ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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


LA: Man removed ‘sex offender’ from his ID, and a judge dismissed the case. Why?

When a Lafayette Parish man removed the words “sex offender” from his state-issued ID, law enforcement officers said Louisiana law had been broken. A local judge saw things differently. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. 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.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. 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.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The judge is right!! The guy did his time and payed for his crime!! End of story! Oh no not for sex crimes! Law makers keep adding new laws! Well no one did this too me! So i will/add and pass a law that it can’t happen to you! LE dumb dumbass pass feel good laws that don’t help anyone. Just to shut the complaint up!

From the article is a quote from an LSU law professor, Ken Levy: “He said the law is “not meant to stigmatize” the offender but “to protect the public.””

This is the stance new cases should be bringing up that the registry is going beyond its statutory means. Stigmatism, banishment, or exclusion from privileges/immunities upon the same terms.

The more states that recognize that the registry is going beyond its statutory means then it becomes easier to overturn bad laws, or possibly the whole registry scheme itself.

Now, I don’t believe the registry was made “to protect the public”. It was made to “make person(s) available for questioning”, which has been denoted in recent California cases. The government is moving the goal post here and has been moving it all along, which is why Louisiana and other states can put “Sex Offender” on driver’s licences.

I think the key lie used to create the Registries was that their purpose was to “inform” the public for public safety.

Surely no one believes that “make person(s) available for questioning” is of any use. Anyone that dumb? Don’t most people know who $EXUALLY assaulted them? For the minority that do not, DNA has to be the thing that solves it, not just a hope of talking to 500 or 1,000 Registered People (RPs). Additionally, the Registries remind those people every day that if you want to ignore DNA and commit a $EX crime, then you certainly shouldn’t do it anywhere near where you are Registered. Apparently you can do it where other RPs are.

And lastly, no one should ever be “available for questioning” for law enforcement. I’ve been on the hit list for over 2 decades and not once have they tried to question me about any $EX crime. Not a single time. Which is smart of them of course, since they should be using evidence and facts. But I wouldn’t talk to them no matter what. No matter what has happen or what is the case. I won’t tell them anything ever.

Right? If the registration requirement was to “protect the public” what is the reason for not requiring the same for all criminals? If it were the true intent (never mind effect) and constitutionally sound, what possible reason do our legislators have to refuse to protect the public from crime of all kinds?

Only thing I can see that could ever possibly be a reasonable excuse is the cost. I can’t think of any other reason. We know politicians don’t care about costs so that means Registries are for harassment.

Or maybe their motto is “if it saves one child, it’s worth it as long as it doesn’t cost much.”

Ok but I don’t see ANY reason why the legislature thinks cost is a an excuse from keeping my and my family safe from crime of any kind. Seriously? Cost is an issue to expose me and my children to terrible harm? Seriously???? What happened to “if it saves one kid”?

“If it saves one child” is obviously a lie.

The motto of the Registries is “If it saves one child, it can murder a lot more, as long as it makes ME feel good it’s worth it. ME, ME, ME.”

To my knowledge all criminals in Wisconsin DOC are now online & public but there not listed on a registry WISSOR is separate from Dept of corrections. However it was the sex offender who paved the way for the expenditures on big K. The inter connected infrastructure. The OMNIBUS 94 could have created a single federal registry but instead chose to pay for 50 separate state database machines. The new registry obligation overran millions of settled cases & judgement at the state level.

Amazing that I see this story on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

This will be an interesting case to follow. The guy may end up being convicted of defacing the document (even if it’s unconstitutional speech, one cannot act autonomously), I think the larger outcome will be LA having to drop the idea of branding RCs’ IDs. I’m just surprised ANYthing like this comes out of LA!

On another note, LA seems a bit messed up on its perspectives on sex crimes. From the article:
Tier 1 cases involve cases such as indecent behavior with juveniles, crimes against nature and voyeurism. They require registration for 15 years, State Police say.
Tier 2 crimes involve a “sexual offense against a victim who is a minor” and require sex registry registration for 25 years. Such crimes include oral sexual battery, pornography involving juveniles and computer-aided solicitation of a minor.
So you can mess around with a juvenile, screw an animal or have “unnatural copulation” with another human, and/or be a peeping-tom, and the State says you register for 15 years. However if you go down on someone, CP, or try to hook up with a juvenlie online, you get 25 years. Based on the offenses, it would seem the Tiers need to be flipped. Screwing Elsie the cow is “better” than a pic of a naked teen?!? Really?!?

You just had to bring Elsie into the story, didn’t you… lol.

They’d never get a conviction anyway. Everyone knows what a slut Elsie is.

“He said the law is “not meant to stigmatize” the offender…”

Um, riiiiiiight….

At least when they pissed on Hester Prynne’s head they didn’t tell her it was raining.


What clause supports that premise under the constitution? NONE!

The right to know is a false narrative not supported by the constitution. This is a ploy of the electronic DOMESTIC surveillance saints to maintain their current disposition of unfettered use of the infrastructure. PERIOD.

AJ / lmao Elise the cow or billy the goat

Hmmm. . Someone may have erased that from my documents too. . but I’m not sure.

This case will ultimately be upheld. In Butts County Georgia a federal judge ruled recently that things like signs on lawns at Halloween placed by the sheriff’s office is compelled speech. By placing “SEX OFFENDER” on a state issued ID would fall under the 1st Amendment protections regarding compelled speech

I tend to agree with your assessment. Speech as an inalienable right and was certainly implicated in Alaska v doe, though surprisingly the right to remain silent with agents questions via SOR registration form was not front and center in that case. Instead the primary focus was on the broadcast ” use of” the registry databases (50). None considered the question in terms of property, property maintenance and indentured servitude to the machine database property.
THAT FOCUS was (IMO PURPOSEFULLY) under stated and underestimated in not just qualitative terms of liberty but the quantitative too.

Few people contemplate the actual nature of the database driven electronic infrastructures ability to overrun notions of jurisdiction sovereignty. We see the prime example playing out in cases involving registrants moving from one state to another under laws demanding comparative statute analysis between distinctly separate states for required registration being imposed SOLELY on the ” lawful judgement” of a administrative agent cop. A result of rushing.

States overcame this necessary bar with EX post same state cases primarily because those ” similarly situated” ( Connecticut DPS) in for had signed waiver via regimented and formal standard plea agreement not to contest the state on the issue.

For me the worst part of the Halloween sign saga is the fact the Sheriff had his Name and Position on the sign as it to imply lawful authority to act in a vigil way. By his own order he created law. He should be fired, but Sheriff’s are elected aren’t they. Precisely when lack of benevolence meets unfettered authority. OMNIBUS94 referred to it as community policing and they paid for it with claims of ” surplus” and Byrne Grants. How benevolent!

While defacing a government document is technically against the law (yes, a driver’s license or identification card provided by a state government is a government document), the Alabama Court case we discussed here regarding stamping of driver’s licenses with words such as this probably helped sway the judge in this.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x