ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

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. Bobby Smela

    I emailed Tim from the ACLU, last week, and have him a few days to respond and guess what nothing, and I emailed him again today, I will wait a few more days and see if he response this time. I won’t hold my breath though.

  2. TnT

    Hopefully A.g Nessel agrees again that they are dirty smucks and state has violated many citizens rights with these unconstitutional punitive amendments and barbaric registry .

    • BM

      I don’t think the AG has a choice but to agree considering her briefs filed with Michigan Supreme Court. It would look really bad if she about faced and I think Cleland would call BS

  3. Blake

    This is just ridiculous. Dont they have until next monday to respond? I’m hoping judge cleland tells Michigan hes shuttingdown the registry because Michigan just abuses it to the point where its extreme punishment at this point. Only way I see it being constitutional at this point is bringing it back to 1994 where there was no restrictions or reporting at all. And no juveniles were in it.

    • Josh

      @Blake……the judge will not pull the entire registry down..he just won’t!!! He doesn’t have to either because he can just punt it to the MSC to decide whether or not he can sever the unconstitutional post facto aspects from the rest of the law. It’s all very complicated. If I’m not mistaken the 6th CC also had to correct this same judge on several points when they first issued their unanimous ruling that was upheld when SCOTUS declined to hear this…. please don’t hold your breath that anything is going to happen anytime soon…As many of us are keenly aware there has been no new legislation introduced! Nor will there be if I had to guess because who is going to put their head figuratively on the chopping block and introduce legislation that is “soft” on former sex offenders. It’s political suicide and I don’t know of one politician who would be so bold as to do the right thing

      • Dave

        In Michigan our license plates are now a big sticker over metal. It used to be the plate was stamped. So now when you get a new plate because the old plate the sticker stops sticking to the metal starts falling off the plate and someone in ur household orders a new plate it has new numbers you have to report in three days. Never mind you don’t even know the numbers are new or that the plate gets sent to you in the mail and sits on the table for a month before you even notice it. When you order a plate online it’s not active in the system. It takes time to get into the DMV system. So when does day one start? When you order it? When it’s active in DMV’s system? O and DMV doesn’t tell you nor are you given a piece of paper that states when it’s active. You get a dated bill showing when the plate is bought. If you report the new plate before it’s in the DMV system you will be driving a car with a different plate that’s registered in the system police see.

        Registering autos should be knocked down because it’s a trap that’s designed to be a trap on purpose. Asking DMV when the plate is active doesn’t work either. They reply it takes time to get in the computer. If a person only has three days to report they don’t have a clear idea when three days even starts.

        This must be why the Sixth Circuit Court of appeals didn’t like registering autos. The Supreme Court agreed and so did the district court. Why is this still being allowed to be enforced like it hasn’t been found unconstitutional years ago?

        • AJ

          @Dave:
          Given my understanding of things, the clock starts when the plate is put into use, which would be when it’s mounted on the vehicle. Mind you, that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to let it sit for a month (really?!). You’re expected, as is any other citizen, to mount the new license plate in a reasonable amount of time.

          Also, since apparently there’s no way for a citizen to find out just when DMV and the TBLs have the new information, it would be imprudent to delay mounting the new plate. You cannot get in trouble for having newer, more accurate information than DMV’s or the TBL’s computers indicate. You may get pulled over, but the moment you tell the TBL it’s a new plate, mounted days ago, I’m quite sure it’ll be case closed.

          Quit overthinking it. Mount the plate when you get it and report within the time period.

        • CR

          @Dave, I agree with AJ regarding when the clock starts, so I won’t repeat it.

          I only wish to point out that denial of cert by the Supremes does not mean that they agree with the lower court’s decision. All that you can properly conclude is that there were not four votes to grant. That is all.

          There can be a lot of reasons why the SC doesn’t grant certiorari to any particular petition. If one or more justices writes a dissent to the denial of cert, which is fairly rare, one may be able to infer a little more about the reason for denial, but ultimately you still can’t be sure since the justices who didn’t vote to grant never explain why.

          In this case, they asked the USAG to weigh in, and he recommended denying cert. They tend to defer to the USAG on a no-grant recommendation, although not always. Each justice makes his or her own decision.

          Because they never reach the merits of the case, denial of grant for cert doesn’t speak to it.

        • R M

          @Dave: What does Michigan law say as far as “reporting”? If it just says report the change within whatever days. Report it when you paid for new plates/sticker. If the dmv agency takes whatever days to make it active, that’s on them. If it sits on your table for whatever days, so what (maybe tell family members it’s important or be the only one who orders new plates/stickers). In any case, just “report” the change as the law says. You SHOULD know exactly what the law says.

        • R M

          @AJ: “Quit overthinking it.” NOT doing that is exactly what has gotten many registrants caught up in some sort of technical violation.

          I didn’t overthink the restriction I had of not having any pictures of minors in my possession when I moved into a room of my sisters house. It was already furnished. She had a store bought picture frame with a generic pic. My PO harassed me over it and threatened to violate me.

          I do now overthink restrictions as the poo poo do. If they win, I’m subject to up to 30 years in prison.

        • AJ

          @R M:
          You seem to have a different definition of “overthinking” than I do. I am all for thoroughly thinking something through; however, as a rule I try to avoid overthinking.

          Overthink: to think too much about (something) : to put too much time into thinking about or analyzing (something) in a way that is more harmful than helpful. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overthink)

          Note the “in a way that is more harmful than helpful” clause.

          In your personal example, you failed to sufficiently or thoroughly think through the issue. I would say you “underthought”, not overthought it.

  4. Bobby S.

    Well, I finally heard back from Tim today, he doesn’t sound to confident either in my opinion, let me know what you all think about his response. he is what I wrote to him.

    Hello Tim.

      I know your getting tired of me and all the questions, but you did ask me not to bother Mrs Aukerman, with this questions.

    So there is plenty of scuttle butt around the water cooler lately, that the Legislature is going to do absolutely nothing about Does ll and has no intention on revising the registry, and will wait for Judge Cleland to make a ruling concerning Does ll, and there is a rumor that he will punt the severability question of the 2011 amendment to the Michigan Supreme Court, that will delay things even further in Does ll.

      I know that you have no clue what Judge Cleland will do, but is that a possibility that he will punt the severability question to the Michigan Supreme Court, that will more then likely put the Does ll decision into next year, instead of having a final decision this year on the case.

    Thank you for your time,

    Here is his response backe to me.

    I have no idea as to what will happen and of course what you outlined could happen but I am unable to read what could happen when he does rule.   We hope things work in our favor and w can move forward with the changes to meet the ruling.

    Respectfully Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist

    • Don’t tread on me

      It’s not surprising. The irony of this is they believe we are the immoral. Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. I hope they rot in hell.

      • Will Allen

        Yeah, I’ve have no doubt at all which side is immoral in the War on Registry Nazis/Terrorists.

        That’s the thing too. There is no “$EX offender” side in the war. Or “our” side. There is a moral, American side and an immoral, anti-American side.

        The immorals are the losers and losing more every day. So sad for Amerika. They are too dumb to know it and too arrogant to care.

    • Boooo

      Michigan would rather spend all kinds of money on lawsuits and fighting the registry than to just say ok well change it. And everyone wonders why this state has a high prison population and everything govt funded is absolutely atrocious. Hopefully 1 day it will blow up in their faces

  5. Ray

    Got this email recently from Coalition for Useful Registry group. I won’t be able attend because of work. For those who can attend please keep us updated as far where they are with legislative process.

    Just a reminder about the Meeting/Training Session we are holding covering “How to work with your elected officials for meaningful changes to the SOR”. The training will take about 2 ½ hours. Updates will also be given including where we are now with the legislative process and what you can do to help this move forward. Questions will be taken at the end of the power point presentation.

    When: Tuesday, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:30 am

    Location: Unitarian Universalist Church, 5509 S. Pennsylvania Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 4891; Room 410.

    • Sheldon

      Move the movement forward. We are waiting on the legislature hello. The legislature is not going to change the registry. The judges are also not going to force the legislature to change the registry. Taxation with out representation.

    • Will Allen

      There is no such thing as a useful Registry so I don’t think I’d trust this group to help much.

  6. R33

    It’s been like 2 months since we last heard anything????

  7. TnT

    State of Michigan ……..is gonna need a court order & I am not even sure that will matter to them . They have been forcing these unconstitutional laws for years & years . Not sure it will ever change . Cannt understand how they can keep getting away with applying this registry on people for so long knowing its unconstitutional . Especially the ex post facto parts ….. the s%*t they have applied to thousands of Michigan citizens in most cases years after a conviction is like some Twilight Zone B.S. Bad Bad Case Law , one day it will come back to bite their A$$ $$$$ !

  8. MI in Chaos

    The motion injunction that the ACLU filed in September, I believe that it was suppose to be heard by Judge Cleland today…. has anyone heard anything yet??

    • R33

      No I haven’t heard anything I didn’t know that he was supposed to look into it today

    • Don’t tread on me

      August 20th the state of Michigan was granted by Judge Cleland to a 60 day extension to the original 90 day deadline to fix the law. There was a stipulation that the legislature provide an update every 30 days showing progress towards a solution. Yesterday, Oct 21, was the end of the 60 day extension. To my knowledge there has been no bill submitted to the legislature. The only information I have heard is that the state is considering having the existing law submitted for review by the Michigan Supreme Court to discover if the unconstitutional aspects of the law are indeed severable. This course of action would undoubtably drag any possible solution well into next year. It would further support the idea that the legislature is NOT going to provide a legislative solution without the court holding a gun to their head.

      I sift through as much information as I can find as there is no answer provided to our questions. The above is just my 2 cents

      • Josh

        @Don’t Tread…..Your 2 cents is spot on and consistent with everything I’ve heard from several reliable sources that I can’t name. Unless the state of Michigan really does something to piss off Judge Cleland I think what @Don’t Tread said is going to take place. Don’t get it twisted people…this Judge is not on our side! Just because he had nerve to rule that some of this was constitutionally “vague” years ago doesn’t mean he’s in a big ass hurry as he’s already shown to cut us loose or give us relief. In spite of his lifetime appointment, you really think he wants this as part of his legacy? If Cleland wanted this done it would have been done instead of granting extension after extension….

        • Josh

          I just wanted to throw this out there too….I’ve been critical at times of the ACLU and I think I’m going to have to be again. They have done nothing it seems to press any advantage they might have had until recently…to the best of my knowledge this last filing seeking temporary injunctive relief while getting things sorted out is the 1st somewhat hardline stance they’ve taken. I also take issue with the Naïveté shown in believing that any politician worth his/her salt would be so foolish as to commit political suicide by backing softer sex offender legislation. My attorney has said for years that they will do nothing and has been proven correct time & time again. Additionally, their stance on helping as many people as possible while admirable was somewhat misguided because of wasted time negotiating legislation that will never see the light of day. They could have asked for injunctive relief years ago for the people who were nearing the end or completed their original registration periods while attempting to help the rest going forward…They did us all a great service years ago with their BIG win but for all practical purposes they’ve accomplished NOTHING. There will always be a reason or an excuse why nothing is getting done ie. budget battles, Nassar scandal, or election years so stop getting your hopes up and you won’t be disappointed. Whatever will happen will happen….

  9. Sheldon

    Well looks like ill be getting a attorney next year and taking the state to court.

    • R33

      Yep I to think it’s time to get a lawyer I think this is the only chance. Cuz this sounds like when the south told African Americans could use schools and all that.

  10. Bobby S.

    Well everyone, I emailed Tim again from the ACLU yesterday, along with Ms Aukerman, to try and fund out what is going on with Does ll and the brief that the ACLU filed and to see if the Legislature ever filed one n response and also to see what Cleland decided of course no response from any of theme. Anyone else have any news on what is going on. Thanks in advance.

  11. Bobby S.

    Hello Everyone,

    Well I just heard back from Tim from the ACLU, and the State did file a brief of their own, but I don’t know how to find it or get it to post, any help finding it or posting it would be appreciated.

    It sounds like Tim doesn’t even know what is happening or going to happen, in my opinion, so if anyone has any thoughts, please chime in, I know he said now they have to respond to the states brief, sounds like another 30 60 or 90 day wait to me. So anyway here is Tim’s reply back to me.

    Yes the state has submitted their Brief. We now have to reply to that brief.  What will happen next is still anyone’s guess. I am sorry but you will have to ride it out like the rest of us.  This process has been time consuming and we are working on it daily.  We understand your hoping to get something done soon, and we had also hopped for an answer to the issues quicker than it turns out that will happen.   The best I can tell you is that we have not given up and will still keep working toward a solution that will help as many people on the SOR as we can within the confines that the court orders. 

    • Don’t tread on me

      As suspected it appears they will drag this out well into next year. The timing on this will get interesting. 2020 is an election year. The election is 12 months from now. Not sure how the legislature will justify delaying Judge Cleland’s order

      • Blake

        This is getting ridiculous. I’m really curious on what the states excuse is this time.

  12. TnT

    Been hearing the same run arounds for 25 years .

  13. MidnightMike

    I To me it seems like my constitutional rights are for sure being impinged. As a RC that only registers because of being retroactively made to by being placed in tier 3….ex post facto…. It looks clear as day to me that the courts know that my rights have been/are being violated…. to me I should get the “one time fee” and the 50 bucks a month since they decided the one time fee should be $50/year,,,, and I’d say there is also an argument for damages incurred. Myself,,, I’d be happy to just get off the registry period,,,, but they may also have to consider compensation for funds illegally acquired and their liabilities?? Idk. I’m sure it’s a legal nightmare..
    I really wish I had a clue what was happening in Michigan but I don’t,,,, so I wait and see. I think wait and pray is about all we can do. At least it seems like they are headed in the right direction Huge thanks to those working on it there at the ACLU.

  14. MAYBE?

    ohhh boy! you guy’s are going to be pissed! i had to pay for it but i could the states response… ill try posting on here if i can its 66 pages… and all it talks about is bullshit!

  15. MAYBE?

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
    SOUTHERN DIVISION
    __________________________________________________________
    JOHN DOES #1-6, on behalf of themselves
    and all others similarly situated,
    File No. 2:16-cv-13137
    Plaintiffs,
    v. Hon. Robert H. Cleland
    RICHARD SNYDER, Governor of the Mag. J. David R. Grand
    State of Michigan, and COL. KRISTE
    ETUE, Director of the Michigan State
    Police, in their official capacities,
    Defendants.
    __________________________________________________________
    DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
    DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    Dana Nessel
    Attorney General
    Joseph T. Froehlich
    Assistant Attorney General
    Attorney for Defendants
    State Operations Division
    P. O. Box 30754
    Lansing, MI 48909
    517.335.7573
    froehlichj1@michigan.gov
    Dated: October 22, 2019 P71887
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.948 Page 1 of 29
    i
    CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
    1. This Court should certify the severability question to the
    Michigan Supreme Court.
    2. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ position, unconstitutional portions of
    SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments may be severed and the
    remaining constitutional portions of the statute may be
    applied retroactively consistent with SORNA, Mich. Comp.
    Laws § 8.5 and the holding of Does #1-5.
    3. Plaintiffs are not entitled to interim injunctive relief because
    they cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the
    merits of their claims.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.949 Page 2 of 29
    ii
    CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
    USDC ED MI LR 83.40
    Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5
    Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016)
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.950 Page 3 of 29
    1
    INTRODUCTION
    The question at the heart of this case regards a Michigan state
    law – whether unconstitutional portions of Michigan’s Sex Offenders
    Registration Act (SORA) can be severed from the rest of the Act, and
    the consequences to SORA of severance or non-severance going forward.
    But the same severability issue at the heart of this case is already
    pending before the Michigan Supreme Court on a full merits grant. In
    People v. Betts, Michigan Supreme Court No. 148981, the Court is
    considering a number of questions, including the very questions posed
    by the Plaintiffs in their motion in this case. (Ex. A, order granting
    leave to appeal, People v. Betts, Michigan Supreme Court No. 148981).
    There can be no dispute that the Michigan Supreme Court is the
    final arbiter on the constitutionality of SORA. Because the Michigan
    Supreme Court is already considering the questions posed in Plaintiffs’
    motion, certification will avoid any possibility of inconsistent results.
    Furthermore, the ultimate decision of the Michigan Supreme Court is
    likely to be outcome determinative in this case and will not unduly
    delay or prejudice the plaintiffs. The standard for certification is easily
    met here.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.951 Page 4 of 29
    2
    Thus, there is no reason for this Court to reach the merits of the
    severability question. But even if this Court were to reach the issue,
    Plaintiffs’ position fails because a fundamental flaw informs the
    entirety of Plaintiffs’ analysis – that every piece of SORA that was
    added in 2011 is necessarily unconstitutional and must be excised from
    the Act. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ position, unconstitutional portions of
    SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments may be severed and the remaining
    constitutional portions of the statute may be applied retroactively
    consistent with the federal SORNA, Michigan’s statutory law providing
    for severance (Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5), and the holding of Does #1-5.
    ARGUMENT
    I. This Court should certify the severability question to the
    Michigan Supreme Court.
    The district court local rules, Eastern District LR 83.40, provide
    the standard for certification. That Rule states:
    LR 83.40 – Certification of Issues to State Courts
    (a) Upon motion or after a hearing ordered by the Judge sua
    sponte, the Judge may certify an issue for decision to the
    highest Court of the State whose law governs its disposition.
    An order of certification shall be accompanied by written
    findings that:
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.952 Page 5 of 29
    3
    (1) the issue certified is an unsettled issue of
    State law, and
    (2) the issue certified will likely control the
    outcome of the federal suit, and
    (3) certification of the issue will not cause undue
    delay or prejudice.
    Such order shall also include citation to precedent, statutory
    or court rule authority authorizing the State Court involved
    to resolve certified questions.
    (b) In all such cases, the order of certification shall stay
    federal proceedings for a fixed time which shall be
    subsequently enlarged only upon a showing that such
    additional time is required to obtain a State Court decision
    and is not the result of dilatory actions on the part of the
    litigants.
    (c) In cases certified to the Michigan Supreme Court, in
    addition to the findings required by this Rule, the United
    States District Court shall approve an agreed statement of
    facts which shall be subsequently transmitted to the
    Michigan Supreme Court by the parties as an appendix to
    briefs filed therein.
    In People v. Betts, the Michigan Supreme Court will consider five
    questions, the latter ones being the same as those raised by Plaintiffs:
    (1) whether the requirements of the Sex Offenders
    Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., taken as a
    whole, amount to “punishment” for purposes of the Ex Post
    Facto Clauses of the Michigan and United States
    Constitutions, US Const, art I, § 10; Const 1963, art 1, § 10;
    see People v Earl, 495 Mich 33 (2014), see also Does #1-5 v
    Snyder, 834 F3d 696, 703-706 (CA 6, 2016), cert den sub nom
    Snyder v John Does #1-5, 138 S Ct 55 (Oct 2, 2017);
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.953 Page 6 of 29
    4
    (2) if SORA, as a whole, constitutes punishment, whether it
    became punitive only upon the enactment of a certain
    provision or group of provisions added after the initial
    version of SORA was enacted;
    (3) if SORA only became punitive after a particular
    enactment, whether a resulting ex post facto violation would
    be remedied by applying the version of SORA in effect before
    it transformed into a punishment or whether a different
    remedy applies, see Weaver v Graham, 450 US 24, 36 n 22
    (1981) (“the proper relief . . . is to remand to permit the state
    court to apply, if possible, the law in place when his crime
    occurred.”);
    (4) if one or more discrete provisions of SORA, or groups of
    provisions, are found to be ex post facto punishments,
    whether the remaining provisions can be given effect
    retroactively without applying the ex post facto provisions,
    see MCL 8.5; [and]
    (5) what consequences would arise if the remaining
    provisions could not be given retroactive effect[.] [Ex A.]
    Given the already pending Michigan Supreme Court matter,
    and the identity of issues between that case and this one,
    certification of the severability question is both necessary and
    appropriate.
    A. The severability issue presents an unsettled issue of
    state law.
    The primary question raised by Plaintiffs in their motion is
    whether the 2011 Amendments to SORA can be severed from the rest of
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.954 Page 7 of 29
    5
    the Act, and what the consequences of severance or nonseverance will
    be going forward. It is obvious that the law is unsettled in this area
    when one considers that the issue currently pending before the
    Michigan Supreme Court. Indeed, the issue before that court and the
    issue before this Court in Plaintiffs’ motion are identical. Neither Court
    has yet issued a substantive ruling on the merits.
    Under these circumstances, the timing is appropriate for
    certification of the severability question. Certification to a state
    supreme court “is most appropriate when the question is new and state
    law is unsettled.” In re Amazon.com, Inc., 852 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir.
    2017) (internal quotes and citation omitted). Further, the appropriate
    time to request certification of a state-law issue “is before, not after, the
    district court has resolved [it].” State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v.
    Hargis, 785 F.3d 189, 194 (6th Cir. 2015). “[O]therwise, the initial
    federal court decision will be nothing but a gamble with certification
    sought only after an adverse decision.” Id.
    Here, this Court has not resolved the issue of severability, and the
    severability question is already pending before the Michigan Supreme
    Court. This is not a situation where the Defendants are “seeking
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.955 Page 8 of 29
    6
    refuge” in state court only after an unfavorable ruling in federal court.
    Hotels.com, 639 F.3d at 654 (citation and alterations omitted).
    To the contrary, there is a risk of inconsistent results if this Court
    does not certify the question and decides the issue now. There is
    potential that this Court could reach one conclusion on the severability
    question, only to have the Michigan Supreme Court reach a different
    conclusion in Betts. Certification of the question will avoid the potential
    for inconsistent results all together, as the Michigan Supreme Court
    will be the only Court to decide the issue.
    B. The severability issue to be decided by the Michigan
    Supreme Court controls the outcome of this action.
    Again, the very severability question presented in this case is
    already pending before the Michigan Supreme Court on a full merits
    grant. And all of Plaintiffs’ claims are likely to be affected by the
    decision in Betts – not just the Ex Post Facto claim. It is clear from the
    plain language of the Michigan Supreme Court order granting the
    application for leave to appeal that the Court will be considering
    SORA’s viability as a whole. The scope and breadth of the Court’s
    decision is likely to go directly to the entirety of the statutory scheme.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.956 Page 9 of 29
    7
    There is a high likelihood that the decision in Betts will reach all the
    provisions challenged by Plaintiffs in this action.
    Moreover, the question of severability and the resultant
    consequences are ultimately questions of state law. There is no
    question that the highest court of the state is the final arbiter of such
    state law issues. Thus, “[w]hen it has spoken, its pronouncement is to
    be accepted by federal courts as defining state law.” West v. American
    Telephone & Telegraph Co., 311 U.S. 223, 236 (1940). It is appropriate
    that the Michigan Supreme Court be permitted to resolve the severability question, particularly where the issue is already pending before
    the Court and its decision will determine the outcome in this case.
    C. Certification to the Michigan Supreme Court will not
    cause undue delay or prejudice.
    Again, the Michigan Supreme Court has already granted the
    application for leave and the severability question is pending before the
    Court on a full merits grant. The Court will soon schedule a hearing on
    the case, and decision will likely be issued in this term. And the
    decision of the Court will resolve the severability question once and for
    all, to be accepted by the federal courts as defining state law.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.957 Page 10 of 29
    8
    Indeed, the Defendant in Betts has recently recognized the
    identify of issues in that case and this case. In specific, he sought to
    extend his deadline to correspond with the briefing schedule here “given
    the overlap in issues and the possible certification of questions to this
    Court from the federal district Court.” (Ex. B, 2d motion to extend,
    People v. Betts, Mich. S. Ct. No. 148981, dated Sept. 11, 2019).
    Certification of the severability issue will promote judicial
    efficiency and is appropriate where, as here, the question of “state law
    is unsettled.” Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Duro Bag Mfg. Co., 50 F.3d 370,
    372 (6th Cir.1995), citing Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 390–91
    (1974). Certification will avoid any possibility of inconsistent results,
    likely be outcome determinative in this case, and will not unduly delay
    or prejudice the plaintiffs. This Court should therefore certify the
    severability question under ED MI LR 83.40.1
    1 The other option would be to hold this case in abeyance pending the
    resolution of Betts so that this Court may follow the resolution of the
    severance issue by the state’s highest court.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.958 Page 11 of 29
    9
    II. Unconstitutional portions of SORA’s 2006 and 2011
    amendments may be severed, and the remaining
    constitutional portions of the statute may be applied
    retroactively consistent with SORNA, Mich. Comp. Laws
    § 8.5, and the holding of Does #1-5.
    Plaintiffs’ entire severability argument is based upon an incorrect
    premise: that every piece of SORA that was added in 2011 is
    necessarily unconstitutional and must be excised from the Act. This
    flawed assumption is presumably based upon an overly broad reading of
    the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Does #1-5. But this Court has previously
    rejected the same incorrect reasoning in a different individual challenge
    to SORA. In Derrick Cain v. People of the State of Michigan, et al, Case
    No. 3:19-cv-10243, this Court stated that Does #1-5 only addressed
    “portions” of the 2006 and 2011 amendments:
    Plaintiff relies on Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir.
    2016) for his assertion that all post-1997 SORA amendments
    are unconstitutional; however, Does #1-5 addressed only
    portions of the 2006 and 2011 amendments to SORA—it did
    not broadly invalidate all post-1997 amendments as Plaintiff
    suggests. [Ex. C, Derrick Cain v. People of the State of
    Michigan, et al, Case No. 3:19-cv-10243, opinion and order
    dated 6-5-19) (emphasis added).]
    Contrary to Plaintiffs’ position, Does #1-5 does not require the
    conclusion that every part of SORA passed in 2011 is unconstitutional.
    Instead, those specific portions of SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.959 Page 12 of 29
    10
    identified as unconstitutional by the Sixth Circuit in Does #1-5 may be
    severed and the remaining constitutional portions of the statute may be
    applied retroactively consistent with the federal Sex Offenders
    Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5,
    and the holding of Does #1-5.
    A. The Michigan SORA extends beyond the federal
    SORNA in three distinct respects.
    A review of the Michigan law discloses the particular ways in
    which it extends beyond the federal SORNA, and the legislative intent
    for the 2011 amendments was to bring SORA into compliance with
    federal SORNA. The Legislature provided that SORA extends beyond
    the requirements of SORNA, which may be digested into three distinct
    categories, which may be severed without compromising Michigan’s
    compliance with SORNA. The remainder of Michigan may be given
    effect, which is constitutional as it would then parallel the requirements
    of the federal SORNA.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.960 Page 13 of 29
    11
    1. The enactment of SORA and the 2006 SORA
    amendments
    Michigan’s SORA first went into effect on October 1, 1995. 1994
    P.A. 295. It has since been amended 20 times.2 The sex offender
    registry as it first existed in 1995 was not public and was accessible
    only by law enforcement. People v. Dipiazza, 778 N.W.2d 264, 267
    (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). In 1999, the registry became available to the
    public through the Internet. Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.728(2), as amended
    by 1999 P.A. 85; Dipiazza, 778 N.W.2d at 267. Later amendments have
    added offenses requiring registration, changed the duration of required
    registration, and imposed additional registration requirements.
    In 2005, SORA was amended by the Legislature to create “student
    safety zones.” A student safety zone was defined as “the area that lies
    1,000 feet or less from school property.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.733(f),
    as added by 2005 P.A. 121. Offenders were generally precluded from
    residing within student safety zones. § 28.735(1).
    2 See 2014 P.A. 328, 2013 P.A. 2, 2013 P.A. 149, 2011 P.A. 17, 2011 P.A.
    18, 2006 P.A. 46; 2006 P.A. 402, 2005 P.A. 121, 2005 P.A. 123, 2005 P.A.
    127, 2005 P.A. 132, 2005 P.A. 301; 2005 P.A. 322, 2004 P.A. 237, 2004
    P.A. 238, 2004 P.A. 240, 2002 P.A. 542, 1999 P.A. 85; 1996 P.A. 494,
    1995 P.A. 10.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.961 Page 14 of 29
    12
    Another amendment in 2005 precluded offenders from working or
    loitering within student safety zones. Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.734, as
    added by 2005 P.A. 127. These amendments because effective in 2006
    and are commonly referred to as the 2006 SORA amendments.
    2. The enactment of SORNA and SORNA’s
    Constitutional status
    On the federal side, in 2006, the United States Congress moved
    toward a comprehensive set of federal standards to govern state sex
    offender registration and notification programs by enacting SORNA, as
    part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Pub. L. No.
    109-248, §§ 102-155, 120 Stat. 587 (codified in part as amended at 34
    U.S.C. §§ 20901 et seq.). The goals of SORNA include making the
    federal and state:
    systems more uniform and effective by repealing several
    earlier federal laws that also (but less effectively) sought
    uniformity; by setting forth comprehensive registrationsystem standards; by making federal funding contingent on
    States’ bringing their systems into compliance with those
    standards; by requiring both state and federal sex offenders
    to register with relevant jurisdictions (and to keep
    registration information current); and by creating federal
    criminal sanctions applicable to those who violate the Act’s
    registration requirements.
    Reynolds v. United States, 556 U.S. 432, 435 (2012).
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.962 Page 15 of 29
    13
    As Spending Clause legislation, SORNA conditions full grant
    funding on a state’s substantial implementation of certain requirements. 34 U.S.C. § 20927(a). State registries must collect specific
    information, such as names, residence, work, and school addresses,
    physical descriptions, automobile descriptions and license plate
    numbers, criminal history information, information on intended
    international travel plans, and photographs. Id. § 20914(a), (b).
    SORNA also classifiers offenders into tiers and sets minimum periods of
    registration based on the nature and seriousness of the sex offense and
    the offender’s history of recidivism. Id. §§ 20911(2)-(4), 20915. SORNA
    requires that a state notify certain federal agencies regarding its
    registrants. Id. § 20923. SORNA also provides for public dissemination
    of certain information on Internet sites. Id. § 20920.
    SORNA requires sex offenders to “register, and keep the
    registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides,
    where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student”
    by, “not later than 3 business days after each change of name,
    residence, employment, or student status, appear[ing] in person in at
    least 1 jurisdiction involved . . . and inform[ing] that jurisdiction of all
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.963 Page 16 of 29
    14
    changes in the information required for that offender in the sex offender
    registry.” 34 U.S.C. § 20913(a), (c). The SORNA, however, does not
    prohibit registrants from living or working in any particular location.
    The Sixth Circuit has held that “[SORNA] does not increase the
    punishment for the past conviction” and therefore its retroactive
    application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. United States v.
    Felts, 674 F.3d 599, 606 (6th Cir. 2012); see also United States v.
    Shannon, 511 F. App’x 487, 492 (6th Cir. 2013) (applying reasoning of
    Smith and Felts to hold that SORNA’s juvenile registration requirements also did not present an ex post facto violation). In fact, this is the
    “unanimous consensus among the circuits.” Felts, 674 F.3d 605–06.
    3
    In 2011, Michigan’s SORA underwent significant changes to bring
    the law into compliance with the federal SORNA. It was the manifest
    intention of the Michigan Legislature.4
    3 See also Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046,
    1053 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Many of our sister circuits, however, have
    considered this issue. Unanimously they have concluded that
    retroactive imposition of SORNA requirements is constitutional.”).
    4 See Ex. D, House Fiscal Agency Legislative Analysis of Senate Bills
    188, 189 and 206, recognizing that amendments to SORA “would revise
    the Sex Offenders Registration Act to conform to mandates under the
    federal Sex Offenders Registration and Notification Act[.]”
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.964 Page 17 of 29
    15
    Under the 2011 amendments to SORA, sex offenders were
    classified into three tiers according to the offenses of which they were
    convicted. Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.722(r) to (w), as added by 2011 P.A.
    17 (taking effect on April 12, 2011). Tier I offenders were required to
    register for 15 years, Tier II offenders for 25 years, and Tier III
    offenders for life. § 28.725(10) to (12), as amended by 2011 P.A. 17.
    Offenders were also required to report in person when they changed
    residences, changed places of employment, discontinued employment,
    enrolled as a student with institutions of higher education, discontinued
    such enrollment, changed their names, temporarily resided at any place
    other than their residence for more than seven days, established an email or instant message address or “any other [internet] designations,”
    purchased or began regularly operating a vehicle, or discontinued such
    ownership or operation. § 28.725 (1), as amended by 2011 P.A. 17.
    3. Differences between SORNA and SORA and the
    holding of Does #1-5
    Michigan’s SORA goes beyond the baseline requirements of
    SORNA in three significant ways that are particularly germane to the
    Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Does #1-5.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.965 Page 18 of 29
    16
    First, although SORNA (through its implementation guidelines,
    73 Fed. Reg. at 38,059 (July 2, 2008)) requires a jurisdiction to make
    public the sex offense for which an offender is registered, SORNA does
    not require a State to make the tier classification viewable on the public
    website as is provided in SORA. Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.728(2)(l).
    Second, SORA goes beyond SORNA’s in-person reporting
    requirements. SORNA requires jurisdictions to require periodic inperson appearances to verify registration information and take a
    photograph, and also specifies that such in-person appearances occur at
    least annually to low-tier offenders and quarterly for higher-tier
    offenders. 42 U.S.C. § 16916. SORNA further requires an offender to
    appear in person to update a registration within three business days
    after any change of name, residence, employment, or student status. 42
    U.S.C. § 16913(c). SORA, in contrast, requires an offender to appear in
    person to update when the offender intends to temporarily reside at any
    place other than his or her residence for more than seven days, when
    the offender establishes any electronic mail or instant message address,
    or any other designations used in internet communications or postings,
    and when the offender purchases or begins to regularly operate any
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.966 Page 19 of 29
    17
    vehicle, and when ownership or operation of the vehicle is discontinued.
    Compare Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.725(1)(e)-(g) with 42 U.S.C.
    § 16914(a), 16915a(a).
    Third, and finally, SORNA does not require a jurisdiction to
    create any geographic exclusions or “student safety zones.” Michigan,
    on the other hand, has done exactly that by enactment its statutory
    scheme, see Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 28.734 to 28.736.
    The specific areas where SORA has gone further than SORNA
    was the focus of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Does #1-5. Indeed, the
    Sixth Circuit explained that SORA is punitive because of the aggregate
    effect of these aspects of the law – all of which are the areas identified
    above where SORA differs from SORNA. Specifically, the Court
    reviewed these three statutory features that rendered the statute
    punitive: (1) the student safety zones where an offender is not
    permitted to live, work or loiter; (2) the public classification of a
    offenders into tiers without an individualized assessment; and (3) the
    requirements on offenders to appear in person to report even minor
    changes to certain information. See Does #1-5, 834 F.3d at 702, 702–03,
    705. The Court summed up this point based on these three attributes:
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.967 Page 20 of 29
    18
    A regulatory regime [1] that severely restricts where people
    can live, work, and “loiter,” [2] that categorizes them into
    tiers ostensibly corresponding to present dangerousness
    without any individualized assessment thereof, and [3] that
    requires time-consuming and cumbersome in-person
    reporting, all supported by—at best—scant evidence that
    such restrictions serve the professed purpose of keeping
    Michigan communities safe, is something altogether
    different from and more troubling than Alaska’s firstgeneration registry law.
    * * *
    We conclude that Michigan’s SORA imposes punishment. Id. at
    705 (brackets added).
    While Does #1-5 explained that “the retroactive application of SORA’s
    2006 and 2011 amendments to Plaintiffs is unconstitutional, and it
    must therefore cease,” 834 F.3d at 706, it was the cumulative effect of
    these three specific provisions that compelled the Sixth Circuit’s
    determination that the current SORA has “much in common with
    banishment and public shaming,” “and has a number of similarities to
    parole/probation.” Id. at 701, 703.5 If these three problematic
    provisions of SORA may be severed, it would leave a constitutionally
    valid Act that does not run afoul of Ex Post Facto.
    5 For additional discussion regarding the differences between SORA and
    SORNA, and how the provisions of SORA went beyond SORNA violated
    the Ex Post Facto clause, see Ex E, Brief for United States as Amicus
    Curiae, Snyder v. Does #1-5, U.S. S. Ct. No. 16-768, pp. 14–20.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.968 Page 21 of 29
    19
    B. The provisions of SORA that differ from SORNA and
    were identified as problematic by the Sixth Circuit
    may be severed, and the remaining constitutional
    portions may be applied retroactively.
    Federal law favors severability. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,
    934 (1983). It is also well settled under Michigan law that, although a
    statute may be invalid or unconstitutional in part, the part that is valid
    will be sustained where it can be separated from that part which is
    void. Mathias v. Cramer, 40 N.W. 926, 927 (Mich. 1888). The statute
    enforced after the invalid portion of the act is severed must, however, be
    reasonable in light of the act as originally drafted. Caterpillar, Inc. v.
    Dep’t of Treasury, 470 N.W.2d 80, 85 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) rev’d on
    other grounds, 488 N.W. 182 (Mich. 1991).
    The Michigan Legislature has provided a general severability
    clause that applies to all its enactments. The clause provides:
    In the construction of the statutes of this state the following
    rules shall be observed unless such construction would be
    inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature, that
    is to say: If any portion of an act or the application thereof
    to any person or circumstances shall be found to be invalid
    by a court, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining
    portions or applications of the act which can be given effect
    without the invalid portion or application . . . , and to this
    end acts are declared to be severable.
    Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.969 Page 22 of 29
    20
    At the outset, the Defendants concede that Sixth’s Circuits ruling
    in Does #1-5 precludes the retroactive application of the 2006
    amendments, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 28.734 through 28.736, which are
    SORA’s “student safety zone” provisions. These statutory provisions
    are not required by SORNA. The remaining provisions of SORA can be
    given effect without the 2006 amendments. The 2006 amendments are
    separate provisions that operate independently from the rest of SORA.
    The remaining question, accordingly, is whether the bulk of the
    2011 amendments to SORA may be enforced without reference to the
    problematic provisions identified by the Sixth Circuit in Does #1-5.
    Applying the principles of severability as stated above, the answer is
    yes, relying on the Legislature’s clear intent to make Michigan’s law
    SORNA compliant. Like the 2006 amendments, the problematic 2011
    provisions can be severed from the rest of SORA.
    To begin, the requirement of Michigan law, Mich. Comp. Laws
    § 28.728(l), that an offender’s tier classification be made public can be
    severed from the Act without compromising the effectiveness of the law.
    Offenders will still be classified into tiers, but the tiers will not be made
    public. SORNA does not require this information to be public.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.970 Page 23 of 29
    21
    Further, SORA’s in-person reporting requirements, § 28.725(1)(e)-
    (g), mandating that an offender appear in person to update certain
    information may also be severed without compromising the Act:
    when the offender intends to temporarily reside at any place other
    than his or her residence for more than seven days;
    when the offender establishes any electronic mail or instant
    message address, or any other designations used in internet
    communications or postings; and
    when the offender purchases or begins to regularly operate any
    vehicle, and when ownership or operation of the vehicle is
    discontinued.
    SORNA does not require this in-person reporting. Offenders would still
    be required to appear in person to update a registration within three
    business days after any change of name, residence, employment, or
    student status. Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.725(1)(a)-(d). The reporting
    requirements of Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.725(1)(e)-(g) are not “so
    essential, and [] so interwoven with others, that it cannot be presumed
    that the legislature intended the statute to operate otherwise than as a
    whole.” Moore v. Fowinkle, 512 F.2d 629, 632 (6th Cir. 1975).
    Severing the problematic provisions of SORA will not require this
    Court to “re-write” the statute. The fact that they are not in separate
    sections is not significant. Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Mich. Emp. Rel.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.971 Page 24 of 29
    22
    Com’n, 538 N.W.2d 433, 447 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). Indeed, the
    provisions to be excised are discrete and easily removed, and line
    drawing is not inherently complex. (See Ex. F, redlined version of
    SORA excising problematic provisions identified by Court in Does #1-5
    for offenders committed their offenses on or before April 12, 2011).
    Here, SORA remains a constitutionally valid and enforceable law,
    even retroactively, when the problematic provisions of the 2006 and
    2011 amendments are severed, which gives effect to the clear legislative
    intent to make Michigan law SORNA compliant. This approach is
    consistent with the requirements Michigan law, Mich. Comp. Laws
    § 8.5, and the holding of Does #1-5.6
    6 It should also be noted that Plaintiffs’ position regarding revival of
    previous SORA versions is incorrect if somehow the entirety of the 2011
    SORA amendments was found unconstitutional. Under Michigan law,
    it has long been held that where a court has held a law invalid, it leaves
    all preceding laws on that subject in force. McClellan v Recorder’s
    Court, 201 N.W. 209, 212 (Mich. 1924). See also 1A Singer, Sutherland
    Statutory Construction (6th ed), § 23:25, p 544 (“An unconstitutional
    statute which purports to repeal a prior statute by specific provision
    does not do so where, under standard rules governing separability, a
    hiatus in the law would result from the impossibility of substituting the
    invalid provisions for the legislation that was to be repealed …”). And
    Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.4 has no application here because the 2011
    amendments to SORA were not repealed. This means that if the
    entirety of the 2011 amendments of SORA were struck, prior versions of
    SORA remain in force so long as they are not held unconstitutional.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.972 Page 25 of 29
    23
    III. Plaintiffs are not entitled to interim injunctive relief
    because they cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success
    on the merits of their claims.
    Plaintiffs’ remaining claim asking for interim relief is based upon
    the same flawed assumption as their severability analysis. Contrary to
    Plaintiffs’ position, not every piece of SORA that was added in 2011 is
    necessarily unconstitutional and must be excised from the Act. Thus,
    Plaintiffs are not entitled to interim relief.
    In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the
    following four factors are considered:
    • whether the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of
    success on the merits;
    • whether he would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction;
    • whether the injunction would cause substantial harm to others;
    and
    • whether issuing the injunction would serve the public interest.
    Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 399 (6th Cir. 2017).
    Although the four factors “are factors to be balanced” and “not
    prerequisites to be met,” a preliminary injunction cannot issue where
    “there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits….” Id. (internal
    quotation marks omitted). “When a party seeks a preliminary
    injunction on the basis of a potential constitutional violation, the
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.973 Page 26 of 29
    24
    likelihood of success on the merits often will be the determinative
    factor.” Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012).
    Importantly, “[t]he party seeking the preliminary injunction bears
    the burden of justifying such relief, including showing irreparable harm
    and likelihood of success,” and he faces a “much more stringent
    [standard] than the proof required to survive a summary judgment
    motion” because a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy.”
    McNeilly v. Land, 684 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012). It is “reserved only
    for cases where it is necessary to preserve the status quo until trial.”
    Hall v. Edgewood Partners, 878 F.3d 524, 526 (6th Cir. 2017).
    Here, Plaintiffs are not entitled to broad injunctive relief because
    they cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their
    claims. For the reasons stated in Section II, the retroactive application
    of portions of SORA’s 2011 amendments is constitutional.
    Indeed, continued retroactive enforcement of portions of the 2011
    amendments is consistent with the requirements of the federal SORNA,
    and federal courts have consistently and universally held that SORNA
    passes constitutional muster. The unconstitutional portions of SORA’s
    2006 and 2011 amendments that are inconsistent with SORNA may be
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.974 Page 27 of 29
    25
    severed from the rest of the Act, and the remaining constitutional
    portions may be applied retroactively.7 Under these circumstances,
    Plaintiffs are not entitled to interim relief.
    CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
    Defendants respectfully request that this Court certify the
    severability question to the Michigan Supreme Court, or, alternatively,
    Defendants request that this Court hold that unconstitutional portions
    of SORA’s 2011 amendments that are inconsistent with SORNA may be
    severed from the rest of the Act, and the remaining constitutional
    portions may be applied retroactively.
    7 Plaintiffs provide no authority for their contention that Defendants,
    and not Plaintiffs, should bear the burden of providing notice to class
    members. Further, Plaintiffs have not established that “all prosecutors
    and all Michigan law enforcement personnel who have responsibility for
    enforcing SORA” are those “in active concert or participation” with the
    Defendants such that Defendants are required to provide notice to them
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.975 Page 28 of 29
    26
    Respectfully submitted,
    Dana Nessel
    Attorney General
    s/Joseph T. Froehlich
    Joseph T. Froehlich
    Assistant Attorney General
    Attorney for Defendants
    State Operations Division
    P. O. Box 30754
    Lansing, MI 48909
    517.335.7573
    froehlichj1@michigan.gov
    Dated: October 22, 2019 P71887
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (E-FILE)
    I hereby certify that on October 22, 2019, I electronically filed the above
    document(s) with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF System, which
    will provide electronic copies to counsel of record.
    s/Joseph T. Froehlich
    Joseph T. Froehlich
    Assistant Attorney General
    Attorney for Defendants
    State Operations Division
    P. O. Box 30754
    Lansing, MI 48909
    517.335.7573
    froehlichj1@michigan.gov
    P71887
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66 filed 10/22/19 PageID.976 Page 29 of 29
    John Does #1-6 v. Richard Snyder, et al.
    USDC-ED No: 2:16-cv-13137
    Honorable Robert H. Cleland
    Magistrate Judge David R. Grand
    INDEX OF EXHIBITS
    Exhibit A………………………………………………………………………………Order,
    People of the State of Michigan v. Betts, Jr.
    MI Supreme Court No. 148981
    Exhibit B………………………. Second Motion to Extend Time to File Brief,
    People of the State of Michigan v. Betts, Jr.
    MI Supreme Court No. 148981
    Exhibit C…………………………………………………………… Opinion and Order
    Cain v. Snyder, et al., USDC-ED No. 19-10243
    Exhibit D …………………………………….. House Fiscal Legislative Analysis
    Exhibit E………………………Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae
    Snyder, et al. v. John Does #1-5, et al.
    U.S. Supreme Court No. 16-768
    Exhibit F……………Redlined Sex Offenders Registration Act 295 of 1994
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 66-1 filed 10/22/1

    • TnT

      She is a Dirty Bird ! Every word just about out of here mouth is B.S ! The Aclu should use her own words against her in this case before Judge Cleland … I too read her filings in the Betts case it is the total opposite of what she is saying here . The State of Michigan must think these judges are a joke ??? That’s crazy too even try to understand this crazy lady. Almost like today she missed her meds ????

      • Ken B.

        Hi, I am new here and I am trying to understand all of this, but I am totally lost when it comes to everyone talking about severing the parts of the SORA that are not Constitutional. What I am trying to find out is if this is a bad thing? Also, what exactly happens if they do this?

  16. Bobby S.

    Here is another small part of Tim’s response I forgot to add, sorry about that, this part sounds like it’s going to lag on and on and on in my opinion. 27 years on this list is long enough, especially since my conviction was on 1992, before a registry even existed. anyway here is the other part of his reponse, to my questions.

    His response: It is going to be longer as to how much longer it still will depend on were the j Judge goes with this.  And as for helping who first that will depend on how the court rules in the end and not what you or I think it should be.

  17. brandon

    I found the states response… I tried posting it on here lol …That didn’t work….. they are saying that the 2006 and the 2011 amendments can be served …not as a whole but in part.. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ position, unconstitutional portions of
    SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments may be severed and the
    remaining constitutional portions of the statute may be
    applied retroactively consistent with SORNA, Mich. Comp.
    Laws § 8.5 and the holding of Does #1-5.
    …which means that life is life if they have their way…

    going to the higher up..for serve-ability…welcome to the ride ..please keep all hands and feet inside at all times!!! hope ACLU…can pull the plug!!! This ride is due to be over!!

    You can find the response at https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov Good luck!!

    • Josh

      @AJ…what is your opinion on this? We’ve all been kind of operating on the assumption that the state had no more legal legs to stand on. Now it would appear that our fears are being realized and the state clearly is going to fight and claw until the end. Severability appears to be the issue that they are going to use to do it. I guess my question is this, if the lifetime requirement was ruled ex post facto and then denied cert by scotus how can Michigan’s Supreme Court go against that? Or is the end result inevitably going to go our way and this is just the state’s latest stall tactic. It seems kind of wonky that Judge Cleland gave the state 90 days to fix it and the aclu negotiated in good faith throughout that time period and when the time was up and nothing got accomplished the state found another loophole and it sounds like by all accounts the judge is going to humor them & punt it to the MSC. Thoughts?

      • brandon

        I think the court will hold this matter in obayance untill betts is on the merits ….should have another brief before 12/12/2019 … this case holds the upper hand….. and shale determine the factors in this case!

        • Josh

          I’ve been wondering if the timing of the Betts/Snyder cases has muddied the issue for all of us. I watched the hearing earlier this year and thought that the issues that Mr. Betts & Mr. Snyder were bringing before the court were already resolved under the Does 1-5 decision and that they were bound to Does II as are we all. If Michigan’s Supreme Court rules differently from the 6th CCA with scotus’s denial of cert doesn’t this set up another prolonged fight and possibly sending the whole issue back to scotus? I’m really confused by this as I was trying to get answers from my earlier post…

      • John

        I just want to comment on one thing that you ALL SEEM TO BE MISSING!!

        In the BETTS Case, Attorney General Dana Nessel was on the same side as registrants and agreed that it was punishment!! She even supported risk assessments!!! In the Does II brief, she does a complete 180 turn and is now all of a sudden for the full registry. WHY?!? I hope the ACLU quotes her entire brief that she filed with the supreme court. Not sure how someone can argue against themselves. She is contradicting herself BIG TIME!

        Did anyone else not notice this?!?!? Did anyone else READ her brief in the Betts case? She does the complete OPPOSITE. Here is her brief in the Betts case. Read it ALL!

        In the reply brief that’s due next month, the ACLU NEEDS TO QUOTE HER ARGUMENT IN THE BETTS BRIEF! This would confuse the HELL out of Judge Cleland.

        https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Documents/2018-2019/148981/148981_37_01_AC_AG_Brf.pdf

        • Sheldon

          There are over 500 people in grand rapids alone that are non compliant. What if registrants didn’t register, what are they going to do then. I’m thinking next year when I was supposed to get off the registry not complianing anymore.

  18. CA cool RC

    Why can’t the judge at least take down the Megan Law website until this is solved ?

  19. Tired Old Man

    ok i’m an idiot, old and tired but after reading just a little of the response my take on thiis is that the court will and should just end it right here and now and deny the state’s motion altogether. why you ask i think this way? the state was given ample time to correct and fix the issues and they did not now at the last minute they want to talk about what they can do to resolve and correct it. the state had ample time to do that and they chose not to. thus now you know my thought on this.

  20. TnT

    @ Sheldon …. I feel the same way, if we all stop signing its ok to do this too us , we would cause them hell , this will I believe be the only way to stop them from applying these retroactive unconstitutional laws to thousands of citizens most years after a sentence has been served . The state is Evil and very dirty …do not sit around and wait I have done this for 25 years ….If I had the money I donnt think I would even be on this registry. It is true they only get away with this because most of us donnt have the money to fight them, the Detroit free press wrote a article about this fact.Remember 45,000 plus in Michigan alone not to mention over 1 MILLION in the 52 states CRAZY !!

    • Will Allen

      I think the criminal regimes would be just fine with imprisoning 1,000,000 “absconders”. I think everyone would be just fine with the billions it would cost. After all, most people in Amerika don’t even pay any taxes. Why would they care about money that they think falls from the sky? They don’t think they’ll ever have to pay any part of the trillions that we all owe (they are wrong though, they will pay, just probably not with $$$).

      But I’ll tell you one thing that EVERY single Registered Person should do and that is to stop being so nice and compliant with these scumbags. We’ve had plenty of people right here on this website that have said that Registration isn’t all that big of a deal. Nothing to it. That’s a problem. We have plenty of people who let law enforcement come to their homes and administer their Registry with no problems. All of that needs to stop. No one should ever be giving any indication that Registries are acceptable. Not even in small ways that don’t matter much.

      I know quite a number of law enforcement people who work in Registration. They are usually polite and nice. I usually am (enough) but I don’t just chat with them. And they know I won’t get into any serious conversations with them and that they cannot ask me questions. We can talk about the weather. How families are doing. That’s it. And I ALWAYS have something snide to say to them every time I speak to them. So they know. If they say, “How are you?” I’ll say something like “I’m fine except for this illegal idiocy. How are you?” Every time.

      They can’t intimidate me. They can’t out-argue me. I’m more powerful and successful than they are in every way. And they know it. Over two decades ago, I made that a goal that I had to achieve.

  21. Bobby S.

    Hello,

    I was wondering has anyone been able to find the brief that the State of Michigan filed, in response to the ACLU brief, this entire situation is getting ridiculous, nothing is getting done.

    WHY, the State gets to file another brief when they have obviously lost, and are out of options, yet they file a brief, and then we have to wait even longer for the ACLU to respond to their brief.

    The Judge needs to put a STOP to this, and STOP letting both sides just continue to kick the can back in forth to each other. The Judge needs to grant the injunction, while they fix the registry or better yet, shut the registry down until they finally revise the registry and all pre-sorna registrants are removed from it.

    So does anyone know how I can find the link to the States most recent brief ? Thanks in advance.

    • Milford

      The State or Government is allowed to do this because the Rights of the many outweigh the Rights of the few in their corrupt minds….they can play Legal/Political games at RCs expense in the name of SAFETY and/or JUSTICE…
      Why is the REGISTRY HAPPENING ???
      1. Ordained from above “purify mankind, prayers went to God
      2. Mans Judicial system is corrupt and always goes too far
      3. When the time is accomplished and the damage is done..who knows how long! Then good people will have to take a stand ….then and only then will it end !
      4. It is doubtful the Courts will be the answer, probably a Social or other major event must also take place !
      Just some thoughts !

      • Bill

        @Ken B.

        Everything about SORA is bad and Unconstitutional.

        For example, ALL Asian countries bar sex offenders from entering thanks to our government notifying them in advance of our status.

        In fact, passports could be confiscated from you and have it replaced with a $ex offender label which is a form of compelled speech which is Unconstitutional.

        Depending in what state you live in there are severe residency restrictions so draconian that you could be forced to live under a freeway like in Florida.

        In New York residency restrictions are so bad that inmates are detained from weeks to even years after they have fully served their time.

        In some states Registrants are forced to turn themselves in to local police during Halloween or locked themselves in during that day.

        In Florida during emergencies like hurricanes, Registrants are not allowed in emergency shelters.

        There’s alot more but you get the idea.

        You asked earlier if what SORA does is Unconstitutional and bad. Take a look at what I wrote above and tell me if there is anything you find good about it.

  22. Bobby S.

    Ok. I just read the States brief, now I am trying understand it and what it supposedly means, and the fact that the ACLU now gets to respond to this brief with another brief of their own.

    So being that the 6th Circuit ruled the 2006 and 2011 Amendments are punitive and punishment, and the fact the SCOTUS, basically agreed, by denying cert, how do this briefs affect those of us that are pre 2006 and 2011 registrants, and some of us were convicted, before a registry was ever a thought, how does all this effect us, because from what I was told and was to understand that we, those of us tha,t are pre-sorna and or were convicted, before the registry even existed, would and should be removed from the registry all together, is this correct? does anyone have any clue or idea.

    Then they were saying the Betts case should be decided this term, does that mean by the end of this year or by the end June or July of 2020. So if some one could explain and clarify this brief from the state to me, I would really appreciate it . thank you.

  23. Bobby S.

    Hello, I have been with out internet access all weekend and today, so I was just wondering if anyone has heard anything new, concerning what is happening with Does ll if anything is happening with it.

  24. Harold

    I think that since the deadline has passed the registry should be eliminated. Is there a judge around with the guts to shut it down? I think all judges are jerks and do not care about anyone. If they had the guts they would shut it down. I am sick of waiting. Is the ACLU going to do anything?

    Harold

    • Ray

      I want to give everyone something to think about, not only is the registry unfair, unconstitutional, and a continuation of punishment after serving time , it’s also a way to discriminate. People are so worried about where if a sex offender lives next door , but not bothered by the person who was just released for BREAKING AND ENTERING, or the convicted Murderer across the street . If we are going to acknowledge crime and offenders of crime , then acknowledge all crimes. What gives other felonies a pass to live and do whatever they want while convicted sex offenders report, pay for reporting, and get pushed out of every neighborhood they try to live in. Make that make sense .. put a end to the registration .

  25. TnT

    So…… Now whos got the next move in this B.s game they are playing with thousands of Michigans citizens lives ???? Are we waiting on the federal judge to re rule on a ruling he has already made ? Last I remember he already ruled their B.s was unconstitutional and had to STOP ? So…. now what are we waiting on ? Does anyone know ?????

  26. fuzzy

    So AG Nessel was on our side a few months ago, and now she’s done a 180. Not to mention legal briefs she filed saying the registry was basically garbage. Hopefully it comes back to bite her in the ass.

    • R33

      When did ag nessel do a 180 cuz I haven’t heard that but I will say this the judge in GA had no issue saying that it was wrong for that police department to put the signs up why can’t they do that in Michigan. Like @TNT said they already said it was unconstitutional so get rid of the parts that are right now. Then you can work on the rest cuz this is stupid. Im not trying to be selfish on this part.

    • Josh

      @Fuzzy…..I believe that AG Nessel is on our side as least from a personal stand point on her part. Professionally, she has to do her job and protect the perceived best interest of the state of Michigan. Don’t forget that Nessel answers to the governor and the governor’s point of view isn’t as favorable in our regard. I go back to the fact that our AG defended registrants and attempted to obtain legal relief in her private practice before becoming AG. Those briefs submitted in the Betts/Snyder hearings were a incredibly bold move on her part and one I’m still convinced that she went rogue on…That response to the state last week was filed under her name in her official capacity but that doesn’t mean she’s not sympathetic or flipped her personal feelings. She just has a job to do….I know it looked bad but I believe her words in those briefs could very well be beneficial down the road..

  27. Corey

    Has anyone heard anything on Teather’s for parolees

  28. R33

    Could someone that knows what is going on please update us

  29. BRANDON

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
    SOUTHERN DIVISION
    __________________________________________________________________
    JOHN DOES #1-6, on behalf of themselves
    and all others similarly situated,
    File No. 2:16-cv-13137
    Plaintiffs,
    v. Hon. Robert H. Cleland
    GRETCHEN WHITMER1
    , Governor of the Mag. J. David R. Grand
    State of Michigan, and COL. JOSEPH
    GASPAR, Director of the Michigan State
    Police, in their official capacities,
    Defendants.
    __________________________________________________________________
    JOINT STATUS REPORT
    Pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Court’s Stipulated Order Setting Briefing
    Schedule Pending Legislative Action to Replace or Amend SORA (ECF #60), the
    parties submit this 30-day status report, stating as follows:
    1. The parties are on schedule with their briefs. The plaintiffs filed their first
    brief on September 24, 2019 and the respondents filed their response brief on
    October 22, 2019. The plaintiffs’ reply brief is due November 12, 2019.
    2. There have been no further follow-up meetings between the parties and state

    1
    Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(d), Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan
    State Police Director Colonel Joseph Gaspar are automatically substituted for their
    predecessors.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 67 filed 10/28/19 PageID.1049 Page 1 of 2
    2
    stakeholders regarding any legislative resolution. No new meetings regarding a
    legislative resolution have been scheduled.
    3. The parties will file their next joint status report in 30 days.
    Respectfully submitted,
    s/ Alyson L. Oliver (P55020)
    Oliver Law Group P.C.
    363 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 200
    Troy, MI 48226
    (248) 327-6556
    notifications@oliverlg.com
    s/ Paul D. Reingold (P27594)
    Michigan Clinical Law Program
    363 Legal Research Building
    801 Monroe Street
    Ann Arbor, MI 48109
    (734) 763-4319
    pdr@umich.edu
    Dated: October 28, 2019
    s/ Miriam J. Aukerman (P63165)
    American Civil Liberties Union
    Fund of Michigan
    1514 Wealthy SE
    Grand Rapids, MI 49506
    (616) 301-0930
    maukerman@aclumich.org

    s/ Daniel Korobkin (P72842)
    American Civil Liberties Union
    Fund of Michigan
    2966 Woodward Avenue
    Detroit, MI 48201
    (313) 578-6824
    dkorobkin@aclumich.org
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    s/ Joseph T. Froehlich (P71887) (with
    consent)
    Assistant Attorney General
    Complex Litigation Division
    P.O. Box 30736
    Lansing, MI 48909
    517-335-3055
    froehlichj1@michigan.gov
    Attorney for Defendants

    • Bobby S.

      So if the Plantiff’s (ACLU) brief is due Tomorrow, so does this finally mean all this back and forth crap is over now, and the judge has to finally make a ruling, or does the defendants (the State) get to file another brief in response to the ACLU brief. This needs to come to an end by the end of the year, and People finally being removed as the state was ordered to do 3 years ago, starting with the pre 2006 and 2011 registrants, like me and Bill and Josh and many many others.

      • brandon

        I am sure this will not be done until the bets case is settled since it is in a higher court. I did check today to see it the brief was filed .. and it wasn’t but I will check in the morning and post it when it is filed. I will be interesting to see what is going to be said back to the state for their response….I know there are a lot of emotions in this blog…try to stay calm.. it looks like this is going to be a long ride!

      • Josh

        @All…..I’m getting better with the legal stuff and understanding it but I have one question for any of the people on here who can answer. How does anything that MSC rules on, trump what the 6th CCA and scotus rule on or decline to hear? What is the issue in Betts/Snyder that isn’t covered by scotus denying cert upholding the 6th’s ruling? It’s almost if those cases are muddying the water…forgive me if this sounds naive or stupid but wouldn’t it have been better to withdraw those cases in the event that the MSC who ARE elected & on term limits thus less inclined to look favorably on relief for us could further confuse the entire issue by ruling against Betts. Please explain….I’m sincerely asking

      • AJ

        @Bobby S.:
        “So if the Plantiff’s (ACLU) brief is due Tomorrow, so does this finally mean all this back and forth crap is over now, and the judge has to finally make a ruling…”
        —–
        No.
        =====

        “…or does the defendants (the State) get to file another brief in response to the ACLU brief.”
        —–
        Probably.
        =====

        As long as both parties tell the judge they are making progress, the court will not step in or act. Only if/when the parties reach impasse will the judge need to act. So far it appears MI and ACLU are content with continuing the Status Conferences and associated filings.

        Courts are always happier if the parties can reach mutual agreement. It typically saves time and money. IMO, it also allows the system to avoid establishing a precedent, but that’s just my being pessimistic and suspicious.

  30. brandon

    ……wait…..and wait…that’s the word bird!

    • Dave

      Thanks Brandon for the latest update. Very much appreciated.

      • Josh

        @Brandon….second that! Thank you for the info. In my opinion, our best shot lies with the judge saying enough is enough and granting the injunction. I probably have better chance of getting a doctorate degree in Astro physics than that happening but sometimes it’s nice to hope. Interesting tidbit in that post saying there isn’t or hasn’t been any scheduled meetings legislatively. Unless I’m reading that wrong the negotiations have appeared to stall out without plans to resume. #shocker #sarcasm

  31. R33

    This is crazy I’m going to find a lawyer at the first of the year

    • Anonymous

      @R33—and do what exactly when you hire that lawyer? For better or worse we became locked in to the class action when it became certified September 2018. You can attempt to file something federally on your own behalf but you’re going to be defeated easily by the state’s AAG. You can forget about damages too. We are literally bound to the Class action and there is no opt out. They have effectively boxed us in with no recourse but to sit and wait while these people have our lives and futures in their hands. If somebody has a different opinion on filing federally other then a 1983 then I would be very interested to hear it.

  32. MidnightMike

    I think right now the “excuse” for not doing anything to relieve us of the unconstitutional burdens placed on us is the issue of wether or not SORA can still be applied retroactively in part. On the prosecution’s side,,, I think they would like to keep everyone, including ex post facto people,,, on the registry. Even if they have to relieve us of some requirements that are unconstitutional. The problem is wether that is possible and wether it’s legal. Our side would like to see people removed,,,, especially those that have already registered past what we were originally required. There will obviously be several briefs on the subject and in the end,,, I’m not sure that the fed judge will decide the issue. I expect it to be kicked back to the Michigan courts to decide. Without a decision,,, I do not see anyone making any headway on a new law. Unfortunately the decision may take months and months STILL. Also I think the decision in Betts will play a huge role. In Betts, AG Nessle’s brief hopefully will have a huge impact, however I feel like the entire thing will be up in the air for months and months to come as no one wants to make an unpopular decision to let anyone off the registry. In the end,,, courts have held that even retroactively,,,, things that are merely civil can be required. Of course Michigan will push to keep everyone on that they can. So we may never get off Schindler’s list,,, but I at least expect some of the requirements to be lifted. Really like the prior comments said,,,,,, wait; wait,,, wait,, Something will eventually happen,,, but expect months and months more of,,,, kick the can. In the end,,, I really hope they award monetary damages. At least the amount we paid in unconditionally,, we should get back. Also I believe we should be awarded damages for the continuation of enforcing unconditional laws that punish people that the judge already ruled is illegal. If that happens I think we should all donate the money back to these ACLU lawyers or acsol, narsol,, or whoever is doing the fighting for us in court. Hopefully to allow them to keep on fighting,,, and fight even harder and more effectively. In the end,,,, any list is wrong!!! If this were a list of drunk drivers,,,, they would have already fixed it. The only reason for a list,,,, is to further punish those that can be placed on it cause society hates them. It’s happened before with Jews,, people of color,, native Americans,,, It’s going on with illegal immigrants now,,, making a list takes away from people being humans,,,, throws them all in one pile labeled “Trash”. Society loves to kick the trash around because it makes them feel better about themselves and makes it ok for them to keep taking and taking more. Any list,,, I don’t care if it’s a list Of people who declared bankruptcy,,,, is wrong. It just opens the door to too many bad things. The police didn’t need a list to begin with. It’s not like they didn’t already have access to our criminal history,,,,if they needed to investigate a crime,,,, the list began so EVERY official that comes in contact with a RC knows to treat them like second class citizens. it’s just expanded in scope since. None of this makes any sense and the courts know that. We are just stuck in a world of “they are trash so who cares”. Take advantage of being able to kick them while they are down as long as we can is the attitude,,,, they aren’t human anyway. It’s sad and hopefully someday things change in america. :/

  33. brandon

    I. Introduction
    Defendants argue that a preliminary injunction is improper because Plaintiffs
    are not likely to succeed on the merits. In fact, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction, and have already succeeded: this Court, consistent with Does #1-5 v. Snyder,
    834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) (Does I), held that the Sex Offenders Registration Act
    (SORA), M.C.L. § 28.721 et seq., is punishment and that retroactive application of
    the 2006 and 2011 amendments is unconstitutional. Stip. Order, ECF 55.
    Of the other injunction factors—none of which Defendants contest—the
    most important is irreparable injury. Plaintiffs suffer under SORA every day, despite the Sixth Circuit’s decision three years ago that SORA is punishment, and
    despite this Court’s declaratory ruling in May. Indeed, even where registrants,
    relying on that ruling, have sought clarification that SORA’s unconstitutional
    provisions do not apply to them, Defendants have refused to lift the unconstitutional conditions “in the absence of further direction from Judge Cleland as to the
    entire class.” Exh. A, Fabian/Michigan State Police Letters. Thus, the question is
    not whether injunctive relief should be granted, but only what its scope should be.
    II. Defendants Do Not Dispute Injunctive Relief on the 2006 Amendments.
    Defendants concede that the Sixth Circuit’s decision “precludes the retroactive application of the 2006 amendments.” ECF 66, Pg.ID#970. They offer no
    reason why this Court should not enjoin the enforcement of M.C.L. §§ 28.733-736
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1062 Page 5 of 18
    2
    and the second sentence of M.C.L. § 28.730(3), as applied to Does #1-3 and the
    pre-2006 ex post facto subclass.1 The Court should grant that relief.
    III. Defendants’ Revisionist Reading of Does I Is Untethered from the
    Actual Sixth Circuit Decision.
    Defendants argue that when the Sixth Circuit held that the retroactive application of SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments must cease, what the Sixth Circuit
    really meant to say was that retroactive application of M.C.L. §§ 28.725(1)(e)-(g),
    28.728(2)(l), and 28.733-736—which exceed the Sex Offenders Registration and
    Notification Act (SORNA)—must cease. Though certainly creative, this position is
    entirely untethered from the Sixth Circuit’s actual decision,
    2
    and assumes that the
    Court of Appeals is not capable of saying what it means. If the Sixth Circuit only
    cared about provisions that differ from SORNA, why did it never once mention
    SORNA? And if the Sixth Circuit was only concerned about a few provisions, why
    did it not remand with instructions simply to enjoin those specific subsections?

    1 Defendants address only the exclusion zones, but M.C.L. § 28.730(3), which
    provides for e-notice to the public, was also added in 2006, and must be enjoined.
    2 Defendants’ revisionist reading also contradicts the state’s own prior interpretation of Does I. When seeking cert, the state argued that “the Sixth Circuit’s decision prevents Michigan wholesale from applying SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments retroactively,” rather than allowing specific provisions to be severed. Cert
    Pet., Snyder v. Does, U.S. S. Ct. 16-768, at 15. The state identified the Sixth
    Circuit’s central concerns as lifetime registration, classification without individualized assessments, geographic exclusion zones, and frequent in-person
    reporting—a different and longer list than Defendants argue now. Id. at 16-24.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1063 Page 6 of 18
    3
    The simple reason is that Does I was based on the cumulative impact of a
    “byzantine code governing in minute detail the lives of the state’s sex offenders.”
    Does I, 834 F.3d at 697. Under Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the ex post facto
    analysis requires courts to consider the statute as a whole, asking whether “the
    statutory scheme,” the “regulatory scheme,” or “the Act” imposes punishment, in
    toto. Id. at 92, 94, 96-97, 99, 104-05. This makes sense, because even if a single
    obligation, standing alone, might not be punishment, the combined effect of many
    obligations can make a statute punitive. Whether a law’s cumulative burdens are
    punishment will depend on how many restrictions the law imposes, the duration,
    magnitude, and interplay of the restraints, the penalties for violations, and the
    relationship between the restrictions and the state’s public safety goals. For example, whether in-person reporting is punitive may depend on whether one must
    verify basic information infrequently for a limited time or whether one must report
    a vast array of information often, immediately, and for life, with even inadvertent
    noncompliance leading to felony charges and the risk of imprisonment.
    Consistent with Smith, the Sixth Circuit in Does I analyzed SORA as whole,
    applying the factors of Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 114 (1963), with
    different SORA provisions being relevant to different factors. For example, in finding SORA similar to historical punishments, the Court likened the exclusion zones
    to banishment, the unappealable public tier classifications and registration of
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1064 Page 7 of 18
    4
    people without sex convictions to public shaming, and the in-person reporting
    requirements, exclusion zones, and risk of imprisonment (for noncompliance) to
    probation and parole. Does I, 834 F.3d at 702-03. In finding that SORA is not
    rationally related to a non-punitive purpose, the Court considered SORA’s overall
    impact, citing the lack of individualized assessment and ineffective nature of
    offense-based registration. Id. at 704-05. And the Court repeatedly emphasized that
    for Tier III registrants, SORA’s burdens last for life. Id., at 703, 705. Defendants
    would let most of these burdens stand, even though Does I’s core holding is that
    the cumulative impact of the 2006 and 2011 changes made SORA punitive, and
    that therefore the retroactive enforcement of those amendments must cease.
    Defendants try to recast Does I as limiting only (1) publication of tier information, (2) in-person reporting on travel, electronic identifiers and vehicles; and
    (3) exclusion zones. But the Sixth Circuit identified many other aspects of SORA
    as punitive, including its lifetime reach, its lack of individualized assessments, its
    application to registrants without convictions for sex offenses, the serious sanctions
    for even inadvertent violations, and the lack of relationship to public safety. Moreover, the Court did not just question publication of tier information, but also the
    fact that tier classifications are both unappealable and offense-based rather than
    risk-based. Id. at 698, 702, 704-05. Nor were the Court’s concerns about reporting
    limited to the in-person requirement for travel, electronic identifiers, and vehicle
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1065 Page 8 of 18
    5
    reporting.3 Rather the Court found it punitive that registrants must frequently and
    immediately report a vast array of trivial information. Id. at 698, 703, 705.
    Defendants argue that under United States v. Felts, 674 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.
    2012), any SORA provision that derives from SORNA must be permissible. Not
    so. Does I, without mentioning Felts, found many SORNA-derived provisions of
    SORA—like lifetime registration, immediate in-person reporting, and unappealable tier classifications without individualized assessments—to be punitive. The
    questions in Felts and Does I were different. Mr. Felts was convicted under
    SORNA for not registering after moving from one state to another. The issue was
    whether Felts’ two-year sentence was retroactive punishment for his original sex
    offense. The Court said it was not: “SORNA provides for a conviction for failing
    to register; it does not increase the punishment for the past conviction.” Id. at 606.
    The Court rejected Felts’ argument that he was being sent to prison twice for the
    same offense, viewing his failure to register as “entirely separate” from the earlier
    crime. Id. Thus, Felts addressed the question of whether a prison sentence for failure to comply with SORNA’s basic registration requirement4 punishes a new or old

    3 SORNA in fact requires immediate reporting of this information; the only
    difference from SORA is that reporting need not be in person. See Department of
    Justice, National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, at 52,
    available at https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/final_sornaguidelines.pdf.
    4 Because the constitutionality of a basic, initial registration requirement had
    been addressed by the Supreme Court in Smith, it is unsurprising that the Sixth
    Circuit upheld Felts’ imprisonment for his failure to meet that requirement.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1066 Page 9 of 18
    6
    offense. Imprisonment is indisputably punishment, so the Felts Court never
    considered whether SORNA’s burdens are punishment. In Does I, the Sixth Circuit
    did consider those burdens (to the extent they are mirrored in SORA) and found
    them to be punitive.
    5 Plaintiffs here are not challenging prison sentences imposed
    for failure-to-register convictions, but are bringing an affirmative civil challenge to
    SORA’s cumulative burdens. Does I is controlling; Felts is inapposite.
    Finally, Defendants’ revisionist account contradicts the Sixth Circuit’s holding that its ex post facto ruling mooted the other claims “because none of the contested provisions may now be applied to the plaintiffs.” Does I, 834 F.3d at 706.
    The Does I plaintiffs had challenged retroactive lifetime registration as violating
    due process; the vagueness of various reporting requirements; restrictions on
    registrants’ fundamental rights to speak, parent, travel and work; registration of
    people who were never convicted, or did not commit sex offenses; and SORA’s

    5 There is no reason to believe Michigan will lose federal funding if it amends
    SORA to comply with Does I. SORNA requires only “substantial” compliance and
    it excepts a state’s inability to comply due to court rulings. 34 U.S.C. § 20927(b).
    In determining “substantial compliance” for funding purposes, DOJ has considered
    both state and federal court rulings of unconstitutionality requiring states to deviate
    from SORNA. See e.g., Department of Justice, SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of Kansas, at 3 (July 19, 2011), https://smart.gov/pdfs/sorna/
    Kansas.pdf; and SORNA Implementation Review State of Nevada, at 1 (Feb.
    2011), https://smart.gov/pdfs/sorna/Nevada%20.pdf. Under the National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, 11 (July 2008) the federal
    government “will consider on a case-by-case basis whether jurisdictions’ rules or
    procedures that do not exactly follow the provisions of SORNA or these Guidelines ‘substantially’ implement SORNA.” See http://www.smart.gov/guidelines.htm.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1067 Page 10 of 18
    7
    strict liability provisions. Pls’ 1st Brf, Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 15-cv-2346/2486.
    Those other challenges would not have been moot if the Sixth Circuit’s decision
    only voided M.C.L. §§ 28.725(1)(e)-(g), 28.728(2)(l), and 28.733-.736.
    IV. The 2011 Amendments Are Not Severable.
    Severability focuses on whether unconstitutional provisions are so entangled
    with valid portions of a statute that they cannot be cleanly cut out. Blank v. Dep’t
    of Corrections, 611 N.W.2d 530, 540 (Mich. 2000). Here, because the Sixth Circuit was focused on the cumulative impact of the amendments, one cannot simply
    excise a couple subsections and be done. Rather, this Court would need to engage
    in “quintessentially legislative work” to “rewrit[e] state law to confirm it to constitutional requirements.” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England,
    546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006). The point is not that every word added in 2011 is unconstitutional6—there may be provisions that the legislature could retain without their
    cumulative impact being punitive. But it is up to the legislature to decide whether,
    in making SORA less punitive, it wants shorter non-public registration or longer
    public registration based on individual assessments. Similarly, reporting could be
    made less punitive by decreasing its frequency or by substituting on-line/mail

    6 For example, the 2006 amendments define a minor as a person younger than
    eighteen. M.C.L. § 28.733(c). Although that is perfectly constitutional, Defendants
    acknowledge that § 28.733(c) must be stricken because it makes no sense standing
    alone. The same analysis applies to the 2011 amendments.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1068 Page 11 of 18
    8
    reporting for in-person reporting. But those are legislative, not judicial, choices.7
    The responsibilities of the judicial and legislative branches do not change
    just because the legislature fails to act. Plaintiffs do not dispute that enjoining
    SORA for pre-2011 registrants is strong medicine. But after more than three years
    of legislative inaction, strong medicine is needed. The Court can always delay the
    injunction’s effective date for 60 days, which is plenty of time to pass a new law.
    V. Certification Is Unnecessary, and Is Impermissible so Long as the
    Punishment of Plaintiffs Continues.
    Not one of L.R. 83.40’s requirements for certification is met here. First,
    Michigan’s severability law is not “unsettled.” L.R. 83.40(a)(1). Federal courts
    regularly engage in severability analyses of Michigan statutes.8 Here, Michigan
    severability law compels a finding that the 2011 amendments are not severable.
    Defendants’ arguments to the contrary do not make this a novel question. See
    Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 390-91 (1974) (“mere difficulty in ascertaining local law is no excuse for remitting the parties to a state tribunal for the
    start of another lawsuit”); Duryee v. U.S. Department of Treasury, 6 F. Supp. 2d

    7 Defendants argue that the 2011 amendments reflect the legislature’s desire to
    make Michigan’s law SORNA-compliant. But the question is not what the legislature wanted in 2011, but what the legislature wants now that the 2011 amendments cannot be retroactively applied. A unified statute for all registrants would be
    very different than one where registration requirements depend on the offense date.
    8 See, e.g., Int’l Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Troy, 361 F.Supp.3d 713, 718 (E.D.
    Mich. 2019); Larkin v. State of Mich., 883 F. Supp. 172, 180 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1069 Page 12 of 18
    9
    700, 704 (S.D. Ohio 1995) (denying certification because parties’ analysis of how
    Ohio severability law should apply demonstrated that the question was not novel).
    Defendants argue that the question must be novel, because the Michigan
    Supreme Court has granted leave on the allegedly “identical” issue in People v.
    Betts, 928 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. 2019). But the issues are not identical. The Sixth
    Circuit has already decided as a matter of federal law that retroactive application of
    the 2011 amendments is unconstitutional. Thus the severability issue here is
    whether those deeply embedded amendments can be severed. By contrast, the
    Michigan Supreme Court, which unlike this Court is not bound by the Sixth Circuit, will first address the threshold questions of whether SORA is punishment, and
    if it became punitive only upon the enactment of certain amendments. Were the
    Court to decide, for example, that SORA became punitive after the 1997 amendments, then the question would be whether those amendments are severable.
    With respect to the second requirement for certification, Defendants claim
    that “[t]here is a high likelihood that the decision in Betts will reach all the provisions challenged by Plaintiffs,” ECF 66, Pg.ID#957, and that therefore “the issue
    certified will likely control the outcome of the federal suit.” L.R. 83.40(a)(2). That
    is simply not true. Certifying a question on severability of the 2011 amendments
    affects only the ex post facto subclasses. The Betts’ leave grant does not address
    any of the claims of the primary class (which comprises both pre- and post-2011
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1070 Page 13 of 18
    10
    registrants), namely whether SORA is unconstitutionally vague, imposes strict
    liability without due process, and violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. 1st
    Am. Compl., ECF 34, Pg.ID# 384-86. See Warren Prescriptions, Inc. v. Walgreen
    Co., 2018 WL 287951, at *3 (E.D. Mich., Jan. 4, 2018) (denying certification
    because multiple other claims would survive regardless).
    Because L.R. 83.40(a)(2) must be read in tandem with subsection (b), which
    provides that “certification shall stay federal proceedings,” Plaintiffs believe the
    best reading of the rule is that its requirements relate only to the claim on which
    the issue is certified. Any other reading would either prevent certification of
    dispositive questions that are not the sole question in the litigation, or stall federal
    litigation whenever there is certification on a question relevant to only one claim.
    Here, there is no plausible argument that certification on severability will control
    the outcome of the entire case. Therefore, certification is clearly impermissible
    unless Plaintiffs can proceed on their other claims if the case is certified.
    Finally, L.R. 83.40(a)(3) permits certification only if it “will not cause undue
    delay or prejudice.” Defendants have failed to comply for more than three years
    with a binding Sixth Circuit decision, and have failed to take any curative action to
    comply with this Court’s declaratory ruling. ECF 55. Yet now they ask this Court
    to allow the unconstitutional punishment of tens of thousands of people to continue
    for however long certification takes. Another year could easily pass before (a) this
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1071 Page 14 of 18
    11
    Court rules on certification, (b) the statement required by L.R. 83.40(c) is negotiated and approved, (c) the parties brief the issue and the Michigan Supreme Court
    decides whether to accept the certified question, Mich. Ct. R. 7.308(A)(2) if the
    Michigan Supreme Court does accept certification, it decides the question and
    issues a merits opinion. Without doubt certification severely prejudices Plaintiffs.
    Accordingly, certification is not just unnecessary, it is also impermissible.
    Defendants raise the specter of inconsistent state and federal results, but severability law in Michigan is clear. Moreover, in the unlikely event that the Michigan
    Supreme Court rules differently (assuming it even reaches the question of the 2011
    amendments’ severability), this Court can always modify its injunction. Fed. R.
    Civ. Proc. 60(b). The Court should therefore grant a permanent injunction.
    Because L.R. 83.40 permits certification only in the absence of undue delay
    or prejudice, the Court cannot certify absent interim relief. Such relief could be
    modeled on the final judgment in Does I. See Pls’ Opening Brf., ECF 62, Pg.ID#
    834-35. Alternately, the Court could grant a preliminary rather than a permanent
    injunction enjoining application of SORA to the ex post facto subclasses, while
    certifying severability. That would ensure that registrants are not prejudiced by
    ongoing punishment while the certification process plays out, and would mean
    there is zero risk of inconsistent state and federal results.
    VI. Defendants Should Be Responsible for Notice.
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1072 Page 15 of 18
    12
    The state has a statutory responsibility to inform registrants of their SORA
    obligations. M.C.L. § 28.725a. But even after entry of this Court’s declaratory
    judgment, ECF 55, the state has continued to inform registrants falsely that they
    must comply with SORA as written. See ECF 62-4, 62-5. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 23(c)(2)(A), the Court should (1) order Defendants to notify registrants that
    liability has been decided and that parts of SORA cannot be applied retroactively;
    (2) order the Michigan State Police to provide notice (because it is in the best position to do so given that it administers the registry and regularly provides information to registrants); and (3) order the parties to present a joint notice, or proposed
    separate notices, to the Court for approval. See Hunt v. Imperial Merch. Servs.,
    Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1143-44 (9th Cir. 2009); Barry v. Lyon, 13-cv-13185, Dkt.
    114 (E.D. Mich., March 31, 2015) (state to provide notice to (b)(2) class) (Exh. B).
    In addition, pursuant to Rule 65(d)(2), the Court should order Defendants to
    provide notice to prosecutors and law enforcement, so that they will be bound by
    any injunction. Platinum Sports Ltd. v. Snyder, 715 F.3d 615, 619 (6th Cir. 2013)
    (prosecutors are bound by injunctions against the governor); Cady v. Arenac Co.,
    574 F.3d 334, 343 (6th Cir. 2009) (prosecutors act as agents of the state); Pusey v.
    City of Youngstown, 11 F.3d 652, 657-658 (6th Cir. 1993). Local law enforcement
    agencies have responsibility for enforcing SORA, M.C.L. § 28.722(n), and are “in
    active concert or participation” with Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(d)(2)(C).
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1073 Page 16 of 18
    13
    Respectfully submitted,
    s/ Alyson L. Oliver (P55020)
    Oliver Law Group P.C.
    363 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 200
    Troy, MI 48226
    (248) 327-6556
    notifications@oliverlg.com
    s/ Paul D. Reingold (P27594)
    Michigan Clinical Law Program
    363 Legal Research Building
    801 Monroe Street
    Ann Arbor, MI 48109
    (734) 763-4319
    pdr@umich.edu
    Dated: November 12, 2019
    s/ Miriam J. Aukerman (P63165)
    American Civil Liberties Union
    Fund of Michigan
    1514 Wealthy SE
    Grand Rapids, MI 49506
    (616) 301-0930
    maukerman@aclumich.org
    s/ Daniel Korobkin (P72842)
    American Civil Liberties Union
    Fund of Michigan
    2966 Woodward Avenue
    Detroit, MI 48201
    (313) 578-6824
    dkorobkin@aclumich.org
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    Case 2:16-cv-13137-RHC-DRG ECF No. 69 filed 11/12/19 PageID.1074 Page 17 o

    • R33

      What does this mean

      • AJ

        @R33:
        What it all means is MI is trying to reframe the argument and twist the words of the ruling. It also means ACLU is throwing the BS flag on MI’s claims and is putting a little heat to the judge regarding injunctions–one of which was already granted but is so far ignored because of no final ruling.

        • R33

          @aj thanks for that it was confusing me and probably others so it might be good then right

  34. brandon

    ….this is a curve ball…right on!

    • Josh

      @AJ….thanks for that info. Makes sense now. It also doesn’t make me feel any better though…Michigan appealed to scotus and were denied so now they’re basically saying it was a state issue anyway and that’s their justification for disregarding every ruling that has gone against them…@Brandon…thanks for posting that! From what I could tell the case for a injunction permanent or otherwise couldn’t have been made any better..They succinctly destroyed every argument the state of Michigan was attempting to make. Hope the judge sees it the way it is and doesn’t punt. I also didn’t like the part about the state getting another 60 days to fix it legislatively. The state is still in the midst of a prolonged budget battle while showing absolutely no interest in legislating this issue….Pray for Judge Cleland that he has the courage to do the right thing!

      • Josh

        Does the state get a chance to respond to this? Or, is it in the judge’s hands now?

        • Bobby S.

          Ok, so what does all this mean, I read the whole thing, but still don’t understand it. Does anyone know how or willing to explain this in laymen’s terms , for those of us are idiots when it comes to legalise crap. I would very much appreciate a dumbed down version of this please. Thank you in advance. Also does this sound like good or bad news?.

      • blake

        Im assuming the 60 days is for the whole new law not the injunction. So we would still get relief while they fix the law for everyone. I for one want to get the changes coming to me but i would be ok with waiting 2 months while they fix it for everyone in michigan.

  35. brandon

    here….you…go….wait the states response …..i hope just like you!

  36. Disgusted in Michigan

    Its been a while since I’ve posted because I’m dealing with some really bad crap, and I’m now another example of how SORA is being used by people to inflict harm. I’ve been working for a very large international corporation for almost 2 years, making very decent money, but that ended 3 weeks ago when a couple co-workers learned I was on the registry and conspired to have me terminated from my job. My manager and supervisor were both aware of my status because I told them at my interview, but was hired based on my experience, good work ethics, and professionalism. It was no secret that I was their favorite worker based on me always volunteering to go above and beyond what was required of me.
    False complaints were filed against me claiming I was harassing a couple of the females. I even overheard them conspiring against me and brought it to the attention of my manager, who went with me to HR to inform her what i heard. The HR manager was also aware of my status.
    The conspirators also went to HR to file false claims. An investigation by corporate ensued and even though there was no proof of the alleged harassment, it was decided that I should be terminated. HR told me that even though she believed I did nothing wrong, there was nothing she could do.
    This happened 3 weeks ago yesterday and I have been struggling since then to find employment that will pay my bills. I need to find something that will pay at least $16 an hour in order to pay my bills and have a little left over for food. But everyone here certainly understands how difficult it is.
    I have this month’s bills covered but if I don’t find employment by Monday I’m going to be in a very bad situation and will most likely lose everything I’ve worked so hard for.
    I’m not picky when it comes to working but I need to find something that will allow me to survive.
    I hated to do it but i started a go fund me campaign to try to raise funds to help me get by for another month, but since I don’t have any social media accounts and a very small circle of friends, it isn’t going anywhere.
    I’m an asking everyone here for advise. Does anyone know if a place I can post my link? I have no facebook, twitter, Instagram or any other such account. I really need help. Please let me know if there’s any other place I could post it. I’m not asking for much, just breathing room for another month while i continue looking for work.

    • someone who cares

      Disgusted ~ I am so sorry to hear that this injustice caused you harm. No, the registry is NOT administrative, and your story is like so many others. I find that Craigslist lists a lot of jobs under “General Labor”, and many are warehouse jobs, paying $16-$18 an hour. I am not sure if that is true in Michigan, but here in CA, there always seem to be job openings for general labor. Keep us posted, and I hope you will find something soon. If you worked there for 2 years, and they let YOU go, couldn’t you apply for unemployment for now?

    • Dave

      Write this lady and explain what’s happening. They post jobs often and have support groups.

      http://micitizensforjustice.com/

  37. Disgusted in Michigan

    Thanks guys. @Someone who cares: I’ll make contact there. Thanks for the link. I have filed for unemployment but it’s still under review. It would not be enough to cover my bills but every little bit helps. I would much rather work.
    I’ve been applying on indeed.com but keep running into the issue of background checks and even though it was almost 30 years ago it’s still holding me back. I have applied for positions on Craigslist and even applied for daily gigs. I had one gig for a day that paid well but I need something permanent for peace of mind. I’m not ready to give up yet but it’s getting close.

    • steve

      GET A LAWYER AND SUE THE COMPANY. That would have been the first thing I would have done.

      • AJ

        @steve:
        If MI is an “at-will” State regarding employment, which I believe it is, there may be little, if any, standing for a suit.

        • Disgusted in Michigan

          Michigan is an at will state so there is no grounds for a lawsuit even if I had the time and resources to pursue one.
          My time is better spend looking for new employment. There are tons of jobs available, but I cannot live on $10-12 an hour. The lowest I can go and still have money left for food is $16 and that’s still pretty tight.
          With Michigan basic background checks only looking back 7-10 years, I can easily pass, but once the registry is checked it disqualifies me. My original 25 years expired almost 2 years ago but thanks to the life sentence I received in the mail back in 2011, it makes it very tough to find decent employment.
          If I don’t find something within the next couple days I’m really screwed. This sucks. I’m a hard working guy who is very professional, always on time, always willing to go above and beyond the job requirements but none of that matters because the registry portrays me as a vile monster for a mistake I made almost 30 years ago.
          I have no family to help. No close friends to turn to. Its already winter here and very cold outside and I cannot live on the street. I don’t even have the extra funds to put all my belongings into storage if I lose my house. I’m beginning to think it might be better to just end it all. What else is a guy to do?

        • R M

          All states and D.C. are at-will states (some have exceptions though). All do however state that the reason for termination can’t be illegal; that is the answer the original poster should investigate.

  38. TnT

    & they say, the registry isn’t punitive ……… Wtf is wrong with this picture ?

  39. Disgusted in Michigan

    Update…got an interview tomorrow at noon for a very good company that hasn’t mentioned background checks and working on getting an interview set up for monday. Both places in urgent need of my skills.
    Keeping my fingers crossed.

    • Md

      From the sounds of it the registry will be expanded not dropped down. I get off in less then a year so I am watching everything I do. We should call for action is there is to be a SoRA then there should be one for murders, drug dealers, Repeated alcohol offenses, stealing or just make a registry so everyone in America has to pay 50 for the privilege of being on it and fix the budget. To discriminate against one type of crime should be a crime. Good luck to everyone but the registry is here to stay and will only get worse before it gets better is my opinion as a tier 1. Been on it for 14 years and counting down

      • WanigasCivilian

        Thanks for your words of hope, guy who isn’t fighting against lifetime registration but acts like he relates to us all. Please keep your nonsensical banter of discouragement to yourself.

  40. Bobby S.

    Hello everyone,

    I emailed Tim today from the ACLU, today to ask what is going on with the case, and where everything stands at this point, and if this crap is close to coming to an end yet. I have not heard anything back yet, but when I do I will let everyone know what he say’s back if he even says anything useful back to me.

    On a some what funny note, my sister ordered Chinese the other night and I took one of her 9 fortune cookies at random still in the package, and so I read it and it said( Good news is on the way) LOL, well lets hope so if you believe that sorta stuff. Well that’s it for now, Just wondering besides the brief that was posted by Brandon I do believe, has anyone else heard anything new yet. Thanks in advance.

  41. John s

    FYI Kent County Michigan knocking on doors right now.
    On opening weekend of Deer hunting? Hmmm maybe looking for a bit more?

    • Will Allen

      It is a shame the criminals can get close enough to a door to knock on it.

      Anyone who talks to them needs to be sure to tell them to go f*ck themselves.

  42. TnT

    @ Will Allen…… Agree n luv it 🙂

  43. Dave

    UPDATES MI ACLU
    NOVEMBER 18, 2019:

    The state has now filed a response and we have filed a reply.  It is not certain when the court will rule or whether there will be a hearing.  The response and reply are available below.

    SEPTEMBER 25, 2019:
    On September 24, 2019, the ACLU and its partners filed a motion asking the court to say that SORA cannot be applied at all to registrants whose offenses predate April 12, 2011, the effective date of the 2011 Amendments.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that those amendments cannot be applied retroactively. The ACLU argues that SORA is impossible to understand without the 2011 amendments, and that therefore if the legislature wants to apply SORA to pre-2011 registrants, it must pass a new law. It cannot apply the current law. 

    The ACLU and its partners also asked the judge to bar enforcement of the 2006 amendments to people whose registrable offenses occurred prior to January 1, 2006. Those amendments limit where registrants can live, work and spend time, and also affect electronic notices that go out to the public when registrants move.

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

  44. LH60

    Thank you to all whom are trying to keep us updated on this ongoing battle. So much is changing now a days it is hard to keep up.
    My main question at this point is, will any of these changes that are hoped for do anything for us later arrivals to the registry. Meaning, if our offence was in 2016, will anything help.
    Thanks again.

    • Don’t tread on me

      There are constitutional challenge aspects that are also part of this. We can only wait and see the final version of this. The most important admission by the federal courts is that the registry is now punitive. It is no longer just regulatory. This is important because constitutionally we can not be punished twice for the same crime. We are very slowly making headway in this war. To answer your question: it WILL ultimately help us all.

  45. Bobby S. (SMALL UPDATE)

    Hello Everyone,

    Well , I heard back from Tim from the ACLU today, it was a short and to the point email. it sounds like it might be close to being over, or it’s just more of the same kicking the can down the street and more waiting and waiting, I would like to get everyone’s thought on it and what they think the email means. Do you think it’s finally coming to and end, or it’s just going to be more sit and wait and wait and kicking the can down the street. Thanks in advance. Here it is people.

    Bobby: We will be in court in front of the Judge in February of 2020 as will the State. 

    Tim P 

    • DAVID R

      I think that the ACLU are doing the best job they know how, with in the law, and that Michigan is doing all that they can to keep the unconstitutional laws in place. I have been waiting for 19 years for Michigan to do the right thing (I know i just made a joke ) But to answer your question, I think that Michigan is playing kick the can, they have know intention of doing anything before 2020.

  46. MidnightMike

    FEBRUARY???? February!!!! WTF?? Why would it be until February before anything gets done???? That’s like an entirely new 90 days. I can’t say that I get it. Someone enlighten us please. Thank you.

    • Dave

      Unbelievable!! No injunction to at least stop the unconstitutional parts from being applied from over three years ago. Lol

  47. Brandon

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
    John Doe#3, et al.,
    Plaintiff(s),
    v. Case No. 2:16−cv−13137−RHC−DRG
    Hon. Robert H. Cleland
    Richard Snyder, et al.,
    Defendant(s),
    NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING
    You are hereby notified to appear before District Judge Robert H. Cleland at the United
    States District Court, Federal Building, 526 Water Street, Port Huron, Michigan. The following
    motion(s) are scheduled for hearing:
    Motion − #62
    • MOTION HEARING: February 5, 2020 at 02:00 PM
    Certificate of Service
    I hereby certify that this Notice was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of
    record were served.
    By: s/L. Wagner
    Case Manager
    Dated: November 19, 2019

    • blake

      Well michigan got what it wants. Now when their is a court order to either shut down the registry or whatever the judge decides the legislators can blame it all on the judge so it doesnt effect them getting re elected. Its sad that they care more about themselves then the 40k people and their familys. This state is disgusting and im ashamed to been born here at this point.

      • CR

        @blake, “Now when their is a court order to either shut down the registry …”

        You mean if, not when, right? Has this judge done anything at all to make you think that he is ever going to take any action against the state? I don’t think he wants to resolve this. He is letting the state have its way.

        • Tired Old Man

          EXACTLY!!!

          This judge does not have the balls to go agienst the state!!!

      • Will Allen

        It’s not just Michigan.

        Most people who are listed on the Registries did something disgusting to get listed. Are they disgusting people forever? I don’t know.

        But most “people” all over Amerika are disgusting. There is very widespread support for the Registries. It’s disgusting. The “people” are disgusting. Literally the entire country is disgusting, just as it has always been.

        I mean really, all I ever have to do is think back to when I was younger and my parents were telling me about segregation. I even saw some of it. And you can see the really, really ugly history of it if you want to look. That was insanely f*cking disgusting and it completely parallels Registries today. The exact same kind of people who support Registries would’ve loved segregation. They’d practice it today if they could get away with it and thought people would think better of them.

        Just look at how hateful Amerika is today. I truly find most of the “people” disgusting. Look at what they do and how they act. Most people need a literal bomb dropped on their homes just so they can get some perspective and a clue. A good world war would help fix their BS.

        Decent people don’t support Registries. I see people all over the place every day who LOOK like they are decent. But most aren’t. They are only decent when it is easy and convenient for them.

        • Bill

          @Will Allen

          Stare at the abyss much?

        • Will Allen

          @Bill:

          I do and it’s called Amerika. I hate it but I have to be realistic.

          I have a great life and I’m around great family and friends every day and as much as I want. I also have a lot of animals. So I’m around a great, engaging, loving environment every day.

          But all I have to do is look outside to see the world. Just flat out, Registries aren’t acceptable to decent people. And certainly no decent person at all can think we should have “residency restrictions” and other such nonsense in Amerika. Who accepts policies that obviously make people homeless? Who accepts policies that kill people? None of that stuff actually affects me directly, but I care about it. And I use it as a barometer to realize that most people are simply immoral and disgusting wastes of oxygen.

          Then if you want more hateful proof just take a look at our ridiculous politics or just about anything else. All hate. All terrible people harassing other people. Then if I want even more proof all I have to do is drive down the road. You’ll see more rude, obnoxious idiots than you want.

          So what’s up? Why has Amerika always been a hateful place? My wife always channels Gandhi or whomever and says things like, “be the change you want to see.”

          I say nope. I will be the monster they say I am. Just not the way or with the results that they lie that they want.

  48. MidnightMike

    Oh wow. I can’t believe that either. I sure hoped for some relief sooner. I guess the Judge is probably a busy guy and it takes a minute to get on his docket. I sure hope this isn’t a stall tactic to hope that “Wyatt’s Law” is passed,,,, so they can just include everyone that would have been released on the Whyatt’s Law website and of course still meet the “Required to register in the state of conviction” requirements for all those silly things that mean nothing like being free to do something American and get on a motorcycle and travel the country like a free, grown, Christian man. Or travel for work. SMH. You know this all began with me putting faith in our American system of justice and regretting it. Things like dressing me in my suit for court at 5am and then handcuffing me so I couldn’t take my suit jacket off and locking me in a cell with the heat cranked as high as they could possibly get it. I seriously had extremely visible white salt rings in my suit,,,, every single time I walked in for trial. After trial was I walked back to jail in some sort of civilized manner with the rest of the inmates. No No. take everyone else back while I change into oranges. Oh then,,, belly chains and leg restraints. Then we go hang out at the corner of the courthouse till the jury is released,,,, so they can jerk me around in front of them and make it look like I’m being unruly. Tbh,,,, it’s really really really hard to have any faith at all in our judicial system,,,,,, But I hope and pray that they do the right thing,,,, sooner rather then later. God bless y’all and keep up the fight ACLU!!! Thanks so much. KICK SOME BUTT!

    • Josh

      @All in Michigan…..I did some checking and according to what I was told there are continuing deadlines for briefs to be filed between now and the February hearing. The purpose of these briefs is to settle the language in the order that the judge will “supposedly” issue granting some form of relief. I’m only passing on what I was told by what I believe to be a reliable source but please don’t take it as gospel truth. However, It does seem to match up with what @BobbyS reported from his guy at the ACLU and confirmed by @Brandon’s post of the order for the hearing. That being said, I really think we should temper expectations about how much relief we’re gonna get given the state’s ongoing level of resistance.

    • David

      In California, ACSOL is suing to get Registrants the right to serve on juries. (A new CA law allows all other felons to serve on juries, just not RCs, of course.) I hope former inmates will “enlighten” fellow jurors on how the so-called Justice System actually operates.

  49. Disgusted in Michigan

    Judge Cleland is not an elected judge. He was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Therefore he does not have to worry about political backlash and can certainly rule in favor of the Constitution as he already has done. I too am anxious for this to be over but there are procedures for him to follow so as not to leave any loose ends for the state to bring up on appeal. He has already ruled that the 2006 and 2011 amendments cannot be applied retroactively so there is no reason to believe he will overturn himself. We are going to get relief. Its just a matter of time but it’s coming.
    I believe it is correct that the legislature has not made any changes as ordered in order to salvage their political careers. That way they can say “we didn’t do it, the judge did” and then sleep well at night knowing their hands are clean when they are up for re-election.
    Just my opinion based on how politicians operate.

  50. Bill

    @Will Allen

    Our country is many things other than hateful. It is also arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical, and full of hubris.

    It is relatively young compared to most countries and hasn’t really had it’s immature ass kicked like other countries like Germany and Japan for example.

    Our country has yet to collectively eat humble pie to learn respect, humility, and self-reflection before judging others. But it will.

    Our country is a work in progress that mistakenly believes it’s complete and acts like it knows everything.

    Kinda like a teenager. And like a teenager it’s going through it’s phases and sometimes it’s destructive.

    But like a teenager it also has promise and potential yet to be realized. It just needs to get over it’s destructive side. And sometimes it needs it’s ass kicked before it’s set right. And right now our country is getting into that stage by its own actions.

    Let’s just hope there is something left after it’s all said and done.

    • Will Allen

      Oh yeah, it is all that and more. And of course it is not the country, it is the people in it.

      There are so many awful people in Amerika today. I really wonder if most of the younger generations are not almost all bad. A very large percentage are. They are all little idiots. Self-entitled, self-righteous, lazy, ignorant, and full of themselves. For some reason, I continue to be shocked that so many people have what they consider to be a “solid” opinion on just about anything. It seems rare to find someone who will say something like, “I don’t know much about that so I can’t have much of an opinion.” I doubt that many people have put much serious thought into Registries and yet they “think” with their emotions. I also think they don’t really care much if their opinion isn’t worth anything. We live in a throw-away society where little is respected. Why should they respect their opinions? Why should anyone else?

      About half the time today when I have any significant opinion about something that I don’t know that much about, I’m just blabbing like all the rest of the morons. Because I think these days that half the battle is just being loud and obnoxious. A majority of people don’t care all that much about what is right and moral. And I feel like I owe Registry Nazis and their ilk nothing. I can say literally anything I want to them, true or not. They deserve nothing. If I want something to be true, I just have to say it 1,000 times. It’s what they do and understand.

      I know I’m an idiot and that is by far the biggest thing that makes me smart.

      Meh, I’ll stop blabbing on. I would like for Amerika to try out 2 years of mandatory military service for everyone, followed by 1 year in prison. Just to see if that helps. I think it would. It couldn’t hurt our rapidly devolving country.

      • Bill

        @Will Allen

        How about this:

        Anybody that serves in law enforcement, as a prosecutor, judge, or law maker needs to serve mandatory prison time for at least 6 months to know what’s it like before serving the law.

        Radical idea I know but sometimes you got to think outside the box.

        • Will Allen

          I don’t think it is radical at all. I’d mandate that right now. We can start with the people hired tomorrow. For everyone else who is already employed, give them maybe a few years in order to get their 6 months served. If they don’t get started by 2.5 years, they get fired.

          I would love to have mandatory military service from a person’s 18th birthday until they turn 20. And on that very day, they would be taken to prison for 1 year. I really think that would help most people. If they didn’t serve properly or caused problems, the time would just keep being extended. Most people would be released on their 21st birthday. Some people might remain in service until after they are 30.

          There is something wrong in Amerika and the world. Should try some radical things to fix it.

          Kind of on the flip side of that, I think it could create actually responsible and accountable human beings. Therefore, we wouldn’t have things be illegal just to be fake “protecting” people from themselves. No drug would illegal. Prostitution would not be illegal. What else? As long as a person isn’t harming someone else, it would not be illegal. Let’s stop playing games and hold people personally responsible. And end these big government businesses and criminal rackets.

Leave a Reply to Harold Cancel 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 *

.