ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments March 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of March 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Anyone have the link for the snyder case in court today in Mi. I wanted the link to see what was talked about?? Thanks

It doesnt seem like there are any transcripts on that link of snyder.

Thank you, I found that but was looking for the video, from today a couple said they watched from the court hearing.

When looking at the other oral arguments that had been posted, it appears to take a up to a month for videos of the oral arguments to be posted.

@ Josh (from G.C. February): I can’t swear to it, but I’m 98% sure that these were the actual arguments before the Michigan Supreme Court (not just a request that the arguments be heard sometime in the future.)

I guess we will both find out once these oral arguments are posted online and available for us to re-hear.

Looking at the tiers, I see tier III status is due to certain crimes and/or having been diagnosed as likely to commit the crime again. I’ve also noticed a lack of people arguing on the behalf or tier III offenders and wonder why? It’s easy to be classified as tier III in some states, not to mention it isnt right that people must stay at said status the rest of their lives. At the very least after so many years offence free, one should drop from tier III status. After all, a man listed as tier III for 10, 15, or 20 years and has been crime free obviously shouldn’t be listed as such. Not only would it lessen the amount of paperwork (and money) involved in the monitoring of said individuals, it would go far to show said people they have a chance to get off the registry. Reward good behavior and stop repeatedly telling people they’re nothing more than a threat to everyone!!!!!!!!!!

I was tier 1 for 11 years in Nevada,my crime was in 1985 in ny now nev has me as a tier 3, going on 34 years of not causing trouble,arrested,accused, or pulled in,im also a recent amputee of my lower leg I hope my upcoming move will find some peace and hope

You’re the poster child concerning exactly what I’m talking about. There is zero reason to keep you in tier III, let alone tier I. You have proven yourself responsible and its asinine and nothing more than continued punishment to keep you on the registry. The more I read about this injustice system and it’s own abuses, the more I have a bad taste for the country as a whole. The registry has zero to do with safety and is in place since its yet one more thing that has allowed the government to ignore the constitution. Its comparable to the patriot act, which has allowed the government powers that in other times were unconstitutional. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile in your constitutional rights……

My husband is in the same boat, was a tier 1 for years untill this stupid AWA that adam laxalt pushed through. Due to this he lost the good job he had for years and is now at a bs job making half the money. Were barely staying afloat and are in danger of losing our place to live. No one will rent to him so if we cant afford our Bill’s we will struggle with a 2 year old. The whole situation is unconstitutional and completely unfair

best thing to do is find a state to move to, if you can, where you can have a hearing to determine tier status I’m out of las vegas in 2 weeks,no regrets

Only a heartless registry supporter would be unmoved by your family’s hardship. I wish you all well.

@ Feeling Sad,
Hang in there, I know it is easier said than done, but we all have to stay strong as that is the only choice we have. Anything else is letting the enemy win a battle, but in the end we will win the war. I know I will never stop fighting. The more stories I hear like yours just makes me want to fight even harder.
Judges and people are starting to get pissed off and those that believe in the constitution and our country still are out there, and SCOTUS will do the right thing. Watch and see…. Soon as they get the right case in front of them, and it will happen.

Tiering is just a means of maintaining the status quo. It serves no purpose whatsoever, mostly because the registry nazis in the general public couldn’t care less what tier a registrant is or what the circumstances of his original offense were. As far as they’re concerned, simply being a registrant is sufficient to discriminate and marginalize.

Tiering is pointless. It has no effect on registrants, the number of them, the public’s attitude toward them, or the so-called “public protection” the registry provides. I’ve said it a million times, and will likely say it a million more – a tiered registry is strictly cosmetic, like saying a car drives faster and gets better gas mileage if you paint it a different color.

It’s not even the “baby step” that many (unfortunately and incorrectly) consider progress. It’s more like a side step, if not a step backward. Supporting a tiered registry is tacitly acknowledging the registry has value, despite the 20+ years of hard data we all constantly repeat that consistently show the exact opposite. Unless and until someone can show one single crime – outside of parole, probation, or status offenses – that the registry played any role at all in arrest or prosecution, there is simply no logical reason for the registry’s existence, tiered or otherwise.

California keeps a secret list of criminal cops, but says you can’t have it.
Attorney General warns reporters it’s illegal to possess list of thousands of cop convictions.

Their crimes ranged from shoplifting to embezzlement to murder. Some of them molested kids and downloaded child pornography. Others beat their wives, girlfriends or children.

Thousands of California law enforcement officers have been convicted of a crime in the past decade, according to records released by a public agency that sets standards for officers in the Golden State.

So Lake County, this is what I was talking about before. Here is the letter the CA AG wrote,

Apparently reading the code sections this applies to civilian DOJ records as well.

So this is interesting statement out of the article,
“But attorney Mike Rains, who represents police officers, questions why they should be singled out by such a list.

“To the extent the public wants that to be public record, I can understand that,” said Rains, who is leading a legal fight to block the release of officer disciplinary records under the new law.

“Why don’t we make that known for everybody?” Rains said of convictions, pointing out there’s no broad disclosure for lawyers, doctors, teachers and other trusted professionals.”

That “why don’t we make that known for everybody” is Hmmmm… Interesting…… Wait, the hell you say, SCOTUS states that criminal records are easily accessible public records though.

@miker, et al

His argument is interesting, but flawed. National Lawyer Regulatory Data Bank on the Am Bar Assn (ABA) website,, helps when it comes to attys with regulatory issues at the state level to be known if they are disbarred or suspended. If he is talking about a state sanctioned bad atty list, then take that up with the state legislature, but it needs to be regulatory in nature and not punishing (ahem).

However, the LEO disciplinary list is a public record since LEOs are paid by taxpayers, but not just accessible because they won’t be released due to unforeseen safety issues by the public towards these LEO members. The counter to it would be to release the list but redacted of the valuable info to show nothing of value that people want to know, e.g. the LEOs names themselves.

The other consideration is teachers (paid by the state taxpayers), medical professional (private unless employed by the state, city, or county), firefighters, or other persons in a position of trust walks a fine line. Teachers, professors, TAs, or other non-teaching education professionals in the state system would be acceptable for a public list as would any public servant in a position of trust who is paid by the taxpayer. Does that include bad legislators, council members, mayors, city managers, road crews, etc? Bad coaches, clergy, et al in a positions of trust who are not paid by the taxpayer could have a harder time having a state sanctioned list published.

This is where the Frat Order of Policia gets involved to ensure their members can find other jobs afterward since this data is usually not disclosed when they move to a new job (unless publicity really hounds them).

I don’t get how they can get away with this since their responsibility is to the taxpayer (insert @Will Allen applicable rant here).

LOL. I don’t believe this at all. We live in the United States. You literally have the right to know everything about your government. All you would have to do is simply request the information from the government. If they refuse get a Writ of Mandate from a judge. They HAVE to disclose such information upon request.

Nevada did the same thing,but different, they want police officers address out of public view and out of the news hmmm I wonder why…..

Anyone have any stories about traveling to Europe? Looking to go to Germany soon and trying to find some information. Thanks.

Make sure to review the “International Travel after IML” link on each page on this site. Lots there, as well as

@Mike – I was in Germany last summer no issues at all. Changed planes and cleared customs both ways in Amsterdam. Had a great time and look forward to hopefully going again this year.

Thanks Mr. D. I found some very cheap flights that go through Portugal, any idea if I should stay away?

No records of problems in Portugal. All Schengen countries should be fine.

Awesome Steve, thanks for the info.

I can’t speak specifically for Portugal, as I have only been through DeGaulle Airport in France,
Amsterdam, and a couple of the German airports. Never of had any issues at any of them. I’ve always stayed clear of the UK for obvious reasons. But as others have mentioned you should not have any issues in Portugal.

@ Mike: one important suggestion regarding flights to Europe: Be sure that your flight does not layover or connect in a country where you would be turned back (such as Great Britain). Even if you are remaining on the plane waiting for it to lift off again for your final destination in Europe, it is my understanding that Customs will pull you off the plane and send you back to the U.S. So do not risk it.

Yeah, I have heard that Great Britain is not a place for those on the registry. I am steering clear of there.

So apparently for rational basis anymore the threshold (according to the magistrate) is as long as it is in the name of public safety. What a statement.

“Likewise, the Ninth Circuit has expressly held that sex offender registration laws analogous to California’s SORA are grounded in public safety concerns and pass rational basis review. Tandeske, 361 F, 3d at 597. Public safety provides a rational basis for California’s Megan’s Law and SORA, See, e,g,, James v. Gastello,
No. 17-cv-170-H (NLS), 2018 WL 3546312, at *8 (S.D, Cal, July 24,2018), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:17-CV-01570-H-NLS, 2018 WL 6018030 (S,D, Ca1. Nov. 16,

How about you tell the Taylor case that? What the hell kind of statement is that. Damn I wish I would have noticed that before.
And there we go again with the analogous statutes statement when they are not by order of magnitude.
Double damn, I did not exploit Tandeske’s statement about tailoring,
“Moreover, the Court held, the “broad categories” of offenses differentiated in the Act and the “corresponding length of the reporting requirement, are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.”  Id. at 102, 123 S.Ct. 1140.   Thus, although the Does possess liberty interests that are indeed important, Smith precludes our granting them relief.”

The only case I did not state that in my brief. Oh well, be great fodder for appeal. See what I am stating? No law has been upheld that did not have tailoring in some sense. This is the only reason CA is doing its tiering. The only reason, and maybe to get those that are exempt right now into the registry again. Scandalous, all of em…

Yes, Alex, I’ll take the Red Scare, McCarthyism, J. Edgar, and other similar before them for $100

Answer: Unpublished lists
Question: What the US Govt loves to have and won’t share while hesitantly confirming or denying them?


mile, lmao. oops. So yeah like I was saying. Wow look at this crap straight from the AG and DOJ website, I see NO ambiguity whatsoever in this.

“May I request copies of records concerning any individual pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250)?
Criminal History Records are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. In California, state and local summary criminal history information is confidential and access is strictly regulated by statute. Penal Code section 11105 expressly authorizes the DOJ to disclose state summary criminal history information to law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only, to certain employers or regulatory agencies, or to the person who is the subject of the record.”

“Can I obtain a copy of my Superior Court Record?
The DOJ does not maintain or provide certified copies of California Local and/or Superior Court Records and as such, does not provide these source documents. To obtain a transcript, you will need to contact the court with jurisdiction over your particular case(s) for certified documents.”

WTFFFFFFFFF???????? Easily accessible public record my ass………… Even the superior court records sounds like it must be “YOUR particular case(s)” for you to even get transcripts. No wonder I have never been able to find mine or anyone else’s. Sure any individual can go sit in any courtroom unless there is a gag order or something, but government controlled records? I think not from the sound of it. See this shit is what I am talking about. Unless you know this crap you are burnt. This is going to be hard for the AG to overcome here since this is coming from their own site. Sure public safety can negate privacy but it has to significantly advance a state objective at minimum, and it has to be justified by fact and data.
Man I am tempted to file suit against the CA AG right now or sending a letter exactly like the AG sent the news outlet demanding they immediately remove my criminal history information from the website or face a monetary tort suit….
This is insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Under the CA constitution privacy is an inalienable right,


ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 – SEC. 32] ( Article 1 adopted 1879. )

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

(Sec. 1 added Nov. 5, 1974, by Proposition 7. Resolution Chapter 90, 1974.)

Wow the only way the state gets away with publishing our info is because of Smith vs Doe. Not sure how to challenge the state. Maybe strict scrutiny? Nobody is assessed.

Yeah, it looks kind of like a inalienable (fundamental) liberty interest is being encroached upon according to the CA constitution without doubt to me. I am just a layman, but I believe that under current jurisprudence that calls for what you stated, STRICT SCRUTINY. Between this spelled out inalienable right, CASOMB reports, and throw in the Talylor case just for back up, there should be no way an as-applied suit should fail in CA courts.
That “also pursuing and obtaining safety” and even the happiness clause, is going to be a problem for the state as well.

Yes safety comes into play for me as I had some local PTA mom come prancing through my backyard screaming and waving my internet posting. Cars getting vandalized and egged numerous times sure doesn’t make me “happy”.


That sounds like harassment, misusing the registry information beyond its intended purpose, and trespassing.

How can a registry exist if the constitution says that it’s resident humans have inalienable right to pursuing happiness and privacy? Are we not human? Do we not bleed the same colored blood? If it’s an inalienable right, regardless of circumstance that means it cannot be taken away….

NY, there’s an exception to 100% of the rules. 1st Amendment has it’s limitations. 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute. Our right to privacy has asterisks all over it. The big caveat is that SCOTUS ruled the registry to be non-punitive. So now they can do whatever.

It’s funny that they think this as Australia which is often criticized for having one of the most oppressive registries because they took away the passports of registered citizens doesn’t make theirs public and people only have to register for 10 years because of the damage it does. (At least this was my understanding the last I read up on it)

@ Mike R,

I’ve brought this issue up before about Ca citizens having the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. So regulatory or not, the Ca Constitution holds firm on this inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy.

I agree, and people have the right to privacy. Granted, there are websites like white pages that show your information without you authorizing it, BUT you can take steps to remove yourself from these sites. The same should be possible for the registry if you are no longer on Parole or Probation. You are a “free” person and have the right to the same privacy as any other “free” citizen. It is a complete breach, so why isn’t there a way to fight this injustice. It is clear as day. No debate!

@AJ, et al,

Here is an interesting article on SCOTUS Justice Thomas from a major source that I question at times, but gives us a term (super precedent) we refer to here in our discussions without saying it directly because we hope it happens against laws against the registrant.

Clarence Thomas Is in the Wrong Line of Work

He thinks he alone knows the right answer—and that’s not a good attitude for a judge.

🌟🌟 MI vs. Betts & Taylor 🌟🌟

Here is the video of yesterday’s oral arguments before the Michigan Supreme Court:

NOTE: The Betts & Taylor arguments begin at 38 minutes into the recording.

The arguments continue here (and may also be -in part – on one of the other YouTube videos):

The State’s Attorney, IMHO, comes off as angry….. waving his arms, endless gesticulating, furrowed brow and irritated tone …. as if he’s chiding little children, saying, “What are you ….crazy?? This is common sense!!”
🙄 * eye-rolling at his theatrics *

At 55 minute when he is trying to say how SORA is not like probation shows that he has never been subject to it and it’s actual situation where you have to wait three hours in an office waiting to see if you’re going to jail or not because you forgot to tell them about your latest email trying to find a job or if you has to repaint your car

I love that Sofia argument. She was very professional and spot on. The dude arguing for the state is a joke. Shit he is worse than I was by far in court. This gives me a boast of confidence I can tell you that. A person cannot be any worse than that guy. The PD’s and even the court were laughing at this dude. What a joke….. This is almost how the AG in my case acted in court when the Magistrate started asking her questions like “what happens if he moves as far as harassment? Wont he still be subject to this everywhere he goes?” and “How is it he seems more prepared than you counsel? You are supposed to be fully briefed and prepared to answer questions of law and cases associated with this case. But yet that petitioner is the only one familiar with the cases and questions we are asking.” She was squirming just like this…… LMAO…. Love to see this happen top these state actors.
And what is up with the black crap all the over dude’s and people’s foreheads? Am I seeing crap? because I have seen this on news host and all kinds of people lately?

I hate to say it but I do not like Aukerman. I do not like her arguments, I do not like her deference to the legislative process, I just do not feel confident in her abilities and envelopment with the legislature. Her only good argument in my opinion was on collateral estoppel. She is absolutely right, the Michigan state police and state prosecutors are barred by collateral estoppel by the Snyder federal court decision and this case should not even be being litigated at all. She should have been much more forceful on that issue and really should have hammered the fact that the legislature has not acted and that the state actors are violating the federal court’s orders. Bottom line no ifs ands or buts about it. The only real question that should have been argued before that court was indictments for contempt of those not abiding by the Snyder decision and the fact that the state and all it’s actors are barred by collateral estoppel from any future litigation, including what was before the court in that instant. Like I have stated before I am just a layman, but I think I can think critically and by the arguments and facts that is how I see it……… Loved Sofia, she was awesome…. It figures the one straight out of internship is the best….. Makes sense though, she has not yet been indoctrinated fully into the scandalous bottom feeding system yet, as ALL the others have been….

What does logic and law have to do with each other? My experience over the past 5 years of being on the registry and following this site and all the cases posted here is that the two are mutually exclusive. Especially in our case. If logic and facts actually had any real impact, the registry wouldn’t exist. It’s like the registry is Al Capone gunning people down in the streets, but his ultimate downfall comes down to some random technicality. The AG literally hung his argument on the Smith decision of it being non-punitive instead of the registry actually doing anything positive. He even agreed that should some legislature push through requirements to have people register 3 times a day, it’s fine because of Smith.

@mike r
I couldn’t agree anymore than I do right now….this groveling to the legislature, this faith in the legislature, and this negotiating with the legislature is Bull$h/t!!!! There is no more litigation left….just make the changes…to answer your question the prosecutor with the smudge on his head was observing Ash Wednesday. He was also misleading when stated that they are no longer enforcing/prosecuting the 06 & 11 amendments…that’s false because our places of work and our vehicles are still listed on our registry pages….I’m SO SICK of this process! The ginger headed ignoramus from Muskegon was a text book example of the LIES and FALSEHOODS that are spread about how we AREN’T being punished…..

Miss Aukerman,
I am emailing you after watching your performance today in the Michigan Supreme Court. I have to say I do not like your arguments. I do not like your deference to the legislative process.
I just do not feel confident in your abilities and your envelopment with the legislature. Your only good argument in my opinion was on collateral estoppel. You are absolutely right, the Michigan state police and state prosecutors are barred by collateral estoppel by the Snyder federal court decision and the case you are arguing should not even be being litigated at all. You should have been much more forceful on that issue and really should have hammered the fact that the legislature has not acted and that the state actors are violating the federal court’s orders. Bottom line, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The only real question that should have been argued before that court was indictments for contempt of those not abiding by the Snyder decision, and the fact that the state and all it’s actors are barred by collateral estoppel from any future litigation, including what was before the court in that instant. I understand I am just a layman, but I think I can think critically, and by the arguments and facts that is how I see it……… Loved Sofia, she was awesome…. It figures the one straight out of internship is the best….. Makes sense though, she has not yet been indoctrinated fully into the scandalous bottom feeding system yet, as ALL other attorneys have been. Please stay away from Sofia as she is our best shot in Michigan.
Furthermore, why are you or anyone attempting or capitulating to the legislature in Michigan after you won in Snyder? It makes NO sense. In any other case if you won you would not go back to the opposition and ask them how they can skirt around the judgement against them that you just worked your asses off to win. It is beyond reason and should be a violation of your ethical duties as an adjudicator in the courts. All those affected by the Snyder decision that have not received due process, and are having their constitutional rights infringed by state actors knowingly ignoring the Federal Court should be sued into oblivion, and your organization should be the one advocating that. It is really disappointing to see you capitulate to the legislature after such a nice win for justice. You should be ashamed as you are in dereliction of your judicial duties to your clients..
Thank you for your time.

@Josh, I agree. These people that get caught lying to the court like that need to face some kind of backlash. The frigging judges knew he was lying but just skated right by it without a word. They operate with impunity and it is indeed BS. Lawyers are doing it, judges, DAs, AGs, they are all doing it with no consequences. Something has to be done. I am researching it to see if there is anything that can be done by a private citizen. Has to be something…… Some kind of judicial ethical charges, or state bar ethical violations, or ????????? man… You know I wonder if you can turn around and sue them individually if the make false statements that have negative impacts against the person at issue. Like a tort claim or something….

(@ Mike r: The black smudge on people’s foreheads yesterday was ashes. Yesterday was the Catholic celebration of “Ash Wednesday”.)

Ash Wednesday smudges are actually burned palm fronds ashes marked in the shape of a cross as a sign of penance, not just smudges. Lesson learned here.

That is the funny shit I have heard in a while. I was tripping out why in the hell do these people have black splotches on their foreheads? LMFAO….. I seen it on like three different people on TV I guess I should have figured something was up. I just thought they were idiots or their makeup artist were idiots or I was seeing shot or my TV was messed up. 🙂 That is funny as hell….

And yeah I hear ya about the case, so it is ok if we have to register 3 times a day, or hell how about every frigging hour then? I would say even the mentally challenged are more able to comprehend reality than these guys.
Same with AO statement, these guys are insane. I thought the same shit soon as I heard him say it is like taking TV away. Get the hell real. Other than the obvious as AO pointed out we are frigging adults treat us like one since you claim we are so much different than juveniles all the time anyway.

Jumping to conclusions too often (and speaking from sometimes personal experience) results in the “idiot” being in the mirror, not out the window (or on TV). 😉

I gave up Catholicism for Lent years ago….

@Mike R
Damn Mike! I was contemplating sending something similar over to Ms. Aukerman but was trying to come up with a way that wasn’t going all scorched earth with it…I’ve had email conversations with her privately and I know what it is that she fears….she knows that she COULD force their hand and get us our relief but she is afraid that a motivated legislature would retaliate by taking language and statutes deemed constitutional in other states and simply installing them in a new version of the registry…long and short of it is this…negotiate now to try and help EVERYBODY or force their hands to get relief for people like Bill, Bobby, and myself who have all done our 25 years….I’m conflicted because I want off this list now and it’s frustrating beyond F’n belief to know that you have legal relief being held hostage by F’n lawmakers…my stance is that if they could force the changes they could help roughly 35,000 people in some way, shape, or form right now!!!! THAT’S WHAT SO FRUSTRATING!!!!!!

Yeah I had no idea it was ash day, or even remembered what it was. I recall now we learned something about it in school or had some event or something. Seems kind of cultist to me. Put a cross on your forehead like that. To each their own………

“When I take my daughter’s TV away for not doing homework, they thank that’s punishment. I think it’s teaching good manners.”

I’m pretty sure if you took your daughter’s TV away literally for the rest of their lives, and set up a system to throw them in prison should they dare to ever watch TV again, even if they’re now in their 80’s, that sure as hell would be “punishment”.

I am in no way on that idiot chicken little, drama queen’s side, but for the record, I am pretty certain he said “I am teaching her time management” and not “I am teaching her good manners”.

Has anyone thought about pushing a fraud case against states/cities/counties that deliberately inflate their registry (mostly Florida, but likely others as well) in order to draw higher grants? Pretty sure there are existing federal laws about that. Certainly unethical, if nothing else.

Would really like to see AGs and LE explain at a hearing how continued registration of dead, incarcerated, and/or those who have left is “protecting” the public. Wouldn’t hurt to ask what specifically are the “additional protective steps” constantly alluded to in virtually all pro-registry arguments.

@ Dustin: You may want to read this article about the Florida Registry – it’s informative and frustrating.

Any registrant who lives outside of Florida is automatically deemed “compliant”. So why even bother with local compliance checks ….. why not simply deem every registrant “compliant”. Then they’ll have a perfect record: 100% compliance!! And people will continue to be protected from a non-existent threat!! Do nothing & rake in the federal dollars!

I’m bringing this article up here because of the nature of the topic where others falsely use it as a weapon. If there is a need for residency restrictions, these three have earned it.

Man in ‘gardening while black’ case sues 3 white women who falsely accused him of stalking, pedophilia

Yes it was all of that and the cops asked me if I wanted to pursue it and I said no. It was 10 years ago. I would handle it very differently now though.

Living in a jurisdiction with presence restrictions, it struck me that I should try to find some ammo to fight it. To that end, today I signed up for email notifications from my U.S. Rep. and Sens. (State equivalents to follow) in the hopes they someday speak at a location I’m not allowed to be. Zingo-bingo, instant First Amdt. issue. 🙂

Actually, one of my Sens. spoke at a school back in November. I recall it being open to the public (except this member of the public and his ilk) and am hunting down that info. I want to build a case-file in case I file.

So how many Dads have killed kids this year? And how many dads//anyone on a bogus llist have…

If you’re looking for work, the following places will help:

San Gabriel Valley:
Pirate Staffing
13050 Valley Blvd #203, La Puente, CA 91746
(626) 333-0110
(Most hires will work at Furniture of America in Industry on a permanent basis)

Torrance/Palo Alto/Carson
Horizon Personnel Services
23545 Carson Plaza Dr, Carson, CA 90746
(310) 513-0112
(Most hires will work at a factory packaging food for airlines in Palo Alto on a permanent basis)

Listening to the arguments for case Paul Betts video on the 2nd parts of the video, Justice Stephen J. MarkMan, asked counsel Jessica “does it ever cross your mind (this is just an academic question) to make argument under the state constitution due process clause that it’s unlawful to impose burdens on a criminal defendant, even when not punitive, when the consequences were not clearly establish…” << is the Court trying to give hint to counsel or us on how to challenge the registry? I also thought it was great that counsel Jessica let the Justices knew at the introduction of the recent 3rd circuit court regarding "custody" of the ha beaus case of registrant. I wondered how come non of the registrant attorneys mentioned the brief from MICHIGAN’S ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL opposing THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY? or mentioning of the Packingham "troubling facts" from Justice Kennedy while she was mentioning the case to the Court.

Yeah, I sat up in my chair a bit when J. Markman mentioned that, too. It sure sounded like a helpful and suggestive nudge. I, too, liked the use of the fresh 3rd Circuit decision and how she threaded Packingham into the discussion.

As much as lawyers for the various governments hate to admit it, the facts and decisions are piling up higher on our side of the scales than they are theirs. The only things piling up on their side are more laws…which make additions on our side all the easier. Every single law added or stiffened only adds to suspicion of punitive effect, if not intent. I also think they can be somehow be used to argue towards effectiveness. Law A was in place, and recidivism didn’t change (from it’s extremely low rate). Law B came into effect, and still nothing “improved” regarding offenses. And yet now Law C is supposed to magically fix things? At some point the Legislatures’ drawing new lines will be exposed as the vindictiveness they are. That time seems to be nearer and nearer all the time now. For every Bethea or Boyd setback, there’s at least a Doe v. Marshall (AL Fed court) or 3rd Circuit win, if not more.

C’mon 10th….we’re waiting on you!

I’m surprised nobody (@Chris f?) has mentioned this news tidbit:
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in a federal court in Texas, Huawei argued that when Congress called it out by name, that violated the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder clause, which prohibits Congress from singling out a company or individual for punishment without a trial.
Let’s see what the courts do with this much-underused and greatly-abused constitutional issue.

That’ll be an interesting case for sure @AJ with a possibly good precedent in the end.

Watched the two Mi, cases yesterday Snyder & Bett’s, I think it seemed like the case went well, the prosecutor said (we can be sued under 1983, and we cant do anything about). also the that guy sounded like he knew it was/is wrong!! I’m going watch it again, Think you for the link, it seems promising to me, the Mi, cases are be used in a lot of other states, any thing new please post on this page.

I thought it went well at first too…I’ve rewatched it several times now and I believe that there will be no quick relief coming our way from that courtroom…I could be wrong but it seems like the justices are going to want more time for extra briefing….more delays, shocking huh?

The undertone I got from ACLU and the Deputy SG (fast-talking bald guy) is that they just want some sort of agreed answers. ACLU of course holds the upper hand with Does I, so there’s certainly a limit to how far they will budge. I get why the DSG wants MI SC to make a ruling. It makes perfect sense to have State courts rule on State laws and issues. But as ACLU points out, MI had its day in (Federal) court….and lost. It also sounds like the DSG wants MI SC to rule in order to force the case to SCOTUS to end it once and for all. He seems quite fatigued with the whole deal and also seemed to be aiming his stink-eye at the Legislature.

What’s interesting to me is that the State and its officials are apparently willingly and knowingly continuing to violate a Federal court ruling (i.e. the Constitution), thus ringing up penalty and sanction after penalty and sanction under Section 1983. Talk about throwing good money after bad! You’ve lost, MI, deal with it. No matter what MI SC rules, this will end up poorly for MI in Federal court. Mssrs. Betts and Snyder may lose their battles and not get relief, but MI has already lost the war here.

The comments by the County Attorney (pudgy dude with glasses) were outright stupid. His comparison of his having to be there falls flat–at best. Really dude, the State compelled you there or face felony imprisonment? The State makes you appear every 90 days or face imprisonment, even if nothing has happened? The MSP showed up at your house/office even though you showed up? How asinine. His comments about “by telegram” was stupid, too. Ever heard of the US Postal Service, idiot? Millions of people routinely send legally binding documents to government officials and agencies, not to mention private companies, through the USPS, and it suffices. We don’t all have to personally appear at an IRS office to pay our taxes. How stupid. That dude is rightfully nothing more than a COUNTY attorney. Woe to that county.


It is MI, they will just claim bankruptcy (e.g. MI, Detroit) to avoid any sort of penalty payments if taken to court and lose on USC 1983 violations.

Hey would you or any of the others explain “collateral estoppage” it was mentioned in the Betts & Snyder hearings? I think I have a idea what it means but I’m not sure….thanks!

It means an issue already litigated and decided cannot be retried. Since MI already lost on various issues and facts, those issues and facts are set in stone and MI cannot go back and try again. Essentially it means a court decision on a particular issue is final. That doesn’t prevent an appeal, but once appeals are exhausted, collateral estoppel says it’s over and cannot be tried again without some differentiating facts or details. MI exhausted its appeals when its cert. petition to SCOTUS was denied.

Collateral estoppel also keeps parties from “court shopping” after a loss and litigating again and again in hopes of getting a desired result. This is why @mike r has been saying ACLU should throw down that card and be done with it. The outcome has already been decided by the Federal courts, so how and why should there be any allowance to “try again” in State courts on the same issues and facts?

Since MI SC has final, binding authority on State laws under the State constitution, it could take it up, essentially saying, “thanks for your helpful, non-binding opinion on our laws, Feds. Thanks too for deciding the binding federal issues. We’ll take up the issue now and bind our citizenry via our laws and our consitution.”

The problem I personally see with all this is that State laws and State constitutions cannot go contrary to the Federal Constitution. Since the Feds have already said MI’s laws are violating the Federal Constitution (ex post facto), how is there *any* room to determine anything? Even if the MI SC says the laws are constitutional at the State level, the Federal constitutional violation remains. I say the State has a sticky wicket that the MI SC cannot resolve.

Yeah, like I stated anyone that was supposed to find relief from the federal decision and hasn’t, as apparently Betts or one of them are facing charges or whatever, need to sue the hell out of any and all agencies involved. Even for people that have not be taking off according to that order need to sue the hell out of the same. The prosecutor just stated in that hearing the fact that their would be no defense against such suits. I cannot believe pro bonos are not lining people up left and right. It is a done deal according to the fed constitution there is absolutely no need for re-litigation. I did not see anything in the decision stating that they were sending anything back to the lower courts or any deal with the legislature to fix anything. It was clearly stated that those amendments must cease as ex post facto. There last chance was SCOTUS and they denied cert. Plain and simple.

Question- Doesn’t the very existence of a “Tiered” Registry suggest that the Registries intent is in fact PUNISHMENT???
The Second Prosecutors use the Tier as a “Bargaining Chip” I believe this to become evident. Any thoughts?

The statement about challenging the statute is state court on state constitution is definitely a hint to everyone. It seems not only does the court see a win on the issues, it appears they really want to weigh in on it after it goes thru the state courts. Still stupid they are bargaining anything. People that are affected by the Snyder decision that are not getting relief should indeed file 1983 suit as the state prosecutor admitted right there they would lose and there was nothing they could do about it. You would think a pro bono would jump on it. Oh yeah, we are not human, that’s right. Almost thought we should be treated equally as others……….

They’re framed. Here’s the NPR story from today on the six framed for rape and murder.

Nebraska County Owes $28.1 Million After Wrongfully Imprisoning Six People For Murder

I hope someone saved the you tube video cause I tried to watch it and it been taken down don’t know if state of Michigan took it down or who did

I just looked and Michigan v David Snyder, and Michigan v Paul Betts are both on YouTube. Just put in Michigan Supreme Court Oral Arguments March 6th, I did it and they both showed up.

Thank you Bobby I will try that

Hi all,
I have not posted in a while and wanted to know if any head way has been made on the IML. I have my passport, which thankfully doesn’t have the identifier on it. I go to Mexico a lot with my wife to visit her family and it’s kind of nerve wracking if I will get detained due to not notifying State. We get sent to secondary EVERY TIME we drive back across the border due to being on the registry. The Border Agents are apologetic when they find out I’m Retired Military and say they have to do it.
Thankfully, here in AZ, I am a level 1 and have no web entry or flyers put out. It just was a pain last year when the company I was working for, (making $26 an hour!), went and re-ran background checks at the customer’s request and I wound up losing the job.
But, I digress, I am very interested in the fact of SORNA being declared Unconstitutional as I was thinking of filing a petition here to try to get off lifetime registry because I want to be able to travel and not have the hassles at the border, visiting relatives in Michigan and friends in Florida and Cali.
Thanks for all the info.

Rule: 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct
a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the

Here is the BS part,
Rule: 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a significant
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as
to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer shall inform the
Attorney Grievance Commission.

This is the Real BS, F*%$%& self-regulating BSSSSSSSS*&^^$$^!!!!!!
Comment: Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the
profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.

Absolutely insane, just as the executive branches. Only the executive make the rules that are applied to them. Apparently in the judicial sphere they self-regulate………. Bad as the DA deciding if a cop was justified in a shooting. Or all the immunity clauses for gov actors.

Thoughts on the upcoming need for visas for many countries in Europe starting in 2021? Will this mean going to a “safe” country and then traveling to a “visa” country will be an issue?

Any updates on the efforts to change the tiered registry prior to it going into effect on January 1st 2021? Specifically making tier three slightly less illogical by removing non production CP felonies from it? Better yet is there any more clarity on how the tiered system will sift out all the federal offenses into the state tiers where there isn’t an exact match?


Well I emailed Ms Aukerman from Michigan’s ACLU about the Oral Arguments, and why Ms Nessels brief’s were not brought up, and why we continue to negotiate with Michigan when they have clearly lost and can no longer take it to any courts to continue to litigate. She of course had very little to say, here is what she wrote back to me though,(her) I can appreciate your frustration.  We are returning to court for an injunction in Does II, but ultimately it will be legislative reform that makes a difference.  And that is very slow, unfortunately.

Miriam Aukerman
Senior Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan

PS. What is an injunction exactly?

Thanks for the update bud! A injunction is a request for legal relief to block further action or litigation. The better question is what are you requesting relief from and when you’re going to ask for it….hopefully soon like yesterday. The one thing that stands out to me when they decided to stop court proceedings and begin those “good faith” negotiations was the partial summary judgement that was left up in the air….that’s the part of all this that really PISSES me off! They should have pursued that part of it at least and then negotiated the rest….especially in light of all the tidbits of info we got from the hearings last week concerning a total lack of recourse in regards to litigation by the state of Michigan and the fact we should all be suing the collective shit out of the state police…keep on them @Bobby and I’ll do the same…

Here is a better explanation: Injunction-“A judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another or that compels a person to carry out a certain act e.g. to make restitution to a injured party.” The other part is figuring out what Ms. Aukerman is asking for in her I said before she left the partial summary judgement hanging out there when she/they decided to negotiate. I also sent her a email urging her to stop negotiating and go back to court…I know it probably won’t make a bit of difference but what the hell…

@Bobby / Josh,

My guess based on the oral argument and what I read in the amicus briefs is that they’re going to Cleveland (Fed District), where they have the Does II being held in abeyance as they try to work out a legislative fix, for an injunction to ensure MI doesn’t continue to try and prosecute people under Does I. This would put in place an injunction to guarantee that from happening and still by time with the legislature and the abeyance in Does II. Just my thoughts.

Received a HUMONGOUS postcard (11.5 x 6.5) in the mail from attorneys Crawford and Boyle with a gigantic bold headline “Is Georgia’s Sex Offender Registry RUINING YOUR LIFE?”.

Sweet Mary’s goat, why don’t they just pull in front of my house with a bullhorn? On top of that, I’ve already been removed from Georgia’s registry. My likelihood of calling these knucklehead leaches, other than as criminal defendants, is as close to zero as possible.

What a bunch of thoughtless a-holes. I’d call and complain.

Kamala Harris is such a joke. I’m black and notice she only wants to talk about being black when it benefits her.

They are all playing the race card. It is disgusting. She all tries to talk black and act black and like she is one of the people and shit. What a joke she is sitting behind her wall and gates in her private communities trying to act like she is one of the people. I cannot believe Elizabeth Warren is not in jail or having everything she has ever gained from her deception ripped away from her, but no one even calls her out hardly. How in the hell do you claim you are a minority with 0.001% Native American and become the first woman of color to go to Harvard? Disgusting…. But yet she is still running for Pres. WOW!!!!!!!!!! I am just blown away by this.
All the left does is yell racist and fascist at the right, but they are the ones shutting down speech through violence and attacking people with MAGA hats and shit. I do not give a crap what party you are for or against I am against all that shit from either side and we should all have the right to say anything and wear anything we want as long as it is not inciting violence or illegal for other reasons. And what about old Bernie???? Man and I would have voted for him back then if crocked Hillary would have stepped. Not anymore, I do not give a rats ass anymore I will not support any of those that are sitting there yelling how Trump is racist and half the country is racist and how blacks and minorities are oppressed still. No it is not minorities it is inequality from the elitist and upper class. It is no longer based on race but is strictly Marxism and we have an oligarchy happening right here in the good ol’ US of A. So tired of seeing these politicians use any demagoguery no matter how disgusting or radical they can be in order to appeal to constituents that are starving for change. We will give you all this and all that just look over hear and chose me. It all sounds great, but it is not gonna happen. All these people are just trying to get more power and anything they take from the lower and poor classes goes right in their pockets or their families, friends, or acquaintances thru contracts and earmarks and crap with kickbacks such as cars, houses, foreign bank accounts to them. I am soooo pissed about this transportation improvement tax and gas taxes here in Cali that has been going on fr a while now.. What th F%$#%$# is this $25 a year on my registration and way out gas taxes and I have to drive down the middle of the lanes on the streets because the Goddamn potholes are 5 feet deep and like trenches down the entire strips of roadways. Feel for motorcycle riders for damn sure, there is no way you can ride down the streets here in Sacramento on a bike and not have t constantly dodge potholes or you will be crashing for sure. Crazy shit man. Betch your ass Ol’ Jerry Brown and his family and friends and all that made a pretty penny of those taxes. Just like the damn spillway here in Cali, frigging billions of dollars to fix, BS I as a former contractor can tell you the spillway would cost no where near a million or two to build. Crazy man………… Billions my ass, and everything in gov, is like that, how about billions for this, billions for that, how about 20 million for this $100,000 at most bridge.

It used to be politicians represented everyone with emphasis on equality, but that has recently changed to whatever group is oppressed the most and barks “victim” the loudest.

So, just had my “price club” renewal and the supervising officer demanded new information that Iam pretty sure they are not allowed to collect. When asked he implied it was required info. Thing is the info wasn’t about me. It was about people living with me. He wanted the names and ages of my wife, mother-in-law, and minor daughter. Anybody else experience this? I am not on paper.

Which agency was this? It seems they all like to interpret the statute in their own ways.

Imperial Co Sherrifs office on Applestill Rd. The super was Officer Moreno.

That is crazy shit. Who the hell do they think they are? I know it is scary to cross these people, but should have told politely but in no uncertain terms, “that is none of your business” and if they pushed it more tell them you want a supervisor. These people need to understand we are not just going to lay down and take whatever Tom, Dick, or Harry feels like doing or asking certain days. No way in hell would I tell them all that. Shit show me the statute that states I have to tell you about every person in my household….

Every once in a while I get a cop with a wild hair that wants to show off, play Super Cop and populate every box in their form to the point of an interrogation. I point at the big ass sign on the wall that says I’m only required to provide information about my residence. “But I have to complete this form,” a female cop said to me two years ago. “That’s not my problem,” I reminded her. The very next year I got the same cop and she was a completely different person, sweet, respectful, and efficient. Almost human, in fact. I was in and out in 10 minutes. Next year you’ll probably experience the same thing. Easy peasy.

Also curious,

Was there a change in the form?
Did you send a copy to janice?

They went from requiring a cross out and initial to every blank spot, to just leaving it blank last year and it seems they always require one other contact. I would be curious of Janice’s thoughts.

Is “one other contact” mandated by law? If not, never give it to them. Make them go cry to their criminal legislators and tell them how they need it for “protecting children”. F them every day.

I’ve absolutely experienced this in the state where I live. I’ve had to correct them many times over the years. Only used an attorney one time though.

You should tell them to shove it up their asses. There is nothing I love to do more than that actually. I wish they would give me more opportunities.

Truly, only a scumbag criminal regime would act like that. Where I live, it has always been quite clear what information is required by law. And yet the criminal state government is just so unbelievably freaking stupid, they did not have even the enough bare sense to just at least create some bare, minimal forms that all of the criminal sheriffs throughout the state could use! Instead, they let over 100 criminal sheriff departments just create whatever forms they liked! They literally don’t have the brains of a 5th grader.

So I’ve harassed them non-stop over the years and the geniuses finally got around to creating a form. It still does not follow the law though. I don’t think they are capable of operating within the law, they are simply criminals at heart.

I would never, ever give them any information that was not required by law. And only do it in writing. They obviously can’t be trusted.

Sounds like this “info” was just to cover their butts in the unlikely event that you “abscond.” They asked me last time for my sister’s cell # but i refused to give it out.

Tell them: “Extraneous data is non-pertinent in regards to promoting public safety”

I like to tell them, “Try to stop operating outside of the law. See if you can follow the law for a change.” You’d think they’d be more interested in doing that. People might actually respect them.

Yesterday I got a call that made me sink. A close friend of mine in Thailand died yesterday. He was attempting to rescue a recreational diver in distress and suffered a burst lung. We had worked and lived together when I first moved there. We shared adventures and he gave me hope in emails and calls after my wife died and my subsequent conviction.
I am very depressed because I can’t be there for his service or for his family. I feel even more isolated than I usually do.
Aroon will always be one of my closest friends and not being able to talk and share with him leaves me wondering if I will ever see the home I built, the friends and family I have, or the life I loved so much.
I bring this here because I have the need to put my thoughts down and try to understand and accept. I work on the pillars of my beliefs every day. I know that impermanence and non attachment is important to embrace. But when I have doubts about the future and life in general, I ask myself why try at all.

I’m so sorry to hear about this, my friend. I’ve read your posts over the years and you seem like a very compassionate person with a lot of love to give. That tells me there are a lot of people who love you and, I’m sure, are very supportive. Hopefully they are here in the US and you’re surrounded by them now. I’m sending lots of positive thoughts and energy your way. Hang in there.

I wake up every morning saying that it will get better. I think of those that I want to see again and how, if I can just put that extra internal effort in, I can get through this. But then I read something , hear something , or talk to someone, and reality sets in. This time it hit me especially hard. Everyone has different events that cut deeper than others. I feel for all, and know that thinking of the great times we had will temper the loss I feel. I wish every person that treats us as throw aways could spend one day experiencing our lives.

You have a lot to live for! Just because of a couple obstacles doesn’t seem fair, you just have to look at the brighter side and try to make things better! We are all feeling what your going through! Try to hold on their my friend… It WILL get better!

A 20 year old woman experiences the wrath of society.

Is anyone aware of another PA Supreme Court case that is pending? Just listed today and another one to watch. I couldn’t find any documents but here is the link. It has to do with the “new” SORNA in PA after Muniz also being unconstitutional as expo facto.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. George J. Torsilieri

Here are some other cases I ran across as well. PA is getting slammed.

If anyone has any information to offer or any links to actual court documents, please share.

For those of you that don’t follow sports, a Nebraska football player that is expected to go high in upcoming draft had a warrant issued by California for possession and distribution of sexually explicit video.
It seems he had video of two men sexually assaulting his then girlfriend when she was 15yrs old. He then sent it to her after they broke up.
1. Who films a girl they care about being assaulted( or any person for that matter)
2. Who keeps that video and sends it to the woman
3. If he sent it to others, are those in possession of the video now in danger of prosecution (or persecution in this day and age!)

Wow. In Santa Clara County, too. They’re Orange County Lite; remember, they’re the county that recalled Judge Persky as not being harsh enough.

Regardless, this individual sounds like a pretty vile person. To videotape your girlfriend getting assaulted, saving it, then sending it to her out of spite? That’s a whole other level of wrong and a serious psychological issue.

I often find comfort in lyrics of songs that paint a picture of my life. I recently heard Gary Wright’s “ Dream Weaver”and found it described a lot of us and our inner turmoil. I recommend it to listen.

I voted. It’d be nice to overwhelm the current tilt of the numbers (22% yes / 78% no) and make a statement. Get out and vote, even if it is only to poke the haters in their eyes.

Got my vote in. At the moment it’s 25/75. It’s climbing for us!

Hello Everyone,

Here is an article that was on Channel 7 action news, about possibly abolishing Michigan’s Registry, I doubt it, but who knows , at least the media is finally bring attention to it. Please let me know your thoughts on the article.

Hopefully The Michigan Supreme Court will finally put an end to this unconstitutional registry, or force a well over due change.

I also saw this article posted and I also voted on the attached poll that came along with it….when I voted in favor of abolishing the registry it was running 75% in the other direction and the comments are about what you’d expect. Yes, the media is bringing attention to it but I think I’d prefer it to fly a little less under the radar….our legislators don’t need every hysterical housewife & soccer mom blowing up their inboxes and phone lines with their uninformed nonsense.
I also received a reply from the Aclu and they don’t appear to be confident about a timely or positive result from the Betts & Snyder hearings….@David- you were correct about those being the oral arguments themselves so I was wrong…however it does appear that the justices might require more time to brief themselves. I can report that a injunction was filed in Cleland’s court and the state has to respond by the end of April….who knows what the hell that means for us besides another month & a half wait…..I guess nothing is going happen this month so I’m going to report for my first verification and pay that $50 Price Club membership fee…..SICK OF THIS SHIT!

Josh, can you send the exact email where the aclu is not seeming confident in the MSC and about the injunction filed? Thanks

The email was correspondence between myself and someone in the know from the Aclu. I will not share copies of my personal emails. The reasoning I was given for low confidence on the MSC hearings that happened last week was that there wasn’t a lot of background presented to the court on two slim criminal appeals cases as opposed to all the preparation, experts, social science references, research, and hand picked plaintiffs in the Does 1 CIVIL case. I hope you accept that explanation or if not contact the Aclu yourself and confirm the injunction that the Aclu pursued the day after the Betts & Snyder hearings…@Bobby mentioned the injunction first and I inquired about it as well…

I wasn’t trying to be pessimistic in my last post….although presented very well by the two attorneys for Mr. Betts & Mr. Snyder, I don’t see how the MSC is going to take down Michigan’s entire sex offender registry based on those two 15 minute arguments. I just don’t see it….I know how I and most everyone else feels that going to court and forcing the state’s hand is the way to go with this….unfortunately, that is going to be the LAST resort not the first option no matter how much we don’t like that…..nothing about any of this is JUST or FAIR. I pray daily that the good Lord will give us our miracle….you look around our country and there isn’t much hope in many places. We should be thankful that we are even having these discussions & “negotiations” because they aren’t being had elsewhere. I hope that Michigan becomes the template for the rest of our “registered” brothers & sisters across the country!

I don’t understand the pessimism surrounding the March 6 MSC oral presentations. That event was “Oral Agruments on the Application”, NOT an argument of the full cases. From MSC’s own website, this type of event, known as a MOAA (M = Mini), is used to help MSC decide whether to accept or reject a petition ( More information about it is available here:

March 6 was but one step in the process for MSC to decide whether or not to hear the cases. If they accept, I’m quite sure all the data, research, amici, etc., that you bemoaned as missing this time will be introduced.

P.S. Anyone doubting these were MOAA arguments need only look at the court’s website, where “MOAA” is clearly attached to each case.


Both have two Briefs with “MOAA” suffices. IOW, relax. March 6 was NOT an argument of the cases themselves. That’s also why the discussion of putting it on the calendar in October occurred–they were referring to when to hear it if accepted. How your ACLU contact doesn’t know or understand all this is a bit surprising, I must say.

I am not sure why and who published that idiotic news article from WXYZ. The courts and the Aclu are NOT trying to get rid of the ENTIRE registry. They are looking to REVISE it. Articles like that will have some of the public running to their legislators afraid, in which the legislators wouldn’t want to be behind any proposed changes. Why was the article even published? Whos idea was that??? Not wise at all! This is how hysteria gets started. That was the most idiotic news article that has been written.

@Dennis, it actually finally brings it to everyone attention like the legislature that they finally need to get off their ass and fix the registry, like they were ordered to do by the 6th Circuit. This crap has gone on long enough time to fix it.

Brother, I agree with you on most things but on this I have to go with @Dennis….we don’t need the people in that 75% opposed to abolishing the registry howling at their legislators just when progress is being made(supposedly)…The article sucked too because that’s not what is being discussed. Revisement not abolishment is what’s happening…any press is not always positive press…

I’m not disagreeing with anything you said in your post. I think there were quite a few people who thought that the MSC was going to rule on the case based on those arguments, which they still could technically from what I was told. If MSC decides to do whatever they are going to do with it later in the year then the chances are that the ongoing negotiations between the Aclu and lawmakers will probably produce results before then…if I misrepresented pessimism on the part of the Aclu it was entirely my fault. They are putting their positive efforts into the Does I & II negotiations….

To hell with “flying under the radar”. I will repeat it every day that truly the only acceptable solution is to destroy the Registries. I think millions of people should be yelling that every day. We need to get in the faces of the hysterical idiots that support the Registries and tell them to go F themselves or else.

I’m not very optimistic that Registries will be destroyed any time soon though. That may just have to be the way that it is. But I will guarantee that as long as Registries do exist, I will personally make damn sure that not only do they do nothing useful, but that they are as counterproductive as I can make them. Every single day.

Further, as long as the Registries exist I will do want I can to ensure they are as harmful as possible. People who support Registries don’t have any rights. Registries are harming ALL of America and that will no doubt continue.

Harassers lost their war against me long ago. As long as they continue harassing, they’ll pay.

@Will Allen:
“I think millions of people should be yelling that every day.”
You’ve previously referenced your being very comfortably financially. Why not lease some billboard space and make statements? If concerned about being “outed” (which you’ve also not seemed to care about), you could make a shell company or three to hide behind. How better to “yell[] it every day” than to have the recidivism rates on an e-billboard on the major interstate, or some other helpful info? IOW, what’s preventing *you* from yelling?

To answer that question about myself: I don’t feel the need to yell. My situation is such that I’m less heavily impacted than most seem to be. I’m in no way accepting or acquiescing, it’s just that yelling would create more problems for me than it would solve. I do have some wheels in motion and pending, but those activities and plans will remain private and confidential until assured and/or completed…and perhaps even after that.

I’ve thought about a billboard for more than a decade. I need to do it. I’ve got a PILE of crap going on right now. But I’ve got to put it on my list. Can’t be that near the top, but still.

I really don’t have time to write like I do but I do it anyway. I get aggravated with myself for doing it sometimes. But I treat it as a hobby and leisure activity. Plus, it really gets my blood boiling and motivates me to crush people. That’s useful.

Ironically, I’ve wondered for years if billboards would be good to own. I need to find out. I would enjoy making money to subsidize my own billboards, although I would worry that it would affect their profitability.

Don’t think I’d say anything about recidivism rates though except maybe that Registries haven’t affected them. I think I’d start the billboard with “The emperor has no clothes. …”

Got another letter from, (626) 827-7222 stating they will get me off the registery and they do it in God’s name.

What I hate is they keep sending these letters to my house. Bad enough they are getting my information from the registery, but putting stating SEx OFFENDER in big font, and using my saviors name in vain. How do I make it stop?

Call them and respectfully ask that they take you off their mailing list. If they don’t, take to the socials and trash them wherever and anywhere you can. Be sure to file a complaint with the Bar Associatiation a d anyone else who will listen.

Things are heating up in the Jeffery Epstein case: “Federal court moves to unseal documents in Jeffrey Epstein scandal”

I recall back when this was all going on, there were some seriously big names implicated (IIRC, one of QE II’s sons was hinted). Given the super-sweet deal Epstein got–and which appears to be coming undone–there have to be some “VIPs” sweating a bit. Who knows, maybe this results in Price Club memberships for some prominent names, resulting in reassessing just how much “regulation” is needed.

C’mon aboard Dersh! We could use the legal help.

Keep dreamin’ dude.
1st , the judgement is on paper, so likely nothing will happen to him.
2nd, anyone that knows this guy ( which because of his political donations is many on both sides) has insulated themselves already.
3rd, what does he care. With his billions, and owning an island in international waters,
He doesn’t feel the sting of the registry like all of us do.

@Keep dreamin’:
I suggest you learn a bit more about the case before you come up with such statements. Despite the judgment being on paper…gee…for some peculiar reason, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (CT, NY, VT) is strongly considering unsealing the case…even though the plea deal happened in Florida. There’s a reason that’s able to happen, which anyone who’s read the Herald’s pieces would grasp.

As for him, I don’t care whether or not he cares; however, he’s definitely at some risk and the increased attention to what went on has almost certainly gotten HIS attention. Also, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about regarding his, “owning an island in international waters.” Little Saint James Island is part of the USVI. He happens to own the whole island, but it’s still US jurisdiction. And according to the Herald, he’s also required to appear in person semi-annually to the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office to re-register.

There’s more smoke to this story than you think. Will anything come of it? Who knows. But what’s wrong with hoping for some sort of positivity for us?

It’s called living in the real world.

@Being realistic:
“It’s called living in the real world.”
Right. Because the real world never changes. Heavier than air flight is impossible. Separate but equal is proper and unchangeable. There’s nothing smaller than the atomic particles (electron, neutron, positron). No court will ever find registries punitive. Yep, real world.

If that’s your perspective on life and the world, I truly feel sorry for you. The definition of hopeless.

You should chat with “@Static-99 blah blah blah” some time…oh wait, never mind.

P.S. As usual, you fail to acknowledge being wrong about something.

“Ex-priest accused of sex abuse found shot dead in home” Apparently, not being treated as a suicide but as a murder.

“The world is a safer place without him,” said Richard Fitter, a man who accused Capparelli of abuse, to The Star-Ledger after hearing about his death.

“Whatever led to his death, it’s a certain amount of karma.”

While we can’t attribute this to being on “the registry,” since he appears not to have been, the likelihood for his being murdered would have been even higher if he had been on it.

“Pennacchio [Republican State Senator, New Jersey] Introduces Bill to End Sanctuary State Protections for Sex Offenders”

So, like Pinnochio, Pennacchio seems to be daring the gods not to make his nose grow longer. To that end, this wooden puppet (in hopes of becoming U.S. Rep. Chris Smith’s real boy?) seems to be taking his cues from that odious (and notorious, if I might suggest) IML author with this bill by pretending that there is a crisis while creating an actual one – that of over-legislation.

Yet another “loophole” that we have been shamelessly exploiting, apparently: “Sex offenders should not be given safe harbor in New Jersey, just because the offense was committed in another country,” Pennacchio said. “New Jersey has a dangerous loophole, that allows illegal immigrants who are convicted or fleeing sex crime charges from another country to fly under the radar – and the State Attorney General’s recent Sanctuary State directive made this even worse.”

“Safe harbor.” LMAO..

Wow, they really are brazen, aren’t they? Especially considering Megan’s Law gives aid and comfort to people that don’t even need it, then subsequently, the authorities take false credit for promoting community safety!

It’s all a scam/sham safety illusion fantasy.

To all California folks who come here for news, information, discussion and support: Please get on a plane, train, or bus and join us on March 26th to DEFEAT AB 884!
It is critical that we have a large turn out to stop this hateful, punitive, clawback legislation!
Call, write letters, show up, speak up!

A quick update on the Millard (10th CCoA) case. On March 11, the RCs filed Supplemental Authority documents consisting of Muniz (PA SC) and Piasecki (recent 3rd CCoA habeus case). Still no Opinion, though.


I read all the briefs, amici’s in this case (bought off Pace). What were your thoughts on the reply brief by the Millard attorneys? Rankin had quite a few compelling legal arguments to overturn and I felt Millard may have left a lot on the table. What shot out and not sure it was raised below, but raised multiple times in the reply, was Substantive Due Process. Just curious if you read and what you thought.

I did read the documents back when it was all filed. and recall being less than impressed by Millard’s side. I was even less impressed by oral arguments. I’m pessimistic how the 10th will rule, truth be told. Though it will be petitioned to SCOTUS regardless who wins, the winner holds the cards…especially if SCOTUS keeps swatting away RC cases.

I do recall the Substantive Due Process discussion, but don’t recall enough details to opine on it anymore. I don’t feel like dropping more coin to PACER for it either; they get enough of my money, as exemplified by the quarterly bills I’ve gotten the last few rounds!

In line with my thoughts above, I think it was wise for them to supply the supplementals, but it does seem odd to file them, especially 4 months after oral argument. Similar to omitting Muniz, they supplied the District, not Appellate, Piasecki Opinion, even though the Appellate Opinion was published 2/27/19, which was 12 days ahead of filing the supplemental. This bit of “sloppiness” (for lack of a better term) troubles me.


Was there a third case since Millard oral arguments that we thought the Tenth should have to consider besides these two?

I normally don’t question you either, but are you sure they provided the district’s Piasecki court case and not the Third’s? I ask because I just read the Third’s conclusion which vacated the district’s finding and remanded it back to the district. If they truly supplied the district version, then that is a gross error as I read it.

Thanks for checking up on me. I looked again on PACER (for $1.50, no less!), and you’re correct, they did submit the 3rd’s decision. I obviously misread the header(s) in the Westlaw document the first time.

As for a third case, nothing pops to mind. The only other recent decision that comes to mind is Marshall out of AL, but that one doesn’t help in any way.


Thx for confirming the Piasecki decision from the Third CCoA. That’s a sigh of relief. I’ll take the filing of those two to add to the others filed prior to oral arguments.

That’s interesting @AJ they’d be formally submitted to the court for consideration now by the Tenth but nice to see.

Surprised Muniz (Pa) wasn’t before too.

JUST A FEW WORDS TO REMEMBER………. even then some people don’t and would not believe them “everyone makes mistakes in life,but that doesn’t mean they have to PAY for them the rest of their life,sometimes GOOD PEOPLE make BAD choices,it doesn’t mean they’re BAD…. it means they’re are HUMAN! just my humble opinion…

Anyone see any similarities between the Boeing 737 max 8 grounding safety and us?

Yes. All because one crashed in India, they think ALL of them are gonna eventually crash and kill the passengers. Just like we’re all being scapegoated for Megan Kanka and Adam Walsh’s killer(s).

Grounding the Jets was a precautionary measure to mitigate risk (reckless endangerment and wrongful death lawsuits in the event one went down on American soil etc.), but I personally feel it was to protect Trump from more controversy than anything.

This plane analogy just lost steam. There’s new satellite data that was used to justify the grounding. Yes, data analysis. Registrants don’t get that.

@TS: “There’s new satellite data that was used to justify the grounding”… have a link?

Plus, it’s typically deemed unsafe to keep sending airplanes into the sky when there is a risk of failure, particularly during a critical flight phase, and nobody knows why it’s happening or how to mitigate it. Would you get in your car and drive it if you suspected it could uncontrollably veer into a tree and you had no way to prevent or overcome it? Not the best analogy given the vast differences in safety/death data, but hopefully you get the point. Aviation people don’t like flying with unknown terrain-contact-inducing issues.

Personally, I suspect it’s akin to the auto-land (read: auto-crash) bug Airbus had years back. I’m guessing Boeing introduced too much automation during the critical flight phase, leaving pilots little or no time to disengage or correct it.

Another article on ETIAS:

The New Rules for Traveling to Europe for Americans

I feel like ending it all right now. I’ve been texting my son, and my sis. I’m done.


I just seen this. Care to chat?

@R M:
We all understand and can empathize with your frustration and sense of hopelessness. I hope you choose to carry on and let those who matter to you define who you are and your value, not the liars, thieves, and hypocrites. I recall your recently mentioning having survived a Widowmaker (L.A.D.), so it seems your body wants to keep going. Indeed, that surgery may be contributing to your feelings, as it’s not uncommon to have fear, anxiety, or even an impending sense of doom afterwards. Please stay with us. Please.

You know what keeps me going? The desire for revenge! I want these assholes to pay! And I can’t stand the idea of not being there to see it happen. No way would I cheat myself out of that opportunity. I just hope I live long enough.

That’s what keeps me getting up in the morning and taking my vitamins. Since I can’t “live well” then there’s nothing left but revenge now, is there?

Also, AJ is right about the cardiac/depression link.

R M ~ You have been here for a while I think, and we need everybody to fight this injustice. Ending it all may seem like a good idea sometimes, and I am sure we all felt like this at one time or another. But, it is not a solution! We shouldn’t care what others think of us. All we need is friends and family who are smart enough to see beyond the label, even if it just the virtual friends on this site. We were made to be outcasts by people who are too dumb to see the big picture. More and more people are being added to this ridiculous list every day, including famous and rich people. Pretty soon, everyone will either be on the registry or know someone who is. It has to stop, and it will in time, when humankind will come to grips and realize how wrong all this is. Like some said. if there is a registry, which there never should be one, everybody who ever committed a crime should be on it. Who is to decide that I feel safer knowing a registrant lives next door, but not knowing that a drug dealer lives on the other side. Stay here and help us win this!

Hang in there, buddy. Your son and sis love you, as do many others, I am sure. Keep on keeping on for them. You’ll thank yourself later. 🙂 Please hang in there!

I’m still here. I don’t know how but I am. I am usually the one who responds to people who say things like I said not the other way around. That day, 2 days ago, was too much for me. I didn’t even know I posted on here then, I just now saw the comments, thank you all.

@R M:
“I’m still here.”
SO glad to hear that! That you’re not even aware of having posted makes me think even stronger that perhaps you suffered some post-surgery “emotional wavering” (a term I just whipped up, to my knowledge)–kinda sounds like an “impending doom” overcame you. If so, it’s definitely something to bring up with your doc (for help)…and family (for awareness).

Thanks for checking in to let us know you’re okay and doing better.

We discuss titles for those who are impacted by the registry from time to time, but it is addressed on the national office website today and is very good that maybe it should be here too:

I know I am, but what are you?

Hang in there, buddy. Your son and sis love you, as do many others, I am sure. Keep on keeping on for them. You’ll thank yourself later. 🙂 Please hang in there!