ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


MI: ACLU suit seeks changes to Michigan sex offender registry

Civil rights advocates say ___ is an example of how thousands of people have been unfairly penalized by the Michigan Sex Offender Registry more than two years after the Sixth Circuit Court ruled the state’s changes retroactively putting people on the list for life were unconstitutional. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Don’t tread on me

    And it drags on and on and on and…

    • Josh

      Good article…what I don’t understand is the comment that the spokesperson from MSP made…if they are compliant than why is all of our personal information still posted on our individual registry pages? Also, does this mean that I can go to my kids’ activities without being afraid of violating the proximity laws? The MSP memo that was put out at the end of 2017 regarding non-enforcement of the 06 and 11 changes would seem to confirm what was stated in this article…..Yet, the MSP says that they can’t change anything without the legislature changing the law first…it’s all BULLSHIT…..

      • Tim

        ” it’s bullshit”
        Yes! The admitting of ” non-existent enforcement ” is unconstitutional.
        The same with marihuana laws. Enforcing some but not all laws is incongruous to the whole implicating both contempt and corruption.
        WILLIAM BARR ( AG nominee) expressed the idea of contempt in his Senate confirmation hearing. HUGE PROBLEM!

        WE are shut down as them that own it figure out how to backtrack to SMITH V. DOE. They ( most) just do not realize it. It has to do with ” unfettered uses of the database”.
        Think of the myriad of ” bad social behavior” or “evil” colloquially exacerbated via the database. The database is my “evil” in FTR cases with good and sound reason.

    • Tim

      On and on and on and on. WHY??
      Federal surveillance saint NEEDED CONSTITUTIONAL

      The leadership decided to opt for the whole enchilada AND not be limited in terms of constitutional surveillance of the WHOLE and not just A PART OF THE WHOLE by the device.
      The Utah facility utilized snap shots of internet traffic!
      Satellite law & policy was already established data as not intrusive ENOUGH! to construe legal search.! ( cites ommitted)
      There was also the issue of WHEN SEARCHING is terms of Warrant need. Again the surveillance saints demanded the whole enchilada. THEY DESIRED UNFETTERED USE ANYTIME & AT ALL TIMES! Same for SATELLITES. and so they indentured the individual and embraced ex post. Hardly the first time the short term approach has been embraced purposely on temporary basis. It is this way for good reason.( Cites omitted) A default reset!
      In the case where database USE ITSELF became unmanageable. Are LEO agents looking to crack phones ( database)? Porn, human trafficing, broadcasted murders all supported by databases?

      Could the misuse of electronic poll tabulation be an issue IF WE’D NOT OPTED? NO!
      So don’t blame the russians! Or Chinese for that choice. Blame yourselves and the big data brokers! Sex sells baby!

      (Presumably and predictably for social benefit of greater good) Despite initial fears about satellite use in general there use has been a real good thing. The database however is a different animal exponentially and far more politically dangerous.

  2. mike r

    Yeah that class action should be monetary suit against all the officials knowingly violating everyone of these individual’s constitutional rights under color of law and holding them criminally liable. Plain and simple.

    • Joe123

      I’m still holding out hope that such a lawsuit ^ will happen one day. All of the people responsible for these criminal laws should be held accountable. Many people have died due to these laws.

  3. Ron

    So, if I move to Michigan and don’t register, what happens?

  4. Bobby

    Hello Folks.

    Here is another article that was posted by the Detroit News about 13 hours ago concerning Michigan’s Registry,

    • RegistrantNotAnOffender

      “The ACLU argues that sex offender registries are an ineffective approach to protecting the public, and that they divert police attention and resources from monitoring the most serious offenders.

      In many cases, those who land on the list for life were convicted decades ago, and remain branded as a sex offender regardless of whether they are an actual threat. Others were teens who were convicted of consensual sex with younger teens.”

  5. steve @mike r

    Some ACLU quotes for you:

    “The ACLU argues that sex offender registries are an ineffective approach to protecting the public, and that they divert police attention and resources from monitoring the most serious offenders.

    In many cases, those who land on the list for life were convicted decades ago, and remain branded as a sex offender regardless of whether they are an actual threat. Others were teens who were convicted of consensual sex with younger teens.

    Michigan’s offender registry is open to the public, and that kind of widespread shaming hampers these individuals from getting jobs and rebuilding their lives. Aukerman says it’s a form of lifetime parole, because those on the registry are required to alert police even when they get a new email address or phone number.”

  6. mike r

    I may have asked this before but does anyone have any idea if WAR ever filed their suit, one was supposed to be on behalf of registrants and the other separate suit for family members?

    • In Fear

      If you haven’t done so already, try emailing them and ask. Their contact info is available on their website:

    • Bobby

      @Mike r.,

      Well, I finally heard back from Mrs Henry today, and as usual she did not have much to say, this is what she did said to me: Bobby –
      I forwarded your original email to Randy. I don’t know when it will be filed.

      So I emailed her back and asked her for Randy’s email address, to get more information from him, who ever he is, I will let you know what he says if and when I hear from him.

      • Bobby

        @Mike r.

        Well Mike,

        This is her response back to me when I asked for that Randy persons email address

        Bobby – Randy is busy working on the lawsuit. He will not respond to anybody till it HAS BEEN FILED.


        So it looks like more hurry up and wait crap, just like us here in Michigan.

        • bill

          Crazy more waiting , I thought is was filed a lone time ago??? Seems like nothing is going to happen, or is this something new?

  7. mike r

    Yeah, what a joke. I did not think so. BS, being saying that for years now why their site and profits keep expanding and rolling in. No one is going to do anything unless it is a pro se or some one with a lot of cash and even then the professionals will be half-ass. I wonder how many people have donated to that site and how many are even questioning what is going on. It figures as it would be totally counter to their interest to fix the registries or eliminate them. Hate to say it but it is just reality. Maybe they are waiting for more wins or ???, but that does no one any good now and they should not have been claiming and telling people “oh it will be this month or next year or blah blah blah.

  8. mike r

    And this crap about the ACLU working with the enemy to get a legislative fix is COMPLETELY BS. THEY WON, get rid of the frigging registry to those that won and file file file again for those that the suit does not cover.

    • bill

      Yes, I know a few that passed away, and shouldn’t have been on it in the first place, If we protest we have a target on our backs.

  9. mike r

    Look even when they win what do they do? agree to work with the enemy and create some kind of work around BS legislation. Absolutely crazy talk. Since when does a winning party like this ACLU Michigan case work with the other party to resolve some issue that they already won on. I will tell you, NEVER that I know of. You win, you celebrate and brag about winning and rub it in the opposing parties fact.And you demand action according to the court’s ruling. Now if they want to sit down after all that then I might sit down to hear what they have to say, but I would and no attorney would in any other case capitulate to the other side and say “well lets keep the status quo and lets negotiate a deal.” How insane is that????Be like “hey we won 5 million dollars, but do not worry about it right now. Lets sit down and see how much you are willing to pay.” Um, that is a BIG FAT NO. Give me my court ordered money or else……….. I hate it when someone says “or else” it is like or else what are you going to do? but in this type of situation, it is completely appropriate. The or else is give me what the court ordered or go to jail for contempt and for violation of rights under color of law. Bottom line.

  10. mike r

    That is exactly right. Knowingly violating a persons’s constitutional right for one day, one hour, or one second creates liability. The court stated it was unconstitutional, it went thru the entire due process so any continuance is criminally punishable for violation of rights under color of law and makes every individual involved subject to liability. Any and everyone that is entitled to relief needs to file for that relief immediately using this precedent for immediate and emergency preliminary or permanent injunctions regardless what the ACLU BS is doing. It would be absolutely idiot and insane to wait and see what comes out of those negotiations. No where in that decision did the court state go debate and come up with a solution. It did state in no ambiguous terms, “it must cease.” Anyone outside or not included in that case cannot sue anyone until that happens as the court stated specifically that its decision was as applied to those plaintiffs.

    I am curious, does anyone know if the individuals in that case have been removed from the registry? I bet the judge that issued that decision would be pretty pissed off if they were not as like I stated, the court stated in a very aggressive way that it must cease as applied to those plaintiffs.

    • Bobby

      @Mike r.

      I got an email back on 12-18, by Mrs Lewis, that should answer your question about the original 6 people

      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 is an email I received from Mrs, Lewis back in December, so apparently the original people are still on a private registry, and none of them have 25 years in yet, like me I will have 27 years on June 19th, I was 23 when my registry started in 1992, as you know it was suppose to be 25 years changed to life and now almost 27 years later still on the stupid thing, and I will be 50 years old on June 2nd, I agree with you completely this is up and shut case WE WON GAME OVER!!!

  11. mike r

    @Bobby. Thanks, you are absolutely right. I have not re-read Snyder in a long time and I simply did not take in what it was stating. The question then becomes: why did they only challenge ex post facto? was it because they were ignorant? incompetent? purposefully omitting them? did they not think they could prevail on the other issues?

    My next question is: what are the other issues that were far from frivolous???? The original complaint only challenged ex post facto.

    I would like to see if those other issues are the ones that I brought forth in my case.

    The retroactive application of SORA’s
    2006 and 2011 amendments to Plaintiffs is unconstitutional, and it must therefore cease.

    As we have explained, this case involves far more than an Ex Post Facto challenge. And
    as the district court’s detailed opinions make evident, Plaintiffs’ arguments on these other issues
    are far from frivolous and involve matters of great public importance. These questions, however,
    will have to wait for another day because none of the contested provisions may now be applied
    to the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and anything we would say on those other matters would be dicta.

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 *