ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 Phone Meeting Recording Uploaded
Upcoming:
Oct 19 – LA, Nov 16 – Sacramento, Dec 14 – Phone | details

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

National

MI: ACLU Michigan Attorney Advocates End of Registry; Provides Update on 6th Circuit Decision

In a recent NPR interview, ACLU Michigan attorney Miriam Aukerman stated she believes that sex offender registries should be abolished.  In support of that belief, Aukerman stated that registries are ineffective and make society less safe.

Aukerman criticized both legislators and law enforcement for the current challenges now facing registrants.  Legislators have passed and keep passing new laws because they believe doing so will help them to get re-elected.  Law enforcement spends time and money monitoring people convicted of a sex offense when they should be monitoring those who actually pose a danger to society.  If registries cannot be abolished, they should be reduced by removing all children and by shortening the amount of time individuals should be required to register, according to the ACLU attorney.

Aukerman also discussed the current status of Michigan sex offender laws which were declared unconstitutional by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016.  Despite that ruling, the state of Michigan has failed to modify its sex offender laws.

According to the ACLU attorney, she and others are negotiating with the Michigan state legislature about changes to the state’s sex offender laws.  Because the Court has retained jurisdiction of the case, it could issue an injunction preventing enforcement of the state’s sex offender laws if the legislature does not act quickly.

In the closing of the radio interview, Aukerman posed an important question for the public to consider: do you want to be mad (that someone has already been sexually assaulted) or do you want to be safe (from a future sexual assault)? She then added, “if you want to be safe, you don’t want a registry.”

Interview

Join the discussion

  1. Eric

    It’s happening…it’s happening! Thank you ACLU attorney Miriam Aukerman.

    • Punkrocker88

      Dose this mean the tables have turned??? I like when it makes the news

    • Joe123

      It’s happening in your lifetime. That much is guaranteed. Humans injustices have never stood the test of time.

    • Gary Kelley

      I think it’s way past time for this all to be done. Why should people be punished after serving time. It’s like being resentenced. It doesn’t make society any safer and those that try to live normal can’t.

    • Nicholas

      Hell they reather put aome one in jail then save someones life how i know this its happing to me sadly im on that list of lapses and my brother is thrathing to kill my dad so i would go there to ack as a deturent and being i was there he called the cops saying i lives there as im homeless and work 40 hrs well the 63th court today thraen me with 8 years for being homeless and being at my dads houes for his safty and told me both my “lawer” and the juge sayed if i dont plead out i will be gone for years as i have audio of my brother saying it and manbers and the paster of my church that ask me for they fear for his life but my “lawer” sayed he knows the case is unwinabole so take a plae deal . so i also have ptsd and atixty as well as neing bi poler and last d.i.d all from my first time in jail so i had a panic attack in court and told sine of jail now. Well you can gust what i did. Sorry for grammer spelling and the raint. So even it does come its to late and they dont care they wish only for someone blam and that will naver stop.

    • Guy

      Any new updates?

  2. Gralphr

    Yes, the laws should be abolished or EVERYONE on the registry should be able to get off, and not 25 years later. If a person regardless of the conviction has been out a decade, crime free, how can one say they’re dangerous and should be barred from living where they school, not to mention going to public facilities, while having to pay for them via taxes!? That reeks of unconstitutional abuses of power.

  3. Jack

    Well then, let’s just hope they fail to act here.

    • Chris f

      Failure to reach terms would be a win for all.

      Legislators get to save votes by not looking soft by reducing the registry punishment.

      Judges get to show they gave time for a legislative fix to avoid setting loose all those evil trench coat wearing offenders.

      Registrants get to no longer be registrants.

  4. troy

    now hopefully,it will pass all over the usa or I dreaming?………

  5. Tim in WI

    Just lip service that’s all this is. Who or what is the legislature stuck hard against?
    Federal domestic surveillance saints. Do you believe it does not involve their desired uses of the database? Of course it does, thus they preferred unfettered use. The best way to be granted unfettered use was through the collateral means first justified by attaching the onus to the sexual oriented offender. A path of least resistance the general public would tolerate.

    • Gralphr

      Exactly. They knew they’d never get these Nazi inspired laws passed on their own, so they decided to pick sex offenders as the scapegoat. The man who killed my father in cold blood while I was a child is not in prison any longer and hes not on any registry.

      • Tim in WI

        Gralphr,
        While the SOR regime in some sense does mirror the registration regimes imposed upon the 1930s Jewish European population it still has some implied benevolent intent remaining.

        No man may reasonably dispute the proprietary in gov having a database of convicted bad actors, however a dispute surrounding a human’s subservient disposition to same must be had. There is a big difference between gov having a database machine and gov enslaving the citizen to the machines’ lawful’ upkeep and maintenance.

        • Gralphr

          Thats just it, there’s nothing wrong with a database (after all, everyone with a conviction is in a database). The problem is singling out a group of people for discrimination, throwing out constitutional laws with a wink. marking their personal identification to single them out (passports, drivers licenses in some states). Those are easily compared to the Nazi laws. Its beyond me why people are so quick to try to pretend as if in no way are these draconian laws comparable (not saying you), but they’re easily comparable (minus the gas chambers). My wife and kids are also punished due to myself being on the registry, and they’re forced to conceal the fact I’m on the registry or face banishment by their friends or their friends parents. I even recently viewed some youtube videos of some guy who went to Germany to escape these laws, and Germans said the laws remind them of the Nazi era, which is really something.

  6. Facts should matter

    The unmitigated gall of the courts claiming we have to PROVE harm incurred as a result of being publicly listed on the Online hit list. Hell, shouldn’t it be self-proving and self-evident of being placed in harm’s way by extension of inclusion? I don’t know about you people, but privacy and safety curtailment is a form of abuse and neglect. We’re set up to be snuffed! These vote chasers can’t hide behind the persisting myths of “high recidivism” and “public safety” arguments forever.

    • Gralphr

      Exactly. Not only that, common sense says these laws also affect are families (especially our kids) in a big way. I’m not trusted to be at my kids school for anything (even though other adults are there) yet I’m supposed to trust them with my kid? When you’re banished from living in a certain area, your kids are also punished. Its amazing illegals are in a similar situation (people say think about how their kids feel, if the parents are deported, locked up, etc.) but actual citizens dont get the same treatment.

    • Jon

      I can certainly prove harm, beyond a doubt. Our Daughter was taken from us by CPS, even though we never did anything wrong. We were never charged with a crime. instead they cited that they did not believe my wife could adequately protect our daughter, because I have to register and my wife would not divorce me.
      We did everything they asked of us, but the entire court case was just a dog and pony show so they could say they did what was required. They had zero intentions of returning her, and now our daughter was adopted by the foster woman, who also lied and schemed through the entire thing.
      She was 5 months old when they took her… now she is 5, and no one has any idea what to do. Even Janice said she wouldn’t know where to start, because it involves family law. Also I know she is busy, and something involving just one family isnt so important in the grand scheme of things.
      So do you think I can prove harm? We have been denied the most basic of rights. To have and raise a family, simply because I’m on the registry. That’s pretty harmful if you ask me.

      • James I

        Dear Jon;

        That is heart breaking…I kind of wish I hadn’t read this this morning; I am sure you have made your adjustments…to this real tragedy, and nothing I can say will make it any better.

        This is just incomprehensible to me…the wrongness.

        I am sorry.

        I wish you well, James I

      • Chris f

        Jon, I am sorry to hear about that and wish you the best.

        Unfortunatley, after 5 years it is getting late to undo if your daughter has only known the foster mom. Were you and your wife allowed any visitation to keep any type of familial relationship going?

        It should require strictest judicial scrutiny to break up family. What attorneys were involved in the beginning and what reasons were given? Was this in California? Was your offence against a relative? Recidivism involving a relative is extremely rare if the previous offense wasnt against a relative and any psychologist should testify to that.

        This could require both a family and civil rights attorney and if the people involved with the state that did this to you clearly violated your rights they may not be immne from a lawsuit for damages.

        Please keep us posted and provide more details if you can.

  7. Steve

    This story is good news for a couple reasons. First, the ACLU brings more resources to the table than we possibly could. Secondly, they only commit resources to a fight when they think they will win.

    • AJ

      @Steve:
      And I would add: an interview with NPR gives massive exposure to the case, the facts, and our plight. Once again, the momentum shifts just a smidgen in our favor. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the NPR story gets picked up by some other news service.

      I wonder if my “favorite” SCOTUS member listens to NPR… 😉

      • Gralphr

        One things for sure. If they win and I have a way off the registry there (hopefully after a certain amount of years (less than 20 years or some crazy stuff, I’ve been on it for 13+ now) I will be moving my family to Michigan and I hate the cold. While I was in Indiana I had the ability to petition to get off, but I doubt I would get approved, and I dont want to pay $5k just fir a “no, try again next year). I have never been through a sex offender class (I was never ordered) and that’s one of the things they like to see. (the police at the registry and the one that did my checks said they felt I definitely was a candidate to get off due to my conduct post Imprisonment, but the whole system has left a bad taste in my mouth…..

        • Will Allen

          People should pay no one to petition to get off of the Registries. Not a single dollar to anyone. If anyone is paid, that helps establish that there is some legitimacy to all the idiocy. It doesn’t deserve it.

          People also should not include any psychological “evaluations” or similar. We know those are bunk. Don’t help the criminal regimes pretend they aren’t.

          If no one pays, that will become the expected norm.

          The pathetic thing is if the criminal regimes actually cared about public safety, they would destroy the Registries completely. They don’t care.

        • TS

          While I agree with @Will Allen that no one should pay to get off of the registry, the court would not stand to do their job without their fees to even operate because not even the taxes levied are enough to pay for them in their eyes….or are they?

          I’d like to think to that someone , e.g. a person on the registry currently, in MI who is smart to put together a great pro se petition could really help their fellow people on the registry with a template of what to put together so pro se efforts could be contemplated and possibly completed. I agree with that paying high fees for such a move using a professional is a bit much and discouraging to many who cannot really afford it with those who really are not invested in their client’s lives. Not every atty is a Janice, Chance, et al, who truly understand.

          There was enough support of @Miker here when he was building his case that something similar could happen so the specifics of each case could be filled in where needed while the general repetitive details could be a template for filings. There are enough MI brains who chime in here that I’d like to think they could pool themselves to do this and then help others to pay it forward. Heck, tap into the UM law school students who could possibly help here create the docs needed. You talk about marching on Capital Hill, how about marching on the court system in mass or a long line of people petitioning to be removed? That’ll fill the court system rather quickly possibly.

          I disagree with @Will Allen about the Psych Evals though. They will be needed to show someone is a “safe” person (the legal system’s understanding, not mine). Finding the right person (or people) to do the eval will be key so they are not seen as a hired gun to merely get paid for a favorable report. Having had two of these done seven years apart with the same safe conclusion, finding the right people are key.

        • R M

          @TS who said “…the court would not stand to do their job without their fees…”. Court fees aren’t the problem, lawyer fees are.

        • TS

          @R M

          Maybe you missed the point, but paying to be removed from a registry should not happen regardless if it is an atty fee and/or a court/legal because registries should not exist. That is the point. But if you want to pay court fees to be removed from the registry on top of atty fees or other fees related to being removed, then go for it. As long as registries exist, any fee dealing with them is a fee no one should pay.

        • Will Allen

          No, it was not my point that Registries should not exist. My point is that people should not pay attorneys, psychiatrists, therapists, or anyone else. I don’t really care about nominal court fees.

          Psychiatrists and therapists don’t have any idea if someone is “safe” or not. Don’t help courts or anyone else think otherwise. None of it is legitimate.

          If 1,000 people petition to be removed and none of them have paid for hired help, that will be the correct norm.

          No one should waste $1 more on the illegal Registries. Focus on costing the people who support it.

        • TS

          Getting soft @Will Allen supporting the courts and their criminal regimes as you call them? Very interesting…

        • Will Allen

          @TS:

          It doesn’t really matter but you are totally missing what I’m saying.

          I’m not talking about piddly little fees here and there that everyone has to pay in order to use the courts. Maybe you have to pay some of that. Maybe you have to pay to have papers copied. Just the cost of doing things.

          I’m talking about very big expenses that don’t have to be paid and paying them supports the lie that any of it is legitimate or intelligent. Paying that money also supports a big reason why there are Registries. The people involved in all of it love the money. A key reason that many “people” say the Registries are needed is because of money.

          Lastly, courts don’t have criminal regimes. The criminal regimes are governments.

        • TS

          But @Will Allen, courts are part of the criminal regime since they are in the judicial branch of the government. Can’t get away from them. Just because the courts administer the law as passed by elected officials, the courts are not any less culpable of being part of the regime. We have noted that time and time again here. Judges should grow a spine to administer what they think is best, not what elected officials think to corner judges into administering the law, while prosecutors should also grow a spine and use latitude in their discretion to prosecute before actually going through a court action.

          If there were not registries, then no one would need to petition the court to be removed and pay those associated fees; thus, saving the person money they could use to buy food for their family, pay for a cellphone bill, etc. All of those little fees add up to a lot of little fees in one big pot of fees at the end of the year thus making money for the criminal regime.

    • Harry

      Only, if ACLU was this aggressive 20-25 years ago, there would be no registry.

  8. Jane

    Let me get this straight…it’s been proven unconstitutional AND serves little to no value except costing millions of dollars to tax payers. Hahahaha!! Wow. Don’t worry though…literally nothing has been done to correct it and that also hasn’t been addressed in a manner to truly find even a semi reasonable solution. What the actual F blank C-K.

  9. TnT

    More wolf cookies being served in line two , … I truly believe this is another stall tactic from these jack asses, Beware ! I wouldn’t get my hopes up to much over this , They have been saying the same B.s for years and Nothing ! I still didn’t hear her say what day they were going to “Stop” applying unconstitutional laws to the citizens of the state of Michigan ? Or jailing them if they fail to comply to the unconstitutional amendments that these corrupt politicians have applied as punitive punishment , applying this registry mostly and in many cases years after someone’s sentence ? With out any due prosses what so ever , No judge…No jury….just a room full of corrupt politicians punishing their own citizens at will. What they need in Lansing Mi. is a protest on the steps of the capital building before they will understand we are tired of their B.s ! Comply with the courts or deal with the ones you are affecting.

  10. COOL CA RC

    Now I know where she stand.. I was afraid that they would compromised and nothing changed. Maybe this is a good hope.

  11. Richard

    I am in Missouri myself, however if I was in the great State of Mi. I would not be abiding registration laws that have been deemed unconstitutional My attorney would be notifying state police that if an arrest warrant is issued Bond would be posted and unlawful arrest suit will take place, I believe those in the state of Mi. can sue there local law enforcement who violated the Constitutional right’s even though laws where in place to allow it they were unconstitutional laws and every law enforcer has to take a oath to protect constitution of the united states. I would love to see this take place. Really give em something to think about.

    • COOL CA RC

      Check with the aclu to see if the people in MI can do this..
      Maybe ACLU can write a blanket RTO for everyone who is on the registry

  12. just me

    Thanks for typing this out for some of us who have hard time hearing .

  13. BogAnt

    To my fellow Michiganders, please take the time to read the articles the ACLU has posted in regards to what we are supposed to do until the law changes. They make it very clear, “YOU MUST STAY COMPLIANT UNTIL THE LAW HAS CHANGED ON THE BOOKS”

    In other words, please do not go out and blatantly try to defy the registry and the restrictions. Most jurisdictions are not enforcing the exclusion zones (I myself love less than 1000 feet from a park, and MSP knows). This will only make things worse for you, possibly get you arrested, and additional charges. Yes, eventually the courts would dismiss it, but the ACLU has made it abundantly clear that they cannot represent us in criminal cases, so you would be dishing out pointless money on a lawyer or hoping that a court appointed lawyer would do their job.

    In a nutshell, don’t poke a sleeping bear so to speak. Stay compliant, as the end of finally in sight. This week a package of bills changing the SOR is being presented to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee for deliberation. Next Status update will be the week of September 21st and they have to show significant progress toward reform.

    • Guy

      @Bogants

      Where did you see/hear/find info about bills being introduced this week and do you have info as to what they entail?

  14. David

    I simply do not understand this bullsh#t!
    After 4 years of repeatedly being designated UNCONSTITUTIONAL, why are these laws not AUTOMATICALLY NULL AND VOID as of the Court’s deadline??? 😠
    Why can’t the ruling judge simply say to Michigan’s lawmakers, “Listen, you have a very simple decision to make: You either fix this law by this date or it will be, as of that date, automatically stricken from the State’s statutes? No excuses, no extensions, no delays. Period.” 😠

    • BigAnt

      I wish it was that easy. I’ve been on since 1997. Never should have been placed on the adult registry to begin with, let alone for life, yet here I am.

  15. TnT

    I truly believe, those of us who were forced on to this barbaric punitive registry after our convictions with out a judge or jury ordering us on it , Should have been removed ASAP , How they got away with applying punitive unjust laws to us retroactively is Wrong, I do not understand how they can continue to force these punitive laws upon the citizens of this state , after a court ruling that it is punitive and can not be applied retro actively . I think the politicians of this state are forgetting we still can Vote ! I know myself & my family and friends will Vote against any politician who is against bring this unconstitutional law into compliance with the law. The state of Michigan & corrupt politicians have pulled the wool over the peoples heads long enough with this registry .It has hurt many people and their families, it is not fair. The state should be held responsible for applying this punitive registry ex post facto too thousands of people with out due process, you are not allowed to ever apply punishment after someone has been sentenced already , let alone allow a renegade politicians to amend the laws to apply years and years of punishment to thousands of citizens. This is a civil rights violation to thousands .

    P.s they only get away with applying it to us is because most of us do not have the money too pay our ways threw courts to be removed , This is a true fact they apply these unconditional laws and force them on the poor. If we had money we wouldn’t be on the list.

  16. Don’t tread on me

    All is silent on the Michigan Legislature changing the law. Not surprised…

  17. Cool CA RC

    is there a way to write to this lawyer to encourage or donate?

  18. TnT

    @ Don’t Tread ……. Like a house mouse on Christmas Eve …. They could careless if they are breaking the law. Michigan politicians are nothing but a bunch of bullies who abuse their powers to apply unconstitutional laws to the less privleged citizens of this state. I just wish the civil rights lawyers would step up and make them pay for abusing their powers against the people of this state. To be able to retroactive such a punitive barbaric registry to thousands of citizens after a conviction is double jeopardy .A violation of due process in a court of law, Its a crime for them to turn their cheeks on the fact that it is punitive …. Pure B.S ! These politicians & judges know the damage being put on this registry does to not only the ones they have retroactively applied this punishment to , But the families that have had to suffer from it as well . Sad to see they act like its no big deal.

  19. TnT

    I do know the new administration in Michigan, Have a lot to deal with , a lot of Michigan’s problems stem from them two bozos , Dick Snyder …Opps ..I mean Rick Snyder … and his dirty side kick Bill Schuette .They are to reneged politicans who applied a lot of these punitive amendments to this registry and made them retroactive to citizens with out due process.

    • D Dennis

      Even being retroactive still misses the point that they are punitive in nature and therefore unconstitutional,I am at a loss of understanding why the ACLU has not sued every State in the Union over this ruling. Once it was called punitive that ended its legal structure under civil law, Need to pour gas on this fire to clear the underbrush of civil corruption that they knowingly created to make people’s lives a living he’ll along with all their family, they constantly send propaganda on Facebook. I see it all the time.

      • Will Allen

        Rise up. Time to wage war.

        Join the Registration Liberation Army (RLA). Be a lone wolf (would say “be an army of one” but the U.S. federal criminal regime took that). Run in a pack. But be part of the army. All you have to do to be part of the RLA is declare it to yourself. Join the ACLU and help file the lawsuits.

        • COOL CA RC

          How about Registration Citizen Liberation Army (RLCA)?

  20. TnT

    @ COOL CA RC …. I like that , I think we should all start protesting on the front sidewalks of these corrupt politicians houses with picket signs , I will join … ANY… time any place. We need to start spreading the word to all 45,000 and get the ball rolling .Lets give them the army they have created . It is unconstitutional and barbaric to keep forcing these laws on us after a court of law has told them they are punitive . Most of the laws that convicted most of us are unconstitutional in the fist place , they make these laws to convict with out evidence in 90% of the sex cases they do not even need a time or day , Its sick a total abuse of power. America is supposed to be incent un tell proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt , sh%t , most of us were guilty the second we walked in the court room .With no evidence what so ever , They need more proof to convict someone of stealing a candy bar then sex cases in Michigan, No burden of proof is needed if it involves a minor in Michigan . They have gotten away with these unjust laws for long enough ,its time we do form a coalition to start to fight back . I bet with 45,000 people we could march everyday in front of their houses, from sun up to sun down , 7 days a week, 365 days a year . Easy ! P.s then they will not have to worrie about where we are .

    • Jeremy

      Hey i couldn’t say it any better and i totally 100% agree. 👍 I love your comment. COOL CA RC

  21. The Vampire

    In the past i had a cop get very ticked off at me. I was home and this cop stopped by to check on me. I asked him why you wasting time and taxpayer money? He told me that the police needed to KNOW WHERE i was at all times! I said cool! WHERE was i last night? He looked at me with a shocked face and said don’t get smart with me. But i still keep asking where will i be tomorrow? Or a week from now. Where was i last week. The cop was pretty mad cause he couldn’t tell me. Anyway to stop in and check on people is a waste of taxpayer money they should be out catching drunk drivers! The registers list need to go! It does not stop crime. You could drive across the state and no one would even know you was on the list. Law makers are the worst people in the world. Passing laws and not thinking about how it could impact there family or friends or grandkids.

    • MD

      Isn’t that considered harrassment. If they just drop in. I know that you all have to register and all and sometime they do sweeps to check on you all but to just drop in when a cop feels like it sounds like harassment if you are doing nothing wrong. They don’t even keep that much eyes on people who are paroled for murdering and they could murder again. Or even robbery. Complete BS

      • Will Allen

        Yes, it is harassment. But people allow it so they promote and encourage it. So it will continue.

        The Registries themselves are harassment. Nothing legitimate about them or the people who support them.

  22. John

    There was a news article posted on September 10th addressing the Michigan deadline. Here is a line that confused me A LOT!

    “Lawmakers have not acted because no changes have been suggested by the task force charged with addressing the judge’s orders, state Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee Chairman Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Township, told The News. That’s despite the Aug. 21 deadline for change having come and gone.”

    If that’s the case, then what in the HELL have they been doing all this time????and especially the past 90 DAYS???? I thought the “Task force” (that met every week) was suggesting the changes to make to Sora with some type of agreement in process. This rep is on the senate judiciary committee. What in the hell does she mean “No Changes have been suggested”?????

    Enough of the games, an Injunction needs to be requested NOW!

    Article Link:
    https://www.thealpenanews.com/news/local-news/2019/09/lawmakers-miss-deadline-to-change-sex-offender-registry/

  23. Bobby S.

    Hello Everyone,

    I just receives this email from the MCFJ (Michigan Citizens for Justice) So if some one would kindly explain to me what this means in laymen’s terms, and how this may or may not affect the fact that the legislature has to revise the registry would be much appreciated, I am kind of confused on how this will affect pre-sorna registrants. Here is the link: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2019-HB-4857

    • Josh

      @BobbyS….as near as I can tell it is just changing the language of the 1994 statute. I don’t think it has anything to do whatsoever with what’s going on now….this same guy introduced another bill mentioned by somebody else on here earlier today….I’d do what I always do when I’m not sure and ask @Aj to take a look and see what he thinks…

      • John

        They EXTENDED the sex offender registration annual fees to the year 2023 is what the bill means. Remember Michigan legislature is working on the “Budget” right now that is due in October. How else can they get more revenue?

        Yes…….the bill they introduced on 8/29/19, PASSED IT INTO LAW on 9/11/19 (which was less than a month), but didn’t do ANYTHING yet about addressing the Sixth Circuit’s issues. Please don’t let anyone tell you that getting a bill passed is a “slow” process to go through the legislature. They pass what they want to pass quickly, and sleep on the other bills. Not surprised though, as it only took them two months to introduce AND pass the 2011 SORA Changes, but yet almost 4 years (and counting ) and nothing has been introduced to remove the unconstitutional parts of the registry.

        “House Bill 4857 would amend the Sex Offenders Registration Act (1994 PA 295) by extending the applicability of the fee assessed for annual registration to the sex offender registry. Currently, individuals initially required to register after January 1, 2019, are not required to pay the annual registration fee. The bill would maintain the FY 2018-19 fee amount by extending the date by which initial registration had to occur for a registrant to be responsible for the annual registration fee to January 1, 2023.The fee is currently $50 annually. A maximum lifetime cumulative fee amount of $550 is established in the act, which includes an initial $50 registration and ten $50 annual registrations”

        “MSP estimates that the resulting revenue loss if the sunset is not extended would total approximately $500,000 annually from the $30 portion of the fee.The estimated revenue loss for all registering authorities resulting from the loss of the $20 portion would totalapproximately $330,000. “

      • AJ

        @Josh:
        It appears John has already stepped up and laid it out. (*whew!* 😀 ) Reading what he posted, it is indeed a bit of a digital rectal exam to RCs (were there ever analog ones?). Instead of solving anything worthwhile, they’re instead focusing on the money-grab. Gee, what a surprise out of slimy, self-serving legislators who care nothing about facts (80%!) and courts (6th CCoA).

  24. Ann

    I just got off the phone with Sue Allor’s office. They have the Bill. It is being introduced to the Committee tomorrow. They are expecting to vote on it next Wednesday. I will call them back the following week to get an update. And I will be meeting with Sue next Monday while she is in town. As soon as I know something, I will share it with all of you.

    • Will Allen

      Unless the bill is to destroy the Registries completely there will be no reason to cut the criminal regime of Michigan any slack. I do expect that some people who have been Registered will stop Registering and then they can join the pro-Registry scumbags, but that will be about it.

      As soon as we just get the “right” people listed on the Registries, all will be fine and we can all go on and live great lives and ignore THOSE people. I look forward to the day when I can be all moral and hate them too.

    • blake

      like the legit bill the judge wants? do you have any details at all of what we could be getting changed. I appreciate you letting us know. Hopefully its good stuff and the stuff gets passed.

      • Don’t tread on me

        I’m not sure if this will be any help. The link is an audio interview outlining the proposed changes to the law. I found it interesting but unsure of what the end bill will look like.

        https://audio.womenagainstregistry.org/The-Status-and-Potential-Impact-of-the-Does-v.-Snyder-Case-Shelli-Weisberg-Women-Against-Registry-Recorded-July-8-2019?fbclid=IwAR1MKBXT4mHsmqOzbp4sPsopk7X1MAw5YbnHOMQtsnAVJp1Az5iAyrfggmQ

      • Ann

        I’ll hopefully know the details next Monday when I meet with Sue.

        And I have a question for Will Allen. What do you think should be done about those sex offenders who are repeat sexual offenders, ie serial rapists? I was getting ready to go before the parole board when a sex offender who had be released two weeks prior had kidnapped, raped, and then killed a little girl. Because of his actions, I was given a 24 month continuance.
        Should the law makers turn a blind eye to those individuals? I hate being on this list just as much as the rest of you. But there needs to be some common sense here. I agree that not all of us belong on this list. But there truly are some who do belong on there. So pull your head out of your backside, and think about all of this rationally.

        • TS

          @Ann

          Is that what civil commitment is for when applied appropriately through proper processing, e.g. individual assessments, etc, while remaining constitutional through such methods? What do you define as serial, e.g. two, more than two, etc? Doesn’t three strikes apply if usable? If folks are that heinous, then the system needs to be on top of it but to punish the rest of those who are not in the same vein as a serialist is not needed through a registry. There are enough smart people to deal with such people as shown through the ages.

        • Don’t tread on me

          Ann, as much as I want to agree with you, I can not. While I sincerely agree that some people pose a huge risk to the community at large, placing them on a public registry serves zero purpose. We pay huge sums of tax money to police agencies. If the courts choose to release someone from prison that has proven on 2 or more occasions to be a danger then I believe it is up to the police and the courts to rectify. A registry is not going to stop anyone from raping or molesting. It only serves to destabilize close to one million families nationwide. A police only registry is no different than the previous database of criminal convictions. That being said, the general public should have zero access to someone’s history. It only serves to further punish an individual for their entire life. The vast majority of registrants never offend again. I digress…

        • SR @ Ann

          Ann, think about what you just wrote. A man convicted of a sex offense was released, obviously had to register, yet he committed another offense anyway. Furthermore, I’m willing to bet him being registered was of zero help to the police in arresting him. He was probably identified by the victim, they used literally the same mug shots that EVERYONE who was arrested has, the address he obviously had to register because he’s on supervision, and he was recaptured because of all these existing tools that apply to everyone. At that time, and every future time, the registry is not preventing anything.

          Sure, some will argue they can use the registry to keep kids safe. I challenge them to say how so? So they know their neighbor has to register. And? If an adult is trying to make friends with your kid, is checking the registry your only consideration for someone that old being friends with your child? And if your child is friends with another child and wishes to spend time with them, is someone really checking up on that child’s address to make sure it comes up clean? Maybe a small fraction of people do that, but no way is it done in any frequency where one: someone actually checks, and two: that person is actually looking to offend again.

          The registry is an illusion of safety which the vast majority don’t actually use because they figure someone on the registry is less likely to offend because they are “being watched”. While the reality is that all the various laws deeply cut into every one of the registered individuals and their families abilities in finding jobs, housing, travel, and the ability to fully be involved as a parent in their child’s lives.

          People love to say when they are backed into a corner, “Push me again and see what happens?” and feel they are justified by their subsequent actions, but they don’t seem to consider when society by the large constantly keeps pushing all registrants into the corner and kicking them in the ribs, resulting in the person snapping in various ways that majority of the time doesn’t include anything having to do with another sex offense.

          Many activists constantly talk about how we need justice reform because all these ex convicts have all these barriers because of their record which leads to struggles in re-integration, and rightfully acknowledge society far worse off for it as a whole. Yet they rarely seem to include people having to register when often many of those that do have to register only having to do so on technicalities like being under 18 and having a conviction for “child porn” due to their own nude selfies. Is society really better off constantly exclude these offenders while rallying for others on their 3rd DUI or 2nd armed robbery, and basically just about everything else that doesn’t require registering yet have actually caused direct harm?

          The registry in reality is a political tool for politicians to pick rotting fruit from to garner votes.

        • @ Ann

          He was released as an SO, so he evidently was ON the registry when he did this horrific crime?! What purpose did the registry serve in saving the child? I wouldn’t be surprised if nobody knew he was registered until AFTER they caught him or knew who he was; that the registry didn’t actually help catch him. (Speculation, as i don’t know the case.)

        • Will Allen

          Pull my head out of my backside, LOL?! Whoa, okay! Please allow me to prove you 100% wrong.

          Let’s take your “serial rapist”. Do you really think he would care about being listed on some magic Registry? Really?! What do you imagine that would do?

          Let’s say that guy wants to rape again. Maybe he “has” to?! He knows that the law enforcement criminals (LECs) have his DNA, but he obviously doesn’t care. I’m not sure how $EX criminals get around that huge problem, but evidently they try. So the LECs have his DNA but he is going to attack anyway. But wait!! He remembers that he is listed on the magic hit list!

          Then he decides not to commit this massive felony because the hit list is magically stopping it. He realizes how good the hit list has been to him and his family. He realizes that it doesn’t make him angry and violent at all. Realizes that it has really helped him connect with his neighbors and be part of the community. And with his friends and family even. Society in general. Kept him employed and busy. And really just in general has kept him feeling so good about himself, his life, and people in general. Has helped lower his stress.

          Is that what you imagine?

          What I imagine is that he remembers that he is listed on the magic hit list and then he decides to travel 1,000 miles from anywhere he is Registered and attack someone. And feel good about it. That is what I imagine.

          I really do not understand how anyone could POSSIBLY think that listing such a person would do ANYTHING good. Would stop him from attacking a neighbor? Because rapists usually ask for permission, I guess. No wait – because the neighbor would just now decide that they needed a gun because of this guy being nearby. And the rapist would never think someone might have a gun or try to protect themselves. Ohhhh, maybe they’ll buy some video cameras?!

          And another part is who the hell thinks it is a good idea to take someone who MIGHT be mentally unstable or whatever, back that person into an ever-shrinking corner, and continually taunt him, tell him he’s unredeemable trash, and poke him with sticks? Really? Show me anyone with any sense who thinks that is a good idea.

          You know that plenty of people just like that have retaliated specifically because of the Registries and gone out and murdered people, right? I know directly of cases where a 6 year old boy was murdered and another where a 13 year old girl was murdered. Directly because of the Registries. We know the Registries are getting people killed. So how many are acceptable in order to keep the Registries? It has to be weighed out – are all the children being fake protected by the Registries worth all of them being killed? What is the number that makes it not worth it? 10 dead per year? 100? I don’t know. What do they say? If it murders 1 child, it’s worth it? Something like that. And don’t even get me started on the adults, even though no one really cares much how many of them die.

          So putting your serial rapist on a hit list is worthless AND dumb.

          Who else could we put on? How about your average, every day child molester? Surely that would help, right? Nope.

          Say you have 2 neighbors and 1 of them is listed on your magic hit list and the other is not. Which has committed more child molestations? Which is more likely to commit one today? Which is more likely to get mad at you and hire someone to burn your home down with you and your family in it? Which is more dangerous?

          You don’t have the first clue. So exactly what good has your magic hit list done for you?

          Oh, I know … you will not hire the Registered person to babysit your pre-teen and will hire the other neighbor instead. Then while you are feeling all proud of yourself and reading your Registries, that guy will molest your child. That is EXACTLY what happens. How much proof of that do we all need? If you educated your child and supervise them, you could hire either guy and they would not be molested. But the Registries aren’t going to help you if you don’t.

          The fact is that Registries are dumb, not needed, and not significantly beneficial. But, I really, really would like to hear anyone explain some scenarios where they think that is not true. I would love to read such scenarios. So please have at it.

          Few people seem to think be listed on the Registries is THAT big of a deal. But is that really true?! Perhaps I am uninformed but haven’t the vast majority of Registered People wondered how to commit mass murder? Haven’t the vast majority thought about how to retaliate? Have there been any surveys or studies about that? Can’t say that I’ve seen any. I know that I would not be a Jeffrey Epstein. I would be thinking homicide long, long, long before suicide. And I have a lot of assets but I wouldn’t leave $1 that anyone could touch. It would be long gone to my family and friends. That’s estate planning 101.

          In summary, there just is simply no argument to be made that putting most people on the Registries is not much worse than just worthless. Does it help with any Registered People? Maybe 5% of them? 10%? Who knows. Really, I can’t think of a much dumber way to pretend that you are “protecting” people and doing ANYTHING about reducing crimes. Hmm, maybe a dumber way would be to say that you’ve cast a magic spell on a person to help prevent crimes. I guess that would be dumber.

          The whole country needs to stop supporting big government and believing the emperor has some awesome clothes. Let’s take just a tiny fraction of the resources being wasted on Registries and theater and actually try to do something about reducing crime. If we ACTUALLY cared about reducing $EX crimes, we’d do something about it. But we don’t care.

        • AJ

          @Ann:
          A registry won’t stop anyone who is bent on doing something. If it did, they wouldn’t have landed on the registry in the first place. A registry is useless for those who never go on to re-offend (95% of us), and it’s useless for the others (5%) who re-offend. It stops neither party; the former because they’ve already stopped, the latter because they won’t be stopped. The example you give is part of that 5%, and obviously the registry is toothless against someone like him.

          As I’ve said time and time again: there is no law that can stop someone who doesn’t care about the repercussions of his/her actions. If sufficiently inclined, someone will break a law. Period. If this weren’t the case, by now we’d have no murders, no robberies, etc. Laws clearly don’t change behavior in everyone.

        • Bobby

          I agree Ann. Most people on the list don’t belong there, but people that have reoffended, well, maybe they do? I mean, If I knew everyone on the list did something more than once knowing the outcome and not caring I’d be way more watchful for them around my kids. Because they have proven they don’t care, and are more likely to commit again than a random stranger to commit once. I think at that point though it would be some mental state they are in maybe?

        • Will Allen

          @Bobby:

          There should not be Registries. End of story. It doesn’t matter if a person has offended 10 times – listing the person on a Registry will only make that worse.

          I’ve proven that Registries are not needed or beneficial. Trivial. Registry Supporters/Terrorists won’t even TRY to dispute it. They like Registries because it makes them feel good.

          Another key reason that we can’t have Registries though is because Nanny Big Governments (NBGs) all over Amerika have proven beyond doubt that they cannot have and use them responsibly. They lied that they needed a shiny new toy just so people could be “informed” and then once they got it, they thoroughly abused and misused it. They couldn’t justify the destruction the Registries have caused Amerika if their lives depended on it.

          NBGs are incapable of being responsible and most people living in Amerika cannot be either. So they can’t have their toy and live in peace.

          But one thing I know for sure is if someone thinks that there should be Registries then I want that person listed on it. Those people should definitely be listed because they are a danger to everyone. They are much more dangerous than anyone who would commit a $EX crime.

          People who think Registries are okay need to be listed on them. I’ll support that. Some of the people that are listed now are NBG’s wet dream, they are such compliant “$EX offenders”. Those are the people that we need to keep listed because they are good with it and harmless. Other people are not harmless.

        • Will Allen

          @AJ:

          Registries make “common sense” to me, just like it does to many Registry Terrorists (RTs). If I were an RT, I’d try to argue that people just want to “know” and what is the harm? Why not be allowed to know that my neighbor has committed crime X? And the Registries are not really for preventing crimes. They are so I know what people have done in the past. That’s it. That does make sense to me.

          But of course, I think all informed people with brains understand that flimsy “need” is not really useful or nearly worth the damage the Registries bring. Personally, I’m sure that there are more $EX crimes because Registries exist than there would be if they did not. There is certainly more crime in general. And I’m not talking about the idiotic Registry-related “crimes”. I’m talking about real, actually damaging crimes.

          And the overall damage caused by Registries is huge and very widespread. I think that may actually be the most damaging part to Amerika even. Just the loss of patriotism it is causing is extremely damaging. The hate it creates certainly is.

          I think if I had to design some feel-good, do-nothing system to make it look like I was trying to do something about crime, I’m not sure I could come up with a more idiotic, worthless, damaging system than Registries. Seems clear to me.

  25. Mario

    In regards to the new Bill’s being discussed how will this affect those with lifetime GPS? Will this mean they get removed as well or are they subject to a different definition of the law? For those who have been on the registry for over 10 yrs. will they automatically be taken off?

    • Ann

      @Mario I will ask Sue on Monday when I speak with her.

      Everyone can put their specific questions pertaining to the bill here. I’ll write those questions down Sunday night. And then I’ll get the answers for you on Monday.

      As long as the questions are polite, I’ll ask them. Sue Allor is my local representative. She’s always listened when I’ve called and spoken to her.

      So I’ll get as many answers as I can get, short of having a copy of the bill in my hands.

      And I guess I’m lucky where I live. The police don’t harass me. In fact, I have friends in all three police departments. I’ve NEVER thought about mass murder. And I’ve made it clear to everyone, that if there is something they want to know about me, just come ask me. The people in my community don’t treat me any different than they do anyone else. But that may be because I am so open about things. And most of the people here have literally known me, my entire life.

      • blake

        i was hoping to see the bill outlined in the legislator today. Whats going on with juviniles that were not tried as adults? and what is the max time on the registry everyone will be looking at?

        in other new michigan wants to pass a child abuse registry now that has the same exact reporting and public registry as the sex offender registry. its in the michigan legislator site under criminal bills.

        • CR

          Nice trick, that… I haven’t read the bill, so I’m guessing, but if or when they make the child abuse registry retroactive, it will most likely recapture everyone released from SORA who has committed a sex offense against a child. I expect it will be a civil regulatory law, not deemed punishment.

          If it passes, get ready for another protracted (decades long) fight in court.

      • Will Allen

        Looks like you are doing really useful work that people will appreciate and that’s nice.

        I’m glad that Registration does not affect you very much. Given your situation, I’d like to understand how you would handle a couple of hypothetical occurrences. If you have some time, would you mind replying how you would handle these occurrences:

        1. Say that law enforcement noticed one of your vehicles in another city or state for a while. They then came to your home and asked you why that vehicle was there.

        2. Say that your state’s legislators decided that it would implement new “residency restrictions” and your home fell within a restricted area. Law enforcement then came to your home and informed you that you must move within 30 days.

        3. Say you have young children and they are not allowed to play with any other children in the neighborhood because their parents have told them so.

        I’m just curious because I find it very intriguing that people have such wide responses to the Registries. If anyone other than @Ann would like to respond after she has done so, please do.

        Additionally, @Ann, if you’d care to respond to the other comment that I made about why Registries are worthless, that would be cool too.

      • Mario

        @Ann, Thank you for getting back to my questions. I look forward to your responses on these issues regarding GPS removal.

      • Ray

        1. Would like to know if people with expunged record can be removed from the registry

        2. Are they planning to shorten the length of registry, if so how does it work.

        Thanks Ann.

    • dukester1984

      Hi Mario that is a good question too cause i wanted to know that too about the GPS. That would be so nice if it is part of the bills. Thank you @Ann

  26. Disgusted in Michigan

    A child abuse registry? Sounds like Michigan is trying to garner up some more federal funds because of all the sex offenders who will potentially be removed from the registry. I got an idea. Lets get public registries for everything from shoplifting to murder and make it retroactive. That way there will be tens of millions of people going on those registries and all the police departments can be absolutely so flooded with people going in to register that they won’t have enough staff to take care of it and won’t have the manpower to patrol the roads or respond to 911 calls.
    Great idea Michigan.

    • blake

      theres like 3 bills concerning this so im assuming they think its gonna pass. they will have to go to the police station every 3 months as well and pay 50 dollars a year like we do. its madness.

      • CR

        Intent may be to recapture those who are to be released under SORA rewrite who had “child” (under 18) victims.

  27. TnT

    Michigan is full of $hit …. Well see just exactly what they will do , very soon, I am guessing another run around B.s change like always , These politicians are good at B.S promises , over the last 28 years its been the same old B.s. Don’t hold your breather . Look what they are doing nothing except adding more amendments and more punitive laws to enforce their unconstitutional registry & more ways too put more people on it & more ways too cash in on it .

    • blake

      heres what i think. I think they know they are slowly losing their grip on the sex offender registry as it is now. Almost every state is getting sued left and right and they know they cant say we offend at a higher rate now so they are losing their foothold in this. The game is up. They know it. Within a couple year i bet the aclu will keep suing them into the ground over and over. So what to do? Smart thing would be to go after crimes with high re offending rates and would be easier to justify what they want to do. Who is going to oppose a law aimed at protecting children? Nobody. its gonna pass. Soon dwi registries will come. Anyone cought selling hard drugs and get a felony will be on a list. Murderers. Its coming. New york already has a pet abuse registry. I told my gf the public will soon reap what they sow. They wanted a sex offender registry so bad but now i think they shot themselves in the foot.

      • CR

        I suspect for now the main intent is to recapture everyone who is to be released under the SORA rewrite who had a victim who was a minor.

        It’ll be an all new (many years long) court battle.

        Who knows, maybe ACLU will be OK with that. Someone should pose that question to MI ACLU.

        • Disgusted in Michigan

          I doubt it is intended to recapture those who will be released from SORA. My guess is it would apply only to child abuse crimes defined by MCLs. Since most sex offenses are not defined as child abuse under MCLs, I don’t think it would happen.
          To answer one of Will’s questions to Ann about restrictions on where you can live, I do believe there was a law passed some time ago in Michigan that basically stated if you already lived within a school zone for a certain amount of time you wouldn’t have to move. It may have been amended though so I don’t know for sure.
          I’ve noticed it was quite typical for the bill concerning extending the annual fee zipped through the House very quickly while the youthful offender Bill is still sitting.
          Its time to end this BS as I’m almost 27 years into registering when it was originally supposed to be 25. Not to mention that SORA didn’t even exist when I was convicted.

        • CR

          @Disgusted in Michigan — “I doubt it is intended to recapture those who will be released from SORA. My guess is it would apply only to child abuse crimes defined by MCLs. Since most sex offenses are not defined as child abuse under MCLs, I don’t think it would happen.”

          Maybe at first it won’t include sex offenses, but look at what happened with sex offense and registry laws over the past 30 years. Legislatures continually expanded the reach and breadth of the registry to include more and more crimes. In some states, it includes crimes that aren’t even sex offenses.

          What makes you so sure the same unbridled legislative frenzy won’t happen with the child abuse registry law? How much of a stretch do you think it would be to define sex offenses against minors as child abuse?

        • Will Allen

          @Disgusted in Michigan:

          Thanks for trying to address what I asked @Ann or ANYONE else to try to answer. I really do appreciate your time. But I didn’t ask if there are restrictions in Michigan or anywhere else.

          If you have some time, it would be great if you could address what I did say to @Ann in a couple of comments. None of it was actually specific to her but is instead for everyone, especially anyone who thinks Registries are just fine – as long as they personally aren’t listed on them.

          And just FYI, I’ve been eligible to petition/beg big government to be released from the Registries for a good while now. I expect I will before next spring. I’ll ask nicely but I don’t think I’m going to use an attorney, therapist, letters of reference, etc. IF they were smart, they’d be falling all over themselves right now, TODAY, to remove me from their hit list. But we all know they aren’t smart. We’ll see what they do in the future and what I must do in response. It’s a shame they are such stupid criminals. I pray they burn in hell.

  28. Disgusted in Michigan

    @Will Allen, here’s my thoughts on your questions:
    1. Say that law enforcement noticed one of your vehicles in another city or state for a while. They then came to your home and asked you why that vehicle was there.
    I’m the only one who drives my vehicle and I will never take it out of state, but if I did, I would tell the cops that I don’t speak to police, or I would say am I being detained or am I free to go?

    2. Say that your state’s legislators decided that it would implement new “residency restrictions” and your home fell within a restricted area. Law enforcement then came to your home and informed you that you must move within 30 days.
    I would file a claim under ex post facto and refuse to move because after the court’s ruling in Does v Snyder I don’t think Michigan would want to implement retroactive registry laws again…but then again this is Michigan.

    3. Say you have young children and they are not allowed to play with any other children in the neighborhood because their parents have told them so.
    My 3 daughters are grown adults now and I’ve never had any issues with neighbors, but if something like that had ever happened I would explain to my girls that apparently the neighbors think they (my girls) are too beautiful and respectful to play with their children.

    I’m at work for another hour but when I get home I’m going to share some of the things that have happened to me personally. You’ll find it interesting reading and some things will really show how hateful Michigan is to registrants.

  29. Disgusted in Michigan

    Here’s some of what I have had to deal with. My conviction was in spring of 1993. My conviction was consentual with a girl who was 15 going on 30. She looked much older and I met her at an 18 and over club. When her parents found out, they didn’t do anything and even condoned it telling me to just treat her right. I was 22. after a while her mother started making moves on me but when I rejected her advances she went ahead and filed a police report on me. The girl’s father told me what his ex wife did was BS because he considered me a decent guy. But I was sentenced to 5-15 and ended up maxing because I refused to admit to things that never happened during group therapy. About 3 months before my discharge date, I received an amended Judgment of Sentence in the mail stating that because my offense was committed while on a previous parole (I had never been on parole before) my sentence was extended to make it consecutive to the previous sentence. Of course I protested and I wrote a letter to the judge stating what he dis was a major breach of his authority. He eventually changed my sentence back to the original and I discharged in July 2006.
    I moved to an area in Sanilac County and rented a house. The day I took possession of the house I went to the sheriff office and they gave me a bunch of BS about how I needed to bring copies of my utility bills to prove I lived there. I told them to shove it because I was only required to show a valid ID. For several weeks they came to my house all hours of the night to “verify” that I lived there. It was 3 months later that the MDOC absconder recovery unit came to my house and arrested me for “escape”. I sat in jail for a few days not knowing what was going on and eventually transported back to prison without a trial. A couple months later I learned that the MDOC had again contacted my judge and told him he needed to change my sentence back, which he summarily did. I filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus which I fought for almost 3 years. There was a similar case in the Michigan Supreme Court at the time that the state was losing against so Michigan eventually gave up on my case and discharged me. I did file a suit for tons of civil rights violations and won a large settlement.
    I moved to a different county but then again had issues with the police coming to my house nightly right after I verified. always between 2 and 3 in the morning for several days in a row. I finally got sick of the harassment and moved to where I am now and I haven’t had any issues. Been there 2 years now and never once has there been a compliance check.
    I do have a girlfriend who lives with me and knows me well. She knows my past because I don’t hide anything from her. But I did have an issue with a former girlfriend who has a brother who is a Detroit cop. He thought it would be ok to come to my house and harass and threaten me even though he has a lot to talk about having molested his little sister starting at age 6 until she was 12. I busted him on surveillance camera trying to plant narcotics in my vehicle. I’ve never touched dope in my life. I was lucky enough to be on very good terms with a police chief in a nearby town I used to live in and with his help we got the video into the right hands and the Detroit cop was only disciplined with a week off with pay. But at least I have proof he is corrupt and he was told to stay in his own jurisdiction and away from me.
    I’m lucky enough to have a very good job with a very good high salary. I was up front and honest at my interview with the HR manager and she gave me a chance because she and my supervisor and manager liked the way I presented myself at the interview.
    I remember getting my life sentence in the mail in 2011. I actually did think about filing an ex post facto claim back then but just never got around to it. But I’m very thankful to the Does plaintiffs for bringing it because hopefully soon I’ll come off the registry as my 25 original years were up last year. I just want my life back with no restrictions and no quarterly reporting. Registries are absolutely useless. If I wanted to commit a sex crime, which I don’t, how is the registry going to stop me? It can’t. People are going to do what they want to do regardless of laws and registries.

    • Will Allen

      Well, you were right, that was interesting reading. I don’t think I’ve had to deal with perhaps 10% of what you have. Not sure how I would react to all that. Great to hear that you fought back. Great to hear that you won a lot.

      Ironically, one of my first girlfriends was 15 and I was 17 when we were having $EX. I was a 17 yo dipshit so she probably would’ve been better off having $EX with a 22 yo. But I don’t want to go down that “age of consent” rabbit hole. I can’t even say that I’ve put a ton of thought into it. I do think we need age of consent laws and that we probably do have to just pick some consensus number. But 22 and 15 only seems mildly predatory to me and I doubt much worse than 17 and 15 actually. Not like 40 and 15 does. But enough of that.

      That 2 and 3 in the morning BS is criminal. I would’ve tried very hard to immediately put a stop to that. If I owned the property (or perhaps even rented), I’d have a wall or fence around the property within a week. Cost be damned. The law enforcement criminals (LECs) wouldn’t get close to the home again. ACSOL won’t let me say what I’d like to see happen to LECs showing up at that time of day. I’d be happy if “compliance checks” were much more dangerous than serving warrants. That would be perfect.

      It is great to hear that your life seems in good shape now. You answered very sensibly about the 3 scenarios that I presented above. Made too much sense. I guess I was more wondering what the Registry Supporters/Enablers on here would do, given how compliant and moldable they are.

      Registry Terrorists will say that you are listed on the Registry so that you don’t try to have $EX with another 15 year old. So that your neighbors will know about you. And co-workers, I guess. But you are a perfect example of the idiocy of the Registries. Who needs to know about you? A neighbor? WTF for? If I am living next to a guy your age, I’m not going to let him hang out with my 15 yo daughter regardless of if he is Registered or not. In fact, I would treat a Registered Person and an Unregistered Person EXACTLY the same in regard to that. It wouldn’t matter what big government told me about either of them. A person would have to be an idiot to think a Registry would do anything sensible for them in that case. But most people in Amerika are idiots, so there you go.

    • Chris f

      I dont think 2 or 3am visits qualify under knock and talk court cases as constitutional. If a girlscout or insurance salesman did that it wouldnt be tolerated and the judiciary only gave the cops as much leeway as everyone else and no more.

      • AJ

        I second what @Chris f says about the visits during the middle of the night. That is absolutely contrary to normal societal behavior, and that is the ONLY leeway SCOTUS gave TBLs when the make a 4th Amdt. intrusion into one’s curtilage. (Yes, it is a 4th Amdt. intrusion, but it’s not a violation…except perhaps at 2 AM without cause.) Good old FL v. Jardines spells it all out quite clearly (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/1/).

  30. TnT

    Sounds like unconstitutional laws , these law makers pass, then amend ,too trap and convict thousands of the states citizens, in many cases with little to no evidence to support the convictions they apply to people with a life time of punishment, only too create revenue too support their unconstitutional registry. Last 25 plus years of this “MeToo” movement B.s with the fake studies and lies they used to convince the public to support this unconstitutional registry . As well as allowing politicians to write laws that will hang a man before hes even had a trial , Witch hunt B.s . with little to nothing , Its been going on for 25 plus years now , 45,000 in this state alone s%$t 1 Million in 52 states . Its Sick to think that these law makers and judges get away with this B.s . That’s just the ones on the registry in Michigan, let alone the amount of families that it punishes, in many cases years after a persons conviction . What is really F%$@ked up is they only got away with this crap by saying it wasn’t punitive for the last 27 years …..But we all knew the truth ….Now they know the truth as well, look at what they used to support it.. the Alaskan sex offender registry???? , that was just ruled unconditional ??? , 45,000 and growing??? ……Ooops I mean 1 Million and growing ,soon we will be the army and they will be the ones too pay for the damage they have caused . Stay strong… if things donnt change soon, I say we set a Lansing State Capital Protest . Id love nothing more then to get in the face of one of these little pecker wood politicians , let em know just how pissed I am they took my life with nothing but hang man B.s laws they support . Not too mention them applying this life sentence punitively on a registry to me ex post facto, years after my conviction . Its B.s !!!!!!!!!!!!

    • blake

      So nobody knows whats going on? Ann said they had the bill ready last thursday. Said they would introduce it friday.Said they would voting on it tomorrow. So far ive heard nothing about it. Its not even on the legislature website. What is going on? this is getting more and more frustrating by the day.

  31. TnT

    The only Just registry ………NO REGISTRY !

    P.s I write these Jack A$$$ all the time but sure would be worth the drive to express it face too face 🙂

  32. R388

    Has anyone heard anything yet

  33. Rick

    If some kind of agreement or resolution is met, there should be a new evaluation on those with static 99 or tier rating. They should consider what we have done since we’ve been released, Right? Not to judge us on what was in the past, but where we are at now.

  34. 19 years

    The courts better change something soon. I had a high profile attorney ready to sue. But i was told to wait for the state of michigan to see what they did with the law change.

  35. Don’t tread on me

    This waiting is driving me insane

    • peoplearesheep

      im with you bro. My depression and anxiety are at a all time high. I told my gf if michigan decides to keep me on longer than me getting off when the new law in nebraska changes to let any juvenile move there and not have to be on the registry we will be moving.

  36. Guy

    So according to the motion and brief. The state has 21 days to reply correct?

    So if the judge sides with the motion. That would mean the statue for all those pre 2011 SORA is null and void?

    If I read this thing correctly.

    • Dave

      The Michigan ACLU has updated it’s SORA page regarding the current motion.

      https://www.aclumich.org/en/SORA

    • CR

      As I understand it, yes. Much of the current law is unconstitutional as written insofar as it applies retroactively to pre-2011 offenders (based on date of offense, not adjudication). This is now settled law in MI because of the 6th Circuit’s ruling in Snyder v Does. Further, the ACLU argues that the 2011 amendments are not severable. That is, what is left of MI SORA after excise is unintelligible absent the 2011 amendments. They argue that it therefore can’t be applied to anyone.

      If the judge agrees, then he can declare all of SORA inoperable. Or, he could punt by certifying the question of severability to the MI Supreme Court to decide. MI ACLU argues that if he does the latter, he should at least grant relief to pre-2011 registrants in the meantime, since the law, as applied to them, is unquestionably unconstitutional.

      What I think is important to understand is, that even if pre-2011 registrants are relieved from a duty to register under the current law, it does not mean that they will be free forever. The MI legislature can pass a new law that constituionally reaches back as far as they wish, to require registration of all of those pre-2011 registrants again. It simply can’t impose punishment retroactively. Per SCOTUS in 2003 Smith v Does (Alaska), that law was constitutional in retroactive application. A similarly fasioned new SORA would be presumptively constitutional. Such a law would, presumably, be far less burdensome than the current SORA. It would be a win, but it would not equal freedom.

      • C

        @cr. U da man. I dont think 99% of the people on here understand what ur saying. Believe that the legislators in michigan will do ALL that they can to keep as many people on the registry as possible. Other states such as ohio indiana Pennsylvania illinois. They don’t care about federal funds for abiding by federal sora law application. Michigan does. They want to b reimbursed so to speak for everything registry related. Just read the last couple pages of ag nessel brief to the mich supreme court. She wants to make sure mich receives thee approximately $5 million in federal funding. If Mich didnt care about the registry they woulda fixed it back when the ruling came down. The states around us have. Just look at the newest amendment introduced. It takes out juveniles 14 years and older. This means that children under 14 yrs of age can b placed on the registry. Think about that

      • Josh

        @Cr has touched on my absolute worst fear when it comes to this. I’ve long held the belief that there will be no legislative relief for us….only whatever the judge decides. In that regard, I would then expect the state to almost instantly go to work drafting legislation exactly as @Cr described. They are never going to let us go willingly or otherwise…..it’d would be the worst kind of irony to be removed after 25 years only to be placed back on a more “constitutional” registry 2-3 months later

  37. Guy

    So lets say the court sides with the motion and pre-2011 offenses can no longer be subject to Sora.

    The effect of that is pre 2011 registrants will be removed from the registry?

  38. Bobby S.

    Ok, So reading the motion and now reading the ACLU’s current update ,and hopefully understanding the motion correctly, ALL of us who are pre-sorna 2006 and 2011 should be automatically removed correct.

    I hope this will finally means, that this entire fiasco will be done and over with before the end of the year, this is gone on long enough in my opinion. Also a big thank you to the ACLU, the Michigan Law school and the law firm I can’t remember the of right now. My apologize.

    • John

      Even if you do get off the registry in michigan, you still technically have to register with them if you decide to cross state lines. This will cause michigan to be non compliant with federal sorna and the burden falls on you. So when you go in expect that michigan will tell you and also not allow you to register when you decide to go on an out of state vacation.

      • Josh

        @John….I don’t understand your post at all? Hypothetically, if we are completely removed from Michigan’s registry we are no longer required to inform Michigan if we cross state lines….the current version of the law says we only have to report in if we are leaving our primary address for 7 days or more….you have to be smart and check the rules of other states but I could go to Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, or any other state for a couple days starting tomorrow and as long as I’m back in less then 7 days there is nothing Michigan is going to do….for instance, if I was no longer on Michigan’s registry and I wanted to go visit Georgia who I believe(could be wrong)has a 14 day visitation rule before triggering a registration requirement how is either state going to object if I stay within the guidelines…..

    • CR

      A new constitutional retroactive law can be passed by the MI legislature. It can suck you back in. It should be less burdensome, though.

  39. MAYBE?

    I am not a lawyer or anything close but as I read thru this it seems like they changed the laws in 2011 and now that law change was deemed unconstitutional.(because they made people follow laws that the sentencing judge did not order) They cant peddle backwards and revise to a earlier version of SORA ….sooooo sounds like to me they have to start all over…If they change the laws now everyone on the registry has to follow different laws then what they were ordered to follow by there sentencing judge… correct??….sounds like Its all over for all of us… thoughts anyone???

    • Don’t tread on me

      Common sense should allow us to assume that. Never underestimate the depths of depravity politicians will aspire to when they feel their votes are in jeopardy.

    • Don’t tread on me

      MAYBE?
      Your understanding is essentially correct. I am also not an attorney. Just be forewarned…. the question still remains as to the actual mechanism of removal from the registry. I am sure the politicians would never automatically remove anyone. If what appears to be true is true, there will probably be a process for removal. I am completely speculating obviously. Historically they always cover their azz when it comes to their re-election campaigns….just saying

    • CR

      Over, only with respect to the current law. A new retroactive constitutional law can be passed. See SCOTUS decision in Smith v Does 2003 (Alaska).

  40. MIinChaos

    I have a 2002 conviction that I have been on the registry for, and just got a 2019 probation conviction for an attempt that put me to life on the registry. My question is where would a person with my situation fall?? Would I have to follow the stipulations for 2002, or these unconstitutional laws that we have now

    • Dont tread on me

      I’m not an an attorney but…… any new law that is upheld will not negate your original conviction. If you have a new charge I would most certainly ask an attorney if it will affect your registry status. I have heard rumors that the length of time Michigan registrants must register may be shortened. Lord only knows what will happen. Seek legal advice

      • C

        Reading the update on the aclu website they arent asking for anyone to b removed just clarification on what applies to who.

        • AJ

          @C:
          “they arent asking for anyone to b removed just clarification on what applies to who.”
          —–
          This is actually shrewd. By getting answers to the latter, the former will be revealed. It’s much better to make the State declare its criteria than it is to ask who’s in and who’s out.

        • C

          @aj. That’s not true. Just bcuz sora is unconstitutional doesnt mean the legislature cant construe a new sora that’s constitutional without removing anyone. State of mich is receiving over $5 million for abiding by federal sora standards and they will DO ALL THEY CAN to continue to receiving that funding. Why do u think they are taking so long constructing the new law and dragging their feet. If they wanted to remove people they would have already. Indiana ohio and Illinois has and penns is in the process. U know why. Cuz they dont care about federal funding bcuz their govt is smart and figures sora is costing them more than they would receive from federal govt. Dont get me wrong mich may remove some people from it but I personally dont think it’s going to b alot.

        • AJ

          @C:
          You missed my point. My point was that if ACLU asks for a list of people, the State isn’t forced to display its methodology in making the list, it only provides the list. If they are instead required to show their methodology, their process, anyone–you, me, ACLU–can apply it and determine if someone is inside or outside criteria. The first case keeps the whole process a black box the State can manipulate and control. The second case makes the State open the box and show how it works.

          NONE of what I wrote, now or before, addresses whether or not a State can make a “new’ SORA. They absolutely can, and probably will. NONE of what I wrote was anything about money made, or what other States are doing. NONE of what I wrote was about how many or few will be removed. What I wrote about was that forcing the State to publish its inclusion methodology–its “thought process”–one can determine who should be removed. By forcing the State to cast light on its rules, regulations, and Statutes, one can find answers. Relying on the bureaucracy to come up with the answers is a fool’s errand.

          So, yes, what I said is indeed true.

        • C

          @aj I got ur point. My point was what difference does it make if the state shows its hand on who has to do what when. My point was they’re gonna construct a sora law that forces as many people as they can under the registry umbrella. They dont care about showing their hand. Once again my point was if they did care they woulda change the sora back when the ruling was rendered. That’s all I was saying.

  41. BRANDON

    MIinChaos

    I don’t think anyone can answer that question right now…as everyone that is on the registry is up in the air right now and no-body knows what will happen… if Michigan comes up with new laws..who will be left that those laws affect? kinda sounds like to me they cant retroactively induce laws on someone that has been already ordered by the court…but who knows…they could just come arrest us all and send us to the gas chamber…I think its going to come down the the judges decision what will happen…but i do believe that the life sentence was one of the laws that was deemed unconstitutional…we will find out in 20 days!

    • JohnDoeUtah

      They can pass laws that mirror the pre-2006 registry for those convicted prior to 2006, and that would likely pass constitutional muster per Smith v. Doe. The key question is at what point did the registry become so much like probation/parole that it became punishment. They can change the law all they want as long as they don’t cross that line where the laws punitive effect outpaces its non-punitive purpose.

      • TS

        @JDUtah

        I think to add to what you wrote is a big question: What’s considered punitive v non, e.g. criminal v regulatory law on the books or by what society deems and does or both? I believe that’s what Millard v Rankin is trying to answer.

  42. TnT

    Yes …. it looks to good , too be true… this state and its corrupt politicians have been applying these unconstitutional laws too thousands of people for years retroactively only because they figured a way to trick the courts into believing its not punitive ??? Now looks like the cats MAYBE out of the bag, they know it is punitive , so… no they can not retroactive this B.s registry on its citizens anymore & get away with it, there are 45,000 people screwed by these unconditional B.s laws, in most cases applied to thousands retroactive in many cases years after a conviction , the jig is up Michigan , You will have to remove a lot of us . Like it or Not you dirty F%#%^$%%kers , you spineless, heartless, dirty politicians. I still cant see how you were able to get away with this registry or these unjust sex laws they have applied to a lot of us with little to nothing for supporting evidence and in most cases not a spec of evidence .

  43. Richard

    I am in Missouri, and a whole lot of Sorna was declared unconstitutional until back a few years ago then Missouri was able to declare the ex post facto only applied to contract law and not criminal, written it into the Missouri Constitution, you can look for something like this they wont let it go at a state level.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      And no one challenged this under the US Constitution? The State’s still have to be in compliance with the US Constitution.

      • R388

        @JohnDoeUtah I don’t know cuz didn’t the scotus rule it’s not punishment a few years back

        • AJ

          @R388:
          “didn’t the scotus rule it’s not punishment a few years back”
          —–
          Depends on what “it” is in this discussion. What SCOTUS ruled to be a “non-punitvie regulatory scheme” was the compilation and Internet-publication of “mostly public” information about RCs. Nowhere did SCOTUS approve of anything beyond that. In fact since Smith and CT DPS, SCOTUS has shown it sees as “troubling” what has gone on (See: Packingham v. NC).

          This is, to me, where the lower courts keep messing up. SCOTUS said publication of (mostly) already public information is fine. That’s it. It did not say residency, association, presence, or Halloween restrictions are allowed. It did not say required travel notifications are allowed. In fact in Smith SCOTUS showed how it expected things to run: “[RCs] are free to move
          where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.” Get that? Free to move, live, and work as other citizens. The States have acted and imposed laws and burdens exactly CONTRARY to what SCOTUS said. (Note that the Feds don’t impose any of these types of restrictions…they “got” what SCOTUS said.)

      • Richard

        was snuck into a bill that was voted on by Missouri voters (2013) Constitutional prohibition against enacting a law retrospective in its operation applies only to laws affecting civil rights and remedies and does not apply to criminal statutes. State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 410 (Mo.banc). haven’t figured a way around it.

        • JohnDoeUtah

          Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit, 42 USC 1983. Fourteenth Amendment. The state constitution is considered law, not state shall pass ex post facto laws. I would argue a constitutional amendment that allows such is a violation of federal constitutional rights.

        • AJ

          @Richard:
          I second what @JDUtah says. From what you’ve described, MO is violating the US Constitution as well as Federal Law. No State constitution or laws can abridge or detract from any federal rights a citizen has; they can only add rights. If this is now in the MO Constitution, a *facial* challenge would be the appropriate suit, which I would pursue in Federal court.

  44. Bobby S.

    hello,
    Well, I emailed Tim from the ACLU the other day and answered a few questions, about what’s going on and so forth, one thing he said was he had no clue about any bills that were suppose to be presented.
    So anyway this is what he wrote me back, I guess you can take what you want from it, so here it is

    You are reading our motion and the Judge will rule at some point, however he can do a lot of different things.  The State still has to respond and it is still an issue of changing the law as written and the Judge will not and does not write laws.  So until the Judge rules nothing is automatic and  with so many different outcomes no one knows what will happen at this point.  

    Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist 

    So, not sure what to think at this point, except for it might drag into next year, I guess we will have to wait for a response from the state if they even bother to respond.

    • Richard

      @ AJ
      I am going to talk with Mo. ACLU see if I could get some help, Can a person file himself in Federal court with out attorney representing him, I might not be able to talk in law terms but I can make a point. Just figured if Missouri voters passed it well it was a done deal.

      • AJ

        @Richard:
        “Can a person file himself in Federal court with out attorney representing him”
        —–
        Yes, anyone can file a lawsuit “pro se” or “pro per” (they both mean self-representation). There’s a filing fee which I believe is about $400. If you cannot afford that, you can request the court allow you to proceed “in forma pauperis.” This means, “I’m too poor to pay for the costs of litigation, but I wish to sue.” If approved, the filing fee is waived and the USMS, not some other process server or method, will serve the named Defendants with your lawsuit.

        The above is the easy part. Even though you’re pro se, you will still be expected to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These can be a bit tough to figure out initially and they can also trip you up with their various submission and response times. But, it can be done.

        Were I you, I would search for any pro bono (“free”) legal services in MO to see if they will help you. I would also try to avoid bringing in that you’re a RC, especially since it doesn’t matter in this case (the law violates the rights of every single person of MO). IIRC, with a facial challenge, one doesn’t even need to show personal harm; anyon can file and only need show the law or amendment is facially unconstitutional at the Federal level. I did a search for “pro bono attorneys in Missouri” and got a number of results. I suggest you consult with one or more of them in addition to ACLU.

        • Richard

          @ Aj & @JDUtah
          Thank you both for your incite on this. I am gonna, see just what I can get done, on this issue. I will be making Contacts as soon as tomorrow once I get the ball rolling so to speak I will post to general comments, Thanks again.

    • Jun

      It’s true what Justice Gorsuch said in his dissenting opinion in Gundy case, this is a game of “hot potato”. No one wants this problem in their hands so they try to pass it off to someone else to “solve”. And no one wants to. Gorsuch couldn’t believe Kagan’s reasons and how the majority sided with her opinion.

      Idk. We must remind ourselves we are a sovereign. And we are the ones to demand to these public servants what to do. Or else they need to be replaced. As sovereigns, these unconstitutional laws are made for inanimate things (commercial products). Not sovereigns with unalienable rights. These legislators and Congress have abused their positions.

      • Jun

        Every registrant needs to carry the Constitution everywhere they go. Study it. Know it. And spend time at the law library reading American Jurisprudence texts under Constitutional Law section, etc. They have turned Americans into artificial products and they can get away with it legally by addressing us as products. We need to remind them we are SOVEREIGNS, and WE are telling THEM their gig is up. All registrants must have a copy of The Constitution. It’s one dollar for a pamphlet.
        Americans will thank us later, if they don’t wake up now. Because we are actually trying to preserve the rights of The People by keeping government tyranny at bay. Americans also must realize this artificial registry made by artificial authorities is testing ground for all Americans. By registrants defending their rights, they defend all Americans rights. Like Martin Luther King’s reasons for his harsh criticisms of the law: It’s not because we hate this country, it’s because we love the country. And we love the law. Just not artificial ones.

        • Sheldon

          We are never getting off the registration because the government needs the money. Other people’s rights will be next because the end times are near.the government will have complete control over every body. The public don’t know this because the news never talks about registrant list at all.

        • Don’t tread on me

          Oh there is an end to this and it ain’t pretty. You push enough Americans far enough and we will rise up. The number of people being branded and deprived of our rights is growing every day.

  45. TnT

    @ Don’t tread on me …………..Amen too That !

  46. Moo

    My question is……i have been lucky, I don’t have any nightmare stories……im on a non public list as I was a minor, but with an adult sentence so I have to follow all guidelines as everyone else. You run a background check or anything you can’t find me unless you are doing it for legal reasons, I’ve had attorneys and retired po officers run it to see…..i that case as considered a minor designation and even my work, though I was honest with them, cant find it what are my options????

  47. Bobby S.

    Hello, I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything new, besides the recent update that the MI. ACLU posted on their site, or anything new as far as the Court and Judge Cleland goes, concerning Does ll? Thanks in advance.

  48. Don’t tread on me

    Why am I getting the impression that the state of Michigan is dragging their feet and reporting minimal movement on a bill every 30 days just to appease Judge Cleland. I’m thinking they are going to force yet another court action. So tired of this….

    • Josh

      @Don’t Tread……
      You’re impression is correct….they’re biding their time until Cleland punts on it and sends it to Michigan’s Supreme Court to decide the severability issue. As previously stated by myself and several others, there will be no willing legislative fix. The legislature will only act in response to a court order and only then will there be minimal changes….

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 *

.