ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: August 15, September 12 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

National

WI: A convicted sex offender has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Muskego’s rules that restrict where he can live

[amp.jsonline.com – 7/28/20]

A convicted sex offender has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Muskego’s rules that restrict where he can live, or whether he can live in the city at all.

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee, Ronald E. Schroeder said the city’s ordinances violates his constitutional rights by preventing his move from Waukesha to Muskego, where he has been invited to live at the home of a woman who is a longtime friend.

Schroeder, 50, is residing in Waukesha on a temporary living plan after his release from prison in March. He was convicted in 2008 of two counts of second-degree sexual assault of an unconscious person.

Read the full article

 

Join the discussion

  1. Jack

    Seems they’re really still stuck in the dark ages up north.

  2. JM from wi

    I am all for an end to the residency restriction. but I’m not sure if I’d want this clown for my neighbor.
    https://www.milwaukeemag.com/TheJoker/

    Interesting that if he had been prosecuted in 1991 for his child’s murder, and he was getting out now, there would be no public outrage or issues whatsoever. A wife beater, girlfriend abuser, child abuser, child murderer… no problem. But a man who touches his sleeping girlfriend OMG.
    A-lot of his past Karma seemed to have been reflected in his sentence. Hopefully his Karma doesn’t hurt our chances to eliminate residency restrictions in WI. Muskego’s restriction is 1250′ it is ripe for a lawsuit.
    To bad the Joker didn’t hire Adele.

    • SR

      Maybe it’s because that’s all we see, but I’m constantly shocked that all these huge cases seem to largely consist of plaintiffs who are either multi-time offenders or their case is a true Hollywood story in terms of what they did. I’m like, what sympathy could these people possibly garner from the judge, not to mention the public? Why don’t we have more cases brought by that person who was guilty of a technicality such as statutory rape, but has otherwise been in a healthy relationship with their “victim” for 20+ years now, with a fully family, and the system is just making their lives hell? Like, a plaintiff that’s more representative of the kind of people and crimes most of the registry actually consists off rather than the monsters the public thinks we all are? It’s not like in places with blanked residency restrictions only have those kind of registrants.

      • Jon

        You could always use our story to promote sympathy. Long story short, I met my wife who is Chinese after I got out of prison, we were married 6 months later in December of 2010. After 4 years we had a beautiful daughter together, and the state took her from us because I have to register. We were never accused of neglect or charged with any wrongdoing. They terminated my rights because of my status, and terminated my wife’s, who has no criminal history at all, simply because she would not divorce me.

        During this time, my wife and I have been in a protracted fight with USCIS trying to get her green card because of the Adam Walsh Act. Finally in 2018 after years of sending documents they approved our I-130 so we moved onto the next step and paid all of our fees to file the I-485 change of status and have been going through that and we are right at the point she should be getting her green card any day now. Except they sent a letter saying they intend to revoke our original approval for the I-130 even though they approved the waiver.

        The Adam Walsh act was designed to protect children and foreign women from coming here to discover that they are married to a monster. The problem is, by now we are about to celebrate our 10th anniversary, and have lived together, worked hard and bought a house together and have stood side by side through the very worst situations they could throw at us. Who the hell are they trying to protect?

        Its become clear to me that they want to take everything from me, they took our daughter, and now they are trying to take my wife. I have voiced my story on here before and recieved platitudes and condolences for the loss of our daughter, but no one has stood up to do anything. I heard countless times people saying “I didn’t even know they could do that?” Or “That doesn’t seem legal”. I have asked every attorney I could get to listen, Family attorneys have said “You need a federal civil rights attorney” or the civil rights attorneys say “You need a family attorney ” or simply say ” I wouldn’t even know where to start”. So we sit, stuck in limbo, knowing what was done to us was wrong, but unable to find anyone to champion our cause.

        Now the only thing keeping me going, and keeping me sane they are trying to take away from me. All my wife and I ever wanted was to be left alone so we could raise our family in peace.
        So you want a normal family who’s life has been destroyed and turned into a living hell because of these so called “Administrative Actions”. Look no further. I am not a saint, nor do I ever pretend to be. But I know I don’t deserve this, and more so my wife does not deserve it either. Her only crime is loving someone who the world sees as a monster. So they tie her to the stake with me for good measure. We have been doused with kerosene, and await the fall of the fire.

        • AJ

          @Jon:
          Have you tried contacting your Representative and Senators about this? Granted, they will probably be a little leery due to your being such a “horrible” person but perhaps they will see the harms your daughter is suffering and act for that reason.

          Your wife should also contact them on behalf of her US citizen daughter.

          It may not help, but it cannot hurt.

  3. Worried in Wisconsin

    Wisconsin has a piecemeal approach. In some ways it’s good, because the statewide rules being present 10-15 years ago were going to be horrendous. But, the result has been communities having to go it alone, often competing to have harsher rules than their neighboring communities to keep registrants from moving across the boundary.

    The most egregious part of these ordinances is the ‘original domicile’ rule, which means that you can’t establish a residence in a community unless you had lived there prior to your conviction. For me, that essentially means that I can never move from my current home if I want to live in SE Wisconsin. All the neighboring communities have original domicile rules meaning I can’t move there since I didn’t live there prior to my conviction. You’d think I could just move to the nearby town where I lived when convicted, but that won’t work since there are no allowable residences which are not too close to my victim’s home.

    Even more odd, I can’t even move to a different home in my current town. I’m only allowed here because I’m grandfathered in. Since we also have an original domicile rule, I would be prohibited from establishing a new residence here.

    This is crazy at its worst.

    • norman

      The State of Wisconsin has just over 25,000 registered sex offenders. Where is the outrage?

      • Tim in WI

        Norman,
        25,000+ registered in WI is enough to alter election results IF all were to vote as one.
        But which candidate? Outrage in our state is hard to come by given the fact WI is to home of the likes of Jeffery Dalmer & Jacob Patterson & Steven Avery!

        I express all my own outrage in Rock County courts during failure to provide information (FTR) cases. I’ve won dismissals because of it. You see the problem with selecting certain language in statute ( ex post words) is that they can be used as evidence AND displayed on big TV’s for juries inspection in FTR cases. Ex. 301.45 1g (b) – originally 175.45 a,b (1995WI.stat.) Those statutes contain the significant date of DECEMBER 25, 1993.(Although the statutes were not signed until Oct 95) A postdated check scenario. All fodder for jury. One key is making the clerk of courts your best defense witness.

  4. Anonymous

    A few years ago a registered person In NY won the case so No residency restriction at all once off paper. No 1,000ft rule. No 1,998ft rule (LOL) and there has NOT BEEN ONE arrest since their unconstitutional law was overturn. It’s all about corrupt politics, not safety obviously.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.