NARSOL, Vivante boards prepare for expansion, revise vision & mission

By Robin . . . The combined boards of NARSOL and its foundation Vivante Espero met for three days of intensive work and training at its annual retreat in Houston, Texas, from January 11-13.  Joined remotely by two directors who were unable to be in attendance, all ten directors spent Friday giving serious scrutiny to NARSOL’s existing vision and mission statements.

Determined to broaden the scope of its advocacy and clarify its position towards the use of lists and registries to dehumanize certain categories of people, the boards unanimously adopted a revision to both its vision and mission statements and are please to present you with the following updated statements:

Vision: A society free from public shaming, dehumanizing registries, discrimination, and unconstitutional laws.

Mission: NARSOL opposes dehumanizing registries and works to eliminate discrimination, banishment, and vigilantism against persons accused or convicted of sexual offenses through the use of impact litigation, public education, legislative advocacy, and media outreach in order to reintegrate and reconcile affected individuals and restore their constitutional rights.

The directors of both boards are determined to lead NARSOL into the next level of advocacy by investing in their time and talents to become the best possible leaders they can be. Implicit in the vision for NARSOL is a hope for continued success and sustained growth as all its programs and projects work together for the benefit of the people and families affected by registration. NARSOL fully intends to assume its mantle as the nation’s preeminent civil rights leader in the space that it fills.

To that end, and because of the enormity of the task, NARSOL’s combined boards were encouraged to enlist the assistance of a professional coach to facilitate its annual retreat training. Owing in no small measure to his recent fellowship with JustLeadershipUSA, NARSOL’s vice chair and foundation president Robin Vander Wall believed  he had just the right person in mind for the task: David Mensah. Robin was a student of David’s leadership training  during the course of his fellowship and approached him mid-way through with the idea of serving in a similar role  for NARSOL and Vivante Espero, its foundation.

David Mensah’s style of leadership training utilizes a systems-based approach which he calls BAL, which stands for Breakthrough Action Leadership. Relying primarily on three essential characteristics of proven leaders — being responsible, being self-reflective, and creating collective leadership by investing in the leadership capacity of others — David’s training focuses on releasing the leader within each of us through instruction in some practical tools for communicating with others and dealing with conflict.

David Mensah’s 21-year-career includes 13 years in executive director positions, as well as 10 years as a youth and family counselor. David has two BS degrees from Oregon State University, a Certificate in Marriage and Family Therapy from the University of Bridgeport, and an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School. He has held faculty positions at Sacred Heart University in Leadership Studies, at the University of Bridgeport in Trauma Counseling, and currently holds an adjunct faculty position at Baruch College in the School of Public Affairs.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Robin Vander Wall

As vice chair of NARSOL, Robin is the managing editor of the Digest, director of development, and provides assistance to the webmaster in keeping our websites running smoothly. He also serves as founder and president of Vivante Espero, NARSOL's 501(c)(3) foundation and legal fund.

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • Author
    • #51172 Reply
      Lisa Kavanaugh

      I appreciate the New Vision Statement: “A society free from public shaming, dehumanizing registries, discrimination, and unconstitutional laws.”. We have a long way to go in educating the general public. This topic is a silent one in communities and the stumbling blocks to open conversation will not be easy to get over. We must find a way to open up the topic so it no longer is “taboo”. I know we can do it…just do not know how to begin.

      • #51287 Reply

        Lisa K,
        Educating the public & Judges happens surprisingly fast via an articulate enough argument by defense in FTR case.. An argument that distinguishes the precise and practical differences between bifurcated and ifurcated cancer growth is best. In its greedy haste my state abandons plain logic; the constitutional issues aside. A simple plain paper plate makes ideal display for bifucation, just fold in half and tear in two, irrevocably! Throw 1\2 in a trash can.
        A man reads every law on it’s face when non ambiguous about specific intent. State [ first ] opts split by date purposefully and in good faith with duty intact. That Sovereign choice paramount to identify for the good people iurates sedet. Irrevocably and for all time, save repeal. The pro we litigant should take great care in selection of witness to enlighten the plain logic error to the jury. Unfortunately that leaves out most registration agents and even more cops, whom surely suffer group think as do jurors.
        The positives are few contra rationem when questioning agents of police. This is so precisely because of the stereotyping & abandonment of EX POST prohibition on language ‘queered’ by the judicial. A truth is some of the general population acknowledged the high courts disdain for duty, but let it go sua muto. with respect to Congress. It is after, the people’s house.
        Ultimately a faithful people always follows leadership, even poor leadership and so they have. There is plain evidence of the like destructive mindset in the social structure and selections prisoners make concerning ” chomos”.
        Acutely put, our congresses, all 51, began to act exactly like felons in prisons across the nation. How did Don Henley phrase it… We need dirty laundry! The like breeds not harmony, nor trust with the community nor system!
        Why advertise like IML???????!!!!!! And the Don is a ruskie??????? The Russians didn’t opt for electronic poll tabulation WE DID! via Florida chits remember! @opt electronic opt risk. Certainly NOT the message big data brokers, nor vendors would embrace is it? Tantamount to Treason!

    • #51173 Reply

      I want to thank you all so much! With out NARSOL we would be Sooo Screwed in this bulling country. Its gonna take some time to get all the mess cleaned up that this country has made out of the sex laws, Just need to keep chipping away and pushing forward. A friend told me a great saying, “If it isn’t broken our government well fix it until it is broken”. Fits the registry perfectly. Thanks again everyone for all your hard work!!

    • #51179 Reply

      Amazing. Beautiful. Awesome. Thank you. I’m speechless, really. .

    • #51180 Reply

      This is good! Yeah!

    • #51177 Reply

      Very few comprehend your humble group is the cutting edge of liberty’s sword. This group most acutely defends humanity from itself. A plain necessity if there ever was one.
      There is real danger to humanity and liberty from the use of electronics that few recognized. The people went diving headlong into the electronic cesspool with far too little thought. The bells and whistles drawing throngs of folks like marten to feathered snare.
      The sexual oriented offender proved the proper scapegoat goat for those who understood the databases’ powerful political potential and threw open the door to unfettered use. Remember the already convicted did not go willingly or even knowingly, they were indentured, many many with zero process, nor opportunity to be heard; a free people’s simple demand from a government ” of, for and by the people “.
      The plain fact is human is becoming less necessary while machines become presumably more necessary, but what is the ultimate outcome of such inclination? Machine need outweighs human need! Naturally this is the way business has always opted, K better k, but that notion must not forsake social structure and human sanity. SOR was the first, but far from the last electronic blacklist. The trend will continue and NARSOL is a last bastion of humanity’s and liberty’s defense. God’s speed!

      • #51275 Reply

        Well stated Tim. Wow…

        • #51311 Reply

          Thanks I feel better having stated it again. The sex offender and database are inextricably linked.

          What is the first question you would ask the AGENT in a hypothetical FTR trial?

    • #51178 Reply

      Robin you did good and I have to praise the efforst of NARSOL and its board members for more compact understanding on their position. While I like to praise men for good work we should all show respect when respect is due. Clarifying the position of the registry that tend to dehumanize all caught up in this fleshy entanglement that appears to throw a barbaric thrust in many of these ordeals that some go thru is like a catch 22 unjust typecast.
      While I’m sure we still have unalienable rights endowed by the Creator which are guaranteed, it would seem today those in authority have gone above the Creator in a lot of this dehumanization of this sex offender ordeal factor of lifetime regsitration.

      One wonders what does a person do when they fall down, they get back up and strive to do better. Now correcting is good if used in the right measure. Are we all caught up in this by a fear factor devices of mankind to protect. when at times their is nothing to fear but fear itself. One needs to understand who is inducing and who is seducing in this masquarade of wits at times.

      Impacting and a good vision statement makes a very clear emphasis in all reasoning in this type of discrimination, While opposing these issues that all face is good measure for this type of platform pressing on for true justice is the main goal. I might add nothings wrong with a bit of Christian understanding along the lines in this ordeal that we all face.

    • #51187 Reply

      Thank you for all the work you do. You are the “voice” for us . You give so many people hope and the possibility of a better future.

    • #51189 Reply
      Quentin Smith

      I’m starting to become more comfortable with sharing my status as a person on Megan’s Law convicted of a sex crime. I feel that this will help the people around me challenge the way they view registrants. We do indeed have a long way to go, but each of us can do our small part to help.

      If you’re not willing to do anything personally, consider donating to NARSOL and other advocacy groups.

      • #51197 Reply

        I have yet to add donation to my to do list and I believe I’ve good reason for refraining. To by sure Sir, rational law concerning the sex offenders are needed. For me, it is a bit late to be interested in different, better or laws more rational. Clearly, SOR is non rational or more precisely, was an impulsive reaction to a child’s murder by an unknown entity. The unknown is a prevalent and measurable fear in all mammals. The perception that public broadcast is helpful and needed is a distorted view. Vigilante activities ( crimes) are a direct result of public broadcast, recall state claimed passivity in its reply to constitutional attack. There is nothing passive about government use of the databases.
        NSAs facility in Saratoga springs does not passively collect all Americans biometrics. They aggressively collect all Americans biometric information, email addresses, travel tendancies, insurance choices, internet identification etc, etc, etc. Yes they also collect information on foreign nationals much like Facebook collects and retains email addresses of registrant. They do so precisely for the purpose of imposing AFFIRMATIVE DISABILITY. The minority in SMITH V. DOE understood that fact quite clearly. The majority, five of them Catholic by the way, were persuaded by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ( then USSG) to begin the quasi lawful indenture of human to machine via the regulatory regime and law obviously containing ex post language. In other words ,Roberts convinced the majority to defer their onus in favor of “unfetterd database use”. He chose to utilize Alaska’s version to avoid the ‘ showing up’ aspect when all other 49 did have the requirements. Mr Roberts and Mr. Romney are snakes of the lowest slithering sort. They smile at you while they piss on your shoes. They both have been rewarded for their bad behavior. To win a war sometimes it is better to cut the head off of the leadership. I’m mean that hypothetical not the literal sense. IMO J.G.R must go before real change can occur. Judges by their training are followers, and so they do.

      • #51278 Reply


        Thanks for sharing. For what it’s worth, one thing I’ve learned… We all everyone, even those not on a list (or they still think that they arent), carry some shame. Humiliation, embarrassment, sorrow, and regret exist in every man and woman that has lived. All have skeletons, all carry baggage. For some, the weight is heavier than others perhaps. Trick is to learn from our mistakes.

        Avoid those that falsely project perfection and say theyve no regrets, or state they’ve caused no hurt to anyone or people they cared about.

        I was once told a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a wise man learns from others mistakes. Perhaps so, but I’ve never met a truly wise man…stay smart.

    • #51198 Reply
      Timothy D.
      Tim Davich

      I would like to thank each and every one of you for all the hard work you do. I look forward to working with each one of you in 2019 and to see what changes we as a whole can bring to this mess that has been made. As a state representative I look forward to helping where I can.

      • #51226 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall

        Thank you, Tim! We appreciate your support and willingness to serve.

        • #51228 Reply

          I’ve all I can stand and I’ll stand no more. – Popeye the Sailor.
          Expect an email soon.

          Wisconsin created 301.45 1g(a) to split all state offenders into two mutually exclusive groups separated by date and duty.
          Group A: convicted after December 25, 1993. (Covered by sor)
          Group B: convicted prior December 25, 1993. (Uncovers) I bet!
          Reason -Congress could have opted for no date but did not, meaning the date itself must have had cause and sound congressional reason (unknown) so uncovering IMHO the lone logic left. – Ockem’s razor.

          Then the administration branch compels contempt by using 1g(b) in an attempt to recover me with (b) from THAT which was first purposefully extinguished in (a) by congressional intent.
          Lawyers claim (a) not a expressed criteria by Congress 1g for uncovering the person. Problem is (a) does it (acts as criteria: date) by default of language. Truth is they want no parts of my obstinate self. Too bad.

    • #51201 Reply
      Carol demoss

      I just wish that they would put this in a tier system….I know some murders get less time than my grandson and he is totally non violent suspect judge knew family and we know he worked with prosecuting attorney before and after he retired from being a judge. We have already lost a lot of money and cannot afford anymore just furious about the injustice.

      • #51244 Reply

        Eeeehhh? The problem with tiers ( ‘tierany’ if you will) is that it disguises tyranny, by a perception of difference in need. Does such a system contract or expand bureaucracy in your mind’s eye? SOR lives by that notion precisely!
        Electronic infrastructure (K) would naturally lesson the need for labor (k) in any system. It worked that way in the free market, but not in our government. There is a new balance being struck as we speak.
        IMO sex offender registration is the best example of that war. Centralization of authority is occurring by what uses of the machines infrastructure can be developed. Facial recognition has burst onto the scene, can you imagine the caste systems that could develop as a result? The machine could potentially be used to impose affirmative disability by caste and caste automatically. The “smart school door” blocking the ‘ potential perps’ approach, while permitting another pass. Misidentification would also occur, abridging liberty unnecessarily like SOR, but at a decreasing rates as the technology advances.

        • #51268 Reply


          On the subject of “Tier levels”, I have an interesting story I wanted to share that lends credence to your comment.

          In 2002, I plead guilty to a 1st offense peeping Tom charge. I was stupid, drunk, and did I mention stupid?

          Anyway, I never retained an attorney because after thinking about it in a sober manner, I felt and my conscience forced me to take full responsibility for my actions. Never having any prior involvement with the law, I went straight to the prosecutors office and told him I wanted to plead guilty and do the right thing (yes, I know but I was stupid and ignorant). Anyway, there was never anything physical or violent alleged, and due to my clean record I was judged to 2 years probation – no prison time. I learned later I would have to register, and bc it was a misdemeanor I only had 10 days to appeal, which I did not.

          In any event, I had always been classified as the lowest tier (threat) level. SC had 3 tier levels. I had always been on the lowest category. Several years ago, I moved to NC. My offense is not even a registerable offense in NC BUT, because it was in SC I am required to register here in NC. In SC, any “Sexual charge” is registerable for life and they maintain it even if you move out of state.

          A few months ago, I looked back at my SC registration on line and it did show me as moved out of state. But, to my surprise, SC now has never listed as “Tier 2″…inspite of my moving out of state, no other LE issues in almost 2 decades, and the misdemeanor non-physical non violent offense.

          So I inquired with SLED as to why I am now, after so many years listed now as Tier 2? Their response, via email, was “we no longer have a tier 1. We only have tier 2 & 3”.

          So, it appears SC has done away with one tier and has “promoted” those least likely to offend to the higher tier. Meanwhile, I never received any notice or opportunity of due process.

          My point is, as the other commentor posted regarding constructing tier levels….it’s meaningless.

          But, it sure does work in continuing to scare the hell out of people. “OMG, he’s tier 2”. Yea, well 18 years ago, I was just tier 1…go figure.

          • #51281 Reply

            You forgot to mention horny an needing of human attention. That’s just it.
            Personal space is a cultural issue. Physical Assault and voyeurism are two different animals of the same outcome. I’ve little doubt if actual intimate relation, albeit it girlfriend or prostitute, you’d have chosen differently. Unfortunately far to many men are retarded socially, inept, or otherwise damaged through our cultural approach to sexuality.. Shrinks used to embrace certain therapies now considered useless and barbarian.
            Homosexual suffrage in conversion therapy a current proper example.

            The homosexual, a healthy one anyway, would assert he was born perfect, meanwhile the traditional evangelical would demand his abstinence of “evil” thought and deed. Only those interested in moral authority to produce law would conflate the two as manifest evil vs. Good. And the latter solely for the purpose of political power against the others plain liberty. This explains the extremes that exist in our two party system, and why the NSAs facility in where it is. The 94OMNIBUS built a facility in Alaska too! Try and find it though:).

    • #51209 Reply

      Now I’m sure we all like this new direction and new insight that NARSOL is going in these stepts in helping to dehumanize the sex offender so one can get some liberty back. While I hate to say this I feel some are paranoid to some extent in all this shocking ordeal of a sexual flavor.

      While some people don’t know the story’s of many it basically comes down to right or wrong. Now Tim talks about machine or some brick in the wall but when others induce human behavior that is a bit eratical and far fetched than who’s manhunt is l involved in this game of tag for protection and liberty and justice for all.

      Now NARSOL know’s what they are doing and I’m sure representatives know the scope also. My hats off to helping loved one’s that are involved in all this either by speaking out or letters that have meaning and concrect value. Even building a wall sounds a bit out of balance in this government thing today to hedge one in. Protection only comes from one source. Its all this about influencing others or inducing one’s conscience like a wall of seperation that one needs to seperate Tim machine theories are good but reconciling is a lot better. I’m sure one understanding one’s beast of burden.

      While machines store data what stores the intent of the human heart with this intent of inducment by ministers of justice so where does proof of knowledge come into play. While dignity and respect go a long way one has to only flip a coin.

      • #51273 Reply


        “While machines store data what stores the intent of the human heart with this intent of inducment by ministers of justice so where does proof of knowledge come into play. While dignity and respect go a long way one has to only flip a coin.”

        Hmmm…well put. And, frankly, it is exactly that…or even actually much less than the 50/50 odds of “a flip of a coin”.

        As most of us all here know by now, the likelihood of recidivism is about 4-5%, less than all other crimes except murder. Additionally, it’s also well known that “Stranger danger” is very rare. Finally, most logical folks understand a sex offense is most likely to be committed by someone close to them, and often a family member.

        So… the point of the registry appears to be?

        It’s virtually ineffective if one measures recidivism rates before the registry was enacted, and the rates today. There are approximately 1 million registered citizens now.

        I personally, after years of membership in this esteemed group, have come to realize that the registry is not about public protection. The simple and indisputable fact is if any registrants were truly believed to be such a dire threat to the public, none would be in society. All would be in prison or executed.

        After much deliberation and years of being subjected to it, I believe Tim is right. The registry is a gateway inwhich its support and it’s very existence is based on emotional for… while purposely and intentionally the state avoids detailing fact and circumstances of each case. By purposely not elaborating on the facts of each case, and refusing to involve an intelligent re-offense risk assessment, the state essentially says “everyone” on this list is “dangerous – keep an eye on them”. “Stay away”…

        Meanwhile, a murderer released from prison can live next door…a chronic DUI offender, someone convicted of burglary and home invasion, a chronic CDV offender can carry on to the next family. Opioid dealers/pushers? Wouldn’t police want to know that? Wouldn’t citizens? Neighbors? But it is all a fallacy. The registry is not logical, it’s very expensive and ties up lots of LE resorces. It’s not about protecting anyone.

        The registry does however serve a purpose, especially now with 2 decades of litigation behind it in support, and the majority of the public took the bait, hook, line and sinker. We are canarys…the registry is just one coal mine.

      • #51288 Reply

        It is precisely about the heart of the people.
        A man decides he aught to drink from the jug in the spring shed.
        He opted. He knows it. He falls tipsy and bumps his dome. He learns!
        The creator did that. Free will, naturally by KNOWING. Same as any creature save capacity. That we are different is pure ego, and he’ll prove it.
        Mother nature does not stop at the boundaries of our atmosphere.
        SOR fails precisely because it presumes least two bumps for every head minimum. Why? All folk no learn!!!!!!! Plain ignorance.
        If none can learn, why law? If no faith, why praise?
        We are prepping to set sail, AGAIN!
        IMHO, for the same reasons. Nina, pinta, and Santa Maria.
        Liberty or death! We will go. Clear destiny of cert. (See polinization) An attempt has already been made, but remains unknown to most. Most still think big bang, nah river! Pure observation. Call me crazy for that.

    • #51211 Reply

      Class Actions

      In class actions lawsuits, large groups of people who have suffered similar harms or injuries join together to sue another entity, usually an organization or company. Class actions are a practical way for individuals with small, but related, claims to join together and put an end to the illegal practices of larger companies. With a class action lawsuit the individuals do not have to separately litigate their case; the entire group can recover through the effort of one lawsuit. Generally, at least 30-50 people with similar claims are needed for a class action to be certified by the Court.

      Class actions are filed by individuals, unions, or small businesses who all have the same problem or have all been injured in the same way. They are considered the “named representatives”. As soon as possible, after the filing of the lawsuit, the named representatives must ask the court to certify the action as a class action. If the court certifies the action as a class action, the parties must provide a notice to class members advising them of their rights and that they may be bound by the results of the lawsuit. If the class action lawsuit is resolved in favor of the class, notice once again needs to be sent to the class members to advise them of any further steps they may need to take to recover.

    • #51212 Reply

      Rule 23. Class Actions

      (a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

      (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
      (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
      (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
      (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

      (b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
      (1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:

      (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
      (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;

      (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or

      (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:

      (A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
      (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;
      (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
      (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

    • #51223 Reply

      Thanks for the update Robin. I wish all success. On a side note, are there any potential cases on the horizon that may impact the NC registry?

      I know Gundy has still yet to get a ruling from SCOTUS, and based on questions by the justices during the hearing I’m not optimistic a positive ruling will be issued. I also recently learned the NC Bethea Cert was declined, and that’s disappointing. Curious though if there may be any other cases that may be on horizon. Again, thank you for the update and all that you and Narsol do.

      • #51225 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall

        Thanks, Glen. We are still waiting for additional clarification about SBM (ankle bracelets) from the NC Sup. Ct. That’s the Grady case. And, of course, NARSOL and NCRSOL have separate pending cases in the Middle District federal court that are inching along about as slow as Moses traversed the desert. Nothing much can be done about that, but both cases, if successful, would have significant impacts here in NC. The Merideth case was a huge success that has ramifications for more than a 1,000 registered North Carolinians whose convictions were in another state, but we are still crafting a plan to move forward for relief. The Bethea case was disappointing, but I think the Court is really looking for another circuit level court to decide the ex post facto question opposite to the outcome in the 6th Circuit (Snyder). Then the Court would recognize the need to settle the question between two circuits as opposed to the more peculiar resolution of outcomes at the federal and state level (which was the posture of Bethea).

        • #51245 Reply

          Grady finally got to the heart of the question. The ability to continuously search on the cheap! King George would have pissed his pants with joy. “I love this Machine!” He’d exclaim! “Bring me my gold!” Meanwhile his henchmen furloughed and taking blacksmithing lessons.

          Slowly but surely zuckerville is being acknowledged for what it really is. Suckerville! Marten to feathered snare.

          • #51266 Reply


            I agree that Grady was very important. Still, I think Grady left many unanswered questions that has still permitted the state to “attempt to justify” searches against citizens no longer on probation or parole. And, SCOTUS has continually let it go on.

            For instance, in Grady the court explicitly stated that it “Was not making a ruling about whether the entire system of monitoring sex offenders was unconstitutional. Because the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, the state could still make an argument that monitoring sex offenders’ locations constitutes a reasonable search…”

            Assuming SCOTUS position as quoted, it still seems to me that the state could easily argue in it’s so called “Civil regulatory/non-punitive” backdoor unconstitutional BS way…the standards of a search warrant are somewhat inferred to be lowered for this (our) group of people. In fact, in my research, I’ve yet to find a case where such was deemed unconstitutional. And there in lay the issue to come, in my opinion…it is inevitable, albeit perhaps long overdue and after hundreds of thousands harmed. Still…

            When SCOTUS ruled in Doe, it literally opened the door to wide range of what we all knew were forthcoming, yet, otherwise abusive, unconstitutional, and oppressive methods that would be implemented by the state under the guise of “civil/commerce regulation”. We are subject to two branches of law (civil and criminal) where the Constitution has been circumvented and appears to only apply to only one…. Sort of a backdoor double jeapardy scheme. And, now here we are 2 decades later with the ever growing restrictions that are so cumbersome, and almost nearly impossible to comprehend or comply, that the “Punitive effects” are virtually guaranteed via the civil statutes. Government of we the people, made some new rules in an effort to find a new “Grey way to punish without being held to the Constitutional specified standard of what it defined punishment being”.

            In other words, SCOTUS says the governments intent of protection outweighs any individuals punitive affects; and, outside of Packingham they still have not clarified what the threshold is with regards to excessive punishment rising above the “governments right to regulate”. Will they ever? How could they? In light of many other unconstitutionallities – for example- fisa warrants, seems the time for SCOTUS to draw the line in the sand has long passed.

            But, I digress…We all know the restrictions we are all now subject to, far far far exceed those first expressed in Doe vs. Alaska. SCOTUS, I think, knows that too now, yet has been very reluctant to grant cert to any case that seem to very well illustrate the punitive affects of this “Civil/commerce related punitive scheme”. Why? It can’t be because they are waiting for a case that shows a clear punitive affect, because Bethea did. So…I surmise punitive affects may not even be on their radar.

            As for Zucker, momentum against certainly is building no doubt because it (seemingly) affects a huge percentage of otherwise “normal American citizens” and their right to privacy and expression. Packingham, looking back, seems more of an obligatory ruling by SCOTUS addressing 1st amendment rights. Just so happens, Packingham, in retrospect, presented a case that could potentially censure “normal citizens” who might disagree with government, and SCOTUS jumped on it…yet convenientiently SCOTUS refused to hear Packingham’s other arguments of harm….

            In Gundy too…the court refused to hear the majority of harms, and only addressed the Congress’s delegation of authority issue. Even that, IMO, seems likely to be unsuccessful after hearing oral arguments and the judges questions. Hope I’m wrong…

            In light of those cases mentioned above, SCOTUS seems (to me) to be mostly and only interested in cases that permit it to excercise it’s power to confront/check the other branches of government in authoritative way that exhibits their power but really represents very little regard to individual rights.

            Zucker et al(!) is still being excused and selling our info, constitutional rights of registered citizens and other citizens are still being violated. Cases that seem to have clear potential and seem to exhibit constitutional harms are continually denied cert by SCOTUS.

            What to make of it all? Hmmm, Only thing I can think of is…we are all truley on our own, and this so called American Government…for the people…instituted to protect us all from frankly “Them” as well as foreign enemies…are some sneaky ass elitist bastards that really don’t give a damn about most of us; much less protecting individual freedoms per the Constitution – unless it some how affects them or their chrony buddies.

            But, I do take a forward thinking special joy knowing very well..due to their inactions…this all shall ultimately touch every single one of their lives too in a most astounding way.

            It all comes around.

            Today, political party member lists are often “hacked” …10 year old Twitter tweets exposed, decades old Facebook comments come up, individuals cell phone contain GPS locations, Google search histories, street cameras watch us, license plate readers, registered citizens lists…have to give Orwell some credit, but even he didn’t predict the extent.

            The electronic database/list clearly now exists and determined to be “ok”…by our government; they’ve ruled it constitutional, because they’ve defined us all, everyone, to be “commerce”. We are all business of the state. The door is wide open, with 2 decades of litigation now behind us.

            Most of us here already know very well we are on an electronic list and subject to oppressive and punitive measures by the state, virtual societal banishment, and vigilante assaults.

            But, I sometimes wonder if the rest of Americans understand that…they are too?

            On your side Tim.

          • #51282 Reply

            A form of database use is SBM, but differs by magnitude from SOR.
            The form I get is only once per year not 35 times a second. Other diffs too

          • #51342 Reply

            You’re right Tim. The constraints placed upon someone with an SBM, far and away exceed those just on the registry even.

            I’ve been fortunate in that I never had to be exposed to an SBM, but I can only imagine. Unless we get some good constitutional rulings soon, I fear it will only get worse.

        • #51253 Reply

          Thank you Robin. That’s encouraging news, all things considered. I wanted to give everyone here some information that was passed to me today.

          My understanding when Packinham was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS was that the entire NC law 14-205.5 was obliterated by their ruling. Now, I’m not so sure. Last Friday, I received my letter in the mail to report to the sheriff’s office within 3 days. I reported today, and during that visit, I was told and required to sign awareness of that statute again today. So, apparently while SCOTUS ruled the statute unconstitutional in Packingham, NC is still requiring any registered citizen to STILL list any and all “Online identifiers”. I’ve done my upmost to make sure I don’t have any other than my email which they were aware of, even going back to old email accounts, etc to make sure they are not active etc bc I do my best to comply with the law and I do not want any trouble at all. But, be aware the state of NC still appears to be enforcing that – or atleast, parts of that statute that SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in Packingham. Apparently, the state is still requiring any and all online identifiers be registered with the sherrifs office and failure to do so is STILL subject to being charged with a class C felony. In other words, it appears a nonprobation/ nonparrole registered citizen is permitted access to social media, but STILL MUST register any and all accounts with the sherrif or risk arrest/imprisonment. Just wanted everyone to be aware because it was my understanding SCOTUS found the entire statute unconstitutional. Apparently not…

          • #51255 Reply
            Robin Vander Wall
            Robin Vander Wall

            Thanks for the info, Glen. N.C.G.S. 14-202.5 was struck down entirely. The North Carolina Gen. Assembly has not enacted a new statute. So, there is no social media ban in North Carolina. There IS, as you correctly state, still a requirement to report your online identifiers. We hear things like this frequently and I attribute it to two factors: 1) local law enforcement is simply not aware of the ruling because they’ve not been informed and 2) registered people who ARE aware of the ruling are probably not doing enough to oppose law enforcement’s insistence that it be acknowledged. I can’t encourage anyone to take any unnecessary risks, but I can say that there is no way on earth they will ever get me to sign something acknowledging a statute that has been declared unconstitutional. They’ll have to lock me up first. And then, it will make its way to a judge and the judge will scold the law enforcement officers for being so ignorant. On top of it all, I will have very nice case of false arrest against the officers and the department. Two take aways here: 1) Never assume law enforcement knows the law, and 2) be willing to stand your ground when you’re being asked to do something you know is wrong. It may be uncomfortable for a short while, but you WILL win in the end.

          • #51257 Reply

            I hear you Robin. I’m at a similar point in my life. I’m taking a stand…

            Almost 20 years ago, I was charged with “Peeping Tom 1st offense” in SC. It’s not a registerable offense in NC, but because it was in SC, I’m required to register here too. No allegations of physical abuse or violence we’re ever alledged; but, It was a stupid, stupid mistake that I will always regret and that I accept responsibility for. I pled guilty to the charge, never retaining an attorney because my conscience knew I messed up and that I owed a debt for it. I received, and completed successfully 2 years of court ordered probation and counseling. My stupid mistake hurt alot of people I cared (still do) about. Truth is I’ve probably been harder on myself than anyone. And, I am sorry for it Robin. I am.

            But, almost 2 decades have passed now. During those two decades I’ve lost multiple relationships, been homeless multiple times sleeping in my cold car during winter unable to stay at a homeless shelter, been hungry, sold almost every personal possession to survive, lost countless jobs as a result of the registry. I served this country honorably in the USAF during the Gulf War. During those two decades, I’ve been overly accommodating to LE every time I’ve had contact with them to include allowing them, based on their statements of “We HAVE TO come in your home to verify you live here”. Each time, I sat silent while they entered my home, perusued my closets and personal affects “To verify” that I lived where I stated….inspite of my simply answering the door anytime they arrive.

            But, I’m done now. Like in Shawshank, Andy states, “Whatever mistakes I’ve made, I’ve paid for them and then some…”. I have paid for it in surplus. I have, and my conscience is clear.

            Today, I reported as required today to the sheriff’s office. Normally, within a couple days an officer(s) will come by to verify my residence. In the past, I’ve always submitted in an effort to show respect and that I’ve nothing to hide when they state “We have to come inside to verify you live here”, and I’ve stood silent while they went room to room and even inspected my closets…even understanding, I completed my probation almost 17 years ago.

            But, no more. If during the next compliance check I am told by another officer they must come inside again, I am standing my ground and recording the event. I will, respectfully, request that they produce a search warrant signed by a judge.

            I ask for all of your prayers that things go well as I take a peaceful but unwaivering stand, and that my standing up for my rights do not encourage any efforts of revenge by the sherrif’s department against me or my family.

            But, I think we all know standing up for your rights isn’t always appreciated or respected by many in LE. Unfortunately, I never understood why they so often take offense to that concept…

            The ACLU out of Raliegh, has sent the sherrif’s office a letter advising them that such home searches as I’ve described are illegal, and it appears we may be on the cusp of testing that advice in the next couple of days…wish me luck.

            Doing my best.


          • #51310 Reply
            Registered notoffender

            I highly encourage you not to allow them to search your home Glen, even though you have nothing to hide today when they search your closet, tomorrow they go to your computer and so on. Often when you know your rights they back off you.

        • #51256 Reply

          …anyway Robin, my apology for changing the subject with my last reply. It’s just, not being an attorney and even trying my very best to abide by all the cumbersome registration restrictions it’s difficult to understand for me; and I suspect it is for other registrants, as well.

          Anyway, I also received a registration booklet from the sherrifs office this morning and it states regarding statute 14-202.5, “This law was found unconstitutional in Packingham v. NC and is therefore unenforceable. However, registrants still must disclose any online identifiers.”….and further, back in the booklet, it states the penalty of not disclosing is a “Class F Felony”.

          So, just a heads up for everyone in NC, and perhaps other states…Appears NC is still enforcing parts of the law that I thought SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional.

          • #51261 Reply
            Robin Vander Wall
            Robin Vander Wall

            It’s not a problem, Glen. But, I think you may be confusing two separate statutes here. No aspect of NCGS § 14-202.5 is enforceable since that statute was held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. However, the online identifier requirement was added to NCGS § 14-208.7 (see (b)(7)) and NCGS § 14-208.7 was not challenged in Packingham. Only NCGS § 14-202.5 was challenged in Packingham and it was held entirely unconstitutional as written. There is a distinction between “accessing” social media (not illegal anymore) and providing your online identifiers (which is still legally required). All that being said, anyone who remains on supervised probation may still be subjected to a social media ban imposed by his/her probation officer.

          • #51262 Reply

            Thank you Robin. Like I was saying, there are so many restrictions, violations it difficult to navigate and understand in an effort to fully comply. I do try lol! Unfortunately, LE doesn’t issue “A’s” for effort. Thank you for helping me understand and for clarifying.

          • #51284 Reply

            Yes! They may ask but to Date I’ve refused ids. A refusal to answer is a speech issue and deserves the highest, as Packingham expresses. Fact is the ONLY other remedy upon refusal is to place an agent in one’s domicile to look over shoulder. Enter domestic electronic surveillance saints.

            Agent you reqire and demand email addresses with no intention to communicate …………. Is that correct?? YES!
            Agent that begs another question correct? AGENT: idkwym. lol

          • #51341 Reply

            Exactly Tim….”Why” do you need it then?

          • #51368 Reply

            The Saints for “purpose of law. ” A key to locked box or combination to safe? ”
            They want to snoop on “my puter.”
            Email is a locator by default. Ask Podesta.

    • #51277 Reply

      To all of you at Narsol (Robin, Sandi, and everyone of you), thank you sincerely for all your hard work; and for this forum, and especially for your support and the opportunity for us all to express our experiences and views here.

      After almost 20 years of this, I’m admittedly pessimistic, but here you all truley provide a venue of hope.

      “Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies…”
      -Andy Dufresne, Shawshank Redemption.

      • #51297 Reply
        Sandy Rozek
        Sandy Rozek

        One of my all-time favorite films; and then there is this:

        “Hope is the thing with feathers
        That perches in the soul,
        And sings the tune without the words,
        And never stops at all.”

        Emily Dickinson

        • #51306 Reply

          I do not watch movies often these days. CSPAN was too much today!
          My favorite the close of ” in harm’s way. ” “I’ll be hear Rock.” (Wry cat w\ bird grin” and a fixed focus) Patty Neal WOW!
          John Wayne ( Rockwell Torie) drifts off in medicated haze.

          The look every young man MUST experience! Too many settle for the ” ” I decided to ambush yah. ” We gotta give our boys the first part of this movie. basic social interpersonal skills! They already have the war part, now give them liberty in natural relation. Stop dehumanizing them. You’ve accepted government into your child’s sexuality. As if they have a clue!
          A phone call yesterday on cspan a young mother from Chicago!
          “They stopping us from disciplining our kids.” ” We get authorities in our face, say we can’t straighten them out. ” “We get charged with abuse.” She goes on to say ” how I gonna take care of my kid, when I got courts dates. ”

          @Opt for trial!

    • #51334 Reply

      I wonder who said slience is golden or Ignorance is bless. I’ve never heard of it but there is a time to keep silent and a time to speak. Yes I like this expansion, mission and vision of Vivante Expero and NARSOL. Sure leadership is very important in the understanding of this crisis that we all face in this sex plight that is a bit out of character by those official’s that protect and serve. Even while reviewing the movie the shawshank redemption one can see character flaws. Is a lot of this sex offender ordeal a shady form of character flaw today,or an oops I slipped on my own tongue? One sort of wonders who goes to prison to be a criminal.

      I wonder who leads who astray in a lot of this misscharage of justice. One even wonders who offends in thought or deed or do we all do that. While recidivism is a perdiction or falling back into the same circumstance one wonders who is rapeing the mind of another or should we all do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I really wonder and yes this is the time to speak in this misscarriage of justice.

      Is a lot of this ordeal a predicting to situations? One even wonders who’s guageing one’s carnal knowledge. At times one wonders who is the offending who today. Should we say a president that has an affair of some sort, and is voted into office. sows a lower degree than the person that gets wrapped up in some internet sex scheme to protect a fitcitous person by diverse means. Even the after-mass of all this overkill intent is out of line. Do the ends justify the means in this “Sword of Justice” that is out of character for any civillzed American government in in a lot of these types of ordeals. Heliping others in direction to challenge one in these court encounters of bondage is a worthwile effort. Life time monitoring,dehumanization, or papal docctrine of registry is overkill. I should hope any good lawyer can see thru the eye of a needle.

      While I know people have mentioned these leg ankle devices which are a form of new tech electronic methods to keep one in line with this bondage type endeavor, I wonder who can keep the common mind from right or wrong in controlling others. Has government gotten so self-greedy or has self-governing oneself gone by the way of true justice even with ones unalienable rights.

      While David Mensah’s (Bal) approach is good training for a lot involved we all have to hold true to justice and truth in this ordeal as that is what America is all about. Scientific recidivism is like the civil war starting over or do we have a penal colony of bondage today? Sure man wants to be right in one’s knowledge and understanding, so to save face does one use the simplest of sex offenses in this machine age as a scapegoat in this justification of a social media type. Even redemption has meaning if one opens one’s mind or does one badger another to do evil. Judges and law enforcements can learn lesson’s in this vain glory they justify or are we all men behaving badly. Like the detective told me in my little encounter, its all part of the game. I wonder who actually suffers.

    • #51392 Reply
      Tim IN Wisconsin

      By fate or by God’s will I find myself in the EXACT position in Wisconsin as
      Ms. Norma Grace Constanteneau 400 US 430(71).

      I would like to use my individual position to help the whole group.
      Any suggestions? My challenges, because I opted for trial on 1ct.(92)
      No waiver by plea, right to contest n consent.

      Ex post, due process, equal protection, BOA. You name it!
      Persons in my specific position are RARE!
      CONNECTICUT DOES NOT APPLY- NO WAIVER to contest DOC commitment.
      AG applied unlawfully per WI law. I can prove it at FTR! Since Norma went to fed in 71 WI law sanctioned, by fine and jail, unlawful posting without process. That includes appeal rights to ” know” about DOC commitment before application.WIstat.227.10(2)1992.

      SORNA is the inverse sanction for not doing.
      I wish to help this Group! Go ahead use me and abuse me. Given the fact that once a man is on a database there is no going back. That’s why processes are NECESSARY in the first case.
      A sanction on cops for posting without process is directly inverse to a sanction on convicts for not posting without process. There is a name for that.
      It is called sedition. “Overt 946.02 & .03” Unconstitutional federal influence by way of police state Byrne Grant a sanction for not #2.

      All my love to my people, my state, our nation. SHAMEFULLY embracing the ex post prohibition! All proven in an FTR by the man himself.

Viewing 16 reply threads
Reply To: NARSOL, Vivante boards prepare for expansion, revise vision & mission
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">