued at the same time or same day.

          So if there is someone out there that knoes more about this stuff and can find that information and post it for everyone to see, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. PS , so with the amicus being granted, will these cases be heard this year or next year 2020. again Thank you.

        • AJ

          Skimming the amicus (, ACLU is arguing for MI SC to deny hearing the case, based on the Snyder decision. As ACLU points out, even though MI SC is not bound by Snyder, the State of MI is. As such, no matter what MI SC decides, MI must comply with Snyder and change its laws. Anything MI SC does regarding this will probably only cloud, and delay, the issues. (And if they ruled contrary to Snyder, an appeal to SCOTUS would probably again end poorly for the State…and leave MI SC with egg on its face.)

          One line from the amicus caught my eye: “serious legislative reform efforts are
          underway for comprehensive SORA reform that would not only remedy the constitutional flaws
          in the statute, but would reflect modern social science and best practices.” I *really* like that last bit about “modern social science and best practices.” That absolutely sounds like risk-based laws and perhaps individual assessments. (For those ready to chime in that even a risk-based registry isl unacceptable, I hear you. However, Smith remains dispositive so there’s no way a complete ending of registries is in the cards.) Perhaps MI will end up being the poster child for reform and sanity…one can hope, right?

          Finally, based on the Caption of the amicus, yes the cases of Messrs. Snyder (RC, not State) and Betts have been combined for consideration at MI SC. If the ACLU amicus carries any weight at all, I don’t suspect you’ll need to wait long for a decision. Otherwise, you’ll probably have to wait no later than July 31, 2019 (end of the current Term for MI SC). Worst case would be their kicking it over to the next Term (Aug 1, 2019 – Jul 31, 2020), but I would be skeptical it drags on that long.

        • Bobby

          @AJ, or @Josh

          Betts and Snyder are scheduled for Oral Arguments early March, I have a small question since I am an idiot(LOL) it says Oral Arguments for Application. What does that mean here is the link.

          Thanks in advance for any info you can pass along.

        • AJ

          The “MOAA” scheduled for March is kind of a “sneak peek” MI SC does to see whether or not it wishes to accept the case for “real” argument. See “Oral Argument in MOAA Cases” on pages 10-11 of

          You want to be rooting for MI SC to deny application after this hearing. That’s the position ACLU has taken. If they decide to accept, my armchair guess is it won’t be heard until the 2019-2020 Term, starting August 1, 2019. I say that only because it would seem a pretty quick turn for a court to hear the MOAA in March, decide to hear it, schedule it, hear it, and decide it prior to July 31, 2019.

    • Bobby


      I totally agree with everything Josh said, and I am also for the grater good of all, but since my conviction was in 1992 before a registry even existed, and the fact that I was placed on it for 25 years like Josh, and others and moved to life, and now that as of 6-19-18 I have 26 years in, that means I would be removed automatically and as selfish as it may sound I am tired of waiting to be removed just like many other’s are tired of waiting their is no reason to negotiate we already won. It’s time to remove ALL pre-SORNA registrants

      • bill

        Hello Everyone, Maybe good News In Michigan tv 12 news, just said the new Attorney General said The offender is not working and has effectiveness, punitive, Dana Nessel, and said courts have Ruled against it!!!! That’s all for now

  18. Bobby


    I agree with Josh, as a person who was convicted in 1992 before Michigan even had a registry then placed on it for25 years and for life, So since I already have 26 years in I would be removed automatically along with many other’s including Josh so why should we wait for then to negotiate. The 6th circuits ruling was for pre-SORNA registrants not for people that were convicted after 2006 and 2011, sorry if that sounds a bit selfish, but me Josh and many other’s are tired of waiting around for the Michigan legislature to do their jobs, that they should of done 2 years ago. They need to STOP negotiating remove ALL pre-SORNA registrants then and only then negotiate for a better deal for the remaining registrants, again sorry if that sounds selfish but I for one am sick and tired of waiting around for the legislature to do their job.

  19. mike r @Chris

    @Chris, Exactly my point though. Let the others just slam the lower courts with class action and individual suits. Screw working with them to create some work around the courts decision since you know for a fact they are going to try to get any and all on a registry no matter what. Now is the time for anyone in those districts to act and get a ruling from a judge saying they cannot be subject to registration retroactively then it would be way harder for the legislature to make corrections and put them back on. Right now if they tweak the statute I almost guarantee all those that are eligible to come off pursuant Snyder will be subject to some kind of registry. I really feel that they are just going to tweak it so as to minimize the impact but keep everyone registered just minus the restrictions. Then any and everyone will have to go all the way thru the courts again and will probably be upheld as then Smith would hold water if the statutes are similar enough. Right now with the ruling standing anything short of registering by mail and no public access is acceptable under Snyder the way the ruling is written and even that is only after they amend the statute. Am I making sense? It is much easier just to amend the statute and apply it someone still having to register than it would be to apply an amended statute to someone that has a court ruling stating they are no longer required to register. That is my opinion, might be a false opinion but that is the way I see it…

    • Chris f

      You could be right.

      I also think many legislators would prefer the registry just go away and blame the judiciary so they don’t offend any voters by agreeing to less restrictions.

      • Josh

        @ Chris & mike
        I was sitting here thinking about all of this and I think you both made a lot of sense….you hit on a fear of mine that no matter what any particular court or judge decides there will be some technicality or legislature that keeps on us on some form of a registry….you’re seeing it in Pennsylvania and how they’re screwing over a lot of people with some of the same tactics that you guys are talking about…

  20. mike r

    @Josh, You are exactly right. You know what the problem is it is because you get people wanting to work with the enemy after we defeat them. No it does not work that way, we won give us our dues and put your tail between your legs and leave us the hell alone or we will hit you back even harder next time. This is a problem, as soon as we win we need to hit them even harder and quicker and do not give them a chance to pull their legislative crap. Every single person that decision in Snyder affects needs to smash the courts with suits and demand what they have coming. Get those orders by the courts and make it as hard as possible for the legislators to regroup and come back fighting. It is ridiculous. Did the court order a settlement conference? (even if they did who the hell cares, file and demand) Not that I know of, so why are they in there like they need to negotiate some kind of fix or deal? Any person that decision affects can easily just petition the court, cite the decision, demand their dues, and be done with it. The legislature tries to pull some crap after that it is more difficult since the people have all the court decisions granting them relief. Does not take a scientist to see what is going on and how to deal with it. And these people are making it harder for the rest of us when we win as the court may just say, “look how they did it in blah blah place so that is how we are going to deal with it.” Screw that. I do not like what is happening in Pennsylvanian or there with Snyder. Bad precedent is not made just in courts but in every aspect of life and bad precedent can take hold way to easy………..

  21. mike r

    And AJ is exactly right, “Given a Federal court has found MI’s SORA violates the Federal Constitution, there’s really no where for the State to run or hide. All State constitutions must provide *at minimum* the rights of the Federal Constitution. They may add more rights, but cannot take any away. Put another way, MI’s constitution cannot take away one’s Federal right to be free from Ex Post Facto laws.”
    End of story………. Anything beyond is just trying to stall the inevitable and give the crooked legislators a chance to create a legislative fix (work around) and keep everyone registered and their precious funds funneling into the coffers.. It is all about the greenbacks and the power over the people…. Sounds like conspiracy theory but it is fact…… Billions of dollars are fed in thru the registry to thousands and thousands of different entities and they are not going to go down without every sneaky move they can make………….

    • Josh

      You hit the nail on the head! We should have flooded the courts with petitions and suits. I don’t dispute that in any way….however, most people don’t have the resources(money) or wherewithal to get something filed on their own behalf…Then you have the aclu telling people NOT to file so as not to set bad precedent…another thing to factor in is the court’s ability to stall…my lawyer is advising me that our best recourse is to wait because the courts are also waiting to see what the ruling is going to be….

  22. mike r

    After all we are in a war with the states. What happens when you win a battle? you go in secure the area, secure the resources, build base camps and rally your troops from that place of victory. What is so hard about understanding that? it has been going on for millennia. You do not go in there and start asking where you can set up camp and under what terms can we occupy this area. No, we won, get out of our way or face the consequences and either be locked up or worse if you don’t get out of our way.

  23. Bobby

    Hello Everyone, I’m not sure how to ask this so here it goes, does anyone know if the Does v Snyder 2 hearing got moved again?. I went to the Courts site and entered the Date 1-9-2019 on the calendar and scrolled down to all of Judge Cleland’s cases for that day, and I can no longer find the Does v Snyder 2 case hearing. Did it get changed again for some reason? Does anyone have a clue on what’s going on. It sounds like I have to email Mrs. Aukerman what is going on with the case. If anyone knows anything please let me know, because as I said I can no longer find it on the court’s website any longer. Thanks

    • Josh

      I did some checking too…I can’t find anything either. Today was supposed to be the status conference with the state’s response due by December 1 as far as I knew..

    • Gary

      The last update on PACER says the following, not sure what exactly it means, but it sounds like negotiations may have broken down or a deal struck: 11/28/2018 Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Robert H. Cleland: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/28/2018. Current briefing and hearing schedule SUSPENDED, Follow-up Telephone Status Conferences to be set every 28 days.( TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 1/7/2019 02:30 PM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) (THE COURT WILL INITIATE THE CALL (LWag) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
      11/28/2018 TEXT-ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 1/9/2019 is Cancelled re 40 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (LWag) (Entered: 11/28/2018)

      • Josh

        Speculating about all this is probably a bad idea but here goes….I tend to think that a deal was struck instead of negotiations breaking down….we’ve all talked on here about how we feel about the negotiations and the fact that we just wanted our relief due to those of us affected by the 06 and 11 changes…Would they have canceled or put on hold the January 9th hearing if negotiations broke down? If they did break down wouldn’t our side just wait until the hearing for a ruling…as stated by AJ and others there should be no place for the state to hide on this…hoping this is finally IT…..another delay would massively suck

      • AJ

        That “re 40 MOTION” statement is rather important. Document 40 is a Plaintiff Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. I would tend to agree with @Josh that the judge is giving the parties time to work something out, otherwise he probably would have ruled on the Motion. Yes it sucks for MI POTRs to have to wait out status quo, but maybe a Christmas present will arrive.

        I’ve posted the entire “Document 40” file (downloaded as a ZIP directly from PACER) here:
        To read just the Motion (extracted from the PACER ZIP) and not the 6 other files of exhibits and such, use this link:

        • Josh

          A Christmas present removing all pre-sora/AWA registrants in Michigan would be incredible…but incredibly unrealistic…as I alluded to in my post yesterday….it was more or less implied that we are headed for a private law enforcement only registry….never mind that many of us have fulfilled our 25 year “civil” obligation errrrr…I mean sentences. I’m terrified that the aclu will make concessions for the greater good and we’ll get screwed over again….

  24. Bobby

    @Gary and everyone interested

    Well, I copied that last statement that Gary wrote on here and asked Mrs Aukerman what was going on with the case now. so here is what was said what I wrote and then what they wrote back to me.

    Why did the hearing get changed again or cancelled?, do they keep putting this case on the back burner when this case should of been over two years ago.
      A guy I know found this on the PACER site what does this mean exactly, why do they keep putting it off we need to stop negotiating with them and force them to comply with a court order any way this is what he sent me so what does this mean?
    The last update on PACER says the following, not sure what exactly it means, but it sounds like negotiations may have broken down or a deal struck: 11/28/2018 Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Robert H. Cleland: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/28/2018. Current briefing and hearing schedule SUSPENDED, Follow-up Telephone Status Conferences to be set every 28 days.( TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 1/7/2019 02:30 PM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) (THE COURT WILL INITIATE THE CALL (LWag) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
    11/28/2018 TEXT-ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 1/9/2019 is Cancelled re 40 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (LWag) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
    So is this finally coming to an end or is this just more kicking the can down the road, so they(Michigan) doesn’t have to comply with a court order this is really starting to get old and ridiculous its time to stop the negotiations and force their hand. Thank you for your time.


    There response back to me.

    Good afternoon
    Miriam Aukerman asked me to respond to your email. As you know, we are in the process of negotiating with the state for a legislative solution to this case. We understand your concern about not dragging out the resolution of this case. The January hearing was scheduled tentatively in case negotiations were not moving in a good direction. The January hearing was cancelled because our discussions with the state have been moving forward. As you noted in your email below, the court has set a timeframe for checking in on the process every 28 days. That helps the court make sure that if negotiations do not continue to be productive, we can move forward with litigation in a timely manner.
    If you would like to share your priorities for legislative reforms to SORA, please contact me at 616 301-0930.
    Best regards,
    A. Elaine Lewis
    Pronouns: she, her
    West Michigan Legal Fellow,
    American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
    1514 Wealthy, Suite 260
    Grand Rapids, MI 49506
    (Offices in Detroit, Grand Rapids and Lansing)
    616 301-0930 |


    • Gary

      Hey Bobby,

      Thanks for finding this out today. I for one just want this to be over. My record was expunged three years ago but yet I remain on the registry. I’m level two my hope is that maybe in the short future we can at a minimum petition the court to move down the tiers and possibly removed.

      • Josh

        Yep, thanks for the update guys….so the long and short of it is that as long as the state negotiates in good faith then the aclu will negotiate right back with absolutely no F’n results or end in sight….I know we should be thankful for all they’ve done but what have they actually accomplished….nothing has changed….you helped 6 people in one case and one more in the temelowski case….you would affect roughly 1/3 of Michigan’s registry or some 10 to 15 thousand people in some way shape or form by forcing the state’s hand based on what’s already been ruled on. Isn’t that enough people to help? Some would be removed and others wouldn’t have their personal lives exposed for the whole world to see…..I’m sick of this shit…I already sent a email explaining OUR position to Ms. Lewis…..I hope the rest of you on here who represent Michigan on this site do the same…

        • Bobby

          @Josh, I totally agree with you, it’s like we just keep getting the runaround and every time I email them to find out what’s happening, it’s always the same old song and dance with them in my opinion. Well, when you hear back from Miss Lewis, will you let us know what she has to say about this I might also email her as well since it’s someone different to talk to, maybe she will give us a better understanding of why they are negotiating.

        • Bobby


          Hello, Thanks for the update appreciate it, so it just sounds like nothing getting done, and they really don’t care,and this negotiating crap is bogus, I am going to email and call Mrs Lewis Monday and find out what the point is to negotiating everyone that is pre-sorna has already won, and the people who were convicted after 06 and 11 the ruling has nothing to do with, I don’t know why the aclu or the 6th circuit won’t charge the state damages for every day they do not fix the registry.

          I also believe that we should get the media involved so they can put pressure on the state, and get some answers I think I am also going to email Channels 2, 4, 7 and 62 those are the stations near me, it just sounds like we are the ones that are going to have to do something because the aclu and the state are doing nothing to solve this problem.

          It could also be me I honestly don’t seethe problem we won they lost, so you start removing people that are pre-sorna, or we just start flooding the courts with petitions for immediate remove from the state or start charging the money for every day we are still on the registry. just my thoughts and opinion of course. I will let you and everyone else know what happens when I speak to her, or hear from her on Monday. This has gone to long and needs to come to an end now.

      • Bobby Smela

        @Gary. I was convicted way back in 1992, so I along with a few other people shouldn’t even be on the stupid registry at all. I am however going to keep on the ACLU until this is fixed. I may even try to get the need stations evolved so they can start putting pressure on the state and have them ask the state of Michigan why it is taking so long to fix the registry since it was found to be punitive and unconstitutional over two years ago, and still, nothing is being done to remedy the situation.

        • Josh

          I had a lengthy conversation today with the lady from the aclu….we should probably settle in and be prepared to wait a good while longer….the negotiations ongoing are between the the aclu and the state police, legislative committees, and several other people. As expected the state doesn’t want to release anybody from the registry and as such the aclu could try to force the state’s hand to get those of us who are pre-sora off by court order. According to the person who I talked to, the state would then in all probability retaliate by enacting new legislation which may or may not be constitutional, thus forcing the aclu to litigate the new legislation from scratch. That’s why they are negotiating….trying for a cleaner solution…we all need to prepare for the reality that it’s possible that we may not come off the registry at all but we might be on a LE private registry. This is 100% unacceptable if that were to happen on so many different levels..i.e IML & remaining on the national registry…I was finally able to get a few answers but none of them were remotely satisfying…they do want feedback so please call them or email your thoughts

  25. Bobby

    Hello Everyone and @Josh

    @Josh, I email that Mrs Lewis from the ACLU and what she emailed me back ,doesn’t sound good in my opinion, this whole Does v Snyder case sounds like it was and is a waste of time.

    Anyway I will post what I wrote and then what she wrote back to me, I did email her again last night but have not heard back yet, may have to call her instead. So here is what I wrote.

    Mrs Lewis

      I am writing in regards to Does v Snyder 2, and why the ACLU deems it necessary  to negotiate with the state of Michigan, we won they lost pretty simple end of story, there is no logical reason to  negotiate, the 6th circuits ruling ONLY applies to people such as my self who’s convictions pre-date sorna, the ruling has nothing to do with people who’s convictions were after 2006 and 2011, so why the hold up?,  It’s a court order that was issued 2 years ago and basically upheld by SCOTUS.

      If you or I disobeyed a court order for two years are butt’s would be in jail/prison, I get that Rick Snyder Rick Jones and Bill Schuette don’t care because they are done at the end of the year, but they should be forced to make the changes by the end of the year,  I have been  registering for 26 years now, just went in on the 1st of this month when I should not have to do anymore, I should be removed ASAP in my opinion.  My so called conviction was way back in 6-1901992, way before Michigan even had a registry, and I was not sentenced by a judge to register therefore violating my right to due process, not to mention other constitutional rights of mine were clearly violated, I believe that until the changes are made to the registry that it should be shut down, until all pre-sorna registrants are removed.

      I also think that all media outlets should be contacted to put pressure on the state to make the changes, or we need to start charging the state $1,000 or up to $5,000 dollars a day for every day they delay, I will be 50 years old next year and by the time we old them accountable and they make the changes I will probably be dead, so again I don’t understand the point of negotiating with the state when we have already won, and the state has actually no other choice but to make the changes to sorna that it was ordered to do in the first place, I would really love to hear your thought’s on this, I would also like to know were we stand now as far as getting this situation resolved, I go back to register in March, and I really hope by then this issue will be resolved. Thank for your time.



    This is her response back.:

    Unfortunately, under Supreme Court caselaw, basic registries are legal and can be applied retroactively. What the Court of Appeals held in Does v. Snyder is that Michigan’s registry has become so extreme that it is punishment. The Court held that the 2006 amendments (zones) and 2011 amendments (extension to life and extensive reporting requirements) could not be retroactive.  Even the 5 Does plaintiffs are still required to register:  they are on the private registry and not subject to the zones or extensive reporting, but they still have to register.

    All of this means that in negotiating, we have to accept that there will be some kind of registry. We are negotiating in the hope that we can get an even better outcome for people like you than we got for the plaintiffs in Does I. We will be pushing hard for much shorter registration terms, which would mean that someone like you, who has already been on for 25 years would come off entirely.

    I think it is unlikely that we will have resolved the lawsuit by March 2019.  Nevertheless, it may be worth having your attorney write to the MSP to say that 1) your registration was extended from 25 years to life in 2011, 2) under Does the 2011 amendments extending your registration cannot be applied retroactively; and 3) you have completed 25 years, and therefore you request that you should be removed from the registry. 



    So what is everyone’s thought’s on this situation, it looks as if we may have to flood the courts with individual petitions in order to be removed from the registry. because the ACLU is to busy wanting to negotiate for some reason, when we already won. I also think we should bring this up to the news media, and put a bug in their ear, that it’s been two years and still nothing is being done to revise the registry.

    I think it’s worth a shot to see if the media can put some pressure on the state, to see why nothing is being done to fix the registry, I am going to try and finf out were to get this petition and see what it will cost or may find some one willing to help for free LOL. or file it my self. I’m just getting tired of waiting for something to happen.

    • Josh

      First of all I completely agree with the sentiment of getting the media involved…However, the likelihood that any media outlet is going to speak out on our behalf is incredibly unlikely. Nobody is going to publicly support the constitutional rights of perverts, child molesters, & rapists or whatever label we get saddled with..Just not going to happen I’m sorry to say.
      Secondly, my response from Ms. Lewis was almost verbatim to what you received…I too was discouraged about what she had to say. I took it a step further and shot Ms. Aukerman a email and she confirmed that negotiations will continue as long as both sides continue in good faith with the lawsuit and a court date hanging over they’re collective heads. The advice to write MSP is good advice and my attorney is drafting that letter now….My lawyer will also be filing in circuit court for the appeal that we’re entitled to at the completion of our 25 years which was changed unconstitutionally to life. If you don’t want to do something on your own behalf then you will just have to wait & hope the aclu gets something done before summer…the state and the legislature will just continue to stall on this while they create ANOTHER new registry for violent child abusers(Wyatt’s law). The legislature is also screwing around with the power to interfere in court decisions which is a attempt to cripple our incoming attorney general….Please stop expecting the state to do the right thing. They’ve proven time and time again that they WON’T

      • Bobby


        I really hope your lawyer can get you off this stupid thing, I on the other hand being on disability, and can’t afford to hire a lawyer will be writing the MSP and Circuit court my self and ask for relief, I know it’s a long shot but, and a lawyer can do a way better job, but money is tight, on a fixed income, so I will be doing the writing on my own.

        • Josh

          I get it about the money….I’m blessed to have a family member footing the bill for me. I wouldn’t be able to do this either without their financial assistance. That being said, can’t you do some research or checking to see if you can find pro bono help? Maybe a paralegal or someone like that who can help you draft your letter….there was a guy who was posting on a thread over on the Narsol sight who was saying that he lived close to the eastern district courthouse and was getting legal assistance for free if not really cheap…I’d check that out maybe..

        • Will Allen

          I can afford to hire attorneys but I usually don’t because I’m insanely cheap. I have had great success without attorneys. I think you can accomplish just about anything that an attorney can. You just have to let the target of your letter know (it really ought to be obvious though!) that you are expecting a written response and the whole thing may end up in court. That will affect them. I have never had a government that would not respond to me in writing. If they wouldn’t, I expect I would probably end up telling them something like, “If you don’t respond, I’m going to sue you and it’s going to cost you.” Then I would sue.

          If you are communicating with law enforcement, copy in their attorneys and government officials. Those people don’t want or like lawsuits.

        • TS

          @Bobby, et al in MI who are impacted by Snyder’s lack of movement of late (and maybe others in the Sixth Circuit who could be impacted)

          My two cents, for what it is worth, is try Mitchell Hamline Univ in MN and Guy Hamilton-Smith, Legal Fellow there, ( & his email is on the left sideline) to see if he is willing to listen to the plight of those in MI impacted by this and produce a written product to shed light on it however he may feel is appropriate. He has written other articles which have been nationally read. You had mentioned the press, but as was noted here, they won’t do much, if anything, most likely for you and the others there. However, Guy is a registrant who understands the plight you have from experience, I’d imagine, and may be able to lend a hand in getting into the light. I don’t know him and haven’t corresponded with him, but if he is not asked, then no one will know what he may say.

          Additionally, I would recommended a group letter/email to him from you and others in MI who are awaiting the final answers. The more that can be seen who are stuck, the better, but I don’t know how big of a group is enough. There are those here who chip in and would be a start.

          Just my two cents in hoping you all get the relief you deserve…

  26. Bobby

    Hello, Everyone

    Well I finally got an email back from Mrs Lewis, and from what she says makes me think what was the point of taking Does v Snyder in the first place, if this is all they are doing right now. Just my thought’s but everyone that is pre-sorna should be removed the registry shut down until this is all hashed out, but we all know that is never going to happen here in Michigan. So here is what she had to say to me.

    Unfortunately, under Supreme Court caselaw, basic registries are legal and can be applied retroactively. What the Court of Appeals held in Does v. Snyder is that Michigan’s registry has become so extreme that it is punishment. The Court held that the 2006 amendments (zones) and 2011 amendments (extension to life and extensive reporting requirements) could not be retroactive.  Even the 5 Does plaintiffs are still required to register:  they are on the private registry and not subject to the zones or extensive reporting, but they still have to register.

    All of this means that in negotiating, we have to accept that there will be some kind of registry. We are negotiating in the hope that we can get an even better outcome for people like you than we got for the plaintiffs in Does I. We will be pushing hard for much shorter registration terms, which would mean that someone like you, who has already been on for 25 years would come off entirely.

    I think it is unlikely that we will have resolved the lawsuit by March 2019.  Nevertheless, it may be worth having your attorney write to the MSP to say that 1) your registration was extended from 25 years to life in 2011, 2) under Does the 2011 amendments extending your registration cannot be applied retroactively; and 3) you have completed 25 years, and therefore you request that you should be removed from the registry. 



    That to me sounds like this is going no where and they are just blowing smoke up everyone’s ass just to make us think they are doing something and making progress. Well I will take her suggestion about writing MSP to be removed, I can’t afford an attorney so I will email, write or call them my self,and see what happens. I did write and email Rick Jones Rick Snyder, and Bill Schuette, and a spokes person for Jones was the only one that responded, he said that they have no power to remove people such as my self that is pre-sorna from the registry, but to call or write or email MSP to ask them to remove me since I am pre-sorna. and gave me the direct number to MSP’s SOR’s phone number. So I will let you all know what happens when I figure out exactly what I want to say to them, sincei will be doing this with out a lawyer.
    stay tune, but any help or suggestions on how I should go about doing this would be greatly appreciated since I am clueless about how to do this, but nothing will get done if I don’t at least try something thanks in advance. Bobby

  27. Bobby


    Well I emailed the Michigan State Police and asked them to respectfully but sternly to remove me from the registry, since the 2006 and 2011 amendments no longer apply to because of the 6th Circuits ruling in Does v Snyder, and I finally got a reply back today and this is what they said:

    The department recently received your email regarding the validity of maintaining your record on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry.  On August 25, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit released an opinion in the case of John Does #1-5 and Mary Doe v. Richard Snyder and Col. Kriste Etue, Case No. 15-1536, Case No. 15-2346, and Case No. 15-2486 on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
    The court concluded that the retroactive application of the 2006 and 2011 amendments to Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act are unconstitutional Ex Post Facto laws as applied to the six named plaintiffs in the case.  The 2006 amendments prohibited registrants from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school and the 2011 amendments divided the registrants into three tiers based on the crime of conviction and increased reporting requirements of registrants. 
    The Michigan State Police (MSP) is working with the Michigan Attorney General’s Office to review the court’s opinion in this matter and any registrant that may be affected will be notified, via mail, of any changes to their offender requirements.  At this time there are no changes to your requirements and you are still required to continue registration as outlined by the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act.
    If you have any questions you may contact the Michigan State Police Sex Offender Registry (SOR) Unit at 517-241-1806.
    Thank you,
    MSP SOR Unit 

    So it looks like I will be calling these fools as soon as I find that one article or the part in the 6th circuits decision where it clearly says that the 2006 and 20011 amendments can no longer be applied retroactively to registrants who’s convictions are pre-sorna. That way maybe that will convince them to remove immediately. I know it’s a long shot and probably a lost cause, but it’s worth a shot. So if anyone knows where I can find that statement that the 2006 and 2011 amendments can no longer be applied to pre-sorna registrants I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance and Merry Christmas & happy New Year to all.

    • Josh

      Once you find what you’re looking for, you definitely need to send them a copy of that…I would suggest sending them a copy of that Directors office memorandum that stated how the retroactivity of the pre-2006 & 2011 requirements are unconstitutional based on scotus declining to hear the case. Lastly, I’d like to echo what somebody said earlier and tell you to threaten legal action…it can’t hurt to help rattle their cage a little bit…

      • Bobby

        @Josh,. I have copies of that memoradum from the Michigan State Police Director, so they should already know about it, but I will send them a copy anyway also I will try threatening them with a lawsuit , but I don’t thing they are to worried about that because they were sued by the ACLU along with Snyder Schuette and that Col. kristie Eutie chick or how ever you spell her name I don’t think they really care, but I will give it a shot tomorrow morning, but I will call them first and see what happens then go the other route as well. I’m just tired of waiting for the ACLU to do something it’s taking way longer then it should with them.

        • Will Allen

          Yea, I doubt if they are very worried about a lawsuit. Not their money. They’ll just steal more. And if they have to waste any time on it, just part of their “job”. They get paid for it and steal the money for that as well. (As an aside … people should always be working to keep LE broke. If they are broke, they might have to focus on actual crimes instead of screwing around with big government hit lists.)

          It is unfortunate that the government criminals (e.g. legislators) that are behind these harassment “laws” cannot be held personally responsible. This Registries fight needs to be brought to the front doors and into the homes of EVERYONE who supports it in any way. They must have direct consequences that negatively affect their lives every day. That is the moral choice.

          I think it is hilarious that they hide behind, “The Michigan State Police (MSP) is working with the Michigan Attorney General’s Office to review the court’s opinion in this matter”. I think that you should time how long it takes for you to read the opinion and then send them a letter that says something like, “It takes a normal person N minutes to read XYZ and understand it. You have no excuses for continuing to break the law. You need to be held accountable for your crimes so I will work on that until you are. I demand that you stop committing crimes today and act.” See how they like receiving communications that calls them criminals and offenders.

    • AJ


      I think this may be what you seek:

      The State may tell you to pound sand, saying the Order only applies to the Does in the case (since it was an as-applied challenge). If so, that would mean having to file your own paperwork like those in PA did after Muniz. Here’s a sample complaint from a RC in MI (who got a favorable outcome):

      Based on how that case appears to have progressed, the State will push back and say the Complaint is a bunch of hogwash. They will eventually cave as long as your situation is materially similar to any of the Does in Snyder. Asking for a Summary Judgment may work too. I highly recommend you try to find a pro bono legal assistance group. Worst case, you could write to “John Doe” at the address/phone in the filing and ask for his guidance. Also, perhaps @mike r can help you out. He’s filed all the types of court docs you’ll need and has a good idea on the deadlines for filing this, that and the other…but your path will be easier.

  28. Bobby

    @Josh @Will Allen and anyone else willing to chime in

    I think I found what I was looking for in regards to who the 6th’s opinion actually applies to especially now that SCOTUS has rendered their decision as well. I copied and pasted the important parts so please ANYONE tell if the decision actually does apply to everyone now that the 6th and SCOTUS has spoken.

    Here it goes: To Whom Will the Court of Appeals Decision Apply?
    It is hard to know the answer to this question, because there is not yet a final judgment in Does v. Snyder. If the state seeks en banc review or petitions for certiorari, and if either the full Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case, another 8-15 months could pass before a final decision issues.
    The case was brought only on behalf of the six named plaintiffs. However, if the Court of Appeals’ decision is not modified during further appeals, the court’s reasoning that the current version of SORA is punishment will apply to everyone whose offense was committed before July 1, 2011. The court’s reasoning that the geographic exclusion zones are punishment will apply to everyone whose offense was committed before January 1, 2006. The relevant date is the date of the offense, not the date of conviction. and also III. Advising Current Registrants On Compliance, Removal From the Registry, Or Exemptions From Certain Registration Requirements.
    We recommend that all registrants stay SORA-compliant until there is a final judgment. State criminal courts are not bound by federal appellate decisions (except for U.S. Supreme Court decisions), and is not yet clear how Michigan state courts will apply the Does v. Snyder decision or what the Michigan Supreme Court will decide in People v. Temelkoski. We strongly recommend full compliance to avoid criminal charges or other consequences.
    Registrants who are on parole or probation should follow all parole and probation orders related to their sex offender registration.
    The Court of Appeals’ decision held that the 2011 amendments to SORA, which extended many registrants’ obligations from 25 years to life, cannot be applied retroactively. Because there is not yet a final judgment, we do not recommend that registrants file motions to shorten their registration periods back to 25 years. If Does v. Snyder is modified or reversed during any further appeals, individuals whose registration is reduced back to its pre-2011 length could end up having their registration go back to life. Furthermore, there are likely to be legislative amendments to SORA. Individuals could spend a lot of money challenging registration obligations without any long-term result if they file now rather than once Does v. Snyder is final.
    The one exception to this general principle is for individuals who would already have come off the registry under the pre-2011 version of SORA (e.g. a person who has already been on the registry 25 years, or in some cases for 10 years after release from prison). Counsel may wish to consider filing for immediate removal from the registry since a decision in such a case could become final before the decision in Does v. Snyder becomes final. If possible, counsel should negotiate a stipulated order for removal with the prosecutor in the state criminal case. If such stipulated relief in state court is not possible, counsel should consider filing an affirmative civil action in federal court where the Sixth Circuit’s decision is binding. Such an action should name the Michigan State Police director in her official capacity as a defendant.

    She is the Same person who wrote that memorandum on 12-20-17 Director Heidi E. Washington.
    so since SCOTUS has basically ruled in 6th’s favor and ours and nothing has been modified the ruling should apply to EVERYONE NOT JUST THE ORIGINAL SIX. Does that sound correct because if it is I am going to bring ALL this up to the MSP SOR unit who is in charge of the registry and the director, any thought’s on this before I call them. Thanks in advance everyone.

  29. Dan

    Has anyone heard anything back recently this month on this from ACLU, etc? The new Attorney General has now taken office, and they should be starting to make some progress on this. Either the state is going to make changes or they are not. The ball should be rolling right now.

    Looking on the Michigan’s legislature website, when SORA was re-written in 2011, the bill was introduced in February 2011 and it became signed law two months later in April 2011, with effective date July 2011. In 2019, it should not be taking them all year for for these changes. If no significant amount of progress is being made by this next month or so, the ACLU needs to just have the judge rule on the 2006 and 2011 amendments. The “good faith” means nothing if they are not serious about making changes, and im hoping the state is not using this “good faith” to keep postponing the court dates.

  30. Bobby

    Hello Everyone and a Happy New Year to all

    Well I call the Michigan State Police today and talked to some one one in their SOR unit, and demanded respectfully that i be removed from from the registry. I explained about the Does decision and of course she says it only applies to the original 6, and i said wrong. I even read her the memorandum, and then i even read this to her To Whom Will the Court of Appeals Decision Apply?

    It is hard to know the answer to this question, because there is not yet a final judgment in Does v. Snyder. If the state seeks en banc review or petitions for certiorari, and if either the full Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case, another 8-15 months could pass before a final decision issues.

    The case was brought only on behalf of the six named plaintiffs. However, if the Court of Appeals’ decision is not modified during further appeals, the court’s reasoning that the current version of SORA is punishment will apply to everyone whose offense was committed before July 1, 2011. The court’s reasoning that the geographic exclusion zones are punishment will apply to everyone whose offense was committed before January 1, 2006. The relevant date is the date of the offense, not the date of conviction. and of course she still says the law has not changed and they have to follow the law, bla bla bla.

    Then i emailed the ACLU and sent them the same statement the one above, but have not heard back from them yet. I’m sure they will also come up with some excuse, about why the can is still being kicked down the road. They will probably also try to explain how that statement still does not apply to everyone.

    Please correct me if i am wrong, but since the 6th’s decision was never modified in any shape way or form, wouldn’t that in fact apply that the 6th Circuit’s ruling does in fact apply to everyone.

    Well as soon asi hear back from the ACLU, i will let everyone know what their response is back to me, i am also still trying to find a cheap or pro bono lawyer, i’m also trying to decide if i want to petition the court for removal on my own,still not sure how to go about that or were to find the proper forms. Any suggestions where i should begin or should i wait on the ACLU? Also has anyone else heard anything on the progress of the Does 2 lawsuit, or if Judge Cleland has held another hearing since he is supposedly suppose to check on the progress every 28 days. Thanks everyone.

    • Dan

      “It is hard to know the answer to this question, because there is not yet a final judgment in Does v. Snyder. If the state seeks en banc review or petitions for certiorari, and if either the full Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case, another 8-15 months could pass before a final decision issues.”


      That doesn’t make sense. Michigan already petitioned for certiorari and lost. The US supreme court did not take the case. A final judgment was issued, but it was for the six plaintiffs only. I’m not sure who you spoke with or where they are getting this information from as that is old news about seeking en ban review or petitioning for certiorari and we are already way past that.

      • Bobby Smela

        @Dan, I know that is old news I was trying to inform the State Police, that since the ruling was not modified in anyway that Does v Snyder in fact does apply to all pre-sorna registrants and not just the original six people.

  31. Bobby


    Quick update i have been talking to Mr Reingold, and i just got an email back from him just minutes ago and this is what he said: You can talk to a criminal defense or civil rights lawyer about going to court to get Does I applied to you, which (depending on how much time, if any, you spent in prison) might also get you off the registry (at least pending the passage of a new statute). But that is not something I can do for you because (a) I’m not in a position to represent individual registrants, and (b) even if I were in private practice, I wouldn’t want to take your money for a fix that might come for free over roughly the same time span that it would take to go to court.

    You are a member of the class in Does II, so either we will settle for a better new statute, or we will go back to federal court and get a decision, probably by the summer.

    But if you want to move forward on your own, that is fine. You might also be able to find pleadings on line that have worked for other people and that would allow you to file in court without a lawyer, but I haven’t done such a case and don’t have model pleadings for you.

    Good luck whatever you decide.

    So i guess i will continue to wait and see if we get a final decision from the Federal Court this summer.
    I just thought you all would like to know about what he just told me, keep your fingers crossed for a final ending to this in the summer.

  32. Josh

    I haven’t been following the smaller court cases….I don’t know anything about either case you mentioned…if you can give me a brief synopsis on each one I can give you my thoughts

    • Bobby

      @Josh, Those are the two cases that Dennis shared links to, back on November 16th. other then that I don’t know to much about them myself, I was kinda hoping you knew something about them.

      • Josh

        I’ll check them out and see if I can figure out what’s being argued and what if any effect it will have have on anything else

        • Josh

          I went back and looked at the cases that Dennis put in his post. From what I saw, Betts and Davis are also Ex Post Facto cases….there are some minor differences in the underlying issues but ultimately the issues are largely about having the rules and restrictions constantly changed on us…I imagine that both cases would be resolved by Does/Snyder II……I’d probably call in the legal minds on this forum if you need a better explanation

        • Bobby

          @josh, I appreciate you taking the time and reading those cases. When it comes to all the legal mumbo jumbo, I am as dumb as a box of rocks. When I ask the ACLU, things they keep giving the same answers, we are working with the state and we are continuing to negotiate with them, and we are not just kicking the can down the road as claim. I still really see the issue in Does 2, and now that the Temelkoski case has been decided and he won, which means we won. Why hasn’t the Michigan. Supreme Court scheduled arguments for the Betts and. Snyder cases. Unless the MSC is going to take a pass on them, if they do pass on them what would that mean for us.?

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 *