In denying Snyder petition, Supreme Court upholds Sixth Circuit ruling

Viewing 91 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #22930 Reply
      Robin Vander Wall
      Robin Vander Wall
      Admin

      By Melissa Nann Burke . . . The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that “sweeping” conditions imposed retroactively under Mic
      [See the full post at: In denying Snyder petition, Supreme Court upholds Sixth Circuit ruling]

    • #22960 Reply
      Avatar
      Lilah

      I hope other courts start to follow. Which courts effect Nevada should I be watching out for ?

    • #22963 Reply
      Avatar
      Chris

      Robin,

      This is great news for NCRSOL’s suit against North Carolina, I’m guessing. How many of North Carolina’s registry stipulations are similar enough to Michigan’s to hope for a similar ruling in your suit? Also, since the Supreme Court (in effect) agrees that Michigan’s registry scheme is punitive as applied, would it be prudent (or even possible) to amend the suit to include not only violations of ex post facto and due process protections but also a violation of 8th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment? I kind of feel like the eighth amendment argument is where we want all of this to eventually go. The Colorado ruling a few weeks ago looks promising, but why put all of our eggs in one basket?

      • #22971 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        The outcome in Snyder certainly doesn’t harm NARSOL’s posture in the North Carolina case. Having the matter closed clears the air of speculation over what the Supreme Court was planning to do. I would stop short, however, in presuming too much about the high court’s rejection. It was a procedural decision, not a decision on the merits of the underlying claims. The effect of a denial can be described as sustaining the lower court’s ruling, but only strictly. It does NOT mean that SCOTUS necessarily agrees with the outcome or the analysis used to arrive at that outcome. That wasn’t the question before the Court in considering whether or not to grant the petition.

        At this point in time, there is no way to amend the complaint in NC. Surely the Eighth Amendment door is pushed further ajar, but I think we’d better wait and see how the Tenth Circuit handles the appeal before we get too far ahead of ourselves in advancing this argument. Winning on an Ex Post Facto claim is far less challenging at this point and just as useful for most of the people who populate the registry in NC (and, depending on how it is received in the Fourth Circuit, SC, VA, WV and VA, as well). Plus, in order to win an Ex Post Facto claim, the courts who consider the question have to find certain aspects of registration and notification punitive. That lays the groundwork.

        Litigation about constitutional questions touching on new facts and circumstances is a game of finesse. It’s a bit like chess. It’s important to think a few steps (cases) ahead rather than take the risk that a single bad move loses the entire game.

    • #22965 Reply
      Avatar
      Mike

      McGuire is an expost facto and retroactive case in the 11th Circuit. It controls Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The 11th Circuit has already referred to Snyder in it’s 2017 decision to refuse to dismiss the residency restriction case in Miami Dade. I see no reason (especially now that SCOTUS upheld Snyder) for the 11th Circuit to also consider the McGuire case unconstitutional.

      Here is the latest case filing: http://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Supplemental-Brief.pdf

    • #22967 Reply
      Avatar
      David Israel

      Anyone have any idea if they’re doing similar attacks against registration requirements in South Carolina?

    • #22969 Reply
      Avatar
      David

      I think everybody is missing the point here if the sex offender registry is punishment punitive in nature then it is a double jeopardy violation for everyone who is on it and therefore unconstitutional for anyone.

      • #22984 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        Double jeopardy will never attach as a reasonable argument against the registries. The prohibition against double jeopardy protects a citizen from being tried twice for the exact same offense or from being punished under more than one statute that contains the same elements or fewer of the same elements already included in the more serious charge (a lesser, but entirely included, offense).

        While they are punitive, the statutes requiring registration are not criminal statutes and there is no criminal process involved except for the mere fact of one’s conviction of a sexually based offense. No legislative body has ever explicitly declared that the intent of registry is to punish anyone. Just the opposite, they’ve bent over backwards to make declarations of their civil, non-punitive purpose. And, thus far, no court has ever declared that a state deliberately set out to punish anyone by requiring them to register as a sex offender. And, even were that to happen, it still wouldn’t open the door to a claim of protection from Double Jeopardy (5th Amendment claim) but would throw the door wide open for Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Eighth Amendment C&U claims.

        • #22996 Reply
          Avatar
          DW

          Robin,

          In Padilla, didn’t the SCOTUS say that they make no distinction between civil/collateral versus punitive consequence because “deportation is intimately related to the criminal justice system”; therefore, Padilla had a right to prior knowledge of the mandatory deportation consequences of his plea.

          If the above logic was applied to a defendant whose attorney had access to legislation that mandated his deportation, why would the SCOTUS’s same logic not be applied to RSO’s who had their right to reflection denied via absence of existing legislation that become “mandatory” once passed if their pleas were entered prior to the registry’s creation? It would be impossible to argue that SORNA, AWA or Megan’s Law are not “intimately related to the criminal justice system.” Yet in Doe v. Alaska, did SCOTUS not say that the registry was a civil, collateral consequence of a prior conviction and not punishment? Seems as if that is a big contradiction to their Padilla language. Why are those RSO’s who pleas were entered prior to the 1994 enactment not granted relief as was Padilla.

          Also, does the 6th DISTRICT’s ruling apply to the removal of registrants whose original offense pre-dates any registration laws whatsoever, thereby allowing them to move to any State in the 6th DISTRICT without having to register since the words ex-post facto punishment are included in the ruling?

          Really appreciate your knowledge in such matters, and would love to know what you think.

          • #23003 Reply
            Robin Vander Wall
            Robin Vander Wall
            Admin

            Put simply, relief hasn’t been granted to RSOs under this theory because the Court hasn’t had occasion to consider the question or the analogy. I can see how you’re extending the argument and it makes some sense to me. But, that’s just academic. For the Court to provide relief of any kind, relief must first be sought….and that requires a long and arduous process beginning in a federal district court and ending at the U.S. Supreme Court (IF it is willing to hear whatever question survives all the legal wrangling underneath).

            In response to your second question, I think that it’s difficult to say. NO court (outside of Colorado) has yet to state that the essential requirement to register, in and of itself, is unconstitutional. Registration was not under assault in the Michigan case. The enhancements (added restrictions and requirements) were under assault in Snyder. So, just speculating here, but I suspect that the answer to your question is probably no. It will likely not provide relief to people who were required to retroactively register years after the date of their convictions. The Sixth Circuit has not declared registration itself as punishment. It has declared the consequences (either intended or collateral) of being registered punishment and, therefore, unconstitutional. How Michigan’s legislature responds to that is essential to ascertaining subsequent and prospective legal opportunities.

          • #23013 Reply
            Avatar
            DW

            Robin,

            Thanks so much for the concise explanation. I truly appreciate it.

            I had no idea that Colorado had ruled the entire registry unconstitutional. Thanks for that information as well.

            Respectfully,
            DW

          • #23010 Reply
            Avatar
            Alex

            @robin

            Can a case like the one in Colorado which found the registry punishment by violating 8th and 14th amendment rights make it to the U.S Supreme Court on appeal even though it was only for 3 plaintiffs as applied ? I know it’s being appealed to the 10th, but can a case like that type go even further ?

          • #23025 Reply
            Avatar
            Dave

            You sound like a prosecutor fighting on the other side of this issue. Are you?

          • #23246 Reply
            Avatar
            DW

            Thanks Robin,

            You are absolutely correct. I contacted Michigan ACLU, and was told that I had a good ex-post facto challenge and should contact a lawyer, but I would not be able to move my family to Michigan and expect not to have to register. Guess I’ll just keep playing the lotto and hope I can afford that attorney one day =)

            Thanks very much for taking the time to explain the Padilla matter. I tried Padilla, PA contract clause argument, cited the 6th, etc. etc. at the circuit level in seeking a declaratory judgement and was shot down without the state’s attorney even addressing the argument; state just used the magic word “collateral” and the judge agreed. I live in floriduh (spelling most accurate as far as I’m concerned) though, so not surprised at all.

            Thanks again.

      • #22991 Reply
        Avatar
        TimL

        I would presume, like Robin’ position, that DJ is not directly implicated by Schneider. The states convicted registrants on completely separate set of facts. However the state does reuse the notice of convictions to get warrant issue for arrest for ” failure to provide information”. So I see where your confusion comes from.

        It does seem that one must already be guilty (of something) before registration can be triggered by law. Using a former conviction as a touch stone was objected to by J.P. STEVERNS in Alaska v Doe.

        In my opinion, the act of making law that is on its face retroactively applied, points to punitive intent by the states. States like Alaska and Wisconsin decided by edict ( via administrative branch) to use DOC to promulgate the rules AND their application to sexually oriented offenders. Other states opted for the state police or Attorney s General. If one were to check the history of Alaska’s regime one would see Alaska supreme court rejected Doe immediately finding it punitive in all respects- much like the 9th circuit did originally.

      • #23026 Reply
        Avatar
        Dave

        The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitution, statutes, and Common Law.

      • #23035 Reply
        Avatar
        Tony From Long Island

        Dave:

        No court as far as I know, has ruled that the registration laws are punishment per se – only that this one is punishment as applied. Even I, as a RSO, do not believe that registration laws, in and of themselves, are unconstitutional. It all depends on the details and how they are applied.

        • #23664 Reply
          Avatar
          Tim L

          Tony,
          Not so sure states advertising in this manner via registration laws is the path to a more perfect union. Is it possible sharing certain information publicly is inherently destructive to the social compact with the goal of security?

          I can point to the recent equifax and yahoo hacking cases where information was made public via individuals stealing it and pitting it on the dark web. Other private individuals have used the public display to plan murder, extortion and assault. As a result of public notification two homes were Burned to the ground to prevent a registrant from moving in.

          Public also means foreigners world wide can access SOR databases and see what an immoral place and people America is. Airing our dirty laundry in this manner is in my estimation counter productive and demoralizing!

          Our constitution only provides for two levels of gov’t being federal and state. The Whetterling Act acknowledges a third ” local jurisdiction” which is incongruent.(OMNIBUS1994; community policing)

    • #22979 Reply
      Avatar
      Rose Marie Jueden

      It is said that sex offenders Laws in sentencing in South Dakota I have found if a sex offender was sentenced in Rapid City his sentence was less then in Minnenheaa County and what is said the sex offender had never been convicted of this kind of crime before the year 2012 and because he told the truth he was given 27 years were is there Justice in the state of SD? You read the prison report and they are becoming over crowded each day.
      Keep on fighting NARSOL

    • #22987 Reply
      Avatar
      Wyatt

      Will RSO eventually have the ground for a civil suit involving large amounts of money? What “they” have done to myself and so many others has cost us our jobs and housing. RSO’s need money to get back on there feet!

      • #23004 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        Not likely. There is no retroactive cause of action for damages in civil suits that result in a statute (or set of statutes) being held unconstitutional. That is because the legal presumption is that ALL statutes are constitutional until such time as they are determined not to be. Damages are recoverable for actual harm (meaning that the harm can be calculated) in CERTAIN civil rights settings. Damages are not available for incidental, collateral, or ancillary harms. And even where damages are recoverable, the states (sovereigns) have first to statutorily ALLOW for those claims to be sought.

      • #31196 Reply
        Avatar
        Roy McAteer

        Every single person who is on these sex offender registries has been subjected to a legislatively created and applied mental health statute. Don’t believe it? Simply check your State’s Outpatient Civil Commitment Laws.
        And while the legislature certainly has the authority to create whatever statute it so chooses, it is grossly violative of our constitutional scheme for it to apply a mental health statute to people “It” determines warrant such.
        Only through procedures which have due process protections commensurate with those required for application of Mental health statutes can states apply these statutes.

    • #22993 Reply
      Avatar
      Rich

      Can anyone with legal knowledge weigh in about how this might affect the McGuire case pending before the Ayatollahs of the 11th circuit?

      • #23001 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        The Sixth Circuit opinion will have no controlling effect in the Eleventh Circuit. The Sixth Circuit opinion is controlling opinion (“the law”) in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. However, the Sixth Circuit opinion is highly persuasive authority for cases heard by the Eleventh Circuit and the attorneys there will be sure to argue that. Then it’s really just a matter of whether the judges who serve on the panel in McGuire respectfully agree or respectfully disagree with the three judges who formed the Circuit panel in Snyder.

        • #23006 Reply
          Avatar
          Larry Anderson

          Hey Robin, in simple terms what does this actually mean in general for the state of Tennessee. I’m missing the strategy here!

          • #23075 Reply
            Robin Vander Wall
            Robin Vander Wall
            Admin

            What it means is that if there are any restrictions or requirements in Tennessee that are similar to those in Michigan, they should be challenged. If they are challenged in federal district court in Tennessee, that court will have to apply the Sixth Circuit’s opinion.

            It’s a pyramid. The entire federal system is a gigantic pyramid. There are three levels: 1) District (lowest), 2) Circuit (middle), 3) Supreme (highest). Every case must pass through the first two levels before there’s even a chance at the last (and that’s a very slim chance, indeed).

            By jurisdiction, federal District courts can only decide constitutional questions concerning state laws at the state level. Each state has a different number of districts depending on population size. So a decision by a federal court in Colorado concerning the Colorado registration scheme is ONLY binding in Colorado. No place else.

            There are 13 federal Circuit Courts and they are arranged geographically with two exceptions (the District of Columbia Circuit and what’s called the federal district). The remaining 10 Circuits are each composed of a number of states, most of which are contiguous to each other (connected by a common border). Decisions of the federal Circuit courts are binding on the states within their pre-defined area of geographic jurisdiction. So a decision by, for example, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will automatically be binding in every state underneath its jurisdiction (those states are Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming). NO STATE belongs to more than ONE Circuit.

            There is one U.S. Supreme Court over ALL the federal courts below. A decision by the Supreme Court is binding on ALL Circuits, ALL districts, and ALL states in the nation (to include their own derivative state courts).

    • #23011 Reply
      Avatar
      Jeremy from Indiana

      I may be wrong, but I think the Supreme Court has an agenda with denying the two high profile sex offender cases in Michigan and Minnesota. The court has noticed that it is very difficult to strike down the entire registry with either of these cases, which after the comments in Packingham, I believe is the court’s goal. I believe they are preparing their docket for the case from Colorado that declared it cruel and unusual punishment. Michigan’s case was an ex post facto case and the majority of states have adopted that premise now. Minnesota’s was a civil commitment case that could have much further reaches beyond the registry.

      Why would they not take these two cases in the interim you might ask? Well, if they took one or both of these cases and overturned or confirmed either one, the entire country would be bound to the decision(s). This would severely harm our chances in the Colorado case because many of the arguments brought in that case would be moot and the decision would have to be left alone for Colorado only.

      By denying these petitions though, they left the door open for the Colorado case or any similar case that presents the cruel and unusual argument. A case that presents that argument is a much better case for the Supreme Court to have a landmark decision for our population considering that civil commitment and ex post facto don’t affect the majority of us, but cruel and unusual punishment does.

      I hope I’m right.

    • #23005 Reply
      Avatar
      Saddles

      In this sex registry maze if one wants to call this jumbled up sex registry a maze or a nightmare for some this decision is sort of a good move. Robin is doing good at picking up the pieces and trying to answer a lot of comments but as for me this decision is like saying “all roads lead to Rome”
      Now I wasn’t all that great in American History. I think I slept like everybody else in some of my classes but here is a video if some would like to review that are far more knowledgeable than I am in American History. Yes I would like Robin to review this but it is about an hour long. It even talks about slavery and even about this country we all live in and our rights as American’s and of course the Bill of rights and it does talk a bit about liberty and freedom of speech also. This video will explain a lot of things we didn’t learn in which we all should have learned and give more credence to those at the way America and some of these law’s go. And like I said I was dazed by this video myself and I feel I should share this … with NARSOL’s approval. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjVGzhQjL4U
      We all just might learn something.

    • #23021 Reply
      Avatar
      George In Texas

      @ Robin or Fred,

      I think it would be interesting to know exactly how the members (SCOTUS) voted on whether to hear Snyder and the Minnesota civil commitment cases. Is there a record of who voted to hear these and who didn’t?

      • #23032 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Conferences are held behind closed doors with only the nine justices in the room. There is no public record on what was discussed or how they came to their conclusion to deny review, and they released the order without comment. They need only 4 votes to grant review, so it is safe to say at least 6 said no.

      • #23073 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        Ditto, Fred. The justices would be foolish to allow that much transparency. Bear in mind that this is a court that still doesn’t allow cameras in the courtroom.

    • #23031 Reply
      Avatar
      Ryan Burgdorf

      Does anyone know when sora started in Michigan. I was sentenced jan. 13, 2006 and convicted September 1, 2005. I need to find out what restriction I would be under since they don’t tell you shit here in bay city Michigan.

      • #23034 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        I believe the 2006 revision went into effect on January 1st 2006 and the 2011 revision went into effect on July 1st 2011.
        The ruling by the 6th Circuit says these laws cannot be applied after the person was already convicted, which in your case was still 2005.
        This ruling has not gone into affect yet. You must continue registering for the time being and following all the other restrictions. The lower court still needs to issue a new judgement, the state legislators still need to rewrite the law.

      • #23038 Reply
        Avatar
        Tim P

        2011 AWA compliant and the SOR started in Michigan in 1994 with added provisions almost yearly since until this court case. Tim P Michigan ACLU SOR Specialist

      • #23040 Reply
        Avatar
        Tim P

        I wanted to thank all of you for your comments. I am Tim and I am working with the ACLU on this case and Legislative changes that we will be pushing for based on the court’s ruling. We are fortunate that some Elected officials are willing to make some positive changes but were waiting for what I call cover from a court ruling so they would not look like they were “Easy on Crime” I always tell them no you should Be Smart on Crime when you write laws. Look at the real facts and studies not just what you think they are. Anyway this process will not happen overnight but we are now headed in the right direction.Please be patient with this process. Our Legal Team on this case is now reviewing what the next best steps are and we are currently looking at other issues with SOR and how and if we can accomplish wins with some of them also. However we will have a priority that if the Legislators do not act in a way that we feel the court ruled we will be back in court for court orders to make them do so. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ANYONE CURRENTLY ON THE SOR FOLLOWS THE LAWS AS THEY ARE NOW WRITTEN, we also would like people to be patient and NOT file cases based on this as that will just slow things down or could result in bad lower court rulings that could hurt or destroy your chances for removal from the SOR. Our Legal and Legislative Teams are working hard and we would ask that if you are a Michigan Resident and you have questions or concerns please contact me (Tim P) at intern@aclumich.org and I will attempt to answer them. I am always looking for people who will be willing to testify so if you are please contact me at the email above, I will respond as quickly as possible but we are being overloaded at this time.

        Good Luck to all and better days are coming for all if we keep pushing back on these SOR punitive laws.

        Tim P: ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist and NARSOL Michigan Contact

        intern@aclumich.org

        • #23052 Reply
          Avatar
          bill

          why do the legislature’s need to rewrite a law that was already written at my time of conviction? I should be governed by that as it was written then. there should be nothing to rewrite except future laws. my punishment should revert back to what was written in 1995!

          • #23657 Reply
            Avatar
            Tim L

            That would be a country which lived up to its constitutional prohibitions.

    • #23039 Reply
      Avatar
      MikeD

      several questions come to mind but the most pressing for me is will I be let off the SOR at my 25 year mark? I had been moved to lifetime of registry halfway through.

      • #23046 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        That is the one of the primary issues in this case. So the answers is yes, you should eventually be restored to your original registering requirement.

        • #23129 Reply
          Avatar
          MikeD

          thank you Fred for the quick response.

    • #23041 Reply
      Avatar
      Jerry

      Robin, how is the North Carolina case going? I haven’t heard anything in a while so wanted to see if any headway had been made.

      • #23072 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        The North Carolina case remains before Judge Loretta Biggs. There is nothing further to report. At this point, we are on her clock, not ours. Whatever happens next will be at her beckoning. We expect that she will set a date for a hearing to more fully discuss the state’s motions to dismiss. We will keep you posted whenever there is more to report. I suspect she has been keeping a close eye on the Snyder case, as well. Now that it’s resolved, she is freer to move towards a disposition of NARSOL v. Stein.

        • #23086 Reply
          Avatar
          Teresa

          Robin
          Where can I find the NC case?

          • #23095 Reply
            Robin Vander Wall
            Robin Vander Wall
            Admin

            Most likely, you will need to create a PACER account to find the docket history for the case. PACER accounts are mostly free so long as you don’t use them too much. https://www.pacer.gov/login.html

            If you have access to Lexis or Westlaw, you will also be able to find it. But those legal search engines are fairly expensive.

            The case is filed in the federal District Court for North Carolina (Middle District). Case number is: 1:17-cv-00053. Be certain that you are searching specifically within the Middle District for the federal District Court of NC because you will find duplicates of this case number throughout the federal judiciary for 2017. The case is generally styled NARSOL v. Stein if you’re searching by parties. If you search by attorney, look for Paul Dubbeling.

    • #23047 Reply
      Avatar
      Txso4life

      Thank you Tim and ACLU for the tremendous works that have been put forth to defeat this suppressive laws that affected so many Americans. Thank you, thank you, to the folks at narsol as well!

      • #23051 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Hello,
        I want to make sure you know that this is not over and that this particular victory will only affect registrants in the 6th Circuit, which includes Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio.
        To anyone in those states, this does NOT mean you can just stop registering and reporting now. The changes still need to be made by the state legislators. When the changes are made, you should receive a letter from your state officials informing you on what your requirements will be going forward. Until then, remain in compliance as you had been doing before this victory was announced.

        • #23653 Reply
          Avatar
          Tim L

          If I lived in Michigan like my father does AND if I were facing a trial for not providing information; I would call the registration specialist to the stand and force the agent to acknowledge the 6ths ruling.@Optfortrial.

    • #23053 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      @ Fred or Robin,
      I know I have asked similar question before, but now that we have won in Michigan, I keep wondering since my conviction was 6-19-1992 before Michigan had a registry, and the FACT that the Judge did NOT order me to register will I be removed from the registry completely.?

      I was still on Parole when the registry came to be, in 1994 and put on it in 1995 , the legislators I am guessing, or the MDOC, for 25 years then it was changed to life. They also changed the registration dates of everyone here in Michigan, like my registration start date was 1995, but now it says my registration start date is 6-19-92 .

      How does all that work now that we won?, I personally think I should be removed from the registry altogether, since the registry did not exist back then, and the fact a judge did not sentence me to register. what is your opinion.

      • #23060 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Your registering period should eventually be restored to the original 25 year period. I do not know if the start will be 1992 or 1995. Let’s let the dust settle and let ACLU and our legislators work it out and then we will have a more accurate idea on how the changes will be applied to you and others. The only thing I am certain of at this point is that the lifetime registering period should be returned to the 25 year period and that the other restrictions cannot be applied to people who were convicted prior to that law being enacted.

      • #24629 Reply
        Avatar
        Bill

        Bobby,
        I was just on the Michigan site and yes I can see they have the original registry date, but down below it still has my original conviction date. Maybe I should print this off before they change it. Good luck everyone.

        Bill

    • #23061 Reply
      Avatar
      Robert J Hogg

      What about tenn. I was did the Same way from a 96 case and was put on lifetime in 04

    • #23066 Reply
      Avatar
      Josh

      Hi, I live in Nebraska and I’m a registered citizen. I understand this won’t directly affect Nebraska but will there be any action in Nebraska anytime soon?

    • #23064 Reply
      Avatar
      Tom McHale

      My son was found NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) in Illinois of a sexual assault and is currently receiving inpatient treatment thru the state health dept. We expect sometime in the near future he will be granted a conditional release at which time he will be required to register as a SO per the NGRI statute. Can anyone tell me specifically what would be the nature of his registration (lifetime or 10yrs) and what specific limitations might he encounter with regard to living near schools, visiting parks and employment. Up til now we gotten very limited information from his attorney who claims they are looking into it. Also has the requirement to register under the NGRI statute ever been challenged contitutionally along the lines of the case being discussed in this thread. It seemed inconsistent to be found not guilty yet to still be required to register. Any insights or information anyone can offer is appreciated. thx Tom

    • #23065 Reply
      Avatar
      Timothy L Davis

      Receiving the news, I saw a glimmer of hope. Reading the blog discussing the decision, I no longer see the glimmer. At this point in my life and my health, I was just wanting to be able to die at home rather than become too old and ill to meet the registration requirements in my state. What you are basically saying is the Supreme Court system has not even agreed that retro-active implementation of the Sex Offender Registry or changes made to Sex Offender Registry requirements after Alaska vs Doe, are recognized as punitive by the Federal Courts. In my case, an 8 year sentence already lasting 30, there is still no glimmer of hope in sight.

      • #23076 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        There’s more than just a glimmer of hope as we look across the horizon. Our responsibility is to make sure that people understand what has really happened and not communicate a false narrative simply because that’s what many people want to hear.

        The Supreme Court’s decision to reject Michigan’s petition is NOT enough information to form an opinion about how the Supreme Court might have disposed of the case IF it had accepted the petition. People can speculate, and people do. But speculation is a useless substitution for the truth. And the truth is that we don’t know what the high court’s opinion is regarding WHY the Sixth Circuit arrived at it’s decision holding much of the Michigan registration requirements unconstitutional. All we know is that the high Court (at least a majority of it) is satisfied with HOW the Sixth Circuit arrived at its decision. There is an extraordinarily fine line of distinction between the two types of assessments, legally speaking. But, because the line is so fine, it’s often very easy to blur it and make unreasonable assumptions about the Court’s opinion of a question it has not yet considered.

    • #23077 Reply
      Avatar
      Nick

      Anything happening in Illinois? Any news would be greatly appreciated. Thank you and have a blessed day.

    • #23094 Reply
      Avatar
      Wes gray

      40 years of witch hunt, it won’t stop until we stop it. Do not be afraid. fight back, get angry. Start or join a support group, their is power in numbers. Educate the public with the truth, end the lies, contact your senators, etc. Refuse to take the abuse any longer. May God bless us all

    • #23122 Reply
      Avatar
      Saddles

      Wes you are right.. Hey if I were married and had kids, I couldn’t even spank my kids. Yes growing up my dad got a belt to my backside but today its all about the law and these witch hunts. Its either sexting or some in family problem of the wife accusing the husband of taking advantaging one of the kids and than we could talk about money and fines, and all the other stuff that some go thru in all this sexual hocus pocus and than maybe if one is lucky he or she gets probation for 10 as in my case but one is under the microscope for the rest of one’s life unless intervention comes in.
      Hey I met a guy named Terry and see him once in a while to say hi and chat a bit. lives here in Virginia., he had a wife and kids, had to do some time because the wife accused him of something with one of his kids. He paid his time lives by himself in an apt and we chat from time to time. Maybe they were going thru some hard times way back when who knows but the fact is he said he never did it. Now that’s a tough situation to be in he also has a girlfriend that comes in and checks on him also. All things work out in the end so never give up. This little sexting thing I am into is a bit much for some but when the law goes above their maker that’s another story in itself.
      NARSOL and woman against the registry and other advocates are in there for all of us but you all have to be strong also. I don’t like any of this myself and I think a lot of this is wrong. We all can either go forward or just not help others out, or all pull together. And those witch hunts were back in England and a few in MA. Course I only saw the movie Witches of eastwick, but a lot of this is like a witch hunt. One has to fight fire with fire sometimes is todays’ America.

    • #23144 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      hello again

      This might sound like a stupid question, Snyder only talks about 2006 and 2011 previsions can not be retroactive ,what about the law they decided to pass in 2013 where we here in Michigan are required to pay an annual fee of $50 dollars every year, since 2013 Michigan has stole $250 dollars from me so far, even though I paid the initial fee of $30 when I was first put on it in 1995. I better not have to continue to have to pay that extortion fee anymore.

      Like I said before I have my original 25 years in now (6-29-92) since they moved everyone’s registration dates to their conviction dates, but if they move them back to the original registration dates mine would go back to 1995 when I was 26 yrs, so that means I would still be stuck on it foe another 3 years, unless they remove me from it altogether. ( fingers crossed)

      • #23247 Reply
        Avatar
        Tim L

        Bobby, to be sure the enhancements were determined by the court to act as punishments. The fee requirement was tested in a WI case a few years back they were upheld.I refuse to pay up! In the debate the lawyers argued over whether it was a fee or a tax. In effect the outcome for the offender is the same- cash out of pocket for a previously fully adjudicated case that did not include a judgement from the trial court.

        This is nothing less than extortion. The reasoning is quite clear. Monies garnered from fees are ” to help offset” the costs of maintaining the SORS. The fact is states built these databases under threat of loss of Byrne grants. If SORS were such a great idea there would be no need for the coercion, Yet clearly there was coercion. Like many underfunded federal programs forced upon the states there come a point when the cash runs out.

        The 6ths ruling here stops just short of declaring the SORS as intentionally punitive, yet many of us on the registry have long suspected the intent was just that to keep imprisoning persons.

    • #23370 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      @ Robin or Fred, or anyone else

      Does anyone know if the state of Michigan has a certain time frame they half to obeyed by to get the changes done? I realize I will probably have to check-in come December ,but will I have to check-in come March 2018.

      I do know I will refuse to pay them their $50 extortion fee in March, and that they should be ordered to pay back the $250 dollars, they already extorted from me in my opinion anyway.

      Thanks

      • #23396 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        States are sovereign. The only timelines states have are those which they establish for themselves or those to which they have bound themselves in agreements with other states or by virtue of having ratified the Constitution (which places hardly any obligations upon the states regarding dates and times).

        Each state has divided (separated) branches of government which are co-equal. And each branch typically operates by its own set of rules and timelines. It is not uncommon to see legislatures (and even courts) attempt to dictate times and deadlines to other branches of government, and, depending upon the targeted action, such requirements may or may not be constitutional (for that state…and under that state’s own constitution).

        This case has returned to the lower court: a federal District court. A federal court has the authority to require the state to do this or that by such and such time. However, it’s not entirely unprecedented for a state to ignore or even rebuff a federal order ESPECIALLY when the federal court has no power to enforce its order. This is where the executive power of the federal government becomes exceptionally important. Federal judges can rule this or that as unconstitutional. But the judiciary has no power to enforce its own orders without the help of the president and the attorney general.

        Drawing from a historical perspective, let’s consider the Civil Rights movement. Without Eisenhower’s decision to nationalize Arkansas’ state guard in 1957, Orval Faubus would have successfully prevented black students from enrolling at Central High School in Little Rock. Likewise, and a few years later, without the Kennedy brothers deciding to face-off with Alabama Gov. George Wallace in 1963, the public school system would not have capitulated to desegregation.

        I apologize for the length of this answer. But I’m just trying to illustrate how important it is to have an administration that is ready to stand behind the federal judiciary when it comes to enforcing unpopular orders. It would not surprise me to see the Michigan Legislature, or its governor, to attempt to a version of this kind of “constitutional crisis” and put President Trump in the very uncomfortable position of having to enforce an extremely unpopular order. If that were to happen, I wouldn’t offer any wagers on how Trump will respond.

        In sum, yes, there will likely be some kind of deadline, but we have no idea what it will be at this point in time. But, even supposing there is one, there’s no compelling reason to believe that the state of Michigan will abide by it. I wish I could provide greater assurance, but I can’t. We will all have to wait and see how the thing unwinds. And there is likely to be more litigation in the effort to force the state’s compliance.

        • #23450 Reply
          Avatar
          Jim

          If states can simply refuse to obey Federal court decisions it seems to me there is little victory to be had in their decisions. If states don’t have to follow through, how is it good news when Federal courts rule against them? I don’t know know about our President, but I am fairly certain the current AG would never side with RSO’s. I am far removed from understanding the workings of government, but what you posted seems thoroughly discouraging. It seems that no matter what the courts rule, they have no way to enforce their rulings.

          • #23463 Reply
            Robin Vander Wall
            Robin Vander Wall
            Admin

            I wouldn’t be discouraged by it. The arc of justice still bends rightly. I gave examples from the Civil Rights era to illustrate what has already happened in the fairly recent past where states were unwilling to abide by federal court orders. That is certainly nothing new.

            Perhaps the most famous illustration of this tension between a court’s order and a president’s willingness to enforce it came during the “Cherokee Indian cases” of the 1830s, in particular, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), where Justice John Marshall angered President Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws allowing the seizure of Cherokee lands violated federal treaties. Jackson’s response to the Court’s opinion was “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Meaning, of course, that the president had no intention to do so.

            Our federal courts can generally expect lawful orders to be enforced. But ours is a politically volatile issue that allows–even invites– more grandstanding among the branches and between the federal courts and the states. This is the seminal civil rights struggle of our era, in my estimation. It will require long-term commitment and consistent, unwavering loyalty and support to see it to completion. It is not for the faint of heart or for those who are easily discouraged.

          • #23464 Reply
            Avatar
            Jim

            No “faint of heart” here, I just found some personal “heaviness” from your post. I have thought for many years we have a monumental hurdle before us in ever TRULY regaining any measure of restored liberties in this country. Certainly there have been small gains, but there remains a long road ahead. I suppose the fact that I was unaware states could simply disregard Federal court decisions is what hit me a bit hard. At my age I may not live to see any real relief, but I sure pray for those who will. Thanks for the response to my earlier post. And THANKS to NARSOL for all your efforts on our behalf!

          • #23502 Reply
            Avatar
            Stay outraged

            South Carolina is the WORST for doing this! They absolutely refused to honor SCOTUS gay marriage ruling. They were the last state to observe the Martin Luther King holiday, and I needn’t remind you it was ground zero for the outbreak of the Civil War.

            It’s a terrible state full of backwoods, ignorant and arrogant Bible thumping pseudo Christian politicos.

        • #23584 Reply
          Avatar
          Tim L

          I would like to add just a bit to this thread. Like Robin stated, historically these movements for civil change are accompanied by protests or demonstrations en masse. This is an important aspect of civil revolution sex offenders have yet to embrace. If the SORS are truly unconstitutional ( that one cannot stomach ) then en masse demonstration is a MUST for the group!

          The lack thereof, so far sends a message to the superior courts that registration is not unconstitutional, but merely uncomfortable for some.

          This is why I believe it will take more than just whining to the Feds\ courts will not be enough to take down the databases. Simply put an angry mob is necessary to illicit prompt change.

          • #23620 Reply
            Avatar
            Jim

            An angry mob of protesting RSO’s would find zero support from the general public or the government. The prevailing attitude toward registered citizens today is what makes our battle all the more difficult.

          • #24062 Reply
            Avatar
            Maestro

            An angry mob of RSO’s, their relatives and (grown) children would make an impact.
            This can’t be just the RSO’s. It’s got to be EVERYONE in their lives that is effected by the registry.
            It has to be strategic also, meaning that we’d have to use GOOD examples such as “Romeo & Juliet” relationships, lying teenagers, lying ex-wives, lovers caught getting freaky on a beach.
            It cannot be allowed to be seen as a “pedophile” march.

        • #25868 Reply
          Avatar
          Joseph

          Just to get this out there I’m replying to Robin’s comment.
          In every petition (or complaint), there is a section at the end to state for the court the relief sought. It should be standard procedure to request the court to order that for each offender, the registry law that was in effect at the time of the commission of the offense will be the one to govern that offender.
          If that were so and Georgia’s sex offender registry law, O.C.G.A. 42-1-12 were to be successfully challenged as punitive and ex post facto, (my crime commit date is/was 4/29/03) I would benefit as follows:
          1.) I would have to be reclassified. I would no longer be a sexually dangerous predator since at the time I committed my offense, I would have to have committed a crime designated as a sexually violent offense AND demonstrate a depravity of mind or attitude that compels me to commit further sexual offenses.
          2.) The maximum penalty for failure to register would be 3 years in the state penitentiary and a $100,000 fine.
          3.) I would be off the registry, without having to do anything such as petition the court, in 10 years. And, the clock began running on the date that I was released from prison and placed on probation.

          Since I have completed my entire sentence and am not on any form of court supervision, and as such have standing to sue, I offer myself as a plaintiff for any civil action that any attorney would care to file on behalf of sex offenders in Georgia, or nationwide as in the case of the International Megan’s Law.

      • #23648 Reply
        Avatar
        Tim L

        @BIGGOV@BIGUNION.

    • #24100 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      @Robin or Fred,

      I just looked at my registration date, and they changed it BACK to the original date of 11-22-1995, but just a few day’s ago it had my conviction date of 6-19-1992. So they are starting to make the changes, I still say’s tier 3, and life time registry on it.

      They should be changing that back to l25 years and getting rid of the tier3 part as well, and it should registration ends in 2020 when I am 51. plus I shouldn’t have to register 4 times a year. or be on the public registry, if they go back to the original 1994 registry when it was only excusable to the police. I also should not have to pay that annual $50 fee they passed in 2013, but I will have to wait and see when they get done with the changes.

      Oh, and once I move back to 25 year registry, I should be able to petition for removal from the registry since the original 1994 registry let us, petition for removal after 10 years, but will see what happens I guess.

    • #25290 Reply
      Avatar
      Kenneth

      I have a very straight-forward question. I am on Michigan’s registry (Conviction in 2004. Jail time plus probation which ended successfully in 2009) I was originally given 25 yrs on the registry, which was extended to life in 2011.

      My question is this: Does the Sixth’s decision apply to me or, am I still bound by these changes because I was still ‘on paper’ when they were instituted. I guess what I’m asking here is, Which date is the pertinent one with regard to the Sixth’s decision, my conviction date of 2004 or my date of release from probation in 2009?

      I fully realize that the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly but, given my specific dates, does anyone think I might have a remote chance of getting my 25 yr. out date back?

      Thanks

      • #25338 Reply
        Avatar
        MikeD

        Kenneth I am in the same boat with the exception that my offense was much earlier…from what I have been told in a previous answer on this page is we “should” be going back to the 25 years. And yes Michigan’s gears will drag and take as along as they possibly can to fix this issue. Legislators are in no hurry to change anything.

    • #28046 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      Lets be clear I am NOT asking for a lawyer type opinion, just a regular person’s opinion, that may be in the same boat as me, or at least similar, just trying to get an idra on what Michigan might do with me after they rewrite the Michigan registry, so any opinions would be appreciate, and if this sounds similar to any questions I may have asked in the past I apologize in advance.

      Hello,

           I have been wondering about something, I know they said that the 2006 and 2011 Amendments can NOT be retroactively applied to me, but then there is the 2013 Amendment and the 2004 2002 and the 1999 and 1994 Amendments  I understand I was still on parole when  Megan’s Law was passed in 1994, and since I was OFF Parole in 1996, I was wondering shouldn’t the 1994 Amendment be the ONLY one that should/would apply to me?.  unless they remove me from the registry completely.  

        I was also curious since there was no registry laws in 1992 when I was convicted how could the legislature tell me I have to register, I mean is that not a violation of the CONTRACT/PLEA I took between me the my lawyer the prosecutor and judge?  or maybe even a violation of the supremacy clause, or the separation of powers 

          I’m just asking just trying to understand how this works, or how the final rewrite of the registry is going to effect me.  Thank you for your time.

    • #28581 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      I’m in Michigan, conviction 5/10/93 , 4th degree csc, misdemeanor… judgement of 30 days and probation…
      Now it is lifetime……if I or my case can help, feel free to contact me.

      • #28587 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Our Michigan Affiliate is always looking for people like you to testify. If you send us an email at the link on the bottom, we’ll put you in touch wirh him.

    • #28588 Reply
      Avatar
      Tom

      I was Sentenced in 2005 in Wisconsin. At the time if you looked me up on the registry it said I was off the registry in 2024. Then a few years later the law changed and I was then moved to Special Builtin status along with life time registry and life time GPS monitoring. I was in prison at that time. I was also in group therapy. When i was almost done I was informed of this change. The social workers and the therapist couldn’t understand the change and it took three days to figure out why. Again it was a law change that did this. Do I have a chance now to reverse this?

    • #28605 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      Hello everyone,

      This is for Robin or Fred, or anyone else really, just trying to figure out what Michigan is doing, as I stated back on October 14th, Michigan changed my conviction date back to 11-22-1995, it was my conviction date of 6-19-1992, and I checked it again yesterday and guess what they have now, changed it again, from 11-22-195 back to my conviction date of 6-19-1992. I am not sure what the heck they are doing, but this is getting ridiculous, I don’t even think Michigan has a clue on what they are attempting to do, I did talk with a guy from Michigan’s ACLU and he says they are dragging their feet, and are looking at a possible class action lawsuit. He also told me the a persons registration start date is actually your conviction date. I am not sure if that is ONLY for Michigan registrants, or applies to ALL registrants across the Country Just thought I would let everyone know what I was told. If anyone has any theories on why they keep changing my dates I would really appreciate your comments. Thank you

    • #28612 Reply
      Avatar
      Kenny Grabarczyk

      I have an idea that I ran by the NCRSOL office and would like someone to contact me at the National level to bounce the idea off of and maybe get more resources on. Four words….. The International Criminal Court.

    • #29178 Reply
      Avatar
      Brian

      I have a question for people from Michigan. In Pa there trying to pass a fix House Bill 1952
      To revert all pre SORNA registratants back to the old ML, this fix would work in my favor but won’t work in a lot of others favor, my question is, In Michigan did the general assembly attempt a fix like Pa is doing?

      • #29184 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Not that I am aware of. The last I heard, ACLU and Michigan Legislators are working to bring the law into compliance with the 6th’s ruling. That will be their fix. Nothing has changed for registrants in Michigan as of yet. The Supreme Court denied review on October 2nd, it will take some time for the changes to be ironed out and enacted.
        My opinion is that HB 1952 out of PA is just political grandstanding. It hasn’t passed yet and there are more hoops for it to go through before it could become a law. If the U.S. Supreme Court denies review of the Muniz case, then they will have to find their “fix”.
        The fact that they are trotting out this new bill while the petition to the Supreme Court is pending, leads me to believe that they believe they will lose that case. If they thought they would win, why not just sit back and wait, then resume the law they had been using. And if they believe they will lose, to me that is an indication that they know how unconstitutional their law is. So this HB1952 would just be posturing for the voters.

    • #29235 Reply
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Fred Keymaster
      That makes perfect sense , they know their going to loose so why not the old college try. I wander if any other states have atempted anything like HB 1952 in defending their screwups of unconstitutionality or is Pa the only one so far?

      • #29254 Reply
        Avatar
        Bobby

        @Brian

        I am from Michigan and I have been checking the registry every day, to see if there is any changes even slight ones, and so far the ONLY changes I have noticed is the registration start dates.

        Just to be clear what I mean is my registration state date use to be 11-22-1995, and now it says 6-19-1992 which is the date I was convicted, and they have changed that back and worth already twice.

        I just checked again, and it still has my conviction date of 6-19-199y 2, and in my case, that is good for me since I was suppose to register for 25 years, and at the moment I have 25 years and six months in right now, which would mean I would be removed, or since there was no registry in Michigan in 1992 I could be removed automatically according to Ms Aukerman from the ACLU, but she also said we will have to wait and see what develops, but to be patient ,because they are working hard on getting the changes made, like the 6th circuit ordered.

    • #29294 Reply
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Boddy
      I was a 10 year in pa and suposed to be done in 2013, then as we know the AWA was put into law in pa I don’t know when they brought Michigan up to date with SORNA but we got screwed 12/20/2012 a whole year before I was suposed to come off. Now with HB 1952 fix they are calling it me and a couple hundred will come off, people that have punishment well past 2012 are going to have some problems, I don’t see this bill lasting very long if it even comes off the floor which some think it wont and others are thinking it will pass. Once they deny cert and Muniz is 100% law I’m sure people will challenge SB 1952 and it’s not going to stand in pa courts under many constitutional grounds. The day I saw that Michigan won was an awesome feeling even though I don’t live there it gave me lots of hope, I hope you guys get off soon.

    • #29372 Reply
      Fred
      Fred
      Admin

      The following message is from NARSOL’s affiliate who is working with ACLU and Michigan’s legislators.
      *******
      “The Sixth Circuit, in Does v. Snyder, already made clear that the 2006 and 2011 amendments to SORA cannot be applied retroactively. The same organizations that brought the Does case (the ACLU and University of Michigan Clinical Law Program), along with a private law firm, are developing a class action to ensure that all eligible Michigan registrants get the benefits of the Does decision. In addition, legislative discussions are underway to rewrite SORA. If individuals file their own actions, it could complicate the efforts of the Does attorneys to get relief for everyone. We discourage individual filings. Instead, we encourage you to contact Tim the ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist at intern@aclumich.org if you are interested in being considered as a plaintiff in the class action case or are willing to help with efforts to get the law changed. Please provide all of your contact information and a short summary of your conviction information.”
      ********

      • #29521 Reply
        Avatar
        Bobby

        @ Fred

        Thank you for posting this, I went in on the 4th to register, and usually I get along ns. with the cops in my town, but this time they were asking all kinds I question. I informed Officer Walton that he is NO LONGER allowed to enforce the 2006 and 2011 amendments, then asked me what is your e-mail address and if I own a car and so on, I informed him again he can’t enforce those amendments any longer and looked at me and said I can do what I want, because I have not received anything telling me different. I told him about the 6th ruling and that SCOTUS denied Michigan’s stay, but he just played dumb, since cops are dumb and ignorant to what is going on.

        Then before I left he said don’t for get to bring my $50 fee when I come back in March, and I said I don’t think so, because if the Legislature does what it is suppose to and get off their ass’s and revamp the registry like they are suppose to I will be off the registry.

        So anyway I have spoke to Ms Aukerman and Juan C. can’t remember how to spell his last name, but neither one can give me a straight answer. So maybe you can if they are not suppose to be enforcing these Amendments then why am I still a tier 3? they did change my my registrantion start date from 11-22-1995 to my conviction date of 6-19-1992, which b=means I have my original 25 years in now.

        Do you know if the 2013 amendment requiring us to pay a $50 fee every year still applies or is that also unconstitutional? I can’t seem to get an answer from the MI. ACLU on that yet. Do you have any idea’s pr thoughts on that that I/we might not have heard yet on that topic. Thank you.

    • #30349 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      Specifically, just what rules apply to Michigan SORA persons? Why has the State of Michigan not corrected data on SORA sites? How does a person now protected by the 6th Circuit ruling become correctly registered? The Michigan SORA people as well as the MSP refuse to comply with this Ruling, and only threaten us, and refuse to reply. Just what do individuals effected by this ruling in their favor do? The frequent in-person registration does not apply, neither do many other requirements, including tier ratings. None will tell these germane “how-to” things to us. Even the ACLU has no information available! WHAT! Did they just do the lawsuit with no consideration as to the outcome??

      • #30351 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        @Alan,
        NARSOL’s affiliate in Michigan and ACLU are hard at work with Michigan legislators to bring the sex offender laws into compliance with the 6th Circuit’s ruling. We are being told to expect the changes to be finalized sometime in 2018. We were also informed that if they feel Michigan legislators are not cooperating, they will get a court order to force them to cooperate. The word right now is that everyone involved is working to get the matter resolved in a timely fashion.

        I know it seems like it has been a really long time, but keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court denied Michigan’s request for review on October 2nd, less than three months ago. Nothing happens instantly in the government, but I assure you the matter is being worked on, and when the changes are ironed out and enacted, you will likely receive a letter in the mail explaining how they will affect you.

    • #30353 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      Thank you for the swift reply.
      I am, and have been for over 30 years a T-7 Paraplegic (paralyzed from the chest on down). We have 6″ of snow, I live alone and cannot shovel. So whereas Michigan’s “laws” are illegal, I both will not and cannot do this month’s in-person appearance, even though the State Police Post is less than 1 mile away. I hope the promised “fix” will include all severe and permanent disability realities, both under the current ruling and for those not covered by it, as Michigan laws seldom take physical disabilities into account. I will also not pay 2018’s SORA fee. I will change all my internet accounts and e-mail accounts so that Michigan has no record of them. I fear that any new “fix” to the SORA will not delete completely these recorded accounts. If Michigan tries to punish me for my disability and its unwillingness to conform its laws and rules to them, we will see a new Federal challenge to SORA based on disability realities. It is a recorded medical fact that in my case that getting out in these weather condition poses a threat to my safety and health. And I can prove by case law that requiring me to put my health and life in danger is deliberate indifference to a known medical fact/need, whereas Michigan has no other way for me to comply independently under current law, i.e., them coming to my home…

      • #30357 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        @Alan,
        It does sound like you are in a very complicated position. I know that the law has not changed yet, so the same reporting requirements are currently still in place and can be enforced.

        I think it would be a good idea to contact Tim at intern@aclumich.org and explain your situation as far as not being able to physically get to the state police to verify. I know that he will tell you to stay in compliance as far as everything else is concerned, but he might be aware of something that can be done about reporting in person. I think he might be interested in addressing the extra difficulties of staying compliant when severely physically disabled.

    • #30737 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      I know this is probably a long shot, but has anyone know or heard of any new updates or news concerning Does v Snyder in Michigan. I e-mailed Ms Aukerman but I guess she will be out of the office till the 10th.

      I also e-mailed the intern, but have not heard back from him as of yet I did hear something to do with in should be rewritten some time this year, but when very soon or by the end of this year.

      The only changes I have noticed are the registration start dates, mine has changed 3 times from 11-22-1995 to 6-19-1992 as some of you already know mine still says my conviction date of 6-19-1992 which also means I already have my 25 years in plus 7 months, though Michigan had NO registry in 1992.

      So if anyone has heard of any knew updates or news on Does v Snyder I would appreciate anything you can tell me. Thank You.

      • #30740 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        When there is news to report, that “intern” is the one who will be passing the news to us. As soon as he does, we will post it here on this website for all to read. He is not an intern, that is just the email address ACLU assigned to him. He is very active in fighting for Michigan registrants and very busy. I suggest we let him do his job and be patient. He will report the results as soon as he has them. It is only January 2nd.

    • #30921 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      Hello Everyone,
      This is for people living in Michigan, I was wondering if anyone else received an e-mail today from Michigan’s ACLU regarding a Class Action Lawsuit and a questionnaire to find people to join the Class Action.

      I guess from what I can gather they (ACLU) are doing this to make Michigan get off their ass and start making the necessary changes to Michigan’s Registry. The e-mail states that they have to have it by 1-6-2018, I still have the e-mail so if anyone is interested and does not have the e-mail I can post it here if it is allowed.

      please just let me Thank you.

      • #30942 Reply
        Avatar
        TODD

        Hi Bobby please send info , i am in michigan as well, was also sentenced to 1 to 3 1/2 years in 1993 now 25 years later here we are. Thank You. Like the email and be part of it as well.

        Thanks !

        • #30963 Reply
          Avatar
          Bobby

          @ Todd

          Hopefully the Moderator allows this e-mail I was sent today, it also has the link to the questionnaire

          To Whom It May Concern,

          You are receiving this email because your previously contacted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan regarding your or a loved one’s status on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. As many of you undoubtedly know, the Sixth Circuit found several key provisions of the Michigan Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA) unconstitutional and the Supreme Court subsequently declined to review the case. While these were positive developments there are many issues that remain unresolved. As you may already know, various law enforcement entities around the state have continued to dispute the effects of the Does v. Snyder on their continued enforcement of SORA. For this reason, the ACLU of Michigan is currently developing a class action lawsuit challenging the state’s continued enforcement of SORA against various classes of registrants and is planning on filing this new lawsuit in early 2018.

          To this end, we are reaching out to everyone who has contacted us to collect additional information about potential petitioners who can represent the interests of all registrants who would be affected by a class action lawsuit. If you wish to be considered as a class representative, we ask that you to take a few minutes to fill out the questionnaire below by January 6, 2018:

          https://goo.gl/forms/CAcnIy50NTVxqHWi2

          Please be as thorough and detailed as possible when answering all the questions. Once we have collected everyone’s responses, we will review the questionnaires and contact potential certain individuals about serving as class representatives; in deciding who to select as class representatives, we must consider a variety of factors to determine who can best serve as in this capacity. Please be advised that if we do not contact you about serving as a class representative this does not mean that you will not be affected by the litigation. We have been contacted by nearly 100 registrants seeking assistance and will not be able to have everyone serve as a representative of the larger classes.

          Thank you,

          Juan P. Caballero
          Pronouns: he, him, his

          Legal Fellow
          American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
          1514 Wealthy St., suite 242, Grand Rapids, MI 49506
          (Offices in Detroit, Grand Rapids and Lansing)

    • #31015 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      I filed the form found at: https://goo.gl/forms/CAcnIy50NTVxqHWi2, and will call: Juan P. Caballero,
      Legal Fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan – 1514 Wealthy St., Suite 242, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 (Offices in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Lansing) on Monday during their phone hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., but I was unable to reach: “Tim” at: intern@aclumich.org
      I feel strongly that continuing to register under current “law” here in Michigan is just giving the State tacit authorization to continue to violate my Federal Civil Rights under DOES -v- Snider, And under the Patriot Act which covers the Hate Crimes Act which covers me as a permanently and severely disabled person under the American’s with Disabilities Act and the State of Michigan’s Disability Act., etc.
      Further, whereas I have 30 years of uncontroverted medical records from Michigan State University and various other medical experts (as well as from the State of Michigan from 1996 to 2007) as to my disability needs proving by Federal Judge Arthur J. Tarnow in Detroit that the State cannot Constitutionally “house” me under the 8th Amendment, (see also Perrish -v- Johnson) (see also the harsh and strong words by State Judge Peter D. Houk AGAINGST the State of Michigan in my case) I do not fear Snider and his cronies like Bill Schuette, et. al at this time, or ever! As to local “authorities”, I doubt they will get involved with trying to enforce “laws” which are now unlawful/unconstitutional.

      • #31019 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Tim has expressed that he is has been very busy. He probably can’t answer all the emails he gets, which is probably why they decided to create that form instead. We received the following message from Tim today.
        ” The lawyers are asking for more information as we get down to picking people for the class action lawsuit. Please make sure that anyone uses the attached page and fills it out as accurately as possible.
        we are working hard for changes in Michigan and if all goes well I think we will see some good changes before the end of this year. (2018) “

        • #31027 Reply
          Avatar
          Bobby

          @Fred

          Thank you for posting this, but to me this is just everyone dragging their feet in my opinion, WE WON what is the big deal, WE as the Registrants should NOT have to register since it has already been ordered that parts of the registry mainly 2006 and 2011 amendments were deemed unconstitutional. I get we need to be patient and let the ACLU do their job, and they are doing a great job don’t get me wrong.

          It’s just if you have been on this stupid thing as long as I have, then you find out it’s been found to be unconstitutional and that you (I) should of never been placed on it to begin with because the registry did not exist in 1992 starts to get a little frustrating.

          I don’t think any of us who were retroactively put on this ,or anyone who has been on it before the 2006 and 2011 amendments should be forced to keep registering, since many of us were ONLY suppose to register for 25 years , or NOT be put on it at all, in my case when they put me back to 25 years and if they keep my registration start date were it is right now, I will have my 25 years in plus 7 months the way it stands now.

          So waiting till almost the end of 2018 is NOT fair to us, who have been waiting for so long, Michigan lost, but yet we are still being forced to comply with something we should not have to comply with anymore.

          Don’t mean to be a pain, but you have to understand were I am coming from, and what about the 2013 amendment I refuse to give Michigan another $50 bucks in March. Thank you for letting me vent my disappointment.

          • #31056 Reply
            Avatar
            Dr.

            Amen, I agree with you and support this position.

    • #31023 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      I have personally been fighting tirelessly since 1978 (Michigan’s Barrier-free Design Board laws were first enacted IN 1968) when I got the city of Grand Ledge, MI to put up its first Handicapper parking sign, 9 years before I became disabled. Chernobyl, Russia still is more handicapper accessible than anywhere in Michigan! Just a few short blocks from Michigan’s Capital Building the Sparrow Hospital is still REFUSING to have even 1 (one) handicapper parking spot for its Emergency Room patients!! Why in Hell won’t Snider or Schuette get off their ass and walk there to enforce Michigan’s laws!! Let alone one Handicapper spot for a UNITED STATES CITIZEN like myself who need the specially wide one for a full-sized van with a side-discharge lift!

      Ladies and gentlemen of Michigan, I have no confidence that Michigan will ever abide by the Constitution of the USA or of Michigan, let alone the DOES -v- Snider ruling!

    • #31054 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      If expost facto is in play, what does my informantion have to do with the government resetting the sor to pre-sor law , I thought the violations of the constitution would be biggest lawsuit.

      • #31061 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        If you mean the information they are asking for in that form, they are looking for people who would be affected in The Does v. Snyder ruling. They may call on people to testify and need to make sure these people meet the criteria for this particular ruling.

        • #31075 Reply
          Avatar
          Dr.

          Ok thank you.

        • #31065 Reply
          Avatar
          Dr.

          Ok thank you, is there any movement on the ex post facto clause going back to 1993 removing everything that wasn’t in the original judgment?

          • #31079 Reply
            Fred
            Fred
            Admin

            I believe that is what this ruling is about. If you are a Michigan registrant and you were sentenced prior the 2006 and the 2011 amendments to the SORA law, and then had your registering period extended and the restrictions increased, then you are among the people that ACLU’s Lawyers would like to hear form.

          • #31233 Reply
            Avatar
            Dr.

            I was under the impression they would have to work with the list the state is using,
            That would have all the information and the correct dates.

    • #31072 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      During the Fall last year, a group of organized volunteers – among them the most famous former sheriff in Michigan, from Ingham County, MI, Gene Wriggelsworth, longest-serving Ingham County sheriff was among them.
      These people constructed the needed modifications to my porch so that I could use it and enter my home with my wheelchair. This organization is called “Tuesday’s Toolmen” and they receive Federal and State funding to provide their services. They also assisted me at my previous home with deck, ramp and railing needs. The Sherrif arrived about an hour before the others and we had a most pleasant chat. They all treated me well despite my being a SORA registrant since 1996.
      My point is that not everyone treats SORA persons badly. I felt that in light of my personal frustrations and previous posts in being a permanently and severely disabled SORA registrant, that positive comments are also needed, even if they are far and few occurring.
      I appreciate all that NARSOL and other organizations are doing, and I thank you.

      • #31080 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        I agree Alan. Thank you for sharing.

    • #31083 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      @ Fred or Robin or any one else,

      I don’t mean to keep sounding like a broken record, but could some one please clarify something for me that knows and understands what is going on thank you in advance.

      Ok, as everyone knows by now, my conviction was back on 6-19-1992, I got out on my dad’s birthday 12-15-1994 , and off parole 11-22-1996. Now I am not sure when Magen’s law went in to effect exactly, except that it went into effect in 1994 not sure of the month, and yes I was still on parole, I was placed on the registry for 25 years on 11-22-1995 and as we all know that was changed to LIFE.

      When the ACLU first started fighting this I believe it was in 2012, I was asked to fill out a questionnaire, but I did not qualify for what they were looking for, so when I got the e-mail the other day that I shared here with the questionnaire on it, I was not I haven’t filled it out yet, because I don’t know if I would qualify this time as well.

      So to Fred or Robin. or who ever, is my situation the type of situation they are looking for this time around? I think today was/is the dead line to turn it in though, the other problem is if I was picked what is required of me, because I don’t have a car to travel to places or to court hearings at least not a car that is reliable anyway, just trying to find out if it would be worth filling out, because my case and situation is what they might be looking for, since mine is before everything went down.

      So any advise or explanation on this would be greatly appreciated, from some one who understands what is going on with all this stuff concerning the Does v Snyder decision. Thank you again everyone.

      • #31392 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        You should fill out the form. If you fit the criteria they are looking for, I am sure they will waive the deadline, as long as you fill it out soon, before they submit the papers. I think you do fit the criteria.

    • #31151 Reply
      Avatar
      UnkownforREasons

      i had a question regarding my charge. i was charged as a juvinile back in 2005 when i was 13. my victim was under 13 but there was no penetration at all or force of any nature. im a tier 3 just for the fact she was under 13 and on the register for life. i have a girlfriend of 4 years and a 3 year old beautiful girl and i have not once got into any legal trouble since i was 18. i really hope i have a case to either get off and live a peaceful life and not worry about prison for these stupid laws. i was wondering what changes might i expect and if i could somehow get a lawyer to look at my case. thank you.

    • #31375 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Thank you for the update.
      I get nervous when I hear the words “l believe “ and “change to my registration “ because with my conviction on 5-10-1993 , prior to Sora , I hoped that ex post facto would force removal of pre 1994 registrants….
      I am considering an attorney, can you lay out the pros and cons of a class action suit vs an independent suit.
      I don’t have enough cash to support both,but I would like more information before making an informed decision.

      • #31388 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        I am not sure who you are thanking, but I will say “I believe” because I am not an attorney, and everyone should understand that my opinions are my own.

        Tim who is working with ACLU has asked that people not start their own lawsuits. Doing that will likely just slow things down, because then the government will want to wait and see what happens in your case.

        Does v Snyder IS addressing your situation. Anyone convicted before 2006 and 2011 amendments will likely see some relief when they get this sorted out.

        I get nervous when people talk about filing their own suits. These kind of changes don’t happen over night. Please people, calm down and be patient. Let ACLU do their job. If you want to help them, fill out their form. Dr. you sound like the person they want to work with.  You should fill out the form.  I am sure the deadline will be waived if you fit the criteria

        If you still want to file your own lawsuit, please at least contact Tim or the ACLU attorney, so they can better explain why it’s a bad idea to file a new lawsuit on the same grounds that have already been ruled on. You could risk having the original ruling reversed, or even just a district court judge could rule differently than Robert Cleland ruled in 2015. If that happen, Michigan state legislators could drop all further discussions with ACLU until further notice.

        • #31398 Reply
          Avatar
          Dr.

          Thanks Fred,
          I have posted my case on here. I don’t know that I have been contacted as of yet. If my case can help you are free to contact me and I will wait for a while to pursue a personal attorney.

          Thank you again….
          dr.

          • #31401 Reply
            Fred
            Fred
            Admin

            If you mean you posted your case on the form ACLU asked you to fill out, and they think you fit the criteria they are looking for and have not already selected everyone they need, I am sure they will be in touch with you eventually.  NARSOL is not ACLU or ACLU’s attorneys.

          • #31501 Reply
            Avatar
            Dr.

            Thanks Fred,
            Yes, I filled out the ACLU form. I will wait,,thanks again.

          • #31503 Reply
            Fred
            Fred
            Admin

            Thank you for stepping up and offering to be a voice in this fight. That takes courage and dedication.

    • #31438 Reply
      Avatar
      Brian

      One would think that they passed these laws over night that they should get the led out and get this sht moving, but I know it’s not going to be like that, I can see the same thing will happen in pa if SCOTUS denies cert. I may have asked this before but did the Michigan general assembly attempt a fix like pa is going through right now? Is so how did it work out?

    • #31560 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      I do not understand why Snider and his cronies did not have things prepared just after they lost in the 6th Circuit, and “just in case” they lost at the U.S. Supreme Court. Any responsible business, any intelligent individual, and surely any Government would have been prepared INSTEAD of what Michigan did-which was NOTHING. To make citizens “wait” is irresponsible and negligent and unconstitutional by case law definition. It was not an intelligent choice to do nothing at all. There IS legal recourse in the Federal Courts to obtain an immediate Court date and expedited ruling to force Michigan to immediately comply with Does-v-Snider, JUST WHY is this not being done?

      Every responsible Michigan department and employee involved in this ILLEGAL & UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT is refusing to speak with me on this or to answer this simple question.

      • #31653 Reply
        Avatar
        Dr.

        I agree with you that this is dragging on and on.
        What part of the constitution don’t they understand I thought they took an oath to uphold the constitution……
        From enemies foreign and within….
        There is so much wrong with this sora from a constitutional standpoint that the government is going to go broke from litagation ,,,,,, add this to the water problems of flint and the only ones profiting are the lawyers ……and the politicians overseeing this mess.

    • #32751 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      Now the Michigan legislature and Attorney General with the Governor are busying themselves investigating MSU as to what rules and laws they may have broken as regards alleged complaints made in re: Nassar.

      It seems to me, that these Government “officials” could be better spending their time resolving their own rule, law and Constitutional (U.S. and Michigan) violations as determined by the 6th Cir. Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court in Does-v-Snider. This is clearly the “pot calling the kettle black”!

      The investigation by the U.S. government and others will suffice to resolve any wrong-doing by MSU, the Michigan Government and it’s “officials” who operate under mandate of Constitutional Rules of Law should have resolved the stark differences in the now unconstitutional SORA laws and the ruling in Does-v-Snider long ago, YET they busy themselves with repetitive and unnecessary things of no real consequence.

      Why does the ACLU and others not sue for immediate Legislation to correct SORA??

      Why does the Michigan Attorney General and/or the Governor not appoint a Special Prosecutor or Investigation into their own crimes of not updating SORA to comply with “the law of the land”??

      • #32992 Reply
        Avatar
        Dr.

        We need to call the news media outlets and have an inquiry about this

    • #33367 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      In response to “Dr.”:
      I have contacted local Michigan media outlets as well as National ones.

      The response I get is simplistic, that although in Michigan the SORA facts and data effect a significant portion of our State’s population (registrants, their family and friends), this topic as relevant as it is even in the news outlets’ opinion is UNPOPULAR and despised. It is a point of contention supported as not newsworthy by media owners and a powerful and vocal small portion of our population, and the rights of SORA effected persons are deemed not newsworthy — unless news items are to harm us by untrue facts and Unconstitutional laws. Further, I was informed that our Governor, Attorney General, and State Legislature do not support such news items as they all fear public ridicule for supporting Constitutional laws such as Does -v- Snider and any legislation which is seen as fewer protections for non-SORA registrants.

      I was repeatedly informed our rights are unimportant and unpopular in news stories, and that if an article were to appear it would be terse and buried in the print media. Also, I was told that as news media outlets were privately owned and for-profit that such articles would hurt the media’s bottom line.

      I was informed that to have articles written and published in prominent places in print, that we need a substantial organization to have support from registrants, their family members, and friends — to lobby our small-town and state media to publish our concerns and right violations siting recognized authorities in support of the facts. That my doing so was not sufficient to qualify.

      So, who or what organization do we hire, how do we? There seems to be no such place in existence. We MUST become organized as a group to be heard.

    • #34431 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      Today I was contacted by Adrian Vallens from the Michigan Law School legal clinic (with the ACLU) to set up an extensive interview with me regarding a Class Action lawsuit to expand the coverage in Does -v- Snider.
      Michigan is still not updating its SORA rules and laws to conform to the Federal Rulings in applying the expostfacto law to all of us citizens.
      In my opinion, Michigan seems to want to secede from the Union, and disobey the applicable Federal Constitutional laws everywhere it can.
      However, if even one American/Michigan Citizen refuses to immediately obey even one law of Michigan, there are numerous State and County Prosecutors to swear out warrants for arrest and imprisonment pending trial!
      So why, I continue to ask, are they not doing so for Snider, Schuette, and all of Michigan’s legislators for not obeying the laws, of which Court Rulings are among?
      When I called to ask this to Snider’s and Schuette’s offices, and to the Michigan legislature (my Congresspersons and Senators) I was told they do not have to obey State or Federal Laws or U.S. Court rulings as elected officials and they are not empowered under separation of powers acts and legislative rules to investigate each other nor to have one another arrested, for any crime.
      Yet, a terse reading of Michigan’s Constitution says these elected employees, public servants, MUST ALL obey the laws and court rulings, and they are able to investigate each other and they are able to present to prosecutors facts to have each other arrested and tried for these acts.
      When will the cruel, overreaching and assinine SORA rules be rewritten to conform to both current Court Rulings and commonsense? There are numerous studies by recognized and competent individuals and groups proving these laws do not work nor serve any practical use. How many more lives will they impede upon and destroy? How many more families will be torn apart? How much more physical harm and PTSD will be compounded upon us? When will we be able to sue for monetary damages for what we have suffered and continue to suffer both mentally and physically?
      The existence of the SORA laws only continues to fuel public ignorance and unfounded fear, to accelerate prejudice and hate and harassment and discrimination. These are very things which fill our newspapers and evening news reports daily, which are politically incorrect when applied to all other genre today. When will ALL LIVES MATTER?

    • #34491 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      I live in Michigan, what is our next move?
      I don’t want to complain about what the state is or isn’t doing. I want to know what our next move is….
      Thanks for this website and a place to get information. Dr.

    • #34500 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Has anyone talked to Andrea Bitely lately ?

    • #35646 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      I have some guilt using this website because I simply do not have the money to support NARSOL. On July 23, 1987, I was in a motor vehicle accident leaving me permanently disabled, paralyzed from the mid-chest on down, I use wheelchairs and need specialized medical equipment for all my daily needs, plus specialized housing modifications and a handicapper van with a wheelchair lift, a special driver’s seat and hand controls. Plus help in my home.
      My convicted offense was in late 1996, I spent 11 years in a proven non-handicapper Michigan prison system which despite numerous 8th Amendment lawsuits in State Courts and Federal courts never did meet my protected medical rights. I was prohibited from attending Michigan’s mandated so-called sex-offender rehabilitation class.
      Upon my release from prison, I was granted a modified probation period where I was required to attend sex-offender classes many miles from my home, which required my father in his 80’s to drive me there in his car (as I did not have another van yet), and those classes did nothing to further anyone’s rehabilitation as we mostly discussed the director’s car problems and political issues unrelated to the class’ proposed purpose.
      It took 10 years to find a home for me to reside in due to the Federal and State laws which left me ineligible for group homes, retirement centers and all subsidized housing, and the laws forbidding living near daycares, schools, etc. Then there were the burdens of finding a home which could be remodeled for my medical needs. I had to settle for a mobile home which is in an upscale park and 98 percent of my neighbors are elderly.
      The State and Federal laws make no exceptions for disability needs in housing, in fact, they trump all Disability laws!
      Further, I am prohibited from all leisure activities, including but not limited to: Attending church activities, community park activities, school activities, camping, boating, festivals, bazaars, social media participation, which leaves me sitting in my wheelchair in my home watching TV.
      While I fully comprehend and sympathize with everyone else’s SORA limitations, I am further burdened with limitations due to my disability and by not having the ADA (American’s With Disabilities Act) apply to me in over 90 percent of my life due to the SORA laws.
      Churches claim they cannot allow SO participation due to the presence of children. I was denied a State Park permit for camping and other activities held therein. The cities of Lansing, Grand Ledge, Charlotte, etc., and Ingham and Eaton Counties bar park admittance which includes all special events although participation does not qualify as “loitering”. County fairs are held on grounds which met “park” qualifications; boat launches are often in “park” areas. Even trails and river walks which I could otherwise roll on in my various wheelchairs are not open for me!
      Even the recent flooding around the State which have created State, local and Red Cross resource and housing for flood victims prohibit sex-offenders. All natural disasters result in severe hardships with no exceptions for those who are poor need them. So unless you are wealthy and can afford private lake or other outing opportunities, all free public choices are off-limits. I have far fewer choices in activities compared to able-bodied sex-offenders.
      These things and more are included in the retroactive application of SORA laws here in Michigan, besides all of the overwhelming statistical support which prove SORA laws provide no real protection to society at large, and which do harm registrants, their families, and friends. As applied to me specifically, they result in my becoming a shut-in, cause PTSD, and severe depression, to say nothing of the stigma attached to having my name, address, and photo plastered all over the internet. These injuries cost the US citizens great amounts of money to “treat” me, with no real relief /resolve to me.
      I have seen NO actions being taken or discussions to relieve my sufferings. Even current legislative actions will not address the real conflict between SORA laws (and any changes to them given the ex-post-facto rulings) and the disability laws here in America.

    • #35710 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      Here is some of what I believe should be part of the upcoming ACLU lawsuit regarding the Does-v-Snider ruling (and included in any subsequent legislation):

      As concerns Disabled Persons on the registry – If a person that is permanently or temporarily disabled, or medically compromised, does not have the ability to register, (including weather conditions) whether in-person at a law enforcement agency or online, law enforcement should go to the individual to register them. Law enforcement, the registrant, or the registrant’s legal representative should have the ability to petition the court to discontinue registration for individuals that are disabled. This includes persons with learning or physical disabilities (including, but not limited to conditions such as autism, cognitive impairment, cancer, Alzheimer/dementia, debilitating illness, severe injury, etc.).

      In addition to my severe and permanent physical disability, I am also plagued with other health conditions which exacerbate and make the burden of in-person registering impossible. While all other State Agencies recognize these medical facts and come to my home for required needs, the SORA laws and rules do not offer this easy and reasonable option. Further, I do not have anyone who can register for me via a Medical and Legal Power of Attorney.

    • #35910 Reply
      Avatar
      aurelius

      To put it simply, and do please forgive my bluntness, they simply don’t give a damn, and no one who has any power or sway is doing anything about it either. No offense intended against NARSOL or the ACLU, but it would take a federal injunction to truly light a fire under Michigan’s lax and corrupt government, see Snyder’s handling of the Flint water crisis if you have any doubts regarding that. Right now they’re treating the ruling was little more than a jester play, having only really affected those that brought the original suit against Snyder. I for one has a lot of hope, I was forced onto the registry in 2008, before the even more draconian policies were put into place, and being able to revert back to the policies prior would have brought me a lot of relief from it. My only suggestion to anyone in Michigan on the Big Brother Naughty List at this point is move while you still can.

      P.S. I know I shouldn’t complain about posting but I wish NARSOL wouldn’t use google captcha service, seeing as how they are pro-registry and anti-privacy/pro exploitation.

      • #35912 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Google Plus is one of the few social media platforms that doesn’t ban registrants.

        • #35954 Reply
          Avatar
          Dr.

          Thanks for clearing that up, so much fake news, uninformed opinions, and bias trolling,

      • #36054 Reply
        Avatar
        Dr.

        Aurelius,
        I’m confused, just where is someone from Michigan on the list supposed to move to?

    • #36045 Reply
      Avatar
      Lead Indeed

      One step forward, two steps back, as they say.

    • #36112 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      Whereas NARSOL has posted “consult an attorney” to many of our important SORS registry needs, which is contrary to its directives that we should not pursue legal actions for our ignored needs, and whereas the proposed upcoming ACLU lawsuit is to be narrowly construed, i.e. omitting handier issues, etc., one is only left with the option of filing a separate Federal lawsuit to obtain relief (which could be amended to the ACLU suit, or one can file an amicus brief to the ACLU’s suit). There is enough information out there to do so competently. It is only lawsuits filed in State or County courts which would complicate the existing Does-v-Snider ruling (by court rulings contrary to the Sixth Circuit ruling) and the ACLU’s upcoming lawsuit, so PLEASE do NOT file in lower courts!

      As to the comments by “aurelius”, it is precisely due to the fact that others “don’t give a damn” that so many registrants must file separate legal actions in FEDERAL courts to obtain Constitutional relief. Sadly, it is because of the unfounded fears brought about by politician and media sentiment that legislative efforts to modify SORA rules/laws will not come in time to effect desperately needed relief nor to be complete and sweeping enough to give relief enough to resolve many registrant needs/issues. Politicians simply fear public ridicule and opposition (and election complications) if they are perceived to be “soft” on sex-offenders and registry issues.

      As to the question posed by “Dr.”, there are numerous areas to live while on the registry as it currently exists, one need only to look in sparsely populated areas and consult City, County, and State law enforcement agencies to verify whether the area you choose is prohibited. I realize this process is time-consuming, but it is the only way to know if you can reside there, even if it poses a burden on you, your family and friends to choose an area far from them all. Many municipalities have maps posted on their websites showing prohibited areas. Probation officers as well as persons involved with one’s release from prison offer this residency information.

      And as to what “Lead Indeed” posted, “One step forward, two steps back, as they say.”, properly filed lawsuits in Federal Courts will not result in any backward steps.

    • #36598 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Sorry for the confusion, I wondered if arelius would share where we could move to that defended the constitution and individual rights, followed the high court rulings, and inforced the law ( ruling ).

    • #39953 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      Are there any updates on exactly where the Michigan government and others are on the so-called fix to this State’s illegal SORA laws?

      And are there any plans to include ADA content?

    • #41803 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      Does anyone know what is taking Michigan so long to fix the registry. I have heard that Michigan is now trying to claim, that the ruling only applies to the original 6 people, bit in reading everything I can find it says that the ruling applies to everyone who was sentenced before the 2006 and 2011 amendments were put into place. I also read since SCOTUS, denied Michigan’s review, and no modifications were made that it does in FACT mean the Doors v Snyder decision in FACT applies to ALL Registrants, that were convicted before 2006. So why does Michigan continue to drag it’s feet instead of fixing the registry, that they were ordered to revise.

    • #41856 Reply
      Avatar
      RickO

      I’m confused, so nothing for sure is being done? And they thought this change would be for everyone but now they think it is for only a few individuals? That is a pretty big misunderstanding,

      • #41866 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Michigan’s legislators are dragging their feet and trying to say the ruling only covers the six people named in the lawsuit. NARSOL’s affiliate and ACLU are taking them back to court to force them to comply with the ruling. This is a very typical and expected, especially during an election year. Notice the part in the article in the above link that says Michigan has filed more than three dozen lawsuits to avoid complying with the 6th Circuit’s ruling, and they have already lost most of those lawsuits. They are just running through all their available options, which will eventually be exhuasted.

    • #41870 Reply
      Avatar
      RickO

      Thanks for explaining that to me I appreciate it very much.

    • #41880 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      @Fred,. Thanks for the clarification, I did get one response back from s spokesperson, representing Senator Rick Jones, who claims it will supposedly be fixed by the end of the year. My question is this if SCOTUS pretty much agreed with the 6th circuit, by denying Michigan’s review, I thought Michigan was officially out of options, but yet they continue to drag their feet. Plus everything I have read articles or from the ACLU and the 6th circuit decision, it clearly says the 2006 and 2011 amendment s, can no longer be applied to people that were convicted before the 2006 and 2011 amendments were put into place.So how is Michigan still allowed to get away with this crap. I have even read were the Oakland and Wayne County Prosecutors are no longer prosecuting people for violating the registry, because of the 6th Circuit’s ruling. Have you also heard or read about this as well.

    • #41943 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      There is NO action being taken to bring Michigan into compliance with the law prior to quitting for the summer by our legislature. I hope individuals affected are allowed to do the same.

    • #42418 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      I am not entirely sure, specifically, just why SORA victims (defining “victim” as us who are unconstitutionally on any SORA list) (see, e.g. the 6th cir. Ct. of appeals ruling) are unable to use social media. Many so-called “offenders’ ” convictions had nothing to do with social media, and we registrants use various social media sites responsibly. These social media sites allow us to not only have a discourse about legal issues, and with elected officials and those running for elected positions, and keep apprised of their platforms, but also local news outlets, the businesses we frequent, and of course families and friends in ways we cannot otherwise do. Social media allows us the protected constitutional right of free speech in all forms. The unconstitutional act of barring us to use these forums stifles us, gags us and tries to keep us ignorant, and tries to keep our voices from being heard. This effectively keeps hundreds of thousands of us from participating in the political processes and many other parts of American life every day.

      I am severely and permanently disabled, a full-time user of wheelchairs, and am unable to go out to visit others. Social media is my only avenue to visit, correspond and have video calling to keep connected, and to help keep me mentally healthy.

      When will true Justice come?

    • #42430 Reply
      Avatar
      alan

      Why are there not movements and/or legislation being proposed to create Drug Offender/Dealer, and Murder Registry, etc. Acts equivalent to SORA ones in every State and at the Federal level?????

      Surely these types would help the WAR ON DRUGS fight, and protect far more people…

    • #42917 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      Hello,

      @Fred or @Robin,

      I finally heard back from a lady named Mrs Hernandez, from the Michigan ACLU, concerning Does v Snyder, and what is happening with the Class Action Lawsuit, and this was her response back to me.

      Just to let you know the complaint as a class action complaint was filed yesterday, Thursday, June 28, 2018 at approximately 3:45 pm.  We are hoping that with this it will resolve or help resolve a lot of issues that so many people across the state are in.  Please watch the news and our website for any further development on this case.

      So here is my question she could not answer, or just wouldn’t answer what court would they file the Class Action Lawsuit with, and how long do you thing it will take for a final decision on this, being that we have already won. I thought Michigan was out of options once SCOTUS denied review

      Any thoughts on this would be appreciated thank you.

    • #43247 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      According to the governor of Michigan and the Michigan Attorney General’s office, that UNLESS any lawsuit filed by the ACLU and others, under a Class Action filing CONTAINS EVERY INDIVIDUAL covered under DOE-V-SNYDER implications, once again ONLY the named persons in that lawsuit will see any relief.

      Pursuant to the Governor and Attorney General of Michigan, EACH AND EVERY individual will ONLY receive relief IF they ALSO file suit and win.

      If YOU do NOT also file, you will receive NO justice, because Michigan’s stand is that NO action will be taken at any government level to rewrite SORA.

      • #43253 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        You are getting legal advice from the Governor and attorney general, who are doing everything they can to be uncooperative with the 6th’s decision?

        Let’s see if I have this straight.  ACLU and the attorneys who are actually fighting for your human rights tell you one thing, and you ignore them. But when the governor and Attorney General offices who are fighting to keep you on the registry tell you another thing, you believe them?  Is that correct?

        • #43296 Reply
          Avatar
          Dr.

          Thanks Fred, nice job, this is a great place to get updated…
          I wonder how many more people can’t even have access to this forum,,,,,,
          Thanks again

          • #43308 Reply
            Fred
            Fred
            Admin

            Here is an update that just came in tonight from our Michigan affiliate.

            *******
            Message from ACLU: The ACLU of Michigan, University of Michigan Clinical Law Program and Oliver Law Group have filed an amended class action lawsuit in order to enforce the Does v. Snyder decision for other Michigan registrants. Because the state has not come into compliance with the Does decision, the class action is intended to ensure that all Michigan registrants get the benefit of the decisions in that case.
            ********

          • #43321 Reply
            Avatar
            Bobby

            @Fred

            Thanks Fred for posting that and Clarifying what I said in a earlier post when I spoke to Mrs Aukerman herself, and she said that the Class Action was filed on June 28th around 3:45pm.

            I also asked if this includes all of us on the registry and she said yes, even though the 6th Circuits ruling also includes everyone ,Michigan is playing stupid. So why Alan would listen to a bunch of idiots up in Lansing is a little baffling to me, especially during an election year.

            Mrs Aukerman says the arguments should begin in August, and we should have a decision in the fall, so if the Class Action isn’t granted for some reason, does that mean the rest of us are just out of luck. She also told me the Class Action was filed in the Eastern District Court, but I can not find anything on it.

            What kinda worried me is if Judge Cleland gets the Class Action, because he made rulings for us and against us before, but again we already won, according to the 6th Circuit and the review denial from SCOTUS, so I am sure one of those courts know by now that Michigan is not complying with the ruling, so why are they not stepping in to force them to comply with a ruling that was already decided upon almost a year ago. Thanks

          • #43398 Reply
            Avatar
            Bobby

            @Fred, Hello. I still can’t seem to find the Class Action Lawsuit against Michigan. I know Mrs Ackerman, told me thru email, that it was filed in the Eastern District Court, on June 28th at about 3:45pm. I have looked and can not find it any where, , do you know how long after they hear arguments in August, it will take for a final decision.? What happens if they don’t certify, is make to the drawing board for the rest of us, even though the 6th Circuit’s ruling CLEARLY applies to ALL Registrants in Michigan. It’s not word for word, but it does say that the 2006 and 2011 Amendments, can NOT be applied retroactively, to people who’s convictions were before the 2006 and 2011 amendments were put into place. I don’t think that could be stated any clearier. Any thoughts on whats going on, with Does v Snyder and your opinion on whether or not, we will win the Class Action Lawsuit so it will apply to All of us here in Michigan.

      • #43318 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        And yet another update as of today. I hope this one is clear to you Alan.

        *****************
        Michigan: Well we have filed the Class Action Lawsuit against the State of Michigan. This will hopefully bring relief to many more Michigan Registered Citizens who are on the State SOR. We are asking the Court to include all the people who were on the SOR before the 2011 changes to the SOR and the 2006 Home and Work School Safety zones to have their SOR apply as they did before the changes were made in 2011 and 2006. This may and should lead to most of those who are in the Tier system to go back to the system the way it was before the 2011 changes. This should in most cases make most who were on for 25 years and then went to lift time, most will go back to 25 years. Other changes will also take place. The Michigan Legislators have so far not made any changes to the SOR, so the court will we hope step in and force or make those changes as noted in the Doe V Snyder ruling. We would still like to work with the Legislators to make some long term changes that will help everyone on the SOR but no guarantees with that process. Please stay informed by following your local news outlet as to what is happening. At some point in the near term this will start being reported in the News outlets. Other than this issue we encourage Michigan’s Registered Citizens not to file their own lawsuits, this could harm your chances of these across the board changes applying to you if you were not to win your case. This has been the case for some Registered Citizens who have lost their own cases at lower courts and now have to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court at more cost and risk to them. It is true that some have also won their cases in the lower courts but in many of those the county they live in is appealing the case to higher courts.

    • #43359 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      I was not listening to State “officials”, rather than to the ACLU/U of M attornies. Specifically, I had contacted those whom are supposedly trying to help Michigan Sora registrants and was told the new lawsuit had some persons listed as those who would testify, potentially, regarding issues involving claims that affect the majority of issues raised in DOES-V-SNYDER.

      However, there is NO claim being raised to obtain relief for permanently and severely disabled persons on any amended registry, nor for a court ruling to modify SORA for disabled persons, not even to force compliance to the State “ADA”, nor the Federal ADA. Such as in-home registry, or online registry, having State Police, etc., officers coming to the home to register them, or means to obtain individual removal from SORA for those who have disabilities where in-person reporting posses an undue hardship (by existing court case definitions) or is impossible. While the State does now allow a person to have someone obtain an expensive Legal Durable Power of Attorney to register for him/her, I do not have anyone available to do so.

      Further, unless the present filing has both the proper heading of enclusion of all persons “covered” by DOES-V-SNYDER. and contains proper arguments in the filed lawsuit, the State can again wiggle out of portions of it.

      Also, unless this new lawsuit contains a section in the Relief portion for an IMMEDIATE Ruling and IMMEDIATE implementation of any judgment in our favor, this will drag on and on. Because the State can again appeal on up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      So given the absence of any inclusion for Disabled citizens in this new lawsuit, there will be no harm in filing an individual one in Federal Court.

      Lastly, will someone give me an online site to view the full new lawsuit? The ACLU declined to do so…what are they hiding?

      • #43361 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        ACLU isn’t “hiding” anything. They are just simply preoccupied with more important things and don’t have time to scrounge around the internet for links in an effort to satisfy one deranged individual who doesn’t believe anything they tell him anyway. You are perfectly capable of finding those documents yourself if they have been uploaded. ACLU doesn’t control what the state puts on their website.

        This is a fight against the sexual offense registry laws in Michigan. If you feel you are being discriminated against due to your disability, you have to take that type of case to a different organization. We are focused on the sex offender registry here.

        I see a lot of contradictions in this comment, compared to your earlier statement. I would advice you to calm down and be patient, and stop slinging mud at people who are working hard on your behalf. They don’t have to do that, and you are very lucky that they are, because nobody else will..

    • #43356 Reply
      Avatar
      Rick osterhout

      Thanks for the updates, as I check back frequently too see if anything new has come up.

    • #43362 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      I also specifically need to know, DID the ACLU/Uof M include a portion of this new lawsuit mandating the State eviscerate totally and permanently ALL illegally collected data on ALL SORA persons? And what about various so-called “public-spirited” and “protection groups” and other ones who obtained this harmful data and stored it??

      I am very much afraid this new lawsuit omits many parts on how the 2006 and 2011 amendments have caused us harm, and the residual forms of harm if they win a portion of relief in this suit.

    • #43367 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      I am far from any definition of being “deranged”. I was not “slinging mud” at anyone. I have personally spoken to the ACLU and to the UofM representatives involved in this lawsuit. I was specifically told that no portion is seeking relief regarding permanently and severely disabled persons for the relief I have specifically delineated in prior posts.

      The ACLU has its own websites, they could-in less than 5 minutes-post the lawsuit for viewing or downloading.

      NARSOL could do the same, post it.

      While I am opposed to personal degradation in these types of websites, which only detract and dilute issues, what you view in a hostile manner as “deranged”, may be only your lesser ability to decern my content and intent, and my superior experience in these types of legal matters. Not knowing what this lawsuit contains in specific legal language/terms as defined by lawsuit definition, does raise concern for those who are able to successfully navigate the Federal legal system.

      I am willing to match my medically diagnosed I.Q. to that of anyone at NARSOL, the ACLU, and the UofM involved in this lawsuit. I will further be willing to point out legal issues and discuss them and give them advice, given my extensive Federal Civil Disability Rights litigation expertise. One need only ask about me to Federal Judge Arthur J. Tarnow…EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
      231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 105
      Detroit, MI 48226

      • #43369 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        I am happy to hear that you are not slinging mud and that you are superior in intelligence.
        If you feel that ACLU should be posting all their filed cases on their website, you will need take that up with them. NARSOL already has plans in the making to do that on our foundation’s website, but at the moment we are kind of busy with advocacy, lobbying, legal challenges, outreach and answering questions.
        I would like to remind you that ACLU is a volunteer organization, much like NARSOL. For whatever reason, they decided to allocate a certain amount of their funds to fighting the sex offender registry laws in Michigan, and they actually achieved a very significant victory. Do you know how many of our state affiliates wish ACLU would get involved in our cause? Pretty much all of them do. As far as I know, Michigan ACLU is the only one that has had the courage to do so. I hope next time you speak of them, it will be to express appreciation instead of disdain for not consulting you and including your language before filing their lawsuit.
        I have no doubt that your disabilities are very real and I am sorry for your difficulties. Unfortunately there are 1000s of disabled people on the registry who are hoping for relief just like you. We are aware of them, ACLU is aware of them. Adding such language in this particular case that has already been won is not going to accomplish anything. That would be a challenge on a different set of grounds, this challenge was on Ex Post Facto.
        Finally if you would like to get involved why don’t you fill out our volunteer application and request to be involved with our state affiliate who is working with ACLU?

    • #43378 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      If someone isn’t supporting an organization,they have no right to demand answers or decide how to allocate the limited resources available……
      I support the path being taken as a first step, ex post facto will reset the sentence to what the judge you stood in front of sentenced you to.
      Which in my opinion sets the constitution back on course a little, then we have the task of enforcing the constitution……

    • #43376 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      To clarify, I am – AM – on the registry. I ALSO happen to be a citizen who ALSO has a 31-year permanent and severe disability of being fully and completely paralyzed from the mid-chest on down to my toes. I, thus, ALSO qualify for all forms of “accommodation” under Michigan’s disability laws and those of our Federal Government, like the ADA.

      To exclude these real needs affecting many disabled Michigan sex offender registrants is shameful and irresponsible, unconscionable, politically incorrect and harmful act.

      It is a proven fact, that Michigan’s SORA laws do not provide accommodation for we who are also disabled to comply with the “in person” registration requirement.

      AGAIN, to clarify, I am ALSO, as you put it, “…focused on the sex offender registry here.”.

      I encourage you to carefully reread my previous posts on this site, the Michigan DOES-v-SNYDER, Michigan SORA, sex offender site of NARSOL.

    • #43377 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      Requiring disabled persons to meet the “EX POT FACTO” requirements of the 2006 and 2011 amendments IS what I am raising in these posts, they are, to put it in layman’s terms, “hopelessly intertwined”.

      • #43382 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        I agree with your point. If they are not accommodating you, then they are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And I can see how they are failing to accommodate those with disabilities. I am just saying that is a different case on different grounds. Have you contacted an attorney who specializes in disability discrimination?

    • #43391 Reply
      Fred
      Fred
      Admin

      NARSOL in Action along with Registry Matters podcasts will be holding a nationwide conference call on Thursday, July 19, beginning at 6:00 pm eastern. Due to the recent news of the lawsuit filed in Michigan, we have expanded the agenda to include: (1) the ACLU’s class action lawsuit; and (2) the various monetary scams which have been making their way around the United States. We plan to remain live for three hours with the final hour to be an abbreviated session of Can They Do that?

      We will have an attorney from the ACLU of Michigan to discuss the class action lawsuit. Lori Hamilton from our Oklahoma affiliate along with other NARSOL affiliate leaders will be on to discuss the registry scams. We will take phone calls from those who have either been victims of the scammers or know the details of such attempts. Some have fallen victim and have paid as much as $2000.00 to scammers claiming to be law enforcement calling about non-existent warrants. While on air, you may remain anonymous if you wish.

      The goals of the program are: (1) to let our supporters know that crucial impact litigation is being filed around the country and find out more about it; (2) to provide potential victims of scammers with advice on how to assist us in identifying the culprits; and (3) to assist law enforcement in their apprehension.

      King Alexander, an attorney from Louisiana, will be with us during the final hour to take your questions for the Can They Do That? segment.

      Sign Up Instructions

      Although it is not mandatory, we ask that you sign up here https://secure.narsol.org/civicrm/?page=CiviCRM&q=civicrm/event/info&reset=1&id=325 so that we have an idea how many will be attending the call. The phone number is 641.715.3660, followed by 957605#. You may call in directly with a telephone or, if you have a speaker and microphone or a headset with a mic, you may access the call through your computer here https://www.freeconferencecallhd.com/dialer and follow the on-screen directions for inputting the number and the code.

      Live Stream Option

      We also are going to Live Stream the call on You Tube here https://www.youtube.com/c/NARSOL/live . There won’t be any video, just an audio stream, so you can try this if you’d rather not call in. You can access it through your computer or use your Roku or ChromeCast and have the call played over your TV.

      Disclaimer

      Keep in mind, responses provided on the program are merely intended to offer guidance and should not be construed as legal advice. We cannot cover the specifics of any individual’s situation sufficiently to know what the most prudent course of action is, so NARSOL advises all participants to consult with an attorney in their jurisdiction to determine whether there may be a viable cause of action.

    • #43722 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      Hello everyone, { UPDATE ON MICHIGAN’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT}

      Well I spoke to Mrs Aukerman last night thru email, about the Class Action Lawsuit, and to me it’s just more dragging of the feet in my opinion, whether it’s coming from the state of Michigan them self’s or the ACLU, or now even the Court. Then there is the fact that it is a election year, that they are now using as an excuse, BOGUS, excuse in my opinion. I mean we won what seems to be the problem, the 6th circuit’s opinion/decision is pretty cut and dry, ” The 2006 and 2011 amendments can not be made retroactive to people who’s convictions were before the 2006 and 2011 amendments were put into place. That’s pretty darn clear to me, it’s no wonder the people up in Lansing are idiots with low IQ’s.

      So anyway I spoke with her and this was her response concerning the Class Action Lawsuit

      We are posting information at aclumich.org/SORAinfo.  The pleadings are there.  The hearings have now been moved to October, so it may be winter before we get a decision.

      Here’s a thought, even though we won EVERYONE WON, NOT JUST THE ORIGINAL 6, What happens if the Court decides that it does NOT apply to ALL registrants, just the original 6.

      Also this is the same court were Judge Leland is, hopefully he doesn’t get the case, he ruled that ONLY parts were unconstitutional and the main issues were Constitutional, like the Tier crap, and forcing people to register for life. So any way it’s another waiting game a year later and nothing is being done, just more excuses. Anyone have any thought’s on this whole situation?

      PS, How do I watch/listen to the conference call from the other day concerning Michigan’s Class Action
      Lawsuit. I was not home at the time Thank you.

      • #43726 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        The conference call will be uploaded to our YouTube channel as soon as our Media Technician finishes editing it.

        • #43728 Reply
          Avatar
          Bobby

          @Fred,

          So what is your opinion on this whole Class Action thing? and do you believe the decision will go in our favor, but if it doesn’t for some strange reason, what happens then? What other recourse is there besides going back to SCOTUS? In your honest opinion, and from what you know and heard about the Class Action, what way do you thing the Court will rule. in our favor or against us. Thanks for your time,

    • #43765 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      I spoke with “Tim” from the ACLU earlier this week, and he related to me that the desired outcome of the new lawsuit would be for the Federal Court(s) to make it clear to the State of Michigan that the EX POST FACTO ruling actually DOES apply to ALL persons sentenced prior to 2006, and those sentenced prior to 2011 changes. (although it was clear that the Court clearly stated the SORA amendments did NOT apply to ALL persons sentenced prior to 2006 and 2011).

      He also stated that no pleadings were included to resolve the reporting “in person” as regard to ADA concerns.

      Among other things, the ruling in our favor stated in part, “noting [that there was] a lack of evidence that registries actually do anything to protect the public”, so in this new lawsuit, the State will argue and try to prove there are statistically valid evidence supporting the restrictions, as they will do for each portion the Court found violates the EX POST FACTO portions–the Court can find in favor for either the State or the registrants on each specific part, necessitating appeals by both parties.

      While Rick Jones and others argue they are unable, unwilling to present legislation to simply not have the 2006 and 2011 parts NOT apply to those affected by them (Rick Jones uses terminology, “to rewrite the entire SORA law[s]), because it is an election year”, they did have the past 2 years to do this. They will always have excuses.

      As “Bobby” said, “the people up in Lansing are idiots with low IQ’s”, those are not proper arguments. (further name calling accomplishes nothing except to detract from legitimate issues) The fact is more simple and clear, it is the issue that during the past 30 years that a new public frenzy issue was needed to rally the voters to a united cause, thus SEX CRIMES was chosen by politicians. They incited FEAR and the need for so-called public safety from sex-offenders. (where are the State Registries for Drug Dealers and Drug Users??, and for Gang Members, etc. ??) This is what Rick Jones eluded to, it is not safe for politicians to revert back to the 1994 laws because they would be viewed as pro-sex criminals, weak on public safety. Politicians like and want to keep their jobs. They fully understand the 6th Circuit and US Supreme Courts RULINGS AND IMPLICATIONS.

      Yes, this may be yet another long and drawn-out process. This is exactly how the American Judicial Process is designed to function, and just as how the American Political Process has been developed to be manipulated by politicians such as Rick Jones. However, here in Michigan the Governor and Attorney General, and Rick Jones are perverting these processes to avoid adhering to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSTITUTION.

    • #44188 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Does the Aclu or narsol support any of the Michigan candidates, or do any of the candidates support Narsol or the Aclu ?

    • #44680 Reply
      Avatar
      Bobby

      Bobby
      Hello Everyone,
      Well as most of you know, The Michigan ACLU, filed a Class Action Lawsuit regarding Does v Snyder, well it was suppose to be heard in August, but now it has been pushed back to October, but I was bored today and as I was surfing the net, looking for news regarding Does v Snyder or the Class Action Lawsuit, I came across this https://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/DOM_2018-23_SORA_609801_7.pdf
      Now correct me if I am wrong, but this states that Michigan is NOT suppose to be applying the 2006 and 2011 to registrants that convictions were before the Amendment’s were put into place. Now if this is true and this document/ Memorandum was sent out to ALL the agencies, why in the heck, did I have to follow the rules in March and June. I plan on taking this up to my local cop shop and asking them if they have received this even though they told me back in March that they did not receive anything in regards to Does v Snyder, and that they were enforcing the laws until otherwise notified.
      WE as registrants were NOT sent this either, or at least I was not sent this information, and my conviction was in 1992, this little bit of info effects me greatly, on the other hand it effects other registrants as well, who’s convictions were before these amendments were made retroactive and put into place. I was also going to send it to the ACLU and ask why this memorandum is not be applied and enforced by local cop shops. So does anyone have any thought’s on this information, i’d love to hear your thoughts on this situation. Thanks in advance.

    • #44865 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Wow, nice job Bobby

    • #49031 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Anything to update on this Snyder case?

    • #49112 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      Bobby’s post of August 11th references an interdepartmental memo, for Executive Policy Team,
      Administrative Management Team and Wardens of the MDOC, affectionately known as, “The Michigan Department of Corruptions”… it is not applied to the Michigan State Police, nor to any county or city law enforcement agencies. It is only to stop prisons from collecting DNA from affected prisoners and to amend pre-release guidelines, and parole of prisoner guidelines. Heidi Washington and the MDOC have no authority to dictate rules or laws upon law enforcement agencies. The Governor only approved this memo for the MDOC and prisoners in its “care” at the time of the memo’s release who had been convicted prior to the 2006 and 2011 amendments to SORA.

    • #49191 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Excellent clarification of the “Bobby” paper.
      Is there any clarification / update on the Snyder /ex post facto case. ?

    • #50332 Reply
      Avatar
      ALAN

      “Dr.” asked, “Is there any clarification / update on the Snyder /ex post facto case. ?”

      We were promised it would be heard / resolved long ago…yet when I notified all affected people that they needed to file separate and individual lawsuit to get a resolve for themselves, I was called “deranged”, etc. by NARSOL staff, hmmm, just who is/are the deranged person/group/organization now?? It is December 25, 2018 today…

      • #50337 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        You were not “promised” anything by NARSOL.

        Everything was explained to you multiple times. It’s nobody’s fault that you choose not to listen.

        The last I heard is that the October hearing was canceled because Michigan legislators agreed to come to the table and negotiate. How that is progressing, I don’t yet know. As soon as we know something it will be posted. I do know that ACLU is fighting to ensure that the 6th’s decision applies to all Michigan registrant, not just the Does named in the case.

        Why you would want to hire your own attorney and start from the bottom and wait years for a result when someone is already doing it for you for free is beyond me, but if that is what you want to do, go for it. I hope it works out for you.

    • #50423 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      October delay is news to me, thank you for that.
      Are last years legislators involved with this,,,going to be involved next year also,,,,,, or will there be a shuffling of legislators to drag this down the road, until the pre- sora people are dead, so that they don’t have to admit the shredding of the constitutional rights of the citizens of America!!!

      • #50438 Reply
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        My understanding is that it was going back to court because the legislators were dragging their feet. So, no I don’t think it will be allowed to drag on until pre-SORNA people are dead.

        You can read a little about it in our most recent Digest here https://view.publitas.com/p222-5250/vol-11-no-6/page/10-11  It starts in the middle of page 11.

    • #50443 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Thanks Fred, I just read the link .

    • #55177 Reply
      Avatar
      Dr.

      Ok now what? In Michigan, It’s May and we are still waiting .

      If the government will not enforce the constitution,

      Is it our responsibility to file lawsuits to protect the constitution, and the individual rights of the people, clearly written in the constitution? YES!!!!
      When the court rules in favor of the constitution (relief of sora) and the powers that implemented sora will not help to correct their errors, I believe possible incarceration for them and financial ruin may get the attention of all involved in the implementation of the sora of Michigan….

    • #59384 Reply
      Avatar
      Alan

      Although I was told that to file a lawsuit, I would need to begin from the beginning, that simply is NOT true. One needs to build upon the previous lawsuits, incorporate the Ruling, and sue those who lost as defendants, the current Governess, and Attorney General, and ALL of Michigan’s elected officials as defendants, and sue them in their OFFICIAL and INDIVIDUAL capacities, with a Motion to freeze their personal assets until the lawsuit is determined, ruled upon, that is how to do individual lawsuits for your relief to have the improperly filed lawsuit that won on SORA unconstitutional additions. It was improperly filed because some idiot chose to foolishly fail to list as defendants, “AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED”. You must sue for relief two-fold, to have the previous ruling apply to you, and for monetary relief. That IS how you obtain the “financial ruin” that “Dr.” referred to. This is so easy to accomplish, a 4th grader could do it.

      And you MUST file in Federal Court, not in any Michigan State Court. It is now a FEDERAL issue, and you have more Rights in Federal Court, it is now a Federal issue.

Viewing 91 reply threads
Reply To: In denying Snyder petition, Supreme Court upholds Sixth Circuit ruling
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.

  • *DO NOT POST 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="">