Michigan: Ready to go another round?
By now we should all be familiar with what’s taking place in Michigan. After having its registry declared unconstitutional all the way to the 6th Circuit (and then the Supreme Court, which denied Certiorari), the state’s legislators have been trying to craft legislation that would pass constitutional muster. They have been trying unsuccessfully.
Their latest attempt will be House Bill 5679. a copy of the most recent legislative analysis can be found here: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2019-2020/billanalysis/House/pdf/2019-HLA-5679-322C0DAA.pdf
The most glaring concern is that it would allow the State to publish email addresses and internet identifiers on the public registry.
If Michigan didn’t have such a strong track record of failing to pass sex offender legislation or getting their laws struck as unconstitutional, I would be investing more concern into this bill. If it does pass, I’m sure Miriam Aukerman and the ACLU of Michigan will be right there to strike it down again!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Derek:
Rest assured we are prepared if they try to pass an internet identifier in Michigan. This is the easiest part to find unconstitutional. This won’t pass, and if it does, it won’t last.
Nebraska declared it was unconstitutional to require registrants to turn over internet info.
If Michigan passes this there are a few suggestions to counter this.
First, create hundreds of emails. That’ll keep them extremely busy. I have hundreds of internet identifiers I created long ago when Ohio tried that crap.
Second, make emails that arestatements of protest (like [email protected]) or offensive ([email protected]) (Rep. James A Lower is the bill sponsor)
That’s a couple of my suggestions you can try while this gets tied up in the courts.
@Derek…Thank you for the laugh and the advice! Unfortunately, Representative Booger Eater is no longer going to be a representative. He’s apparently going into the private business sector….I have to agree with Detroit though about the internet identifier portion of the bill as being the most vulnerable portion of this bill to attack if/when this passes.
Josh:
I got Simple Mobile for the hotspot which is pretty crappy. Sometimes I go hours without hotspot, so it takes me a bit to respond when my hotspot isn’t working.
Attorneys must be admitted to practice in federal court. Attorneys who practice in federal court have a tendency to be of high quality but also more expensive. There are excellent attorneys that do not practice in federal court and you are lucky if you get one. Most seem to be pretty mediocre. The first thing I look for in an attorney is if they practice in federal court. It’s best to pay the higher fee if the issue is important.
Does II is reported widely, not just in legal newspapers. I question the capability of these attorneys when they file these lawsuits without even checking to see if this particular issue is currently being litigated or not. Does II is a widely reported class action that every attorney should be aware of, so there is no reason for them to take someone’s money without checking to see if the issue is already covered under Does II.
I wouldn’t worry about either Does II or pending legislation if I were you. The constitutional issues in Does II were already resolved in Does I. As explained to me, Does II was filed to force Michigan to remove all registrants covered by Does I rather than requiring each one to sue individually for removal. There are no new constitutional issues to be resolved in Does II. With Dana Nessel as AG, I am hoping that Michigan will finally do what they should have done in the first place, remove all registrants affected by Does I. Forcing registrants to sue individually for removal is absolutely assinine. It would cost the state untold millions to respond to each individual lawsuit when they are required to remove them. What’s worse is if registrant’s are eligible for attorney fees (which I think they are in Does II) and monetary damages. Michigan’s stance (thanks to Bill Shutte) has tied up the courts with unnecessary lawsuits that is costing the state millions and I, along with every other Michigan taxpayer, are paying for this. You don’t have to worry about the constitutional issues in Does II. They were already resolved in Does I. You don’t have to worry about any changes to the law in the future if you are not required to register pursuant to Does I, Temelkoski or any of these other state and federal court decisions. And if you’re not removed pursuant to one of these various decisions, rest assured, more lawsuits will be filed. What I am working on is striking at the very heart of the concept of registration. I believe that no government can force any person to “register” for any reason. My goal is to get a court decision finding the very concept of registration unconstitutional.
Josh:
I spoke to the Oliver Law Group in either 2017 or 2018 concerning a registrant who wanted to relocate to Michigan and tried to get that registrant added as a named plaintiff. The OLG advised me that once this registrant relocated to Michigan that the registrant will automatically be a party to this suit. The OLG could not make a specific determination as to whether this registrant was required to register or not but stated by the facts that I conveyed to them, that he felt the registrant “most likely” was not required to register. He stated that anyone filing suit in any court trying to enforce Does I was wasting their money. He also stated that anyone can petition the court for removal prior to Does II becoming final but felt petitioners would be wasting their money if they hired an attorney. He said the petition for removal could get registrants off of the registry sooner and it was up to each individual registrant to file a petition. He stated that the judge was required to review the facts and the law of the case and if the judge determined that the petitioner was indeed covered under Does I that the judge was required to order the registrant removed from the registry. As to judges being elected, this is irrelevant, judges are obligated to follow the law, you have the right to appeal and the right to file a complaint with the Judicial Tenure Commission against the judge. Your attorney should know these things and if he doesn’t, you have the wrong attorney. Does II was filed to get all of the Does I registrants removed from the registry because AG Shutte’s stance was that each registrant was required to sue individually in order to get themselves removed. The 406 petition seeks the same relief as the lawsuit except that it applies to a single registrant, not the class. I spoke with this person from the OLG 2 or 3 times at great length and he patiently answered all of my questions and this is the information that I have been passing on since. The only question I didn’t think of asking was if they were seeking monetary damages for the constitutional violations.
These lawsuits don’t settle all of the issues, i.e., persons who have a felony conviction after their sex offense will remain on the registry. I have tried to help several persons try to determine if they were required to register or not. The pre-1995 ones are easy if they have no subsequent felony convictions. The others are difficult because it depends on the law at the time of their offense and the law changed several times between 1995 and 2011 and there are several different cases that determine if they are required to register or not. I have spent a lot of time doing research that registrants can do themselves. Most think I have a little book that I simply look up their name and it tells me if they are required to register or not. They don’t appreciate the amount of time it takes to try to figure out if they are required to register or not. And many have lied to me thinking that if they could fool me that they could be removed from the registry. I have looked up several on OTIS where they say they have no other convictions but OTIS shows several. My determination is from a non-attorney and doesn’t hold water in court.
Several have gotten rude and angry with me when I couldn’t make a determination in a timely manner. Some of these people need to be locked up. If you read some of the letters I’ve received, you would agree. And the phone calls are worse. From this experience I have come to the conclusion that if registrants don’t want to do the research themselves or pay an attorney that they are not that interested in getting off of the registry. I am hoping to team up with a decent attorney after I get this project off of the ground and have that attorney make these determinations at a reasonable fee. I also want an attorney at meetings at least once or twice a year to answer questions.
Anyway, I bought a house I will be remodeling into an office next year. If you want to help in this effort or need housing, you can contact me at [email protected].
Josh:
I have already run into several persons who were removed from the registry based on the various court rulings.
Of note also, I have run into at least 3 people who have had their records expunged after the 1997 change in law which doesn’t allow expungement of CSC convictions. So, if you didn’t plead to a life offense, you might be able to get your conviction expunged as well. This is an issue I am still working on. Stay tuned.
Most attorneys will tell you that you can’t get a pre-1997 CSC expunged, but I have run into several already. I won’t publish their names but can request the names of their attorneys. Ditto , for the 406. A lot of attorneys say to wait until Does II becomes final, but I’ve encountered several who were removed. I’m not an attorney, but question why your attorney would file suit knowing about Does II and taking your money and knowing that the case would be dismissed. I would bet your attorney will tell you that you can’t get your conviction expunged but I’ve been compiling the names of registrants who have had their convictions expunged after 1997. It’s been a while since I added to this list, but I believe I have the names, addresses and phone numbers for at least three. Let me know if you want to help on this project and I’ll dig up their info. It will be several years before I get to the expungement issue. You have to remember that each issue is incredibly time consuming. I worked in military police investigations in the army. When I investigate something, my investigation is pretty thorough. I count on people sharing their info with me with the confidence that it won’t be revealed. I should be able to at least get you the names of the attorneys. If you want to take on this task, I will ask them if they will speak to you personally. I won’t give you their contact info without their permission.
Asking MSP to remove your name is DOA and a waste of your time. I expected these people to be taken off of the registry when Does I became final and couldn’t believe they only took off the named plaintiffs. But you have to remember that Bill Shuette was AG at the time. I don’t know if the Oliver Group is seeking monetary damages in Does II or not, but hope they are.
If getting off the registry as soon as possible is important to you, I would go ahead with the 406 and develop a good argument to take to the judge. The only thing the judge can do is say “no”. I wouldn’t waste money on attorneys until Does II becomes final. After you are off of the registry, you can see where I am at on the expungement issue. It would help if I knew which county you are in.
Detroit….if FAC is willing to give you my email address I’d be willing to talk to you but I’m not going to share personal info about myself on the forum here. My attorney’s stance on the 406 is simple..state judges are subject to elections and most if not all are NOT going to have releasing or giving relief to a Person forced to register on their record….the request to MSP was part of the process to establish the paper trail that we were being denied. It was never expected to succeed. As to the class action and not knowing that a personal lawsuit was not allowed there were upwards of 30 individuals/lawyers who also attempted lawsuits and ALL were thrown out except one or two who made slightly different arguments. I was fortunate to be able to withdraw without prejudice so that I can file suit again if Does II or HB 5679 doesn’t go well. My attorney doesn’t do federal court work and the person hired to file that suit on our behalf was fired post haste….
Reach out to membership. They can facilitate if you both agree to exchange info.