ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


WI: For now, sex offenders will not be allowed to move into the village of Hartland

Members of the Hartland Village Board have voted to begin work on an ordinance that will restrict where sex offenders can live. In the meantime, the village will not allow any new offenders to move into the village. …

The moratorium states that sex offenders cannot move into Hartland until the village’s average amount of sex offenders living in the village is the same as the rest of the county. Full Article

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

Wait just a minute… these restrictions are supposed to be about keeping certain people from residing near schools, parks, etc. All about public safety. Because someone who decided to snatch a random toddler from a park and abuse them could never be expected to walk 5 minutes from his front door to accomplish this offense worth life in prison.

Is it possible that this is straight banishment? Hmmmm.

“Is it possible that this is straight banishment?” —– From Smith v. Doe: “The most serious offenders were banished, after which they could neither return to their original community nor, reputation tarnished, be admitted easily into a new one.” This is absolutely what SCOTUS addressed, with RCs prevented from being “admitted easily into a new” community. Heck, there’s no “easily” about this…it’s outright and absolutely barred! Also from Smith: “Even punishments that lacked the corporal component, such as public shaming, humiliation, and banishment, involved more than the dissemination of information. They either held the person up before his fellow citizens… Read more »

Despite there being a “concentration” of RCs versus the rest of the county, what sort of spike in crime has Hartland comparatively suffered? I’d bet zero. Once again, the facts and data belie the myths and statements.

That is such and excellent point, and you know what the answer is because if there were any increase it would be leading the article. So no, there has been zero increase. And I don’t see how such a law can be passed discriminating a certain class without the slightest bit of factual evidence backing it.

Wisconsin doesn’t have a state-wide residency rule, with the exception of those deemed to be predators (Chapter 980). For everyone else, it’s up to the local municipalities to enact or not enact restrictions. Something very common here in many of the local residency restrictions is a clause called “Original Domicile”. It states that unless the person was a resident of xxxxx at the time of the most recent conviction for which he/she is registered, that person may not establish a residence in xxxxxxx. In other words, if a person was living in Milwaukee at the time of their conviction, they… Read more »

Those are crazy laws; I haven’t heard that kind of stuff before. I can’t answer your questions, sorry. I don’t see how any local jurisdiction can say no to a person living there as long as parole/probation (if applicable) isn’t violated. But I can say that ALL residency, work, and presence restrictions do not work or make anyone less safe.

Yep, wait till SCOTUS gets this in front of them. I have full faith these laws are done once that happens and at the bare minimum they rule the states have to go back to LE only and no in-person reporting, NO restrictions of any kind including absolutely no push notifications to anyone including IML. Registration will only be applicable after due process exactly like in Hendricks for civil commitment.

I imagine the laws will get so abundant, so punitive and restrictive, and so wide spread that the SCOTUS will have no way of denying they are punitive in nature, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. I do believe that is why they don’t want to hear it currently because it is already there and the SCOTUS doesn’t like reversing their decisions. But it is coming. Let’s thank these hate mongering self-centered politicians for enacting more punitive laws showing everyone what they are about. Sorry for all of us that are suffering while this goes on.

It’s not that SCOTUS won’t reverse itself; they’ve done it several times. But it seems to me that they wait until there’s been some turnover first. I’m thinking they might be waiting for Kennedy – author of the “frightening and high” claim – to retire before they accept a case to potentially reverse it.

Just my opinion, for whatever it’s worth.

Kennedy retired at the end of the last term. That’s why confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh have been held.

Wi. is well into it’s phase of residency restrictions. Many have been rolled back under threat of lawsuit to 750 or 500 feet. From 1000 2000 or more. The newest thing to help deflect lawsuits seems to be adding an appeal process for registrants so a board can vote on you. (Green Bay New Berlin & others). Milwaukee has drastically reduced their residency restrictions temporarily for a year. The origin of this article is a website ( It is a website seemingly for poeple looking to relocate etc. Hartland is generally a country/suburban area. Low crime. When you buy… Read more »

I too live in waukesha county. My son is a rso. I live in a NON child saftey zone, per the child saftey zone map for the city I live in in waukesha county. I originally asked my landlord if my son could live here and explained all the details of my son’s charge. We also had permission from my son’s PO for him to live with us. Originally the landlord said yes, the landlord thought about it for a few days then left us a vile message about how he didn’t want people pointing at the house and saying,… Read more »

I would absolutely not give that landlord another dime and move. Do not support Registry Terrorists.

Some cities in Wi have presence restrictions, residency restrictions, landlord renting to registered citizens in restricted area restrictions, Halloween restrictions….. We’re better than some states, but are quick to jump on new trends. Wi. has lifetime ankle monitoring for some. — and we have our share of hate crimes (some of which are glorified by the press).
Okay, done with rant. I’ve actually had a great year.

@ worried in WI, JM from Wi,

Guys I’m wondering if you’d be interested in attending my upcoming FTR case in 2019? Hit me up at so I can share how I intend to win via 304.15 1g(a).

Can A country survive continuous electronic search?
Continuous search privileges via electronic device was the crux of GrundyII with Satellite Based monitoring (SBM). It’s a Carolina case that went to SCOTUS.
A similar issue as Smith V Doe. There is nothing regulatory about broadcast itself of records. The intent on it’s face is to impose unreasonable affirmative restraint just as the collateral uses of a database to search.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x