ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Next Call: April 5 (Int. Megan's Law) - Mar 8 Recording added
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q2: 4/8 in Sac, 5/15 in SD, 6/16-17 in LA (Conference) [details]
ACSOLCaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Waiting for Justice

As summer comes to an end, we are waiting for justice. We are waiting for a judge’s decision in our challenge to the International Megan’s Law. We are waiting for cities to eliminate residency restrictions. We are waiting for a tiered registry bill to be introduced in the California state legislature.

Why does it take so long? Why can’t judges, city officials and state legislators stop the punishment of registered citizens NOW?

Perhaps it’s due to habit. For many people, including judges and elected officials, have adopted the habit of viewing registered citizens as “monsters” who always re-offend and cannot be cured. Their habit is based upon myth and supported by the media rather than empirical evidence such as the CDCR report which states that the rate of re-offense for registrants on parole is less than 1 percent.

Perhaps it’s due to complacency. For many people, including judges and elected officials, are complacent because their personal lives have not been directly affected by the punishment that continues to be levied against registrants and their families. What else can explain their lack of compassion when a registrant cannot find a decent job or adequate housing? What else can explain their lack of understanding when a registrant and his family can no longer live together due to residency restrictions passed decades after his offense occurred?
Perhaps it’s due to fear. For many people, especially judges and elected officials, fear that they will lose the next election if they are viewed by the public as friendly to registrants. Their fear is so deep that they are willing to violate the state and federal Constitutions despite an oath they swore to uphold them.

To the many people described above, we have the following message: Stop your habits! Snap out of your complacency! Move through your fear! Do what is right, not what is popular.

The time is NOW to view registrants as who they truly are – human beings who deserve a second chance – and not lepers of society. The time is NOW not just to allow, but to support, registrants as they re-enter society so that they can live with their families and contribute their skills and talents to society.

This is the future we see. And we will support those, including judges and elected officials, who share our vision when we vote in November.

Join the discussion

  1. Patrick Thompson

    I would like to discuss some presence restrictions, and other issues of San Joaquin Parole Department. I am only speaking of my case and I think you can help!

  2. RP

    As to why, that is how it is with most laws. This is business to these people and not rushing things if the way of our legal system.

  3. nomore

    Well I guess that answers the question of abolishment. If you’re hoping for a tiered bill, you aren’t hoping for abolishment. Can’t imagine why someone would hope for a tiered registry when they know it’s just going to bump up the numbers on the higher tier’s. Can anyone show me a state that dropped more to lower than bumped up?

    • 72FLH

      tiered systems don’t work , I know level 1’s that are now level 3’s because of this , this creates yet more lines being drown between each other as RS’s , when cutting down a tree you don’t start at the top of the tree , no you keep chopping at the as close as you can to the roots , and that’s what we need to be ding is chopping at the root of the problem , if you just top the tree it will just keep growing , and our rights are at the roots , everyones rights , not just something called level ONE , we are level nothing , because we did our time , we did our paper , open the door for the ones that Might need help and move on in their live rather than being forced to live as a “victim to the system “”

      • ThoughtasWeak

        The people who used to be a Teir 1 and moved to a Teir 3 is due to the implementation of AWA. And states are starting to see that retroactive punishment is actually punitive.

        I personally would live to see a Teir based on a person’s risk level. Anyone deemed a level 1 or level 2 offender would not be listed publicly (ideally I would love to see just a LE only registry). Based on the current political climate, I do not see that the registry will be eliminated. Therefore, we need to attack it in the right way. One way is to address people who are not a risk to society and have them be able to be removed from the registry.

        I do not want my loved one listed anymore than any of you want to be listed. I know that the registry does nothing to protect society, and just gives them a false sense of security. Having a Teir based on a person’s risk level will certainly eliminate thousands of people from the lifetime registry requirement, if not tens of thousands. This will help LE to better monitor those who do have a higher risk of reoffending (like the Phil Garrido).

        Janice is focusing on what she can do to solve the problems for as many registrants and their families. In this political climate and the current laws, she cannot bring down the registry (this would actually have to get to SCOTUS to have the registry eliminated), not without the right case. If anything goes to SCOTUS, it would be the recent decision in Michigan (and only if the state appeals it).

    • O.A.L.

      Pennsylvania Supreme court is doing it! And I was under the impression that California was the progressive State , if restoring civil rights is considered progressive!

      • nomore

        How many lower tiers got bumped up? Gotta be careful when reading news, sometimes they leave out important parts.

    • Civil Rights First

      I live in a state that has a Tiered system…. don’t do it California. When I was released from prison in 2003 the Department of Corrections set my level at a level 2 based on the static 99. However, when it came time to be released the county I was releasing to, the Sheriff department elevated my level to a level 3 “because it was not my county of conviction and no local family or friends”. Stay united as one group and fight to have it abolished. Getting the level lowered is next to impossible. No one wants to sign their name to it…. the what if risk/fear for their own ass prevents anyone from sticking their neck out. Much like the judges, legislatures etc. No one wants to stick their neck out in support of any RC’s because of the what if/fear. If you do push for a tiered system…. good luck getting your level lowered.

      • nomore

        And you know lawyers know this happens.

      • Timmr

        Part of the painfulness of being registered is the rules keep changing, almost always for the worse. Just when you have adjusted your life to what you are given and have hope that you can salvage something of a life, the law puts you under new rules. We need to fight for no more retroactice restrictions first, or else we are spinning our wheels.

        • Les Mis Life

          “Like waiting for midnight
          “On a clock with no hands
          “We’re watching the hourglass
          “They’re adding sands”
          -Steve Kim
          Quote from ‘2000 Feet From a Nursery Ryhme’

    • Anonymous Nobody

      The tiered system is a compromise that at least the other side is doing to make sure registration is PERMANENT. Compromises can be double edged swords. They are simply diluting one of the strongest arguments against registration by eliminating the damning fact of “lifetime,” weakening our argument against registration — although I haven’t heard us have an argument against registration, I’ve only heard us having an argument against some points of it.

      Getting what you can now, and going for more or the rest later is one thing — but you better have a step-by-step plan for the rest, or you are merely undermining yourself. I haven’t heard a step-by-step plan.

      That said, what we have had for a proposal for a tiered system previously is not good. So, re the reference above that we are waiting for legislation for tiers to be introduced — I surely hope we are making sure any such new legislation at least gets those right, not wrong as the previously proposals.

      The checkpoints in the previous proposals would prove to be a real problem, even disastrous, whether immediately or eventually. There is only one reason the other side wants those checkpoints, and that reason is not a decent one and it is not good for us. All of those checkpoints are useless to the other side — other than to undermine us.

      The time for the registration should be automatic by offense, with an appeals process only to lower your tier. In other words, no review, as in the previous proposals, other than to lower your tier. There must not be a review of everyone and only then decide the tier — because that will only put you in a higher tier. And the side effect of that review is that it will require a huge bureaucracy to be created to do it — a bureaucracy that absolutely will work like the prison guard lobby to always demand more of registration, never less; that bureaucracy will start or evolve to be our biggest enemy. Do NOT feed the beast!

      Second, the requirement that you file an application when your time is up asking to be released or notifying them it is time to stop: Absolutely not. That is completely useless to the state for the stated reason: They already know your time is up, they can even automate it in the computer to take you off their list. That is in there only for one reason, a very bad reason, as a point for them to create trouble, make up reasons, make up excuses, a point to add onto in subsequent legislation. They already know, they do not now have to be told your time is up. In years gone by, simply stopping registration with no notice was how it worked, and it worked well, there was no application or notice to the state. When you got 1203.4 PC relief after probation, you simply stopped registering — even though neither 1203.4 nor the order issued from it said nothing about registration. You just stopped, the state knew it, 1203.4 relief was on your rap sheet, just as it is on your rap sheet that your offense is older than the tier for it, and any additional mark if you appealed to a lower tier, so they know that too.

      And thus, everyone who already is past that time frame does not have to be assessed and maybe land in a higher tier, does not have to apply to the state to be dropped, those people would already be out from under the registration requirement once the tier law takes effect, not who knows how long later after they hire people to handle all that stuff and deal with it. To make them have an assessment and file an application, or notice, is only asking for trouble. The state, the local police already know, they already know how long since your offense, and your offense tells your tier unless their is an additional note that says you have been lowered.

      The old system worked smoothly, so any argument they give that they need that to make sure things go smoothly is nothing but a smoke screen. We don’t have to guess, we have done it as I urge for many decades, it is very well tested — and my way will even save the state money.

      You must realize, that assessment and the notices at the end of your time is nothing but a wolf in sheeps clothing. You should always look all all checkpoints as that.

      And for god’s sake, as the tiers we supported seem to match the time frames for a COR, don’t INCREASE the tier for those offenses that are only 7 years to a COR! That is what our tier proposal in the past has done, making that 10 years, not 7! And we are supported that!

      • New Person

        I don’t subscribe to a tiered system either because a tiered system says it is a legal to register people. You are in custody for the rest of your life. Nay, you do your time and it ends thereafter. Registration is a secondary punishment and was judged upon with FALSE FACTS – registrants are not “frightening and high” to re-offend as there are a bountiful of stats available, including CASOMB denoting less than 1% of re-offending. No other convicts share the same levy of extra punishment/conditions. NO OTHER.

        The California Constitution, in plain English, states that privacy is an inalienable right and every person has the right to pursue it. We are not supposed to lose it, but suspend it when we make a mistake. Yet the Constitution states we have a right to obtain privacy once again:


        SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
        inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
        liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
        and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

        1203.4 (dismissal of the case) states the following:

        1203.4.
        (a) (1) In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.

        I will point out that “…he or she shall thereafter be released from ALL PENALTIES AND DISABILITIES resulting from the offense…”

        1203.4 should trigger the ‘inalienable right to obtain privacy” of the California Constitution.

        Registration invalidates the “inalienable right to privacy as well as the right to obtain privacy”. Whether registration is considered punishment or administrative, in California it infringes upon the “inalienable right to privacy” once your custody is completed.

        Registration (after custody) and “inalienable right to privacy’ cannot co-exist as they run contrary to one another. There is no privacy if you have to register.

        In Maryland, the defender of registrants found verbiage in their Maryland Constitution that states (I’m paraphrasing), “… punishment and registrations… cannot be applied retroactively.” Registrants won that fight in Maryland because that verbiage on ‘and registration’ was re-emphasized! Why can we not apply that same logic here and re-emphasize the California Constitution that explicitly states the “inalienable right to privacy”? That would trump any registration out of custody! Secondly, the 1203.4 awards the completion of a successful probation that will release one from ALL penalties and disabilities. The 1203.4 is the process of “the right to obtain privacy” as it reflects the successful completion to no longer be in custody.

        Should there not be a much higher demand to uphold the California Constitution since it guarantees “inalienable rights”, including the right to privacy or to obtain one? Please note that no other convicts share the same lack of privacy as registrants.

        Odd… reading up on the California Constitution, I found this tidbit:

        CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
        ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

        SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited
        except to punish crime.

        Is not lifetime registration involuntary servitude? The consequence for not “laboring” your information is a felony punishment and/or prison time. Now, if lifetime registration is legal involuntary servitude, then by legal verbiage in the California Constitution, registration is punishment.

        Once registration is legally defined as punishment as described by the California Constitution, then registration can now be identified as cruel and unusual punishment due to the duration of the registration of lifetime and all the peripheral “punishments” attached to being registered.

        I’m curious. Frank burned his registration card in protest of the IML in Oakland. It is on video. If Frank does not register (as it is his “job” to register), then he will be levied with actual punishment. Then does not the consequence of that act of being sentenced construe involuntary servitude to the state defines involuntary servitude as punishment as per California Constitution?

        In short,
        (i) Registration infringes upon the “inalienable right to privacy” as denoted by the California Constitution after custody has ended

        (ii) Registration is involuntary servitude, which is considered punishment under the California Constitution because the consequence of not servicing the process of registration is a felony and jail time.

        I do not know if anything I brought up makes any legal sense or hedgeway for registrants, but California Constitution has to mean something, especially when it specifically denotes what is punishment.

        • Clark

          Yes New Person please keep those issues made aware in communication here & elsewhere.
          While there has been involuntary servitude as an issue by a number of us here …it is still good to get out there… Any publicity is Good Publicity.
          Involuntary servitude is exactly what attaches to state railroadistry. (registry)

          • New Person

            Thanks, Clark!

            By legal law definition, it’s not indentured servitude if the consequence is a loss of pay or job. (Well, that’s what I read online. I have no idea what lawyers determine is involuntary servitude.)

            In registering, we are forced to labor our time to process ourselves at least once a year. If we don’t register, then we are levied with a felony punishment. The only way this is legal in California is if it a form of punishment.

            For example, if I am out of custody and have a job, then I am involuntarily forced to make arrangements with my current job just so I can register my application for that day. I am involuntarily serving the state when I am already out of custody. I will be levied with a felony punishment if I do not labor myself to register within a specified time frame. According to the California Constitution, the only way this is not indentured servitude is if it is to punish a crime. It specifically states that.

            So I really want to see what happens when Frank does not register and is persecuted in court with a felony punishment. I think Janice can use this incident to bring forth that registration in California is punishment as specifically stated in the California Constitution. In fact, I think anyone incarcerated for failing to register should have this claim.

            Failing to register induces punishment, thus making the act of registration a form of involuntary servitude. In California, that can only be done if it considered a punishment. Thus, making registration punitive. (Again, provided you are no longer under custody of the state. If I am no longer in custody of the state, then I am involuntarily forced to register and process myself – without pay no less).

            The SCOTUS may have said that registration is administrative, but under the California Constitution, the residents of California are protected from involuntary servitude – unless it is considered punishment. California Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, is only two sentences long and very explicit.

            Hence, it doesn’t matter if it’s like filling out membership card by the SCOTUS’ perspective. Registration is punishment under the legal definition of involuntary servitude under California law. If Janice can prove this in the California Court system, then I’m sure many other states will try to join her. Slavery was banished long ago. I thought involuntary servitude (out of custody) was also.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Yes, New Person, you make excellent points; unfortunately, the lying courts have ruled on them, except for the privacy issue, and say you are wrong.

          Re the privacy, I have promoted that as an attack on registration for a long time, especially since the Alaska high court ruled on that very issue in a registration case and sided with privacy. That was based on the right to privacy in the Alaska constitution. The California Constitution also has a much stronger right to privacy than the US Constitution, but no one has mounted a major attack on that point.

          Re 1203.4, the California appellate courts have now ruled repeatedly that it does not actually expunge the conviction, the conviction remains. They say it merely lifts some of the disabilities of a conviction. They saw a conflict in it in that it says it eliminates the conviction, but it also retains some disabilities, such as barring felons from possessing a gun. To solve that conflict, rather than lift the penalties that remain, they lifted the expungement!

          • New Person

            That’s what I don’t get about the 1203.4. It says it removes ALL penalties and disabilities.

            The law is supposed to side with the layman. Doesn’t ALL mean ALL? The statute still says that.

  4. Roger

    As a Registered Citizen (RC), I have this say TO YOU NON-RCs who refuse to treat me and my fellow RCs as humans:

    SHAME on you!

    Many of you non-RCs fantasize that you are enlightened by thinking things like these:
    “If I had lived when America had slavery, I would have stood up to my neighbors as they called them inhuman and inferior to the white races”
    or
    “I would have definitely stood up for Native Americans as my fellow European Americans called them savages and committed genocide against them”,
    Yet RIGHT NOW you treat me and my fellow RCs as subhuman, not worthy of basic human rights.

    You feel very self-righteous in your beliefs, just as white Americans did as they enslaved and killed “subhuman” African Americans and Native Americans. You look the other way as whites did when Japanese were interned in WWII, as Chinese were beaten and pushed out of towns, as gays were abused and called predators, and many other people groups today are treated as political pawns, such as Muslims and Latinos.

    Ironically, many of you non-RCs working against us are those very people groups that were abused in the past.

    My wish is that all you non-RCs have a close relative prosecuted for whatever the latest fad crime is labeled as “sex offense”, such as sexting or urinating behind a tree while at a park. Then you will see firsthand what a Pandora’s box you have opened, and be stuck in a web of your own making.
    Then maybe you will have some empathy for RCs and be willing to vote against hate-spewing politicians and laws that perpetuate inhumanity.

    TO MY FELLOW RCs, I say: we must get out of our tiny bubble of comfort and be willing to speak up for ourselves.

    Let’s show respect to each other in these discussion forms.

    Let’s all subscribe to Janice’s Action Alert emails.

    Let’s all work with family and friends to write letters and make phone calls when Janice has a call to action.

    Let’s contribute as much as we can to ACSOL so they can take legal action against bad laws, lobby against bad bills, and spread the word to our fellow RCs about ACSOL.

    Let’s show up in person to events Janice announces. Showing up in person has as huge impact, no matter what you may have heard from some RCs (who don’t show up).

    We have a long road ahead of us, but so did African Americans. By being willing to take action, they made huge gains in civil rights.

    So can we!

    You rock, Janice!

    • Steve

      I agree just say no to A tiered system UNLESS you stay in the current category you are in and people that have been on 20 years or more and have had no further convictions are off the list. We all know what the stats say those on for 17 years or more with no further convictions are as likely to commit a new crime as any other citizen. Nobody should be forced into predator category when they currently aren’t that classification . I hope Janice does not let that happen.

    • 4sensiblepolicies

      Right on! That’s just about the size of it.

      What is most curious is what exactly is it that creates the tipping point where the society finally accepts that their practices are abusive toward an oppressed group. Unfortunately, it seems that the masses have the ability to lie to themselves for generations that something evil is in fact just, or they are able to simply ignore the truth. The few that do recognize injustices at the time they are being committed are generally too fearful to speak up, or see no reason to risk their reputation when they are not personally affected.

      How true that so many self-righteous individuals who are absolutely convinced they would have stood up against the treatment of hated groups of the past prove daily that in fact they would not. This includes a great many politicians who consider themselves champions of the oppressed. It represents the height of hypocrisy.

      • Timmr

        I doubt that criminal justice reform was ever a popular issue. Changes to the criminal justice system have only happened when they have been tied to other movements. In the eighteenth century it came on the heels of the rejection of the supreme authority of kings. Today it is tied to the struggle of people of color to gain equality. Where are we in this? To change the very nature of the system in and of itself is something new and revolutionary. It may be the people in this movement will blaze that trail, but only if we think big, offering new solutions along with criticism of what has become the supreme corporate state. Take a look around you, that state is coming under scrutiny from all directions and there are people listening.

  5. Robert Curtis

    The govt no longer works for and by the people. Our representatives are funneled into a system addicted to feeding off the people. Why does any citizen pay taxes to such a disfunctional beast? RSO’s especially are not truly repersented…so we are part of the problem by feeding the thing. IMO

  6. mike r

    I am not going to say what I think about people that advocate for a tiered registry because I have told myself not to post negative comments on personal levels but I will say I agree with everyone else that a tiered registry isn’t a compromise it’s a surrender and an acceptance of unconstitutional laws
    .it’s very discouraging that it appears no organization believes or wants to challenge the Courts on the lies and false facts and on the real issues…sad

    • Robert Curtis

      The tiered registry should be apart of sentencing guideline for only while on probation or parole. Once off probation and parole the requirement to register also ends. The registry as it is today is a form of informal probation/parole so why not call/make it for what it really is? There is a thing called Lifetime parole and also civil commitment laws for those deemed extremely dangerous…. although with such low recidivism rates that options should be rarely exercised. This way discretion is returned back to our judges to exercise such on a case by case bases and given the ability to adjust terms while registrants are on such probation/parole.

      • New Person

        Robert Wrote:

        Once off probation and parole the requirement to register also ends. The registry as it is today is a form of informal probation/parole so why not call/make it for what it really is?

        Registration after custody ends, according to the SCOTUS, is administrative. Calling it informal probation incites it is a form of punishment. If registration is ever proven to be punishment, then there will be a huge legal backlash due to the unconstitutionality of the punishment.

        The huge hurdle is proving registration is punishment.

        How do you prove this legally? There has to be cases and such that judges rule parts of registration punishment. Or… we can see registration (out of custody) for what it is – involuntary servitude.

        Here is a quote from lectlaw.com on Involuntary Servitude:

        INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE
        A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

        In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the work. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work.

        However, it is necessary to prove that the person knowingly and willfully took action, by way of force, threats, intimidation or other form of coercion, causing the victim to reasonably believe that he had no way to avoid continued service, that he was confronted by the existence of a superior and overpowering authority, constantly threatening to the extent that his will was completely subjugated.

        Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude.

        .
        .
        .
        Once out of custody, the state has no right to compel you to do any service for them, including registration – unless it considered a form of punishment as stated in the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 6.


        ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

        SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited
        except to punish crime.

        There it is in plain English. Registration outside of custody is an involuntary service (whose consequence is a felony punishment) to punish crime. Registration is punishment. Registration is punitive in nature as prescribed by the description of involuntary service.
        .
        .
        .
        Also note, the California Constitution provides an “inalienable right to privacy and obtain privacy”. Again, once out of custody, what right does the state have to deny you your “inalienable right to privacy or obtain privacy”? Registration, out of custody, forces you to have no privacy, even if it is to law enforcement alone – that is still unconstitutional under the California Constitution.

        Basically, do the crime, do the time, and then it ends. You can start anew. California has its constitution, and we should try to enforce it to help our cause.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Robert, just a note: Registration is technically NOT part of your criminal sentence. It is merely a related administrative matter. Yes, they inform you of it at that time, but it is not part of your sentence. If it were part of the sentence, they could not apply it retroactively.

        • New Person

          This brings up Article 1, Sec 6 of the California Constitution.

          Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless it is to punish a crime.

          Plain and simple question: Is it punishment or involuntary servitude? Involuntary servitude is prohibited. If involuntary servitude, then there is a consequence more than withholding pay or loss of that job (to register). It is coercion with felony punishment for registrants who do not register after successful completion of probation/parole. The only way registration can be legal with felony punishment is if it is in fact to punish a crime.

          The only legal way to describe registration is involuntary servitude after the successful completion of probation/parole.

          Again, I bring up Frank burning his registration card. By not carrying it, he can be cited by the courts and given punishment. Also, if he does not register, then he’ll be sentenced with probably a felony punishment. What will Frank do to combat this if he is arrested and brought to the court system? Maybe he can reiterate Article 1, section 6 of the California Constitution of involuntary servitude is prohibited? Or possibly his “inalienable right to privacy or obtain privacy” (Cal Constitution Article 1, Section 1.). Or both?

          Will he use California law to combat defying to register ever more?

  7. Renny

    We will never be taken seriously if we continue to regard ourselves as something we are not: Citizens.

    If you are not treated exactly the same as a citizen, you are not a citizen.

    We are not citizens and we are not Americans. We owe nothing to the United States.

  8. someone who cares

    I agree with some of the comments that a tiered registry will only support the thought that the registry is legal. A registry is wrong in every way. Once people have served their time, including probation/ parole, that needs to be the end of the punishment. Also, who will determine the tier level and under what grounds? Nobody can predict anyone’s future recidivism, and the Static 99 is an absolute joke. Some said to fight this by demanding the statistics to prove the recidivism rate, and to go by the facts and not just assumptions. How hard is it really to do a powerpoint presentation, proving that all their “facts” are wrong and can;t be the basis of an inhumane and wrongful punishment for so many citizens. We need to show the facts to the public who deserve the truth. If we want to protect the children, the public has a right to know the truth. We are done feeding lies and hysteria. The public deserves the truth!!

    • Anonymous Nobody

      It used to be that getting 1203.4 relief after probation did end your registration. That was changed for felons in the mid 1980s and for misdemeanants in the mid 1990s.

      Among those sheparding that change through, and many other nerous things added to registration in the 1990sand early 2000s,was Antonio Villaraigosa, the speaker of the Assembly at the time, and later the mayor of Los Angeles. Note, he is planning to run for governor next time around. (When he became mayor of Los Angeles, one of the first things he proposed was a city TV program with each episode featuring all about one of the people on the registration list!)

      Villaraigosa is normally categorized as a liberal!

  9. Roger

    Telling the public facts is only a SMALL but necessary part of the way to eliminate the registry. Why? The courts may pay attention to facts and find in our favor, but people vote their feelings—especially FEAR–and rationalize supporting bad RC laws by picking and choosing only facts that justify their fear.

    Your car cannot immediately shift from 60 mph to going in reverse. There must be a transition of slowing down, then reversing.

    Similarly, there is no way a paranoid, fearful public that has been brainwashed with lies about RCs for decades is suddenly going to say, “Wow, those statistics and studies you just told me completely took away my fear of all RCs! Let’s dump that registry!” That is pure wishful thinking. That is NOT how humans change belief systems.

    There MUST be a transitional time that addresses that INCREMENTALLY lowers their fear using PROOF. The obvious way is to let them see how thousands of low-level RCs who are released over a period of a few years do NOT re-offend.

    Then they must see the same results for higher-level RCs.

    Then they must see how shortening the time to get off the registry still doesn’t cause an increase in offenses.

    Then the whole justification for the registry will collapse. And the registry will crumble due to lack of support.

    Janice is the expert in navigating public opinion and laws.

    We are not.

    I vote we support Janice and stop tearing down her plans.

    How about you?

    Assuming you want to remain an uncompromising idealist of “Absolutely No Registry”, please do not badmouth the excellent strategy that Janice advocates. We get enough negativity from those who hate us. Don’t spread their poison for them.

    • Timmr

      That’s in California, only one of four with a life time registry for everyone. How’s that working in the states that have already had a tiered registry for decades? That seems like plenty of time for the population to lower its fear level and moved towards abandoning the registry. Why hasn’t it happened?

      • Civil Rights First

        I live in WA. the Tiered system sucks. Also with a tiered system they will say a certain class of offender i.e. child molester, rapist, etc.. will be automatically life time registration. Please do not support the tiered system but attack the whole dam thing as a united group. I tell you if you agree to a tiered system you will never get everyone free…. once the tiered system is in place anyone in the highest risk classification will never get off just because of the crime they were convicted of. To hell with the fact they have 20, 30, or more years without any further incident. In WA. individuals convicted of certain crimes will NEVER be off the registry even if they get their level lowered…. WAKE UP!

        • Screech

          To be quiet honest, child molesters & rapists are lifetime even in states without tiers. In fact, some states go beyond tiers and put rapists & molesters in the category of sexually violent predator. Washington state had a pretty good system until the court gave some lady earlier this year won the right to disclose on her private website the information of tier 1 offenders. Before that, only law enforcement new

      • ThoughtasWeak

        California still has a lot of politicians and citizens that still believe in stranger danger. Some of the staffers are even surprised to find that CA is only one of a few states that mandates lifetime registry for everyone. Some are surprised to find other states have tries and haven’t reverted back to lifetime registry.

        Janice and her team educate as many people they can at the capital. They educate what the % of reoffense is based on risk levels, they show them the facts and what other states have done. They have brought abuse survivors, psychologists, registrants, parents, spouses, as well as RC’s to help them see the full picture. Not every legislature wants to know the truth. They want to stay blind to it, so they can continue to make more and more laws that will hurt our families.

        As Janice and her team work in Sacramento and the courts, we too need to talk to people and change their perspectives. People are starting to realize that not every sex offender is the same. The more we open their eyes, and push for education and prevention programs the faster we can see the results we all strive for, no more registration.

        Have some faith people. Janice has a plan, just because it’s not written in black and white, doesn’t mean she didn’t have your best interest at heart.

  10. Finn

    I am all for fighting against International Megan’s Law and most certainly, the senseless residency restrictions. But it is the fight for a “tiered” registry that worries me most. Not just the fact a tiered registry will rely on the STATIC-99R scam; but as others mentioned, it gives the message a public registry is effective when the evidence is to the contrary. The registry does nothing but hinder rehabilitation. Registrants in other states talk about how a tiered registry has done little to none in helping them. I could be wrong; but I suspect many may end up very disappointed with the tiered “risk” based registry proposed by CASOMB. A upper LIFETIME tier not defined by the objective fact of criminal conviction, but by the subjective (and seemingly bogus) number scored by the STATIC 99. Again, I hope that I am wrong.

    • New Person

      From CASOMB, less than 1% re-offense rate for registrants.

      Why have a tiered system for “less than 1% re-offense rate”?
      .
      .
      .
      .
      That’s the only stat that needs to be re-emphasized, including re-emphasizing it to CASOMB, who believes in a tiered system despite their own work denoting “less than 1% re-offense rate”. Seems cruel and unusual to have a tier of any kind if there’s a “less than 1% re-offense rate”.

      • nomore

        That’s kind of what many of us are clammering on about… Doesn’t it seem odd that all of these groups post stories and data about how we’re not a danger to society and yet their actions seem to contradict their stated beliefs.

        It reminds me of public defenders and their coziness with prosecuting offices.

        I’ll be off my restrictions next year if they don’t pull something so technically I won’t have a dog in the fight anymore (well unless Alaska goes lifetime and retroactive) but I’m not going away. The idea that this country has slipped so far from it’s original intent, pisses me off. Registering people like animals? Why not tattoos on our arms? That’s what IML is really.. It’s Nazi style stamps. Let’s eradicate it all, not compromise.

        • CXR

          So you are going off the registry which was enabled by your state having a tiered registry, but you don’t want California registrants to be afforded the same consideration. What a strange position.

          • nomore

            You seem to have problems reasoning things out. I left my original state after being bumped up from 10 to 20 by a tiered system. I then moved to a state where I’ve had more freedom from police banging on my door whenever they wanted to and a lower requirement for release. I seek abolishment not the implementation of more unconstitutional requirements. Nothing sttange about it.

            She should challenge 290 at its core. California has a chance to clean house so what’s strange is people advocating for keeping a registry. Its like you people have some kind of Stockholm syndrome. You’ve been captive so long your scared of freedom lol

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Just to weigh in and even clarify my feelings about the tiers: I have mixed feelings about them. They are dangerous, be very careful how you proceed if you are going to proceed on them. Minimum is that they must work cleanly and smoothy in the manner I have described above, or there absolutely is going to be trouble and you absolutely will be creating and building our worst enemy, a bureacracy that will fight us to the death.

      If done properly, and with the right messages in talking, arguing, explaining why we are doing this, it can be done as one of the incremental steps people here often advocate. But it is a treacherous step, it can also be done as the final nail in our coffin. If not handled just right, it will undermine ALL our other complaints and issues and arguments; it WILL be thrown back in our faces at every turn. We can push it but only as we also make clear this is unacceptable, that tiers are merely getting the ball rolling, not an end unto itself nor even acceptable even as we push it. It will be an end unto itself if you ever suggest it is livable. It is NOT livable.

      But with those checkpoints in it that I have addressed above, I would oppose it strongly. Oh, it also should be measuring the time from the date of conviction (or maybe from release from prison), not from the date you started registering — that’s another major problem, especially for those living out of state. In fact, these checkpoints would mean no one living out of state who was convicted in California could ever get out from under lifetime registration. They’re not even in state to be getting assessed!

  11. nomore

    How about who? Everyone has given their wishes and comments, they overwhelmingly say no tiered system.

    You’re analogy falls flat. We are dealing with peoples lives, THEIR lives and they’ve spoken. We don’t need to wait for the public to get it… all we need is for the courts too.

    Anyone with a rational mind and a little history on tiered systems knows it’s a bad idea for multiple reasons.

    This reminds me of the people calling for a constitutional convention. They actually expected the states to reel in the feds when the states are made of the same filth the feds are. They’re power hungry corrupt opportunists.

    So what in the hell would make them favor you or I in legislation…

    You’re only way forward is through the courts, unless you want to wait 50 years before the public and the politithugs catch up.

    Sorry, that’s not smart strategy and nobody should stay quite about it if they think it. After all of the news about recidivism rates and damage the registries causes, you want people to just go with whatever is suggested?

    That doesn’t stand up to logic, sorry.

    • Les Mis Life

      How the courts pretend it’s not punishment is beyond me.
      Politicians will never dare being painted as “pro-sex offender” by voting for a bill that does anything but pile more pain on us.
      Realistically, I think these are our best options:
      1. Raise awareness of how RSOS ruin property values and THEN point out how few actually reoffend.
      2. Severely increase penalties for repeat offenses, while eliminating retroactively increasing registration burdens on all and allowing a mechanism to get off.
      3. Support victims’ plight and point out that nothing is being done to help them while millions are wasted in this family/society ruining registry system

  12. nomore

    I’d like to add more..

    Her and her team are advocates right? Has anyone asked what we want? Has there been a nationwide poll I’m unaware of? I’d think giving people what they want as an advocate would be a good place to start.

    She’s done great on living restrictions, they’re working on IML and a number of other attacks which are great too but those aren’t the biggest problems.

    Being on the registry is the biggest restriction to a stable life. What good does the lifting of a living restriction mean when you can’t find work because everyone and their brother outs you to the boss in less than a week. Try and run a business like that, see how long your customers keep coming in. How about all of the love you get from the public? Death threats, cars and property vandalised, family harassed… I could go on and on.

    This all, from being on the registry itself. So you want people to get onboard with something that causes fundamental harm to them AND take the high risk of possibly getting bumped up to all of the previous fun, plus increased time and more restrictions.

    Yeah, sign me up for that shit. I’m dying for it.

    • I can't wait to die

      NOMORE,

      Attacks must be made on all corners of the hit list with the possibility of getting one or 2 or 3 case’s to SCOTUS in hopes of overturning the price club membership or at least parts of it at a time!

      • New Person

        Actually, we don’t have to go all the way to the SCOTUS.

        A Maryland lawyer used their state Constitution to prove Ex Post Facto because it was written in their Constitution.

        So why can’t we use our state Constitution to combat the registration? I really think (I’m no lawyer though) that we have two laws in our favor in the California Constitution once out of custody of the state (meaning off of probation/parole): 1) Inalienable right to privacy or obtain privacy and 2) Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.

        If we beat registration in California, then there’s a good chance we can beat SCOTUS.

        This price club membership… is involuntary service (once your sentence, probation, or parole is completed). Slavery is unconstitutional. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless it is considered punishment – otherwise, involuntary servitude is a form of slavery. You can walk away from a price club membership and have no ill effects to one’s being. You cannot walk away from registration because you are being coerced to registered by penalty of felony punishment – which is the definition of involuntary servitude.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      No More, as for assessing what anyone wants, I have to give credit to Janice and CARSOL. They have regular meetings with any registrant who wants to attend to give information and hear their input. They spend a lot of time with those meetings, and so they do better on that point that anyone else or any other group I know of.

      But yes, that doesn’t mean anyone is infallible. They are listening, and they are making the best choices they now how to make. They have to draw on their background to try to make the best strategies. They are learning as they go. Every day, they get better and learn more. Some of us are a bit surprised when we hear comments from CARSOL about shock at this ruling or that ruling, for instance. Some of us have been int he game a long time and so are not the least bit shocked, knew that would not work.

      • nomore

        OK but let’s look at the facts rationally. How many people are we talking about collectively and how many of those are just trusting without verifying? Do they actually know what a tiered system entails? That’s why hero worshipping is so dangerous. People shut their brains off and become sheep easily led.

        Civil commitment is great, all the cool kids are doing it!

    • Les Mis Life

      Any time this starts, it’s always pitched as “worst of the worst” and then they decide to expand it down, “because wouldn’t that seem safer? “

  13. I can't wait to die

    the standards the feds have to be compliant to get the hit list bribe $$$ is to have a tiered system; although Florida is a compliant state, there is no tiered system in place.

  14. mike r

    how many billions of dollars and pain and suffering on just the residency restrictions are costing the tax payers defending all the law suits taking place across the country and taxes from people who can’t find work because they can’t even find a place to live let alone work..

    I was just informed that I was correct that organizations and individuals can be sued in a false lite action..it seems like a no brainer that these organizations and individuals are projecting us in a false lite and with all the evidence that’s now out there that they should’ve know that it is a false lite and that they are actually desamating it with reckless disregard for the truth and that their actions are causing great detrimental affects.

    • ONE DAY AT A TIME

      The problem is that it has not cost taxpayers billions, or millions, or 100’s of thousands of dollars to defend the residency lawsuits. At most, the average suit is settled for $3000 to $5000 to cover attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs like Frank rarely see any financial gain themselves. Other than the several lawsuits Janice has filed, there certainly is not a large enough number of these cases filed with a large enough settlement to cause taxpayers any real concern. No advocacy group or attorney is making any large amounts of money fighting residency restrictions or any other issues we are fighting. If you know of any large payout by taxpayers, please point us to the documentation.

  15. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    I think it’s great that ACSOL continues to fight against residency restrictions and IML.

    However, I agree with many of you that a tiered registry is not a good idea. It’s simply troublesome that there are 20 year and lifetime tier levels, even under this tiered registry proposal. Yet by CASOMB’s own admission, even “high-risk” labeled registrants are no more likely to reoffend when offense-free in the community for 17 years. Why, then, does CASOMB not propose the maximum tier level at 17 years? Why are 20 years and lifetime levels even necessary?

    Remember, CASOMB is the same organization that endorses the polygraph and the sex offender registry when neither are based on science or empirical findings. Same with the questionable Static-99R… which CASOMB incorporates into this phony baloney tiered registry. It’s disturbing to say the least.

    • Finn

      My thoughts exactly. When I attended the last CARSOL meeting, it amazed me at how many supported this fictitious “tiered” registry. It was like watching the masses worship a false prophet. Those I spoke with did not seem to understand the many exceptions and caveats to the 10 year, 20 year and lifetime “tier” levels. They just blindly decide to buy the Kool Aid, so to speak, perhaps because they are weary and desperate for some type of relief. Like you, I do not trust anything that comes from CASOMB. Like the polygraph and STATIC 99 scam (both of which endorsed by CASOMB), I also feel this fictitious “tiered” registry is “phony baloney” (as you put it). Just look at other states with a tiered registry and see the patchwork of disaster they end up with. Then on top of it, California wants to incorporate “risk” into the equation? Sounds good… but only in theory. Fortune telling has never been a strong suit of our lawmakers (or anyone else for that matter).

  16. mike r

    I dont care what people on this site say about this comment I’m saying it anyways…
    I will partially repeat myself and expand on my comments…I am dumbfounded have zero faith that any of these organizations really want to eliminate the registry…it is beyond a reasonable mind that none of them have brought suit on the real issues that can not be ignored by the courts i am not going to keep regurgitating the issues we all know the answer to that… i hate to say it but none of these organizations have anything to gain by ending registration…it’s very naive to not question the motives of any and every one especially organizations that are growing and benefiting off the registry…slam me with all your hate speech but im telling you but it can’t be much harder or expensive to present and argue the real issues that can end the registration scheme..it actually seems like a much easier and credible arguments then all these lame technical issues…dont get me wrong i have benefited from these technical wins here in cali and I do appreciate what has been successful here i just feel if we want real change we are going to have to do it ourselves..

    • ThoughtasWeak

      It’s very hard to get a case where the registry being seen as punitive by the courts. Janice as well as many others are always on the look out for the right case and plantiffs to Challange these laws.

      It took years for the right case to present itself in OK. It took several more years before MI present itself. It’s a lot harder to win a case in CA, since we were the first to have a registry and it was always lifetime. There wasn’t a retroactive issue to address (unlike the other states). Therefore, in CA the only way to have the registry completely abolished is through SCOTUS. The courts here in CA will not rule the registry as punitive like the other states as there wasn’t a retroactive aspect to the registry.

      • James

        Hummmm….ThoughtasWeak…I hadn’t considered this aspect, smart of you.

        Yet, while Registration has always been lifetime in CA, it hasn’t only until lately that it has truly become putative and therefore…again…these added restrictions are an application of ex post facto law against us and certainly not something I signed up for when, like most of us, I took an attractive plea deal.

        However, to be truthful with everyone here….as much as I fought it and screamed and shouted and cursed against the night…

        It was a good deal, and even given today what I know, I still would have taken the deal.

        That’s the truth of it.

        Best Wishes, James

      • anonymously

        Just because California had A registry around does not mean that ex-post facto is not violated. Ex-post-facto is violated by new or increased punishment. You can say its not new, in the respect that a registry was around in 1947, but the same can’t or shouldn’t be said about punishment not increasing with each new add-on.

        • Timmr

          I have more restrictions on me now than 12 years ago, when I got off probation. Registration is like inverse probation or parole. With probation, if you obey the rules you have a chance to lessen restrictions. Registration keeps piling on the rules no matter how good you behave. It is a disincentive to reintegration, whereas probation or parole can be an incentive. It can’t even be equated with modern punishment. It is a foul beast of its own that is maybe best compared with medieval punishments.

  17. 72FLH

    we need our rights back ,the public is hooked on this REG , and that’s not our problem , we did not sell it to the public , but that is not even the point ! the point is that judges are not going by the very clear CA constitution , or the US Constitution ! what kind of freedom can we have living like this? I am not for a tiered system at all! eliminating this registry is the only way we will have a real life with our family and friends , I am sick of being used like a cruch by people that are sold a bill of goods by the crooks that are keeping them sick rather than working on moving on ,now we are being raped over and over , and we have no choice in the matter , we are forced to relive our nightmare ,

    • I can't wait to die

      the hit list aka price club is all about $$$ why has the static 99 been challenged like radar or breathalyzer where the manufacturer had to give the source code? well it keeps the static 99 alive and as a result keeps people in treatment for years. thus it provides many people jobs. just as more cops, probation, jail/prison guards, computer people all employed. also the states and feds must always have a group of boogy men so they can do other things under the radar. follow the $$$$
      i may be wrong about this but i thought that there is DR. Pt. privacy is the law, if so i thought that even if you signed some agreement that goes against the law, the law prevails.

      • Finn

        The STATIC 99R test is no where close being as accurate as the breathalyzer or radar detector. The STATIC 99 developers (Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson and Thornton) refuse to disclose the STATIC 99R’s “source code,” so to speak, because they don’t want their big scam exposed.

  18. mike r

    amen 72 if these organizations really care and want to abolish the registry they will challenge the Courts justification for these laws and totally refute the false facts and straight out lies that was used to justify these laws…I am not an attorney but any reasonable mind will tell you the following issues are just the starting point for a successful challenge…
    Issues.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”.

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

  19. NPS

    The registry will never go away; at least not in our lifetime. That is a fact that will remain until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. Until then, I openly welcome a tiered system because at this moment, we have nothing. We Californians are on it for life regardless of the nature of offense.

    I truly believe that once California has its tiered registry the fight will continue. 46 other states have tiers but that doesn’t prevent them from fighting against the registry. They are not sitting back waiting for their registration to expire. They are still fighting against those restrictions that prevent them from maintaining their inalienable rights. They are still working to prove that the registry even with its tiers is still violating the Constitution. I say it’s better to fight as a tiered state than a lifetime registration state.

    So, Janice, thank you for all that you have done and are continuing to do. Push for that tiered registry because in this state, a fight against the tier is a fight to maintain lifetime registration.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      FYI, there still would be many people subject to lifetime registration under a tiered registry. The issue for me is a matter of principle: why accept CASOMB’s tier proposal when it is constructed in such a disingenuous manner? Why include 20 year and lifetime tier levels when it’s proven that even “high-risk” offenders who remain offense-free in the community for 17 years are not likely to reoffend compared to anyone else? Why not make the highest tier term 17 years then?

      And why sell a “risk” based registry when ‘risk’ is quantified by the Static-99R scam? Under this fictitious tiered registry, a high Static-99R scam score can mean the difference between a 10-year -OR- lifetime registration term… even for a non-contact offense!

      Sometimes “nothing,” as you put it, is better than something. Especially if the “something” is crap. And I’m telling you, a tiered registry — as currently proposed by CASOMB — is “crap.”

      As for the other states that you mention, it seems an awful amount of registrants from other states complain about how the tiered registry has thrown them under the bus.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Yes, as it has been proposed, it is NOT good – I have already listed some key details that are very dangerous for us and must be taken out.

        Even the time frames — a minimum of 10 years for the most minor of offenses, is not justified. Gee, 10 years was just an arbitrary number that came into play when those who can never have sentences long enough boosted the standard with no facts to justify it to 10 years from five years. Five years was the standard based on facts for recidivism of serious felonies, and we are now supporting 10 years for the most minor of misdemeanors!

        We must not simply accept a proposal as-is, we must get in at the drafting stage and fight afterward to make it what it ought to be. They are not going to come back later and touch this third rail or politics a second time around, we must get it right the first time.

        This is a point where we should insist that misdemeanors be taken out of registration altogether, and, if we must go to tiers rather than elimination of registration, make it five years for the lessor felonies.

        Mind you, the Federal standard now being pushed is only for the offenses they list. They do not list any misdemeanors, nor many of the lesser felonies for which California requires registration!

        I have spoken often about finding some political cover when doing something, and if we do the tiers, that is the cover that can allow misdemeanors to be taken out of registrant altogether, and for a lesser number of years for lesser felonies – and we should be talking with whomever is putting together a tier proposal to demand that be included.

        It would not be the first time offenses have been taken out of registration, that was done by the Legislature with lewd conduct at the end of the 1970s, an no one from the public even noticed much less complained about a misdemeanor being taken out; the public has no idea that this even applies to misdemeanors, the public is only concerned with what they see a serious offenders.

    • Timmr

      The difference is those registrants didn’t have a hand in creating their registries. It can be said it is easier to oppose something thrust upon you, than backtrack on something you had a hand in making, and like it or not, own it.

    • nomore

      “inalienable” It’s “unalienable”.. There is a difference.

      Other things don’t make sense. You say it’s better to fight from a tiered system. Why? I’d say it’s the other way around because you have a harsher penalty to bitch about and rightly so.

      “The registry will never go away; at least not in our lifetime.”
      That’s a load of crap. Of course later you say “until the supreme court rules otherwise”

      How do you think that’ll come about? Wishful thinking? Osmosis over time? It takes a challenge, that’s what we’re all saying, it’s time.

      Actually depending on what you’re calling “tiered” I’d say you’re off on your number. Many states are having problems implementing ADW. Some are weighing the costs and declining. 29 states have not substantially complied.

      http://www.smart.gov/sorna-map.htm

      Here, if you’re a repeat offender, I believe it’s then life. But no civil commitment which I believe ADW has.

      But you go ahead, keep pushing because you feel desperarate. One way or another, they’ll still shaft you.

    • NPS

      I shouldn’t have even been on the registry to begin with since the penal code (which is now expunged) doesn’t even require it, but OC Judges love to make people register as it makes them look tough on crime.

      So, Tobin’s Tool, it is definitely something for me. I am my own priority, and if a tiered registry has me fall off (and it will), then I openly accept it. Sounds selfish? I whole heartedly admit it. But what’s more selfish: me? or holding tens of thousands hostage under lifetime registry because it doesn’t suit you?

      • Finn

        NPS, if you don’t mind me asking, what penal code requiring you to register was “expunged?” Just curious, you know.

        • NPS

          Actually the code for which I was convicted doesn’t require registration. I am what is called discretionary.. That is, 290.006. This means that the judge at his own discretion required that I register as long as he documents his reasons why. Only the judge in my case never made such documentation. He did so because he could.

          I will not state which code was expunged as it is insignificant when it comes to the registry. This site isn’t about talking about the offense. It’s about our rights and life on the registry.

          If you want to know which codes can be expunged, look up PC 1203.4.

          • New Person

            NPS,

            I tried to get the courts to do their legal jobs and do the mandatory two step process. I never got one. I tried to appeal it as well, but they said there would be no other conclusion. Except, that’s not what the law said – it said they had to go through a two step process… essentially a mini trial for registration.

            I never got it and the appeals court basically said the lower courts didn’t have to do the mandatory two step process. I figured having a really low static 99 score would or should weigh heavily in my favor. It didn’t matter.

            That’s probably why I don’t want a tiered system b/c the courts won’t follow what is law.

            • NPS

              Quite honestly, I have no idea what a Static-99 evaluation is because I’ve never taken one. In fact, I am barred from taking it because there is no evaluation for people in my demographic since the rate re-offense doesn’t even quantify on any kind of scale. In other words, we will never reoffend. I was only given the general examination given to all people on probation. My rate of re-offense for any crime is less than 1%.

              Obviously if certain demographics are barred from taking static-99, there will be many questions related to tier placement since those like me either should be on the lowest tier or not be on a registry at all. And that will lead to another can of worms for the legal system. If people are already tested at being less than 1% of reoffense, and the code isn’t even a registrable offense, then judges shouldn’t be employing 290.006.

              • New Person

                “… then the judges shouldn’t be employing 290.006.”

                Well, I concur. I scored low on the Static 99, but still the courts thought the judge would have came to the same conclusion despite not doing the mandatory two step process.

                So I don’t know what the Static 99 actually does. If you’re a low risk assessment, then why even slap lifetime?

              • Timmr

                There was no reply button under your comment, but I am replying to you, New Person. It looks like the CASOMB tier proposal is a hybrid, a combination of risk based and level of heinousness of offense based. I am not seeing any definition of what risk is. I think the science-looking part in the risk assessment is to impress the legislators and the courts, and the offense base part is to keep the pitchfork public from knocking it down outright.

              • Tobin's Tools 2.0

                But then is there much “science” to the Static-99R? The Static-99R is statistical manipulation to achieve certain desired outcomes.

                The Static-99R’s ‘science’ forces its opponent(s) to play by its so-called “actuarial” “coding rules,” in which those that disagree with its non-transparent methodology must entangle themselves in the Static-99R “developers'” pseudo semantics. Semantics of dizzying qualifications that, are at best, appear to be applicable to only a 10-year maximum period.

                Timmr, while it is true that a “tiered” proposal may be classified as a “hybrid” system, a high static score will supersede offense-based tier classification. So even if you have a non-violent, non-contact, first-time offense, the Static-99R may classify one into the lifetime tier (rather than the 10 or 20 year tier). The result? Because the Static-99R perversely gives a higher score to non-violent offenders, you will — at least in theory — see a greater proportion of non-violent offenders classified in the most severe (lifetime) tier because of the static score. They will be lumped together with the most severe (violent and contact) offenders.

                This does not make sense, as the Static-99R only seems to publish “norms” that purport to predict the future only 10-years out. So why base lifetime registration on the Static-99 scam when it only pretends to play fortune teller up to — and NOT exceeding — 10-years.

                Someone show me Static-99R ‘norms’ that predict more than 10-years out to prove my reasoning wrong.

              • Timmr

                It does not make sense for someone who had a violent or molestation offense to be considered a risk, say after 17 years, using their own studies, basing it on nothing but disgust for the crime. How does one measure disgust? How is that re-integrating anyone into society, which is a benefit to society? The CASOMB proposal is a mix of punishment and regulatory theory, a real mutant, and neither part can stand on its own, let alone help the other. I doubt it will do much more than spawn lawsuits against it, and those who support it will end up wasting time in the courts defending it

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        NPS,

        It depends. Some may argue your position as more “selfish” in the long-run. It’s a matter of perspective. For me, it’s about refusing to take anything CASOMB — and its corrupt, conflict-of-interest laden board members — offers. Especially when much of its proposals are disingenuous and flout the very premise of their claims. The California Sex Offender Management Board certainly has its own hidden agenda.

        To coin an idiom, “It’s all relative.”

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you, NPS, for your understanding and words of support! This organization was created to protect the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of registrants which have been and continue to be denied since 1947. During that 70 year period, the CA registry has ballooned to more than 100,000 and is currently expected to grow to about 135,000 by the year 2020. One way to stop this growth and to reduce the number of registrants is to create a tiered registry that will allow some, but not all, registrants to leave the registry permanently. If that reduction is successful, the tiers can be adjusted and more registrants will be allowed to leave the registry permanently. The key to success is responsibility. The first registrants who leave the registry on a tiered registry must act responsibility and must not re-offend because if they do, the tiers will shrink or the tiered registry will disappear completely and today’s scenario where every one is on the registry for life will continue.

      • nomore

        How about doing a pro vs con post on a tiered system with actual stats on what happened in other states. Tell them what percentage of originally lower tiered rso’s got bumped up, etc.

        I’m not seeing a lot of happy people about this so it makes me wonder why you’re pushing it or possibly WHO is pushing it.

      • Finn

        I support ACSOL. But it does seem over idealistic in expecting all those that are potentially removed from a potential tier registry not to reoffend. Even out of many thousands, there will likely be at least one idiot who will repeat. As for this “tiering” proposal, I also share the fear that its “risk” based premise is absolutely flawed. Why incorporate the STATIC 99R into it when there is so much flaws with the test? Incorporating the static tests hardly seems like an effective way to define “risk” under this “tier” registry. I don’t even think the STATIC 99R is designed to be used after one has been offense-free in the community for at least 10 years. Why then is it used to define whether one should register for life?

      • Doug

        Janice has worked , very hard , and very long , for very little pay , Her only goal is to help right the un just system that we live with. She has dedicated her life to this cause.. If she says the tierd system is better , and is the best way to go. I am not going to disput her. . I’m not going to throw rocks. I belive she knows best.
        Janice is the only person I know who is fighting for us. Don’t discurage her. With out her We will be much worse off. I’ll never understand how anyone could jump into this quigmire , when they were not forced to , simply to try and help others.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          We are simply expressing our objection to CASOMB’s tiered registry proposal.

          In my opinion, we can disagree with some of ACSOL’s objectives (namely, the proposed tiered registry), while at the same time having the greatest of admiration and appreciation for Ms. Bellucci’s great efforts and achievement.

          Most of us are without any power to do much, and these public forums provide the opportunity to vent and express our concerns with regard to a tiering of the registry. Is this not what these forums are made for?

          • Anonymous Nobody

            Yes, absolutely. And absolutely the highest respect — and great appreciation. We want her. And we have input and disagreements on some points that each individual giving it does believe is helpful and worth considering.

      • ONE DAY AT A TIME

        I for one am 100% sure that Janice’s approach is the best way. We will never get rid of the registry completely. At best we may get rid of the public registry. People think it’s easy to challenge an issue already decided by the Supreme Court, but no case is easy to get before SCOTUS. They pick the cases they want to hear. Always less than 100 per year. I think if we abolish the registry completely, more judges will opt to be overly cautious and just give out larger sentences that will be equal to life for many. Be careful what you ask for, every decision will have unintended consequences.

        • nomore

          “Be careful what you ask for, every decision will have unintended consequences.”

          Yeah, that’s what we’re trying to get across to you people.l but you’re uneducated and hard headed.. Bad combo.

          Most of your comments are flatly false or reaching. The courts cant dish out greater sentences unless it’s warranted or they’d be doing it now.

          Yes, the supreme court hears a select few but with recent cases being what they are, I think they’ll revisit this, but if we never go after the registry, you’re guaranteed to get just what you have.

          If they want to help, then challenge the registry and 290 in California or pick a select state to challenge the registry in. A punitive win outright will help those in that state and set up a supreme court hearing.

          Hell challenge AWA, challenge something that’ll set the stage for the future

          Go big or go home?

        • 72FLH

          they will have to charge you for something level 2 or 3 , and most will still be on the REG anyway , we are still doing time ! its time to get rid of this REG, most court cases are not a fair fight to begin with , so do we really need yet one more tool to be used against us , their is already talk of the worst of the worst ! LOL , dose anyone know how easy it is to get a second case ? pretty darn easy , same dam thing lets play lets make a deal ! when sitting in a jail with cops seeing to it your living a nightmare when waiting to go to court ! so the worst of the worst bull shit , there is only people , the worst are the lop sided courts that pass out time with out true facts , setting bonds way to high , and no safety with in the jails , using fear to bend us over , state unlimited resources to beat you in court , that’s just a few things , now we are doing time for what we might do ? force people to show up for a lie detector ? we have nothing to prove , we did our time and paper , this nightmare needs to be over , 99R what a bad joke , its all propped up by junk voo doo , I lived in a state that was tierd , and I know people that started out level 1 and are now level 33333333333333333333 , many other factors were pilled on as time went by ,

      • Timmr

        Wow, you just described what is wrong with the registry. Say some tier one public urinator flips out rapes and kills someone, all on tier one are bumped up. How am I going to keep that from happening?

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Janice, first, I want you to know I VERY much appreciate and respect YOU and all you have been doing. And hope you never feel otherwise by points I make that might disagree with Consolaws’ approach. I’m not fighting you, I’m working with you to get to the best we can get — and extending my knowledge and background (I can’t explain that, I’m h).

        That said, I have understood all along what you just explained about the approach. But I politely want to point out that I don’t think you quite understand how politics works — and that is not surprising, I do not believe it is not your background for the past several decades.

        The likelihood of a second or third revisit to tiers is pretty nil. You might have heard cf scaling back Social Security benefits as an untouchable third rail of politics; well, registration is that third rail on steroids.

        When we do this, if we can get them to touch that rail once, it is a one-time thing only, the politicians are not going to play with suicide a second time around, not even 10, 20 years from now. Gee, just look at how they even have repeatedly refused to do it this one time, just look at how nearly anything to make registration even worse just sales through often by unanimous vote.

        Tiers will not be coming back for further consideration and reduction later, that thinking is simply showing a lack of understanding of politics. So, we simply must pull out the nukes now, and demand and push harder for the proposal to be made much better than it has been proposed up until now. What has been proposed is NOT good — and the checkpoints I have warned about will only make it more impossible later, they are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As I wrote above, even the time frames are based on — nothing, made up out of thin air, whereas there are facts out there for real justification of time frames for serous felonies, saying five years is the mark, but we’re promoting 10 years for even the most minor of misdemeanors much less the lesser felonies.

        We must eliminate those checkpoints (the assessments based on individual review rather than automatic by offense, and individual review only if you apply for a reduction — which even would save the state money. And also the tail end where the proposal says we mist file with the state to be OK’d to stop registering — no, they already know, that is only going to be sued against us), that is absolutely critical, and we should at least make the lesser offenses five years and they simply cannot justify making misdemeanants register, for mere poor demeanor.

        I can’t stress enough how critical it is to get it right now; we are not going to get to tweak it later, that just is not the category this political issue is in, this is an untouchable third rail, it is not the same as other political matters.

    • 72FLH

      they can pass a law in no time flat that can and will put you right back on it , I don’t think its right to throw everyone under a bus because of some bull shit test , that’s forced on us as well , this is not any of us agreed to in court , LIFE AS 290 , did the time over 30 years ago and walked all my paper , most people on this site are sick of being treated like live stock , level 1 & 2& 3$ , who is to say ? how many had no other choice but to take a plea ? the state is taking more of our writes by forcing test ON PEOPLE ! just so maybe a few will get off , in the mean the court will just shift in how it will charge people on down the road , like magic all SO’s will be level 2or 3 ,

      • Anonymous Nobody

        No one is suggesting throwing anything under the bus. It is not so simple. We are calling for NOT simply complacently accepting a bad proposal and going out lobbying for it.

        Get in at the stage where the proposal is being drafted, that is a major point to influence what gets drafted. Play every influence method out there at every level, such as finesse, poker and bluffing, psychology, point out how those checkpoints not only are useless to the state but also have budget considerations (all this will cost money), and other. Whatever you do, do not be complacent about accepting a bad proposal, do not fear arguing it and trying to change it.

        Since it failed the last time around, we have time to get it right this time – and we should. We should not just go with the same bad proposal.

  20. Dan

    Ever heard of being compelled to re-register whenever you get a new car or get rid of the old one?
    My buddy says they are trying to pull that b.s. on him. He’s got money and gets a new car every few months, they expect him to go down there and update (aside from the annual)! LOL.

    • cool CA RC

      if he got money for a car then may be some of it can go to all4consolaws im sure it will speed up getting rid of the registry faster.

      Now the police are asking.. Have you sold this car yet? did you stop using it? something like that.

  21. Tara Swift

    My husband is on PRCS in Fresno County, his probation Officer has done nothing but set him up to fail by her application of the residency restriction. My husband owns a mobile home in a mobile park, which is next to a school. For the purposes of measuring the 2000 ft required to be between his residence and a school, his PO is measuring from the front door of our mobile home to the closest boundary of the school, as “THE CROW FLIES,” in a straight line. However, the “straight line” goes over a 5 ft blook wall, across an Irrigation District easement, across a canal full of water, and over a 6 ft. chainlink fence. IF his PO measured the 2000 ft. from the ENTRANCE to the mobile park, our mobile home would be over 4000 ft. from the school. The PO has created her own definition of “PRIMARY ENTRANCE.’ We argued the point that one cannot access our mobile home without FIRST entering through the entrance to the mobile home park. As a result of his PO’s blanket application of the residency restrictions, he has registered with the PC290 office as “transient”. The Officer’s at the PC 290 office told us they have no problem with the address where our mobile home/mobile home park is located and that they will not come arrest him for being there, and that the Fresno County Probation Dept (AB 109) Officer in charge of ALL PC 290s hangs her hat on residency restrictions and is, in affect, an habitual B____! We are homeless, it is over 100 degrees in Fresno, and due to my husbands transient status, he wears a GPS and we must find places to charge. As a result of this restriction, he is unable to find employment, and I am recovering from cancer treatment. Why isn’t anyone else up in arms about Fresno County Probation’s unconstitutional application of the residency restrictions?? Its blanket one size fits all attitude? We are at our wits end and ready to give up!!!!!!!

    • Anonymous Nobody

      You make a good point that I also have wondered about. They do seem to always measure the distance by radius rather than by the distance it is to actually go from one place to another. Gee, you could be 75-feet away from a school on the next block over, but to go there you would have to go all the way around the block, a big block, and that would be 5,000 feet.

      I wish I had some advice for you.

  22. WitsEndWife

    My husband is on PRCS in Fresno County, his probation Officer has done nothing but set him up to fail by her application of the residency restriction. My husband owns a mobile home in a mobile park, which is next to a school. For the purposes of measuring the 2000 ft required to be between his residence and a school, his PO is measuring from the front door of our mobile home to the closest boundary of the school, as “THE CROW FLIES,” in a straight line. However, the “straight line” goes over a 5 ft blook wall, across an Irrigation District easement, across a canal full of water, and over a 6 ft. chainlink fence. IF his PO measured the 2000 ft. from the ENTRANCE to the mobile park, our mobile home would be over 4000 ft. from the school. The PO has created her own definition of “PRIMARY ENTRANCE.’ We argued the point that one cannot access our mobile home without FIRST entering through the entrance to the mobile home park. As a result of his PO’s blanket application of the residency restrictions, he has registered with the PC290 office as “transient”. The Officer’s at the PC 290 office told us they have no problem with the address where our mobile home/mobile home park is located and that they will not come arrest him for being there, and that the Fresno County Probation Dept (AB 109) Officer in charge of ALL PC 290s hangs her hat on residency restrictions and is, in affect, an habitual B____! We are homeless, it is over 100 degrees in Fresno, and due to my husbands transient status, he wears a GPS and we must find places to charge. As a result of this restriction, he is unable to find employment, and I am recovering from cancer treatment. Why isn’t anyone else up in arms about Fresno County Probation’s unconstitutional application of the residency restrictions?? Its blanket one size fits all attitude? We are at our wits end and ready to give up!!!!!!!

  23. T

    I have some questions, and I don’t know if this is important to think about but here it goes, let’s say that the IML is lifted, what happens then? will the requirement of doing the notification and sending of green notices to the countries end? will registrants be able to travel internationally again without being flagged and denied entry to a country? what could happen if the IML is lifted?

    • David Kennerly

      If IML is completely overturned:

      “will the requirement of doing the notification and sending of green notices to the countries end?”

      The Registrant’s obligation to notify the U.S. government WILL end. However, and unless the courts also address the government practice of notifying countries which predates IML, then Green Notices or other mechanisms of notification will NOT end.

      ” will registrants be able to travel internationally again without being flagged and denied entry to a country?”

      Not necessarily. It seems likely that some countries will continue to deny entry because they will still benefit from the notification mechanism which predated IML just as many Registrants were denied entry prior to its enactment and for several years now UNLESS the courts also consider and sanction those current and earlier practices as part of the IML challenge.

      What is key is that the courts undertake a scrutiny of those pre-IML practices as part of the IML lawsuit currently before the Federal Court. This is one of the things that Janice is trying to do now in response to the Judge’s queries.

      • PK

        David, can those pre-IML practices be part of the IML lawsuit if they were not in the original complaint? Is this why Janice had asked to modify her complaint? I think the biggest issue is there is that these “pre-IML practices” were being carried out in secret, without legal standing and guidance. That being said, how could anyone legally challenge those practices if there was nothing known about them?

        • Mike

          I have thought the same thing PK. It is one thing to tell another country of your offense, albeit we are singled out as they do not notify other countries of DUI or drug offenses or even worse crimes. What I can not see as legal is the green notices that states as a fact that the person is likely to commit another crime. Based on what? Total speculation. I would like to hear a response.

          • PK

            I think I would have focused on the Green Notices as well. The problem is however, once you’ve been flagged and your name is in the Immigration System for whatever country, it would be extremely challenging to get your name off of their system.

            • Timmr

              From what I remember, the judge was having trouble figuring out why the pre-IML notifications were not being challenged.

        • David Kennerly

          “David, can those pre-IML practices be part of the IML lawsuit if they were not in the original complaint? Is this why Janice had asked to modify her complaint?”

          Yes, so long as the Judge allows an amended complaint which she appears to have invited in the last court hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss.

          As to the near-total mystery of the provenance of their notification regime, I would say that we probably have the support of the court (given the Judge’s line of questioning in this regard) to compel the government to respond to those questions.

          I believe that the answer to the question of the government’s authority may lie buried somewhere in AWA (I don’t remember precisely where) perhaps as language that charges the government with “exchanging information” with foreign governments or some such although I really don’t recall accurately. I just remember that there was language that was vague, and probably intentionally so, that might be used to justify travel notices.

  24. mike r

    Janice can you please explain to me and many others on this site why you and your team will not prepare and file a complaint that includes the real issues that could topple the entire registration scheme especially challenging the court’s justification for these laws that was and is based on lies and deception also right to reputation right to equal protection right to travel right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official actions right to freedom of association and I could go on and on but those are all fundamental rights that are being infringed upon with absolutely no justification or due process ???

    • PK

      Mike r- that’s quite a run-on sentence there. “Janice can you please explain to me and many others on this site why you and your team will not prepare and file a complaint that includes the real issues that could topple the entire registration scheme”.

      Whatever complaint that the Lawyers will file needs to be very minutely specific. In fact in as much as the challenge to the new IML Law is specific, it challenges 2 provisions to IML being the Passport and Notification Provisions. Galen and his Associate Attorney felt that this was a somewhat broad approach.

      Moreover, you mentioned: why not challenge the entire registration scheme. As you know, the registration schema varies from state-to-state, and I think trying to challenge those as a group at a federal level probably couldn’t be done with a single lawsuit. She could go after the AWA however.

    • nomore

      I’m guessing because they don’t want to. Not all people see the registry as unconstitutional despite the false data that was used to implement it.

      If we want this done, we’re going to have to raise the money to hire an attorney and pick a fight.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      MikeR, I think she has explained that often: they feel the “incremental” approach will be more successful in the long run. (I put “incremental” in quotes because there is “piecemeal” and there is “incremental.”)

      My own opinion is that it is a bit much to insist that everything they do be given a full, detailed, written explanation of their justification. This isn’t to say I wouldn’t like to have it, but they won’t get anything done if they are spending all their time instead writing up such full, detailed explanations, and then having to defend them, since different people will agree and disagree about that explanation. We would not want to debate ourselves to death here and so get nothing at all done.

      That’s simply my opinion, I’m not criticizing, and MikeR, you are welcome to have and express your’s, I even appreciate it.

    • David Kennerly

      Mike, I don’t remember Janice saying that she refused to do any such thing.

      Her resources, and all of ours, are limited and she has to direct those resources strategically and at the correct time.

      She is trying, amongst other things, to build momentum and a base of support.

      I’d say that she is doing so very effectively and I know that there is nothing she’d rather do than to completely dismantle the registration scheme.

  25. Gregory Gaspar

    I’m always grateful for the help and your determination in this matter. I can see how those in our judicial process are afraid of making a ruling. We are labeled as monsters by the public and ostracized by others who don’t know us. I’ve been fortunate, however, I do not want to be known as one of the lucky ones. I want to see changes and tiers with limited time frames being registered.
    What needs to be noted as well is the unfairness of prosecuting those who fit this criteria. I do keep a low profile and because of this, people in different capacities of law enforcement have said things to me not knowing I am a registrant.
    One case:: Yet another Sheriff Deputy was found to be having sex with a minor. His wife divorced him and he was just transferred to another department. The reason I was told was that he just got too involved in his line of work.
    There is a double standard on who gets registered and who doesn’t. This is one of the many reasons we no longer hear and/or read about those who carry a badge being arrested and charged.

  26. mike r

    I know you don’t owe any of us an explanation and we here in cali all owe you our appreciation for what you and your team have accomplished in California. like I’ve said in the past I couldn’t even be able to go to college if it wasn’t for you and your team..I am just incredibly confused and dumbfounded why these issues are not a major importance…I would love to hear a detailed description why they are not….I am sure a lot of other people would like to know as well…thank you….

    • PK

      “.I am just incredibly confused and dumbfounded why these issues are not a major importance…I would love to hear a detailed description why they are not…”

      Why do you think they are not Mike r ?

      Do you believe that lawmakers and politicians would have something to gain by doing what is right and what is fair for the mere 100,000 Sex Offenders in California?

      Life as an RSO will NOT be fair- get used to it. The Lawyers will chip away at it piece by piece, but don’t expect any changes to “make things fair” to happen overnight.

      • nomore

        Why do you guys keep bringing up politicians and lawmakers. We know that’s a all but wasteful fight because of many variables. Hell you might get one or two to support you but out of how many?

        The courts are a different story. A ruling can happen “overnight”. It almost happened in Kansas. There was a ruling that deemed the registry as punishment. Of course there was trickery and it got pushed down but it happened.

        The courts are the most efficient way forward and to me the only thing worth putting money towards. We don’t need the public nor the politithugs to like us before the courts can overturn this mess.

  27. Frank

    I don’t think anyone should be punished for life. I was a senior in high school and when to this girls house, we just messed around, I left a little hicky. She was 3 years younger than me, I was event thinking about it. Not like I was secretly talking to her because she was younger, I was in school, she was available and we messed around. That was 18 years ago, I moved to California because Florida was pretty crazy with the requirements, no life there. If they want to make people register, they should have a jury of your peers to listen to the case and decide of you should even be considered. It shouldn’t be an automagic thing. I’ve never been in trouble since for anything, that was 3 months after I turned 18, I’m 36 and still haven’t got to live a normal life yet for something that was harmless and not with any bad intention. I was just a dumb kid not thinkin and been paying hell since. I’m at the point of buying a sailboat and notify my destination as international waters and I’m not coming back. I’ll just sail around the world till someone let’s me and becone some where else. I keep all my case Files with me, just reading it, you can see how petty it all was.

    I commend you all on the fight. First time I even looked at anything about sex offenders. Didnt even know there were sites like this. I wish I would have found out sooner as I would have definitely be on board. But half my life literally has been a struggle. I was just waiting around like a dumb as all these years waiting for something to happen.

    I been planning my departure from this he’ll hole. I’ve managed to save up a nice chunk of dough as software developer over the years. I’m on my way out, I got enough to entice another country to accept me as a citizen if I start a business there, not going to say the exact one but it south of Mexico. I have an aunt that also lives there though it’s not my first choice as a new homeland, I prefer a corrupt government than the nazies we have in charge.

    • nomore

      I originally thought of moving but I don’t know of another country where they allow foreigners to buy land. Then there’s the whole “the world hates Americans” bit, plus the world hates SO’s so I’m staying here. I’ve thought of other “crazy” ideas. Buying a larger cargo ship, purchasing an island, buying and old oil rig platform, etc. I “settled” on alaska for many reasons and it has been the best choice I’ve made in a while. Few restrictions, cheap land (depending on how you buy) and lots of room. If you have the money and the inclination, you could buy a remote parcel, build a cabin and work from home (satellite). That’s my final goal too. No neighbors for a 100 miles!

  28. mike r

    easy pk… I wasn’t asking about why the law makers or politicians weren’t doing anything about the issues my question was directed to Janice..as far as just get used to it screw that I’ve been through all the hell the registry offers including the residency restrictions and extensive parole conditions and the harassment and vandalism for over 8 years now and I don’t ever want to get used to it i want it to change and will not be complacent and accepting of it ever…

    • PK

      Mike r have you ever considered leaving the United States and starting over?

  29. Doc Martin

    We’re a sorna state with a tier system here in Pennsylvania. Now I understand why some would get worked up about a tier system turning into a nightmare but if it’s implemented right, it’s not so bad. The PA tier doesn’t follow static 99 or Tom Tobin or other shrinks pushing pscho babble analysis. BTW, nothing keeps non tier states from also following that garbage
    Luckily PA doesn’t and the tier system is straight forward. A person caught possessing dirty pictures of minors is automatically a tier 1 year registrant. Dont matter about number of images or not knowing the child depicted, or not being a family member. That’s what New York’s static 99 tier system does….moves you up because of “stranger danger” PA don’t play that. Possess cp, you’re tier 1 period. Commit the offense twice, then they may move you up. Distribute it, they’ll move you up. Everything’s more about the offense and less about psychological risk
    Another good thing about the Pennsylvania system is out of state or foreign immigrants often committed sex offenses that don’t fit neatly into a little box of similar offenses under Pennsylvania commonwealth law (yeah we call ourselves that cuz we hate them British royalty snobs)
    Anyways, many of these out of state & foreign folk just get automatically categorized as tier 1 with 15 year registration. Thankfully our state bureaucrats are too busy & too lazy to find an exact match (I can’t see Pennsylvania low paid bureaucrat calling corrupt local cop shop in Yemen asking hey, what exactly did Abdul do with that underage girl after the party? Yemen cop shop: Well, he was trying get a wife but he went about it the wrong way. You do know you can get a wife at age 13 in Yemen? PA bureacrat: Click! Okay, let’s make him tier 1. Less paperwork)
    So I really don’t understand the big fuss over the tier system. I know some people will say it legitamizes the registry like it hasn’t already been legitimized by politicians in non tier lifer states like Cali & Florida
    Some registrants believe they can chew more than they bite. They often make comparisons with hard fought rights of other minorities when the fact is, non of those rights happened overnight. You think this country went from making it illegal to lynch or burn homosexuals at the stake too okay, you guys wont only be burned at the stake, but ya’ll can also get married. I believe there was a 2 to 300 years in between.
    Another thing…..it’s plain stupid for some folk to pile on Janice. Without her, you wouldn’t even have this website to vent you’re frustration. Ever look at the traffic on other support sites? Now Derek’s a good guy but I hear a lot of birds chirping over there.
    A classy lady like Janice is only trying to get the best possible outcome (more people coming off the registry early) with what we have to work with now. Now I understand some folks get bumped up and that’s happened in some states. But California? You guys lifetime anyways. I figure if a tier system allows new offenders who come into the system not be subjected to lifetime hell, I’m all for it even though I’m in the upper tier and be long dead before I’m off the registry.
    And also think about this. Folks being bumped up will end at the point when a new system is up and going. Therefore when I’m worm food 20 years from now, a young one who just got categorized after committing a romeo & juliet will say gosh darn this registry sucks. But at least I’m just getting off in 15 years and thankfully advocates are still out there trying to get this stupid law overturned.
    Sincerely, your dear Doc

    • nomore

      http://www.soab.pa.gov/FortheCommunity/FAQs/Pages/default.aspx#.V75g9TNw3TY

      Interesting read. Sounds pretty shitty to me. It was an automatic bump up of 5 years at the very least for everyone.

      Scoring/Risk assessment.

      http://www.pbpp.pa.gov/Understanding%20Parole/PS/Pages/default.aspx

      http://www.pbpp.pa.gov/Understanding%20Parole/PDM/Pages/Interview.aspx

      Luckily, I moved out of state. I went from 10 years under ML to 20 then back to 15 where I am now. If all goes well, I’ll be off this crap next year but who knows under an AWA static 99 system. It seems reckless to risk it based on an assumption that because you’re a tier 1, you’ll surely stay a tier 1.

      • Doc Martin

        Well, it’s a little bit more complicated than that. Quite true that PA follows the 15 year minimum which is a tad higher than even SORNA guidelines of 10 years for minor offenses. But even in the relatively few states that have 10 years, your offense has to be some light weight stuff like peeping Tom shet or mooning the opposing team after a high school football game. He! He!
        Nevertheless, PA’s tier system is generally based on offense. Now they may deviate a little and take risk into consideration. If they didn’t, your dear friend the Doc would be doing life instead of 25 years considering I did some dirty stuff with minors. I got 14 years left but the Grim Reaper will probably take me by then. Nasty fellow that asshole the reaper
        Now take your state for instance. They divide offenses between aggravated & non-aggravated. And it doesn’t take much to get on the Alaska lifetime registry for an aggravated offense, especially if it involves a minor. Some aggravated offenses in Alaska are simply tier 2 and even tier 1 offenses in PA. I’m glad it worked out for you & much praise that you’re off the hit list next year. But it may not have worked out for the next fella
        Here’s another thing that bothers me about the Alaska registry. They call it the Sex Offender/Child Kidnapper Registry. Talk about guilt by association. Imagine a registrant getting a background check for a job, Let’s see, candidate has experience in this and that. Committed a sex offender…okay, I’ll overlook it because other qualifications look good, CHILD KIDNAPPER! Holy shet! Next application

        • nomore

          I’m glad you’re in Stockholm heaven about your registry but to me it’s kind of like comparing who’s boil on who’s ass is less painful, when all I want to do is get rid of it.

          Also, when was the last time, since you’ve been on the registry that you’ve went for a job interview? Can’t say I’ve ever had them distinguish between them. In the real world, we’re all the same.

          • Doc Martin

            Ha! Ha! Lighten up a little. I’m just having a little fun with the title of your state’s registry. Alaska isn’t the only state with a bizarre name. How bout the ‘Minnesota Predatory Offender Registry’ Dam! Everyone’s a predator.
            I know there’s a debate among rcs about the tier system. I lean towards it like some others on this forum including Janice. But it don’t mean we have Stockholm syndrome. I’m definitely not in love with visiting the PO-leese every year. But if the tier system knocks more people off the registry earlier and not up others a level, I have no problem. I do respect the rights of other rcs who believe in knocking down the whole dam thing at once. I also get the view that laws have to get so bad (like in Michigan) that a court just says enough is enough, you’re now punishing those poor schmucks. But before many courts start saying no, quite a few registrants will continue to get mowed down by a giant lawn mower. Talk about a lot of pain! Should the pain first be eased with a tier system? I kinda of think so. The Doc don’t like to see people in pain

            • nomore

              It sure seems like Stockholm when we’re telling you guys that we can get rid of the registry and you’re fighting us to keep it. Michigan should be a slap in the face for all of you to drop it. Did you read the judges opinion? It’s mainly about retroactivity but it goes way farther. Go read it if you haven’t. At the very least, retroactive laws could be done away with. Retroactivity was ruled unconstitutional at one time in Cali till Alaska cane about I’m guessing and was overturned. Now there’s a high likelihood it can be reversed again. No need for a tiered system to help a handful when you can clear thousands upon thousands. If you don’t think the advocates are acting a little strange, look into what happened on the IML exchange concerning the judges comments. I’m all for giving a pat on the back when someone helps but I’m not giving a pass on anything that’s not kosher.

            • 72FLH

              Doc , I would like to see people get off ,and we all truly know a little something about pain , but this tier will pidgin hole many in this system that can change with out even having to pass a law , you know like prole dose all the time , I really don’t want to be judged anymore , like give a rubber stamp to the state by our own hand to further judge us for crimes we have not even do yet , as well as the ones we have already been judged for , we have held up our end of the deal in spades , so its time to set us free , its time for this wall of shame to come down all the way down to the ground , because if it don’t its going to turn in to a whole different critter , I don’t “think” we have time to play around with tier systems , maybe I am wrong but , I “think” we should stand on the constitution for dear life , because that’s all that’s standing in the way of us being burned at the stake as a weekend pick nick as a pass time for brown shirts ,

    • 72FLH

      no matter how you gift rap a dung pile , it still stinks , over 30 years for me , and I am no bodys level anything , I am just plain old me , that did his time and should have long since been on down the road , we can sit around playing 5 dollar word games all you want , but just because most states have this don’t make it good , I understand that Janice is working hard , but right now we need to be thinking in terms of getting rid if this REG , part of the strong point of CA is we don’t have a stupid tierd system ,or 99R , I will never get used to paying for a crime payed for in FULL all ready ,

      • nomore

        Im with you bud. Cases like yours are especially troublesome. You’d think your case would be just what Janice would need to get a declaration of punishment.. I wonder if you’d be off of it by moving here?

    • Timmr

      Re: Derek — as critiically important as it is, one doesn’t have to win a case or have tons of admirers to be important to the cause. Oncefallen was the first website I saw that laid out the truth about the registry as I new it. Noone else was challenging the myths at that time. That was before there was a CARSOL. Some need to challenge the laws in court, some need to challenge the registry in the media, as I see Derek and others do in their online posts., all leading to positive progress in chipping away at the myths, steady but sure. But there needs to be more involved or it is going to take more time than even the youngest have left if the goal is to have fair laws. Why push an issue like the tiered registry that is a divisive issue, pushing people in one camp or another? At the IML I saw a concensus and a unity of purpose. Buddha knows, that can’t be manufactured by argument, or by shaming opponents, but by striking a common nerve. Noone was there saying, “ah jeez, maybe only tier three should have passport identifiers. Can’t change things too fast. If you fight having identifiers for some, then you are condemning all to have identifiers.” How would that have gone down?

      • Doc Martin

        Like I said. Derek’s a great guy. Straight shooter and good writer Although he’s likes to use colorful language at times (kinda like me) he! he! Plus I wouldn’t as Derek did take a greyhound all the way from Virginia to M.C. Hammer’s hometown.
        I just think we sometimes take for granted what Janice Bellucci has built. Not only by far the largest & strongest online RC support group, but she’s out there defending our asses in court at the same time. What a woman!

    • Anonymous Nobody

      DocMartin, thank you for that. That is an approach I have been advocating here for years now, to no avail — to not have that dangerous assessment, just determine the tier by the offense, an assessment only if you want to appeal for a lower tier.

      So you see people, it does work, its not a wrongheaded approach, it is not too much to insist on – and it is much cheaper for the state and it does not feed the beast by building a major enemy against us.

      But we can do better than PA too – 15 years simply for looking at some child porn strikes me as just a tad excessive — he just looked, he didn’t make it, he didn’t pay for it, he didn’t distribute it, he just looked at it. An offense like that certainly can be justified for a shorter time frame.

      • Erwin

        Viewing child pornography is considered possession which is an automatic 3 year minimum prison sentence here in Wisconsin…..let alone registering for 15 years. In fact, most states require 10 to 15 year minimum registration for possessing cp and it’s lifetime registration in California. But I wish my son did get caught in California. He would have taken probation & life time registration over a 3 year prison term in Wisconsin any day.

      • 72FLH

        there going to make a boat load of cash of the tier system , and will pidgin hole the rest of us , I don’t think that’s staving anything , Doc don’t even live here in CA , misery loves company ? what the hell man?

    • 72FLH

      like Janice said Doc not all tier systems are the same their is truth in that since I lived in one , and it was much worse than Cali , but it did not start out that way , it turnd in to a real master because they just kept adding to it , like level 3’s hand to REG every three months , , and people marked us as the worst of the worst ,lol , what a joke on us , and no one is pilling on Janice Doc , you need to stop this , we have a right to voice strongly our problems with how a movement is being ran that we are part of , I am not signing on to no darn tier system , it is over do that a massive shift happen , over our rights being restored , and stop bitting on the first turd that the feds and state toss for us to bit on , I don’t care what the state thinks , their eather going to go by the constitution or their going to get called on it , a tier system is not even close to up holding the constitution , if you cool with living this kind of thing GOOD for you Doc I am truly happy for you , but this is Cali not Bug tussel , a whole dam state that should have long since put to death this REG , and one of the probems has been so many people willing to settle for less than what very much in our grasp , not 99R or tier systems ! if its better to fight from a tier system how come every state that has one , is still on it ?? its because it takes what edge we do have , sorry about PA and the tier , and sorry NY about your gun rights , but here in Cali we need to take a stance of no more bull shit , we did our time , now its time to get on with living

  30. anonymously

    It took under 40 years for gays to go from registering in California to be allowed to get married in all states. What gains have LBGT’s made up until the last 40 years? I think it’s all been done in the last 40, with the most being done in the last 10. Back in 1977, Mario Cuomo’s campaign for NYC Mayor used the slogan ‘Vote for Cuomo, not the Homo’. We’ve come a long way since 1977 in this respect. Waiting centuries should be the last resort.

    • Punished For Life

      anonymously:
      Before my mother passed away 10 years ago, I made her a promise that I would clear “Our Name” from this unconstitutional mess. Then before my father passed away 2 years ago, I made him the same promise. My mother thought I would accomplish the task….my father wasn’t so optimistic.
      My brother was a drunk and he committed suicide 3 years back. Now it’s me and my wife,
      I need to remain positive for what is left of a torn family. I do have a son and grand kids who I see about once or twice a year, but they aren’t in the middle of the lifetime of punitive laws. It’s now been 27 years of this crap. I hope I live to see the entire mess disappear. I want to do it for my family. I promised them.

      • anonymously

        That really sucks about your family passing on before any of this good stuff. I’ve had similar experiences. The Michigan decision would have been encouraging to your parents I am sure. It feels like the momentum is really building now.

  31. anonymously

    I do agree with Doc that tiering is a good incremental step forward. I just do not think it should take centuries to get to the end game..

    • 72FLH

      how is it a step foreword ? its just a new tool for the state to use against us , 99R is not set up to help us , its voodoo bull , its a way to further screw us , its a step back words , to give 99R any power at all is stupid

  32. mike r

    Static 99 will be just another tool for government to use to justify harsher rules and regulations on the level 2 and 3 offender which I am sure the majority of people on the registry will be bumped up to..they will use this psychic tool to enact and place residency restrictions and presence restrictions on us just for starters and will be able to tell the courts that there laws are now narrowly tailored and justifiable because of the higher tiers…sure there will be a few people and I mean a very few that will benefit from this but the majority of us will be subjected to even worse rules and regulations…that will happen if they get their tiered system garunteed…if the system would get people off the registry without having extreme consequences for the majority of others I would be all for it but the fact is that it will be used against the majority of us in a major way and only offer relief for very few….I am not willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands upon thousands with extreme detrimental consequences that only strengthens the governments cause just to get relief for a very small minority of people only after the complete 15 or 20 years on the registry anyway….it’s like giving the enemy a nuclear bomb when all we have already is 22 caliber rifles just to save a couple hundred people from dying but who will be prisoners of war for 15 or 20 years…anyone that advocates for the tiered system either knowingly or inadvertently are supporting the registry it’s that simple….

  33. mike r

    it doesn’t save anyone’s life what I meant to say is that all a tiered registry will do is release a very small minority from the pow camps we all live in now only after 15-20 years of the registry ..

  34. G. Allen

    All I’ll say is that this tier registration scheme has a lot of exceptions and gives an awful lot of credibility to the Static-99R. Do these Static tests really deserve the credibility that its given? As its proposed by the CA Sex Offender Management Board, many of us (myself included) would still be subject to lifetime registration because of a high Static-99R SCAM score. I happen to score a big 6 (“high risk sex offender”), for a 290.006 offense from 2009. It was non-contact, first and only time offense. I was an immature 22 yr. old. In fact, I’m not even listed on Megan’s Law website. Yet under this tiered registry scheme, I am treated worse than many violent offenders. This tiering is no justice. I say we deserve better.

    • Notgivingup

      G. Allen is the Static-99R the same as the Static-2002 which is used in many states? I also had the LSI-R and what they called the Hare PCL-R, I scored a 0 on the static and a 1 on the Hare which gave me low risk on all test, how did you score a 6 for a first time offence, did they do it wrong? Just trying to understand how so many ended up as level 3s. I understand what others are saying about a tier registry so I have mixed feelings, I would love to get off but if a tier system is put in place do the higher levels just stay on forever, who really knows. I still believe Janice and her great team probably know more about it than many of us do, so I support her and will continue making donations so at least some might get relief for now. We will never make everyone happy at one time. I know most would like the registry to be done away with and I agree but do not see it happening any time soon.

      • 72FLH

        for ever !

      • nomore

        Just curious if it has ever dawned on you to ask Janice for hard facts? You see, we can all speculate based on subjective statements but that seems rather ridiculous when we could just ask questions and find out.

        We had a saying in the Ron Paul campaign… Trust when you verify.

        Still trying to wrap my head around people wanting a tiered system instead of going after away/290/retroactivity first. Clearly the michigan case showed we have a great chance of getting rid of it all.

  35. mike r

    pk I have been very specific maybe you haven’t seen the following motion I am drafting.. I have done half the work for any attorney who’s brave enough and articulate enough to revise and contribute to…now with the other courts recognition that the current registration scheme is in fact punishment this motion needs to include the ex post facto claim along with the cruel and unusual punishment claim…SCOTUS has hinted that it would be open to a procedural due process claim and a lot of other courts are ruling against these laws..I was very specific in asking janice why she isn’t filing a suit on the following issues and am now including ex post facto along with cruel and unusual punishment claim….we will see if I get a real answer…

    This court has jurisdiction because ________________________________________________________________

    I the plaintiff ______________________do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief.

    Introduction.

    This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) as applied to me.

    I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
    I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.

    Issues.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”.

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

    Facts.

    (1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.

    The United States Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person’s reputation is a protected liberty interest under the federal due process clause. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (hereafter “Constantineau”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (hereafter “Roth”).

    In Constantineau, the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who “‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that “[i]t would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. at 437.

    One year later, the Court again recognized a person’s liberty interest may be implicated by damage to his or her reputation. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573. The plaintiff in Roth, a university professor, alleged that “the failure of University officials to give him notice of any reason for non-retention and an opportunity for a hearing violated his right to procedural due process of law.” Id. at 569. The Roth Court reasoned that in declining to hire the plaintiff, the state had neither advanced “any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in the community” nor “imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Id. at 573. The Roth Court noted, however, that “a different case” would have been presented had the state either damaged the plaintiff’s reputation or imposed a stigma on him. Id. at 573-74.

    However, in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, reh’g denied, 425 U.S. 985 (1976), the Court clarified that “reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment, is [n]either ‘liberty’ [n]or ‘property’ by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 701. The plaintiff in Paul alleged a deprivation of liberty without due process of law after the circulation of flyers publicizing his conviction for shoplifting and labeling him an “active shoplifter.” Id. at 712. According to the Paul Court, because the plaintiff’s harm was not accompanied by the alteration of “a right or status previously recognized by state law,” there was no deprivation of a protectible liberty interest. Id. at 711-12.

    Paul has been interpreted to require “stigma plus” in order to establish a constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 999 (2d Cir. 1994). In other words, “an allegation that government dissemination of information or government defamation has caused damage to reputation, even with all the attendant emotional anguish and social stigma, does not in itself state a cause of action for violation of a constitutional right, infringement of more ‘tangible interests’ must be alleged as well”. Borucki v. Ryan, 827 F.2d 836, 842-43 (1st Cir. 1987); see also Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw. App. 21, 32, 821 P.2d 937, 948 (1991).

    Courts have recognized the serious harm to other “tangible interests” as a result of registration as a sex offender. Potential employers and landlords are reluctant to employ or rent to me once they learn of my status as a “sex offender”. See Pataki III, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 468; W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1219 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998) [hereinafter Verniero]; see also In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983) (quoting In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973)). (8). Indeed, the public notification provisions do adversely affect my personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors and choice of housing. Noble v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (Or. 1998); State v. Myers, 923 P.2d 1024, 1041 (Kan. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1118 (1997); Rowe v. Burton, 884 F. Supp. 1372, 1378 (D. Alaska 1994), appeal dismissed, 85 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1996) (personal and professional lives); Artway v. Attorney General, 876 F. Supp. 666, 668 (D.N.J. 1995),aff’d in part and vacated in part, 81 F.3d 1235 (3d Cir.), reh’g denied, 83 F.2d 594 (1996) (employability and associations with neighbors); Robin L. Deems, Comment, California’s Sex Offender Notification Statute: A Constitutional Analysis, 33 San Diego L. Rev. 1195 (1996) (citing Jenny A. Montana, Note, An Ineffective Weapon in the Fight Against Child Sexual Abuse: New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, 3 J. L. & Pol’y 569, 580-81 (1995)) (choice of housing). In addition, public disclosure encourages vigilantism and exposes me to possible physical violence. (9)See, e.g., Poritz, 662 A.2d at 430-31 (Stein, J., dissenting); Pataki I, 940 F. Supp. 603, 608-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Doe v. Gregoire, 960 F. Supp. 1478, 1485 (W.D. Wash. 1997). Indeed, [w]hen a government agency focuses its machinery on the task of determining whether a person should be labeled publicly as having a certain undesirable characteristic or belonging to a certain undesirable group, and that agency must by law gather and synthesize evidence outside the public record in making that determination, the interest of the person to be labeled goes beyond mere reputation. . . . [I]t is an interest in avoiding the social ostracism, loss of employment opportunities, and significant likelihood of verbal and, perhaps, even physical harassment likely to follow from designation.
    Noble, 964 P.2d at 995-96.

    The Paul Court recognized that, in addition to the interests recognized by state law, “[t]here are other interests . . . protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been ‘incorporated’ into the Fourteenth Amendment.” Paul, 424 U.S. at 710 n.5. As an example, in Bohn, 772 F.2d at 1436 n.4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found a protectible interest in reputation where the stigma of being identified as a child abuser was tied to the protectible interest in privacy and autonomy of family relationships. See also Poritz, 662 A.2d at 419 (holding that the stigma resulting from notification that petitioner was a sex offender was tied to the protectible interest in privacy inasmuch as he had an interest in his reputation); Neal, 131 F.3d at 830 (holding that Hawaii’s designating of prisoner as “sex offender” without hearing and requiring successful completion of treatment program as precondition for parole eligibility together implicated a liberty interest protected by the right to due process of law).

    Additionally, in an oft-quoted dissent in Poe v. Ullman,367 U.S. 497 (1961), Justice Harlan wrote,
    [T]he full scope of liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.
    Id. at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting).[4] These words “eloquently” describe the Court’s role in the substantive due process inquiry. Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U.S. 494, 501 (1977).

    These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).

    Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.

    The sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law is causing irreparable harm to my reputation and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing.

    The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the Internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harassment and vandalism. These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
    These laws affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws also restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megan’s law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the

    See also for collateral damage caused by these laws.

    http://sosen.org/blog/2015/05/19/collateral-damage-in-americas-war-on-sex-crimes.html
    , http://sosen.org/blog/2015/02/09/spouse-of-registered-citizen-forced-to-quit-job-and-her-three-children-lose-their-home.html
    , http://sosen.org/blog/2014/12/01/refugees-usa-families-destroyed-by-the-registry.html
    . http://sosen.org/blog/2014/02/25/government-sanctioned-cruelty-to-over-half-1-million-american-children.html

    I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.

    All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.

    These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion.
    The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.

    From Justice Policy Institute.
    Estimated cost to implement SORNA
    Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

    For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    (3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The laws effectively bar me from attending higher education institutions simply because there are day care centers on most college campuses therefor curtailing my ability to obtain a higher education. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    (4). The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws achieve no legislative purpose as demonstrated above and are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense. The theory or legislative purpose for the sex offender registry that is stated by the legislative body and the courts is that there is a extremely high recidivism rate for sexual offences which has been irrefutably debunked.

    The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.

    The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.

    I am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

    Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)

    The full report is available online at

    http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf

    .
    Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013

    Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
    The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf

    Bureau of Justice Statistics
    5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
    WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.

    A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    More state studies;
    AK 03% page 8 Criminal Recidivism in Alaska Alaska Judicial Council January 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    AZ 05.5 % Sex Offender Recidivism Arizona dept. of corrections note bottom of page 03.3%
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8633&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“ http://californiarsol.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.
    CA 05.0 % fig 12 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation
    2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8632&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA 03.5% table 3-2 California sex offender management Board January 2008
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8630&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870 . When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3% . This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA 01.9 % figure 11 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA 5 year study 03.2% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A FIVE (5) YEAR STUDY
    https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=A754C96E86E37F71&id=A754C96E86E37F71!8627
    CA 10 year study 03.3% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8626&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
    Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012
    DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Rearrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    DE 3.8% rearrest table 7 Recidivism of Delaware Adult Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 July 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    DE 5% rearrest table 8 after 5 years Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001 September 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8620&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    FL 4.2% page10 Figure 2 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8784&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    HI RECIDIVISM/REOFFENDING BY SEXUALLY ABUSIVE ADOLESCENTS: A DIGEST OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH STUDIES Years: 1943-2008 85 RESEARCH STUDIES MEAN RECIDIVISM RATE FOR ALL STUDIES = 7.73%
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8619&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    IA table 4 03% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
    RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
    Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’srecidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism Rates Compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of CORRECTION
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    ME page 12 03.8% Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS
    AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8612&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released. the full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf
    MN 5.7 % over 12 years Table 2 page 21 Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota April 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8610&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    NY 04% profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986 this one is another attempt to hide the facts . I finally found this information on page 19. They state that there were 556 offenders released below that on page 19. They show a table 14 the number of people related to each of those crimes that were returned to prison. If you look at the numbers for a new sex crime. You will see that they are 5,6,5 and 7 totaling 23 , when you do the percentages 23/556 UN that with the re-offense rate of 4% . If you look at the other graphs that they have provided they have shockingly high numbers . The problem is that they are only looking at the people that are returned to prison and ignoring the people that stayed out of prison. So their numbers are skewed because they did not include people not reoffending in their statistical data.
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    OH report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders Sex offenders in Ohio have a lower recidivism rate than the recidivism rate of all offenders (38.8 percent). A 10-year follow-up of a 1989 cohort of sex offenders released from Ohio prisons found that only 8 percent of sex offenders were recommitted for a new sex offense
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    OH Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommitment for a New Crime Sex Offense 8.0 % after 10 yeaars
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    WA03 07% Re-offended Department of Corrections Public Safety Update What is the re-offense behavior for sex offenders under supervision in the community? •Of the 264 offenders who committed a re-offense:•83% or 218 were unemployed •73% or 192 DID NOT have stable housing
    WY again I have to dig through the research to find the numbers . The end result is that between 2000 and 2005 , 545 sex offenders were released and of that 24 reoffended it in a new sex crime . That makes the reoffend charade of 04.4%
    For further information and empirical evidence on recidivism rates see also,
    http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-05%25

    http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-10%25

    http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/p/studies.html

    http://www.oncefallen.com/recidivismchart.html

    http://sosen.org/blog/2015/01/12/simple-question.html

    http://sosen.org/blog/2014/11/06/why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.html

    http://news.legislature.ne.gov/dist20/files/2013/08/NE_sex_offender_recidivism.pdf

    http://therealosc.blogspot.com/2013/04/as-we-said-so-long-ago.html

    https://rsoresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/butner_study_debunking_kit.pdf

    http://www.oncefallen.com/SOMyths.html

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    When the laws that have been passed are based on the justification of the high numbers. And they come out, in fact, be not only low, but extremely low. Lower than any other group that does not have the same restrictions or requirements. You would think that there would be a public outcry to do away with these laws but because of politicians are continuing the myth for their political gain, as well as professionals who have a fiduciary interest in the myth continuing and victims advocates, whose only real purpose is revenge. as well as Sensationalism of the news media. All these people continue the myth. Even though the hard data shows that it is a lie. What is it going to take to bring sanity back to our country and overturned laws based on lies and myths? That are in fact a springboard to passing other laws taking away constitutional rights of the American citizens.

    Finally what is this lie that is so corrupting and insidious that it has destroyed lives, family’s and children. And the fear of being added to the list created by this law has caused both adults and children to commit suicide. The laws based on this lie that have stolen the constitutional protected rights of not only individuals but whole families, well the answer is real simple. The lie is that people who are involved in sex crimes, have a high propensity to do it again. And even though at the time that these laws were passed there were studies showing lower reoffend rates of those in this group than any other criminal class, the laws were passed based on studies that since have been proven false and inaccurate and all the recent studies have shown no high propensity to reoffend.

    Without this issue, (the high reoffend rate) to support the states justification of the existence of the laws the rest of their reasons fall way as nothing more than rules, regulations and laws based on fear that is now unjustified.

    Recently a number of legislators and news articles have attempted to use information from a study that said that one in four girls and one in five boys have been sexually abused before the age of 18 as proof of the high re-offense rates for people on the registry and they have used the twisted data mentioned above from the 1997 US Department of Justice study to prove their point, even though that researched conclusion ha been thoroughly debunked.

    First of all the student study on unreported sexual abuse has been called into doubt because of the type questions that were asked and the way that they were asked. They worded the questions on the study to get the answers that they wanted and not the facts or truth. They also biased study by using small numbers of the tested group that were chosen from specific locations that didn’t represent most groups of teenagers.

    But even if the numbers are correct there are a couple of other issue that need to be brought out that are totally being ignored by the yellow journalists that are attempting to make a point by using this information. We now know through multiple studies and lots of number crunching that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% in any given year, and that means of the new sex crimes that are committed each year 99% plus are by people that are not on the registry. If there is under-reporting then it also has to follow that particular logical progression and that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry.

    Here is the primary issue that should be pointed out, nowhere in the under-reporting study, or for that matter any accredited study, was there any proof that any portion of the under-reporting was due to people on the registry reoffending. For the media to jump to this conclusion is at the very least biased reporting.

    Therefore attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth.

    Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country.

    (5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue,(as demonstrated in the above studies), and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts. When “particularly important” interests are involved in a civil proceeding, whether or not physical restraint is threatened, the United States Supreme Court has mandated a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof and stated that, “[n]otwithstanding ‘the state’s “civil labels and good intentions,” ‘ . . . this level of certainty [is deemed] necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with ‘a significant deprivation of liberty’ or ‘stigma.’ ” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (requiring clear and convincing evidence standard to support termination of parental rights), quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426, 427 (1979) (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). A registrant’s liberty interest is seriously infringed in the creation of a long-term relationship with the police, in the potential criminal sanctions overshadowing that relationship, and in the stigma of notification – all penalties that are “more substantial than mere loss of money.” Santosky, supra, quoting Addington v. Texas, supra at 424.

    The court also too easily confines the State’s interest to a single dimension. While the primary purpose of the registration statute is to protect the public from sexual predators, the State also has “an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate.” E.B. v. Verniero, supra at 1107. The State has no interest in making erroneous classifications and implementing overbroad registration and notifications. Id. See Doe v. Pataki, supra at (slip op. at 32). Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the burdens on the government are great, without any likely benefit, when it holds hearings for and maintains the registration of thousands of registrants for whom there is no clear evidence that they pose any danger to the public. Requiring the government to assemble and present clear evidence of a sex offender’s dangerousness would ensure that limited adjudicatory and police enforcement resources would be concentrated on those individuals who realistically may pose.threats to young children and other vulnerable populations. As observed in an altogether different context, but oddly apropos of this classification system as well, “when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless.” New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 729 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring).

    Conclusion.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.

    (2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.

    (3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.

    (4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.

    (5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

    Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
    recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
    Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).

    Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
    It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense even further. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
    These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
    No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

    Prayer.
    I pray the court grant me Declaratory relief and/or Injunction relief or any other relief the court deems necessary and to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) .

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________

  36. mike r

    let me know pk if I was specific enough and I welcome any constructive criticism or feedback….

  37. Timmr

    Looking at it from a different, larger perspective, there are already three tiers for ex cons in California.
    1) Everyone but sex offenders, gang members and arsonists. No public disclosure, police registering or restrictions after sentence is completed. Your sentence is done, you can “disappear.”
    2 ) Arsonists and gang members, police only registering for five years.
    3) Sex related offenders, life time registration, limited exclusions from public web site and other regulations limiting free movement, or movement without notification counted as a new felony offense.
    Any recommendation that does not put murderers and the extremely violent on a public registry, yet will force someone who has looked at dirty pictures (for example) to be listed and have his movements made available to the general public for at least ten years, is a recommendation that shows a bias towards political correctness rather than public safety.

  38. mike r

    ca has a drug offender registration also same rules as the arson registry you laid out above….

  39. Erwin

    This is a tricky one but I stand with Janice. Before giving her opinion, I’m sure she’s studied, and looked at hard data to find out if a tier system has negatively impacted registrants in other states. I have no doubt some retroactive provisions have bumped some people up but what do Californians have to lose? Everyone is a lifer anyways. Plus no rule is stopping people in their on going push to end the registry altogether after a tier system is in place. Janice will continue her work and I don’t mind being considered one of her “cult” followers. To me she is a Jesus figure who can walk on water as far as I’m concerned. You think I wouldn’t bow down and throw rose petals at her feet for as much as she’s done for us?

  40. mike r

    how the heck did you score a 6 Allen..That’s so ridiculous for a non contact offense…that’s what a lot of us are saying a tiered registry will be devastating to the people it bumps up or puts into the 2 &3 tiers just for offering relief to a very small minority and I mean small minority and that relief I am sure will not be retroactively applied so no one will even get any relief for 10-15 or even 20 years or more…..totally worthless impractical waste of time and resources..just like the iml lawsuit…I will be amazed no I mean completely dumbfounded if it prevails on any of the arguments that have been brought up in that case…that time resources and money should have been put into a motion that has a real chance of prevailing that would make law makers totally and completely overhaul the registry to include very very few on it or scrap it altogether….any reasonable mind can see the writing on the wall they are just not acting on for personal reasons or they are being coerced threatened or compensated in some way….I just cannot see it any other way and no one from any organization will explain why so you be the judge..whatever happened to WAR motion that was supposed to be filed last fall haven’t heard anything about it…..

    • Notgivingup

      Mike R you wrote……….….any reasonable mind can see the writing on the wall they are just not acting on for personal reasons or they are being coerced threatened or compensated in some way

      I myself do not believe that statement in any way, I have seen most of these organizations fight until there is not much money left and given endless hours for free but if I am proven wrong I will be the first to say I was a SUCKER.

      • Janice Bellucci

        Not all tiered registries are the same. Some are based upon the offense committed regardless of how much time has passed and whether the individual has re-offended. We do not support that type of tiered registry. Instead, we support tiered registries based upon an individual’s current risk of re-offense. We recognize that there is an ongoing discussion and debate regarding how to determine such a risk of re-offense and we are open to hearing from others about that topic. A significant data point in this discussion is a determination by Dr. Karl Hanson that an individual who has committed a violent, contact sex offense but who has not committed a subsequent sex offense for 17 years is no more likely to commit a sex offense than any one who has not committed a sex offense. This could be an argument that the longest amount of time such an individual should be monitored by law enforcement is 17 years. And of course, the amount of time other individuals who have committed lesser offenses should be monitored should be significantly less.

        • nomore

          The problem with your logic is, we’re getting used like lab rats and the end result is a highly imperfect declaration of a persons future crime, not present crime. So we’re charging people now for what they MIGHT do instead of what they have done. You don’t see anything fucked up about that? I’m trying to be nice here but I’m pissed. I find it outrageous that a civil rights group is advocating for a system that penalises people on what they MIGHT do instead of what their actual crime is. A tiered system based on future crime is criminal. Have you people stopped to think how this government would expand that power to other groups?

          • Steri

            Janice, I support your efforts 110%, but I believe the individual named ‘nomore’ has a point.

            If we are going to have a tier system based off future crimes, then I believe the tier system needs to have a no-risk tier implemented and applied to sex offenders. There are SO’s who will never commit a future crime, which would place them on the no-risk tier. To me, predicting a future crime is exactly like the movie ‘The Minority Report’.

            If we are going to guess the future crimes of citizens (or sex offenders), then the starting tier should be no-risk – especially given that there are SO’s who won’t ever commit another crime.

            If the government is going to predict future crimes of sex offenders on a case-by-case base, then they should do that for all individuals in society, especially since everyone is capable of breaking the laws just like a sex offender is.

            But in reality, I believe the most fair system is to place all criminals on tier 3 (basically because of their new offense and moral turpitude), and then over time (and offence free) they will drop to tier 2 and then tier 1. And then finally be removed from the tier system after xx number of years. This system will allow them to prove their trust worthiness over the years.

            • 72FLH

              then they will just keep changing the amount of years , and start tweaking new stuff just like they do with prole , and they don’t even have to pass a law to make changes , sounds like someone is gaining power , and its not us

  41. mike r

    I take back part of my comment on iml…we might and i mean a very small chance that they will get the identifiers off of the passports but as far as the notifications thats been going on for years now and is an entire different issue then iml which would take an entire different action or claim against the angel watch organization and require entirly different argument since the US has been notifying countries of felony convictions for decades..totally different issue which requires a totally different approach…

    • Mike

      It is much more than the notifications. It is the green notice. I was told that the warning that I was dangerous was why I was not allowed in Mexico, and who can blame Mexico? If a government is told by the travelers own government that “they are likely to commit a crime again” then who can blame the host country? What legal grounds can the US say with any probability, with not data, that a person is likely to commit a dangerous crime again? I wish that Janice would respond as I totally do not understand, or why the notifications were not challenged a long time ago.

      • Kris Klein

        I’m willing to blame Mexico. They have long been cowards & lapdogs to American foreign policy. I mean really…they’re afraid some American might commit a crime there? Sorry to say crime, gangs, corruption and violence run rampant in that country where drug lords often buy out politicians. As much as the Mexican government may bark, they don’t want to antagonize the American government.
        On the other hand, European Union countries don’t care what info the state dept sends out as long as it’s not someone on the terrorist watch list. The entire African continent also seems not to fear the notices and American boogeyman. As long as registrants bring in their hard earned cash to spend

        • Stumped

          I think you are exaggerating things a little bit I was born in the USA and grew up in Mexico to say that Mexican government tailors to whatever the USA wants is absurd, Mexican people are very humble and proud of who they are. As far as the drug lords buying off politicians it is no different then in the USA with businesses buying off a politician with their “financial contributions”. The media puts out all this hype about Mexico and other countries and forgets about the issues that we have here, luckily I recently gained dual citizenship and was able to return to Mexico for vacation last month after being sent back one year ago, I’m happy to say that I will be returning to Mexico again in December with no fears of all the drug lords and corruption everybody talks about, we have plenty of that going on in our own backyard.

          • mike

            Stumped I loved living in Mexico. They get a lot of bad pub that is just wrong. I do think that they give whatever the USA says a lot of credibility. It seems to me like some one in government would devise a way to enter Mexico, if the person was not dangerous. I understand MX not allowing RC’s with a green notice not to enter, but I would think that there would be an appeal process. The very large majority is not dangerous and do contribute to Mexico, by money or other ways or both.

            • Stumped

              Mike like I stated before Mexico is used as an excuse by the USA to have people concentrate on other countries issues instead of their own, as far as Mexico bowing down to Mexico that would never Happen you living in Mexico would know that, Mexico is a very proud country and bows down to no one. The big problem I find is that the USA is labeling everyone the same way and just as big is the problem that Mexico does not question it or has its own program to determine who is a danger and who is not, and yes I agree with you I would assume 99% of RC’s are no bigger danger than any other citizen but yet are being returned due to lack of credible info.

              • 72FLH

                I wish they would open the boarder so we could live their if we wished , I don’t no much about their GOV , and I don’t even speak Spanish , but I think its a great country , I worked with south AMC folks most of life and I have to say they are good solid people , I had a great time down their , went to 2 wedding and those were some of the best partys i ever went to , the people have a right to be proud , but i think what stood out to me the most was that there are so many open minded people , yes their are haters , but you cant ever get away from haters , when ever I think about mexacali I get hungry like right now LOL , we use to ride our Putts down there when i was working Tex , and it was something to see , bad ass lakes great fishing man , sure i seen some places that was ate up , but i see that here as well , like where i live now , and i have seen houses down there that go for 35k on payments , that would fetch 250k here on the coast , and a lot of places that are off grid , money is harder to come by for many , but you can live poor down there , fish right off the coast line and make enough money to live a nice simple life , and hell if your a strait shooter you will make lots of friends fast ,i broke down on my motersickl down their once on some back road HY , and this guy and his wife stopped for me , mind you they spoke Zero English , but after we did the cave man talk thing , him and his wife got in their car and came back with this cool ass ole dude looked like he was 80 if he was a day , and he was driving this old 49 chev pickup and the ole guy picked up the front end of my 741 pound Harley and sat it on the back of his truck ,lol , well then he drove me to some little town and the other folks that stopped in the first place followed us , there was no motersickl shop there but there was a shop man , and it had a big ass motersicle bone yard out back the biggest i ever seen! , wow man ! they had everything from 34 flatheads , to 77 shovels ,lol well anyway these folks put me up for two days wile my putt was bein worked on , bad front “cylinder head”hehe , but we just kick back drank cold beer and smoked big fat hooters lol and ate like kings man , ya if they would open that boarder and let us buy land /home , i think i would go , well i guess i talk to much , something to do with wanting to free i guess

  42. Clark

    Even more weight on the scales of justice to side with Janice Bellucci iml lawsuit with the great news in the US 6th Circuit Appeals Court ruling.
    Fundamental Rights are at issue that requires a court to weigh info evidence under strict scrutiny.
    The iml judge must allow to amend the lawsuit as well so the judge is very clear on what this iml atrocity really is to the Constitution and free Americans’ civil fundamental rights.
    The 6th Circuit ruling greatly supported our weight on the scales of justice.

  43. nomore

    A better chance at freedom, per the Michigan case. People have mentioned the reasons so why would you ignore those. We told you it was just a matter of time but you guys want a “quick fix”. Hell I said you’d have a better chance at getting this mess invalidated if your restrictions were tough. Trimming away at the edges only helps the establishment. It weakens your case for abolishment. I’m not sure this group wants abolishment, some don’t and see a need for it so they endeavor to reform.

  44. mike r

    I agree no more that’s why no one will answer my question because they do not want to see the end of registration wat else could it be there is no rational basis to or reasonable excuse for not filing a real motion attacking the real facts and issues…I wish I was wrong but it’s obvious…

    • duhh

      Maybe you don’t get an answer because you ask your questions in a very rude way.

      • NPS

        Exactly! Not only rude but also combative.

        • 72FLH

          NPS , < who are you calling combative ? I hope its not mike r , if so that's not true , if you are saying that . your a self important wind bag ! and an ass kisser , when was the last time you had a real feeling or thought of your own that did not pertain to kissing someones ass ? mike r makes many good points , one of them being is that it seems a good part of the time no one is listing ,

          • NPS

            Mike R. is precisely who I am calling combative against many others who post here; in particular against Lake County who has contributed to our cause (as have I) long before Mike R. came along. You are right up there with him, too. Whenever anyone resorts to name calling others as you have just done, his/her opinions become null and void. I suggest you rethink your approach.

            • 72FLH

              seems I don’t have a choice to rethink my approach since my comments just gets pulled , its not like you care about facts in this matter , it sure don’t matter to me , its ok for you to cut people down with watered down $2 words, like I tried to say before you don’t really know what I was talking about , and I guess you wont , so much for freedom of speech , pretty bad I had to waist my time thinking free speech would fly on an SO ,, site ,

              • nomore

                Don’t worry about being called combative. I consider the source. When it cones from mindless sheep,l, it’s a badge of honor. Wear it proudly lol.

                They feel threathebed because we’ve insulted their chowen messiah by challenging her tiered system and incremental approach.

            • nomore

              No it doesn’t, a point is valid based on truth, reason and logic, irregardless of who and how its delivery is accompanied. What you’re proposing is one of many internet attempts to diminish your online opponents argument. It doesn’t work any more than calling someone a basement dweller of their moms home lol

    • nomore

      Yep and if the Michigan case doesn’t tell people that they’re on the wrong track and we were on the right one, well they might need to go get checked for a stroke, cause something is off upstairs.

      I hope it holds up or at least gets its day in the supreme court. I see it crumbling either way.

      Like you said… Writing on the wall.

      • 72FLH

        I tried twice to comment to this to this yellow fingered ass mite , and seen it go up on the board , and it got pulled , these guys think they can talk smack and run everyone down with 2 dollar words , acting like we don’t have a right to ask anything in less its ok with them , and that’s just not how its going down , if you don’t have free speech on a dam SO site something is bad wrong , this is not about letting off steam , this is about being sick of people acting like if any of us have anything to say they try to make us feel stupid , or belittle what ever it is you do have to say , because it don’t fit in to their nice neat little box , their always thinking bout what their going to say next , rather than listening , act like we are blind about whats going on and how its been , and then they wonder why many don’t get jazzed about going to some event , that they really don’t want you at anyway! I have seen these sucker fish gang up on mike r a few times , and that aint cool with me at all , for one mike trys his best to put his own spin on thing and think out side of the box as well as the inside , as all of us should be , Nomore your good people and I know you had the right idea moving up there , I know one thing for sure I am not going to live like this for another 3oplus years , and I know my wife and kids run the hell down , I would much rather be fishing , oh and hey that state I lived in that had the tear system at first you had to REG 1 every 6 months , then they changed it for levl 3’s 3’s had to every 3 months so I say to to my wife the fishin is good here but it aint that good lets go back home , so we loaded up my bad ass old custom 10 and we rolled on out of their , now I have to get alittle work done on this truck and have our have our over sized brats move in with us so we can play kick the can out of Cali , someones always got their nose up your ass here anyway , and I cant afford to live in my home county here , and change really happened over that way

        • nomore

          You’re welcome here when you can make it. Hopefully with all of you working together, you can make it happen.

          I got involved with politics heavily about ten years ago because I got tired of seeing these kinds of things happening to people. I’m committed to the abolishment of the registries and the automatic return of rights for felons upon release. I would hope others , regardless of silly political affiliation would want that too. Thus state, because of the lax building requirements affords me a chance to build for retirement and affect change through those funds.

          If people want to push political agendas I can do that too though. I’d rather keep politics out of it so we all can work together but that doesn’t mean I’m going to keep quiet when I see poor judgement/strategy, from anyone. So they can cry all they like. 🙂

          Mike’s a fighter, I can tell and he’s logical in the way he goes at things. Hopefully he doesn’t get discouraged, same goes for you.

    • 72FLH

      its time I think to get out of CA , because of people like “duhh” below my comment , I my self am sick of the ass kissers , rather than us saying everything is ok when its not , I don’t like the way this fight is going in CA , a good many of us are lev,2&3 , also many of all levels don’t want to lose what little edge we do have by giving in to a quick fix , when we want it abolished , like it should be ! this is a huge mistake stepping in to a tier system , this is no time to pussy foot around , I don’t want to go another 30 plus years of kissing ass , I have never seen a comment left by mike r that you could call rude , matter of fact I think that is respectful , even when it is plain that he is attacked he is kind , on the other hand others feel that what they have to say is more important anyone else , screw that , we are about to embark in to a system that gives the state momentum to further control us as a free people , level zero sounds good to me , it was all built on bull shit anyway , just like 99R , so I got your rude hangin , its rude just how you posted , by coming on here as “duhh” is rude , it implies that someone to stupid understand your simple ass ,

  45. mike r

    man thank you fl and nomore I am glad to see that there are other intelligent people on this site who actually see our situation and the people that are supposed to be representing our cause for what it is and for questioning and asking difficult questions that we know are not going to be popular on this site…I have tried to be extreemly respectful to others and only when I am attacked on a personal level because of my opinions and questions and don’t simply lay down and comply and kiss A do i attack back like with lake county he had it coming sorry if you guys especially him are to thin skinned to handle it and claim that what I said actually kept him from going to a protest or other bs…. thats sad….to any and every one that is supposed to be representing us..and yes I believe that they’re obligated to us and our cause since they are benefiting and exploiting us and the registry to advance their organization that by definition in their name is supposed to be supporting our cause…I want real action and check this out i do believe these organizations that are created and are expanding because of US me and you and the registry owe you and me a real defense and offensive line of attack against the government instead of these incremental technical attacks and basically plea deals that will strengthen the government positions….lake duhh and whatever your name was talking cra…I have been on this site much longer than you guys unless you change user names and I repeat you people have no idea what I have done to support our cause no idea……once again thanks FLand nomore I am glad to see open minded and free thinking individuals still on this site…

    • 72FLH

      keep your head up mike r , and don’t let anyone blame you for what someone dose them selfs Bro , and its sad because I like lake county , when all that came down it looked to me that he was shamed by a few weasels and lake county just slipped up , some folks like to play head games on good people that feel tormented , and their was no lack of people trying to keep that going between both of you men ,

  46. mike r

    also I have asked the question very respectfully why they , Janice et el, , will not file suit on the real issues i.e no justification for these laws based on lies and myths and deception, unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official actions since the registry is proven to be useless, right to reputation, right to equal protection, right to travel and freedom of association, just to name a few…and after asking many times have never received an real answer…after all without the registry there is no acsol,rsol,f.a.c.,w.a.r.or the countless other organizations out there….bring it on haters I can take… lmfao…as far as my question seeming combative it kind of is at this point… I challenge any organization to answer my question in detail explaining their position on the question and issues I am asking about and am and will be waiting for such an answer….

  47. mike r

    I dont normally repeat what others say on this site but nomore’s statement deserves repeating repeatedly…..lol

    Yep and if the Michigan case doesn’t tell people that they’re on the wrong track and we were on the right one, well they might need to go get checked for a stroke, cause something is off upstairs.

    so on the mark….god it’s great to hear and see that there are still intelligent people out there….gives me a little more faith that we will prevail and nomore and fl I am still preparing my own motion and will be filing it by about this time next year..I have personal reasons why I have to wait that I can’t go into detail on here just know i want to file this when i am in a position that the repercussions from filing it will not effect my livelihood since I don’t believe I can depend on anyone else except myself for any help if I am attacked by all the different tyrant organizations and individuals who are dependent on the registry for their livelihood or political gain….

    • nomore

      Likewise and thanks for saying so.

      Just saw USA asking for a tiered system after the Michigan case. Some people you just can’t reach. Lol

  48. mike r

    I hope that last question is clear enough that even DUHHHHHHH can comprehend….what a screen name…

  49. PK

    Mike r do you have legal experience in filing this type of a motion?

    I could see myself critiquing my motion, maybe offering suggestions to add certain case law, but I would prefer to have a legal expert do something like that. I would especially look for some new evidence that just developed from the Michigan Case.

  50. mike r

    lovr it flh I’m tired of these idiots telling me what I can and can’t say or how I should act according to them…screw them we need a team to abolish the current registration scheme and stop caving in to babysteps that only strengthen the government positions…the government just amends the crap to be more narrowly focused which can’t be fought by conventional attacks like ex post facto and the rational basis claims….anyways I have said enough it’s time for the people that are supposed to be representing us to do the right thing and force the legislature to overhaul the entire registration scheme to only include people that the government can provide beyond a reasonable doubt by clear and convincing evidence are a threat to society….bottom line…..still waiting for a response to my question I won’t hold my breath though…

    • PK

      Hi Mike r- “it’s time for the people that are supposed to be representing us to do the right thing and force the legislature to overhaul the entire registration scheme to only include people that the government can provide beyond a reasonable doubt by clear and convincing evidence are a threat to society….bottom line….”

      1. Who are the people that are “supposed” to be representing us?

      2. How would they “force the government” to overhaul the entire registration scheme. I’m guessing your talking about that AWA?

      • ONE DAY AT A TIME

        I also wonder who these people are that are supposed to be helping us. The only people I have ever expected to help me are those attorneys I’ve hired and paid at least a $5,000 retainer fee to. Other than that, I expect that no one is obligated to represent us. Without an attorney – client contract, I for one, would not tell any attorney what issues they should or shouldn’t be working on. I am grateful for any attorney or group that is willing to fight any of the issues involving registration.

        • PK

          Exactly One Day. Those Attorneys who are willing to fight for a cause like this are truly courageous. Lawyers like that are few and far between.

          If some RSO wants service and “answers” then that person should go ahead and Hire and Pay a Lawyer who would be willing to do that. Good luck finding someone who is experienced with the Registry!

        • 72FLH

          Janice her self said this is a movement! and this is how a movement works , is by sharing ideas , and what we want , don’t care about no stinking 5k , so you do what you think is proper , the rest of us will stand on our freedom of speech

      • 72FLH

        get over your self PK , this is a movement , not hero worship , I love Janice and anyone else that is in her position and take any kind of stand , but she is representing a movement , a movement that seems to think its ok to take further laws we can do nothing about , and many of us have a great deal of insight on what its like to live under these laws that are coming our way , and some of us have been active in the 60’s and 70’s and have much insight to offer on how to handle problems we have seen in the past , most of us as a movement want this REG gone Now , but we are being torn down by people on this very site that have no dam clue how to be truly active , and the first is to not tare down people that bring light to the movement , if your not about free speech , your not a movement , if you want to hold hands and carry balloons you might try a zoo , where you pay money and get what you want , a movement we are not asking for our rights back we are demanding them ,

        • PK

          “the first is to not tare down people that bring light to the movement”

          Listen I wasn’t trying to tare down anyone. I know this is all about a movement like you say, but my point was that nobody should make demands of those Attorneys who are helping us, for free, with this “movement”. If any one of us doesn’t like the direction or strategy that the Attorney is taking, they should not rant about it.

      • nomore

        1. The attorneys that are advocating here.

        2. Through lawsuits against AWA and the like.

        Anymore questions? Those were too easy.!.

    • steve

      Miker,

      I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time but “screaming” aloud about what tactics are being used here to fight this monster is ridiculous. Did you show up for the IML protest? Have you gone to sacramento to stand up and voice your opinion to who it matters? Do you donate ANY money to the cause? If you answered no to all those questions shut the hell up and stick to your own brief that you have every right here to post.. You go WAY to far when you want to start giving directives about a strategy here. You think Janice is making millions here? Not even close. I would bet the majority of what she does here is out of the goodness of her heart. I’m sure you have a few good ideas but barking them out loud needs to stop. You are losing a ton of credibility here and becoming an annoyance. I have an an idea. Go start your own website where you can be the boss thats what you want anyway,

      • Lake County

        You can look up the income for any non-profit on the internet and CA. RSOL is no exception. I’m not going to disclose the income amounts I found listed, but anyone can do their own research. The amount of donations is disappointingly very small. We are very lucky to get any representation based on the small amount of donations Janice receives.

      • 72FLH

        credibility ? to who you? donate money? , I and my family do , and as part of this movement their are many that are living under bridges , that have no phone or computer , how do they get to voice ? its you that don’t have the foggiest idea what a movement is , so your plainly on the wrong site , your part of the problem, shouting on the internet ? lol that’s all in your head , and your clearly the one trying to boss what is said here , protest ? ok man your way the hell out of your bounds , are you on meds of some kind? that was a nice peaceful protest , and more power to the people that went , but before you protest your suppose to rally people together , and if we as a people cant feel like its ok to voice our feelings, then your not going to have many folks show up , they already feel powerless , so you should know that , and deal with all things in that manner , not kick them further down , your in the wrong , so get your act together and be part of a real freedom movement , your responsible for loosing numbers of people , by your own hand , people that have been in pain for years ,

      • nomore

        All silly comments. So if I give a $1 donation, I have say so and an approved right to speak? Lol

        It’s comments and mentalities like yours that prove we’re up crap creek. Not a cogent argument in any of it.

        • steve

          lol ok it’s all my fault you are in the position you are in……are you, nomore and Miker the same guy? a lot of lower case going on in all your posts.

          • nomore

            Up “crap Creek” was figuratively used to speak to the lack of brains I see when people make statements which make no logical sense. They’re often reaching in their attempts to justify something. Most people are just spouting nonsense based on little or no actual facts and simply going on feelings. Much like your attempt to peg mike and I as the same guy.

            But I don’t play those type of petty games. I’ve been extremely straightforward and open with my opinions and who I am and what I want to accomplish.

            • steve

              I was never talking to you in the first place. How did you get involved in this?

      • Hopeful4all

        Thank u Steve! Mike R strikes again. Still considerablely new to this site and in the name of “freedom of speech ” this mike r uses to nag and complain. . Dude get a job!! It seems u have so much free time punching on keys griping bout this and that. Freakin back seat driver.

    • PK

      Mary Devoy wrote:

      “The Registries have to crack in the States before the Federal AWA Act can crumble down. Problem is many ACLU’s refuse to step up for Registered Sex Offenders, Virginia is one example. The stigma of defending those heinous ‘Sexual Predators’ is just too much for many who claim to defend the Constitution as well as civil and human rights.”

  51. Bill Watkins

    We need to step up to the plate and help Judge Aaron Perskey, as you may know, he is the Santa Clara County Judge, who is being unfairly persecuted, for handing down what some are saying was too lenient of a sentence in the Brock Turner rape case, I found an online petition, to help Judge Persky stay on the bench. We need Judges like this to have the courage to make the right decision in cases like this, we all know life on the list is not a light sentence. If you want to help please sign the petition, and donate what you can at, https://www.org/p/california, go to search, then, a letter of support of Judge Aaron Persky. Thanks B.Wat.

  52. mike r

    go to he…..I’ll say whatever I want you don’t like it don’t read it…only naive idiots would think that these organizations aren’t benefiting off these sites either monetarily or professionally… I’ve never seen or heard of a ” lawyer” doing anything out of the goodness of their heart….keep sticking your heads in the sand and blindly follow anyone else besides your own intellect and be complacent in waiting for years upon years for any kind of change
    …I lmfao at you blindef fools …and yes I have been to a meeting with janice with my fiance and I won’t even ask her to go again after the first person to speak was some freak spouting off about how he was a special ed teacher who grabbed a 12 year olds vagina to make her stop grabbing herself and shiwed no remorse or felt that he didnt do anything wrong and that he was a victim
    …absolutely disgusting I wanted to smash the guy….I’ve also made my phone calls sent my letters and donated to several of these sites so like I said bit…me i will say what I want

    • steve

      “…I lmfao at you blindef fools …and yes I have been to a meeting with janice with my fiance and I won’t even ask her to go again after the first person to speak was some freak spouting off about how he was a special ed teacher who grabbed a 12 year olds vagina to make her stop grabbing herself and shiwed no remorse or felt that he didnt do anything wrong and that he was a victim
      …absolutely disgusting I wanted to smash the guy….”

      This statement is the true Miker. And should nobody smash you in the face for what you did to get yourself here? Just wow…Dude do you not realize someone here is trying to help us.

      You are the only one I have ever seen condemn somebody else on this board. I think you are bi-polar,

      I think you need a lot of help…and not for writing your brief.

      • Hopeful4all

        Wow! Miker reminds me of that kid on the team who’s always complaining about everything walking around the field kicking the dirt with his cleats with his head down blurting out words of “we’ll never win a game” always dragging his heals with a cloud over his head like schleprock. Here we have a registrant in the same boat many here on this site are in and has the audacity to condemn another registrant by wanting to “smash him” what the heck!! I can assure you miker you’ve would of definitely in your words been “smashed”had u been on mainline in prison with your jacket. U r no different in the eyes of many. What a joke

  53. B.Wat

    Sorry the web site is https://www.change.org/p/California regarding Judge Persky.

  54. mike r

    bill thanks for that info and I will definitely be donating to help that judge and we should all be helping Derek of oncefallen.com

  55. mike r

    and by the way learn your civil rights history…martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall both had to be prodded pushed ridiculed and then encouraged to change their minds tactics and weak fighting positions before they took on the real issues in those movements….maybe we need to use the same tactics on our activists leaders in order for them to get the gonadsssss to step up and fight the real issues and do what’s right and take down the registry in its current form….Janice is no doubt a hero with all of us but if she wants to be a hero at a level of King and Marshall she needs to go out on a limb and bring a challenge that others are either afraid to bring or think that it’s an impossible task….nothings impossible unless you never try…..oh and yes I have filed motions to dismiss,demurres,judicial notices,motions for summary judgement and declaratory relief and a couple more which a couple were successful….no I am not an attorney but I am a free thinking confident America that is willing to say anything I feel needs to be said and I’m a fast learner willing to try what some may think are impossible tasks in order to stand up for myself and fight for what’s right……

  56. mike r

    very intelligent and articulate comments flh and no more…wish we had more minds like yours in this fight…..we will prevail and not in ten twenty or thirty years even if I or someone else who’s fed up has to be the ones to do it…..

  57. mike r

    steve I condemned that guy because he would not admit or come to terms with the fact he did something wrong….he grabbed a special ed young woman vagina who by his own words didn’t have the mental capacity to consent…I actually have very little sympathy for people who commits rape or force themselves on anyone especially the younger women and doubly when they are special ed student being groped by their special ed teacher….if the dude would have manned up and admitted or comprehended he did something wrong and was working to make amends or at least sure it wouldn’t happen again then I could of felt differently but he was proud of what he did and showed no remorse at all
    ..he is one of the ones that the courts could probably prove with clear and convincing evidence standard to reoffend since he used force on a mentally challenged individual and has absolutely no remorse or doesn’t feel any culpability….

    • steve

      Who the hell are you to condemn anyone? I don’t believe a word of that story. We are done. Good luck to you.

      • nomore

        Go look up hypocrisy. I get what he was saying, it’s not my cup of tea to say one way or another. That guy will have to figure that out for himself, hopefully he does. I also get what you’re saying but in reality you’re shunning Mike as well.

    • 72FLH

      dang mike r , I hope as citizens we are not in the judging biz now , its hard enough just to be a citizen Bro . we need to care about each other more , you know as well as I do that their are many things that are not always as it seems , maybe its not just the student that’s mentally challenged, I don’t know because I was not there , come on mike r please don’t be part of the hate , rather be part of the understanding , and the healing spirt as well as the mind , its ok to care man

  58. mike r

    no I’m lying Steve what a idiot…why the hellllll would I lie about something like that…..braindead people wow

  59. mike r

    I don’t care what anyone says if you’re a rapist or a true prepubesent sex offender then you need help you have actual mental illness that needs to be addressed…..those are the people the government should be evaluating and determine if there is clear and convincing evidence to justify a registry for those individuals…even those deemed a threat should have annual Evaluations to see if they are ready to come off the list and after ten years be automatically off the list….that’s is the overhaul that the government needs to do that I’ve talked about and it’s the only way these laws can be constitutional…..I also believe everyone that has committed any kind of crime and goes offense free for ten years should have their records automatically expunged and the complete restoration of all their constitutional rights unfettered….criminal records should only be used by the courts if an offender reoffends….

  60. mike r

    you guys are right flh and nomore I really am not a hater and try very hard to put myself in the other persons shoes that guys mentality was just very hard to wrap my head around….wanting to smash the guy was just a residual thought from my own pre-registration self….that’s what I used to think before I got involved in this crap and believe me if someone told me what he was telling us i would have beat him to near death but I have gained a lot of empathy and humanity from all this bs as well as off of a lifetime of drugs (meth) so I can say I actually learned and even benefited in those areas off what’s happened to me….now I just hope guys like that admit they have a medical condition which is a mental abnormality and get help….that’s not a opinion or a condemnation it’s a fact…thanks for reminding me nomore and flh to keep my judgemental attitude in check because it’s really hard in those types of situations especially in the heat of intense debate. you guys are great….

  61. mike r

    man hopeful finally an intelligent comment comes out of your mouth….
    can assure you miker you’ve would of definitely in your words been “smashed”had u been on mainline in prison with your jacket. U r no different in the eyes of many. .
    your absolutely right for once read my last post maybe you’ll understand my position on this subject…
    as far as walking around with my head down saying we’ll never win is exactly the opposite of what I’ve been doing…you just can’t wrap your head around that our activists leaders ie janice and other activist leaders may need to be persuaded convinced or prodded just like Martin Luther King was in order to get them to go all out and confront and overcome what seems like impossible odds…..I know we can and will win so dont paint me as a pessimist like the rest of you guys are …have a little faith and don’t just hope our activist leaders who have a much louder voice and more god giving talents and learned abilities than us average joes help them in anyway possible and try to convince them to do the right thing and win or lose they will be heroes just for trying what seems impossible…….I hope we all understand each other’s positions and mentalities and can stop all these personal attacks but if not I guess it hasn’t been a total waste of time having discourse about these hard topics can’t hurt I guess…..

  62. mike r

    don’t get me wrong i don’t believe in any type of registry but if these legislators and the majority of people must have their precious registry than overhaul it as I explained a registry like that just may and I mean may be somewhat effective…I doubt it but it might…it would be an entirely different set of circumstances that would need to be evaluated using empirical evidence on recidivism rates of those types of offenders both before and after they implement such a scheme ….like I said though I don’t believe any registry is justified or constitutional….

  63. mike r

    one more thing you guys hating on me dont understand what I am about…Just because I question peoples motives and speak my mind including insinuations that may or may not be true doesnt mean that I dont or havent supported Janice and sosen and w.a.r. and f.a.c. and anyone else that fights for or supports our cause….I have donated money made phone calls every time janice asked us to and wrote and sent all those letters I sent…Just because you guys have this hero worship menatility and dont ask question or speak your minds doesnt mean I have to think like you guys do…Its that simple…Ive spent countless hours preparing my motion and if it prevails all your sorry a…… will benifit from it so get off my back and support the way you feel is best and I will continue to prod convince coerce or encourage and do any and everything I can to get someone (especially the people that are supposed to be civil rights activist leaders) to go that extra mile and get something real done…………………….

  64. mike r

    wow they must’ve took down the petition for that judge any update on that

  65. Esri

    Can we avoid using words like PO-leese ? It is racially insensitive. This is not an alt-right ( racist ) movement.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *