ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

Emotional Support Group Meetings: Los Angeles – July 27

General News

General Comments July 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of July 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional relevant comment.

Join the discussion

  1. cool CA RC

    Any changes with the California’ s Tiered laws?

    • bluewall

      Nope, right now there is suppose to be threat levels on the megan website along with dates of the offenses.. that hasn’t happened yet either. But for the big massive “tier” 10, 20, life requirements that’s supposely by 2024 if there is no other law made to prevent it

  2. Eric

    Concerning the case of Jeffrey Epstein, there is an interesting Youtube video with Rep. Katherine Clark questioning US Attorney Alan Acosta who is under fire for giving a clearly biased and favored plea deal to his friend. When Clark asks him how he could give such a lenient sentence to a man who violated multiple children he says the sentence wasn’t so lenient that he received some jail time, but he also had to register as a sex offender, and the world will know of his past. So here we have a United States Attorney openly admitting that the registry is a serious form of punishment, that it was such severe punishment that it justified his lenient work furlough jail sentence. And Kudos to Katherine Clark she rips this slimy corrupt US attorney apart. I can only imagine how many mandatory minimum sentences he upheld for simple CP cases. I bet there are still people wasting away in prison who went before him for non-contact offenses.

    • SR

      Well, he’s certainly not wrong that being on the registry is a monumental form of “punishment”, that generally far exceeds just about any amount of time you may have had to do behind bars. But that still doesn’t excuse the deal he gave him. Were the same crime committed by any plebs, they certainly wouldn’t have received just a 13 month sentence, with work release as part of it.

    • Mp

      Pam Bondi (ex florida state attorney) was on tv the other night and said the same thing. He, Epstein, had to register as a sex offender and said it in a manor stating that as part of his punishment. As it was coming out her mouth I was like steaming.

      The other thing I find interesting is everyone acts like…. wow, why are we now just finding out about all of this? Really?!! This has been all over the internet for years with people saying WTF and yet only now the mainstream acts horrified.

    • TS

      I think the boon is the fact it is basically admitted to be punishment when it is was deemed only regulatory. The more the lower level legal folks admit this, which we have seen more of recently in my recollection, the more those who deemed it only regulatory lose credibility on this topic, IMO.

      Heck, the Tenth CCoA ought to read the US Atty statement and include it in their thinking.

      • SR

        The problem that I see though is that it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks as to whether or not it’s punishment, as long as legally it’s not considered to be so. It’s like how pretty much everyone considers tomato a vegetable, when it’s really a fruit no matter the public opinion. And SCOTUS are the scientists in this case, basically saying, “We don’t care what anyone calls it or thinks of it. It’s still ‘regulatory'”.

        • TS

          I see your point and agree you are right that the high court is the high scientist in the mix and what they say can be used as the high bar but it will be countered by those who truly see it for what it is, as has been shown. They only need a case to come forth to which they will accept to review and decide.

          An example would be the “F&H” comment has lost legal credibility and has not been renounced by the high court; yet, it is commonly seen as not legit with counter info by those who are academics, legal people, the author who wrote the quote, etc while being positively used in cases.

    • CR

      Having to register as a “sex offender” is only deemed a civil regulatory requirement by judicial courts and by the official “Acts” of legislatures. Everyone else, including the legislators themselves and other government officials outside of the Justice branch, know very well that the “duty to register” constitutes punishment.

      Had my first “compliance check” in over two years yesterday, just after I got home from work. Two men wearing bullet proof vests emblazoned with “SHERIFF” in big letters came to my door, accompanied by a city cop who kept out of sight. At first I just ignored them when they knocked, but I am pretty sure they knew I was home. They just kept beating more and more loudly on the door until I finally answered it.

      They asked me to come outside. They said there was “someone” down by the street that wanted to talk to me. That was the uniformed city policeman, but they didn’t say who it was, and I couldn’t see from my doorway. I refused. I was irate, and yelled at them a bit. I told them I had nothing to say to them. They kept insinuating that they would go on an FTR fishing expedition if I didn’t “cooperate”. After a while, I’d had enough. I gave in and answered their questions. But I still didn’t come outside, nor did I sign their form. The cop eventually came to the door. As it turns out, he didn’t have any questions for me, so I have no idea why they wanted me to come outside.

      I was really pissed. After they left, I drank heavily to regain my composure.

      • NH Registrant

        The State Police comes to my house twice a year to do the residence check. They’re always polite and decent. But, it still sucks. It ruins my day – and longer – because I get to be reminded that I have to register for something I already did my time for. I’m not one of those people convicted before 1992. So, I’m stuck on the registry for life for a non-contact crime. I’m going to eventually move out of the state some years down the road. But, I’m apprehensive about how the cops will receive me. I’m not a Tier 3. So, I shouldn’t have any issues. ….shouldn’t. I just want to get out of this backwards state permanently.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          NH Registrant, you might try calling in to “Free Talk Live” radio out of Keene (New Hampshire) and talking to Ian Freeman. He has taken some very brave positions relative to the sex offender registry and sex laws. Their show is sort of the voice of the “Free State” movement. If that movement does have any eventual effect on the state of New Hampshire, which is their goal, then it might be worth sticking around. It’s a tall order but the idea behind the Free State Project is to get as many liberty-minded people to move to N.H. as to make it the first libertarian state.

      • Someone who cares

        OMG CR – that is horrifying and completely wrong. What state and county are you in? If you are not on paper you are under no obligation to open the door or answer any questions. Why do they keep thinking they are allowed to do this? Are you on the public site? Not that that would change anything. Unbelievable! Knock and talk is all they are allowed to do. They knock, you don’t answer, they leave. I am angry!!!

        • CR

          Thank you, Someone who cares.

          Texas, and I’d prefer not to say what county. Yes, on the public site. Completed my 10 year probation in 2002, 17 years ago. Deferred adjudication, no conviction. I wasn’t subject to registration until 5 years into my probation. I’m on for life, report in person every 90 days, plus whenever any of a host of things change.

          I’ve always complied with everything required of me. I’ve lived in the same house for 22 years. My most recent in-person reporting was just 3 weeks ago. That’s why all of this is pure BS and harrassment and intimidation. The “public” is not at risk, and they know I am in compliance.

          It always brings me down, and takes me days to recover.

        • Will Allen

          They “keep thinking they are allowed to do this” because it works. They got what they wanted.

          I would think that ANY Registered Person could put a sign on his or her door that would keep law enforcement criminals away. If a person can not enclose his or her property with walls or fencing then I would think a sign would be a minimum.

          People keep worrying about not “cooperating” with these criminals but “cooperation” isn’t going to keep them from investigating or arresting you. The only thing it gets you is more harassment.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        CR, boy, that would piss me off royally! What state and county are you in?

        • CR

          It did, for certain. And at the same time, it was very stressful and intimidating. No doubt as intended. And the heavy drinking afterward didn’t really help me regain my composure, though not for lack of trying.

          What worries me is that they might target me for more frequent harrasment since I wasn’t very cooperative at first.

          You will no doubt have seen my response to Someone just above, so no need to repeat it here.

      • Tim L

        Start taking video of such transactions people. I do it everytime. I point to my cam on the porch ceiling. Most of the time I’ve a hand held too, especially when the union thugs pound rudely. They are liable for damages. The camera will back them off. Harassment by cop is easy to prove with good video evidence.
        I ask them directly if they investigating a ” known crime” or an ” imagined crime. ”

        Unfortunately SCOTUS ALSO upheld cops lying ” during interrogation. ”
        What you expect different from such ” reasonable” leadership?

  3. JohnDoeUtah

    So, I haven’t had to register for nearly 3 years. I was never convicted in Utah nor do I have any civil judgement in Utah for criminal fines or fees. My liability for the annual Sex Offender Registry Fee is however over three years past, it was created by statute and not criminal proceedings. Well, I’ve never paid it, and went on a mission to ensure I skewed my W-4 form enough that I always had to pay taxes. Well, with the Trump Tax Plan this year, I ended up paying a lot in Federal, but sadly got a State refund. Guess who came knocking? Yes, the Utah Office of State Debt Collection is trying to Garnish my Tax Refund. I have 20 days to request a hearing, even though they denied me such a hearing in 2013 when I disputed the “fees” as expost facto fines. Here is my argument this time:

    “Defendant asserts that this July 2019 recovery action is time barred by Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-305(4) for all accounts in dispute stemming from Utah Code Ann. 77-41-111. Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-305(4) states that a three-year statute of limitation applies to, “…a liability created by the statutes of this state, other than for a penalty or forfeiture under the laws of this state, except where in special cases a different limitation is prescribed by the statutes of this state.” The Division of Finance, Office of State Debt Collections is subject to the civil statue-of-limitations pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-115, “… the limitations in this chapter apply to actions brought in the name of or for the benefit of the state or other governmental entity the same as to actions by private parties.” (See Exhibit D, Pezely v. Utah OSDC, Civil No. 139920053, RULING AND ORDER, 9/22/14, page 2).
    Defendant asserts that because the District Court is the court of review for review hearings pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 63G-4-401 and 63A-3-308, Pezely is mandatory authority for the purposes of stare decisis in the application of the civil statute of limitations upon the Division of Finance, Office of State Debt Collection. Soon after Pezely, the Utah State Legislature Amended 78B-2-115 pursuant to S.B. 136 during the 2015 legislative session (Exhibit E), to address the Pezely court’s ruling and modify the statute so that criminal fines, fees, and restitution were not subject to the civil statute of limitations. However, the Utah State Legislature did not act to reverse the Pezely court’s determination that the civil statute of limitations applies to the Division of Finance, Office of State Debt Collection; therefore, that portion and statutory interpretation of Pezely is binding during this review.
    While the liabilities in question have been assessed by the Utah Department of Corrections, they do not stem from any criminal adjudication within the jurisdiction of the State of Utah; therefore, the “criminal fines, fees, and restitution” exemptions under Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-115 do not apply to these liabilities, “created by the statutes of this state, other than for a penalty…” (Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-305(4) and 77-41-111). Furthermore, the State of Utah has painstakingly litigated numerous times that the Utah Sex Offender Registry is a “…nonpunitive measure…ascertainable from the simple fact that the legislature placed the statute in the civil code as opposed to the criminal code.” See, Fedemeer,227 F.3d at 1253 (10th Cir. 2000), Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2010). Thus, these liabilities cannot be said to be punitive in nature under the legal rationale and legislative intent of the State of Utah.
    The last liability in dispute was delinquent on June 30, 2016. Therefore, all liabilities at dispute here are past the three-year civil statute of limitations pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-305(4) and further civil action on these liabilities after June 30, 2019, to include recovery by garnishment, is barred as a matter of law.”

    Of course if they argue it is somehow a criminal fee, I added a few pages of arguments as to why that would be expost facto.

    • Tim L


      Congress shall pass” no law” increasing the punishment for a crime.
      Civil law can indeed increase punishment, thus SCOTUS uses a two pronged test. Intent 1, effect 2nd when weighing the question. The twisting ( turning on its head) the question in DOE03 was atrocious and the minority said so. They remember history & arbitrary regulatory regimes. Who thinks the German national socialist elites didn’t take the moral high ground, justice pleas, and public safety concern in their actions against Jews, gypsies, and other undesirables. History repeats.

      While some may cringe claiming the ” jew” and ” sex offender” are incomparable, they do so in error. It is the connotation of projected evil promulgated by Authoritarian rule and their propaganda regimes that breeds distorted and demented thinking among the masses. In prewar Germany it was the powerful Catholic church AND legal jurists who looked the other way. It’s happening here too and the Rehnquist court played the foyle again. Mr Kennedy knows it.

      By keeping registrants off of social media someone kept these facts secret.

  4. someone who cares

    CR ~ No need to disclose your county, and I am not sure why Texas would be different than anywhere else. You served your time and should be a “free” person. You are not obligated to answer the door, and you are not obligated to answer any questions. If they keep knocking, you can open the door and tell them you live there, and close it again. Otherwise, I would tell them that you are contacting your lawyer, and that you know your rights. They thrive on people who don’t know their rights. I understand that it creates a great deal of stress. That alone is punishment. Have you reached out to Texas Voices? I think it is a group similar to Janice’s California group. I would ask them for suggestions. When we had a similar compliance check, I contacted the agency who did this and complained. I explained to them that I know we don’t have to answer the door or answer any questions, and they agreed. Just show them that you know the law!

    • CR

      Yes, I’m going to research it so I’m clear about whether I have to answer or not, what they might do if I don’t, or how best to deal with it. Good suggestion to contact Texas Voices. Thanks again.

      • texas 2

        i don’t know what texas you live in, there are no tiers here, you are low, medium, or high
        maybe you are considered high, but if you got probation i am wondering.
        my son had to register every 30 days due to living in a hotel, you live in a house? why every 90 days.
        no one has visited me in over 2 years, and when they do they are very polite and i am the same.
        if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.
        we have had our business for over 25 years and i travel with no repercussions. i am on lifetime registration. we are very fortunate.

        • CR

          @texas 2, I said nothing about tiers. Nor did I mention risk level. I also do not have an assigned risk level. My risk level on the public web site is displayed as “NOT REPORTED”. The law that created the risk levels did not exist when I committed my offenses, nor when I started registering, and it was not made retroactive when it became effective.

          Yes, I live in a house, the same one for the past 22 years. And yes, I report every 90 days. Reporting frequency depends on the number and type of offenses, not on whether you were convicted or got deferred adjudication probation. I don’t know if risk level affects reporting frequency for those who have one. I am sure it does not in my case since I don’t have one.

          I had probation officers visit regularly while I was on probation, of course, until I got off in 2002. But I had never been visited for a compliance check before 2017. On that first occasion, it was four plain clothes city cops. They were pleasant, not demanding, not intimidating. It made me angry, and I didn’t like it at all. It was late afternoon on a week day, and there were numerous neighbors out and about who witnessed it. But I kept my cool. We talked, I answered their questions, I signed their form, and they left.

          This latest occurrence was my second time to be subjected to a compliance check. Only this time, it was Sheriff’s department people in bullet-proof vests, plus a uniformed city cop. It was much more attention-getting and visible to neighbors. Maybe that is the point, I don’t know. They said they were conducting the compliance check “for” the cop that I report to every 90 days. Interestingly, my first compliance check occurred just four months after that officer took over the post from the previous one.

          “if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.”

          I very much disagree with you. That is the “nothing to hide” argument that people use to justify government surveillance and unwarranted intrusion into our lives and private affairs. You may not value your privacy, but I do.

          I’m off paper. I comply with the bogus “civil regulatory” registration statute because I must, but I’m not under any form of state supervision anymore. The “compliance squads” have no business checking up on me at all.

        • Will Allen


          Yep, fuck them. I think allowing law enforcement criminals to get near or speak to you sends a very strong, bad message. No one should ever dream that the Registries are acceptable. I would put a wall or fencing around my property and never allow them in.

        • CR

          @Will, my back yard is fenced. I’ve thought about fencing the front. A wall would not be approved by the building codes where I live. Maybe a white picket fence.

          My spouse and I have agreed that choosing a property that we can completely wall in and bar access to with a locked gate is a requirement for our next move.

          Even if we move to a state that doesn’t require me to register, it will remain a requirement. The thing about getting off the registry is that you never know if the state will pass a retroactive law in the future that will sweep you up into its grasp once again.

  5. Mot

    NYPD let convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein skip judge-ordered check-ins

    How is it that none of us could go ONE year without checking in and not end up in jail

    • AJ

      Yeah, I saw that too. It seems it’s stupidity piled atop stupidity. Being a Tier III, NY requires in-person reporting every 90 days, even though he said he was only there 10 days a year (sure Jeff…but let’s roll with it). That’s stupid number 1: making him be in NY more than he wishes to be…how does THAT help public safety? Then, NYPD doesn’t make him do the 90 day thing. Stupid number 2: Willfully and knowingly flouting State law is not an effective path, NYPD.

    • Tim

      How does he get away with it? The lawyers call it “wherewithal.” Being civil means they MUST release you anyway. So what is gained by not? – Time fighting motions by state. Does the website crash if you don’t register?

  6. Illinois Contact

    Sounds like we should all move to New Mexico with Jeffrey.

    I think it’s obvious that he’s the poster child for the ineffectiveness of sex offender registries. But some may think it just means that registries should be more strictly enforced and more severe punishment. I don’t know what the eventual public reaction to this will be.

    It does seem like law enforcement at every level is implying that his being on the registries was clearly additional punishment. Isn’t that what we have been saying all along?

    The New York Times had a good summary today:

    • CR

      Good article, but I bet Reason would do an even better job. I hope they write one using just such facts to highlight the ineffectiveness and unfairness of registry schemes that can be so easily thwarted, and laws so easily flaunted, by those with money and powerful connections.

      Woe betide those of us who have neither. Unlike JE, we escape nothing, and we’d be FTR’d in a flash if we tried.

      • Tim L

        I’m purposefully into an FTR NOW! Seriously
        Looking forward to seating a jury.
        Just getting warmed up, 3 summons rates with no attorney!
        The 7th circuit court , ROCK COUNTY WI WILL SUFFER MY WRATH!
        6 yr. max, but I’ve got an edge, it’s called truth.
        The cop who came along with SOR AGENT to house looking for SOR form\me asked the ideal question. ” Is there a judges signature” precisely because he expects it to be present. (Calder v Bull, #4).

        Sooner or later it becomes about Country and not self.

        • CR

          @Tim L, you are really brave. May you prevail in court, sir.

          Could you explain what you mean about the judges signature, and what it has to do in the context of the SOR form? Did the cop ask you, or did you ask him? The latter seems more likely, but I wasn’t sure if I was reading you right.

        • Tim L

          Judicial signatures appear on ” notices of conviction” along with the other parties ( DA, Defense attorney into bar#) sentence structure. By state statute it is the very documentation that makes the sentence ” lawful & Certified”. The same doc, must be present for a sheriff to” take custody” of the convicted.( Per stat.)

          The touchstone judgment is fodder for a jury in FTR. A jury will find no mention of ” a life term. ” on that doc. STATE will point to SOR statute 301.45 1g(b) ” was in prison for…..a sex crime statute”
          Important to recall 03SCOTUS, admitted freely it was ex post wording but not ” intended as punitive( sword) but regulatory (sheild).

    • Joe

      “I think it’s obvious that he’s the poster child for the ineffectiveness of sex offender registries” – how so?

      Are any of the new charges related to conduct from after he was required to register? I was under the impression it was about the time frame pre-conviction, with different accusers.

      And I am a gonna say it…. my outrage about unforced and biologically appropriate activities with persons old enough to be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced as adults in every single state in this country, while against the law, is very limited. I am beyond perturbed by the rampant government corruption, coverups and lack of judicial equality for those rich and poor, that rivals some of those sh!thole countries that “we” like to bomb into civilization.

      I am also wondering if some of the alleged victims in this case, who are alleged and who have described recruiting additional, and ever so younger, alleged victims, will be prosecuted as adults. I have no doubt they will be held accountable for their own sex trafficking crimes, right? I mean, how could they not?

  7. David

    Maybe we can get all the presidential candidates on board with this idea! That would be great!

    Pete Buttigieg says US should have “right to be forgotten” from internet.

    End the Registries and allow one’s past to be forgotten.😌 Hey, let a guy dream, will ya??

    • E

      Would be amazing… but a pipe dream. Amerika (Europeans have this, after all!) is way too in love with its freedom of speech and press and information and knowing everybody else’s crap.

    • AJ

      IDK that we’ll approach Europe’s right to be forgotten, but there is plenty of chatter on Capitol Hill about changing how privacy is handled. Big Tech’s foray into swaying elections was a bit much for Congress (they don’t like competition). Granted Big Tech can and will throw big money at the crooks, but I still think some form of opt-in requirement for data usage isn’t a pipe dream. This Congress? Absolutely not. But maybe the next one.

  8. AJ

    In my current and continuing digging into Carolene and Chastleton, I’ve stumbled upon something that may make it possible to challenge Smith. Please indulge me a bit, and you fellow armchair JDs are encouraged to play along and offer thoughts and critiques (critiques in particular are helpful).

    Anyway, the underlying case is Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Waters (, with the interesting tidbit from it being: “A statute valid as to one set of facts may be invalid as to another. A statute valid when enacted may become invalid by change in the conditions to which it is applied.” My thought with these two sentences is that the first one could maybe be used to attack the data SCOTUS used in Smith (“that set of facts doesn’t apply to me, your Honor, as I was not and am not a recently released violent offender.”) and the second one could be used on the recidivism data itself (“assuming, arguendo, ‘frightening and high’ recidivism existed in 2003, conditions have changed and recidivism is no different than for regular offenders.”)

    Adding to that is another more recent case from SCOTUS. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (, SCOTUS not only cited the above Nashville Ry. case, but Carolene and Chastelton as well. J. Breyer made some salient points about challenging previously decided cases when facts change. I won’t copy-and-paste the long dicta here, but those interested should consult the case and read through II-A in the Opinion.

    Beyond all that, a 10th CCoA case provides some decent citations. Again, it’s too long to paste here, so see: Footnote 8 from Dias v. City and Cnty of Denver ( One snippet from that footnote is: “a legislative classification must be judged in light of today’s circumstances, and that a classification deemed reasonable at the time of enactment can become quite arbitrary with the passage of time.” If that doesn’t apply to Smith and RC laws, I don’t know what does.

    • E @ AJ

      Are you fishing for a plaintiff??? 🙂

      I like this reasoning… I’m no armchair JD (LOL), but I love reading your opinions. I’d love to see this taken up, maybe in conjunction with other aspects.

      Speaking of which, I’ve wondered: if one files a suit like this, is it GOOD or BAD to throw the whole kitchen sink at it (not sure that metaphor is right)? Or should you file with a limited number of challenges, see if they work; if they don’t you can file again with other challenges. Meaning, e. g. file With your scenario here plus equal protection grounds in a suit but hold back right to travel and ex post facto for a second suit if needed. Does a suit at some point get too complicated and unwieldy?

      Back to you, AJJD.

      • AJ

        Re: filing. My personal belief is that when it comes to RC stuff, throw the kitchen sink at them. If something isn’t raised at the initial trial, it cannot be raised during the appellate process. Given the broad and deep infection of RC laws in society, I feel it behooves dumping the whole dirty mess on the court, thus showing it’s not “just” this or “just” that. RC laws interactively affect a number of rights at once, so my fear is holding back would water down an attack. Of course the more you claim, the more you have to justify and combat.

    • CR

      @AJ, your ideas sound promising. I must reread the Smith opinion and dissents with these new concepts in mind.

      This would not be a direct rehash of Smith ’03 or a challenge of its holding with respect to facts and circumstances in that case at that time, but rather a challenge to its applicability to current registration schemes in light of data that has accumulated since regarding recidivism and dangerousness of “sex offenders” compared to other categories of offenders, showing that the same analysis used in Smith would tip the scales the other way when applied to the facts, circumstances, and effects of registration schemes as they exist today.

      Might that not overcome rational basis as the standard of review? Or would it just show that current schemes can’t survive even that standard?

      • AJ

        You are correct. It would be a claim that regardless the validity of Smith at the time, facts have changed and it can no longer be properly applied. One could even say it’s arbitrary and capricious.

        I suppose one may be able to find something greater than rational-basis upon which to rely; however, my thought was taking the tack that though (arguendo) rational in 2003, it no longer is. Or, paraphrasing from the Dias case: “although [registry laws] sustained [nearly] twenty years ago may have been justified by the then-existing body of knowledge, the state of science in 20[1]9 is such that the[y] are no longer rational.” Even if purely-Smith RC laws are upheld, I think the litany of restrictions and laws beyond it are vulnerable to attack using this, and other, concepts.

  9. E @ AJ et al

    Dang!!! Going to start a Richard L Young Fanclub after reading this decision! Nice win (for those with long-ago convictions) and a slap at the govt., though I’m not sure this will ever get affirmed by the 7th circuit CoA. Kudos to FAC for this post:

    AJ and other almost-JDs: being in the 7th, and that this digs into right to travel and equal protection, could this be used as a template to file on Wisconsin and their insane law differentiating between those who committed their offense there and those who didn’t? (Statute 301.45)

    Short reminder of the issue: if you commit an offense in WI, you may never deregister, even if you move out of state. Annual mail in registration for life, worldwide. BUT: if you commit an offense somewhere else and then move to WI, you only register while there. If you move out of the state again you DO deregister. If that’s not an equal protection horsehockey racket, mixed up with right to travel (though I’m not certain how you’d argue it), I don’t know what is.

    And would it be worth filing before this goes through the 7th, or keep my pennies and wait to see what they say??

    • CR

      I don’t think Saenz v Roe would apply in a “right to travel” analysis because the state, in this case, is treating its own citizens worse than it treats those who move there from other states, who then leave again down the road.

      Texas does something like this too. It requires registration of those who receive deferred adjudication for a registerable offense committed in Texas, but not of those who who receive a deferred adjudication in another state for a similar offense, who subsequently move to Texas.

      Maybe there is an equal protection angle. Maybe there is a different right to travel analysis that would apply, since WI refuses to release its hold on those who committed an offense in the state, when they leave. AJ suggested that I look into “long arm jurisdiction”, but I haven’t yet done so.

      • E

        Yup, I’ve looked at long arm jurisdiction quite a bit on this. Seems a viable angle to sue but no clue which way it would fall. Can’t find any suits that were from that angle (essentially forcing them to defend their long arm jurisdiction and seeing whether a judge would buy it). Maybe combing it with equal protection…

        • AJ

          As you point out, there’s no clear case history regarding long-arm statutes. So far it seems to be holding up, but I suspect that’s mostly due to how it’s applied (insurance companies, etc). Given those affected by it have a continuing tie to the long-armed State, there’s really no case. It’s when someone has completely severed all ties with a State where I think long-arm may fail. If I leave NY or WI and have zero ties (no banking, no real estate, no doctors, etc) there, how can they claim continued jurisdiction? And the longer I’m gone, the less valid that claim would seem to be.

          Perhaps the best way to attack would be to show how the long-arm statute(s) burden some right or interest. For example, suppose I’m off the registry where I live but WI/NY keeps me registering. This would seem to burden my Freedom of Travel fundamental right (IML). As a fundamental right, it’s automatically subjected to strict scrutiny. As such, the burden would be on WI/NY to show how and why the continued registration meets strict-scrutiny criteria.

          I do wonder if a Due Process claim along the lines of Humphries (, et alia, would work in WI or NY. I know NY has the O’Donnell case. I forget the specifics, but IIRC it was a ruling that since NY has no de-register process, one cannot de-register. However, I don’t believe the Humphries angle was taken. Perhaps it could/should be. Lack of a removal process can be a Due Process violation.

        • NY won’t let go

          They had the O’Donnell case, but there was a separate decision for one of the clients named Roe who was from Pennsylvania who moved to NY for work then moved back to Penn later. He was able to be removed from the registry in NY where everyone else who was part of the O’Donnell case remained because their cases originated in NY and his was from out of state.

          I have the decision on my computer somewhere.

        • AJ

          @NY won’t let go:
          “I have the decision on my computer somewhere.”
          I haven’t found any decision such as you state. In fact, ROSS lists 0 negative citations for O’Donnell, but 5 other (positive) citations. None of those five involves a Roe (which, BTW, typically means an anonymous female): People v. Hlatky, 153 A.D.3d 1538, 61 N.Y.S.3d 395 (2017); In re Mental Hygiene Legal Service, 153 A.D.3d 114, 59 N.Y.S.3d 518 (2017); People v. Shim, 139 A.D.3d 68, 28 N.Y.S.3d 87 (2016); Cimerring v. Merrill Lynch Mortg. Investors, Inc., 2012-51123, (N.Y App. Div. June 13, 2012); People v. Melzer, 89 A.D.3d 1000, 933 N.Y.S.2d 705 (2011).

          There’s a scholarly paper that talks about O’Donnell, et al., which may be helpful (for NY and WI peeps). I only scanned it in order to find O’Donnell’s case number, so I cannot speak to its value. See:

          One distinguishing characteristic between your case and the Doe from O’Donnell is that his offense was committed in NY. This is the same thing WI RCs have on them.

          I would love to see this PA RC case you reference. It may shed some light on things and help both you and WI RCs in getting out from under this BS.

    • CR

      I meant to add, in case it wasn’t clear already, that WI isn’t witholding a benefit from those who move there from somewhere else. Instead, it is treating them identically to its own citizens when they arrive. Then it treats them more favorably than it treats its own citizens when they leave the state. It doesn’t burden a right to travel for those who came from another state, and who then later depart.

      For WI to maintain its grasp on those who committed an offense there after they leave would appear to be legal. Or at least it hasn’t been successfully challenged yet, so far as I know.

      • E

        Well, it does burden a right to travel for those convicted there. I haven’t lived in WI for over 20 years… and by Judge Young’s logic, that’s a clear disability requiring strict scrutiny…

        • CR

          I really don’t see how WI can require people convicted in the state to continue registering after they leave and become a permanent resident of some other jurisdiction. Do you know of any challenges, and what the outcome was?

          Still, I don’t see how it burdens travel. Can you explain how?

        • E @ CR

          My reasoning was along the lines of: it burdens my travel outside the state, certainly compared to anyone not convicted there. It also burdens my travel internationally if I moved to a state that did not require me to register, but WI still does though I have not lived there for decades.

        • CR


          If you live in Wisconsin, you have to register. If you leave, they continue to make you register. No matter where you take up permanent residence, it follows you.

          As I have said, I don’t see how they get away with it. I don’t think it should be legal. Somehow, it is, or it hasn’t been properly challenged. But the unending lifetime registration requirement imposed by WI is the same no matter where you move. There is no incentive or disincentive on you to move based on it. It neither encourages you nor stops you from taking up residence wherever you wish. There is no benefit granted or denied.

          Sorry, but I simply don’t see how your fundamental right to travel is implicated. I can think of no way that the registration requirement could be challenged based on right to travel.

        • AJ

          @E & @CR:
          The only way I can see WI’s continued registration requirement burdening anything, travel or otherwise, is if one can show that only due to this specific registration does a burden exist. So if @E is still required to register in any other jurisdiction, I don’t see any legally valid claim. If @E only registers in WI, it may be a different story. Even then, though, I think it will be a tough claim. @E could perhaps claim a taking (re-application fees and time) in that his passport gets revoked and replaced purely due to WI’s requirement. I suspect showing a burden via cruise travel may be easier than via air travel. With cruising, one could maybe point to the cruise line refusing carriage simply due to being on WI’s registry. Proving air would be trickier, as the carrier doesn’t refuse service; it’s the behind-the-scenes paperwork the Feds send that cause problems–and which may be impossible to nail down. Finding a demonstrable burden that occurs purely and solely to WI’s registration requirements is about the only path I can see.

        • E

          Thanks for the thoughts and discussion, guys. I’m disappointed. I did think there is at least an equal protection issue here (if not travel).

          Ongoing registration for life in multiple jurisdictions doesn’t seem reasonable, with conflicting requirements and different things they need updated in differing timeframes. Maybe there’s no “unfairness” way to attack it after all.

    • NY Won’t Let Go

      I found it,

      the person wasn’t a woman that was just his last name.

      This was separated from O’Donnell before it became what it was.

      If you have a place to send it I can get it over to you to look through.

      • AJ

        @NY Won’t Let Go:
        Too funny that Roe was the guy’s last name! If you can give me the parties, what court system (NY State, Federal District, etc.), and the date, I can probably find it. Even better if you can find a docket/case number.

        Or, you can always just anonymously upload it at Just be sure to copy and paste the URL it gives you when you’ve uploaded.

        • NY won’t let go

          It will be good for one day

        • AJ

          @NY won’t let go:
          Thanks for the doc. You may have a case there, although O’Donnell chips away at the case upon which this decision relies (People v. Arontin, There may be some wiggle room, though I foresee the State relying heavily on O’Donnell since that’s where NYSC said the lack of a deregistering process means the Legislature intentionally didn’t want one. That could be very tough to fight.

        • NY won’t let go

          @AJ I still don’t understand how listing my foreign address protects anyone in the state of NY.

          All it’s gotten me is death threats at my foreign address because some guy at work didn’t like that a girl at the office had eyes for me and not him. He tried digging dirt on me so he googled my name.

          then he tried to out that I’m on the registry in the US, but 1. People didn’t care what he had to say because he was an asshole. And 2. I’m on a valid visa and they figure if my visa is valid then that means I’m okay.

        • AJ

          @NY won’t let go:
          “I still don’t understand how listing my foreign address protects anyone in the state of NY.”
          It doesn’t. It almost sounds like it’s done just to “get” you doesn’t it? Almost like it’s punitive. Naw, couldn’t be. But what part of RC laws make sense?

        • NY won’t let go

          Naw couldn’t be punitive.

          It’s only another felony or two if I don’t update all my info with them within 3 days of moving, getting a phone number, a new email erc. Or if I don’t send them a new picture every 3 years it’s another felony even though I don’t live in US jurisdiction.

          Couldn’t be punitive

  10. Mp

    Does or has anyone followed the blog It has all but disappeared including his twitter feed. He is currently incarcerated for CP and has been posting for years. I came across it a couple of months ago from a link from another site similar to this one. Caution Click maybe. Anyway it was a great blog. He had about two years yet to go.

    • norman

      @Mp…Thank u for turning me on to…I’m currently reading about an inmate, first offense, who is doing 12 in a fed prison for cp possession..I think I will stop whining about the six months I had to do in county for similar offense…

      • @norman

        So you were able to get onto this site? I still am unable and the twitter has been removed as well. Although I don’t use twitter I still could see his twitter posts and now it says…”that page doesn’t exsist”. Yep the 12 years is insane, but that has happened to so, so many.

        • Bob

          Last tweet was about a prision riot. Then it gets deleted, no suprise really. I hope he comes back.

  11. ReadyToFight

    Sounds like it could be helpful to gat a COR here in California.
    Is ANYONE eligible for that and what’s it cost to get it done?

    • Interested Party

      The specifics of the Certificate of Rehabilitation is listed in PC 4852.01 – 4952.21.
      The short version as I understand it is you need to have been sentenced to felony and prison, or felony probation with an expungement, or misdemeanor with expungement. For many the issue is if you qualify for the expungement.
      Also you need to meet the residency requirements which is typically 10 years – for some 7 years.
      If you think you qualify before the tiered registry goes into effect I highly recommend seeking out legal advice. The final decision is at the judges discretion so finding and using a skilled advocate can be very persuasive.

  12. Bobby


    Does anyone know if The Does v Snyder Conference call has been posted yet? I can’t seem to find it anywhere , I have even tried asking Michigan’s ACLU , WAR and MCFJ with no luck so far.

    So if anyone knows if it’s been posted, can you please let me know were I can find it, I would really like to listen to it, and find out what is going on with Does v Snyder, Thank you, in advance.

  13. TnT

    Been looking for this info as well , Hope someone can tell us where we may find the conference call info ?

  14. Bobby

    I just got this email back today from the intern at Michigan’s ACLU and I thought I would post it for who ever is interested.

    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  


    Great decision coming out of Supreme Court of MA regarding individualize risk assessment on SO increased tier levels.

    • Lake County

      I love this quote by the judges:
      This determination naturally takes place on a continuum, contact offenders are generally more dangerous than non-contact offenders, and non-contact offenders whose actions are likely to create a fear of bodily harm are generally more dangerous than non-contact offenders whose actions are unlikely to generate such fear. Cf. Commonwealthv. Suave, 460 Mass. 582, 587-588 (2011), quoting G. L. c. 123A, §1 (under civil commitment statute for sexually dangerous persons, non-contact offender is not “menace to the health and safety of other persons” unless offender’s “conduct will objectively put his [or her] victim in fear of bodily harm by reason of a contact sex crime”). Therefore, while we agree with SORB that under some circumstances the danger posed by non-contact offenses such as open and gross lewdness might suffice to support a level two classification, see G.L. c.6, §178C, we conclude that an individual is generally unlikely to pose a moderate degree of dangerousness and thus to qualify as a level two sex offender where his or her risk of reoffense relates only to noncontact offenses which do not put a victim in fear of bodily harm by reason of a contact sex offense. See Doev. Attorney Gen., 425 Mass. 217, 221&n.7 (1997)

      So in CA, why are they placing non-contact CP cases in tier 3?

      • AJ

        @Lake County:
        “So in CA, why are they placing non-contact CP cases in tier 3?”
        Silly rabbit, it’s because it’s a non-punitive regulatory scheme. IOW, each and every jurisdiction can decide what it wants, how it wants, as it wants, and SCOTUS gives thumbs up.

  16. Mot

    CA REAL ID does anyone know if the new REAL ID for CA and other states gets tagged just like Passports for us registered citizens? I understand that soon they will be replacing Passports??

    • matthew

      I have a Real ID. No issues or even asked or thought about.

      • Mot

        Matthew: have you used your REALID to travel outside of the US? Mexico or Canada?

    • Interested Party

      The real ID is a federally compliant drivers license – California does not meet the federal guidelines for acceptable forms of identification. So a regular California ID will not be accepted as a form of ID for things like airport inspection.

      People from California then have the choice of getting the real ID or using their passports. The real ID does not include any type of stamp for 290 and will not replace a passport for international travel.

    • Lake County

      I doubt that the RealID’s will ever replace passports. You would need every country to agree to accept a RealID instead of passports. Plus it’s more convenient to have them as separate documents. A government agency might want to hold or revoke a passport to limit your travel, while letting you keep your ID for it’s original intended purpose. And, the passports are a big money maker that employs many federal workers. I doubt that the Federal Government trusts all 50 States to issue an ID that will work as a passport.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        Driver’s licenses, I.D.’s do not conform to the international standards of a passport. No visa pages, for one thing.

        • Lake County

          Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          I forgot about the need to have a way to stamp passports. How else will other countries be able to deny entry based on what countries you’ve visited in the past? People holding a passport from other countries containing a stamp indicating they have visited Israel are banned from six countries.

      • TS

        For many people, a passport is an official second form of photo identification along with a state provided identification card or driver’s license. Those who work for the United States government have forms of identification that can pass as official photo identification, but that’s not available to everybody of course. There are also other approved forms of government employment identification that can be used as second photo identification in some instances where approved.

        The two things that are available to everybody are a state provided
        photo identification and a passport. Using one to replace the other would create problems for a lot of people.

  17. Mike

    I was removed from Maine states registry in 2010 and I have a relief letter, can I get removed from the SORNA website?
    Also, I would like to visit Massachusetts someday do I have to register in Mass?

    • AJ

      You should’ve been removed once you dropped from ME’s website. Were I you, I’d check to ensure you’re not somehow still on ME’s ML site. If not, I’d contact SMART and submit the letter. Why’d you wait nine years to question this!??

      As for travel to MA, your status in ME (or anywhere else) is irrelevant. You’ll have to comply with MA’s “regulations” regarding RC registration. That may mean you’re free and clear, or it may mean getting registered, IDK.

      This raises a question for RCs traveling to places like MA and NY, where some assessment board determines one’s tier. If I show up in MA/NY, must I hang around and get assessed? What if I’m only in-state long enough to trigger registration, and then leave? Or do they simply toss a visiting RC into whatever tier s/he has in the home State? That would seem to be an Equal Protection Issue, since the migrant/visitor would be treated differently than a resident.

      • NY Won’t let go

        If you go to NY they won’t list you on the public registry until after they determine your tier.

        This can take up to a year if you elect to have the actual hearing instead of just following the piece of paper they give you to tell you your level.

        But you still gotta check in with the police until that time

        • troy

          I checked in with 1 center street in may,still waiting for my hearing level to be determined I was told do nothing till I hear from them,do I still have to check in? nothing was said or nothing in writing was done to instruct

        • NY won’t let go

          They called me when they wanted me to come in and when I got my letter in the mail they had me come see them again and we talked about if for a while.

          They told me I should have been a tier one and that I should fight the determination.

          I fought it, lost , got stuck with a tier two. Apparently since I was under 25 when it happened originally it made me a higher risk? (Which made no sense, I’d just turned 19)

          Anywho, the people at 1 Centre street are actually a good bunch of cops.(at least they were to me) I was the least of their worries.

          The prosecutor from Albany who came down for my hearing on the other hand was a dick.

          They will send you a letter telling you your level and you can either have the hearing and fight it or just accept it.

          90% of the people accept it.

          If you fight it, it will take about a year and they will try to make you a tier 3 for “not accepting responsibility for your actions/crime” even if you plead no contest as NY doesn’t recognize NC pleas

      • DJ

        I do some work for an attorney here in NY handling SORA cases. NY doesn’t define “residence” however once you move and establish a new address in NY you have 10 days to notify DCJS of your arrival in the state. They will then send you a form to fill out, basically starting the registration process.

        Then, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in Albany, will send you a notice that your case is under review. You have an opportunity to send any information to the Board to mitigate your circumstances (creating these packages is part of my job). The board will make a recommendation of tier 1, 2, 3 and forward a case summary to the court. You will be scheduled for a court hearing in the county in which you reside where a judge will make a final ruling. The DA will argue for a higher level most of the time. It can be an adversarial proceeding which is why having an attorney with SORA experience is helpful.

        While still very flawed and outdated, NY actually has one of the better systems in terms of due process. (Although that’s not saying much). At least you have an opportunity to present information that you do not pose a risk.

        I can tell you that you’d want to do everything in your power to fight for level 1. The difference is immeasurable. Level 1 is NOT on the public registry. One has the chance to live a fairly normal existence.

        New York also allows for level modification or reduction. It’s a similar process that we’ve been successful with and that can provide some relief as well.

        • NY won’t let go

          How much does level reduction cost?

          If I can get down to a tier 1 they will let me off the registry.(since I don’t live in the country anymore and won’t be subject to the lifetime stuck on the registry due to a purpose lack of wording)

          Could it be done pro bono😅? My income here per month is equal to about 3 shifts at McDonald’s so it’s a bit hard to save anything.

        • DJ

          NY Won’t Let go….what’s the condensed “readers digest” version of your case? Just the nuts and bolts. I can talk with the attorney and see if it has a good chance at a reduction. If the basics are there I’ll post the info here and you can contact the office. It sounds interesting with you being out of the country….

  18. TS

    Did this get some air time here in the forum? I know this is not a new topic overall and has been mentioned before here, but recently? I don’t recall so.

    Defense Department Computer Network Among Top Sharers of Child Pornography

    • R M

      Not surprising. They will have an excuse though that’s it’s for safety.

  19. Guy

    Listened to the Michigan conference call.

    So from my understanding come August 21st. If the registry is changed to 2,5 and 10 year terms, if I’ve been on for 12 years already I’ll be removed!

    Is that a correct understanding?

    • Josh

      @Bobby……hey bud, I tried to listen to that recording you posted twice and got roughly 5 minutes into it when it just shut off….just thought you should know….thanks for tracking that down and attempting to post it though!

      • Bobby@Josh

        Josh, I just checked it and was able to listen to the entire call, I did have to hit the play button again, but only once. The one think I was most interested in was the pre- sorna part for people like you me Bill and a few others, sorry can’t remember their names off hand right now. Anyway, if I’m understanding it correctly we should be removed asap, once the final draft is worked out, bit feel free to correct me of I am wrong.

  20. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    I’m not sure if this story got any coverage here: “Released Sex Offenders Were Three Times as Likely as Other Released Prisoners to be Re-Arrested for a Sex Offense?”

    In other words, “How To Lie With Statistics.”

    I suspect we will be seeing more such efforts as the data being provided by our allies begins to propagate and pose a threat to the forces of suppression.

    • TS

      That’s So. Maryland for you. I lived there for a bit a while back and learned why they had strong southern sympathy ties while being a northern border state back when. They fit right in with the likes of AL, VA (their neighbor), et al still.

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 *