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


NH: Relief for Some Persons on the NH Sex Offender Registry

Effective June 6, 2016, in New Hampshire, Tier 2 and Tier 3 sex offenders who were convicted before 1992 have a clear process by which they can seek to be relieved of sex offender registration requirements. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. AO

    It’s great that they’re finally providing a process, but it still terrible that you basically have to buy your freedom and prove a negative. Hiring a lawyer and getting that evaluation is going to cost thousands, something that’s exceedingly difficult for many of those on the registry considering that being on the registry has great impact on your employment.

    • Tim o he ironic

      Curiously it’s (SOR) civilly was upheld partly because ” it contains no processes associated with those in criminal administration…. ” Liar liar your country is on fire!
      States A.G. is by definition the top criminal administrative actor.

    • Minor American

      Lawyers have been stealing thousands of dollars for over twenty years from me and my family through earnest money, bull shiit money for diddling, Alabama bar was crap, and charge after charge,,,,,felony c for moving to wrong address, felony c for working wrong place, felony c for driving another’s car, felony c for working in another county, felony c for not telling im going to college…..every so often too keep me in prison, or probation or fines $$$…..Now I could just give them my bank account so they can make sure I’m not sex trafficking and getting paid or maybe give them other personal information like when I decide to wash my dic, so I’m not masturbating without them ! Perhaps if I told them different women’s intimate encounters they would surely be helpful in my lonnnng road to recovery with my terrible sordid past so that my bright rehabilitated future the would ensure !!! Is anyone really believing this crap, because this state, Government sanctioned legal bull shiiiit would never end up but to equate slavery and abuse to me…….so being COMPLIANT IS NOT THE ANSWER…..I HAVE BEEN AND CURRENTLY BEING ABUSED BY THE LAWS! !!

    • Tim

      Chief Justice John G. Roberts knew exactly what he was doing for the lawyer set in Alaska V. Doe ( smith)!
      What a bold leader to provide jobs and billable hours for his cohorts, conservative and liberal alike. Word processing ( typing w\database aid) has increased law making exponentially, thus the need for ‘qualified individuals’ increases at a similar rate. I think it no coincidence that the same group who benefit from ‘regulatory regimes’ like SORNA are exactly the same bunch who derive benefit from forging felons from those not.

  2. David

    “Effective June 6, 2016…” Huh?? That’s two and a half years ago.

    • Dave

      You have highly keen insight noting the backdating of a law. One cannot follow law not yet made, nor can he to back and change behavior to fit law not yet made. The state of Wisconsin has done the same with SOR. The state congress wrote a law in 1995 and it was signed two days later by the Govenor, but it contained a date prior to the date of signing Dec. 25, 1993 in the statute. This practice is convenient but not congruent with the constitution. Backdated checks can get you caught up criminally.

  3. Anonymous

    And there is no guarantee that the risk assessment comes back as low risk. Actually, they usually don’t.

  4. FM

    “At the hearing on the petition for relief the Court must:
    – Allow the victim to appear either personally or in writing to express his or her views concerning the offense, the person responsible, and the need for maintaining the registration requirement.
    – Consider the statements of the victim when making a decision regarding the petition.”

    The victim, any crime victim, is entitled to justice. However, the victim’s role in the process ends with a victim impact statement to be considered at sentencing. At the very least, with a statement at the parole hearing to be considered for a modification of sentence, should there be a parole hearing.

    The sex offender registry is not supposed to be victim centric. It is a public safety instrument. Being the victim of a crime, even of a sex crime, does not make a person an expert on public safety.

    The victim’s involvement beyond the actual criminal case makes it perfectly clear that this is not about public safety but punishment.

    • Will Allen

      Absolutely. These criminal regimes are not very good at supporting their lies about how the Registries are for public safety and protecting children. They practice their “$EX offender” witch hunt lying all the time but they still aren’t that good at it.

      • Tim Lawver

        The vast majority of victims do not concern themselves with their abusers location. They’d rather not think about them at all.

        Soon I will suffer an FTR arrest!
        I will demand jury trial again. I will ask the agent this line of questions.

        1. Agent can one state law be more powerful than another law?
        2. Does each law have its own specific purpose?
        3 Can one law override, diminish, cloud, or alter a specific purpose\ intent of another?
        4. Agent may the good citizen ignore a law they do not like?
        5. May public agents ignore a law they do not like?
        6. Are citizens to read each individual law and gather its individual meaning from the plain words there in? Yes.
        7. Agent in your capacity are you sometimes required to read and\ or interpret Wisconsin law regarding sex offender registration? Yes. Are you an attorney? No.
        (Display Bigscreen 90″ TV Wis. stat.301.45 1g(a) )
        1g WHO IS COVERED….
        1g(a) “A person who was convicted or adjudicated delinquent on or after December 25, 1993 for a sex offence.”
        Agent please describe as best you can please describe the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of 1g(a)
        Agent responds??????

        I’m damn sure this actual real law uncovers those convicted before the date therein!
        But is unconsciously is ignored by (b) (c)& the ex post which state attaches.
        My point is one may not need to reach for constitutional claim to attack back in a FTR case as each citizen is entitled to the laws themselves. The truth is no registrant has made this type of move in my state anyway. Our founders clearly understood the NEED for jury and SUBPOENA. It is my intent to summons former Speaker Paul Ryan so that I may inquire about Qs listed above as appropriate in my own defense. Trial! our founders understood gave the defendant real power to hold politicians accountable.

        Anyone approve? Disapprove?
        Is government open for business on Christmas Day? No.

        • E @ Timothy

          I think you are saying you wouldn’t need constitutional reasons for anyone convicted before Dec 1993? So that would be a few folks, but not most. Do you know when in 1995 that was signed into WI law? I’ve tried to find it but haven’t.

        • Tim

          I demanded trial in 1992 so no plea waiver of right, civil contest shoulda remained for me but no. It first passed after OMIBUS94 proceeded in fed. Wis. does biannual so 95, but then the broadcast was prohibited ( any diclosure) by law & penalty specifically aimed at state gov agents!

          FED cash manipulated Wi into abandoning its own constitutional prerogative in 98.
          The broadcast part came AFTER I was completely done with original 60 month commitment. Showing up was an issue discussed in Doe, it demanded here in Wisconsin about the same time.The demand coincided with the advent of the digital camera technology.

  5. Dustin

    This got my attention:

    “The ultimate determination that the court must make is whether the petitioner is no longer a danger to the public and no longer poses a risk that justifies continued registration. ”

    Recidivism statistics already indicate the person is no longer a threat to the public, eliminating the risk justifying continued registration (if there even is such a thing).

    Here’s a novel thought – how about making the state show indications that any given registrant is among the 1% of registrants that DO sexually re-offend in order to require registration at the outset?

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 *