ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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


SCOTUS: Petition Maryland v. Rogers

Maryland v. Rogers addresses whether sex offender registration is “punishment” within the meaning of the Sixth and 14th Amendments. Jimmie Rogers pleaded guilty to a Maryland criminal law that provides that a person may not knowingly “take or cause another to be taken to any place for prostitution.” Because the victim’s age was not an element of the offense, the prosecution did not present evidence of her age. However, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services determined that the victim was a minor. After Rogers’ release from prison, the department classified him as a Tier II sex offender, which requires registration for 25 years for human-trafficking offenses against minors. In contrast, a Tier I sex offender must register for only 15 years and may petition for removal after 10 years. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, determined that sex offender registration constitutes punishment for which the state must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The Maryland attorney general’s petition asks the justices to review that decision, arguing that it conflicts with two Supreme Court decisions and other lower-court and state-court decisions. Case Files

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Here’s hoping the case will be viewed objectively and rightfully determined that all things registering post sentence is punishment, and not end up being overturned through some legal mumbo-jumbo technicalities. All too often the rulings come off as “well, the bully (government) was using your own hand to ‘punch yourself’, thus its perfectly fine for the bully to continue doing so as they technically not hitting you directly”.

This is really what I see it as most of the time, especially when the government collects emails, sends them to social media sites, who then banish RCs. Its a sweety technicality around the recent ruling of the government not being able to directly keep people off social media.

Likewise with the registry in general. Well, we didn’t send those people to burn down your house and assault you. We just provided everything one needs to do so.

And we definitely aren’t banning you from traveling internationally. We, once again, are simply providing all the information for this one narrow class of people, and what happens happens.

None of this collateral damage is intentional *wink wink*

Regarding international travel, don’t forget the state department gives awards to embassies that refuses entry to registrants. Collaterally, of course.

The best angle from which to attack International Megan’s Law is to challenge the 21-day advanced notice requirement. Sometimes emergencies, like death in the family, serious illness, etc. come up unanticipated and therefore do not allow for the 3-week advanced notice.


That’s why there are exceptions to 21 days in the 2011 Fed Register text of the guidelines. These things you mention are exceptions. Look them up.


I think it must be an exception if a person simple decides one day that he/she wants to travel sooner than 21 days from that day. So if I woke up tomorrow morning and decided that I wanted to leave the country, then I certainly think that should be allowed. I expect that I could decide and contact my local criminal regime to inform them as I was packing to leave.

I have read the federal regulations, examples, etc. and have not seen any discussion of that. If anyone knows one way or another, would you please say? It’s not critical, I’m just curious.

Having said that, I have actually gone to the airport without knowing where I was going to go, walked in, looked at the departures screen, and picked a destination right then. I absolutely should still be able to do that. If my governments get in the way of that, f them and their whole families. In fact, simply because I have to think about it, f them anyway. I feel good that I don’t have to care about them or what happens to them.

@Will Allen, I think that would be very unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule against you if you chose to make last minute travel plans as long as you attempted to give the notice somehow before you left. You might have to go thru the trouble of defending yourself first though. Another scenario is this. I know people who work for the airlines that have Buddy Passed me for international trips prior to IML. Sometimes you might even travel this way not caring where you actually end up just that you end up somewhere you would like to go. When doing this you book travel to your primary destination say Paris but say the plane ends up full so you see there’s an open flight to Singapore so you decide to change your pass to there as that flight is boarding. So you are literally running across the airport from the boarding gate for the Paris flight to the Singapore flight running down the ramp as they are closing the doors. In that scenario it’s not even possible to call someone much less pay a visit tomlaw enforcement about your travel. So tell me how this doesn’t unconstitutionallty restrict travel?

M C:

Yep, you are right. In addition to those “Buddy Passes”, hundreds of thousands of airline employees can simply go into any airport, walk up and down the flight concourses where the flights are departing, pick one they like, walk up to the gate, and board the flight (if there are enough seats). I’ve known lots and lots of people who do exactly that. I have a good friend who, with his now-wife, used to make sort of a game of that. They would walk down a concourse until they saw a destination they liked and then just go. They would go to Paris and back over a weekend.

I suppose those people are now just supposed to get on the plane and call their local law enforcement criminals before the phones are supposed to be shut off? Then the criminal regime will have to call Paris or wherever while the flight is in progress. To save the children!

Many days I wish that I was dumb. Because the Hit List stupidity harms people who have sense. I also really think people who believe in freedom and have made their lives be free suffer the most from the Hit Lists. People who are not accustomed to freedom don’t worry as much about it. For me, the Hit Lists are 100% unacceptable and an actual act of war. I understand that literally billions of people throughout our world have terrible, real problems. But it is still okay if I insist that my family lives the best lives we possibly can. People who interfere with that are really nothing but harassing criminals who deserve consequences. To me, Registry Supporters/Terrorists (RS/Ts) are no different than if a foreign country invaded America, took over, and started imposing “restrictions” and “requirements” on us. F RS/Ts every day. I’ve delivered consequences and it will continue.

Pushing sex offenders off a thousand foot cliff over a rocky ravine wouldn’t be an assault or punishment. Sure, gravity may accelerate them downward. And the rocks below might suddenly and tragically stop them. But this was never the intent of pushing someone off a cliff. So while it may seem like an assault or punishment, it really isn’t.

65 years ago my grandfather age 16 had sex with my grandmother age 13. Under current law he would be required to register as a sex offender for life. Sex offenders for the most part have been very ashamed for their mental illness, and ask for forgiveness for an affliction they could not control. I will not be ashamed. I am an American citizen, and the only way my opposing party could win is by accusing me of grabbing her 12 year old nieces rear end. That carried a charge of CSC 2, and up to life in prison, WHAT!!!!!!!. I was threatened if I excercise my right to trial I would get 15-LIFE, because of my misdemeanor convictions. I took a plea of no contest. My rights to my sons were illegally taken without notice of the hearing. My baby mamma’s husband petitioned to adopt my kids, without my knowledge. He stole them. I did not commit that crime but I was a sex offender so who cares.
I am calling in all sex offenders to take action. It is time. You have been passive in an actionable grievances against a society that hates you. Wake up. You must fight for the rights the constitution protects and guarantees. I had 1 of you trolls come to my house last year stirring up trouble. He left in an ambulance, stand your ground. Haha.
Martin Luther King was a great a man, he praised a non violent change. I do not. If you take your coward website trolls into the world you will get hurt.
#Watchurkids #Standforurrights

They are requesting the SCOTUS to take up the case? And if they do not the ruling stands?

I hope someone can or would please interpret this.

Correct. The state is requesting a SCOTUS review as the state SCOTUS overturned the original ruling. If SCOTUS declines. The ruling stands and sets legal precedent for the circuit (Fourth). Other circuits could then site it but it wouldn’t be binding like a SCOTUS ruling would for the entire country.

SR, I think the decision would apply only in the state of Maryland if cert is denied. The contested case was decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals not by a federal appeals court.

@Ed C

Correct, applicable to MD only.

So, I know this is a little off the topic, but since Does v Snyder was found to be unconstitutional and punishment by the 6th Circuit and then SCOTUS, refused to hear it, wouldn’t Does v Snyder still stand?, no matter what AG. Barr says or Does?. That should also be the same for Maryland correct? Whether SCOTUS takes or passes on the case.

I think you’re correct, but who the hell knows? In the 6th it’s punishment and the state can’t do anything that would go against this. But, that stupid BS ruling recently in the 10th says state and federal are independent. So while the state can’t require this, the fed apparently can. However, it’s the state that does everything so I think they won’t be able to enforce the fed, thus making it kind null? It’s a huge legal mess that will probably see some people become arrested and start a new chain of events and court hearings that I think SCOTUS will be forced to take up. MD currently would fall the same ambiguous void with the current ruling. I’m really hoping SCOTUS does take this up and actually examines the 20+ years of empirical evidence and just shuts down the whole thing. Barr pushing this might actually be what’s needed to do so.

Right now I just feel like swinging fists. Between the insane anxiety of CA’s tier system in a few months, the November prop vote that may or may not reclassify me as “violent”, Barr’s bullshit, the damn fires and heat wave, and our kitty being at her last leg because of cancer, I just can’t. Life just feels meaningless. It’s like I’m an empty husk that just doesn’t know it’s dead and keeps going through the motions.

Correct, binding precedence in Maryland only; but, persuasive everywhere else. The decision here is based on the US Constitution and not the state constitution. Thus, if it stands it could be used by other courts to strike down the laws.

Right now the DOJ and states are trying to preserve stare decisis from 20 years ago. They are trying to use Smith v. Doe as a blank check to do as they please.

But, it doesn’t always work for them, unless in the 10th Circuit. /s.

Snyder is only binding precedence in the Sixth for lower federal courts only. State courts are not bound by federal court decisions, except SCOTUS.

DOJ will ignore Snyder outside the Sixth. And courts will only see it as persuasive, not dispositive. But, get enough persuasive cases going and you can get other courts to follow suit, even SCOTUS.

Incorrect federal law supersedes all state laws. But you as the individual need to enforce you ur right .
DOE v SNYDER is the precedence and until there is a overruling it stands.


This is a request by the plaintiff (Mr. Rogers) to the U.S. Sup. Ct. to have the case considered. It is referred to as a “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari”.

If you’re interested, it is actually a request for the Supreme Court to order the lower court (in this case, the Maryland Court of Appeals) to produce the record of the case so that the Supreme Court may inspect and review the record to determine if there are any “irregularities”. This may include, possibly, the merits of the argument itself (is registration punishment or not?). The Supreme Court may find other irregularities BEFORE they reach the substantive argument as to the ‘punishment/not punishment’ issue (such as jurisdictional issues, due process issues, etc.). This would be a way for the Supreme Court to “sidestep” the issue, which happens in politically ‘hot potatoe’ cases. Sooo…..The Supreme Court could agree to grant the request to issue the “writ”, in which case the Court may hear the case sometime next year (or possibly the year after, if they so choose). And then we may or may not get a determination regarding ‘the issue’. Or the U.S.Sup. Court could deny the request…(referred to as “denying cert”)….and the Maryland Court’s decision would then stand. But be aware that it then would only apply to the State of Maryland. Isn’t law fun??

SG, SR, Ed….Thank you.

if SCOTUS refuses and this MD case stands the case

1). will still be influantial in other states (not binding of course)

2). MD will have 500,000 + new residents

Which brings up another question. If the ruling is good as it stands, would we want it to be heard?

MP, the first clue that we don’t want SCOTUS to grant cert is that the request comes from the state and not the registrant. The Supreme Court could decide to overturn the decision. Not a good thing. Best for Maryland registrants if SCOTUS lets sleeping dogs lie.

That doesn’t mean anything. The state lost which is why they’re asking. They have no choice unless they’re fine with the current ruling screwing up their registry. If Roger’s lost, they’d probably file as well.

A minor correction. The petition is from the State of Maryland not Rogers.

Ginsburg would’ve definitely ruled it punishment. She did I do believe back in smith vs doe. Sadly her replacement, was part of the 10th circuit that ruled it no punishment but civil in August. 🙁 aka don’t count on it guys. We lost one of our main advocates on the court, and her replacement is a very pro registry “Christian” woman. Honestly, I’m sad this didn’t go through earlier this year when Ginsburg was alive 🙁 I feel defeated a lot lately by the registry.

There is no RBG replacement on the court, yet. The potential replacement was only nominated yesterday and from the 7th CCoA, not the 10th.

IS it just me or do you find it awfully odd that when it comes to nominating ” conservative justices” it’s a Catholic and when it’s a ” liberal justice” it’s another denomination. I reference that because the press immediately announced Barrett as a Notre Dame grad right off the jump. Naturally I’m wondering where the Harvard Connection is.

@Tim in WI

No, I don’t find it odd. It’s based upon ideology, ideology that’s categorized for justices. That’s what this country does.

@ Tim in WI: FWIW, Harvard Divinity School is primarily liberal and produces a lot of Unitarian Universalist ministers. As for Catholicism, I attended a Jesuit (Catholic) university. Sadly, most of my fellow students were dyed-in-the-wool Catholics who tended to be narrow-minded conservatives who rarely thought outside the confines of what they were told to believe. 😞
(I sincerely wish that were not the case, but it was. The priests I had for some of my classes were far more liberal than the students to whom they provided instruction.)

Incorrect federal law supersedes all state laws. But you as the individual need to enforce you ur right .
DOE v SNYDER is the precedence and until there is a overruling it stands.

@Anklebiter – Actually Ginsburg’s replacement has shown remarkable independence of thought. Recently she sided with a registrant charged with FTR! And created biding precedent.

I think Barrett might help us!

Read all about it –

I appreciate the link. A good read but not really different than the South Carolina case whereby out of staters were not given opportunity to contest the NC states assignment of duty to register based which was entirely on states agents comparison of law similarities between different states. Colorado is NOT in the 2nd circuits reach but the citizen was charged because he’d moved into the new state within its (2nd) reach.

I retract my statement and admit it as possibly incorrect. Thanks for the correction y’all. Sorry about that. I had a long night of looking up judges to figure out who my wife and I should vote for and reviewing cases. I might have mixed her up in the process. Digging through a lot of negativity to find the good ones. Took a toll on me

@Anklebiter, David the Jesuit,
I empathize, reading those lengthy opines are grooling!!!!
Imagine the time necessary generating them from scratch like Chance and Janice do.

Laws were intended for general population comprehension but liberal interpretation really makes it harder to analyze ” plain text.”

Claiming the plain human indenture SOR maintenance is as not punitive(by any scrutiny)
IS pure ignorance and even the liberals on the Rehnquist court deemed it “undoubtedly punitive” but the Catholics (5) ALL went otherwise?

Why? Pedophile priests epidemic being played out in the HYPER LAME STREAM media and ambulance chasing victimites! They were blackmailed! and To preserve optics of court benevolence!

How was it going to look upon the body whole of Catholics if the high courts Catholic members of that court voted against the registries use? The church was accused of covering up sexual activity to the highest levels and an adverse position by the justices would be seen as an extension of it.
When in fact it’s the whole of humanities secret! To which the machine knows not!

Actually, Judge Barret is on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, not the 10th Circuit. So, she was not involved in Millard v. Camper. But, that does not mean she is on “our” side. She may be on the originalist side, and could be a pivotal vote if we even get another Gundy case before the Court (separation of powers).

Since people here are certainly interested in her stances, contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee or your elected state officials and propose generic enough questions to ask her without jeopardizing any case which may come to the high court.

For example, does she feel the social ostracizing and rejection of certain people with the help of government data publication after they’ve finished their sentences is acceptable? Does she feel people ahould be lumped together when it comes to crime classification and tiering or should individual assessments be administered to determine proper classification? Does the use of false and debunked statistics reaching the high court have a place in court consideration?

Can’t say they’ll ask her but if they don’t know what to ask from you, they can’t. You may even learn what their stance is.

“This Issue Is of Exceptional Importance Because of the Continued Danger Posed by Sex Offenders in the Community and Because the Decision Below Calls into Question the Convictions of Numerous Maryland Sex Offenders .”

Hopefully evidence will be produced to refute these claims. That could be why the state appealed to SCOTUS and bypassed the circuit court of appeals, where evidence would more likely be evaluated for SCOTUS. Otherwise, these quoted claims — “Continued Danger” and “Numerous” — will be taken as true. Sneaky.

Or maybe I could refute myself by reading the Court of Appeals of Maryland opinion, where there could be plenty of evidence submitted and relied upon. Any case that reaches SCOTUS has to have tons of evidence in support, enough evidence to drown Smith vs. Doe.

If you read the decision by Maryland, they reference other past cases in their jurisdiction where they stated that the amended registry (2009 and 2011) are punishment, verses an earlier version that was upheld (10-years prior). See, Doe v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety and Corr. Servs., 430 Md. 535, 537, 62 A.3d 123, 124 (2013).

That decision also cited that the recent empirical evidence does not support the registry. “As to recidivism, Judge Harrell stated that research since 2002 demonstrated that, “[a]pplying such a broad-reaching statute like Maryland’s to any qualifying sex offender without particularized determinations of recidivism may undermine the law’s intent to prevent the repetition of sex offenses. Indeed, recent research reports that broad-reaching sex offender registration and notification laws do not reduce recidivism by sex offenders.” 573, 62 A.3d at 146 (Harrell, J., concurring) (citations omitted).”

“In a separate concurring opinion, the Honorable Robert N. McDonald, joined by the Honorable Sally D. Adkins, stated that “the cumulative effect of the 2009 and 2010 amendments of the State’s sex offender registration law took [the] law across the line from civil regulation to an element of the punishment of offenders.” 578, 62 A.3d at 148 (McDonald, J., concurring) (citations omitted)

So it appears that Maryland’s highest Court has been giving the State hints that the registry is on the line, if not past it, do this decision should come to no surprise.

@JohnDoeUtah, you must have posted while I was reading the opinion. Thanks for the update on the data.

MDSC ruled on this case. The only step left is appealing to SCOTUS, as we’ve seen previously from PA after Muniz. No other legal steps are available, e.g. federal circuit courts.

@ Ditto: I suspect the SCOTUS Justices get just as fed up with hyperbole as the rest of us (possibly more so because after read the crap day in and day out!), so they probably slough off phrases such as “Continued Danger Posed”.

@Tim in WI I believe that was because SCOTUS approved of the registry in part because the registry didn’t make any claims of the degree of danger. It stood on the conviction alone and left it to the public to determine.

Here, there is a blanket accusation of danger. A reply argument could be that many could rightfully claim not being a danger at all.

@David, agreed. Before SCOTUS can officially consider it hyperbole it has to be presented to them and proven well enough to tame the backlash.

DANGEROUSNESS is not the issue, and that was made clear in Alaska V Doe.

Well if Judge Barrett does get the nomination to SCOTUS- the “Dangerous” aspect for RSO’s may finally come to the forefront.

As an Appellant Judge, Judge Barrett was the champion regarding a 2nd Amendment Case whereby the challenge involved preventing ALL Felons to own firearms.

In her ruling- Judge Barrett went into specific details about the fact that there are differences in a convicted person’s “Dangerousness” and that ALL Felons should not be treated the same, because not ALL Felons are equally dangerous.

From what I heard today about this, this new SCOTUS Judge seems like she might help bring positive results regarding these draconian laws that each and every RSO faces equally. That is to say how each RSO is treated with the same level of “dangerousness”.

May I butt in for a munute to maybe shed some light on ankle’s and some others view’s of this good news of this Marryland case of old. Yes government should honor Ms. ginsburgs last wishes. Government wants to jump the gun in all in many ways and I’m sure Trump has his own agenta and yes these races can be a smear and very messy and bit much, even with this passage of Ginsburg. And yes Maryland is a small area compared to California and other jurisdictions. Wow now I’m crazy like David said.

What is the difference in a Christian and a disciple. Remember the diciples ran away. Yes, we proposed, (theirs that word again) Jesus as many of you thought came to call the sinner and not the righteous. So who or what government is using principals out of line in many issues today. Sure if I wanted to look at my own case its all based on sin factor with a catch 22 factor that is badly out of line. Government even know’s that but won’t admit to their wrong doings in so many ways. Correct me if I am wrong .

Yes getting into one’s car and traveling (Its what they call traveling) down, they say. denotes action but who really did the action in this whole set up ordeal via the internet. I even asked about that and they said if you didnt’ come down we were coming to get you.

In many of your alls’ ordeals who was pressing or asking you for pictures, and other things and intimidating you to come down in so many callous ways in this painted black episode. Many go thru these ordeals from the high school, college kids, to the middle age american and now to kids getting wrapped up into all this registry ordeal. One wonders if traveling by deception is a case in itself today.

I grew up in a Christian home with their values. Anything that is not of the lord is of the devil. Our country is filled with freedom of religion, but the only religion in America that counts is Christianity. And this country has been founded on a fanatical cult, their history is gynecide and racism. Jews and Gentiles. The rights of the many will always out way the rights of the few. Fear is the motivator not common sense, as always

This is probably old news to many, but unless I’m misreading it, Maryland had already found registration to be punitive (and a lot of evidence had to have been presented in that case). So it looks like this case is just an extension of that because if it is punitive it must follow sentencing punishment law, and that relies on “elements” of the statutory reading. It is an interesting opinion but very long, too long from me to read in one sitting.

It may seem odd, but if she’s going to be confirmed anyway, I hope Barrett will be seated in time to hear this case. Say what you will, the Catholics have had 2,000 years worth of scholarly considerations of fairness, justice, ethics and compassion. I expect Barrett to be thoroughly steeped in it.

Off the top of my head: Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh… those are (or were) recent or current Catholic Justices. The only one who might be good for us is Sotomajor. Most of them have been particularly terrible for registrants.


Being taught and steeped in it is one thing, maybe at home, but in the workplace where considerations are different (but should mirror home more closely and maybe do at times), it is easy to go another way and say “I will ask for forgiveness on it because I can when I go to confession”. Catholics also can determine whether a marriage is still valid or invalid in the eyes of God. Right… SO, there is an extent to which it will reach before it won’t work. LDS are compassionate too, but not so much that it takes a lot more consideration of registry laws (as they are doing currently under a diff thread noted in this forum).

Maybe someone who has the Jewish faith in their makeup should’ve been picked instead for the compassion, etc needed since RBG had that in her makeup and was very compassionate when she understood the life of someone forced to register.

I don’t want to make this here into a religion discussion because that will soon be the major topic of her confirmation hearing. I just want her to be open minded like Judge Matsch and others around the country to see the facts for what they are and realize the implications on the daily lives of those who are forced to register. I do think her “Stare Decisis” stance is scary though, IMO.

My thought is that the more ‘conservative’ justices there are on the court might be better in some ways for registry cases. Justices that insist on an originalist’s reading of the Constitution, as written, would agree that the powers being used to enforce SORNA are not legitimate and are an over reach. My hope is that they decide the Feds have no jurisdiction in what should be a State matter, not Federal.

@Worried, might I remind you that the originalist Scalia coined the phrase “frightening and high” and that Amy Barret’s judicial philosophy is nearly identical. She was a clerk for Scalia also.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t been how it has worked out. Their so-called “originalism” has been inconsistently applied – including by Scalia, and conservatives can never be tough enough on sex offenders, in particular or criminals, in general. Additionally, they are extraordinarly deferential to state laws and extraordinarily indifferent to the rights of those ensnared in them. I’m a libertarian and don’t define myself along the left-right spectrum so I don’t like any of them very much but it is clear that if we, as registrants, are going to have some liberty in the future, we are only going to see those reforms from the Democrats.

Precisely! Liberal interpretation of plain words.
No law includes civil law.
Not all civil laws are intended as punishment but effect IS!
Indentured servitude human To database.
Repackaged as civil as in the time of the founding.
All in contrary to the lessons learned by the acknowledgement for the NECESSARY ratification of the 13th. A reset of the relation importance of man in favor of machine and it’s upkeep.

David you made a statement or something on here about is my crazy jabbering better than yours and I win. If it was all about winning I’m sure I would of said something to my guilt plea in court. Yes I’m sure they would of gave me liberty to stand up in my own defense. At times its best to be silent and listen or one can be hard headed and go with proses and con’s such as its all about database, someone’s view’s of catholic’s or other religons or maybe pink and purple hairdoo’s in the courtroom are the better way to go to draw attention, so who or what brings in justice in many of these case files of Maryland or others which may shed some light on each of these offender cases.

Can we all say the bible with its understanding is the blue print of everything under the sun. Many good views but can we all overstep in many ways and I have no intentions as many of you, to run for President, its hard just being an umpire. I’m sure Janice and Chance have battled many cases in their firm.

Should we all go back to a bit of taming of the shrew or give me liberty or give me death, or this inbalance of the scales of true Justice in many of these registry plights in this halls of justice. Is this registry a Crusade for Justice or a hodge podge of man over man or who is the great prentender of little girl lost in this match girl of unethical endeavor and reasoning.

Janice and Chance and even the Ladies in W.A.R. are more in tune with much of this to help rid many of these registry callouses of misguidance of justice. Many times one’s mouth can overload their ……fill in the blank and yes we all can get involved in many ways that we shouldn’t of. Yes Janice, Chance, and many of the team and other advocates are sacrificing their time and talents just the same as many of you to come up with a plausible way to ffight this registry. Imput is good but who balks at another when the chips are down.

I thought Kennedy used frightening and high in the majority’s opinion. Where is the author of the original article and why hasn’t he been drug into court to clear up The mess he made? Now that would be poetic justice!!


He’s debunked it, IIRC, on the record. Someone once posted here, I think, this fact. That’s usable in court.

The author of that original article as well as the woman who wrote up the info for SCOTUS in that case have been against everything almost from the get-go. The author in particular never supported any of this and has been saying how horrible it’s been that his work nearly 20 years earlier had been used that way.

@Brandon, I stand corrected on that but still Scalia joined the majority opinion.

Brandon, That is what I thought too. That it was Kennedy. Maybe someone else will chime in on this.

Real talk. Let’s say it goes through and the Supreme Court rules it punishment. We cheer and party and such. But what does it mean in the long run? Does it mean the registry goes away? Are we all in double jeopardy and can petition off? Or is it just a recognition and things stay the same?

Who knows? The case seems to do with the fact that they layered extra beyond his initial plea. SCOTUS ruling against this may mean people who were retroactively affected by this may be allowed to petition off. Those convicted post the change may now. I’m thinking similar to the PA ruling a few years ago (which has yet to be rectified because lawmakers are dragging their feet and the courts keep giving it to them).

The ruling we’d actually want beyond just all of the registry being void post completion of sentence, is placement on tiers requiring direct individual evaluation rather than blanket placement strictly based on conviction codes. If they did that, it would likely just about kill the registry anyway as it would be nearly impossible both financially and logistically for the government to conduct one million-plus such evaluations. Though I don’t think this case does that. However, it might since part of this ruling seems to have been based on empirical evidence introduction “frightening and high” as well as it being facially (?) punitive.

The following needs serious challenge, this demands friends of the court briefs to debunk these lies…..
“Since this Court decided Smith in 2003, Maryland
and other States have continued their efforts to
maintain effective registration systems to curb the risk
to public safety posed by sex offenders. That risk
remains “frightening and high.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 103.
A 2017 report by the Department of Justice’s Office of
Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking (“SMART”) shows that the
15-year sexual recidivism rate for offenders who
already had a prior conviction for a sexual offense was
37 percent, and that more than one-quarter of all sexoffenders will commit another sexual offense within 20
years of release.4
Disturbingly, because “[r]esearch has
clearly demonstrated that many sex offenses are never
reported to authorities,” and “[s]ex offenders do not
typically self-report sex crimes,” the “[o]bserved recidivism rates of sex offenders are underestimates of
actual reoffending.” Id. at 3, 16, 109. “

Yeah, nothing like a self serving study by SMART. We need to dig into this.

Also, as I stated to the Commission here in Utah, the studies looking at under-reporting are not objectively defensible. They are based on untested allegations of sexual abuse. Without a trier of fact in an unbiased court of law, it flys in the face of due process – innocent until proven guilty.

If we allow them to go unchallenged here, we will end up with “frightening and high” 2.0.

They will always lie. Always. And misrepresent. They can never be trusted.

I don’t think we should worry about recidivism or under-reporting. If you have a potential mechanism/scheme named “X” and it needs to improve those, but does not, would you use it? Of course not. How about if X wasted piles and piles of time, money, effort, and other limited resources? Would you use it then? How about if it also put everyone in America in more danger? And caused widespread, deep damage? What if it harmed the very fabric of civilized society? Would you use X? Would you just create an “X” that was “close enough” and then spend actual, full DECADES trying to polish and fix it up so it is not a pile of garbage?

X is the Sex Offense Registries. All of that can be proven.

I found the “report” they reference, the link in the Court documents is dead.

In the conclusions section, and much of the document, SMART state, “Official records underestimate recidivism. Studies of sexual assault victims and studies of sex offenders in treatment demonstrate that actual offending rates are poorly reflected by official records.”

SMART acknowledges that the officially recorded recidivism of sexual offenders is low; but, asks us to ignore those facts in place of hearsay statements that were never tested in a court of law. Somehow the facts and actual re-convictions deserve less evidentiary weight than untested hearsay.

One way of attacking this would be through, “…the specific factors explicated by the Daubert Court are (1) whether the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested—that is, whether the expert’s theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability; (2) whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. The Court in Kumho held that these factors might also be applicable in assessing the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony, depending upon “the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue.” 119 S.Ct. at 1175.”

They cannot say with certainty that the recidivism of sexual offenders is “frightening and high;” and thus, they rely on conjecture and hearsay. But, we can say with a fact, using the actual re-conviction data from their databases, that sexual recidivism among sexual offenders is low.


1) If crimes are not reported, they cannot be said to have occurred as a matter of fact.

2) Allegations of crimes, once reported, are not factual until tested under due process of law. If the government cannot secure a conviction, there is no crime in the eyes of the law.

3) The only true measure available is re-conviction, by plea or by jury, pursuant to due process. These tested allegations, now facts, objectively demonstrate a low rate of recidivism.

One wonders who cry’s rape when the word mean’s so many different things. Or who drives their car off a bridge, or who goes to court without a charge. Sure I have gotten out of many of you all on here and also Janices team than in the past hearing NARSOLs view’s or W.A.R.s view’s, even nots from Once fallen and others.

Nothing wrong with working together. Dad had to do that many times to prepare to go to court. Yes Janices is right about this one jot of tittle, We can also use that in a biblical way.
Sure many are abusing folks and familes in much of this registry ordeal. Nothing wrong with standing up or should we use the dear tovgo to court un front of the unbleleivers. I even had the fortune to work out at Block Island, RI at a resort back in the 80’s . Yes I had heard that that area and surrending area’s was moffia types but I lay no claim on that understanding or those baseless rumors.

Here in my own backyard in Charlottesville, Va this Cartwell guy and white supremist thing is a wave factor or who is out of line today. So were does that leave the sexx offender or suppose sex offender, Stuck in the middle like some stelerswheel/beatle record. So is all this registry a pitfall ready to fall.

Janice’s team has always been on the right track since I came here many years ago but not its time to speak out as W.A.R. and their little demon stration. Wonder how that would go if one pitched it across all across the USA to many affiliates. Sure this Maryland ordeal speaks merits and also volumes and yes I myself wanted to speak up in my own ordeal.

All my sister said after the trial was over is how the prosecutor shamed me with those sexual words I uttered, like people haven’t been shamed before in America or even most of this immoral justice in this vain way but she has a differnt petogree than me guess that was from being a majorette in school or being in college prep. So its not all growing with the Jones or the Jefferson’s even the Simpson’s are a bit much of a cartoon. Look how the registry is in every state today.

@S.R. I like your measure of thought and JohnDoe’s. My sister went with me in my ordeal and yes their were a lot of papers to sign. She said go ahead and sign them after the PO explained them to us the best of his ability. When it came to sign another paper. I had the forethought to bring another person in to wittness what I was signing as the PO is always on the side of the law. That paper of the got ya paper that said you were talking to a teenage girl.

I can remember the lady that I brought with me saying don’t sign it as than they could hold you for life and you were the property of them. Whatever they pass or the bills it all leads to that paperwork that they wanted one to sign, it all leads to that paperwork.

So is it a paperchase or a paper trail in this tell of two governments wanting to be right. Sure government would induce people to sign their life away in many cases and wouldn’t think twice about the moral issues. Sure my dad left me with some sense to speak on my own behalf in much of this. Even jason said if they don’t release you in two years what than.
Something for everyone to stand up in much of this issue of fair government practices. Actually I was hoping Janice wouldn’t post that comment so I am sorry if it may or maynot confuse some.

imo sorna, sor, IML, etc… is to big, lots of $$$ behind it/being made off of it, etc… for SCOTUS to do away with it. yes there is politics/money involved even at SCOTUS level. i really hate saying and thinking this but I’m sorry it’s just to big now to go away.

ps. on a side not after being on the hit list more then 20 years with no re-offence i think it will be another 15 – 20 years before some of it starts to get relaxed as more and more people get on the hit list and when members of the hit list and their family’s start becoming a voting threat. yes when i was on it at the start of it there are many many people that are on it now that had called members of the price club all kinds of derogatory names; thus sadly when there are a few more million on it that’s when some laws will start to get relaxed.

pss. yes i truly hope this case ends it all as we all do however i just don’t see it as it is to big and too much $$$ is being made off of it.

Government of the corrupt, for profit, by the sheeple whom allow it. There’s an innocent concept of government one can believe in!! Feed me, sheeple. Feed me!!

I find it interesting that in most cases challenging registration, prosecutors imply that SCOTUS found registration to not be punishment per se. Because they know it is not true, they will never make that claim directly. What the Court found in Smith v. Doe and subsequent cases was that the specific registration implementations it considered did not constitute punishment. The Court has never answered the question of when particular statutory restrictions cross the line to becoming punishment. Generally courts don’t issue findings that go beyond the specifics of a case or are broader than necessary to answer the questions asked.

In the ‘Reasons’ section of its cert petition (pg. 12), the State of Maryland makes this point when it references ‘the intent-effects test.’ The intent part of the test will likely never be a win for registrants. Apparently, all legislatures need do is to make the statement that their intent is not punitive.

It is always the second prong of the test that is argued in registration cases. Registrants must demonstrate that the ‘effects’ of a particular law are so odious that they ‘negate’ a state’s intention to establish a civil regulatory scheme. SCOTUS will likely never draw bright lines as it did in Roe v. Wade, but may one day hold that a particular implementation has become punishment.

This all reminds me of the Bugs Bunny cartoon where Yosemite Sam is dared to cross successive lines until he steps off the cliff. SCOTUS has so far only nibbled at the margins of the punishment question, and has avoided providing actual guidance to the states. I would like to see all filings ask the lower courts to provide guidance as to when Yosemite Sam metaphorically falls off the cliff. Courts will tap dance around the question, but eventually that question may bubble up to SCOTUS.

Regarding legislative intent, do we not have instances on the record where legislators have voiced the desire to drive sex offenders out of communities with these laws or that these laws are hoped to serve as a deterrent? Would these be sufficient evidence to show that the legislative intent was to enact a criminal sanction rather than a civil regulation?


Yes, there are examples of those statements. Would/Could they be helpful in court to prove the legislative intent? Possibly. Has anyone tried it? I have not heard of such, but it is a worthy endeavor to do so. It would involve introducing those statements into the record and then possibly getting the author of them to expound upon their meaning of them under oath. Maybe the statement on its face could be enough because it is not hearsay, but factual in ink. Enough of them introduced collectively as one exhibit could possibly show the true intent, but the tie should be strong enough to avoid any inference of less than punishment and lack of intending it to be, IMO.

I still say one should challenge the “safety” aspect of the registry’s intent as quoted by AGs and make them prove how safe it really is when it comes to family, friends, etc of those who are in the large percentage of perps. Make the AG defend their statement.

I do think a good examination on the stand could corner the legislator into defining their statement and intent one way or another WRT punishment or not and why they said it the way they did. Maybe they’d take the fifth??

Public safety is ideally accomplished by a public police officer, someone sworn in and regulated by a mandate. This whole push for “community policing” is really just a nice way of saying “vigilantism”. Neighborhood snitches and cowards. Obviously this is supported by everyone but the registrant and an easy political issue to score votes.

It’s like the administrators of this system can always figure out how to score reelection and preserve the mess they built. They string along registrants, artificially creating “reoffenses” through their sting operations and strict rules.

Most offenders are nonviolent and/or one time offenders. A one-time offender is unfortunately an invitation for the system to see what else they can hit you with. Give that invitation to the public through a public registry that makes no distinction between “tiers” and now you’ve armed hateful CSI-programmed idiots with the ability to run smear campaigns and other sneaky tactics against people.

Now imagine all that happening to someone who was falsely convicted. You can be falsely convicted of murder and then be exonerated but sex offenses, they don’t want the public to see ANYTHING that casts a shadow of doubt on their beloved sex offense pyramid scheme. Which means when a case like that happens you can BET they’re going to attempt as elaborate a cover-up as they can. Including changing the laws.

Innocent people they fight the hardest…

One would think so. But the way our laws are interpreted is anything but straight forward.

That is a hard one.

For instance, I have public record from new reporters quoting several legislators in this state that it is punishment, even some stating that it needs to be scaled back because it punishes to many people.

However, to prove legislative intent, there likely must be more. You could try to subpoena e-mails and other materials of the legislature to dig for proof; but, many times that type of information is confidential and private records (especially if it is between the legislators and their internal counsel, even if ways to wordsmith a law into being non-punitive on its face). I remember one case finding such evidence, but I cannot remember which state it was.

the following statement is so true. If it goes unchallenged and is accepted in this case as facts it will be literally impossible to get the real facts in front of SCOTUS ever again.

“Also, as I stated to the Commission here in Utah, the studies looking at under-reporting are not objectively defensible. They are based on untested allegations of sexual abuse. Without a trier of fact in an unbiased court of law, it flys in the face of due process – innocent until proven guilty.

If we allow them to go unchallenged here, we will end up with “frightening and high” 2.0.”

While legislative intent is part of the package in deciding whether or not something is punishment, it’s by no means the whole package.

Extreme example…If a law was passed requiring hands to be chopped off of previously convicted thieve, even with pages of explanations about how this is merely an administrative action designed to protect the public from future theft, it would still be deemed punishment. Even if the recidivism rates of thieves was frighteningly high this would still be deemed punishment.

The initial case before SCOTUS centered around a requirement to mail a postcard once a year. We’re now far from that, but they have not yet caught up with the reality of what we all now live with on a daily basis. Not quite chopping off hands, but we’re getting there…

Being placed on the sexofender registry is literally a death sentence once probation or parole ends you feel relieved to no longer have to deal with Probation or parole you feel free to get on with your life not knowing the heartache and pain of never-ending punishment to come.
I think it’s after about 5 years you start to realize that you were never taken off probation /parole you still have to report to Law Enforcement you still must submit to compliance checks /home visits LE don’t need GPS tracking devices they just run your social security number through government database and all your information pops up and I mean everything your job your bank transactions all the way down to your phone records.
I remember a couple years back while I was doing my annual registration a detective came out and asked me “how come you didn’t tell us you been working there for 5 years”
I replied how do you know I worked there for five years he said your social security number.
I remember leaving feeling like I was being punished for something that happened decades ago

Good luck

The 21 day notice is complete BS and unconstitutional. Unless you are rich, a lot of people wait for the cheaper tickets that are often offered very close to the departure date since they need to fill flights and drop the prices. Everybody should have the option to book a short notice flight due to finances.

As I said in a different comment here, I think PFRs do have that option. Everything I have seen applies to “plan/intend”. If you plan to buy cheap tickets for a trip on say 11/25, then tell the criminal regimes at least 21 days prior. If you plan to buy tickets for a trip this Saturday, tell the criminal regimes today.

If anyone thinks differently, please state why.

In the meantime, de-fund the police. De-fund big government. Work against them every day. They are harassers.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x