DOES THE OMISSION OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE FINALITY RULE IN MICHIGAN'S SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT ("SORA") ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO BUILD ITS CASE AGAINST CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS IN NEW CRIMINAL TRIALS UNDER SORA CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WITH EVIDENCE ACQUIRED IN CONTRAVENTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES AND THEIR CORRESPONDING JUDICIALLY CREATED PROTECTIONS CONTRARY TO THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED BY MICHIGAN VHARVEY, 494 US 344 (1990) WHERE THE UNDISTURBED ORDER to register is Demonstrably invalid as it is in this case ?

DOES SORA VIOLATE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHERE, UNDER THE RULE OF FINALITY, IT ESTABLISHES AN IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AT NEW CRIMINAL TRIALS UNDER SORA CRIMINAL PROCEUDRE THAT THE ORDER TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IS LIMITED IN SCOPE TO STAND ON THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?

IF THE COURT DETERMINES THATTHE UNDERLYING GUILTY PLEA SUPPORTING SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION WAS INVOLUNTARY AND TAINTED BY INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DOES THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BAR RETRIAL WHERE THERE IS NEITHER A SPECIFIC ACCUSATION NOR PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE ACTUS REUS ELEMENT OF A CRIME ANYWHERE IN THE RECORD?

Does the omission of an exception to the finality rule in Michigan's sex offender registration act allow the prosecution to build its case against criminal defendants in new criminal trials under SORA criminal procedure with evidence acquired in contravention of constitutional guarantees?