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
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.
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.
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.
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. 😂😂
@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.
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..
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Mdahl.sngauto@yahoo.com
Ty
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.
https://ufile.io/j5kpw
@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….
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…
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…
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.
@Dennis
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.
@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…
@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………..
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………….
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.
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
@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.
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.
Bobby
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 | elewis@aclumich.org
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.
Sincerely
Bobby
This is her response back.:
Bobby
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.
Sincerely,
Elaine
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.