ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

National

MI: Lawmakers ordered to revise the Sex Offender Registry Act

A U.S. district court judge is giving Michigan lawmakers 90 days to change the state’s sex offender registry law, almost three years after it was first ruled unconstitutional by federal appeals court.

U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland issued an order that the law must be changed on Thursday.

The ruling stems from an August 2016 decision by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati which found that Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry Act was unconstitutional. Full Article

Decision

Join the discussion

  1. Gary

    Judgement has been entered on 5/23/19 in the case. I think this is some good news but not entirely sure. Ill paste part of it below, this is pulled from pacer:
    By stipulation of the parties, it is ORDERED as follows:
    1. The Court enters a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and consistent with Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 55 (2017), that the current Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), M.C.L. § 28.721 et seq. is punishment and that the ex post facto application of the 2006 and 2011 amendments is unconstitutional;
    2. The Court defers for 90 days the question of whether this declaratory judgment should apply to the following class members:
    a. Paul J. Betts and David Allen Snyder, whose criminal appeals are currently pending before the Michigan Supreme Court;
    b. Members of the pre-2011 subclasses who have a pending direct appeal in a criminal case where a Michigan state court, prior to August 25, 2016, issued a decision involving the question of whether SORA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions; and
    c. Members of the pre-2011 subclasses who have an open civil case in either Michigan state court or federal court that includes a claim that SORA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Michigan or U.S. Constitutions.
    3. In order to avoid interfering with the Michigan legislature’s efforts to address the Does I decisions and their findings of constitutional deficiencies with SORA, the Court defers a ruling on any injunctive relief for 90 days. The Court also specifically defers ruling on:
    a. Whether the 2011 amendments can be severed from SORA, and whether, if the 2011 amendments cannot be severed, the statute is null and void as applied to people who are subject to registration based on offenses committed before April 12, 2011; and
    b. Whether there are issues in this case that should be certified to the Michigan Supreme Court for decision in the first instance.
    4. In the event that the legislature has not revised the statute within 90 days of this order, the parties shall submit a joint status report and the Court will set a briefing schedule to decide the questions of (a) whether this declaratory judgment and any subsequent injunctive relief shall apply to the class members listed in ¶ 2; (b) severability, and whether SORA can apply at all to pre-2011 registrants; (c) what remedies shall be ordered in this case; and (d) any other issues raised by the parties at that time. In their joint status report, the parties shall address whether there are issues of state law that should be certified to the Michigan Supreme Court, or whether this Court should decide those issues.
    Dated: May 23, 2019
    Approved by:
    s/ Miriam Aukerman (P63165)
    Attorney for Plaintiffs
    1514 Wealthy SE, Suite 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 616.301.0930 maukerman@aclumich.org
    s/ Paul D. Reingold (P27594)
    Co-Attorney for Plaintiffs 801 Monroe St.
    363 Legal Research Bldg Ann Arbor, MI 48109 734.763.4319 mclp@umich.edu
    SO ORDERED.
    s/Robert H. Cleland Hon. Robert H. Cleland U.S. District Judge

    • CR

      It’s good. It’s progress. Section 1 says that the state agrees that the current SORNA is punishment and the ex post facto application of 2006 and 2011 amendments is unconstitutional. You know the state agreed because “by stipulation of the parties” the court entered declaratory judgement.

      The court defers decision on whether the declaratory judgement should apply to the people listed in parts a, b, and c of section 2 that have ongoing active cases.

      The court defers a decision on injunctive relief to give the legislature time to fix the law.

      The court will reconvene after 90 days if the state hasn’t fixed the law by then. In my opinion, there’s a good chance that is exactly what is going to happen. Then we wait another couple of years for things to play out further.

      I’d call it excellent progress, but the eventual outcome, and whether it will be good or bad for RCs, is yet to be determined.

      • steve

        And remember, being classified or changing classification (tier) without a hearing, which will happen here, was ruled unconstitutional in this case. Excellent precedence for anyone moving to tier three here I believe.

        • SR

          @Steve, That’s an interesting idea. But is being placed into CA’s T3 a lateral movement since CA is automatically lifetime? Basically, nothing changes for anyone on T3 from the current situation. But some may receive relief that they were not originally going to. Not that there’s any laymen logic to our laws though. Words all to often have very different meaning in the legal dictionary than they do in the laymen one.

      • Steven V.

        Although this is certainly not the end of the story, the progress that is being made in Michigan for registrants is nothing short of a miracle. I do hope that the Michigan legislature complies with this order so that they have the ability to more fully serve the needs of their constituents, even those who are continuing to feel the weight of crimes that were committed years prior.

        It is important to note the significance of the state admitting that registration requirements are indeed punishment; these words will surely be utilized in cases to come.

        And, now the waiting game ensues.

        • Dustin

          @ Steven V:

          I actually hope the Michigan legislature does nothing. Then the court will have to strike down the Michigan registry en totem. After ruling it’s unconstitutional, the court can’t very well order the petitioners to abide by it.

          And given the Michigan Attorney General’s statements, I doubt the state would appeal either.

        • Chad

          What is interesting is that summer recess is going to take up most of the 90 days. They meet in the month of June and only 1 time in the months of July and August. So if they are going to do anything, it would be in the next 30 days

      • Josh

        I am not getting overly excited about these developments….cautiously optimistic, maybe…there’s a lot to unpack in all of this. Severability is going to be a key issue in my opinion. If they can do this without declaring the whole statute null & void then it’d be better in my opinion. Getting the whole law removed would be good for EVERYONE in the VERY short term but bad for everybody because they’ll turn right around and pass legislation that will need to be contested again just like Pennsylvania. You MAY get removed if you have enough time on the registry like a few of us on this forum but even WE might be subject to whatever knee jerk reaction legislation they come up with. My gut tells me this is far from over…

        • Chuck

          Getting the Muniz decision here in Pa was the best thing that has ever happened for us here in Pa. Act 10 and ACT 29 of 2018 are pending before the PA Supreme Court and we expect a decision by early 2020.

  2. TS

    Thanks @Gary for posting that decision judgement.

    I hope this gets to the Tenth Circuit in Denver since it appears to me this is another court that agrees with 6th CCoA making it another court to add to the list of those who feels it is unconstitutional. If I am off on that, then please advise.

    • CR

      @TS, are you thinking of another case in the 10th circuit, maybe? Or did I misunderstand you?

      This case is in Michigan, in the 6th Circuit, and is the follow-up to the Michigan Does v Snyder that the 6th already decided. This case is an attempt to get the state to acknowledge and adhere to the Does v Snyder ruling.

      • TS

        @CR

        I was going off the very first bullet point or paragraph number one said. I read it as this court, this particular District Court, was agreeing with the 6th circuit Court of appeals and saying it’s unconstitutional. I read that as an additional ruling stating that was fact. I may have misunderstood that, but that’s how it came across to me when I initially read the post of the judgment. If it was an additional Court agreeing with those facts, I would hope that the 10th circuit in Denver could get it because they’ve recently got additional rulings submitted after the fact, earlier this year supporting the unconstitutional nature.

        Hence, that’s why I said if my thinking is off, please advise.

    • AJ

      @TS:
      Following up on what @CR posted, this is the resolution to the original filing in the Eastern District of Michigan. Part of that case was decided, part appealed (which became Snyder at the 6th). This is the final tying up of the original lower case and the appealed portion the 6th decided.

      To all: I still believe that even if the Legislature doesn’t act, the Governor and/or AG will. Given the amicus from the Betts/Snyder mini-arguments at MI SC, the Executive branch appears to get it. And with the MI AG outright saying in court documents that registries don’t work, I can easily see her saying she and her office will comply with the Federal Court’s ruling, no matter the Legislature. And truly, won’t it be the Executive Branch that gets in hot water with the Judicial (Fed Court, here) for enforcing a law declared unconstitutional? IOW, I think unless the Executive branch chooses to thumb its nose at the Federal Judiciary, it’s game over in 90 days.

  3. Tim

    Seems a desperate attempt to ” save” the root of the regime, by limiting the scope of the unconstitutional deprivation of liberty to that increased in 06, 09, 2011 Acts. If we examine the true underlying INTENT of retribution we can acknowledge the regime was far more about the machine database to impose affirmative restraint.

  4. mike r

    So, bottom line here.
    “Under Michigan’s law:
    Offenders have been prohibited from living, working or even standing within 1,000 feet of a school.
    They must immediately register email address or vehicles, plus report to the police as often as four times a year.
    The rules currently apply to all offenders on the registry — even if they’ve gone decades without committing and crimes. ”

    All that waiting, negotiating, and capitulating to the legislature did crap except to prolong the suffering of the individuals that were entitled to immediate relief, as well as losing the chance to really stick it to these politicians and show them some hurt with personal monetary lawsuits for deprivation of rights under color of law, it still ends up taking the judge to order compliance with the original order. Now the legislature is going to sever the ordered parts and those people are going to get relief from those amendments that have been delayed for what, years I believe. And the ACLU will have to file new suits to challenge the rest of the law which is going to be even harder since the legislature is going to try and work it so as the next suit will be upheld. Big chance for change avoided really. We will see I guess as the issue by the Michigan AG, and the court, was also the no individualized assessments.

    • Josh

      @Mike R

      You’re absolutely right about that Mike…this 90 day order could have been filed 6 months ago. All that posturing & “negotiating “ got us to what? This?

  5. Guy

    So what changes specifically are we looking at here? Or at least a guess.

    Shortened registration terms?
    Case by case risk factors?
    School zone restrictions shortened/eliminated?

    • Josh

      I forwarded this to my attorney who was expecting this to be announced and the answer I received matched what my initial reaction was after reading this…..that this has no real teeth and is more of what my boy @Bobby calls “kicking the can down the road” I don’t know what it means in terms of what aspects need to be revised. But to answer your question @Guy I think we’re going to have to wait and see..I suspect a federal judge will order the state to implement whatever changes because I think that’s the way our legislators want it…They can run back to their constituents and say “See, we weren’t soft on crime or pedophiles….the government MADE us change!” That’s just how I see it…I’m curious to see what some of our brighter legal minds come up with on the topic…

      • Tim IN WI

        @Josh,
        When it comes to domestic electronic surveillance the FED judges understand the Saints need it ( warrantless surveillance) to survive. If it were determined by the courts that ” certain uses” were intended in bad faith, as is the case with alleged FISA COURT misuse, the entire covert infrastructure justification would necessarily evaporate. To find the courts limiting STATE’S USE of the database upon bad actors automatically implicates FED USE upon the people whole. Mass data collection is a government function, however the uses of the data are too often political and not about truth.

      • Chuck

        That is the problem. They want the Court to FORCE them. I can’t believe they got denied at the SCOTUS and then said, “Oh it is only an as appilied challenge.” I would have marched to Court the very next day if I was the ALCU and asked the Court to clarify their order.

        • Tim in WI

          @Chuck,
          IMHO, SCOTUS is waiting! For what you ask? Those very few who can attack the regime on the substantive DUE PROCESS challenge in ex post context. Connecticut DPS mentions the timeframe of convictions in that state. Those considered in Connecticut DPS were not legally positioned properly to make such a claim as they’d ALL WAIVED SUBSTANTIVE PROCESSES VIA PLEA on the issue.

          Substantive process includes the right to contest claims civilly, council, trial or hearings notice on the issue. A few, very few indeed, refused to plea and therefore retained rights to trials, testimony, and direct appeal (another substantive opportunity). For ex post registrants with out plea, the right to direct appeal (SOR onus) could not be had since it was not available for the state to ” Lawfully impose or apply at the trial sentence phase. ” OUR constitution merely guarantees opportunities for citizens to contest and NOT outcomes.

          Many pre Whetterling ACT defendants have addressed grievances, most failed and few prevailed, but none yet attached the original act itself in the record. I will do so would in an FTR this year. Given a single wrongful conviction in 92 AND FTR I can attack the regimes in their entirety. SCOTUS (errantly?)upheld the regime based on lack of affirmative disability in the record.

    • Michael

      @Guy

      From my understanding it will reflect the rules for when you were convicted. If you were convicted in 2001, you will follow 2001 statues. If in 07, you will follow the statutes from 07, to include the removal time from that period. Anyone know if it was 15 years in 2001?

  6. David

    Someone please tell me the Judge added an “or else” to his ruling!
    As in, “You, State lawmakers, have until August __, 2019 to correct the Registry laws and bring them into full compliance with both the State and the Federal Constitutions, OR ELSE all Registry statutes and Registry-affiliated rules, regulations, and requirements will be immediately null and void as of 12:01 a.m., xxday, August ___, 2019.”
    As we all know too well, if there is no “OR ELSE” for politicians, they will hem and haw and get nothing done.

  7. mike r

    Yeah David or Josh, the legislature is most likely going to force the court through the last step and the court is now going to have to sever the statute themselves in a court order. That is exactly what is going to happen as you guys have stated, it is the court that is going to do it, out of the legislature’s hands as far as they are concerned. All this concerns is the 2006 amendments, which is very limited to exactly what I stated above. minus assessments. And like I stated, the ACLU is going to have to file again on the individual assessments as that seems to be what is being kicked down the road. The Michigan AG included the assessment and onerous in-person reporting requirements in her brief, but it appears these are the cans.

  8. Fred D.

    So, now someone tell me how applying the Static 99R to people in California, even when they’ve been years offense-free, to determine “tiers,” is Constitutional?

  9. Bobby

    So it sounds like this is all for not, just more kicking of the can down the street. It’s probably going to be a few more years till this gets resolved if ever, I will be 50 on the 2nd of June, and I have been doing this stupid crap since I was 23 and by the looks and sounds of things I will be doing this crap until I’m dead. I know one thing I will be conducting Tim P. or Ms.Aukerman this coming up week to find out if this is going to get fixed by August 21st, or is it going to drag on for a few more years. It sounds good on paper, but I am not holding my breath.

  10. Bruce

    I would like to hear Janice’s take on what the possibilities and potential outcomes could be.
    Either way,,,,It’s a fight that we all have a dog in!

  11. Bobby @ Janice

    @Janice, I am from Michigan and a pre-sorna registrant that will have 27 years in on the registry June 19th two years longer then I should of been, so I would really like to hear your thoughts on Judge Clelands decision that our Michigan Legislators, have 90 days to revise the registry or else.

    • John

      How come on it longer then supposed to be? My registration does say estimated time on registry or something similar. do they have sole discretion to take me off or leave me on? This stuff is taxing on the health, I was 24 when I got on. Now I’m only 35 and feeling old and feeling old as can be.

      • Bobby @John

        Your still young though, I was 23 when I was put on it in 1992,according to my registration start date and will be 50 on Sunday the 2nd. So it depends if your pre- sora or not, when if you will get of the registry I’m guessing.

  12. Ray

    Does this mean no agreement has been reached between the legislators and ACLU. Few days ago someone mentioned they have a good draft that will change the Michigan sex offender completely. I am confused, can someone please let’s know what’s going on over here.

  13. Bobby

    Hello, ok I ran a cross this from the WAR website, some one asked them a question ,and this was their response The MI ACLU won the case at the MI Supreme Court level. SCOTUS didn’t grant cert (agree to hear the case) so it stook in the state of MI. They took no action to comply. ACLU sued the state of MI. Attorney Journal of MI wrote damning amicus briefs against the registry. now the state has been given an undisuputable directive. So my question is what exactly is a undisputable directive?

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      It means mandatory compliance. Indisputable = nothing left to discuss or argue about. Directive = A command or order.

      On a side note, many seem only focused on the MI Legislature having to change laws, etc. Let’s take a step back and recall it’s the State of Michigan who is the defendant, not the Michigan Legislature. Indeed, the specific defendant was the Executive branch of the State of Michigan. So it would seem to me that it’s not so much up to the MI Legislature to comply as it is the Governor, AG, MSP, etc. Also, there’s nothing that says a legislature must repeal an unconstitutional law–though courts can declare them null and void. However there are restrictions against the Executive enforcing such laws, and executive officials can be held liable if they go contrary to a known unconstitutional law. (For proof of that, see the recent case law out of the SDNY Federal Court that I posted in reply to @Claudia.)

      I still maintain that regardless what the Legislature does or doesn’t, the MI Executive branch will comply with the court’s opinion. The MI AG has already kind of hinted at that based on her public statements and amicus filing.

  14. Bobby

    @AJ. Thanks, for the explaining it in detail to me, so it sounds like the end is finally here for me and many others on this stupid registry. Again, thanks for the explanation very much appreciated.

  15. bruce

    And Still Nothing from Counsel,,Alot of speculation by Fellows,, Nuthin from Councel,,,Mates!,,Just Sayin!

  16. Dave

    I received a email from Citizens for Justice regarding MI SOR. Ask to be added to the email update list.

    We were expecting this, but now it has happened. Federal District Court Judge Cleland has ordered the state legislature to revise the SORA, and has given a 90 day deadline to get this done. He says that 90 days is reasonable “given that the Does I decision has been final since October 2017”. You can see the actual order by following this link https://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/055_stip_order_for_decl_judgment_for_90_day_deferral.pdf

    To summarize my understanding of the order, If the state does not change the law within 90 days, Cleland has ordered that the 2006 and 2011 amendments to SORA cannot be applied ex post facto to the whole class of people required to register. This is the minimum change that he will make to the law, and this in itself will be huge, but, this isn’t the end of his order. He also says that he might find that the 2011 amendments to SORA are not severable from the rest of the SORA, and therefore that the SORA is null and void for anyone whose offense occurred before April 12, 2011. He also reminds us that he decided earlier that a number of registration requirements (residency and work exclusion zones, registration of internet ids and vehicles, etc.) are unconstitutional, and that he might order that these cannot be enforced.

    Big news indeed! We can be sure now that big changes to the Michigan SORA will occur before the end of the year. This order is something we should detail in future meetings with legislators, …

    John
    Michigan Citizens for Justice

    • bruce

      What if Your conviction was in another state prior to 2003, and You Move to Michigan Now would these changes apply to them as well???..If So,, You May see a Great Influx in population density and a mass Migration,,

    • Tim

      Dave,
      The legislature will not likely act at all. They’ve had time to do so and have not. This will force Cleland’s hand, but not local DAs. they maybe forced to drop FTR cases involving the Ex post participants, but they can still be arrested for suspicion of “failure to provide” and end up in court albeit only temporarily. DAs have always had privileges to drop cases.

  17. Ann

    When I was sentenced, I was only required to register for 25 yrs. My 25 yrs is up next year in June. Is this ruling going help me? Or am I going to have to file a petition in my local court citing both this and the prior ruling in my petition? Or will all of this allow me to come off the registry next year? I know this affects so many more than just myself. However, right now I just want to know how it will affect me directly.

    • Bobby

      @Ann,

      Well, My guess, and it’s just a guess like me my conviction was in 1992 before the registry even existed, and my registry start date was in 1995 for also 25 years which would of been over next years as well in June.

      Then it went to life, then my registration start date was moved to my conviction date of 6-19-1992, meaning I will have 27 years in on 6-19-19, which would automatically remove me if the date stays the same, or worst case scenario like you I will have to wait till next June to be removed, but if your situation is anything like mine I don’t believe we or other’s in our situation will have to wait that long. I hope I’m right, hope this helped. if anyone else has a better explanation or suggestion PLEASE feel freeto chime in and correct me.

    • Bobby

      @Ann

      Here is something else that may explain it better I hope this will help you as well

      https://www.aclumich.org/en/know-your-rights/what-you-need-know-about-sex-offender-registry-act-sora

  18. Neil

    I’m on the SOR in Wisconsin. It was for 15 years. 2021 was the year of my release from it. Today, I got a certified letter telling me it’s been extended to life. I have not re-offended and have obeyed the law. I signed a legal binding agreement with the state which they changed without due process. I’m incredibly stressed. It’s the punishment which never ends. I’m not allowed to become a functional member of society.

    • E @ Neil

      Neil, did the WI letter state a reason or a change in statute in WI?

    • Will Allen

      I hope you are aware that is something that only an illegitimate, criminal regime would do. Further, the “people” who did it OR just merely think it is acceptable, are not Americans. They are harassing domestic terrorists who cannot mind their own business or leave other people alone. THAT is a disease in Amerika. Beware of your “neighbors” and people you don’t know. They are very likely enemy combatants.

      When you are dealing with criminal regimes, a plea “agreement” is only binding on one side. The other side has no concern about keeping any agreement and will do whatever it can get away with, even contrary to all known facts and reality.

      • Gralphr

        Having read some of your previous posts, I know you feel that way, but thats just it, THEY ARE AMERICANS! America has always picked someone to be the main bad guy in order to hate and get more laws on the books. First it was Blacks, then gays, then drugs, now its sex offenders. The discrimination towards a segment of the community for scorn and banishment is as American as Apple pie and baseball.

        • Will Allen

          You are exactly right, that IS what Amerika has always been, along with the people in it. Amerika is just as flawed as everyone else and seemingly a lot more so in many areas. Amerikan “exceptionalism” is not exceptional at all. In fact, I’d say our country is pretty full of just hateful, awful people.

          However, for now I think I will continue to call good people who care about actual freedom “Americans”. People who support Registries aren’t. They hate freedom.

          The U.S. could be a great, free country if we trashed Registries, the illegality of all drugs, the illegality of selling $EX, and trying to stop people from controlling their own bodies in general (e.g. allow abortions for ANY reasonable case). For my family, I’ve had enough “government”. I am tired of them, how huge they are, and all of their “laws”. People need to try to mind their own business for once.

  19. Gralphr

    I’m curious how this will affect people from other states who now live in Michigan, to include people convicted federally (federal court or military). After all, they’re ordered to abide by whatever laws the state is enforcing. If one was convicted prior to the year 2000, would it help them, or would the state say they still must follow the Federal governments SORNA?

    • JohnDoeUtah

      I would say it would apply to you. The key here is concerning the coverage of those offenders convicted prior to the passage of SORNA. I to am a UCMJ offender; and, if you strictly read SORNA it applies directly to federal offenders (no interstate travel required to trigger jurisdiction). But, I was convicted prior to SORNAs passage. If the court rules the AG lacked authority to make the inclusion decision, the SORNA would not apply to me, only state law would.

      I’m fine with that because I live in a non-SORNA compliant state that took me off after 10 years (due to their interpretation of their own law regarding jurisdiction and out-of-jurisdiction sex offenses), otherwise I would be a 25-year registrant under SORNA. Interesting part is if I had been convicted of the same offense in state court, I’d have to register here for life.

      • Gralphr

        Thats pretty interesting. Mind if I ask the state you’re in?

        • AJ

          @Gralphr:
          “Thats pretty interesting. Mind if I ask the state you’re in?”
          —–
          Call me crazy, but I’m guessing @JohnDoeUtah is in Utah.

  20. Bobby

    Here is a quick read if anyone is interested. it was from an email I received from Michigan Supreme Court News. http://legalnews.com/detroit/1475056/

  21. Bobby

    Hello everyone,

    I got a very short email from Ms Aukerman just now pertaining to the progress of revising Michigan’s sorna

    So here it is folks: We met today.  It is too early to know what will happen.

    • bill

      Hello Bobby, Hope this is the end of the boogie man law, it’s a waste of time & money. seems to be never ending so much stress on a lot of family’s!!! Thank you for the updates! For some reason, some times my replies don’t go through, have a good day, if possible.

  22. Bobby

    Hello Everyone,

    I got this in my email today, about decisions in Betts and Snyder, and me not being the brightest light bulb in the box, can some one please explain what it means exactly please. I read them twice and I am still confused. Their decisions by The Michigan Supreme Court are at the bottom. Thanks in advance.

    *** the link you provided goes to your email (mail.yahoo.com). Please past the email text here. Moderator***

    • Ralph

      If the legislature does not revise the statute by the end of the summer, then it will have to be argued with the MI Supreme Court which is what this document is.

      Be prepared, because this probably won’t be resolved until maybe a year or two max, especially if this has to be argued with the MI Supreme Court. As you know, the case has to be set up for oral argument first, once the briefs are submitted which may or may not happen next term.

      The MI Supreme court term does not start until October 2019, so a decision will likely be by July 2020, if the legislature does not revise the statute by the end of this summer.

      • CR

        Right, the “wheel of justice turns slowly”, so much so that many of us will die in captivity to these registration laws before justice is wrought. It’s also true that justice delayed is justice denied.

      • Bobby

        @Ralph, it’s already been decided, Michigan lost in the 6th Circuit, and the cert, was denied by SCOTUS, The Class Action Lawsuit to include ALL registrants was also won by us, Judge Cleland gave the legislature until August 21st to revise the registry or else and one prosecutor already admired we could sue the state under US 42 1983. They have no choice but to revise it now. So not sure what your talking about its over for Michigan they lost case closed.

    • Bobby

      I got these in my email box yesterday, anyone know what it means, and if it will slow down the Michigan Legislatures August, 21st deadline to revise the registry.

      http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/153696_89_01.pdf

      http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/148981_45_01.pdf

      http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/148981_46_01.pdf

      • Ralph

        This is what I was talking about earlier. If the 6th Circuit ruled in favor of ALL registrants, than this case would not be before the Supreme court, because the defendant Paul Betts would’ve been able to use the 6th circuit decision as a defense. However it only applied to the 6 plaintiffs. Keep in mind, he was sentenced prior to registration, in the 90s

        MI Supreme court is not bound by federal court decisions. They are only bound by the US Supreme Court. If there is not a resolution applying the 6th Circuit to all registrants sentenced prior to the 2006/2011 Amendments, then the MI Supreme Court will decide.

        Honestly, I’m hoping it doesn’t get to that point. This is why pressure should remain on the legislature, to move Fast.

        • Bobby

          @Ralph,

          Well, maybe I’m missing something here, but the class Action lawsuit in Does 2 was WON, by us and that is way The eastern district federal judge Cleland, ordered that the Michigan Legislature has 90 days ( August 21st) to revise the registry or else. “his words not mine” So this thing with Betts and Snyder, is to see if they qualify to be added to the class action lawsuit in Does 2, I do believe that is what their cases are about, pre-sorna registrants such as my self and many others already won, and are waiting for the Legislators to get off their collective ass’s and revise the registry like they were ordered to do a few weeks ago, regarding Does 2, by Judge Cleland.

  23. Kevin

    Here is the order for MI Vs. Betts. The application was granted.

    6-20-19:

    “On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., taken as a whole, amount to “punishment” for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions, US Const, art I, § 10; Const 1963, art 1, § 10; see People v Earl, 495 Mich 33 (2014), see also Does #1-5 v Snyder, 834 F3d 696, 703-706 (CA 6, 2016), cert den sub nom Snyder v John Does #1-5, 138 S Ct 55 (Oct 2, 2017); (2) if SORA, as a whole, constitutes punishment, whether it became punitive only upon the enactment of a certain provision or group of provisions added after the initial version of SORA was enacted; (3) if SORA only became punitive after a particular enactment, whether a resulting ex post facto violation would be remedied by applying the version of SORA in effect before it transformed into a punishment or whether a different remedy applies, see Weaver v Graham, 450 US 24, 36 n 22 (1981) (“the proper relief . . . is to remand to permit the state court to apply, if possible, the law in place when his crime occurred.”); (4) if one or more discrete provisions of SORA, or groups of provisions, are found to be ex post facto punishments, whether the remaining provisions can be given effect retroactively without applying the ex post facto provisions, see MCL 8.5; (5) what consequences would arise if the remaining provisions could not be given retroactive effect; and (6) whether the answers to these questions require the reversal of the defendant’s conviction pursuant to MCL 28.729 for failure to register under SORA.”

    In other news, with Gundy being upheld by the US Supreme Court today, I’m not sure if that decision will hurt Michigan registrants, since the Supreme Court Justices agreed that the US Attorney General has the authority to apply the Federal Sex Offender law retroactively.

  24. TnT

    Hi , I too was wondering if someone has any idea what was happening on the Michigan Supreme Court web site with the Betts n Snyder cases , it looks as if they struck something down and also granted something else yesterday ???? It said under the Snyder case it was waiting on the out come of the Betts case ???? Not sure what this may mean…Hoping someone maybe able to Help?? Ty.

  25. Bobby

    Hi, Everyone

    I was just wondering if anybody received this in their e-mail like I did, especially those people that live in Michigan like I do, thanks in advance.

    Hi Bobby,
    The Women Against Registry eSymposium Educational Series Proudly Presents:

    Shelli Weisberg

    Legislative Director for the Michigan ACLU

    Presentation Topic:
    The Status and Potential Impact
    of the Does v. Snyder Case

    Call-In: 712-770-5505
    Access Code: 859950# 
    Or listen on your computer: 
    https://join.freeconferencecall.com/esymposium
    Monday, July 8, 2019
    9:00 Eastern / 8:00 Central / 7:00 Mountain / 6:00 Pacific
    Make plans to dial in from the comfort of your home

    Shelli Weisberg started as a lobbyist at the Michigan ACLU in 2003; she is now their Legislative Director. On July 8th, she will discuss the background, current status, and legal implications of the landmark Does v. Snyder case,  This case drew attention when SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal by the state, solidifying a win in the appellate court. It drew further scrutiny when Michigan refused to act on this decision. Upcoming rulings and actions in this case could impact the landscape of sex offense litigation and legislation for years to come.
    This looks like another great presentation.
    WE HOPE YOU CAN JOIN US

    Directors, Women Against Registry
    Fighting the Destruction of Families
    800-311-3764
    https://womenagainstregistry.org
    Facebook:  Women Against Registry
    Follow us on Twitter:   @WomenAgainstReg
    LinkedIn group Families of Registrants

    • Dave

      Hi….. I received this email and live in Michigan. I am interested in hearing about the status of the newly crafted registry.

      I have been on the registry close to two decades and Michigan has gotten more aggressive with FTR and potential traps in catching people that are just living a normal life not hurting anyone.

      I have been illegally searched during a compliance check. They don’t ask if they can come in you just have cops with flashlights in ur face. The excuse they give is…. A burglary happened near by. So what? It wasn’t me.

      I have almost been charged with FTR for not having correct information on the registry because of typos they make. RSO’s are responsible for any mistakes they make probably on purpose. After catching mistakes I stopped checking. If you catch a mistake chances are it’s outside of the time frame to correct it. So you find a mistake…. How do you fix it? They will blame you of course. Typos are really easy to miss when it’s just one letter off or number.

      A good example is reporting a car ur driving. The vin#. Who remembers the vin#’s? Bad actors/workers type in the wrong vin#. Miss one thing and you can end up getting a new felony. These laws are a complete joke. Totally sadistic and cruel.

      Remember when they told us it was a one time fee of $50? Even made us sign a contract agreeing to a ONE TIME FEE. Then they change it to $50 a year and say forget the first agreement.

      The penalties for FTR are worse than my original charge that got me on the registry. That sounds fair! LOL

      When Michigan passed SORNA it made a staggering 60% unemployment rate. Talk about a stupid failed law. Any law that disenfranchises rehabilitated Citizens is by design stupid.

      Let’s hope Bobby that our legislators use some common sense this time around. Society isn’t the beneficiary of this totally flawed registry.

      • Bobby@Dave

        Dave, Sorry you have had all these issues, with the cops. I live in some what small town where everyone knows everyone my family have been here since my Great Grand parents were young. So thankfully have had no problems with the police, they even stop me sometimes just to ask how I am doing, or just wave. I was convicted be for Michigan even had a registry, and paying the so called one time fee of $35 dollars when I paid it. Its bee 27 years for me since I have been on it, 2 years past my original 25 years they gave me, even though I was never sentenced to register in the first place, because again the registry didn’t exist in 1992 when I was sentenced at 23 years old, , just turned 50 on the 2nd of June, so I’m glad it finally coming to an end, or at least it sounds like it is, and those that are not pre-sorna I hope will get some kind of relief as well.

        • Dave @ Bobby

          You are so lucky coming from a smaller community. Law enforcement just tends to be more sane and so do the courts.

          I’m from Oakland County and it’s well known my sheriff was the once state senator that passed most of the laws that have been found to be unconstitutional.

          Oakland Counties courts are bad also because they are almost all ex sex crimes prosecutors and they sure drank the cool aid of propaganda. Lol

          I wonder if I met you? Did you goto the legislators with the ACLU? Or to the Michigan reform meetings?

      • Will Allen

        You have been listed on the Registries for nearly two decades and you still allow law enforcement criminals (LECs) to do “compliance checks”? Why would you allow them to get near you? Or your property? If you do, maybe you are kind of asking for their BS?

        “RSO’s are responsible for any mistakes they make probably on purpose.”

        That could not possibly stand in court. All you have to do is give them correct information and keep proof that you did. Which is why you should only ever give them anything in writing. They can make all the mistakes they like after that and hopefully they will.

        It is possible that you could make a innocent mistake. Try not to. But I wouldn’t get too, too worried about it. If you have given the same VIN to the criminals for say 5 times in a row but then the 6th time, it is wrong, I can’t imagine any court with any sense at all would hold you liable for that. No fair, legitimate law enforcement agency would even give you a hard time about it. Further, even if it were the first time and you gave all information about the car that was correct but the VIN had a mistake, a court should know that the LECs could have easily detected that, should have, and should have simply cleared it up. Courts can help keep the criminals in line.

        When these criminal regimes ask (“require”) you to acknowledge Registration “requirements”, like fees, you aren’t making a contract.

        Registries, etc. are unacceptable. But let’s not be like the criminal regimes and say inaccurate things about them. They lie, exaggerate, and run propaganda campaigns. We have truth, fairness, and reality on our side.

        • Dave @ Will

          They don’t ring doorbells, they don’t knock, they don’t ask…. Can we come in. If you read what I wrote I said…. They just come in and ur looking at flashlights. Then they make up some silly story. My story was a burglary happened in the neighborhood. I said…. So what? What does that have to do with me? Then they said we need to see ur drivers license. It was a weird compliance check at 1 am. I immediately contacted the Michigan ACLU.

          Michigan’s law enforcement will absolutely lock you up for inaccuracies on the registry. I live in a big county and half the judges are ex sex crimes attorneys. The local sheriff brags about creating the registry in Michigan and advertises on Halloween about keeping kids safe by checking the registry on Halloween. He use to be a state Senator and is one of the most uninformed law enforcement officers regarding the registry in the state.

          I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand everything regarding the registry or what I have said but that’s just not my problem. Try reading before you comment. If you still don’t understand what you read. Read it again.

        • Will Allen

          @Dave:

          Yeah, that doesn’t exactly sound like a “compliance check”. That sounds like a “we are chasing a burglar and think you might be him” check. But whatever. You said, “They don’t ask if they can come in you just have cops with flashlights in ur face.” So I guess they’ve done that to hundreds or thousands of people then. Interesting to know. Hadn’t heard that before.

          If you get arrested for a mistake they made and don’t make them pay, then you probably deserve it.

          But good luck.

        • AJ

          @Dave:
          Unless they can articulate some sort of exigent circumstance, which I have a hard time believing a *past event* such as a robbery would meet, it’s almost assuredly a 4th Amdt. violation. The only way I can see a robbery meeting the exigency exception is if they think you did the crime and are in the process of destroying or hiding evidence! At the very minimum, you should be logging any and all contacts with LE to try to build a case for targeting and harassment.

          How are they getting in? Are they breaking down your door? Or how are they shining flashlights in your face from behind a closed door? As for the “we need to see your DL” line, my reply would be, “1) I’m in my home, so I’m not obligated to show you or anyone anything. 2) I’m not driving. 3) This isn’t a ‘safety’ checkpoint. 4) I decline.” (Note: I would have my attorney’s phone number already committed to memory. 😉 )

  26. Bobby@Dave

    Dave,

    I didn’t go to any meeting at all, can’t afford to, I also live in Oakland County, but I live in the Southwest corner of it. So the boarder to Livingston County, is is with a couple of minutes from my house, I could walk to the boarder line. The other boarder line Washtenaw, is about 4 miles from me. My conviction was at the 5th circuit in Oakland County, by Judge Tyner who retired in 2007, she was caught working half days, or at the mall shopping when she was suppose to be at work, and some other corrupt things she did while on the bench. They gave her the opinion retire or face the consequences of your actions go figure. looking forward to Monday’s conference call though.

  27. Bobby

    Hello Everyone, i was just wondering if anyone happened to catch last nights conference call concerning news and updates on what is happening in Does v Snyder. I can not seem to find it any where, and no one from the ACLU or WAR has got back to me with a link yet so i may listen to it. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. Thank you.

    • bill

      Yes, Bobby, From what I understand there suppose to be posting it on here. talked about dropping a lot of us off , and making the registration 5 years or less?? Said it my not be done be Aug. But we’ll see what happens still working out details?? seemed to sound good?

      • Guy

        They said the registration length might come down to 5 years?

        Meaning that if you’ve been on for ten already you’d be removed?

        I keep coming back here to find any updates on what the potential changes might be. Shorter terms. Opportunity for removal if shown to not be a threat (assessments) etc etc..

        If the lawmakers don’t act by August 21st and they find the 2011 amendments not severance will they potentially just remove everyone prior to 2011 from the registry all together?

  28. c dubs

    Would this make the 2013 ammendment imposed annual fee unconstitutional too

  29. Robert

    Has there been any news on what changes are coming? I cannot find anything, other then the judge ruled there must be changes

  30. Austin

    So I listened to the conference call and it sounded very positive. They’ve agreed on several items but nothing written in stone yet. They agreed to get rid of the school safety zones, reduce the length of time on the registry to 10. 5 and 2 years. The State police want 20 years. They’re still negotiating on that. The Aclu says there are roughly 44.000 people on the registry in Michigan. They want to get that number down to around 7.000 to 8,000. Risk assessment wasn’t negotiable. The legislature doesn’t want it. They don’t think they’ll make the August 21 deadline. Talked about asking the judge for more time. So that was what I remember from the call.

  31. Tim

    If intent punitive ” That ends the question” ahhh in favor of the registrant.( Smith v.)
    The preamble of the registration act ( whetterling) overcame the two prong test but only because the true intent ( gov USE of the database) was intentional indenture human to database. Wherein states machine needs outweighs citizens privacy concerns with her on personal data storage and use. It was Congress 94, that decided that citizen humans must by law provide unique identifiers of individual felons to be stored and utilized by whoever AND whatever purposes.
    Our leadership decided to grant the big data brothers carte Blanche by deciding the do the most extreme thing one can do to with a database to a human, indenture human to their maintenance AND force them to pay for the upkeep.

    Re:machina
    MN > HN = nul(Asimov; I Robot)

  32. TnT

    Hello, could you tell me where I maybe able to listen to the call ? I cannt find it on here. Thanks 🙂

  33. Dave

    Michigan Citizens for Justice. Meets with legislators, training from ACLU, support and friendship.

    Join by contacting and ask to be added to the email list for updates.

    http://micitizensforjustice.com/

    • Bobby

      Hello Everyone, I was just wondering if anyone has heard, when the July 8th Conference call concerning updates and news on Does v Snyder is suppose to be released the recording of the conference call just to be clear.its been 4 days and i still can’t find anything on it. Thank you in advance.

  34. Corey

    Has anyone heard anything about a new law with Teather’s something about going based off your tier and static??

    • Bobby@Corey

      I have not heard anything about that in Michigan, especially since Michigan has to revise the registry since many issues were found to be punishment and unconstitutional, and I think the tether situation would qualify as unconstitutional and punishment, under the 6th circuits ruling. I did receive this email today ny the intern at the ACLU.

      Bobby: Thank you for your interest in the Doe V Snyder case. I understand your frustration. Government does move slow  and the court will probably let it go beyond the Aug 21 deadline if we are making progress. Please understand we are doing our best and hope that with working with the courts and all the stake holders in this matter we will get a better outcome for all the people on the SOR.  Please do not contact Miriam as she is very busy and is unable to answer all the emails. And when she does answer emails it is taking away from her valuable time that she could be spending on legal issues for this case and others.  You are free to contact me at this email address and I will get back to you when I can given all the emails we are getting.  As for a recording of the conference call I am not aware that we have one but I will do some checking. 

      Respectfully Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist  

  35. Joe

    So I listened to the conference call and glad I did and here are the positives I got from it: They have agreed to no tier system, school zones eliminated completely, much less info supplied to the regestery, just address, phone and email. That updates can be done online or by mail, physical reporting only once a year, a pathway off the regestery, like requesting to be taken off every 2 years, 10, 5 and 2 year length. A bill is being drafted now, between 7 and 15 thousand regesterants total and both sides want this done by the end of 2019.

    • Josh

      @Bobby, Bill, Joe, Guy etc….
      I listened to the conference call last night all the way through and I agree that a lot of positive work is being done…I want to caution all us to temper our expectations….these positive changes that will benefit us have to make it through a vote of the legislature and who knows what could happen with that. Things can be added or subtracted to bills. It happens all the time….I’m also trying to maintain a positive attitude about the time frame but it looks like it could possibly drag on until the end of the year. I know I don’t have to explain to any of you just how much I don’t want to go verify 2 more times this year….My 25 years expired back in February and every day since is another kick in the junk. One thing I did find interesting during the Q&A portion of the call is that we are years ahead of most states in this struggle and we can be thankful for that. I hurt for the people across the country who haven’t had a reason to hope.

    • Glen

      I have a question about those who are pre 2006 and 2011 do they get off?

      • Bobby @ Glen

        I believe we will be removed as long as your original registration date is up. Example my conviction was 6-19-1992, before a registration even existed. As f right now my registration start date is the same as my conviction date I was even 25 years that was changed to life. So as of right now I have 27 years in, so if I am correct I should drop off the registry. I’m trying to get that confirmed my Shelli Weisberg who was the speaker at the conference call.

        • Glen @ Bobby

          I know how it feels to have it changed on you. I have been on it for 24 yrs. Next year I would get off it but, They changed it to life. not right. I hope we can get off so, We will truly be free and my wife and kids can live in peace.

  36. Blake

    What does all this mean for juvinile offenders that were convicted in 2006?

  37. Don’t tread on me

    Cautiously hopeful and waiting. We all know how underhanded politicians can be.

  38. BigAnt

    Thanks for the updates! I’ve been on the SOR since I was 14, in 1997. In 2006 I was placed on the adult registry, and in 2011 I was changed to Life, for a CSC4th! A freaking misdemeanor!

    From what I gathered, and from talking to contacts I have at the U of M law school, if the 10 Year, 5, and 2 year registration requirements go into effect, that would be done retroactively. That is the only way they will bring down the 44,850 registrants to 7,500 to 10,000. If that goes into effect, the day it goes into effect, those affected by the 2006 and 2011 changes should be immediately taken off, provided you have been on the registry for more than 10 years.

    Also from what I told, the Federal Judge is being firm with the date. The state has exhausted their appeals and dragged their feet long enough, they either fix it, or the federal government will put an injunction on the whole registry until its fixed. The feds put an injunction on Nevada and parts of the registration was null and void for 5 years.

  39. Gralphr

    I’m wondering what will become of people who move to Michigan after their changes. I’ve been out for 13 years and was convicted in 2000. It would be nice to move the family there if I had a way off the registry!!!

    • AJ

      @Gralphr:
      If the 14th Amdt still means anything, those migrating to MI must be treated like everyone else. Of course when this happens, the State claims (unlike the TX case recently posted) the crimes are NOT similar, so one is not allowed the same latitude. Heads I win, tails you lose…

      I suppose they may try to do as some States (MN for one) do, which is say that you are required to register for the longer of the your convicting State’s or new State’s registration scheme. I suspect if that were pushed in court, it, too, would be contrary to the 14th Amdt.

  40. Bobby

    Hello, I also, received something today from the Michigan ACLU, but I hope that @BIGANT , I hope his info holds more water, then what Tim, told me either way its still good news. I just hope Judge Cleland, really does stay firm about the August 21st deadline. I also feel they should shut the registry down until it is finally fixed. Anyway here is what Tim sent me to day.

    You will probably need to check in on your Sept. date.  Yes we are making progress but even if we had a deal by the 21st the bill has to still move though committees and then to the floor of both the House and the Senate and then to the Governor to be signed.  But we are making progress.  

    Tim P ACLU Michigan SOR Specialist 

    • Josh

      @Bobby——I agree with what you said because it’s more in line with what I’ve been told and what I’m hearing. The conference call from several weeks ago basically said as much. As much as I would love to see Judge Cleland hold firm and shut down the registry on August 21, I think if both sides ask for extra time based on the real progress that the ACLU is claiming they’re making then it’s safe to assume they’ll get it….Tim, from the ACLU is also correct about the committees, floor votes house/senate, and getting it to the governor. That’s the part that scares the living shit out of me. That’s where stuff gets added, subtracted, or changed. Anyway you slice it, this will all take more time than 22 days…I posted last week about tempering expectations and I’ll repeat that here again…It all appears positive but nothing is as it seems when it comes to this controversial issue. I hope that I’m wrong and it all gets resolved quickly for all of us but after 26 years I tend to lean towards realistic…

      • c dubs

        So how will people after 2011 be affected

        • Josh

          Who knows…That’s a good question…

        • BigAnt

          Josh- from what the reports say and court briefs, at the very least, those amendments to the SORA made in 2011 that were deemed unconstitutional, will no longer apply to you. For us that have been on prior to 2006, those parts of the registration would also be null and void.

          If the “proposed” (and I mean that very loosely, as has been discussed already, “proposals” have a way of morphing down the legislative line) new standards get placed into law, you getting off the registry would depend on a number of factors, one of the most important being when you were convicted and placed on the registry, as well as the nature of the crime. If the 10, 5, and 2 year restrictions are put in place, no matter what the new policies are you would most likely have to serve the amount of years based on the crime. We are all shooting in the dark, and those who were convicted prior to 2006, like myself, who was adjudicated in 1997 and placed on the adult registry in 2006, have either the most to gain or lose.

          So with that being said, we are just gonna have to “hurry up and wait” until we get more concrete information. As of now T-Minus 20 more days until the next official hearing!

  41. Josh

    @BigAnt….
    None of it should have EVER applied to me. Only reason that @Bobby and myself are on the registry is because Michigan decided to place people on probation/parole on the registry…at least in my case, it was never part of my sentence or my original probation order. It was modified to include probationers AFTER the fact. EVERY aspect of this registry has been a Ex Post Facto violation to me. I have been a part of every change, amendment, and tweak in the law since it’s initial passage 10 months AFTER my date of conviction…..I’ve only ever seen it work AGAINST me. Hence, the reason I call for people to temper their expectations with all this…..I’ll believe it WHEN & IF I see it happen. I hope you’re right BigAnt….I really do. I still think in my heart of hearts that there is no way Michigan’s legislature will let this happen and it will come down to Judge Cleland…

    • BigAnt

      @Josh the very same happened to me. I was a juvenile, age 14, when I was “placed” on the registry by the prosecutor in charge of my case. I was reassured that as long as I finished treatment and stayed out of trouble, I wouldn’t have to register. Then came the 2006 changes. I was kicked out of my dorms and forced out of college because of it. Then 2011 happened, and I was instantly fired from my 2 jobs, evicted from my home, and became homeless because of all of the restrictions.

      Then in 2013, I moved to Nevada, in that state, at the time I moved there, there was 4 levels 0,1,2,and 3. Due to my crime and the time I had already spent on the SOR in Michigan, I was given notice that I no longer had to register. I assumed that meant period. I thought I was finally free! I could finally live a normal life, and not have to look behind my back, wondering when the next state trooper was gonna kick down my door.

      Or so I thought.

      Almost 6 years had passed, I moved back to Michigan, had a great job. On March 22nd, 2019, the Sgt. that was over the entire sex offender Registry In Lansing, came to my beautiful home in Newport. He told me I was not in compliance with the SOR, and I had 48 hours to become compliant or they would arrest me. I showed him my paperwork, he said when I moved back to Michigan that all changed. So I talked to the ACLU and they told me to become compliant ASAP. I did, and within 48 hours, I lost my house, my job, my girlfriend, and became homeless again. Re Living the nightmare of being back on the SOR.

      So I can completely relate. None of this is supposed to relate to me. I have a 4th degree CSC, a 15 Year offense. I should have been off in 2012, yet here we are…

      • Josh

        @BigAnt…..I’m sorry to hear about all those struggles. My experiences have been a whole lot less traumatic than that for the most part. It seems that certain parts of the state are harder to live in than others. A CSC 4th is a high misdemeanor from my understanding and the juvenile aspect of your case is somewhat baffling. It seems like law enforcement is going way out of their way to mess with you. How long were you back in Michigan before the gestapo came looking for you? If it was more than 7 days you’re very fortunate that they didn’t arrest you on the spot. I hope you get the relief you’re looking for brother! I hope we all do…

        • BigAnt

          @Josh I was in Michigan for 5 years. I wasn’t in hiding or anything. They pick with me because I’m a Tier 3. They have kicked my door in to do a “compliance check” I filed a complaint with MSP, and they did end up paying for the door to be replaced.

    • Joe

      Temper my expectations? Why? Fear of a letdown? I have been letdown, WE have been letdown! No way, no how! The way I see it the ACLU , the U of M law group has the state of Michigan and the Legislature by the Kahoonas! I understand there may be some differences in exactly what they said in the conference call but one things for sure, the new registery will be much much better than it is now, or this federal judge could shut it down completely. We are 1st and goal at the 1 yard line, bases loaded and nobody out, the state of Michigan has already lost! We’ve turned in our winning lottery numbers and just waiting for the check! You can reach me in the cloud, cloud 9 that is.

  42. Tired of this

    @Big ant: can’t you just return to NV? I know they changed the law there last fall (which is why I left, since I went from tier 1 to 2), but it sounds like you’d be tier 1 at worst, or maybe you still wouldn’t have to register there. You should call Carson City and ask. Like, asap.

    Speaking for myself though, this would without a doubt be my breaking point. I haven’t had it nearly as bad as you, and I’ve found myself at the brink too many times to count. You have my sympathy, brother.

    • BigAnt

      @Tiredofthis as of Last Year, Nevada is now “Adam Walsh SOR Compliant” meaning all of the laws there are just the same if not worse than Michigan. I did call Carson City, and they said with the new laws, since I am a Tier 3 in MI, I’d be a Tier 3 in Nevada. That’s why I didn’t move back. That was my first choice when that MSP Sgt. came to my door in March. And the ACLU told me I’d be better off staying here if possible that way once the law is changed, and I get off the registry, I wouldn’t be required to register in another state. If I was to move to NV or any other state, I’d be subjected to their laws and may still have to register even after I was taken off. So I’m gonna stay put here in MI. If I told you guys half the stuff I have went thru, you wouldn’t believe it.

      • Josh

        @BigAnt…….dude, if you have a CSC 4 misdemeanor as a minor then there is no way you should be a tier 3….just saying.

        • BigAnt

          @Josh, my thoughts exactly. I didn’t have the knowledge I have now about it, I just accepted it and the court appointed attorney told me there was nothing I could do. Now I mentor to youth getting out of Lockup with Sex Crimes, no matter what it’s for. I give my testimony, tell them what to expect, and what resources are available to them, which isn’t very much. I’m just glad that one way or another, this decades of unfair treatment for a crime I committed 22 years ago will finally be done with, and hopefully, myself and thousands that are in a similar situation with me, will finally be able to live in peace.

      • blake

        whats going to happen to juvinile offenders that offense date was before 2006 and not tried as adult?

        • BigAnt

          @Blake- I’m in the same position. The restrictions that were deemed unconstitutional will no longer apply to you. Stay tuned to this thread, as updates will be given once available. Also, in the meantime, STAY 100% COMPLIANT

        • blake

          I just wonder who it was really that decided that putting juviniles on the list for life let alone anyone was a morale thing to do.I mean to not be given a chance to succeed is crazy.They like to say for the kids for the kids but we were kids to.I have kids myself and what effects me effects them as well. So how is that not considered collateral punishment as a result of the registery? they decided my childrens fate when i was a child myself. How messed up is that though?

  43. blake

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_consequences_of_criminal_conviction

    That sums it up right there. The registry like it was in 1994 cant be considered punishment. No matter how much we hate it there was no direct consequences from that. Not to mention that it was only intended for adults and not children. I find it cruel and unusual punishment if my kids are directly being punished for a crime they did not commit. Residentry restristions on me mean they cant live in a nice house even if i can afford it. Me having to register in person means my children have to come to the police station in person as well because we cant afford more than one car because i cant find stable work to afford another car. IF they decide to change rules and dont notify me about the changes i go to jail or prison and that just sets off another set of crap. Funny thing is that wouldnt be becuase of me breaking the law either which is nuts in itself!!! What about potential harressment resulting in this registry? I could go on and on. Im just so fed up and angry and im ready for a change.

  44. TnT

    Great post Blake, couldn’t agree with you enough !

    • blake

      Im serious. I wonder if the people making the law would like to meet my children and explain to them why they cant have a backyard or why their dad cries and apologizes to them all the time for something that happened back when he was 13? I would like for them to explain why they are being punished because i dont have the answer. I would like the law makers to look at my daughter and tell her because her dad and over 900,000 people on the list are not part of society she cant be part of it either because of something that happned a long time ago.

      • Josh

        @Blake…….if you currently live in Michigan and want to convey how you feel to actual legislators, please call the aclu. They’re actively looking for people and conducting training sessions to help people talk to the legislature.

        • norman

          the aclu?….BWAHAHAHAHAHA……

        • Josh

          @Norman……what’s so funny? Seriously? I’ve been as critical as anyone of how long the ACLU is & has been taking to get real results from the positive rulings they’ve won…however, how many comments have been made from people across the country about their ACLU branches doing nothing when it comes to $ex offense registries. I’ve been personally called twice and emailed several times with times to meet ACLU representatives to receive instruction about how to talk to law makers. They’re having people on the registry share their experiences with legislators as part of the process in rewriting the laws…My entire point was that @Blake can vent to us all he wants and should when he feels the need and we can all sympathize with him. What he’s saying should be said to legislators and the ACLU is looking for people like him….

        • AJ

          @norman:
          “the aclu?….BWAHAHAHAHAHA……”
          —–
          I’m with @Josh here. Where would the RCs of MI be without the work of ACLU-MI? Who else would’ve spearheaded what that state office of the ACLU has done? My state’s ACLU is horrible for anything but race issues, so I’m quite envious of the MI peeps. To disparage ACLU-MI, or all of ACLU, due to some other ACLU chapter(?) seems unwarranted.

      • AJ

        @blake:
        If you’re willing to “out” yourself to them, I suggest writing your elected representatives and let them know this exact sentiment. Tell them the pains on your family, you children, for something you did when you yourself were just starting to figure out life. What little bit you shared had a powerful effect on me; perhaps it will them too.

        Will it magically change something and solve it for you and others? Almost certainly not, but it *will* paint a new perspective they probably have not considered. It will also serve as one more voice speaking for our side. That can only help.

        • blake

          look if i was single i would have no issue speaking up and outing myself.As i tell anybody who listens juviniles usually have no sense of actual sex bounderies. How can they? they are not adults so to lump them in with adults make absolutely no sense. And then to be thrown out after successfully completing their so called treatment center into the adult world with basicly no support system is cruel. I had no chance. The registry saw to that. So tell me how that is not punishment after proving that i was no risk at all? I want to clarify as well that my judicial judge at that time told me on my last court date she would take me off because i dont deserve to be on the registry and how proud she was of me. She couldnt do anything though because she didnt have the power. She even wrote a letter of recemdation to the actual judge, but it didnt matter. nothing that i did matter. only something that happened when i was a kid mattered. i could go on all day lol but i dont want to bore everyone with my life. I have kids and a girlfriend and me outing myself could have dire consequences on my family if somehow my story got out there. I do not want to put my kids in jeapordy of harrasment or even physical danger. I just wish there was someway to get justice and fix this whole mess most of us are in.

        • AJ

          @blake:
          No need to apologize–at least to me–for your reticence in speaking up. That’s a pretty common feeling among us lepers. Your story is a compelling one, but I totally get your not wanting to compromise what relative security and stability you and your family have.

          Is it possible to get a pardon? It would seem the recommend from one judge to the other (if you have a copy) may help sway. It can’t hurt to try, I wouldn’t think. But as with the other suggestion, you need to balance the risks and rewards particular to your situation.

        • Josh

          @AJ…..a pardon is a good idea in theory but it has never happened in Michigan to date with a person convicted of a sex offense. Maybe for a false or wrongful conviction? I looked into it myself and even had representation broach the topic with the powers that be and was broadly ignored if not laughed at…when good ol Rick Snyder left office last year he passed out a large number of pardons/commutations and not a single one Involved anybody with a sex offense. If @Blake has got a conviction as a minor like @BigAnt then hopefully his future should be brighter by the end of the year. I like the pro-active thinking and the fact that you offer advice and encouragement! It’s appreciated along with the time spent breaking down the legalese for many of us….

        • AJ

          @Josh:
          “it has never happened in Michigan to date with a person convicted of a sex offense.”
          —–
          I wouldn’t be surprised to find its never having happened in any State. There’s certainly going to be a first somewhere, at some point. I am unaware in which State @blake lives, so I don’t know if MI’s track record affects him. Based on his story, one would think it a good candidate for mercy from a Governor, or whatever Pardon Board exists in his State.

        • blake

          The funny thing is i wasnt even supposed to be on the registry. plea bargain was if i stayed outta trouble with the police until i was 18 i wouldnt have to. but wouldnt you know that courtdate was the only courtdate my abusive stepmom who liked to hit me and threaten to poison me and more showed up to. needless to say the abuse got so bad i had to defend myself and thats when the plea bargin went to crap. Im only writing this because the circumstance was not fair and for me to get beat my stepmom to the point where i had to fight back then get my plea bargin revoked is not right. who would think that is fair?

          And the aclu reached out to me about my story. i told them i would tell them if they wanted to know but im not sure about putting my actual identity out there yet.

  45. Steveo

    @blake — The thing that no one talks about is the further damage it does to victims when there is no redemption for their assailants. In other words if its “damnation is for life” for the assailants then it’s “victim for life” for the victim. They’re damaged goods for life, that are told that they can never move past what happened to them. They can never heal, but must go through life being permanently broken. The same for solders coming back from war. Allegedly PDSD is for life… They’re not supposed to move past it and try to heal, or move forward They are forever victims. There is an opposite extreme of completely ignoring, or completely downplaying bad things that happen, but the answer is not to maximize things where a person is supposed to be angry forever. In fact, that anger is typically from people who’s victimhood was ignored, or denied. So the problem is that policy is being made by people who want to get some sort of revenge, and who better than some sex offender that they don’t even know…. Only their revenge negatively affects everyone else in that offenders life, including their victim, who is often family

  46. Guy

    Any updates on the new registry? Or is it hush hush until the 21st?

    I listened to the call and it seems as if a 2,5 and 10 year registry is what’s coming.

    I’ve been on the registry since 2007. Currently a Tier 2. (Went on to play college football and professional football from 2009-2015 and now own two businesses) recently spoke with my sentencing Judge (lives in my hometown) and voiced that he knows I present no danger to anybody.

    So if my understanding is correct if this new registry is passed with these new registration lengths, I’ll be removed?

    August 21st can’t come soon enough!

    • Josh

      @Guy……what do think will actually happen on August 21st? I know the answer to that question…NOTHING!!!! It has to go before committee and then to the floor of the house & senate and then to the governor to sign. I listened to that call the same as you did…..they’re just hoping optimistically to get it done by the end of 2019. If Cleland strikes it down then the legislature will have a knee jerk reaction and rewrite the whole law with minimal fixes only addressing 06 & 11 unconstitutional issues and that WON’T be a good thing at all…..

      • Guy

        I’m aware of the judicial process. My question was more from the space of, any updates with the bill they are drafting.

        I suppose I am more optimistic than you about it and the potential changes but that’s just a different perspective. I don’t mean that in a negative way but my understanding of the proposed bill and if/when it goes through the process prompted my question. That if I’ve been on for 12 years already and it is so the lengths are changed to 2,5,10..that I would be removed.

        To say nothing is going to happen doesn’t seem accurate to me.

        • blake

          I think we are all thirsty for information.Believe me if i heard for sure all juviniles are going to be dropped off as long as they werent tried as adults or the 2 5 and 10 would be for sure or even the 20 the state police want is only for serial offenders and violent offenders but the rest 10 or below i would be able to sleep at night and start working on how to better my life and move on from this nightmare.

        • Josh

          @Guy….I’m a tier 3 and I’ve been dealing with this for 25 years. I wasn’t being negative…everybody thinks that August 21st is a magical drop dead date and that something wonderful is going to occur on that date. I would love more then just about anybody to have the registry dismantled by judge Cleland on that specific day but I don’t think I’m wrong. I would be very happy to admit I’m wrong if the best case scenario came to fruition….

        • Joe

          @Guy, I believe you, especially being a tier 2 would drop off when the new bill is in place. I think the question is when! It will probably go on till the end of the year, I believe the ACLU and the Legislature will ask the judge for an extension and he will grant it. I don’t think there will be small changes, I think the changes will be huge, the house, Senate, and Governor are not going to sign any new law that a federal judge says has unconstituntial elements in it. I’m not buying the quick fix idea. So yes the only question in my mind is when?

    • Will Allen

      I hope you are able to get off of the Registries. Seems like some great stuff happening there in MI.

      This is important but not really specific or about you – but you said, “he knows I present no danger to anybody.” But he doesn’t know. The only person who MAY know is you. Again, my comment is not really about you. I think millions of people have said what you did.

      But it is an important point and a crux of why Registries aren’t needed or useful. It does you no good to know that one of your neighbors is Registered and one is not. You have no idea the risk level of either. And neither do their families, friends, priests, employers, therapists, etc., etc., etc. Most will say they do but we have overwhelming evidence that proves they don’t. The only way to really protect people is to assume that anyone could be an attacker. That is reality.

  47. Fuzzy

    I’m also hoping that with these changes and people being removed from the registry allows for expungement. Currently pretty much everyone else with 1 felony in MI can get an expungement, but not RC’s unless it’s a Romeo & Juliet case. I’m one of those with 1 felony who’s not allowed to apply. It would make sense that if I’m removed from the registry, I should be allowed to then get an expungement.

    • Josh

      @Fuzzy…..expungements for sex offenses in Michigan were ruled out in 95 or 96….I can’t remember exactly when but it was a year or two after my conviction. I remember being more pissed about that law change because it meant that I was never going to have a clean record ever again. Even more pissed about that then getting a letter saying that I would be on a law enforcement only registry…..after all these years I realize just how stupid my thinking was back then…..I remember thinking that how unfair that was, that law shouldn’t go backwards…looking back on it now, that was my first taste of Ex Post Facto. Unfortunately you and I will never be allowed to have our records expunged…. barring a pardon from our governor or president….and that has never happened to my knowledge in Michigan

      • Will Allen

        I’m not a fan of ex post facto discussions regarding the Registries. The fact is that the Registries are idiotic and they shouldn’t exist. They are immoral and wrong for everyone, including anyone convicted from today forward. If a person agrees with that, then I’m happy if the person can get off of the Registries in any way, ex post facto claim or whatever. If they don’t agree with that, then I want to keep that person on a Registry for life.

        And ignoring plea agreements for just a moment, if these Registries truly were a “civil regulation” as the criminal regimes lie, then it seems as if it would be no big deal for them to say something like “if you’ve ever been convicted of any crime, you must now Register with the criminal regime”. But how they’ve royally f*cked themselves and also destroyed any possible hope/dream that Registries could be useful, is that they got greedy and just couldn’t stop piling on extra nonsense. It wasn’t enough just “inform” people, they had to grow the Registries into a constant, anti-American harassment scheme.

        Finally regarding plea agreements, if a person had an agreement that said something like “I will Register for N years” and then the criminal regime tried to change, that’s illegal BS. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if these “agreement” are mostly just one sided. You are agreeing to something, but the criminal regime will renege on anything it can. Of course they cannot be trusted to be moral.

        People need to ensure that the $EX Offender Registries are worthless every single day. But not just worthless, much worse. There must be retaliation by any means that is legal every day. It’s the proper, moral, American response.

      • AJ

        @Josh:
        “barring a pardon from our governor or president”
        —–
        Just to clarify, governors (or whatever pardon process a State has) can only pardon for State offenses and presidents can only pardon for Federal offenses. A president cannot grant a pardon of a State offense.

  48. Gary

    Guys enough of letting us know how long you been on the registry, this is not a measuring contest. I understand a lot of you have been on for 25+ years but you don’t need to keep reminding us. I haven’t spoke much on this but I’ve been getting very upset because a lot of you seem to think the longer you’re on this list, the more you’d deserve off. Fact of the matter is, we all deserve off the registries as they are unconstitutional.

    Also I want to make it clear that not all offenses are not expungable. I myself have no felony record any longer from a expungement in 2012 and still have to register. Only CSC and a couple other crimes are not expunagble. If you think otherwise, you may want to speak to an attorney as I personally had a expungement.

    I’m not posting any more but just wanted facts out there as I’ve personally gone through a expungement of a sex crime.

    @blake I do agree, we don’t want a knee jerk reaction so a ruling could potentially be disastrous on August 21st. But I have heard from multiple attorneys that this specific judge does not like to be screwed around with and he’s done playing games at the state level and them not coming up with a timely resolution is going to result in a order most likely.

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      Gary, I’m getting tired of people talking about their expungements and relief from registering that many of us are ineligible for. But, hey, that’s tough.

      By the way, I’ve been on the registry for twenty-five years now. It’s a pressure cooker and I’m sick of it.

      I’m sure there’s something here to irritate everyone but we need to be tolerant of our fellow registrants.

    • Ann

      I had emailed the lady from the ACLU that was on the conference call. She said that they are planning to ask the judge for an extension on the 21st.
      Here’s my opinion on that. Why should we continue to be punished for Lansing’s laziness? As the judge has pointed out to them, they’ve already had almost 2 years.
      What I would like that see happen on the 21st; a two part ruling. Part 1: the judge ruled that the 2006 and 2011 changes can’t be severed from the rest of the law, and removes all of us affected by those changes. And 2: the judge order them to have the new law in place before the New Year.

      Now, unpopular opinion. I’m on that wretched list just like the rest of you. But I truly believe that a provision needs to be in there to address serial rapists.

      • Will Allen

        Nope. Don’t drink the big government Kool-Aid. Registries are useful for no one and will never protect anyone. There is no need to be told that one person has done something in the past and another has not because it tells you less than nothing about the future. It tells you incorrectly in most cases. You might end up thinking the guy that is listed on the hit list is really dangerous when in fact the really much more dangerous guy is the other guy who is not listed.

        Further, if you take a person who might be slightly dangerous and/or not mentally rock solid and you list that person on the hit lists, that person certainly becomes a hell of a lot more dangerous. I know for certain that plenty of people are just one bad day away from really very seriously retaliating. Sad.

      • CR

        @Ann, “… I truly believe that a provision needs to be in there to address serial rapists.”

        Registries are not the answer. They don’t protect anyone. They cannot stop a serial rapist from raping again.

        I don’t disagree that repeat offenders present a serious problem that needs to be addressed. I don’t know the solution, and I’m not sure there is a single, universal answer to such people.

        I think there should be a case by case judicial determination to ensure appropriate sentencing, not something based on legislative minimums or three-strikes laws, or similar, all of which remove responsibility from the judicial branch. Punishments that are mandated by legislatures tend to be applied too broadly.

        • Will Allen

          We know some counterproductive, stupid “solutions”. Registries being number one. Mandatory sentencing is not smart either. I don’t know the answers because criminal policy is not my business. However, the people doing it sure as hell ought to be better at it. They are more clueless than I am. They deserve to be held criminally accountable for many things that they done. Nothing but harassers.

      • AJ

        @Ann:
        Though not a MI RC and not affected by what’s going on, I completely agree with you. The Legislature, like pretty much any legislative body anymore, won’t act unless it has to. So far it’s been thumbing its nose the the Federal Courts…why would anyone believe they will suddenly cease? Every “deadline” passes or gets renegotiated. Why would the Legislature bother to respond? I think the only way the MI legislature will act is if the judge shoots a gaping hole in the Statutes.
        ====

        “I truly believe that a provision needs to be in there to address serial rapists.”
        —–
        Isn’t that what prison is for? And if the judicial system continues to fail to keep these people incarcerated, how will a website, which IIRC only about 17-20% of the public uses, do anything? Even if 100% of the people check it out, it cannot stop anyone from committing further crime(s). There’s not a law in the world that can stop someone who doesn’t care about the repercussions from violating that law.

        This “non punitive regulatory scheme” will no more stop serial rapists than the “non punitive regulatory scheme” known as driver-licensing stops serial DUI offenders.

        Serial [fill-in-the-blank] criminal offenders are outliers on the bell curve, and absolutely need to be addressed. A website and “outing” people via flyers and such is not the solution. Separation from society is.

        • Josh

          @All…….I’m in complete agreement with @Aj on this one…This is why it wouldn’t be a good thing to have Judge Cleland take down the registry. If he is inclined to do so he will only likely require that the unconstitutional 06 11 issues be addressed in new legislation. The state would no longer have to negotiate and whatever has been negotiated so far would likely be lost. The other consequence would be that all registrants would likely have to go back to their original registration term lengths which would only really benefit the 25+ year crowd…my point is this and I can’t believe I’m going to say it…. in my mind a extension for negotiations to continue is in everybody’s best interest….if Cleland takes down the registry it WILL be back up within a month or two and most of us will still likely be on it….

  49. Bobby

    I Just received this email from Shelli Weisberg this morning and it’s a lot more then ive received from the ACLU, but still sounds like the same run around in a way. So anyway here is the email I received from her, this morning.

    Hi Bobby. I feel your frustration.

    There hasn’t been a decision made yet on the request for an extension and there is a status conference with the judge coming up in the next ten days. Regardless of whether an extension is requested or granted, the legislature still has to develop and pass the reforms. The judge may decide to order briefing and continue with the arguments and that will take time as well. No matter what, we will keep working on legislation.
    It’s a slow process and lawmakers are reluctant. The lawsuit is a hammer, as are the people like you talking to lawmakers about the need for reform. We are trying to get this registry as minimal as we can. The judge may not give us as much as the legislature so it’s a constant balancing act.
    I agree with you that the registry should be gone. Hopefully one day lawmakers or courts will be on our side as well but for now, we are doing everything we can to minimize the consequences.

    Shelli

    • Joe

      @Bobby, thanks for the update, even with all the uncertainty , it still very positive. I’m anxious to here the next updates.

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 *

.