Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of March 2016. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
ACSOL In-Person Meeting in West Sacramento on July 13, 2024
You are invited to attend ACSOL’s in-person meeting in West Sacramento, CA on Saturday, July 13,... -
TN: Sex Offender Treatment Class: Four Years, $10,000 and No End in Sight
Source: filtermag.org 5/6/24 Recently, my wife and I were having a quiet dinner at home when... -
CA Supreme Court ruling will change how police interact with public when stopping, questioning
Source: abc7news.com 5/3/24 SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — A new ruling by the California Supreme Court may...
I’ve heard this term used a number of times on conference calls and I did a bit of research of it: Schengen countries
an overview of it under entry conditions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#Entry_conditions_for_third-country_nationals
I found this to be of Interest for third countries [not Schengen]:
” The Schengen Information System does not contain an alert for refusal of entry concerning the traveller, and
The traveller is not considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations of any of the Schengen states.”
the list of Schengen countries:
Information in SIS is shared among institutions of the countries participating in the Schengen Agreement Application Convention (SAAC). The five original participating countries were France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Twenty additional countries have joined the system since its creation: Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Greece, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Currently, the Schengen Information System is used by 27 countries. Among the current participants, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland are not members of the European Union.
FWIW, not much….I do believe that most of Europe is open to RSO’s….but I remain nervous over this, though I did travel freely to London, Spain and France extensively in 2014 without trouble.
Maybe I am just the nervous type…but I don’t think any of us want any trouble, or, any more trouble in our lives. This new 21 day advance notice requirement is…very troublesome and problematic…for a bunch of reasons:
From a standpoint of proof, they will know absolutely when you left and when you returned…giving notice…well, they may not know that as directly as Homeland security knows your comings and goings…but they certainly can find out if you gave notice if they wanted to….it is this element of proof that has me most concerned…there is no wiggle room if they wish to come after you.
So…I called my local authority today, spoke to the detective in charge of RSO matters, (and I hate contacting these people…I suspect a common reaction among us), and I informed him of the IML and especially the Justice Department’s Smart Watch Dispatch issued in February 2016 shifting responsibility to local authorities for compliance.
He directed me back to Homeland Security and said he knew of no Restrictions on my ability travel internationally or of any need for me to give Notice.
I indicated that I thought he was wrong in this and requested that he accept mailed Notice from me, which he said he would do.
Now then, I don’t think the Justice Department itself knows what it is doing in regards to the IML…so I don’t know either and no one should rely on how I am approaching this.
But this is what I am doing…I am feeling my way forward and trying to keep people informed of my progress. Other people will have other methods I suppose…these are mine, at least for now.
Sorry I don’t have more concrete information. As I continue to work my way though this, I’ll give updates.
Best wishes, James
james
I’m afraid this matter extends beyond the U.S DOJ–maybe they were responsible for heightening the issue, but they are not simply the only country pressing the issue!
here’s a couple points from INTERPOL’s Resolution No. 2 AG-2014-RES-02
CONVINCED that INTERPOL can play a major role in facilitating the sharing of timely information between countries regarding travelling child sex offenders, providing notifications regarding the travel of such offenders, and promoting the transnational investigation and prosecution of offenses against children
The problem I see are the next three points ( the trouble is the US or world for that matter are making travel for us an expensive crap-shot) and not using any known standard to us and not exercising a quantity of fundamental rights the US statutorily makes people into certain categories of Sex offender along with its assessed risk levels with no due process:
RECOGNIZING that any notifications and information-sharing measures regarding travelling child sex offenders must comply with national and international standards regarding the privacy of individuals and protection of fundamental rights,
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that the right of child sex offenders to travel freely should be balanced with the right of children worldwide to protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse
ENCOURAGES member countries, within the limits of their national regulatory frameworks, to develop notification-sharing and information-sharing measures regarding travelling child sex offenders to ensure better protection of children from convicted offenders;
this is not going away via an IML lawsuit!! IML can help in getting data into the case law that says sex offenders are not necessarily at high risk to commit these crimes–yes and not marking our passports will be great!! but the world will continue now to track us and any respect or dignity or information on our status with regard to country by country travel we expect to achieve will be at the UN level!!
FYI general info from Europe regarding travel and criminal records
https://www.nacro.org.uk/resettlement-advice-service/support-for-individuals/travelling-abroad-and-immigration-to-the-uk/declaring-your-criminal-record-when-travelling-to-specific-countries/
AB 1912 was introduced on February 11th, 2016. This bill will require persons convicted of soliciting a minor who knew, or reasonably should have known, was a victim of human trafficking to register as a sex offender. What makes this bill interesting is that, for the first time that I know of, the period of registration is capped:
1) Registration as a sex offender for 5 years, for the first conviction.
2) 10 years for the second conviction.
3) 20 years for a third and/or subsequent conviction.
Of course, it includes the exception that persons already subject to lifetime registration, will continue their lifetime registration requirement.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_1901-1950/ab_1912_bill_20160315_amended_asm_v98.pdf
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1912&sess=CUR&house=B&author=achadjian_%3Cachadjian%3E
Runner is at it again, reintroducing her ridiculous residency ban.
It’s essentially the same as last year’s only, this time, it’s limited to persons convicted of felonies involving victims under 18 years of age.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_1001-1050/sb_1021_bill_20160211_introduced.pdf
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1021&sess=CUR&house=B&author=runner_%3Crunner%3E
Does anyone know – does a 1203.4 expungement of felony offenses grant relief from the disabilities one suffers from being a felon – such as not being able to serve on a jury or own a firearm?
In many (but not all…depends on the crime) having your CA felony reduced to a misdemeanor will restore your CA gun rights (assuming you have no other felony convictions). Once reduced…CA no longer considers you a felon. Be aware that this is a CA state thing. As far as the federal government is concerned…you still might be a convicted felon and not worthy of owning a firearm. Let’s say you decide to rob a CA bank using a gun. You get caught (of course) and the ATF gets involved. You could be in some extra trouble because while CA recognizes you are no longer a convicted felon (in CA) the federal government still considers you one.
Now that my felony has been reduced…I might try to get a firearm permit in CA in a few years. If granted…I would still be uneasy having it. Wouldn’t want to be in possession of it on BLM land, a national park, etc or have it with me in a state other than CA. I will be doing a lot more reading before I consider having a gun. Worried that having a firearm while being a 290 could/would result in getting a lot more residency verification visits by law enforcement.
From what I understand…a felon can serve on a jury…as long as they aren’t on parole. Could be wrong…I’m not an attorney.
HEADLINE: “Releasing low-level offenders did not unleash a crime wave in California”
More actual FACTS for politicians to ignore as they continue to spread the lies of danger to manipulate the public.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/releasing-low-level-offenders-did-not-unleash-a-crime-wave-in-california/2016/03/17/7d376adc-e4b5-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
The former police chief for Boston just mentioned TWICE on Fox News that sex offenders are people that need to be profiled as potential terrorists prepared to conduct operations like those in Belgium today.
Still feel like an American NOW?
Sha-Sha Runner’s SB 1021 has its hearing date before the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 19, 2016.
Was just watching the basketball game, Oregon vs. Duke. Amongst the celebrities in attendance was Rob Lowe. Whatever happened that his taped encounter with a 16 year old girl in the late 80s was not CP?
He should be a frequent visitor to this site. Why is he not?
Joe The Plumber: ‘Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights’ To Have Guns
Thanks Joe, I m borrowing this and change this to..
Your Molested Kids Don’t Trump My (R/C) Constitutional Rights
If a vigilante kills or injures a person on the registry, is the assault a hate crime? It seems like it certainly should be.
I just saw an episode of the ABC program “The Family” where the matriarch who is running for Governor in Maine, just stated that statistics show the sex offenders re offend at an exponentially high rate, even after incarceration and treatment and on this program, she advocates for tracking microchips.
This type of information is exactly why we have Supreme Court Justices and the vast majority of the country that think all on the registry are dangerous lost causes.
The Big Lie was repeated in Nazi Germany over and over until the populace was numbed to any and all things that were inflicted on the Jews.
It is so disheartening. The judge in the IML lawsuit seemed to drink from the same glass.
Sorry to vent.
The news and visual media in general are in bed with law enforcement. They don’t show and say what the law unions want to hear, and the are cut off from their sources. Politicians as well do the same thing. We are good drama. Notice how whenever a legal challenge is mounted to a law or bill, suddenly there are sex offenders in the news. The stories are planted to inflame and scare the public, there by giving credibility to their cause. We don’t stand a chance against this type of colusion. We can only hope for an apocoliptic scenario. I call front row for the best view!
Lake County writes “SF Bay Area has had a more than usual number of news stories in the last few days on Sex Offenders being released from prison. So yes, the media is getting back at us for raising this lawsuit.”
I read an article on someone they call high risk, but from what I read it looks like this guy might have done less than drunken fratboys at frat parties stumbling around drunk accidentally patting a womans behind. And then the comments sections shows some really retarded comments saying this guy should be shot dead or they can tell from his picture he is mentally disabled. The guy was in jail, not prison and is 23, college aged and his offenses occurred at an adult college. These comments are so retarded and out of place, it seems unlikely they are being made by someone unaware of the current IML court proceedings.