ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 12 [recording uploaded] – Details / Recordings
Remaining 2020 meetings will be Nov 21 and Dec 19

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – ONLINE October 10-11
More Info and Sign-Up


Federal Government Publishes Proposed Changes to SORNA


The federal government yesterday published in the Federal Register proposed changes to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).  The changes encompass a total of 93 pages and include a wide range of topics, including retroactivity, tier levels, professional licenses and travel (both domestic and international).  Replies to the proposed regulations are due no later than October 13, 2020.

According to the proposed regulations, SORNA will apply to all individuals convicted of a sex offense, including those convicted before it was enacted.  The federal government claims to have this authority due, in part, to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Smith v. Doe, which declared that registration did not constitute punishment, but was instead merely an administrative requirement.

“Because the proposed regulations include so many pages citing their authority to apply SORNA to individuals convicted before it was enacted, it appears that they are concerned that this matter could be challenged in court,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “It is possible that ACSOL or another like minded organization will do so.”

According to the proposed regulations, SORNA requires all registrants to comply with its requirements “regardless of whether a registration jurisdiction has substantially implemented SORNA.”  This statement is important because currently only 17 of the nation’s 50 states have substantially implemented SORNA.

The proposed regulations repeat that the federal government places registrants in three tiers.  Those assigned to Tier 1 must register for 15 years while those assigned to Tier 2 must register for 25 years.  Individuals assigned to those tiers may reduce their period of registration based upon a list of factors.  Individuals assigned to Tier 3, however, must register for a lifetime.

The proposed regulations require additional information regarding employment, including whether a registrant has one more professional licenses.

“If the proposed regulations are adopted, we can expect the federal government to notify states that have issued a professional license to a registrant,” stated Bellucci.  “We are concerned that the states will, in turn, revoke those licenses.”

According to the proposed regulations, individuals will be required to notify their local registration office if they leave the jurisdiction for seven days or longer.  This requirement is proposed allegedly in order to protect children who reside at the location(s) where a registrant may visit.

The proposed regulations also address overseas travel for those subject to the International Megan’s Law.  Specifically, the regulations will require registrants to provide additional information to the federal government regarding their overseas travel such as whether they have dual citizenship and/or a passport issued by another country.

“ACSOL began its discussion of the proposed regulations on the same day they were published,” stated Bellucci.  “ACSOL will formally reply to the proposed regulations as an individual organization or in collaboration with like-minded organizations.”

Any individual that would like to volunteer to work with ACSOL on this effort should send an email to

Proposed rulemaking – SORNA – Aug 2020

Join the discussion

  1. SR

    Maybe SCOTUS will finally grow a pair and take this on. This is no where near what SCOTUS ruled on in Smith v. Doe.

  2. Looking for Answers

    This is a huge blow for federalism and basically gives the federal government a blank check to override state’s authority and make our lives a living hell (more than it has already).

    • Facts should matter

      Blank check? Hell, they’ve had unfettered access and free rein over us since that bad 2003 ruling – Smith vs Doe. That precedent really did give them a green light to make it future-proof through sustainable profitability. So-called “memorial laws” should NOT be profit-driven by monetizing misery, much less fear-based!

      It’s also sneaky as hell for them to ram this through under the cover of a pandemic.

      More pages for us to sign and crap to initial !

      • Looking for Answers

        Yuuuuuuuuup 😔

      • Dustin

        Even more maddening is that Smith v. Doe laid out the characteristics of Alaska’s registry scheme at the time that they considered in declaring the registry regulatory and non-punitive, among them the freedom to live and work wherever a registrant wishes without interference from the state. Every single one of those characteristics has been legislated out by every single law-making body in the US, making Smith v. Doe obsolete. Funny how nearly every court in the US overlooks those parts of Smith while upholding it.

        • Looking for Answers

          Agreed, it is indeed maddening. The government seems to change the rules at a drop of a hat for certain people on a whim, overlook some aspects of rulings when it doesn’t suit their personal agenda and of course, those rules don’t apply to government officials, most LEOs, or others who hold the power. What a life they must lead to know that no matter what THEY do- they hold all the power and no responsibility to the people they are supposed to be serving because they are immune to all.

        • B.K.

          In my lawsuit against AWA, I tried to convince my attorney of that. He told me that I didn’t understand law, and should leave the lawyering to him.

          We lost. The judge rules that Smith v Doe was a controlling decision that rendered AWA administrative and not subject to constitutional scrutiny.

          I still can’t help but think if he had listened to me and pointed that out, that we would have had different results.

      • B.K.

        I only hope this gives SCOTUS the balls to see that just like Plessy v Ferguson, a prior decision was wrong.

        AWA is NOTHING like ASORA, and it should NOT be governed by the Smith v Doe decision. That’s just illogical. I don’t know why judges don’t have the balls to do their job and say that AWA cannot be applied under the same principles as ASORA.

        ASORA was only a 10 year list, and the SvD decision commented that ’10 years was not unreasonable’.

        OK. Well I’m a lifer for nude beach images. Is that ‘unreasonable’?

        • Ed C

          I think you are right, B.K. It is important to remember that Smith v. Doe addressed only the Alaska SORA implementation which it determined to be non-punitive at the time, i.e. 2003. The decision did not make a blanket determination that all sex offender registration implementations were non-punitive. However many people, mostly prosecutors and judges, simply presume the decision as holding that any SORNA implementation is shielded as a necessary civil regulatory measure. Not so. Specific regulatory schemes can still be attacked. I believe Millard v. Rankin remains undecided at the 10th Circuit.

          We all know that SORNA is punishment in effect despite any legislative claims of it being a necessary regulatory scheme. As courts recognize this, the door to constitutional challenges, e.g. ex post facto, bills of attainder, cruel and unusual punishment, opens a bit wider.

          Right again B.K., one should never simply leave the lawyering to a lawyer. It is not her life that is on the line. I wrote a pro se 2255 from prison that resulted in a federal sex crime conviction being reversed due to “actual innocence.” Pre-trial I had informed my lawyer about my legal suspicions, which he ignored. I was naive enough to believe he knew his stuff.


        • Ditto


          By its decision, SCOTUS made Smith v Doe law, and it is good law until SCOTUS either clarifies it or overturns it.

    • TS

      Does it FINALLY reach an Equal Protection issue threshold crossing now since it targets a specific set (not class) of convicted individuals and not ALL convicted individuals? Civilly vs criminally shouldn’t make a diff here.

      It would be nice if SCOTUS takes this on, but as long as Roberts is there, I doubt it. He will do his best to not allow this to be heard and tarnish his legacy.

      I am calling part of this the Epstein fallout…

      Read about International travel on pg 36 and see how it eerily looks like items which have been discussed in this very forum about anticipated travel details and then some…also read pg 38 about other passports. At the same time, for all you who don’t believe there are exceptions to the 21 day rule for travel notifications less than 21 day, please read pg 93 of this doc under Example 3 for what several of us have been saying for long time now and from other Fed Registers about exceptions. Right @ocguy?!

      I am bothered by the line about informing the licensing agency or org about the licensee to see whether they know about the licensee’s matter…don’t they know that licensing orgs will do what they deem appropriate to check out their licensees and whether it is an issue?

      This really tramples the 10th Amdt as I read it.

    • Mr.Me

      This is called TYRANNY !
      nation under cruel and oppressive government.
      cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
      All this based on past, past, past and not SUBSTANTIATED !
      The Enemy brings Confusion, he mixes Lies with truth and Justifies excessive, burdensome and unlimited EXCUSES TO KILL, STEAL AND DESTROY !
      This is why wasting Time, Money and Energy in a Legal setting does not work !
      Anyone on a REGISTRY REALIZED The Danger of PERSECUTION !
      Now, Who will stand up against such an immense ARMY of Government/CIVILIAN Haters and Abusers ?

  3. Facts should matter

    “According to the proposed regulations, SORNA will apply to all individuals convicted of a sex offense, including those convicted before it was enacted. ”

    Just when you thought 2020 couldn’t get any worse. It’s been nothing but bad news after bad news.. now this SORNA surge is the cherry on the sundae. Game over, people.

    • Ditto

      It was always that way. This is just a restatement. It got around the ex post facto clause by being a regulation, not punishment.

      • M C

        @Ditto, just because something is a regulation doesn’t mean it gets around the ex-post facto clause in the constitution. Something that is deemed non-punitive does whether it is a regulation or a law.

  4. Anonymous

    Notify if I leave the jurisdiction? Yeah right. That’ll be the day. I can get in my beautiful new SUV, point it in any direction I want, and see the country for as long as I want. Maybe one of my children would like to come with me. Maybe my wife I’m not “on paper.”

  5. Bobby S.

    So, correct me if I’m wrong, but if this was to pass, everything that has been complished here in Michigan. The 6th Circuit ruling Michigan’s registry unconstitutional, SCOTUS by deny cert agreed with the 6th. Judge Cleland now waiting to rule after this Covid crap is over will all be thrown out the window. So just to be clear Michigan has to remove people off the registry, me and many many others, but now it could all go down the crapper.

    • TS

      @Bobby S

      This does not have to pass, the AG has the authority vested by Congress to make it implemented as is written. That is clearly delineated in the doc.

      • Bobby S.

        @TS. So basically what your saying is everything we accomplished in Michigan mean’s nothing or will mean nothing. Unless Cleland acts fast, or am I am I still missing something, basically it sounds like we are screwed again.

  6. Tired Old Man

    even though the DOJ knows and publishes the recidivism rate they still use the high and frightening case from 20 years ago. nothing like a crooked goverment

    • B.K.

      To further clarify your comment.

      “A case that even the author (Dr. Butner) stated was ‘sketchy research’ and ‘out of context’).

  7. Tired Old Man

    there might be one saving grace to this and that is Biden gets elected up until this i was hoping for Trump for economic reasons for the Country only

    • SR

      I wouldn’t hold my breath for Biden to offer any kind of relief or to stop this. Remember that it was Obama who signed International Megan’s Law into law. Biden stopping this would be an amazing boon for the opposition in 2024. “Do you really want to re-elect a pedo-lover? Think of the children!”

      • E

        I doubt this would have happened if Biden were in office. But if he gets in it won’t be rolled back because that would be soft on SOs. That’s how this works…. changes over time mean in 20 years we’ll all be on ankle monitors. We are the frogs sitting in the pan of water and the heat is going up just a bit at a time. Rolling boil to come!

        • Austin

          I doubt this has anything to do with which president democrat or republican. The American government will do whatever they want and the ag here is doing what the Supreme Court has said he can do now that they have clarification on the delegation of authority. Democrats or Republicans do not care about the rights of convicted sex offenders and that is the stone truth

      • MatthewLL

        This is the f’ing SMART office of the DOJ. It will not matter who the hell is the AG. These know nothing bureaucrats are running the show and are crusaders to protect the children. I thought Congress allowed theAG to determine Retroactivity not creat a “Byzantine“ list of requirements that we all must follow. The upshot might finally get SCOTUS’ attention and readdress Doe. Unfortunately it will take years to get there and some jail time by some before SCOTUS would see this.

        I have not read through all of the proposed refs, but I am off my state’s registry next summer and It will be 10 years. After that, I don’t think SORNA applies (misdemeanor offense With less than a year), but only some states with more restrictive laws like CA do I have to worry about.

    • C

      Crime Bill Biden and Kamala “America’s Top Cop” Harris cutting us some slack? Please.
      And as more cops feel abandoned by mayors in cities across the country and po-po groups endorse Trump, Barr enacting this BS will be on message for POTUS’ law and order platform. We’re effed deeper than ever. Time to GTFO as soon as there’s a break in the pandemic and an American passport means something again.

  8. JohnDoeUtah

    “According to the proposed regulations, SORNA requires all registrants to comply with its requirements ‘regardless of whether a registration jurisdiction has substantially implemented SORNA.”

    The State removed me from the Registry 4 years ago under state law (AWA non-compliant). Looks like I would end up back on the registry and stay there until 2031, military offense, if the state is willing to register me.

    My Driver License record contains an entry, “NOTE: 12/20/2016 Subject: SO Text: Individual NO longer required to register AS SO AS OF 11-15-2016 per Cyrese @ UDC.” This was also confirmed by local PD.

    So much for moving on with my life. Since I’ve been off the registry my income has increased by 63% and I’m just shy of six figures. Started and finished my Master’s Degree thanks to not being black listed, bought a house, raising my children.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      “This may occur, for example, because state law does not require registration based on the particular sex offense for which the offender was convicted, or because state law requires registration by sex offenders for shorter periods of time than SORNA, or because state law does not apply its registration requirements “retroactively” as broadly as § 72.3 applies SORNA’s requirements to sex offenders with pre-SORNA convictions. Notwithstanding the absence of a parallel state law, the registration authorities in the state may be willing to register the sex offender because Federal law (i.e., SORNA) requires him to register. Cf. Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. 2009) (state constitutional prohibition of retrospective laws does not
      preclude registration based on SORNA). If the state registration authorities are willing to register the sex offender, he is not relieved of the duty to register merely because state law does not track the Federal law registration requirement.”

  9. Bo

    Wow. So, any idea if we will be held to strict liability with these rules? Or do they also need to prove we intended to disobey the rule?

    • JohnDoeUtah

      18 U.S.C. 2250 state “knowingly” and does not use the term willfully. Further towards the end, they talk about your question. They reference that signing your state’s acknowledgement during registration is enough to trigger “knowingly” even if the form does state that your are subject to SORNA (or that the requirement comes from SORNA).

      • Brandon

        This all makes sense now when Barr was asked about human trafficking at his testimony on police brutality saying we need to do something. How he passed the bar is beyond me?Get rid of SORNA, Trump and all the other cronies in government!!!

        • C

          Trump is hardly a government crony. Indeed, they and the media hate him so much because he doesn’t toe their old crony line. Biden embodies it.

        • Apollo

          @C Trump may not be a government crony, but he is a party crony. If his party supports the latest anti registrant law, Trump would go along with it.

        • Doc Martin

          @C Here’s a thought. Maybe the media hates Trump because he says and does dumb things. And it’s not just the media, members of his own family and multiple people inside his own cabinet have turned against Trump. There’s plenty of hate outside of the media to go around.

  10. Tuna

    I read thru the entire doc. It seems to be attempt to remedy, administratively, the areas where Fed court decisions have favored defendants. For example, it devotes many pages to Nichols. Even comes across as whiny the way they justify it.

  11. Jack

    My question is, how is such a thing even possible if the jurisdiction doesn’t require information that SORNA does at the time of registration?

  12. CKB

    Okay, so let me see if I can wrap my head around this. The Feds, in all their infinite wisdom, have decided that it is vital that they force every State to abide by their asinine and inhumane system at a time when the economy is teetering on the end of total collapse, when the populace is crying out “#DefundThePolice,” and when a virus is raging across the country? Okay, boomer! This sounds like a great idea. I mean, sure, defund they very entity that will be in charge of hoarding the masses of people who are doing nothing but trying to live their lives with what they have been dealt. Do these people ever stop to ask themselves, “Self, do the thoughts that arise in my mind and the words that come forth from my mouth make me sound like a complete and utter lunatic?” We have a Congress that cannot even decide on how to best help the millions of people who need economic relief from the very disaster they themselves caused, but somehow they have the time to write over 90 pages of pure horse shit that is intended to do what? Cause more people undo suffering? I swear, these people have no intellect or an ounce of common sense to understand just how the world works outside their very comfy government provided housing.

    I swear, I hope this becomes the people’s “let them eat cake” moment in our history. Just like Louis XVI and his rather tone deaf and useless bride, Marie Antoinette, wouldn’t even take the time to just look outside their mansion windows to see the starving people, now too our inept leaders haven’t the time to listen to reason and look outside to see the needs of the people. We all know what happened to heads of France’s King and Queen.

    • Will Allen

      How about you send this exact message to them? I’ll be sending them some and getting some other specific people to do so as well.

      In the meantime, I’ll continue to ensure that the Registries are worthless. I’ll continue to ensure that they only exist at the highest possible cost of time, money, health, happiness, and other resources.

      Registry Supporters/Terrorists aren’t our fellow citizens. Wage war.

    • TS

      Tbis was written by the AG and DOJ, not by Congress, and by probably someone well within who is to monitor cases like those mentioned herein. Therefore, they do appear to be remedies as mentioned here already to ideas people used to their advantage.

  13. John De Sergio

    This was my favorite part!
    “Likewise, from the perspective of sex offenders, face to face encounters with officers responsible for their monitoring in the local areas where they are present may help to impress on them that their identities, locations, and past criminal conduct are known to the authorities in those areas. Hence, there is a reduced likelihood of their avoiding detection and apprehension if they reoffend, and this may help them to resist the temptation to reoffend”.

    So all it takes is seeing cops to stop crimes!! Beautiful! Close down all the treatment centers pronto!!

    • Will Allen

      That’s funny because there is nothing that makes me want to commit crimes so badly as the Registries do. The Registries really, really, really make me want to hurt people. And I’m not the slightest bit worried about any local law enforcement criminals (LECs). I have been Registering for over 2 decades. Guess how many times I have seen any LEC in public that I have recognized? In all those years!! I would be willing to bet any amount of money that is exactly the number of times that any LEC has seen me and recognized me. These morons who think that is some kind of benefit are truly just in idiot fantasyland.

      Further, it would be trivial to be in a state 2,000 miles from my home on any day that I feel like it. Just trivial. Numerous times, I have decided to fly to another state and left that same day. I could be in Hawaii and back in less than a day. I wouldn’t fly though because for some strange reason, our criminal governments have decided that it is their business when people fly and where. Who the fuck allowed that? I do fly a lot though and they have not one single time tried to speak to me about it. For that matter, they have not one single time tried to speak to me about any crime. Which is good, because I would say a single word to them about anything anyway.

      Nope, if I decided I’d had enough of the Registries and really needed to step up my retaliation, I would get a vehicle, which would obviously not be Registered, and I would drive wherever I liked. Then I would do what I liked. I would feel completely justified and happy about it.

      Timothy McVeigh said that big government is the biggest bully and criminals around. GD if he wasn’t right.

    • wonderin

      @John De Sergio
      Yes, we all can find justification for our actions, no matter who they harm, if left unchallenged.

  14. JohnDoeUtah

    Also note that they set a 3-day requirement for changes for internet identifiers. I know some court cases felt this is unreasonable?

    • AJ

      “Also note that they set a 3-day requirement for changes for internet identifiers.”
      Yes and no. While it exists in SORNA, the document as written says one’s SORNA requirements only go as far as one’s jurisdiction requires. See: 72.7(g). This is specifically addressed on p. 69 where it says, “The effect of § 72.7(g) is to adopt the jurisdictions’ time and manner specifications as SORNA requirements in the situations it covers.” IOW, if your jurisdiction doesn’t collect something SORNA requires in compliance with SORNA’s requirements, there’s no violation. Instead, SORNA tailors the the jurisdictions rules and limits. It also means if your jurisdiction does not collect internet identifiers, there’s no violation because something out of your control (the jurisdiction’s procedures) prevent your compliance.

  15. SG

    This is AG Barr’s attempt to exercise his ‘authoritah’ before he is swept out of office.

    After the US Sup. Ct.’s decision in Gundy v US Sup. Ct., (139 S. Ct. 2116) (2019), wherein the Court ruled that there is no violation of the ‘non-delegation doctrine’ in respect to SORNA, it appears that AG Barr is seeking to actualize his newly-sanctioned powers (as he is one powerful SOB, and don’t you forget it!).

    Sadly, it was the liberal minority of the US Sup. Ct. that made this ruling, the opinion written by Justices Kagan, and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and then joined by Justice Alito (of all people) who was likely of the view that anything that helped lessen the burden of a sex offender was a bad idea. How’s that for a grouping??? *Kavanaugh was not yet on the bench at the time, and may have likely NOT joined as he (as well as Justice Gorsuch who dissented in Gundy) had written opinions when in the lower courts that were philosophically opposed.

    The non-delegation doctrine, if exercised, would arguabley prohibit Congress from delegating authoritah to any other government entity (e.g., a department such as the DOJ, etc.) wherein said entity could then create its own rules or ‘laws’ which carry with it criminal penalties (incarceration and fines). The Gundy ruling in effect says: “Oh noooooo. There is NO violation of the non-delegation doctrine here. Of course the AG can make rules/regulations that CREATE felonies where none existed before. He can then execute those rules by arresting violators, who would then be subject to whatever penalty the AG has decided upon. Of course, as it applies to SORNA, there would be no trial as these would just be violations of a regulation, and merely administrative. This is because Congress expressley delegated such powers to the AG in respect to SORNA. (So in effect, the AG can act as legislator, rule maker, and and executioner. ALSO, the AG can, whenever he or she may feel like it, change these rules and regulations at his whim, after all, they are “merely regulations”). Of course, the AG must notify the citizens of any such changes, and they will have the absolute right to ‘comment upon the proposed changes to these regulations’…but keep in mind, the final determination is made solely by the AG, that powerful SOB. All of this is legal and true because (1) we, the Supreme Court, say so, and (2) Congress expressly delegated this power to the AG (as they apparently have no reason to give a damn about SO’s and can’t be bothered with such triflings). In any event, noooo problemo. Our hands are clean. Next case”

    • AJ

      “Justice Alito (of all people) who was likely of the view that anything that helped lessen the burden of a sex offender was a bad idea.”
      I would say it’s more than “likely.” The jackbooted @sshole couldn’t even stake a claim. He was torn between his hatred of all things administrative in the Federal government and his hatred of all things RC. So he tossed out his limp-wristed, “I am open to looking at non-delegation but not if it has anything to do with RCs” Opinion.

      I say again that if that walking whale-prick is ready to retire and head out of DC, I’ll crawl on freshly broken glass while drinking rancid pig urine to get there to help him. (While I usually try to keep to more genteel words, Justice hALITOsis brings out the worst in me. It’s a sinful behavior I cannot shake.)

      • SG


        Recall Abbot & Costello routine wherein their cellmate (?), when hearing the phrase “Niagra Falls” responds trance-like…”Niagra Falls!!….Slowly I turned. Step by step…” etc. So be it with you: “Psycho Sam Alito!!…..slowly I turned”….can’t fault you for this….I’m the same way upon hearing the name of almost any/all politicians in Congress as well as our California State Legislature (the majority being of the Republican ilk but there are quite a few Dems. on the list as well), as well as most names of Sup. Ct. Justices, and a few presidents. Those who intentionally and with a glint of joy in their soul-less eyes, work to promote hate, bigotry, and persecution of the most vulnerable, should be rendered impotent in all matters dealing with human beings. But who is bitter? Certainly not I.

    • matt

      As Gorsuch argued, “letting the Attorney General write the criminal laws he is charged with enforcing” would “mark the end of any meaningful enforcement of our separation of powers and invite thetyranny of the majority that follows when lawmaking and law enforcement responsibilities are united in the same hands.”

      “If the separation of powers means anything, it must mean that Congress cannot give the executive branch a blank check to write a code of conduct governing private conduct for a half-million people,” he added.

      Justice Elena Kagan didn’t agree. SORNA’s delegation “easily passes constitutional muster,” Kagan wrote for the court’s plurality, noting that the court hadn’t invalidated a law on nondelegation grounds since 1935. “This Court has held that a delegation is constitutional so long as Congress has set out an ‘intelligible principle’ to guide the delegee’s exercise of authority,” Kagan observed, adding that SORNA “conveyed Congress’s policy that the Attorney General require pre-Act offenders to register as soon as feasible.”

      how and why we may never know but blueleaks may help more than any of us could dream

      • M C

        @matt, can you explain your reasoning as to how blueleaks would be useful to us?

  16. Saddles

    Will Allen I don’t know what to do with you. Guess a thousand rolls of TP wouldn’t help but myself as well as many others understand your point. While one can understand moral’s their is also principal involved in much of this. Actually Will we have a corrupt government in so many ways and means.
    Sure I mentioned a Commonwealth State vs other states and I’m sure you all can see the difference with this TN ordeal in many of these sorted issues. When we moved my mom was still living and yes her parents lived in Huntington, WV. I could never understand the difference between a Commonwealth State vs the State I came from, and yes that is a factor to consider.
    I’m sure many on the registry have paid their debt in full but its society that really don’t understand this whole issue or its a one sided ordeal. People tend to think the worse case scenario if they find out your on the registry that one attacked some child, If one actually uses some knowledge about this registry ordeal it is more harmful than someone cussing someone out but its challenging it seems and that makes much of this registry so mundane and a bit off centered. Who likes to be a scorner. Here is one more word of wisdom that one should listen to. Remember Rome fell way back when.

  17. AJ

    A few issues jump out at me in this document.

    1) What happens if I’m no longer required to register in my State but my State is “willing” to register me for SORNA purposes? Will my State then pop me on its registry–because I’m “registered” with them–despite no longer being required to register?

    2) What all encompasses a “vehicle”? By plain definition, it’s, “a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.” Tying that into 72.6(f), p. 86, where it says, “[i]f a vehicle has no license plate but has some other type of registration number or identifier, then the registration number or identifier must be provided.” So if I have an ATV, a golf cart, or even a bicycle–none of which as a license plate–I must provide the “registration number or identifier.”

    3) According to 72.7(a)(2)(ii), if I am foreign-convicted and stay on the move (no residence), I don’t have to register? In other words, I could expatriate, get convicted of an offense, then come back to the US and roam the country, as long as I don’t “reside” according to any jurisdictional definition. That makes zero sense.

    4) The in-person requirements of 72.7(e) are not only affirmative disabilities, they may be impossible or prohibitive. According to these rules, one must notify changes of residence, employment, and schooling in-person in those respective jurisdictions. Suppose I live in CA, telework for an AK-based company, and “attend” online schooling in MN. If I change jobs from AK to PR, I must now notify CA, then fly to PR to let them know–all within 3 days. Likewise if I stop the MN schooling and change to FL, I must notify CA, then somehow travel to FL and update them–within 3 days. Of course now that I’m in FL, they will add me to their registry for life–even though I am in the (God-awful and -forsaken) State for perhaps a few hours.

    5) In 72.7(e), it says, one, “must report within three business days to his residence jurisdiction (by whatever means the jurisdiction allows) any change in remote communication identifier information,…temporary lodging information,…and any change in vehicle information[.]” So if my jurisdiction requires in-person for the named items and I’m out of State, I have to travel back to the jurisdiction. Suppose I’m traveling and join a new social media site, or my hotel catches fire and I change properties, or my car is wrecked and I get a rental. Since my jurisdiction requires in-person reporting of these, am I required to travel home to update? While compliance is impeded or difficult, it is not “prevented.”

    While I “golf-clap” applaud the attempt to put things into plain-English and put it all in one place, the sly and hidden power plays are obvious, harmful, and may quite possibly put RCs at risk of prosecution.

  18. M C

    I committed my offense in 1999 and was off the registry as of the begining of 2010 in MN. I registered for 11 years and haven’t had to register now for over 10 years. I haven’t committed a sex crime since and never will. So now let’s just stick me back on there and basically put me out on blast for ~4 years. That makes a lot of sense and will make many many people much safer.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      Kinda the same boat I am in. My state removed me 4 years ago, so I’d have ~11 years to go now. Although I have state court proceeding in a child custody case against the state, where it was ruled that I am not a violent offender, not a pedophile, and a low risk to re-offend.

      I have been offense free for 15 years now, yet the federal attorney general gets to come back in and erase a state court finding, essentially, and say I must register again because I am a danger to the public regardless of state law.

      The real question is how many state will refuse to register persons? Imagine, this applies to everyone, now matter how old the offense. To protect yourself, you have to attempt to register and be told no.

      I could see the registry bloating to 2-3 Million in the next year under this rule if states are “willing” to register people because the feds say so.

      • Redeemed1

        Same here. Was removed 5 years ago, and been offense free since conviction over 15 years ago (and never will offend again). Went through the drama when Ohio first adopted AWA, but was eventually helped by the Bodkye (sp?) decision. Don’t know if that and the Williams(?) decisions will help, but scared they won’t. So much for keeping our heads down and trying to live the most upstanding life.

      • Dustin @JohnDoeUtah

        I guaran-damn-tee you states will be willing to register those they have de-registered before. Don’t forget that they receive significant funding for their registries through the ironically named SMART office, based in large part (if not entirely) on the number of registrants they have. Why else would they keep the dead and incarcerated there?

        Speaking of, does their retroactive registration (or re-registration) apply to the dead as well? I know it’s only for life, but that doesn’t stop many states from keeping the dead registered.

  19. Bill

    All of this is being made possible because of public misperception of the sex offender registry and the willingness of arrogant and unscrupulous politicians to exploit public ignorance to further their careers.

    What I’m saying is that we have let other people dictate our narrative for a very long time. An analogy would be like a time when blacks were cartoonishly depicted by white media and politicians to suit their agendas. The major reason that has changed over the years was in no small part African Americans taking control of their own narrative by depicting their humanity at their own terms. Also massive protests helped too…

    Personally I’m sick and tired of politicians like Bill Barr speaking to the currently unenlightened Americans what danger I am to the world’s children. Screw you Bill Barr, you don’t know me, you don’t even know my case, and you want talk smack about me just so people would look away at the crimes you have committed for your corrupt boss for a minute.

    The time has come to take my Narrative back…Keep your eyes on social media…

    • w

      Trump is a necessary disruption to keep single party dominance from happening. As it’s happened in Kalifornia.

      You may disapprove of Trump based on any number of faults he has. But at least he’ll play you a game of chess you might be able to win…whereas many of these “political sharks” are TOO smart to allow a fair game.

      “I’m not retarded, you are advanced”.

  20. Saddles

    @ Bo. Enter good ole Smokey the bear. When prevention runs amuch than understanding and true values of justice or anything can be ruined. That just makes common sense. Sure justice has to be serviced unless you get to strung out on yourself and it seems this American Justice is. Their are some key elements in this registry issue that are very unbiblical. Preventing and causing to prevent are not in very good taste and clash with each other. And yes you have your lying and deception.

    Should we all greet our probation officer as hello sinner or would that be respectful. Should we all always obey the law of the land, the civil justice, when things go amiss and riots break out like the two police and one woman in Charlottesville. Obeying the law is good but in the case of this deceiving ordeal, with much of this sex registry computer intent, as I have said on here.. the bible says and talks about…… what man know’s the thoughts and intent of another.

    Talk about someone getting away with stealing another person’s self- worth or crediability.
    Theirs an article I picked up on here many years ago by doing some research and yes something like this can make anyone feel down. Sure there is a time to obey and disobey.

    Bo if I had obeyed that first night in my ordeal I wouldn’t have much grounds to stand on. Even my public defender said take the plea deal for right now as you know how hard they are on these cases and yes my lawyer dropped out of the case so their is a twang of mixture in that one also. Call it what you will but God does not tempt and in a situation such as this sex ordeal internet encounter and other ordeals the devil is doing the bidding. One can call it discernment or discering the spirits but their is a moral to all this judgement that is so out of line many are falsely imprisoned by this inducement

    Look at how many people are sweeped under the rug by all this. If it seems to good to be true its not really true. That is why listening is very important. I even talked to the person on the phone. Actually Janice and her team are like the A-team for real constutional justice. So who is playing the devil in this ordeal of justice by computer means when authorities are getting out of hand with all this.


  21. New Person

    If Smith v Doe 2003 is their foundation, then I suggest the federal government be fed a great does of true facts with Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman’s academic paper “Frightening and High” as well as the NY Times video research work on the false information used in Smith v Doe 2003.

    I’d like to re-visit Smith v Doe just like Barr revisited Gen Flynn’s case and discovered false information about Gen Flynn to want to dismiss his case.

    Seems fair.

  22. New Person

    IIRC, Smith v Doe 2003 focused upon the Alaska registry, where it was done via mail. Thus, no physical disability was identified in the case, otherwise it would at least prove one of the MM factors for punishment.

    Reading this article made me infuriated. grrrr

  23. Dr. Pepper

    This is awful. Seems like the one-way sex offender ratchet only continues to tighten the other way (toward worse laws). When I used to attend a 12 step program, I knew a person who used to live in an AWA state and he said registering every 90 days with the police in that state was “awful.” This is probably the worst sex offender news I’ve read in over 10 years. And the worst part is the media is completely silent about this. Imagine having to remember all your e-mail addresses, account usernames, etc. If you forget even one, that puts you at risk of going back to prison for a FEDERAL OFFENSE. Then on top of this all, what effect would doing that have on chilling free speech from sex offenders criticizing unfair laws and pointing out the truth? Seems like chilling free speech and chilling unpopular speech is the government’s intent though.

    The only positive thing about this is is the 15/25 year AWA registration periods automatic? Or do you still have to go to the B.S. “petitioning” process? With the tiered law, we have to show “completion” of a casomb-approved program. With this AWA, is it 15/25 years and you’re automatically off of having to register? I would do five more years if it means not having to shell out $20k on a casomb-approved treatment program to show to the court before my “petition” is approved.

  24. NorthEastPENN

    I live in PA. Convicted in Dec 2006. Registration start date Oct 2010. Scheduled to come off reg in Oct of this year (2020). So does this mean now I may have to register for another 5 years. The law was just changed about 2 years ago where i was removed from the tier system and put back to 10 years from 15 years.

    This makes my head spin. I was planning on selling my house next year and moving to a new neighborhood after I am off the registry (this year) so I can get a fresh start with my neighbors.

  25. HopingForHope

    I read through this, but I’m not an attorney so I’m trying to wrap my mind around this. Does this essentially take the Tiered Registry Bill, and tear it up? Also, since most registrants in California are 288(a), does this mean they go back to lifetime status? How do you “petition” off SORNA?
    Can someone answer these for me?
    Thank you!

    • M C

      They are completely separate. Your requirement to register under the state laws are subject to those laws and your requirement to register under the federal laws are subject to those federal ones so if your Tier status would require you don’t register under California laws you would still have to attempt to register under the federal law in California if the federal registration laws still applied to you. Additionally if the federal registration no longer applies to you because the registration expired but your tier status in California says that you still do then you would still have to register. There is no “petitioning” off of the federal SORNA registration requirements.

      • M C

        Don’t quote me on this but I will point out that if you never leave the state I don’t think the Federal SORNA requirement that you attempt to register in a state (should that state not require the registration but SORNA require it) would be enforceable because the feds authority generally does not allow them to enforce this until you cross state borders but as soon as you do you could be subject to its enforcement.

        • AJ

          @M C:
          Actually, federal laws kick in when you engage in interstate commerce. It’s the Commerce Clause under which most things are created. Though SCOTUS is sllllloooowllly beating back the widespread congressional abuse of this Clause (a problem SCOTUS created), it’s still alive and well.

          I would not be surprised if some DoJ lawyer were able to convince a court that since you’re using the Internet or a cell phone or what have you, you’re engaging in interstate commerce and are thus subject to federal jurisdiction as well. The only example that pops in my head about how they do this is D.R. (not using name to avoid website scrapers) who shot up the SC church. Even though everything about the crime occurred wholly within the boundaries of SC, they were able to nail him on federal charges because the weapon was a product of interstate commerce.

      • Taylor

        We’d have to register twice? It looks like I would be Tier One on federal SORNA and I would be automatically off at the 15 year mark. On California’s “tiered” law, I am at Tier Two and I would only qualify to “PETITION” off at 20 years which I think is horse$hit. Why can’t California just say SORNA preempts California law and California gets rid of their tiered registry?

        The only thing I think is fair about SORNA is it’s all automatic and we don’t have to worry about the petitioning scheme that’s going to cost at least a few thousand dollars for each person to hire an attorney, get assessments, maybe even have to enroll for the casomb completion certificates, then all of the stresses of waiting and maybe getting denied by the Judge, without even any guarantees.

        Other than that, SORNA is going to require registering every three months and six months in many cases… and a lot of people complain about registering every year. The information SORNA collects is a lot of extensive too, like disclosure of professional licensing. So livelihoods are at stake.

        What’s troubling to me is the “liberals” (yes, even Ginsberg) decided in favor of delegating these government powers in the Gundy case, while Gorsuch, Roberts, and Thomas said government powers in this case are dangerous! The SCOTUS liberal bloc was supposed to be more friendly toward civil rights. But then it’s Donald Trump’s Attorney General, Bill Barr, all of a sudden imposing SORNA and it’s significantly more draconian requirements on all of us!!

        My point is that at the end of the day: Both Republicans and Democrats, “conservatives” and liberals, are equally bad toward our civil rights. I’ve literally become a single-issue voter, for a civil rights cause that very few people care and even laugh about!

        • M C

          @Taylor. It depends what you mean by twice. You don’t have to register with the feds, instead you still register in your state. If you mean by twice that you have to register after the state imposed registration is over the answer is yes if the state would require a shorter time than under SORNA.

        • AJ

          @M C:
          “If you mean by twice that you have to register after the state imposed registration is over the answer is yes if the state would require a shorter time than under SORNA.”
          You left off a key element in this situation: the State would have to be “willing” (to use the AG’s term) to continue the registration beyond State requirements. TBH, I don’t see CA being to keen to do *any* lifting for the Feds right now, which is what this would be.

        • Joe Gomes

          @Taylor. I feel your pain and while pushing SORNA in CA looks good for some, for another 40,000 of us whom were forced to plea deal a crappy non contact Deal to a 288 (a) charge being under CA tier 2 is our only hope in getting off. Under SORNA 40,000 of us are Tier 3. No way can I support SORNA IN OUR STATE. At least you still stand a shot of getting off, we would be marked for life If ca follows SORNA.

        • Finally Retired

          @ Taylor – Don’t get distracted. The Liberals in the Gundy case just wanted to preserve the administrative state, which for them was of way greater importance than standing up for RC. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they came back in a future case (the Liberals and perhaps one or two conservatives) and significantly trimmed state SOR powers and scope of state laws. Gundy did not foreclose this possibility at all.

          It’s coming!

  26. Brandon

    Didn’t Eric Holder try something like this when he was AG and states said no. Hopefully states tell Barr to pass a bar and to piss off!!

    • JohnDoeUtah

      I think that is why this rule is being passed. In 14 years, only 17/50 states are in compliance.

      So, they shift the full burden onto you as the offender. They clarify that in their eyes state laws don’t protect you from your duty register as they say under federal law. If you don’t follow federal law you the individual are liable.

      They essentially are saying you must attempt to register in your state and be refused registration in order to have a defense against federal prosecution. For everyone, no matter how long ago your conviction is, no matter if your state removed you under their laws.

      • E

        Well summed up. The shifting of burden of proof had not occurred to me.

      • AJ

        I think your argument is flawed. Your State would have to notify you of your “new” obligation to register due to its newfound “willingness.” Lambert v. CA says so, as does Section 20919 of SORNA. This has happened in plenty of cases under the current requirements, where people moved to a new State and received a letter notifying them of their obligation to register. It wasn’t police at the door; it was a letter in the mail. It would be the same thing if the State picked up the Feds’ baton.

        There is no created requirement to keep checking in with the State to see if they’ve changed their minds and are being federal lackeys.

        • JohnDoeUtah

          AJ did you read all 93 pages? They clearly state that it applies to everyone convicted, and the liability is on you regardless of state law. Further they state that they need not inform you the requirement comes from SORNA. They go further to state that your state being non-AWA is not a defense, unless your state is unwilling to register you.

        • AJ

          “did you read all 93 pages?”

          “They clearly state that it applies to everyone convicted, and the liability is on you regardless of state law.”
          This is not a change created in this document. The first part of your statement has been part of SORNA for some time (AG Holder said it applied to all. Gundy confirmed the AG has that power. AG Barr is now reiterating it.) The second part of your statement is true for every citizen due to dual sovereignty. All citizens are bound by both federal and state laws, each regardless of the other, and are liable for knowing and complying with each and both.

          “Further they state that they need not inform you the requirement comes from SORNA.”
          My first thought is, “so?” If your State says you must do A, B, C, and D, does it matter if A and D are SORNA and B and C are State requirements? Does it change your obligation to “the man” in any way? By your State telling you you have to do it, they are simply incorporating SORNA requirements into State requirements. Indeed, I’ll even go so far as to say it’s impossible to comply with a SORNA requirement that your State doesn’t also have because the State would need to codify its collection in order to pass it along to the Feds! For example, some States don’t require, or even allow (IL), someone to submit international travel more than 3 days out. How do you propose they get the info from you to the Feds 21 days out if it’s not part of their administrative procedure or legislative requirements? In order to get what SORNA wants, they have to ask for it under State regs/laws, too.

          What I recall from the document (I’m not awake or interested enough to read it again right now) is that where State and Federal criteria are duplicative, there is no need to delineate it’s both a SORNA and State requirement. I don’t see why that’s a big deal as it in no way changes what’s required.

          “They go further to state that your state being non-AWA is not a defense, unless your state is unwilling to register you.”
          You’re way off base on this. It doesn’t matter if a State is AWA or non-AWA, the RC’s requirements only go as far as the jurisdiction requires (or is “willing” to do).

          The document specifically says one’s SORNA requirements only go as far as what the jurisdiction requires. See: 72.7(g). This is also explicitly addressed on p. 69 where it says, “The effect of § 72.7(g) is to adopt the jurisdictions’ time and manner specifications as SORNA requirements in the situations it covers.” IOW, if your jurisdiction doesn’t collect something SORNA requires, there’s no SORNA violation because you are prevented (by the jurisdiction) from providing the information. “Example 2” on page 90 is the most extreme situation possible: your State doesn’t require you to register AT ALL. Even though SORNA says you have to register, the fact your State won’t register you means you don’t have to (in fact, cannot) provide a thing. Unless and until your State decides to accept or require registration information from you or you move to a jurisdiction where it is a registerable offense, you are protected from a SORNA prosecution. 18 USC 2250(c) gives you that affirmative defense and 72.7(g) in this document says similiarly, even though it reads funny. Essentially it says, “if you cannot comply with SORNA, you must comply with your jurisdiction’s requirements.” If the “time and manner specifications” of your jurisdiction are “don’t need to register” then you’re automatically complying!

        • M C

          @AJ, you are missing some key changes. Under the old current rules you were not required to register under Fed SORNA if you were off the State Registry and the state hasn’t adopted the AWA and then could only be recaptured into it after they adopted AWA and you were recaptured into the criminal justice system or required to register under another states rules. There’s a lot of people who have not been required to register because of this including many who fall under the tier 3 lifetime category who have not had to register and have not reoffended for several decades. The new proposed rule requires they register. Your state need not notify you to register if you know about the rule and it can be proven you did. You could also be notified by a federal agency such as CBP if you travel internationally upon your return. Or feds themselves could even send letters. I also believe that if someone in the general public notifies you in a manner that can be well documented that could even make you knowingly not compliant.

        • JohnDoeUtah

          @AJ read page 15.

        • AJ

          I read it. And? Nothing in there changes what I stated. I suggest you finish reading the sentence at the bottom of p.15 that continues onto p.16:
          This does not mean, however, that SORNA unfairly holds sex offenders liable for failing to comply with its requirements, where the requirement is unknown to the sex offender or
          impossible for him to carry out.
          Let’s focus on the “impossible for him to carry out” phrase. As I hope we all know and agree, there is no procedure, or even allowance, to register directly with the Federal Government. All registration goes through the individual jurisdictions (i.e. “States” for the most part) and the info is then passed along the the Federal Government.

          If your State makes it “impossible for [you] to carry out” your federal SORNA requirements, you are not held liable. Period. Full Stop.

          “Impossible” would be something like your offense not being one your State registers or your registration having ended because you met the State’s terms of duration. These would be at the far end of the spectrum (100% mirroring SORNA being the other). In between the ends are things a State makes “impossible for [you] to carry out” such as Internet IDs, 21-day IML notification, etc., simply because your State doesn’t ask for the info. In such case, you are under NO threat of prosecution. Unless or until your State is “willing” to gather the SORNA information for the Feds (read: the State has removed the “impossible. . .to carry out” issue) there is NO threat of prosecution. The sentence on pp. 15-16 says so, Section 72.7(g) says so, 18 USC 2250(c) says so.

          Simply put, if your one and only conduit to comply with SORNA (your State’s registration people) is unwilling to take your info, you are off the hook. SORNA is still a law with which you must comply until your 10, 15, or 25 years are up, but said compliance is 100% based on your ability to do so. As this document and Federal law say, if you are “prevented” or it’s “impossible”, you have the affirmative defense of 18 USC 2250(c). IOW: not guilty.

        • AJ

          @M C:
          “Under the old current rules you were not required to register under Fed SORNA if you were off the State Registry”
          Yes and no. Currently you were and are still required to comply with SORNA until your 10, 15, or 25 years are up. But since your State has dropped your registration requirements with them and won’t take your information, it’s impossible for you to do so. Impossibility to comply is an affirmative defense, explicitly stated in 18 USC 2250(c). This doesn’t change at all with these rules. In fact, it’s more clearly spelled out!

          “and the state hasn’t adopted the AWA”
          First, there’s no “adopting” AWA, there’s merely compliance or noncompliance. Compliance could be “close enough” or it could be a State law exactly mirroring AWA’s defintions, requirements, and tiers. Second, whether a State is AWA compliant has zero influence on your responsibility as an individual in complying with a Federal Law. States have the 10th Amdt. right to opt out of regulatory mandates such as AWA; citizens have no such right.

          “and then could only be recaptured into it after they adopted AWA and you were recaptured into the criminal justice system or required to register under another states rules.”
          The only ways one gets “recaptured” is you meet the criteria of 1) State law and/or 2) SORNA. So if your State changes its laws, you will then of course have to meet the STATE’S requirements. Anything they choose not to collect would (again and still) make it impossible for you to provide it to the Feds for SORNA compliance. Your ability to comply with SORNA is facilitated or prevented by what your State collects from you–that could be nothing (i.e. your not on their registry), it could be some (no Internet IDs, no 21-day IML), or it could be all (everything SORNA requires). No matter into which of those categories you fall, you can only report what the State will take from you (either by law/regulation or “willingness”). Anything more is “prevented” and an “impossibility” and thus you are not liable.

          “The new proposed rule requires they register.”

          “Your state need not notify you to register if you know about the rule and it can be proven you did.”
          Of course they don’t have to tell you something you and they both know you know. What’s missing in this sentence is whether or not your State is “willing” to register you! You can know about SORNA all day long, you can shout it in front of police and at the courthouse if you want, but if your State will not collect your information, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE. I cannot say this often enough, it seems: your State is the one and only way it’s **possible** to comply with SORNA in any degree. If your State won’t “help” you comply, it’s “impossible” and you are not liable. YOU ARE NOT LIABLE. I’ve already in multiple posts to multiple people cited the places in the document where this is confirmed and I’ve also provided references to Federal Law that agree.

          “You could also be notified by a federal agency such as CBP if you travel internationally upon your return.”
          If you’re not on a registry, IML doesn’t apply so how would CBP or any other agency get involved? They may do the old “secondary screening” harassment, but there’s nothing you’ve done wrong. If your State doesn’t allow you to file 21 days in advance, you could *perhaps* have some explaining to do. Anecdotal evidence indicates that won’t happen. In fact, since there are already exceptions to the 21-day rule for emergencies and last-minute business requirements, I’m guessing the Feds don’t look for 21-days or not; I suspect the look for ANY notification or not. Otherwise it would become an administrative nightmare to keep stopping people and finding out 1) their State didn’t allow them to provide 21 days, or 2) they are traveling under an valid less-than-21-days exception.

          “Or feds themselves could even send letters.”
          I am unaware of any situations where the Feds have sent letters to people regarding registration for State-level convictions/offenses. I doubt they would send a letter for a federal conviction, because sometime during your release from federal custody they certainly would have made you sign a document stating you’ve been made aware of your duty to register *with your jurisdiction.* (Why do I ** those words? Because it goes back to the State being in control of your ability to comply.)

          “I also believe that if someone in the general public notifies you in a manner that can be well documented that could even make you knowingly not compliant.”
          Perhaps, but it’s irrelevant. Even if every single person on the face of the earth stops you and tells you of the requirements of SORNA, your ability to comply is facilitated, restricted, or prevented by your State. You cannot and will not be subject to prosecution for a SORNA violation for not reporting something your State refuses to collect from you.

        • JohnDoeUtah


          And you believe the State will be “unwilling” to take your information? I think it is a foregone conclusion that they will be more than “willing” to register you.

          What this does is put the duty on the individual to register. Meaning you must go down and attempt to register the information required by SORNA, at the time length and interval required by SORNA, or you are liable for a federal offense.

          They even mention the prospect that today the jurisdiction may be unwilling, but may become willing at some future date. The liability still rests with you to ensure you comply in that event, the state also is not liable to inform you of the change.

          You know you must register under SORNA, especially if you were once registered but removed. So how do you protect yourself? Well, as one federal FTR court case stated, you’d have to continue trying to comply until you are able to comply. What, try to register every week until they do or give you written notice that you are not required to (good luck on the latter).

        • M C

          @JohnDoeUtah, this is exactly what I have been saying. I don’t even think it necessarily takes legislation in many states for them to be willing to register someone. All it takes is someone in the executive branch who has authority of the records to decide that they are be willing to register them.

          I’m playing devils advocate a bit here but to make things even more complicated, in some states where you normally register at a police department one police department jurisdiction may be willing and able to register someone and a police department in a neighboring jurisdiction may not. Even worse, without specific legislation from a state about this, you could even find that different people, in even the same jurisdiction might have a different willingness to register someone not required to register by the state. This could have the effect of trapping you because if its your duty to try and register and you are told that they will not do so but then a different person at the same police department on a different day is willing to register you, suddenly you broke the law because its your job to figure out when the jurisdiction is willing to register you. Keep in mind the federal government can not tell the registration jurisdiction, what it must do so what is or isn’t allowed would have to come from the state legislature. I don’t know of (but I haven’t really looked closely at various states laws to really know) any legislation that explicitly directs an executive branch not to register someone who is asking to be registered. The allocated budget to a jurisdiction may play a role in this however.

        • Interested Party


          Like many here I read the initial article and became quite concerned with these developments. However, I think I have potentially found an upside to the CA tiered registry and it’s requirement for a court review prior to being removed from the CA registry.

          Once one successfully petitions the court from removal from being forced register the court orders it. At that point the local authority no longer has the power to choose to decide to register you according to federal law.

          If the local authority tries to register someone who has been ordered by a court to no longer register then they are violating state law.

          It’s still a big pile of steaming excrement, but getting a court order does provide legal force to the local law enforcement from having the power to choose under their own thoughts to choose to register you.

          Additionally, in California specifically much of the added data required under the new SORNA rules have also been deemed ex post facto for many older registrants … the internet identifiers comes to mind as a specific example. I would highly recommend everyone get well versed in what has been determined as unconstitutional in there state in terms of what information is included in their registration process.

          Much of this will get worked out in time, but many of us do not have the time to wait it out.

          Wish everyone the best

        • AJ


          I see you’ve ignored addressing my points about “impossible” and “prevented.” So be it.

          “And you believe the State will be “unwilling” to take your information? I think it is a foregone conclusion that they will be more than “willing” to register you.”
          You do realize there’s nothing that prevents any State from being “willing” right now or years back, right? If they’re not willing to do it yesterday or today, what makes you think they’ll suddenly decide to do it tomorrow? There is *nothing* in this document that changes what the States can currently do. If you disagree, please direct me to the place in the document that delineates any increased or decreased powers the States have.

          According to SMART, “157 jurisdictions (18 states, 135 tribes and 4 territories) have substantially implemented SORNA’s requirements” ( In all the years SORNA has been around, only 18 States have “substantially implemented” it. “Substantially implemented” does not by rule mean “fully matching SORNA.” In fact, despite having “substantially implemented” SORNA, only KS has no “deviations” from SORNA. (Yes, I went through the reviews of all 18 States, found here: To me that means that even States that are AWA-compliant did/do just enough to get their money and then do nothing more to help or appease the Feds. Based on that, I don’t foresee many States jumping at the opportunity to do more work for no gain. I foresee even fewer (if any!) non-AWA States being willing to do anything more. I don’t believe DoJ has any ability to divert or withhold funds without Congressional approval or action. After all, it’s only through Congressional action that the 10% can be withheld from the Byrne grants.

          “What this does is put the duty on the individual to register.”
          I hate to break it to you, but you already have that SORNA duty! The only reason you’re not accomplishing that duty is because UT won’t let you. This *again* goes back to “prevent” and “impossible.”

          “Meaning you must go down and attempt to register the information required by SORNA, at the time length and interval required by SORNA, or you are liable for a federal offense.”
          I disagree there’s the risk of that federal offense coming down on you. Regardless, tell me how that’s not the case right now. Your concern shouldn’t be a new one just because of this document. There’s nothing in this document that changes that risk, up or down. If there is, please direct me to it.

          “They even mention the prospect that today the jurisdiction may be unwilling, but may become willing at some future date.”
          Again, this is the case right now. Utah could become “willing” tomorrow, even without this document in effect. So please tell me what the change is.

          “The liability still rests with you to ensure you comply in that event, the state also is not liable to inform you of the change.”
          I suggest you read Example 2 on p. 92. Note this key section: “if the sex offender failed to register after becoming aware of a change in state policy or practice allowing his registration…”
          It’s only once you’ve “becom[e] aware” that your State has its “policy or practice” (i.e. removed the impossible situation) that you’re on the hook. This goes back to Lambert v. CA where SCOTUS said in cases like this, ignorance of the law *is* an excuse. And again, read the sentence that straddles pp. 15-16. In black and white it says, “[t]his does not mean, however, that SORNA unfairly holds sex offenders liable for failing to comply with its requirements, where the requirement is unknown to the sex offender or impossible for him to carry out.” Did you catch that? If the requirement to comply is unknown, such as not being told Utah is now willing, you are not “unfairly h[eld]. . .liable.” Only once you’ve been told, per Example 2 on p. 92 and per this text on p.16, does the clock start ticking to get your butt in to comply.

          “You know you must register under SORNA, especially if you were once registered but removed.”
          Correct. Yet if it’s impossible for me to comply, I am not liable. I don’t know any clearer way to say that. I’ve cited the text in this document that say this. I’ve cited the US Code that says that.

          “So how do you protect yourself? Well, as one federal FTR court case stated, you’d have to continue trying to comply until you are able to comply.”
          Are you doing this right now? Why not? There’s nothing in this document that alters your present individual obligation as a citizen to comply with an applicable federal law. If you can find otherwise, please share it.

          “What, try to register every week until they do or give you written notice that you are not required to (good luck on the latter).”
          Were it me and were I concerned, I would take my last registration date I had with the State and then contact them that many days or months later. So were I Tier I under SORNA (not under my State’s tiers), I would call yearly on that date. (Actually, were it me I would write the head of the agency perhaps a month ahead of the anniversary in order to have a reply in writing prior to the anniversary. With government, I much prefer writing over calling if it’s a matter of even the slightest consequence.) Actual me isn’t concerned because of the, I hate to say it yet again, sentence on pp. 15-16 and the Example 2 on p.92.

        • Finally Retired

          @AJ @ M C – in fact, under the hypothetical scenario where there’s inconsistency in registering persons within a jurisdiction strictly because of federal SORNA (where state law doesn’t cover one’s crime), impacted individuals can attack the their sudden inclusion in the state registry on the grounds that their inclusion is disparate/arbitrary and capricious -and even on equal protection grounds.. and thereby force the promulgation of a statewide policy , which could then be further attacked on state constitutional grounds if it goes against registrants (since state law “shields” them from registering because the offense is not covered by the state or because of passage of time or whatever).

          Again, see the Maryland case on this. Maryland would not be bullied by the feds. This is a real example, from Maryland High Court.

          I don’t think this will be quick and easy for the feds as some people fear..even where there are willing local registration police staffers, that is far from the final say. Injunctions would fly, I do believe.

  27. HopingForHope

    Looks to me like the US DOJ will be making tier assignments. How will they go about doing this? Each state has their own statutes, particularly as it relates to the age of the victim. How will they access that infornation for cases that are decades old?
    Will states that are currently non-SORNA be forced to implement this??

    • M C

      The tier assignments are specified in the SORNA laws and based on whether a particular offense is similar or substantially similar to the federal offense it points to.

  28. TnT

    So wrong , can someone tell me is this written in stone or can they take it too court and stop this fool ?

    • Austin

      It is best to assume this will go through exactly as written. No one will challenge this in government. The only hope is a civil law suit to block once they commit.

  29. AJ

    Okay, I’m already bracing for the “hate mail” I’ll get over this post, but here goes…

    I have to admit I’m a bit baffled at the huge reaction to this document. I don’t see it as the world-ending document many seem to see. I’ve earlier mentioned my concerns ( but I’m otherwise not seeing how this changes much for most (all?) who must register.

    For me, there are four key statements made in this document:

    1) “[T]he registration authorities in the state may be willing to register the sex offender because Federal law (i.e., SORNA) requires him to register.” This “willing” concept troubles me greatly. I view this as a VERY BAD thing.

    2) “This rulemaking is not innovative in terms of policy.” (p. 9) I view this statement as a GOOD thing.

    3) “[A]dditional specifications regarding information sex offenders must provide, how and when they must report certain changes in registration information[.]” (p. 6) I view this as a BAD thing and I detailed my concerns in my earlier post.

    4) “The effect of § 72.7(g) is to adopt the jurisdictions’ time and manner specifications as SORNA requirements in the situations it covers.” (p. 69) Section 72.7(g) is on p. 89 for those curious. I view this as a GOOD thing. It sets in black-and-white the policy that if your jurisdiction doesn’t allow you to comply with SORNA’s mandates, you’re off the hook. That it includes the (commonsense) caveat regarding if things change at the jurisdictional level (such as more completely conforming to SORNA) doesn’t bother me.

    In closing, I wish to highlight that I in **no way** think SORNA is proper, right, or Constitutional. The ONLY thing I am saying is that I would like to know what has everyone so panicked and thinking court rulings are overturned, etc. I found some concerns; I’m sure I missed some–please share them.

    • Bobby S.

      @AJ, ok, so maybe I’m just an idiot when it comes to this stuff, but how do you claim it’s not world ending as you put it. I’m still waiting for Cleland to remove me and a bunch of others here in Michigan, since Does v Snyder was found unconstitutional by the 6th, and basically held in agreement by SCOTUS. Now we have Does 2, still waiting to be removed from the registry, but bet of this so called Pendemic, everything is on hold. So what does this mean for people like myself and others in the same boat that are waiting to be removed from the registry. It sounds to me that people in Michigan are screwed, even though we won and our AG is actually on our side. I’ve Ben on the registry since 6-19-1992. 28 years suppose to only do 25, and let’s not forget when I was convicted in 1992, the registry didn’t even exist yet. So AJ, I respect your opinion (s( when it comes to this stuff, because let’s face it your smarter and understand this crap better then me. So how does or how will this effect me and people like me, exspecially here in Michigan, when we already won our cases. Hope this makes sense. It sounds to me that even Michigan SO’s are screwed. Thanks in advance.

      • AJ

        @Bobby S.:
        Thank you for the kudos and the kind (as in not flaming me) reply. This rule change has no bearing on court cases, at least to our detriment. I would say it actually *helps* our cause by increasing the affirmative disabilities (i.e., burdens) on the RCs. The changes to how, where, and when an RC must report work and school information is most troubling. Unless those locations are physically near to where one lives, it may be difficult-to-impossible to comply in a timely manner. As well, even though I may never visit the State in which I’m employed (telework) or am enrolled in school (distance learning), I will now have to know that State’s rules on changes to work and/or school.

        The AG added some hoops, that’s for sure. Whether they are legal hoops is another story. (Just because he has the blanket authority to make rules doesn’t automatically mean those rules are constitutional.)

        I would expect zero negative change to the MI situation.

    • TS


      Emotionally, what I read is it is more poo on top of a steaming stinking piling of cow poo on a hot summer day which impacts people already enough today and it shows here and in other forums similar to this one. More rules and it is ex post facto to boot as written. Granted, the proposed rules are remedies it appears to fix things found in court cases, but breaking points are being reached with MI and the ruling there being on hold while the 10th CCoA has not released their opinion nearly 21 mos after oral arguments (which does baffle one legal pro I queried…judicial activism perhaps?). Relief is in sight yet just far enough out of reach that it cannot be had because of the delayed justice during a year that is FUBAR. The other thing is the dragnet that scoops up those who have already moved on in life from whatever pothole they fell in and regresses them possibly to a point where they once were. This comes at a time when the states are doing what they feel is best for them and their citizenry while the Feds think they have the answer to what they want through the states…the constant push/pull of the 10th Amdt. Your legal analysis is very helpful to the masses here and helps to quell the concerns of many when things like this appear. Please keep doing that.

      Lastly, though, Gorsuch had it right when he wrote in is his Gundy dissent as @matt wrote above. I am disappointed in my country and gov’t for doing what they are doing with the AG doing this and Congress not.

      • AJ

        Yes, emotionally it’s throwing that steaming pile of steaming piles you mention right into our collective faces. Reading the text closely, though, it’s mostly–I say again, MOSTLY–compiling the varied Federal Register entries, AWA, IML, etc., into one simpler, more concise, easier-to-read document.

        The part outside the “mostly” is what concerns me. My examples of telework and distance learning schooling may be incredibly burdensome to comply. Changing my example from before, suppose instead of CA, I am a lifelong resident of HI and have never left its paradise. Under what the AG is intending to issue, if I telework on the mainland and/or enroll in online education on the mainland, I will have to know those States’ rules and will have to travel to them if there are any changes to my work or schooling! Right now that burden, to my understanding, is placed on the State where one resides to forward that info along to the other places.

        As for the 10th, I again echo and agree with what @JohnDoeUtah has said: they’re caught between a rock and a hard place. I think they cannot find anything wrong with Matsch’s ruling, meaning they have to let it stand. (If there were something wrong with his ruling, even barely nearing what CO, et amici, argued, they would’ve remanded it by now.) And yet, with everything in their bones they do not want to acknowledge his ruling. I think they are simply slow-walking the decision in hopes something will come along from a sister court or from above. It’s outright shameful how the 10th is behaving.

        Thank you for your reply.

        • TS


          I, too, agree with what @JDUtah and you wrote about the 10th WRT Millard. The action is reminiscent of the child digging their heals in and not doing what or going where they must despite knowing they must and will in the end, sadly (IMO). Just hit the “print” icon already…

          (Judge Matsch was brilliant and held court in a way that no one has seen since according to an article I read about him from a first time lawyer in his courtroom. He was about the facts only and nothing else when it came to case determinations.)

          The online school is an interesting take, you present, considering online learning is a large part of today, globally as well. One can take classes around the world at their convenience. Does one have to go to an international destination (provided they can get into the country with the requisite 21 day notice unless an exception is needed), notify the school and local international authorities, then repeat when done? I’m not so sure the LE at the destination, domestic or international, is not going to look at someone quizzically when they try to register there because of online schooling. Willingness by them comes in here, but I digress…

    • JoeHillsGhost

      @AJ — I agree this is not end-of-the-earth stuff. As I see it, the problem is the registry itself, not any particular interpretation of the laws. SORNA is already an incomprehensible mess, I do not think more rules are going to make it any less so. If anything, as these rules (assuming they are finalized and applied) will have to be interpreted and enforced locally around the nation and that will open up more opportunities for legal challenges to the laws.

      • E

        That’s what I’ve been wondering, too. Reading this and the TN ruling at the same time, in which Judge Trauger (bless her 74 year old Clinton appointee heart) almost pulls a MATSCH (God Rest His Soul) by granting an INJUNCTION (!!!! When have we seen that?). As I have mulled these 100 pages of shit I’ve wondered whether this is what we needed. Something so explicit about abusing their authority, how they are comparing current law with Smith (what a crazy stretch) and other issues that honest judges might read it and call bullshit. I’m sure it’s wishful thinking. But I’ve been thinking it…

        Janice, how can we use it?? Do you need plaintiffs??

        • M C

          You will need Plaintiffs at some point but anything in the courts right now would be way too premature. It is proposed policy and isn’t actually policy yet so you need that for one. Then, in order to even have a standing you would (more than likely) have to have a plaintiff that is actually affected by the policy change and some proof the policy change itself is actually being enforced on that plaintiff to go after some piece of it. So someone will have to be a guinea pig.

      • AJ

        Yes, I agree. I think there’s actually a scintilla of nobility to what DoJ is doing. I do think they’re trying to cook all the docs and guidelines and rules and promulgations down to one simpler resource. I dislike the subterfuge of “additional specifications regarding information” smattered within. Those “specifications” are burdensome and disabilities, my dear Attorney General.

        I have little doubt they’ll be finalized and applied. Absent a tsunami of outraged comments, I don’t think agencies consider comments anymore. They go through the motions because the law says so, but then they do what they want anyway. It’s what FCC did under Ajit Pai regarding reclassifying ISPs and such. The comments were overwhelming against what was proposed, but FCC went ahead anyway. Good thing we have a republic and not some “Central Bureau” running everything….

    • Mike

      I agree AJ, there is nothing to get crazy about. The fact is, feds can say all they want but the jurisdiction lies with the states. SORNA does not force the states to do anything. I’m in Michigan so this state will not be able to accept the pre-SORNA requirements because they are unconstitutional.

    • Joe Gomes

      @AJ well for those of us forced to plea deal to a 288 (a) which for many of us was non contact, over 40,000 of us currently a tier 2 under CA would be a Tier 3 lifetime under SORNA. This is what has 40,000 of us in CA worried about. That is a huge issue!! If the convictions aligned with another then great, but they don’t. On the opposite end, SORNA would be a huge benefit to CP charges. ( Which LG threw in the last minute to throw CP on Tier 3 in CA tier system.

      • AJ

        @Joe Gomes:
        “for those of us forced to plea deal to a 288 (a) which for many of us was non contact, over 40,000 of us currently a tier 2 under CA would be a Tier 3 lifetime under SORNA.”
        No, not “would be”, “is.” Every single person convicted of a sex offense is subject to SORNA, it’s part and parcel of dual sovereignty. That’s been true ever since the AG said it applied retroactively and to juveniles. What will limit a CA RC from having to be lifetime under SORNA is CA will stop wanting to collect your information after whatever the Tier 2 timeframe is. In other words, if Tier 2 in CA is 25 years, after 25 years CA will tell you to stop coming in to register. Since CA is your only method of complying with SORNA, you’re off the hook **while you continue to live in CA.** The “lifetime” requirement of SORNA is only as good as the States’ agreement with it (or their “willingness” to help the Feds by collecting your info on the Feds’ behalf).

        “This is what has 40,000 of us in CA worried about. That is a huge issue!! If the convictions aligned with another then great, but they don’t.”
        Again, it doesn’t matter. The Feds are only able to enforce the portions of SORNA that CA also enforces or collects. Period. If it were otherwise, CA would be prevented from calling the offense Tier 2 because SORNA says it’s Tier 3!

        “On the opposite end, SORNA would be a huge benefit to CP charges.”
        Again, what SORNA says doesn’t matter. If CA were to say CP is Tier 3 and lifetime, it doesn’t matter that SORNA says it’s Tier 1 and 10/15. You would be stuck for life, unless you moved to a State that has the same or lower terms than SORNA.

        • Jackson

          @AJ I can never get a straight answer to this question, but it runs along the same lines as states choosing to follow or not to follow all the SORNA guidelines. My conviction state requires me to register for life for a cp conviction. However, I plan to move to a state that doesn’t publically list for cp convictions, but my conviction state still wants me to keep registering and updating my info with them. Will I get in trouble if I don’t? Or does my conviction state no longer have jurisdiction over me as long as I’m registered in my new state? And if my conviction state does threaten legal action against me for not registering, will the feds get involved and enforce state rules? Thank you

        • AJ

          I’ll give you my layman’s opinion. It holds zero legal value and nothing I say is legal advice.

          “My conviction state requires me to register for life for a cp conviction. However, I plan to move to a state that doesn’t publically list for cp convictions, but my conviction state still wants me to keep registering and updating my info with them.”
          Let me guess, your conviction is in either WI or NY…or is there another one out there doing this? Your State is enforcing a “long arm” statute or act. It means they are reaching beyond their jurisdictional borders to enforce a law upon someone who has some sort of connection to the State. The phrase comes from the idea of the “long arm of the law.” (NY appears to be especially fond of long-arms, covering all sorts of activities.) The case law on it is murky and inconclusive. It also hasn’t every been challenged much over the years. Without a probably quite long and expensive court fight, there won’t be any resolution anytime soon.

          “Will I get in trouble if I don’t?”
          They could issue a warrant for your arrest for FTR. That almost assuredly put you on USMS’s radar and they would hunt you down–which wouldn’t be too hard since you’re registered elsewhere!

          “And if my conviction state does threaten legal action against me for not registering, will the feds get involved and enforce state rules?”
          I would say it’s more of a “when” not an “if” as far as legal action. They would for sure issue a warrant, declaring perhaps both FTR and absconding (i.e., a fugitive). Since USMS is in charge of fugitives and RC compliance checks, they would absolutely come after you and get you extradited back to the convicting State.

        • Joe Gomes

          @AJ. I sure hope your right. I keep reading on here and I think Janice and Chance mentioned it during the recent meeting call, that if your a Tier 2 under CA law and and a Tier 3 under SORNA, then your gonna be a 3. This confused me as CA is not SORNA compliant and hopefully won’t ever be. So again, I hope your information is correct. The way I read those 93 pages, if your state in Non-compliant, you still have the burden to register.

  30. Eric

    Comments may be mailed to Regulations Docket Clerk, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 4234, Washington, DC 20530. To ensure proper handling, please reference Docket No. OAG 157 on your correspondence. You may submit comments electronically or view an electronic version of this proposed rule at

    • Jackson

      Thank you AJ I’m in Milwaukee Wisconsin, and I have nearly 2 yrs to decide (after supervision is up) on either Oregon or Mass where I can take my military pension and find a small town to settle in without hysterical neighbors sniffing out the local sex offender who just moved to town. The reason why I dont want to keep information updated with my conviction state is because private 3rd party vendors can get a hold of my new address from information that I updated with my conviction state, even with the intent of my new state to keep my low risk tier one info private. This only proves that government isn’t always the problem when it come to all the fear and panic surrounding sex offenses.

  31. Eric

    Incredible. In the recent riots in Philly, over 500 people were arrested for rioting, looting, assault and arson. Every single one of them had their charges dropped. Yet, 15 years ago I did a single, non-contact offense and this is what is put upon me. If only I would have just looted a store and set it on fire it would all be behind me.

    • USA the 2nd

      500 were arrested for suspicion of looting and rioting. But a handful of people were actually doing it. Thats why all 500 people, who probably shouldnt had been arrested in the first place, weren’t charged. You on the other hand were charged and convicted of a sex crime against a child. You might ask, how do I know your offense was against a child? Because I can’t
      think of a no contact sex crime against an adult. People have the right to peacefully protest in a constitutional democracy. You do not have the right to commit sex crimes against children.

      • Eric

        USA the 2nd…your title you hide behind tells me all I need to know, except I find it very odd that you are trolling on this site, I suspect you have a few skeletons in the closet, especially defending worthless anarchists that burn, loot and murder innocent people and their possessions. At least people on this site made a bad judgement in the past and all are moving forward to be productive members of society. That is why this act hurts us, it prevents us from improving, unlike you and your spinless ilk that are currently creating the adversity, violence, and harm in the country. Oh, and remind me, how many children have been murdered during your “peaceful” protests in the last two months? Last I heard you are up to twenty. Uh, huh. Go somewhere else. We are fighting for real justice. We take responsibility for our actions and past errors, unlike you we don’t blame them on other people. We want to be an asset, we don’t want people to give us anything for free.

      • ab

        I can think of plenty of non contact offenses against adults including some examples of people doing jail and prison time. There’s even a federal case I know of involving the sale and distribution of content solely featuring consenting adults.

        At the federal level there are three main non contact sex offenses people are prosecuted for. Others do exist, but the three most common do involve minors under eighteen (anyone under eighteen is a child under federal law despite many states having ages of consent at 17 and 16). Adding international ages of consent brings about a range from puberty to 21 and anything outside marriage as non consensual.

        • Brent

          @ab I’m just curious. What are those ‘plenty of non contact offenses’ between adults. Because the example you cited, selling and distributing (what I assume to be obscene) material between adults sounds like contact to me. At minimum communication. But I can’t think of any offense between adults where someone can be imprisoned for just looking at material. Even successful prosecutions for treason involve some amount of contact. A person can view all the ISIS videos they want, and even communicate with international terrorists, but you won’t get in trouble until you start collaborating with them. However, that’s far from the case when it comes to child pornography offenses. In the eyes of the law, child sex crimes are in a category of their own. But I could be wrong.

    • Doc Martin

      During the Philadelphia unrest, 700 were arrested, 500 cited, and 180 were charged mostly with felony criminal burglary. Stop listening to Fox News!

  32. Finally Retired

    People: these proposed revisions still would apply within the SORNA tier framework. That is, once your registration time is up per your particular tier under FEDERAL SORNA, there’s no longer a federal obligation to register and thus comply with related requirements.

    So, tier 1 registrants would be done with the federal obligation after 10 years from sentencing with a clean record (15 years worst case), tier II after 25, and tier 3 for life -even, unfortunately, if your state has removed you. The AG is trying to get the minimum amount of registration time even if the crime is not a covered offense in one’s state -provided that one’s state’s registration authority would be willing to register you for an offense not covered by your state’s SORNA. Somehow I doubt most states would be willing to avenge the feds for offenses not rising to being registrable according to state law.

    For the majority of us who are tier 1 registrants this would have no impact after your 10 years (or 15 worst case). 25 years for tier II registrants.

    The proposed revisions cannot alter the codified tier based registration scheme.

    • Redeemed1

      The problem I see with your argument would be a huge issue in my state (Ohio). The tiers do not correspond on a one to one basis. For example, when I was convicted in 2005, I was labeled low risk and given ten years. Everyone here was placed with a risk level. Then when the AWA (I believe this state was the first to adopt) all heck came lose. I was reclassified into tier 2 (going from 10 to 25 years). There were a lot of people in similar boats. If I remember right I remember reading there were a lot of people who went from tier 1 to tier 3 (10 years to lifetime). Long story short, there were a couple of cases at the state supreme court that basically stated that the state couldn’t apply in retroactively. If this overrides those decsicions, many of us who have been living a (offense free) quiet life will be thrown back in the fire.

      • Finally Retired

        @Redeemed – the tiers I was referring to are the Fed SORNA tiers, which as far as the proposed revisions goes is all that matters.

        You seem to be referencing risk assessments that are made in Ohio which then translate into state based registration tiers. But the federal tiers are based on the type of offense, not arrived at on the basis of risk assessments.

        Look up the tier where your particular offense falls in the federal sorna. If your particular charge doesn’t fall in FEDERAL tier 2 or 3, then by default it’s tier 1 if it involved a minor. And then you’ll know your required registration time as far as the FEDERAL obligation Is concerned.

      • M C

        This appears to be something that may override that decision by doing an end-run around the state supreme court or any other state decisions that may have restricted the retroactive application of the SORNA rules in states that tried to adopt them. It isn’t the state requiring the retroactive application but the federal government. As has been stated this change puts the burden of following the Federal SORNA rules on you and not on implementation by the State. Therefore just because you are not required to register under the state law for the most part state laws are generally silent when it comes to directing a registration authority NOT to register someone if they show up essentially asking to be registered outside of the state’s requirements. In practice, they haven’t done this because nobody in their right mind would ask to be registered without something forcing them to do so.
        Without each states law having something specifically to prevent such registration, a registration authority would likely be able to register someone who fits the criteria under SORNA and appears at that authority in order to be registered should those at that authority decide that they are simply willing to take the registering parties information. Its highly likely in my opinion that most of these authorities will happily take that information if not immediately, at some point in the near future. A legislative decision is probably not required for them to make that choice. Therefore, I do think in Ohio if this is implemented you would now have to register but the feds and not the state would be enforcing your compliance. The state would be unable to arrest you for your failure to comply but the feds could subject to the limitations of the states rights.

        • AJ

          @M C:
          “It isn’t the state requiring the retroactive application but the federal government. ”
          What this does is put RCs more at the mercy of the State and whether it’s “willing” to be the Feds’ lackey regarding registration. The 10th Amdt. gives States (but not Territories or Possessions) the right to tell Uncle Sam to go to h3ll. My feeling is the current non-SORNA-compliant States will probably continue as they are. Unless the Feds are going to cough up more money to them (which I don’t see happening anytime soon), I don’t foresee the non-SORNAs jumping at the chance to increase their costs and workload to satisfy the Feds when the State’s own laws say the RC is done. Most of them did the cost-benefit analysis and found it a costly mess; this just worsens that equation. Registering and tracking the Feds’ people with State money won’t be a popular budget item. So unless Congress kicks out more money under the Byrne grants, DoJ will have to be creative in how to “hire” the States to do their work. The SORNA-mirroring States that don’t have lifetime-for-all registration duration will probably be more than “willing” to do the Feds’ work, even if it costs them dearly.

        • Finally retired

          I would doubt that an individual police staffer at a registration station would take it upon himself to register an individual who shows up because federal SORNA says the state *may* register the person despite state law saying otherwise.

          Remember that all this is done under the guise of public safety as determined by individual states based on their individual sensibilities.. these registration regimes are based on calculations of the perceived risk of past offenders based on factors like specific crimes and time past since commission of the crime, on the part of elected officials. and ultimately if the states decide the extra work and expense isn’t worth it, they won’t go along with it.

          Registration and related notification regimes are resource intensive for states (expensive), and I’d imagine such a shift in policy, at a minimum, would require the approval from state AGs *on legal grounds* before implementation. Like you said, this is an attempt at usurping individual state laws on the part of the federal government, and I’d bet states would see it the same.

          Also, quite apart from legality considerations per state laws and constitution, the state would have to provide more resources to carry out this “unfunded request” from the feds. Will they? Some states perhaps might, but many won’t I believe,

          There are also state constitutional grounds, such as privacy rights accorded to state citizens under state constitutions, that may be breached if states bow to the feds on this where the state SOR laws don’t require under state law for an individual to register.

          Not as simple as one might think..

          It seems to me.

        • Brian

          California has never been a fan of Adam Walsh Act. Case in point, with the new CA tiers they totally ignored the tiers of AW. I do not see California having the resources, MONEY, or desire to look for past registrants, especially with the current COVID crisis.

        • David

          @ M C
          If the State of Ohio, or any other state refuses to comply and not provide ‘the ability to register’ then the burden lies with the state.
          You can’t federally be arrested for not complying with a rule where there was no ability to comply with it.
          Federal law can require you to sign a document, but if the document required by Federal law is not provided by the state due to the state’s refusal to implement the rule, then you are not liable.
          You can’t sign something that isn’t provided.
          This the AG’s attempt to make EVERY state comply with SORNA, but it isn’t going to be enforced by every state.
          The AWA was to be implemented by every state or face a fine, but it turned out that many states figured out it would cost more to implement the changes than pay the fine, so, many did NOT implement AWA and still don’t and this is the way the AG is trying to bully every state into compliance and it isn’t going to work.
          The sheriffs in many states are already against more work due to the AWA and SORNA, so don’t expect this to unanimously be adopted by every state and documents printed up for everyone to pre-dating SORNA to sign.
          States have the right to refuse Federal law and if they do and don’t make a document and require you to sign it, then the Feds can do nothing to you.
          You can’t be held liable for not signing a document that doesn’t exist if the state refuses to comply and require it.

  33. Looking for Answers

    I went on the Dept of Justice website today to send an email to AG Barr. I explained how SORNA is helping to keep my fiancé (and others like him) unemployed and how it affects me as a deploying service member terrified that something will happen to him while I’m away in a war zone since he is put on a public hit list. Neighbors on (that I do not know personally) speak often of lynching and killing sex offenders. I have reported this to Nextdoor and they do not care. I am afraid of the police abusing their power if I draw attention to my family and household.
    My fiancé’s was a military offense and probably considered Tier 1 but it’s been impossible to get an answer on that even at this point. It doesn’t match most state OR federal laws and in trying to say that these laws make things more streamlined is a bunch of cr**. This makes things wayyy more complicated and confusing and I bet it’s gonna cost a ton of money. Aren’t we in enough debt over Covid????
    I figured he (Barr) may not care, but I have to assume that in some way people don’t think about every aspect of the registry and how it affects families as well as the eternal flogging and of those on the registry (which may very well be their intent). I thought they wanted LESS people on unemployment or homelessness, not more so.
    It may or may not do anything by writing but I feel so hopeless it’s all I can do at this time. Besides try to save up money to leave the country once I retire, I guess.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      Mine was military as well, what was his charge?

      • Looking for Answers

        Sending indecent images to a minor… He was on an adult app in a war zone talking to a Air Force OSI Agent who sent a picture of another (adult) female OSI agent claiming to be below the age of 16. Then the agent asked for an indecent picture of himself, he sent it 🙄. He was on Ambien at the time, which was given to him by the AF.
        This was before we were together and he was single. I honestly thought that it wouldn’t really pass through court and would get dropped considering the military blundered the case and did so many things outside of their concept of operations- including the agent talking to men he knew were deployed and on drugs the AF gave them, and using a picture of a fully grown adult with an exposed tattoo. He (the agent) didn’t complete ICAC training and they destroyed the original chat evidence before it even went to trial, using only screenshots which were different than the chat in his phone. The military attorney in charge threatened his civilian lawyer to try and get him to quit. They called all of his character witnesses and threatened to ruin their military careers if they testified for him. It took forever to even get to court. The first shirt and chief told his friends in the unit to isolate him and abandon him because he is a “bad person”. That’s why all the craziness in military trials (Eddie Gallagher) doesn’t surprise me anymore. It’s a total kangaroo court run by people who have no idea what they are doing but have all the power in the world. This is why I fear the federal government having all the power, I guess. But I’m preaching to the choir!
        In researching it further I guess there is a federal charge that is similar… Transfer of indecent material to minors?
        I think that is probably the one…
        How about you? If you feel comfortable talking about it, that is…

        • JohnDoeUtah

          Old (2005) Carnal Knowledge and Sodomy (oral) of a minor. We had a kid together, two weeks after he was born I was court martialed (General).

          18 months (13 after earned/good time), Bad Conduct Discharge, E1. I was 22.

          Most of the guys welcomed me back into the circle after I got out, but leadership barred me from base during appeal.

          I won one issue on appeal, rights violation (due process) and they gave me ONE day credit against my sentence (I had been out for over a year at that point).

          Looks like your guy was maybe Art 134 – 18 USC 2252, which would be tier II (25 years).

        • Looking for Answers

          Wouldn’t that charge you mentioned for art 134 involve pictures of minors, though? He didn’t send any pictures of minors (nor did he ask for an indecent picture of the agent).

          Ps- ridiculous that they credited ONE day for a rights violation. Such nonsense the military justice system is

  34. Brian

    I haven’t had to register in California since 1989. Is CA going to come looking for me or do I have to march into my local police station?
    What Federal tier would 288(a) be??

    • M C


      If you have no other sexual convictions and the minor was under 13 it would be a SORNA Tier 3. If the minor was 13 or older it would be a Tier 2. If a Tier 2 you would be well past the SORNA registration period. If a SORNA Tier 3 you would be a lifetime registrant under SORNA.

  35. njm

    For Tier 1 — CA says 10 years, but if these rules are pushed into existence this year (Oct?), then SORNA would supersede and make Tier 1 15 years. SORNA says that if your record is “clean,” then 15 can be reduced to 10. But “Clean” under SORNA includes having to go through a sex offender treatment program:

    “Clean record is defined as having no convictions for an offense for which imprisonment of more than one year may be imposed; no convictions for a sex offense (even one with the maximum penalty of less than one year); successful completion of any periods of supervised release; and completion of an appropriate sex offender treatment program certified by the jurisdiction or by the U.S. Attorney General. The guidelines allow states to design treatment programs and criteria used in determining successful completion.”

    So unless you go out and pay thousands for a treatment program, that reduction of 5 years is not available to you. So here in CA, this new development means that a Tier 1 registrant who was able to petition at 10 years has suddenly had that waiting period increased by 50% from 10 to 15 years. Not through any law passed but because AG Barr has changed the rules on us?


    1. How could this not be construed as some of the worst developments we have encountered in many years, especially since we just achieved Tiers in CA?

    2. Do I have this all right?


    • Finally Retired

      @njm – unfortunately you have it right. All we can hope for is for states to refuse to go along, in which case the proposed regs as written acknowledge there’s nothing the feds can do. On the other hand, there’s always the possibility of litigation and an injunction blocking the regs from being implemented. Fingers crossed 🤞.

      When CA changed to a tiered system, they knew already they were going against Fed SORNA with their 10-year unqualified registration limit for tier 1 offenses. Let’s hope they stick to their guns, as well as other states. one would think so.

      In my state of Maryland, the Supreme Court here explicitly rejected an argument put forward by the state’s registration authority that regardless of state law, certain offenders would still have to be put on the state registry because the Fed SORNA requires it even if their specific offense is not covered per state law. This holding was back in 2014 if I’m not mistaken.

      We gotta hope the states will refuse to go along.

      • AJ

        @Finally Retired:
        Was the case you have in mind “Doe v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 430 Md. 535, 62 A.3d 123, 140 (2013)”? I haven’t read the case but have seen it mentioned in a handful of other RC suits. I suppose now I have to read it! If you happen to recall the case you have in mind, please let me know what it is–even if it’s just to confirm it’s the case I mentioned here. The legal rationale the court used could be helpful.

        • Finally Retired

          @A J – see “Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services vs Doe” 439 Md. 201 (2014).

          In pertinent part, the holding says:

          “Based on our holding in Doe I, Marylanders, like Hoosiers, enjoy ‘greater protection under the prohibition on ex post facto laws” of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Where Appellees would only be required to register in Maryland, and where we have held that retroactive application of the Maryland registry is unconstitutional, they, and all individuals similarly situated in Maryland, cannot be required to register in Maryland. The language of SORNA expressly providing for a conflict between federal law and state constitutions, as well as the available federal guidance on the topic, leads us to the conclusion that so long as appellees are in Maryland, they cannot be required to register as sex offenders in Maryland, notwithstanding the registration requirements imposed directly on individuals by SORNA.”

          Previously this court (MD’s highest court) had stricken retroactive application of Maryland SOR laws under certain circumstances.

        • AJ

          @Finally Retired:
          Thank you! I’ve downloaded it and will read it soon.

  36. B.K.

    To make this easier for people to understand:

    Smith v Doe applied to a ‘horse and buggy’ law.

    We are saying today, that ‘horse and buggy’ laws apply to every vehicle ever made.

    There is no possible way this new law would have ever passed the justices that decided Smith v Doe. All you have to do is read the dissenting opinions, and you will see what they really thought of Smith v Doe.

    That being said, this law might be a good thing for all registrants (I am one). Because this finally might be a ludicrous enough law for judges to grow a pair of balls and do their jobs.

    Judges have been afraid to do their job since Smith v Doe, this should be the final straw

    • E

      I wrote something similar above and am glad to see there are two of us thinking this could help REAL judges actually get off their collective butts and stop anti-Constitutional activity.

      Your horse and buggy analogy is great. They’re building a Mustang and telling us that the judgment on whether you can whip your horse to make it move from 100 years ago applies!

      • Redeemed1

        Great analogies above. I really hope this is the straw that breaks the camels back. Please forgive my ignorance on this, but is this something that would need to be challenged in each state? Or since it is a Federal thing, would it straight to Federal court?

    • M C

      @B.K. I wouldn’t place my bets on the courts to help anyone out of this. Even assuming you are right, if you are in my boat and haven’t had to register for over a decade and then are told that you suddenly have to register the registration will likely be enforced under this SORNA guidance including potential criminal charges for failure to comply up until such time the courts actually rule against the Feds. It’s my opinion that getting an injunction against enforcing these rules is highly unlikely. In that case you are left with the choice of either complying with the registration requirements which will basically put you on blast to everyone in the public or alternatively risking arrest and imprisonment for non compliance up until the Supreme Court finally decides to hear a case on it, if ever.

      • B.K.

        I am basically in your boat.
        My ‘offense’ was in 1996, pre-registration (which started in 1997). So I was already retroactively added.
        My ‘offense’ was very border line porn conviction. I was on a Yahoo Newgroup which forbid photos of minors, and there were photos of minors that were posted there, in violation of terms of use.
        I plead guilty because of the Feds blackmailing me with a plea deal.
        I am a lifer on the registry because some person I don’t know violated the terms of use on Yahoo.

    • AJ

      “Horse and buggy” indeed! Consider that publication of the Smith decision on March 5, 2003 was 5 months before MySpace (August 2003), 11 months before FB (Feb 2004), 3y before Twitter (March 21, 2006), 4y3m before the first iPhone (June 29, 2007), 5y6m before Chrome (Sept 2, 2008), and 7y7m before Instagram (Oct 6, 2010). In Smith itself,

      Smith was certainly decided during a transition time of the Internet. It was only 6 years earlier when SCOTUS decided a case involving AOL and its “bulletin board” system.

  37. HopingForHope

    If these proposals become law, will the feds somehow notify us individually? There are many RSO’s out there who won’t know about this.

    • AJ

      First, this is not a law that’s being proposed. Only Congress can make laws. These are rules the Attorney General is clarifying and tweaking under authority Congress already gave years ago (and which was upheld by SCOTUS in the Gundy case).

      Under a 1957 SCOTUS Opinion, Lambert v. California ( or, for easier reading,, you will have to be explicitly notified of your registration requirements. It’s also in SORNA at §20919 (“Duty to notify sex offenders of registration requirements and to register”). It’s also addressed on (PDF) p. 16 of this document, citing the same §20919:
      “Consider first the concern that sex offenders may lack notice regarding registration obligations. Under the procedures prescribed by SORNA, and under standard procedures that have generally been adopted by registration jurisdictions whether or not they have implemented SORNA’s requirements, the registration of sex offenders normally involves (i) informing sex offenders of their registration duties, (ii) obtaining from sex offenders signed acknowledgments confirming receipt of that information, and (iii) having sex offenders provide the required registration information. See 34 U.S.C. 20919(a); 73 FR at 38062–63.”
      In short, the Government has to tell you what, when, how (and how often), and where you must register. Without an affirmative document (such as your signed registration form from ANYwhere in your past), the Government has no case.

      • Lovecraft

        Aside from it being close to election time, I wonder if the Gundy decision itself (maybe along with a few other recent decisions) is what emboldened/encouraged the AG to push out this document. The Gundy decision reinforced the power of the fed/AG, while many of our victories in court like Snyder, Muniz, and various other ex post facto cases may have sounded the alarm to the feds indicating they were losing a grip on rc’s as a group. This document seems almost like a reaffirmation of SORNA just to make sure everyone knows the government intends on keeping it in play for the long haul.

        • AJ

          What’s sly about the AG’s new “specifications” regarding things is nowhere does he directly increase the (affirmative disability of) in-person requirement. He instead uses the States’ in-person requirements to do his dirty work. It thus seems like extra work is needed to attack the States and their many and varied in-person requirements.

        • Lovecraft @AJ

          Another interesting thing to note is the recent decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where the state supreme court ruled that the new SORNA (post Muniz) scheme does not apply restraint or debilitate. See Commonwealth v. Lacombe and Commonwealth v. Witmayer.

          Under the new Sorna rules, offenders are now required to report in person annually rather than quarterly 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.60(b). This limits the in-person appearances of lifetime registrants to twenty-five times over a twenty-five-year period as compared to 100 times over a twenty-five-year period, which was determined to be an affirmative disability or restraint in Muniz. The court held that the currently-required annual appearance is necessary to maintain a useful updated photograph on the Megan’s Law website. Also, the court noted that subchapter I offenders are no longer required to appear in person to report changes to registration-related information.

          Quote from the decision: “The in-person reporting requirements that remain in Subchapter I are minimal and clearly necessary, and we thus find Subchapter I does not impose any direct affirmative disability or restraint. As the above Mendoza-Martinez analysis clearly reflects, Subchapter I effected significant changes from the original version of SORNA, retroactive application of which we found unconstitutional in Muniz. To summarize, we find three of the five factors weigh in favor of finding Subchapter I nonpunitive. Additionally, we give little weight to the fact Subchapter I promotes the traditional aims of punishment and give significant weight to the fact Subchapter I is narrowly tailored to its nonpunitive purpose of protecting the public.”

          So reporting four times a year is debilitating, but once isn’t. Doesn’t make any sense to me it either is or it isn’t. Maybe the AG saw this decision and thought hmmm….sneaky indeed.

  38. E

    Now is a great time to join ACSOL with your monthly ongoing gift!! I can do $10/mo. Wish it was much more.

    Janice what do we need to mobilize? Plaintiffs? More civil rights trial attorneys? A march on Washington?

  39. Ditto

    One woman drafted the original guidelines without any help. She did so more or less secretly because no one knew what she was doing or how. She could have carried tons of bias and baggage that may have been relevant. Could this draft be the same? The backstory politics could be explosive.

  40. SG

    SORNA regulations are a “floor”, meaning it is the minimum requirements, and each State, if they so choose can formulate more stringent rules/regulations. This newest “proposed regulations” from AG Barr, simply put, RE-FORMULATES the MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF SORNA and each state must meet these new minimums. It raises that ‘floor’.

    IF each and every one of “us” (numbering close to 1 million) writes to AG Barr, and send via USPS our comments in a letter (using large fonts) and certified/requiring a signature upon receipt, and asking for his response to each letter…it may be somewhat burdensome for the AG’s office, but this is what is being requested. Do we think the AG’s office can go through 1 MILLION letters in 60 days? (If they get the bulk of the letters closer to the end of the 60 day period, this burden may be increased somewhat, assuming the letters don’t find their way into a circular file).

    I would take great joy in participating in such a mass effort.

  41. M C

    @HopingforHope, it won’t become law but rather will become policy because the law delegates the AG to be able to make the policy regarding retroactive application of the law. There is no voting on this and despite what public comments say, the AG can and likely will implement this if he wants to even if there is opposition. That said, to answer your question the feds will probably not notify you immediately and if you aren’t notified you are likely in the clear if you don’t comply up until some point that it gets noticed that you aren’t in compliance and you either arrested and/or questioned about your knowledge of your requirements. Once that happens you would then know about them and you would have to comply. There are many methods they will use to eventually notify you aside from trying to get the States and state law enforcement to do it for them when you have contact with them. The most likely of these would be at an airport when you appear on a flight manifest on a domestic or international trip (they send someone to meet you at the plane) or in the case of an international trip, notifying you via the Border Patrol when you are trying return to the country.

    • Finally Retired

      @ M C – are you sure they monitor *domestic* flights for sex offenders? Is there legal authority?


      • M C

        @Finally Retired, actively monitor no and the airlines aren’t required to share them except under certain circumstances but that doesn’t mean that they won’t voluntarily do so.

    • HopingForHope

      Thanks, MC, for the explanation. Waiting around to get arrested doesn’t sound like a good plan, so if this becomes policy, do I go to a federal marshall’s office or the FBI to make sure I’m in compliance, or do nothing and plead ignorant if I’m stopped by LE and hope I don’t get arrested? Seems to me most registrants aren’t going to know the first thing about this unless it’s brought up during a compliance check or they get some sort of notification. This seems to set a lot of us up for unexpected arrest and face federal charges, which is probably exactly the outcome they are hoping to achieve.

  42. M C

    @AJ, *full disclosure: this is the way I understand this to work. I may not be right and please show me examples if I’m not.* I’m not saying that the feds couldn’t try twist registration compliance to still try nail you but I would argue that these are quite different. In your cited case the weapon used was a product of interstate commerce so interstate commerce was actually involved in committing the crime even though I personally think it’s a stretch to say it is if the weapon is purchased locally and the perp himself did not engage in the interstate commerce to get it but the shop owner he bought it from did the interstate commerce. I don’t know enough about the case though to really analyze that piece of it and it’s common to order a gun to a dealer yourself. That said, if you stay within a States border and fail to register under fed SORNA your failure to register was not a crime committed which involves any element in another state. Even failing to provide an internet identifier would be out of the scope as the requirement was to simply tell the state information for SORNA and you aren’t actually using the internet to provide the information. It’s certainly not against federal SORNA or other federal laws to simply use the internet unless you do something illegal on it. Once you travel outside the State unregistered then that changes everything. I don’t believe using the internet unless you are committing a failure to register offense while
    actually using it would trigger the ability for the fed to enforce it and I don’t see how you can commit a failure to register offense by simply using the internet. It isn’t any different than how the fed can’t prosecute a sex crime against a minor unless you take the minor across state lines or cross state lines specifically to commit the crime. You flying to another state a few days after committing the sex offense to go on a vacation (not if you lived there) wouldn’t allow the feds to arrest you for that offense. Only the state could prosecute that.

    • AJ

      @M C:
      The example I used wasn’t the best but it was the only one that readily popped to mind. However, Congress has long been allowed–though somewhat reined in since the mid 1990s–to use the Commerce Clause for regulating and criminalizing all sorts of intrastate events and matters.

      Here’s a bit of a primer on the whole thing, though it can get a bit deep (I suggest skimming and then reading the last section, “Criminal Law”):

      I also suggest doing a search using the terms “commerce clause federalized crimes”. You’ll get plenty of results. What happens is Congress declares a crime to have an effect on interstate commerce and then creates a federal criminal statute against it. The ties between the criminal act and interstate commerce can be quite tenuous and the courts will still accept it. The standard is whether interstate commerce is affected *at all*, not to some measure. And I’ll give you one guess what standard of review is used to look at Commerce Clause cases. Yep, our old friend “rational basis review.” Thankfully SCOTUS has *started* to look a little closer at some of these laws but they still seem to lean in Congress’ favor. It’s pretty sad when one looks at how many times and ways SCOTUS’ “answers” to problems have made things worse. Their “social ills” Opinions usually don’t work out so well in the long run, IMO. And when they do misstep, we’re all screwed for 10 or 50 or 200 years (see: Calder v. Bull from 1798).

      At any rate, I apologize for the poor example. The point I was trying, and failed, to make was that Congress can twist things almost any way it wants under (usually) the Commerce Clause and (sometimes) the Necessary and Proper Clause to federalize pretty much any activity out there. Thankfully the courts have started to wake to the Frankenstein they’ve created. Sadly they’re just waking.

  43. G4Change

    I’d love it if Judge Cleland takes a look at this steaming pile and says that guess what, SORNA is no longer constitutional so SORNA is now enjoined too!

    Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he??? 🙂

  44. AERO1

    Every sexofender in the US has a FBI profile and all fall under SORNA i know for a fact Orange County imposes SORNA on sexofender in there county.
    I remember when i lived out there every time i had contact with Law Enforcement they would all ways referred me to the SORNA website in a threatening kinda way and worded me of what i can and cant do and they did alot of compliance checks out there it was lame az phuck i was happy to out of there jurisdiction

  45. Gralphr

    Face it folks, anytime the Government wants to test getting over on the constitution, or doing something deemed overboard, they use the registry and registrants as the guinea pig. I can think of no other criminal acts the government does this to. Just today I read a woman on her third DUI hit and killed someone, yet those individuals do not have to register, nor repeat anything else, when its proven they do it again and again. Only if sex or sex acts are involved are people truly considered dangerous and forever under such an unjust system. They’ve never given a justification as to why Tier III must register for life other than the age of the victim as if that alone says the person will continue to commit more crimes.

  46. Rex3

    I’m telling my family good buy its over I’m 31 f this I hope my 4 kids learn from my one mistake f it all

    • Deborah

      Rex3, By your comment I take it you are talking about suicide. If I am incorrect, so be it. I have a family member who is a registrant, and I know the horror and pain of being on the registry and having your constitutional rights ripped away. Wherever your kids are, please Don’t leave them with a legacy of suicide.
      Try to stay just one day
      At a time and don’t miss our victory.
      So Many people are praying for you behind the scenes.

    • C

      If you mean “good buy” your search for a good TV is “over,” then good for you. If you’re considering taking yourself out, I can sympathize, but please know that your kids are better off with a GOOD dad that happens to be a registrant than no father at all or, worse, having to deal with the soul-crushing heartbreak of a father who committed suicide and left a gaping hole in their lives.
      Be present for your children. The rewards for everyone will pay off immediately and continue to benefit you for the rest of your lives.
      Hang in there!

      • dph

        @ C…oml , what 😳 a comment,
        Made me cry. Gay & NO kids, but
        Made Me 😢
        I touched my heart…hope men with children or buns in the oven, is Very Real and this may just possibly Prevent suicide if they read your response “C” indeed.
        And Feel worthwhile and needed.
        What a thoughtful comment. OMG
        Thank You.
        Hope the Father’s read your thoughts on here!
        Now knowing that ” GOOD Dads”
        Can be RC’s/registrants as C says.
        I am sure many do not feel that way….touching.

    • AERO1

      Feelings of suicide are normal for people forced to register. Having you personal information posted all over the internet in very devastating especially in 2020 where the internet still remains undefeated.
      People really base their lives on what they see on the internet its ridiculous already but it’s the world we live in.
      If you have kids and u commit suicide you’re a coward why would you bring them into this nasty world and then ditch them when the going gets tough what kind of example is that look what this planet has done to you just imagine what it will do to your kids if you’re not there to protect them and teach them so they dont end up in the same situation as you.
      I wish I could tell you keep your head up man things are gonna get better but im sorry they won’t if anything being forced to register and being labeled a sexofender its gonna get worse.

      Good luck

  47. Joe123

    The individuals that keep pushing for these laws really need to burn in hell. The amount of Government/Beauracratic intrusion into people’s lives is Insane.

    Where is the donation fund for a full-on Lawsuit? I will gladly donate.

    If this passes, this God-forsaken country that is a skeleton of what it once was will become the next China as far as how they monitor and control its people.

    This is NOT the ‘United States’ that you have been brainwashed to believe that you know. WAKE UP.

  48. Doc Martin

    I heavily doubt these requirements would get enacted, but you never know. If they do, nothing really changes for me. Although I have an end date for getting off the registry, I’ll be too old to worry about the feds keeping me on it a few more years. Go right ahead. At this point, I’m too old to fight. The only thing that really bothers me about the DOJ proposal is the having to give notice if I leave my state for more than 7 days. What if my plans change and I have to remain out of state for 8 instead of 7 days? Do I have to notify the cop shop back home that I won’t be home in time? Feels like high school again back in the 60s when I had to tell my parents I won’t be home for supper. Most states require visitors to register within 7 days anyways. And if you do, your home state will be notified. So I also see some bureaucratic overlap in the proposed changes, but what do I know.

    • E

      It’s if you leave your residence for 7 days, not your state. So you can’t even vacation in state more than 7 days, in states where the rules now are 14 days, for example.

    • David

      @ Doc Martin: What in the world makes you think that this “Proposed Rule” (with it’s dozens of new mandatory requirements) would not be enacted??? 😲

      • Doc Martin

        @David All signs are that Bob Barr & Trump will be toast in November. This proposal is mere election day posturing, and I heavily doubt the next new justice dept appointment will revisit a Trump era proposal. By the time the Biden AG is picked and running the department (likely next Feb), Bob Barr’s proposal will be long forgotten.

  49. Saddles

    @Lovecraft you hit on an interesting word.. decision and yes many of you all come up with some unique stuff. Evil intent can be a slow horse and buggy law as one person said on here in his words. Seems today everyone wants to be a rocket scientist. Yes this registry issue and this sex offense can eat at you like a canker sore We can either make the right decisions or the wrong ones. Course I don’t like to think about this SORNA law as its like a third party exchange on someone’s behalf that wasn’t prepared in the long run.Course sex sting operators have all their plans and trained to induce these ordeal in this black and white type conspiricy, or you can call it a writing on the wall conspircy. Now it seems its time for them to re-hatch and regroup or rethink their mistakes. Guess one couldn’t take the fifth today in this computer era.

    We can talk about the Black plague, the spainish flu, the aid’s epic in the Regan era and this convid-19 so who really was prepared. Even in my own situation law enforcement person that set me up wasn’t prepared for my answer when he explained the purposed of these operations to me about adults of talking to little kids or teenagers and said to me you thought you were coming down here to meet up with a teenager for sex and you made a choice.

    I said to him …point blank your wrong. I made a decision to come down here. Than he goes on to ramble choice , decision whats the difference. Even the bible says the heart is deceitful. so what man knowth the thoughts and intent of another and yes that cooled his jets for a bit but than he says to me I’m think of something else.

    Lovecraft I’m just glad they are taking a better look at this whole ordeal with sorna and these laws, and yes its about time. Nothing wrong with speaking out for the truth and they should of been better prepared before all this confusion with this tier issue and this SORNA law before they even got it in gear. In my views its like a divided government. And when government is dividing the word of the lord with deceit and lie’s things get out of hand.

    Many governments have a play book that tells them how to handle a situation but it is seldom used when a crisis or a pandemic comes up. Someone talked about the Byzantium Era a bit on here and that was a bit lopsided and very unorthodox and a bit out of character.
    You know lovecraft one wonders who’s incriminating who. So taking the fifth would be out of the question or who is the sacrifice in this ordeal. It sort all comes down to the intent or the conspiricy factor like jude in the biblical times in this twisted sort of way. Actually the bill of rights seems to be over looked in many of these issues. One wonder who is buttressing one’s freedom of religion. So who wonders today if this is really a Christian nation.

    Yes even people have even gotton on me a bit for even bringing it up in this type of ordeal. One even wonders if we are still one nation under God today and yes we are still one nation under god if he is in have faith and believe in the words of love.

  50. TnT

    Quick thought …… Because we are tied into a class action law suit in Michigan that says you cant retroactive life sentences , And that the registry is deemed unconstitutional because they applied these federal statue too thousands of people in 2006 then again in 2011 after a conviction , It was said by a federal Judge that is is not except able or constitutional how could this stand ???? Isn’t this just another slap in the face too the Federal court Judges ? This is why we are in court now ? If it didnt fly over then, why would he be able to just go in and re write it and retroactive it too hundreds of thousands of people who have already served their time or were due off in no more then 10 or 25 years to a life sentence , You would think the judges would laugh and strike it down??? Please correct me if i am wrong ??? Here in Michigan we are in a class action law suit because of this same reason the judge says you can not retroactive apply 2006 and 2011 because it is punitive . As well as a no teir system , Or give life sentences out after the fact? So now Bill Barr can decide the out come of this federal case that was deemed too be punitive ???

    • JohnDoeUtah

      Snyder applies to Michigan state law only, the feds will argue, and have, that it doesn’t apply to SORNA.

      Additionally, after Snyder there was a federal decision out of Michigan where the court dismissed a lawsuit attempting to force Michigan to remove an offender from the registry, citing his independent obligation under SORNA. Ill post the case after work.

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 *