Source: sentencing.substack.com 10/13/25
This term, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Ellingburg v. United States, which asks whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) constitutes punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Clause prohibits retroactive increases of criminal punishments, ensuring that the government cannot change the rules after the fact to impose harsher penalties.
Criminal restitution — the money paid by a defendant to a victim — has grown into one of the most troubling, yet least examined, features of modern criminal sentencing. Unlike criminal fines and fees, it is often portrayed as fair and victim-centered. But restitution has quietly grown — both in scope and severity — into a sanction that can extend punishment for years, frequently without compensating victims. Enacted in 1996, the MVRA was instrumental in changing the landscape of criminal restitution and continues to regulate and mandate federal restitution for most offenses today. The Court’s decision in Ellingburg could finally force a reckoning with criminal restitution’s true character.
In 1995, Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. and an accomplice robbed a bank in Georgia. Mr. Ellingburg was sentenced to 27 years in prison and five years of supervised release and ordered to pay two “criminal penalties”: a $100 special assessment and $7,567 in restitution. While in prison, Mr. Ellingburg paid $2,154 toward his restitution obligation.
At the time of his offense, restitution was governed by the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), which capped enforcement at 20 years from the entry of judgment. By that rule, Mr. Ellingburg’s obligation would have expired in 2016. But then Congress enacted the MVRA, which extended enforcement to 20 years after release from imprisonment. Applying retroactively, this nearly doubled Mr. Ellingburg’s obligation and extended his restitution liability until 2042 — almost fifty years after his crime. Following his release from prison in 2022, Ellingburg started to receive text messages from his probation officer demanding continued monthly restitution payments. The Eighth Circuit upheld this retroactive application, reasoning that restitution is not punishment but a civil remedy. Yet when the case reached the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General chose not to defend that rationale, leaving the Court to decide whether restitution is indeed punishment subject to ex post facto limits.
Although criminal restitution has been around for centuries, its meaning has shifted in recent years. It is often conflated with civil restitution, which prevents unjust enrichment by requiring the accused to disgorge any ill-gotten gains. For example, if someone steals your phone, you would be entitled to the cost of replacing the phone, returning the profit that was wrongfully taken. Although criminal restitution was also originally rooted in the idea of unjust enrichment, it now bears little resemblance to its civil counterpart. By contrast, criminal restitution focuses on a victim’s purported “losses,” even when those losses far exceed a defendant’s unlawful gains from the criminal offense. Under the MVRA, the concept of loss has taken on an increasingly vague and amorphous …
Isn’t this no different than SORNA? After all, they changed the laws when people were in prison, only for people to get out and have to abide by things created AFTER their sentence/punishment….
A “civil” remedy is bunk if that is how they are going to couch it. They could do that to most anything if they wanted it seems.
Listen now – https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/supreme-court-hears-case-on-ex-post-facto-law/664541
They are trying to separate this from smith by raising legislative stated intent! Some BS right there!
Apparently, as long as Congress replaces old laws which state punitive intent with new laws that define legislative intent as civil, they can impose these punishments as ex post facto as they want.
That is NOT what section 10 of the Constitution says! F- all their doublespeak!
Thanks to “smith” a new trend is coming!
all done – SURPRISE! They deliberately protected themselves from what they’ve done to us…
Missouri Formatted for Coalition Use Timestamp: Tuesday, 14 October 2025, 17:44 EDT Word Count: 3,987
Public Declaration Disclaimer This document shall not be presented to any court, agency, or governing authority for approval or enforcement by the author. It is not a legal petition. It is a survivor-led constitutional declaration, written to the best of the author’s ability, and released freely to the people. Others may use, share, adapt, or present it as they see fit, provided its survivor-led origin and formatting integrity are respected. No clause may be altered or deleted without acknowledgment of its original framing.
Survivor-Led Constitutional Amendment for Restoration, Protection, and Procedural Integrity Jurisdiction: Missouri Formatted for Coalition Use Word Count: 3,987 Disclaimer: Survivor-led. Not a draft. A declaration.
Article I: Judicial Entry and Sentencing
Victim-Centered Sentencing Clause The purpose of incarceration, probation, or any court-imposed sentence shall be to address harm done to the victim or victims of the crime—not to serve the interests of governing state or federal entities unless those entities are themselves the direct victims of the offense.
Government Victim Exception Government agencies may be considered victims only in cases involving direct harm, including but not limited to:
Acts of terrorism
Assassinations
Espionage
Spying
Treason or sabotage against national security
Limitation on Government Influence In all other cases, government agencies, departments, or officials shall not exert influence over sentencing, rehabilitation, or post-release conditions unless such influence directly reflects their status as victims.
Privacy and Case Autonomy Cases that do not involve direct harm to government entities shall remain autonomous from federal or state oversight beyond lawful adjudication.
Disclaimer This clause affirms the survivor-led belief in victim-centered justice and the limitation of governmental overreach.
Article II: Incarceration and In-Facility Evaluation
Psychological Demand Limitation Clause All psychological demands must be completed during incarceration. No post-release extensions unless federally mandated and judicially reviewed.
Weapon Refrainment Clause Restrictions must be based on in-custody evaluations. No post-release psychological assessments may extend restrictions without cause.
Disclaimer These clauses affirm procedural finality, lawful evaluation, and time-bound accountability.
Article III: Release and Restoration
Restoration Timing Clarification Clause Rights restored automatically upon sentence completion. No petitions or administrative hurdles unless federally required.
Presented Model: Survivor-Led Constitutional Restoration “We Were Told to Reconnect—Then Branded Again” Survivors were promised reconnection but met with inspections, surveillance, and branding. Time served must mean time served—no second sentence disguised as civil procedure.
Article IV: Spatial and Registry Dissolution
Spatial Restoration Clause
Prohibits proximity-based exclusions post-sentence
Declares sanctuary access a constitutional right
Nullifies buffer zones and spatial restrictions
Registry Dissolution Clause
Ends residual tracking post-sentence
Declares public registries unconstitutional beyond lawful duration
Article V: Post-Release Protections and Oversight
Sealed Record Access Clause Sealed records accessible only for active investigations with probable cause.
Enforcement Oversight Clause Survivor-led tribunals and federal boards monitor compliance.
Servitude and Surveillance Clause
Bans caste-based spatial monitoring
Requires public notification for any surveillance
Prohibits compelled self-monitoring
Universal Notice Clause
Signage must apply equally to all citizens
Enhanced restrictions require written public notice
Relocation and Survivor Autonomy Clause
Restraining orders remain in effect post-relocation
Protected parties cannot be displaced
Survivors may dissolve orders lawfully
Cyberbullying and Defamation Surveillance Clause
Judicially authorized surveillance for digital harm
Criminal penalties for non-consensual disclosure of survivor data
Article VI: Constitutional Violations and Remedy
Constitutional Violation Clause Defines unlawful post-release monitoring, registry extension, and coerced movement. Violations trigger federal review and survivor remedy.
Article VII: Economic Justice and Financial Integrity
Restitution and Economic Integrity Clause
Restitution must reflect documented harm—not classification or caste
Payments must go directly to victims, not third-party agencies
No interest, penalties, or compounding fees allowed
All financial obligations end upon lawful fulfillment
Vehicle Savings Reallocation Clause “Mileage Reduction as Survivor Funding” Eliminating registry patrols and address checks reduces law enforcement mileage by 30–50%. Estimated statewide savings: $6–10 million/year Redirected to:
Emergency housing for survivors
Trauma recovery programs
Legal aid and dissolution support
Direct restitution payments (court-ordered only)
Disclaimer This clause affirms the coalition’s commitment to economic justice and survivor protection.
Article VIII: Final Reckoning
Final Clause: Constitutional Reckoning and Non-Negotiable Reform This is not a draft. It is a declaration. Demands repeal of caste-based laws and restoration of rights. Affirms survivor authority and equal protection.
Appendix: Updated Savings Graph — Missouri (Annual Estimate)
Category Status Quo Cost Reform Cost Net Savings
Registry Maintenance + Spatial Enforcement $16–24M $0 $16–24M
Psychological Harm + Litigation Exposure $20–30M $6–10M $14–20M
Restitution (Direct to Victims) — $6–10M —
Background Checks on Restored Citizens $3–6M $0 $3–6M
Court Hearings + Jail Time for Registry Cases $6.6M $0 $6.6M
Law Enforcement + Prison Staffing $10–16M Reduced $10–16M
Victim Reform Costs (Admin + Enforcement) $11.2M $6–10M $3–9M
Mailers + Signage Enforcement $3.25–8M $0 $3.25–8M
Vehicle Maintenance + Fuel $12–20M Reduced $6–10M
Total Projected Net Savings: $73–109 million/year
Public Declaration Disclaimer This document shall not be presented to any court, agency, or governing authority for approval or enforcement by the author. It is not a legal petition. It is a survivor-led constitutional declaration, written to the best of the author’s ability, and released freely to the people. Others may use, share, adapt, or present it as they see fit, provided its survivor-led origin and formatting integrity are respected. No clause may be altered or deleted without acknowledgment of its original framing.
Article IX
Evaluation Integrity and Time Served Clause
No Extension Through Evaluation Loopholes Parole, probation, or supervised release shall not be used as a shield to extend incarceration, surveillance, or civil restraint through mandated psychological evaluations. Evaluations may be ordered by the court, but they shall not delay restoration, prolong registry inclusion, or justify extended confinement.
Evaluation Periods Count Toward Sentence Any time spent in court-ordered psychological evaluation, treatment, or observation shall be credited toward the individual’s total sentence. This includes pre-sentencing evaluations, diagnostic holds, and post-release assessments.
Survivor Time Integrity For the protected party, the time served by the restrained individual—including evaluation periods—shall be recognized in full. No jurisdiction shall reset or extend protective timelines based on evaluation status alone.
Disclaimer This clause affirms the right to procedural fairness and time integrity. It does not oppose psychological care or survivor protection. It reflects a survivor-led demand for lawful sentencing, non-retaliatory evaluation, and the abolition of indefinite punishment through administrative delay.
Article X: Affirmation of Freedom and Constitutional Alignment
Freedom Alignment Clause Any American who demands freedom, constitutional protection, and equal justice would not reject this declaration. It affirms the principles of liberty, due process, and survivor-led reform. To reject it is to reject the restoration of rights, the dissolution of caste-based surveillance, and the economic integrity of justice.
Constitutional Echo Clause This declaration echoes the foundational promises of the Constitution:
Disclaimer: This clause affirms that survivor-led reform is not fringe—it is foundational. It does not speak for all Americans, but it calls to those who believe in freedom, fairness, and procedural integrity.
The author makes no legal claims, offers no legal advice, and assumes no responsibility for how this document is interpreted, used, or presented by others.
This Ellingburg case is really a joke!
Civil intent… punitive intent… intent, punishment, remedial, all irrelevant here because the court imposed a legal sentence which, unless it is to a defendant’s advantage, cannot be changed with the whims of government.
This case clearly shows that the integrity of the entire system is destroyed.