ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (01/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Recording of Emergency ACSOL meeting about new SORNA regulations



TN: To end retroactive punishment, a judge has ordered the removal of eight men from the sex offender registry

Source: 12/4/21

To end retroactive punishment, a judge has ordered the removal of eight men from the sex offender registry.

To stop their retroactive sanctions, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ordered the removal of eight individuals from the sex offender list.

In her order on Friday, Trauger said, “Tennessee officials continue to defy the Constitution’s guarantees.” “The same analysis applies… to Tennessee’s own, very comparable scheme and practices, according to federal district courts in this state. Officials in Tennessee have continued to apply the state’s long-held-to-be-illegal policy on others in similar situations “Regardless of the rulings, she stated.

According to The Associated Press, the Ex Post Facto provision of the United States Constitution prohibits governments from increasing the punishment for a crime done before. To determine a clause violation, a judge must decide that the statute being applied retroactively is criminal. The violation, according to Trauger, is based on the law’s punitive aspect rather than the plaintiffs’ hardship.

Read the full article


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

GOOD FOR YOUR JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Way to go not to let public opinion guide your “Rulings”!!!!!!

Hmmm… The TN judge cited Michigan’s Snyder ruling, iirc. Nice. I also like how the judge told the state that they haven’t had proof that the plaintiffs posed a threat.

According to the article, the state also claimed that the registration of these 8 individuals was necessary to prevent more sex crimes from being committed by them.

So where is the evidence that the registry is effective in preventing future offenses by those registered? Everything I’ve read says the nearly all sex crime is committed by those without priors, and that nearly all registrant recidivism is for the unruly hyper-technicalities (in part) at issue in this case. And with the very, very small number of registrants accused of another sex crime, the registry had nothing to do with the identification or investigation.

I hope ACSOL or someone else can find a case cite to this ruling.

Not only that, it’s asinine to think Making one fill out a paper every so often will somehow prevent them for committing a crime. If one wants to do illegal things, they will!

This has been my point exactly for years. Take for example laws against murder. Do laws against murder stop anyone from murdering people? Absolutely not. I drive every day and speed limit signs are posted everywhere. Do those signs prevent me from exceeding the speed limit? Absolutely not. Why then would having us listed on the hit list prevent anyone from reoffending? It doesn’t. If someone wants to reoffend, they’re going to do it no matter what. I’m never doing it again, but if I wanted to, no registry is going to prevent it, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

This is about to start here in Michigan , A lot of us will start retaining lawyers soon, i myself am looking into going this route. These courts are starting to figure out the politicians are just making a joke out of the Courts rulings & the rights of the people,
Good for this Judge. Next we need the Courts to start awarding monetary damages to those families effected from their negligent actions.

Slowly, ever so slowly the, the tide is turning.

This feels like the boiling frog example. If you say abolish the registry, then the public believes that’s just too far to go. But if you start chipping away slowly at the registry, then it gets easier and easier to accept that the liberties of those who have already paid their dues is being trampled upon as well as trying to prove innocence tramples on the Constitution because you are only proven guilty, not innocent.

The more states that validate liberties are being abused via the registry, the easier it gets for other states to follow. Too bad California’s registry hasn’t taken that step to show that registry is being used as political tool than a reform tool so that the rest of the country can follow. When the CA registry stated that in-person reporting was no longer considered a disability, negated the benefits of a case dismissal (1203.4), carved a difficult path off the registry by forcing registrants to earn a 1203.4 and wait 10-years to apply for the Certificate of Rehabilitation, as well as dismiss Dr. Karl Hanson’s max monitory term of 17-years to instead use arbitrary terms of 10 years, 20 years, and lifetime terms for the newly accepted tiered registry scheme.

In Michigan’s Snyder case, they cite that in-person reporting is a disability. The only set of the convicted that are those in custody such as probation or parole, except for convicted registrants; after a registry is no longer under custody, they still have to report to the state in person. In denying relief from the CA registry via 1203.4, the legislative discussion stated they did not want it to be easy to get off the registry in the legislative text bill – this means the legislative wanted to make life harder on registrants. CA tiered registry isn’t using any true science despite using Dr. Hanson’s Static-99 work. There’s blatant inconsistency on the use of Dr. Hanson’s scientific research work to use Static-99, but not use his research work that the max term of monitoring for registrants is 17 years. If the max registry term is 17 years for tier 3, then tiers 2 and 1 are going to be vastly shorter term in length.

OMGosh!! Give that judge the “Spine of Steel Hero Award” for having the courage to rule against the obviously unconstitutional Registry!!

This seems HUGE!!!!!! That means if I read this correctly that if you were convicted before the inception of Megan’s Law in 1996 you technically should not be on the registry.

Any thoughts?

Janice can we use this to remove RSO’s from Megan’s Law convicted before 1996?

I feel there is some hope and light at the end of the tunnel

Not if you live in Michigan!!!

I just need to vent, delete if it’s too much.

I started fighting this in 1996 with a lawyer out of Grand Rapids, Michigan….
After 25 years of delays, government corruption, excuses, lies, false information, political grandstanding,,,,,all that was accomplished was the removal of 1000 foot law?
Tim, the ACLU sor specialist has been Silent…..

So does anyone, Anyone have a plan that would help the pre 96ers ?

@Dr, I agree with you as you may or may not know, my conviction was in 1992 and I was out of Prison in 1994 off Parole in 1996. This is getting ridiculous, we here in Michigan should be able to use this ruling since Tennessee is in the sixth circuit. We need to start pressuring and wanting answers from Mrs. Superman and Tim from ACLU. I think I’m going to ask the Oliver. Law Firm questions about this ruling and how we can use it to our advantage, I get more straight forward answers from then then I do the ACLU. They just keep saying we are working on it and filing Does lll, just be patient. I’ve been patient for this entire thing started, I’m done with being patient. Michigan’s ACLU needs to step up and start doing something now.

Let me know when and I will invest.

mine in 82′

I live in Illinois now, was convicted in 1992 in TN, was on the registry and still am on TN registry… I mover here in 2012 and Illinois told me I don’t have to register here, but TN still has me on theirs and my address here is listed on their site.
Does this mean I can finally get off of it?
Please help.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x