Comments on: WI: Convicted Sex Offender’s Appeal Prompts Ordinance Change

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 20:48:21 +0000

In reply to DEREK W LOGUE of OnceFallen.com. I would be very interested in that spreadsheet.

By: DEREK W LOGUE of OnceFallen.com

DEREK W LOGUE of OnceFallen.com — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 13:04:28 +0000

I am currently working on a spreadsheet of every residency restriction in Wisconsin just like I have done for Nebraska, FloriDUH, and Texass so far.

There are a number of communities that need to revisit their ordinances. Many of them just parrot what other communities have done. There are villages that have as few as 399 people with ordinances that cover places I am certain don’t even exist there like ski lodges or bowling alleys.

By: obvious answers

obvious answers — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 03:27:13 +0000

fascinating detail that is often neglected.. The registry by the states very own words is “civil ordinance” only .Not to be confused with punitive or “punishment”… When all of the ramifications and ” unintended ” consequences both to registrant and satellite friends/family of the registrys plus the registrys over lapping and contradictory nature (fed, state town, county ect) is considered under the light of “civil codes” the correct definition is persecution.. NOWHERE else in standing American law does the court turn a blind eye to such an extremely obvious case of deliberate class persecution .. If the government at least admitted the registry was punitive then they could at least defend it as “punishment met meets the crime”.. As a NON – PUNITIVE collection of civil code though there is absolutely no defence for the spiderweb of bizentine persecutions enforced.. Even Hitler Germany attempted more legitimacy in their legal code then the USA employs.

By: Just Sayin

Just Sayin — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 00:02:35 +0000

In reply to FAC-3. Dear FAC-3: Yes, it is a residency restriction. I read that. I was making a point that both residency restrictions AND proximity restrictions are ridiculous. In fact, a residency restriction is effectually a proximity restriction.

By: FAC-3

FAC-3 — Thu, 07 Aug 2025 20:20:20 +0000

In reply to Just Sayin. This is a residency restriction, not a proximity ordinance.

By: Peter P RIchard

Peter P RIchard — Thu, 07 Aug 2025 20:11:52 +0000

When I was sentenced the judge in my case said that there would be no residency restrictions, I was free to live where I wanted and be around minors. They tried to violate me (I live right behind a high school), then I whipped out the judge’s sentencing orders and have left me alone ever since.

By: FAC-3

FAC-3 — Thu, 07 Aug 2025 20:00:25 +0000

In reply to R. This is good news. They have to roll back their SORR.

By: Just Sayin

Just Sayin — Thu, 07 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000

They don’t have any McDonald’s or Chic Fil A play places in this town? I successfully argued this point to the US Probation because they tried to restrict me from being at or near any location “where children congregate.” I pointed out that language prevented me from going to their office because of a park that had a playground on it within 1,000 feet of the courthouse. These proximity and residential restrictions are ridiculous.

By: R

Thu, 07 Aug 2025 19:39:14 +0000

Definitely some Constitutional questions here.