ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley, August 17 – San Diego, September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings: Los Angeles – July 27

ACSOLGeneral News

Renowned Law Professor Eric Janus to Speak at ACSOL Conference

Renowned law professor Eric Janus will speak at ACSOL’s third annual conference in Los Angeles on June 14.  Professor Janus is a national expert on sexual violence law and policy.  He was recently recognized for his lifelong commitment to justice and civil liberties work by the ACLU.

“Professor Janus will share with all conference participants his unique perspective of current laws and policies that affect the daily lives of registrants and their loved ones,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

Professor Janus served as President and Dean of William Mitchell College of Law from 2007-2015.  During that period, he initiated and led a successful $25 million campaign, and the school established an Indian Law Program and Center for Law and Business, obtained permission from the American Bar Association to establish the first hybrid online/on-campus J.D. program among ABA-approved law schools, and negotiated an agreement to combine with the Hamline University School of Law to create the Mitchell Hamline School of Law.  He was named one of the “25 Most Influential People in Legal Education” by The National Jurist in 2015 and 2016.

Professor Janus’ scholarly focus has been on constitutional and public policy considerations in the development of so-called regulatory approaches to sexual violence prevention.  Cornell University Press published his book Failure to Protect: America’s Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State.  His latest book, co-authored with Drs. Robert Prentky and Howard Barbaree, is Sexual Predators: Society, Risk and the Law.

In 2017, he established the Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, funded by a grant from the Vital Projects Fund.  He currently serves as the center’s director in its efforts to provide support for impact litigation and policy-reform work designed to produce constitutional, effective, humane and empirically sound sex offense policies.

Join the discussion

  1. Jack

    If the ACLU ever decided to just become a 3rd political party, I’d vote for them in a heartbeat. I think a lot of republicans would too since they’d never think about touching the second amendment.

    • Harry

      Not me, the ACLU has sat on the sidelines too long and they still are not rushing out on the field on our behalf.

      • Will Allen

        I have supported the ACLU for a very long time and I expect everyone should. The problem with them going all out with respect to “$EX offenders” is that they only have a limited amount of resources and they have to pick and choose the fights that are most effective. They should not waste millions of dollars on losing cases. And just like you said that you wouldn’t support them because they didn’t do whatever, how many people do you think would say that if they devoted say 1/4 of their resources to helping the pariah “$EX offenders”?

        I’ve wondered for a long time if we should force the U.S. federal criminal regime to permanently fund the ACLU? I think they should be forced to give the ACLU perhaps say, a billion $$$ a year, in order to combat the federal and all the other criminal regimes all over the U.S. In other words, Nanny Big Government ought to be forced to fund an organization whose only goal is to control and thwart their crimes. The courts aren’t enough for that. I guess the ACLU being a large political party would sort of do the same thing.

  2. Tim

    In 1998 I contacted ACLU in Milwaukee about my single case . After words I got a letter explaining their purpose and asking for $. County cops arrested me because I’d not been informed of duty yet. I spent five days waiting on bail ( over Xmas) and the case was dropped!
    Plain dirty pool.

    • Will Allen

      Yea, I hope most people realize that law enforcement is a danger to good people. I hope you are working hard today to keep LE broke and dysfunctional. They are an organized crime ring that extorts money from all of us in order to overpay themselves. First and foremost, they ought to have to compete for their workers in the free market like everyone else. Stop the extortion and their overpay. Especially their way, way overpaid administrators. Vote for people who will control and shrink them.

    • AJ

      @Tim:
      “County cops arrested me because I’d not been informed of duty yet.”
      —–
      I suspect someone in the DA’s office was aware of Lambert v. CA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_v._California or https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/355/225/). AWA also requires notification. See: 34 U.S. Code §20919 (“Duty to notify sex offenders of registration requirements and to register”).

      • FM

        “Lambert had previously been convicted of forgery, a felony in California. She was unaware that a Los Angeles city ordinance required that she, being a felon, register if she remained in the city for more than five days.”

        Since the sex offender registry is purely a civil instrument designed to improve public safety, I have always wondered why not all criminals are required to register likewise. In order to improve public safety. What possible motives could the legislature have not to produce us from all crimes?

        Such a requirement existed in Los Angeles for all felons. What possible motive could the Los Angeles City Council have to eliminate this existing requirement? To the detriment of public safety.

        • Will Allen

          Obviously it is shocking to anyone with a brain that Amerika has not had national, public, lifetime Gun Offender Registries for well over a decade now.

          It is shocking that the criminal regime of Floriduh (and others) thinks that “$EX offenders” should not live near schools, parks, etc., and yet they are fine with shooters being there. They are fine with shooters being in schools. They will get want they want, I guess.

          The $EX Offender Registries are not really for public safety, protecting children, or any of those lies. No one with any sense thinks they are needed or useful for that either.

      • AO @ AJ

        @AJ – So does this ruling then allow SOR’s to more freely travel across US for business/pleasure without having to adhere to registration time table wherever they may be? It’s fairly clear that we all have to register when changing our permanent residence, but I don’t recall anything I sign stating there were travel registration requirements. I’m aware of this because of how frequent I visit this site. But judging from the wide eyes when I bring up such things at our rehab alumni meetings (it’s a voluntary thing our local place has), I’d wager vast majority of SOR’s are not aware that simply visiting Alabama requires registration after X days or Nevada after Y. Only that if they move to live there that they have to do it.

        • AJ

          @AO:
          “So does this ruling then allow SOR’s to more freely travel across US for business/pleasure without having to adhere to registration time table wherever they may be?”
          —–
          You are NOT getting me on that hook! I absolutely AM NOT making that statement nor suggesting such.

          From the SCOTUS decision: “We believe that actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under the ordinance can stand.”

          Note that part about “proof of the probability of such knowledge.” I think a court would find the probability high that a POTR had knowledge, or at least suspicion, of a registry law being in place. As well, some States have it as part of their own registration requirements that a POTR will register in another State to which s/he travels. That’s all it takes to shoot down the ignorance angle.

          I’ve often wondered how far this ignorance exception could go. If, for instance, I’m a Native American from a State where I’m allowed to fish without restriction and I then go to a State where I’m not allowed such, am I guilty or do I get the Lambert exception? I get that it’s expected (or at least there’s a probability of awareness) traffic laws exist and may be slightly different, or alcohol laws, or whatever, but at what point does a more arcane or exceptional law become unenforceable against a migrant?

        • AO @ AJ

          @AJ, Oh for sure it’s a very gray area. I guess for states where you initial during your annual that you need to register in other states while traveling would be covered. But I’m curious about states that don’t, which I think CA might be? (I’ll have to look at my paper work later this year to see if it has something like that). If it doesn’t, I’m not sure how I can be expected to know that I’ll have to register in another state just for visiting (moving elsewhere is covered on the annual form). Hell, most people in CA don’t even know that if you visit another part of CA for more than 5 days that you technically need to register with that district since what we sign is about moving, which visiting isn’t it, but state still treats it as such on the legal front.

          Also, it’s sort of how CA isn’t a SORNA state and it wasn’t until this past year where they included a non-signature flyer with your annual talking about the 21 day international notice requirement. It was more of an FYI and not a CA thing, hence not needing to sign it. I wonder if prior to my city handing out that notice, if the Feds could ping you for not submitting it if you actually attempt to travel abroad, or if it would fall under the Lambert clause (it’s moot at this point, but I’m curious how that would’ve been handled)?

  3. Chris f

    I dont think the aclu in Texas has done anything for sex offender cases.

    They dont even take on retroactive legislation which should be a no brainer as Texas forbids both ex post facto and retroactive civil laws.

    I hope they are aware of that saying that starts with “first they came for the Jews, but I wasnt a Jew, so I didnt say anything…”

  4. someone who cares

    AO~ There is nothing to initial on the annual registration form in California that talks about visiting another state.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.