ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q3: 9/16 in San Diego [details], Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group Meeting: Aug 26 in LA [details]

General News

General Comments January 2017

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of January 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. BSL

    Any updates on the tiers? What’s next? Hope you had a wonderful Holiday and Happy New Year!


  2. Stanley K.

    First of all, Happy New Year!

    If anyone remembers I had a situation when registering this past month where the registering officer was having a bad day and was generally unpleasant. I questioned why she needed my cellular number and she went ape-shit crazy, refusing to register me if I didn’t provide her this information. I thought it ludicrous to think that a registrant potentially faces criminal charges for not providing their cellular phone number. By the way, I also report that I’m unemployed and that I don’t own a vehicle. Been doing this for ten years and not a problem.

    Today I received a voicemail from a detective who wants to “verify” the information on my recent update form. He wants me to call him back. Considering I had a run-in at my last registration appointment over the cellular phone number I view this as potential retaliation. What exactly does this guy need to verify?

    We have lived at this address for the last five years and have never had a “compliance check”. As far as the form is concerned I have CA state-issued ID that matches the address for which I registered. To make it solid, I actually live at the address my state-issued ID indicates. The employment and car info I stopped providing after my release from parole, so I know, legally, I’m fine.

    I’m concerned if I don’t call the detective back he will perform a very embarrassing compliance check with a registration task force all donning SWAT-like gear. Understandably I fulfilled my registration obligation and no longer owe them my time. My girlfriend is a little bit concerned and wants me to call the detective back. I feel as if I don’t need to but also don’t want this guy popping-in on us either.

    Anybody’s thoughts on this is appreciated.

    • Lake County

      No you don’t have to call him back and yes he may show up with a bunch of squad cars and riot gear. But you also don’t have to answer your door. Just depends if you want your neighbors to see all this. Even if you are off parole, if you work or drive a car, per PC 290.015 you must disclose that information or be in violation if they see you driving.

      • Timmr

        I think you are right, he should report the 290 required information and remain silent on anything else, particularly if they have any doubt he hasn’t reported correctly. Then it becomes a criminal investigation and then anything you say can and will be used against you. Pure bs and who does this save? but it is the practice we are living under. Best to contact a lawyer and not rely on us laymen, though. Forget the swat team. We have all seen they do what they want with these compliance checks. The night of embarrasment is not as bad as being sent back to prison,

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      Stanley K

      In addition to what Lake County stated, you should have legal council, a attorney contact the detective because he may be recording the conversation, should he be conducting a criminal investigation – remember he does not have to disclose that fact to you.

      By hiring a attorney you will have a “Officer of the Court” as a shield of protection for you. Then the Detective aka “Peace Officer” will be dealing with his equal and all the danger he now may place himself in by Trespassing Upon your “Rights & Titles” “Irrevocably” given to you by The Creator of the Cosmos which were documented expressly in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America. In effect placing The Ball in his Court.

      Furthermore I would suggest purchasing and installing a Video Surveillance system in order to document any Breaches of yours, your innocent Wife, family members, guest, neighbors Rights to enjoy the Peace of the Community by any Government Officials.

      By the way, Lorex makes a camera which also records audio, that should enable you to gather overwhelming evidence against The Wicked Servants who Covet and Desire to Steal your person and make a Merchandise of you!

      Placing “No Trespassing” signs is needed regardless if you own or rent the domicile where you live. Be Proactive in protecting your lady and those around you, who you Love.

      The Most High Father in Heaven be with you and yours

      As Yehovah lives, so should we


      I’ll go off of Son of Liberty’s comments.

      If you can afford a lawyer get one, if not, call him but push for a meeting and record it. Either you’ve pissed them off and they’ve found something to cause problems over or he’s calling you to try and scare you into complying with what they want. I wouldn’t talk on the phone.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Whether you call him back or not, you should realize that you need to basically say nothing. He might be investigating something and trying to get you to admit knowledge. You have already said you have violated the registration laws by not giving info on your car. Well, that might be the very thing he is investigating, maybe he checked the DMV and found your car listed. Say nothing, as even acknowledging you know what he already knows you know will be used against you in court. Say nothing about a car, no matter how direct he asks about it, do not even acknowledge whether there is a car. Do not try to talk your way out of any accusation he makes, say nothing, let a lawyer speak for you.

      Remember, there is only one purpose for his call: To find something they can use against you.

  3. Eric

    I’m grateful for the work Janice and ACSOL do on our behalf. Extra money should be donated to this organization. Nothing is more important.

    I’d been waiting ten years for the day I’d be eligible to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation and, God willing, have the registration requirement lifted. Then came the recent law change that foreclosed the opportunity for me. Attempts are now treated as harshly as completed crimes under the COR law. In my case that means no chance of a reprieve.

    I have a few friends left and a woman who loves me, a job that pays enough to live. ACSOL exists. There are things I’m grateful for.

  4. David

    From my own experience and from what I’ve read here, the annual registration and the compliance checks varies greatly from one place to another. Personally, I’d return the detectives phone call and see what he wants.

    • C

      I agree. Call him back and just be super respectful w/ out being condescending or sarcastic can get it resolved and stop worrying.
      I’ve been registering for 22 years and, while it usually goes smoothly, there have been a few notable a-holes, one clearly resentful he was registering SOs. It’s possible the person who gave you such a hard time was having a bad day or is simply incompetent amd screwed up so many registrations that someone else has been tasked with cleaning up the mess.
      Good luck!

  5. New Person

    A bit on a tangent here….

    Labor Code Section 2855 limits all personal services contracts to a maximum length of seven years in California. I read this while looking up Sports this morning.

    The key word here is services.

    Under ML, it’s a “duty” to register. That means this is a service to the state. Registration is an attached contract to the punishment contract signed. Yet, registration isn’t considered punishment b/c then it would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment – especially a lifetime contract!

    Yet, registration is a service. I would like to know specifically what registration is from ACSOL. Is it or is it not a service? There is an obvious contract.

    Now, if I am out of custody and my case is dismissed, then I no longer need to serve the state for my punishment. And yet, I still have to serve the state involuntarily?

    Involuntary servitude, from a layman’s perspective – which is how the judge should see it as well, states that it is prohibited unless to punish a crime. That means you can’t force someone into service unless to punish a crime. It doesn’t care if it’s regulatory or not. The only caveat is that it is okay if it is to punish a crime. In that realm, then punishment can be deemed cruel and unusual.

    Any free person in Cali can get out from their contract service after 7 years. How does this not apply to use who are out of custody? Heck, that service actually starts the day it is implemented, actually, since it’s not punishment. The sleight of hand obfuscation verbiage to bypass both punishment and involuntary service should be easily cut down by the simple directive of , “Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.”

    Curious, this 7 year thing, is that also the reason why everyone’s records in Cali are not used after 7 years have expired except for registrants?

    Plainly, registration is a service as duly noted on ML’s website as a “duty”. As a person out of custody, or some who have their cases already dimissed, I query why do they have to continue doing said service? Also, why are there even compliance checks after probation is completed? I hate being woken up around midnight for them to do a compliance check when i’ve already completed probation. It’s like the punishment never ended as cop cars are at my house after probation ended. Still the same process of interfering with my life, but now i’m a person no longer under custody.


    “Is registration a service?” That’s a simple question.

    Follow up query if it is a service: “Is registration a service imposed upon persons who are no longer under custody, or free persons?”

    California Constitution, Article 1, Section 6: Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

    It doesn’t care if it’s regulatory or not. The only distinction is if it is an act of punishment.

    • Katharine

      Great research, New Person. I would only add that Selective Service registration runs for seven years, for men ages 18 to 25. Is that a coincidence or not?

    • LM

      If you personally believe that it’s your “duty” to register, then you are no longer considered a human.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      I like to discribe it simply As:

      “De Facto Eternal Infernal Involuntary Servitude”

      By the Practice of:

      “Coliseum Justice”

      As Yehovah Lives, I speak Truth

    • Lily

      Good morning. This is the first time I’m writting here and I’m new at all this SOR. I need to hire a lawyer. My boyfriend served 12 years in Ventura county jail and he was released on parole. He was doing good and complying with all hit parole terms. During all this time as you know he’s been harassed and treated worse than animal!! They forced him to be homeless, he can’t go to school because his parole feel like he is a threat to everyone! they also increased his parole time from 3 to 5 years. My boyfriend asked why did they increased his time and PO answer was because “I can do it”
      4 months ago we me. His PO was fine with the news and ask for my information. After two days PO officer called my boyfriend and said he couldn’t come around my house or see me anymore because I have custody of my 8 years old daughter. He said we don’t want you to contact her in any kind of form, shape or kind. We already had a relationship with me. We keep seeing each other outside my house.going to the mall. One of the few places they allow him to go. On Dec 21, 2016 they arrested him. He went to court and now they said they have 4 other violations. I hired an attorney but I made a mistake…he gave him 180 days. I need a referral of a good attorney who is experience in parole violations. Help me and my boyfriend.


  6. mike r

    new person I love your tenacity on this subject I really hope others would start being so critical and start asking questions continuously until the is a definitive answer….I wasn’t convinced on your involuntary servitude argument but I am coming around and seeing it for what it is and that it is a valid argument…

    • New Person

      Thanks, Mike!

      Also, there is an added context to registration – which is the exposing of one’s privacy – it neglects the opportunity to obtain privacy as it is an inalienable right as stated in the California Constitution. Registration has no direct pathway to obtain privacy as the inherent prefix “Liftetime” registration literally negates a direction option to obtain privacy.

      Now, since the California Constitution defines Privacy as an inalienable right, then by law, the suppression of such is a disability and/or penalty. 1203.4 says it will relieve all penalties and disabilities. A registrant cannot apply for certain jobs as well as traverse freely on any campus in California. Well, apparently, there is a conflict there as well.

      But it boils down to serving. If you have a job that conflicts with the time you have to register, then you are force to make alterations with your job to make time for registering or be put into jail and then returned to service of registering. Well, by that basic test of “if registering is a service or not” should easily pass as well as incite involuntary servitude as you are domineered to register or be punished – rather than to simply lose pay or the job of registering altogether. Your presence is demanded, like any other job, at a specific time.

      Unlike a price club, there is no quitting the registration. This is a red flag for involuntary servitude. Especially in light that a person in a contract can terminate it after 7 years.

      • Timmr

        I see, New Person and the service we provide goes beyond providing the public information of our convictions. We have to provide and update our location, a part of our privacy, something that belongs to us. It is taken away. The most valuable possesion of the slave, his right to privacy, belongs to the master. That is slavery.

        • New Person

          Oddly enough, if you earned the 1203.4, then your case was dismissed. The public cannot actually see any conviction. Yet, your service to inform the state about you and your whereabouts continue?

          A judge cannot truthfully say that your conviction is on the books for all to see if you’ve earned the 1203.4. So what exactly is there a need for registration to continue other than to continue to infringe on one’s privacy?

          Again, I’m being forced to work for the state as a free person with a dismissed case. That’s involuntary servitude. But when you factor in that I am not compensated nor is there any relief upon a lifetime contract… that should actually border upon slavery, but at the very minimum should be involuntary servitude due to the domineering nature of being returned to service if one decides to quit the service.

          An interesting point just popped into my head about privacy, 1203.4, and the IML. As a registrant whose conviction was dismissed, then there really is nothing for the public to see or should be granted to see. If anyone asks if I’ve been convicted, then I can honestly say that I have never been convicted. So why does California want to give away my privacy that I earned via 1203.4 to any other state, let alone another country?!

          I am a registrant without a conviction. Well that doesn’t add up on any rational basis. In fact, it says that I’m rehabilitated, but you’re not gonna get your privacy back at all. The CoR isn’t a direct pathway given to registrants, otherwise, we’d have a lot more registrants off of the registration rather than hearing 10,000 will just stop registering on the tiered proposal.

          I want the state of California to protect my privacy against the IML as I’ve earned it via 1203.4. Why does my conviction exist to pass around states and countries freely when my conviction doesn’t exist? Why doesn’t the California constitution uphold that 1203.4 gives back my privacy?

          Privacy is specifically noted in the California Constitution, the inalienable right to privacy and obtain privacy. What other threshold must I jump through that is already established as a pathway to obtain privacy?

          Registration is a disability b/c unlike other convicts, I have to continue to give my whereabouts at every city I decide to reside in. I have to register with every school I go attend. I have to get permission to go onto any campus. I will probably not be able to get any job related to education. I am excluded from other jobs as well.

          If I move onto another state, then I will incur that state’s other regulations on top of what I have now. Well, then that’s another disability. Even if I want to just travel without molestation, I will be forced to register or be put into jail. I have to register in order to party in Vegas for a weekend???

          The courts say that your information is there for all to see so there’s nothing wrong with registration, then what does it mean when one’s case is dismissed? That information cannot be readily seen b/c it doesn’t exist to the public! So if it doesn’t exist to the public, then why even continue to register? Why a compliance check? I thought I earned my 1203.4, but I’m getting compliance checks as if I’m still on probation? Why is the state giving the impression to my neighbors that I’m a danger to society by visiting my home when I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong?!

          Because my conviction was dismissed, then technically there is no information to disseminate to the public. Again, if a potential employer were to query if I have ever been convicted, then I can say, “No. I have never been convicted.” So why does the state continue to need my privacy when it’s no longer there for the public to see?

          The collateral damage from registration remains the same after 1203.4. When will California stand up for my Constitutional right to privacy as specifically written in the California Constitution? When will it fight the IML b/c it runs contrary to California’s Constitution to the right to privacy and obtain privacy. We cannot forsee another entity outside the US to comply to remove someone off a list later on in years – and that should be sheer negligence upon the US to presume so. I don’t know if any other state specifically states the right to privacy or obtain privacy like California, but we California’s should demand our state to re-emphasis that part of the Constitution.

          I want my privacy back. California has removed the right to obtain privacy with the implication of “lifetime” contract to register. Why can’t we sue the state of California for that?! A layman can read aloud the California Constitution: Article 1, Section 1, “… inalienable right to… and obtain privacy.” And then that same layman can interpret “lifetime registration” as a contract whose intent is to take away your privacy for the rest of your life. There does not exist a direct path to obtain privacy from registration, like there is a direct path to reducing a felony to a misdemenor, section 17b.

          Inalienable right to privacy (or obtain privacy) vs privacy taken away for the rest of your life. Those are the basic concepts to a layman. That means with lifetime registration, the state of California is a co-conspirator to an inherent idea of taking away one’s privacy for the rest of their life. It runs contrary to the Article 1, Section 1 – where it’s inherent that a person has an inalienable right to privacy as well as obtain it.

          The two cannot co-exist. Lifetime registration should never exist under the California Constitution: Article 1, section 1!!! The word lifetime is a term that negates ANY form of direct relief or a pathway to obtain relief.

          Inalienable vs Lifetime.

          An undeniable right vs taking away a right for your whole existence. Surely, I cannot be the only one who notices the distinct extremes being presented – which cannot co-exist!

          Which brings us back to Involuntary servitude. Slavery is prohibited. (Isn’t that working for free not of your own volition?) To make sure no one gets around any forms of slavery by manipulating legal means, Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime was written into law as well. (The big difference between slavery and involuntary servitude is one gets paid and can live on their own.)

          Anyhow, involuntary servitude to a layman means involuntary service. Involuntary service is prohibited unless to punish a crime. This is black and white. If it’s not to punish a crime, then no one can compel any person to any type of service! There is no other avenue to allow any form of involuntary service outside of punishing a crime. But tack on the fact that we aren’t paid for the compelled service, then it should fall into slavery category.

          Are you getting paid when you are required to show up at a certain edifice at a designated time? Sounds like a job to me – except you’re not getting paid.

          Don’t I have rights? Don’t I have rights as a free person?

          1. Inalienable right to privacy or obtain it VS… lifetime contract to take away said inalienable right to privacy or obtain it.

          2. Involuntary service is prohibited unless to punish a crime VS………… a regulatory scheme that compels you to do a service for the state for the rest of your life for free without any compensation and with the legal manipulation to be domineered for failing to do said service where the contract was part of a crime.

          As a layman, how does a judge not side with the layman’s version – as it’s written that laws favor that interpretation for the layman.

          ::: sighs ::: I’m just frustrated b/c I see the simplicity of things that are actually supported by law that favor registrants to no longer register California as well as being abused by the state and federal system as both state and federal constitutions are neglecting nine words, “Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.”

          They’re imposing so many restrictions as they’re able to hide the fact it’s not punishment. But when looked upon the basic verbiage of “servitude” meaning service, then it doesn’t matter if it’s regulatory or not. It only matters if it’s punishment or not.

          Hell, I did the research on what constitutes for involuntary servitude.
          1. Involuntary servitude is incited once consequence rises above loss of pay or loss of job. You don’t have to return to the job if you don’t want to.

          2. The classical rational for identifying involuntary servitude
          a. Was the contract done of free will? (Not really as it was attached to our crime.)
          b. What is the compensations? (No. There is no compensation.)
          c. What is the length of the contract? (Lifetime contract should automatically raise a red flag!)
          d. Is the worker domineered – such that if they stop to work, then they will be hunted down, punished, and returned back to service? (Well, duh! The legal system supports that dominance.)

          How is this not involuntary service??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ugh! Am I crazy for seeing the simplicity of this?! Justice Roberts was wrong to manipulate that registration was regulatory, neglecting that it remains a service to the state. And all those who also sided with Roberts were wrong. They neglected the constitution as registration is a current form of involuntary service that is not called punishment – which is prohibited by law!!!

          • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

            New Person

            I concur with all your points as Just & Correct, that is to say Righteous.

            What remains to be seen is you prove yourself, contract for hire a Attorney, a Officer of The Court and file a Suit against the UnJustice perpetrated upon the Rights & Titles of the People of the land, make your Case for Justice.

            It will require you to break forth with the Check Book because it will be Not Free, the cost will require money, as you have Rightly said no person consents to work for free.

            History is Witness that To Redeem a Bondman it has always cost either of two elements found on the Face of the Earth those being Iron in man’s Blood or Gold – It is The Ugly Truth.

            I write these word Not to discourage you but to Encourage every Bondman.

            As Heaven and Earth are my Witnesses I call The Eternal Father in Heaven in His Court to encline His ear to me and see how the Wicked Slave Keepers prosper and have made Merchandise of People You have Freed for their Daily Bread as Canibaals feast on the Flesh of men, women, and children. Most High Father in Heaven Creator of all things created, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be their Redeemer.

            As Yehovah Lives, so should we

          • Anonymous Nobody

            New Person, good comments. But some clarification for you about 1203.4 PC – just more example of deceit from the courts.

            First, you ask why one who has received 1203.4 relief has to continue registering. Well, that is how it used to be done. It was automatic that when you got 1203.4 relief, you could just stop registering, you did not have to ask anyone, you did not have to apply, you did not have to notify anyone, you did not have to have a court hearing on that point. It was the law, even though it was not stated in 1203.4, it was in another independent statute, which now has been merged into 290. The entire purpose of parole or probation is to determine if you have been rehabilitated, so of course you should not have to continue registering!

            And we are missing the boat by not demanding this be returned as the standard when we go to the legislators to lobby for the very bad tiers proposal that ignores this. Tiers should not even apply if you already got 1203.4 relief. But we are not going to them complaining about anything in that terrible bill. We are cheering it on. We aren’t even calling for all the offenses for which the feds do not require registration but California does to be dropped altogether, conform to federal, only the offenses required by the feds to register.

            In the mid-1980s, the Legislature quietly changed the pertinent statute that allowed 1203.4 recipients to stop registering, dropping the word “felony” from it, and with that, people who were registering for a felony could no longer stop registering even though they got 1203.4 relief. In the early 1990s, that relief from registration also was taken away from misdemeanants, and so expungement became a moot — and now forgotten — issue for registration. I note, no one at the time thought that was retroactive! But that is how it is being handled now.

            So, people who did all they were supposed to, met the standard to be relieved of registration by getting 1203.4 relief (which sometimes was called “statutory rehabilitation”), and for years and years did not have to register suddenly were required to start registering again and for life. And our state high court, in Doe v. Harris (that’s the Harris we just elected to the US Senate), says that is perfectly legal to do, to make those people who worked to meet the standard for relef and got it to start registering again anyway, even if their freedom from registration was the point that got them to agree to a plea bargain. (So, consider that if going for a COR on the basis that you can stop registering for your offense if you get it, because maybe they will change the standard again and require you to start registering again unless you actually get the pardon, which no governor will ever give you.)

            Now, directly to what 1203.4 actually does these days. Yes, 1203.4 PC actually says you withdraw your plea and/or the finding of guilt is set aside and the case is dismissed. Simple, plain language, a kindergartener could understand that as it is so straight forward.

            Well, our appellate judges are not kindergarteners. For many years now, they have ruled over and over that in fact, 1203.4 does NOT set aside the conviction and dismiss the case, that it is not an actual expungement. They now rule that the conviction remains, and that 1203.4 merely lifts some of the disabilities of the offense — and registration is not one of those. That was based on the fact that 1203.4 retains some disabilities, such as a felon cannot possess a gun, and others. The courts said 1203.4 could not intend to dismiss the conviction if it retained disabilities (punishment), and so they chose to nix the expungement rather than nix the disabilites! They could have ruled the other way, nix the disabilities in the face of such clear language about the conviction being dismissed and thus the intent of the law, but they chose to decide on the basis of their prejudices!

            The courts now say 1203.4 does NOT expunge the conviction.

            As for whether the “public” can see the conviction after 1203.4 relief, the record always retained the history of the conviction, it simply added a note that you had been granted 1203.4 relief. So, anyone seeing the record would see the earlier entry saying “convicted,” and they better know what 1203.4 is because it doesn’t say “expungment” or “dismissed” or anything to explain. (I also note, the “public” cannot actually get your record straight from the state Justice Department. They get it from private companies that grab all the court records and make up your profile, and sell it for profit at your expense. Their records might not even be accurate, including they might not have picked up on your 1203.4 relief!)

            Also, the federal government has not recognized a California exensgemnt at least since the early 1980, maybe even before that.

            However, regarding your privacy comments, California has a much stronger privacy protection in its constitution than that in the U.S. Constitution. I have argued that that should prevent the state from giving the feds any information about registration if it is going to be used for the IML — the state Constitution bans the state from violating your privacy, and clearly it is being done by the state giving that information about you which will be used to send under IML all over the world. The state constitutional privacy protection cannot block the US from sending the information if it has it, but it does block the state from giving it to the feds if they might use it for that. That is the only way I see your legal privacy can be used to block IML. But no one has argued this.

            • David Kennerly's Rational Basis

              Some great points. Thank you!

            • New Person

              1203.4… vs Registration.

              1203.4 lost to Registration b/c no disability was founded, at that time. But 1203.4 should be hedged upon restoring the right to privacy. Registration is only about privacy, or there lack of. As you denoted, California’s privacy laws are stronger than Federal privacy.

              1203.4 is a venue to obtain privacy. Lifetime registration, or a lifetime without privacy, is contrary to right to privacy or obtain privacy. 1203.4 represents such a pathway to obtain privacy. Since privacy is listed as an inalienable right, it’s far much stronger than gun rights (which is not listed as an inalienable right in Article 1, Section 1).

              But I really want to know if registration is a SERVICE. Even if it is a REGULATORY SERVICE. I want to see the work SERVICE define registration.

              1203.4 does represent rehabilitation as well as a free person. This should absolve any constraint to belonging to the State’s service. As a free person, I cannot be compelled to do any service. If so, then it would violate Involuntary servitude, which is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

              And if that is so, then that should also prevent California from divulging said privacy information – let alone sharing it with anyone outside the state of California. This is privacy.

          • C J

            I’m hearing ya’ New Person on PC 1203.4. I’ve had a few attorneys across the country outside of California read the original court order of dismissal I have and they all concur its worded unambiguously and very powerful, at least in its statutory intent and purpose.

            Here is another spin on how California has caused collateral damage due to PC 290 conflicting with PC 1203.4. I now live in another state other than Cali that has this law on the books:

            “The offender will be required to continue registration for any sex offense conviction unless the conviction is set aside in any post-conviction proceeding, the offender receives a pardon, the charge is dismissed or the offender has received a court order pursuant to this section relieving him of the duty to register. Upon submission of the appropriate documentation to the department of one (1) of these occurrences, registration duties will be discontinued.”

            Straight-shooting, unambiguous statute correct? Nope. The thugs in black robes here(5 of 9 at least…) decided that PC 1203.4 “does not meet their definition of dismissal”, thus they now advertise me on their list as convicted and registered.

            Thats my example. I’m sure there are many others but these dimwits can’t even produce a certified copy of conviction for anyone who had it dismissed per PC 1203.4. Legislating from the bench at its worst…

            • New Person

              It’s what anonymous denoted…

              1203.4 has lost its original intent and weight. It makes one wonder why even have 1203.4 when it does absolutely nothing to bring about full compensation for rehabilitation.?

              So let’s re-emphasize that 1203.4 is the pathway to obtain privacy. Registration is the lack of privacy. If not, then sue the state for not giving a direct pathway to obtain privacy since the term “lifetime” does not constitute any relief.

              • C J

                Anonymous Nobody has done the homework and research. I’ve done some too. I have seen where courts have discredited 1203.4 but not under the circumstances we speak of. It was for other areas where sentence enhancements were wanted by the feds or state, 2nd amendment law, etc. I may be mistaken and surely I’ve pressed my legal grievances to the highest court in my jurisdiction and received no due justice when its due via dismissal.

                I challenged the current jurisdiction I’m in to produce a certified copy of conviction that proves what they are advertising online. I’m ignored. The AG nor all his stable of attorneys can’t produce it. Why? It doesn’t exist. Its law that they must have that on record too in order to place people on their hit list. The rules are what they say they are, ad nauseum, not how they are written and passed by legislative bodies.

                Your point about a civil suit holds merit. The question is how many out there are being damaged by 290 who own 1203.4? If its a big number that should be brought forward via class action. Janice, Chance, are you listening?

                What about the Cali website? Do they now show the true record when it comes to 1203.4? They never did when I was on their list. Its like it never happened. That alone is cause for action.

                I’ve challenged via the courts and made some attorneys some real good money I’ve earned over the last two decades. Everyone on both sides loses their mind when that three letter word is inserted.

                The cause for action would be better served with an appointed judge imo. Elected judges just won’t do the right thing, even if they break their oath to do it.

                • New Person


                  I would like to have the AG respond to you specifically what 1203.4 does as well as have him quote what is stated online – since those are the words that have been passed.

                  Here’s a snippet from the official cal dot gov site:

                  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,


                  In plain English – the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.

                  Now, as laws are supposed to be read as is and should always take the side of the layman, I found the final four words to be very exact and interesting. “… except as noted below.”

                  That means if there are no extra laws written directly below this particular law, then no other law must be taken into account – otherwise, why include such specific language in the legislation. In 1203.4, there is NOTHING ABOUT CONTINUANCE TO REGISTER within this legislation. It does, though, lists with sex crimes that cannot apply for 1203.4. This produces a massive contrary in my head.

                  You can list with sex crimes cannot apply for 1203.4, but not note that registrants need to continue register? Yet, the state can tell the public that it is insinuated that ML curtails 1203.4 even though it is not specifically listed underneath the 1203.4 legislation.

                  ML is a different legislation. It was not directly written within 1203.4, “… except as noted below,” as specifically stated in 1203.4. Can any lawyer agree with me that what is written into law is a binding contract?

                  If this is so, then 1203.4 should automatically remove the disability of registering.

                  Facially, I am a free person once I have earned the 1203.4 because I was never convicted and, therefore, “… released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, …”. Nowhere below the first paragraph of 1203.4 does it state specifically that I need to continue to register.

                  Registration carries the disability to travel freely without molestation. Why do I have to register or talk to someone just go on onto any school campus? When I go to the college, registrants on parole have to register every time they venture onto the campus, but with a 1203.4, I have to register at the beginning of each school semester. How is the action not a penalty when it’s the same action for a parole and a free person?

                  Also, if I travel out of state, I am limited to the length of stay in any said state or I will be forced to register. If I don’t register, then I will be charged with a possible felony. No other free person is subjected to register in another state nor are they relegated to limit their amount of stay in any other state.

                  Registration carries the disability of where you can live. There are laws that state you cannot live within certain areas. I don’t know how that isn’t a disability.

                  Registration carries the disability of employment. You are negated job opportunities as a free person that no other free person’s job opportunities are taken away.

                  I’m just listing a few disabilities b/c I read a case where the judges didn’t see any disabilities stemming from registration. 1203.4 relieves ALL penalties and disabilities, “…except as noted below”. Welp, using just common sense with basic English, I do not see anywhere below in 1203.4 that it states that I must continue to register. Thus, using 1203.4 as a binding contract with specific language, “… except as noted below”, I don’t have to register if I earned a 1203.4.

                  Wait… can it seriously be that simple a solution?

                  I see other things have been attached to 1203.4, which is stated below the first paragraph. So why doesn’t legislation amend it to add in the continuance to register within 1203.4? One cannot “imply” a law exists within a statute when a statute specifically states, “… except as noted below” being concise verbiage on what 1203.4 does not cover, especially when specific sex crimes are omitted from being able to apply for 1203.4.

                  I’d like in on this if there’s a possible suit.

                  Anyhow, the link I gave you is a Cal dot gov link. If you’re not a lawyer, then you’re considered a layman. Ask the AG to give it to you straight as a layman and as a tax payer, it’s the AG’s job to respond to you. Ask, “does the word ‘dismiss’ mean the same everywhere in the USA? Does the phrase ‘dismiss the accusation or information against the defendant’ mean the same everywhere in the USA? If so, then does the phrase ‘dismiss the accusation or information against the defendant’ mean, in layman’s terms, that ‘the charge was dismissed’?

                  That way you can show your current state that the AG does in fact utilize the exact language in your current state to relieve you of registering in said state. Seems to me that ‘dismiss the accusation’ is the same is ‘dismiss the charge’ for your situation.

                  BTW, thanks for making look up 1203.4 again. As of now, I’m really intrigued about the specific verbiage of “… except as noted below.” I know a few people on here have earned their 1203.4. So I wonder if finding these seemingly innocuous ‘four words’ can bring about a suit to relieve all those who have earned a 1203.4 from registering?

                  In my recent annual registration, my local PD made sure to note that “re:Taylor” only applies to parolees and not to all registrants as the case only depicted parolees. If the state can be that exact, then why can’t we hold the state to the same “exact” standard?

                  oh please, please, please someone let me know that I stumbled upon something good!

              • Son of Liberty Child of Feedom

                New Person

                I concur and add a further Truth, a Ugly Truth!

                You stated:
                “then sue the state for not giving a direct pathway to obtain Privacy”

                “The Supreme Court of The United States ruled 7–2 that a right to PRIVACY under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s “decision” [Desire] to have an abortion”


                Making “Murder of a Child” & “Conspiring to Murder a Child” by their parents & family Legitimate & Permissible without any “Collateral Consequences”

                The Desire of a Enslaved Citizen of The United States of America to be Reconciled with their Resurrected Privacy is truly a “Sincerely Innocent Endeavor” when contrasted with the Evil Efforts of 1973.

                “The Ugly Truth” is that children under the Wicked Servants care, with the Consent of most of the People who are their very own parents, Championed by the Legislative Branch, Executed by The Office of the President, & with the “Final Seal of Approval” by the Jeduciary Branch aka The United States Supreme Court.

                Furthermore to add insult to injury, Not a single “Officer of the Peace” on the face of the land has lifted a finger to defend the lives of the Children Murdered!!!

                No less then 55 million children have been Murdered!!! by their very own family. All of these innocent & defenseless children have been Executed without Due Proccess & Representation to demonstrate they pose a danger to the “Life Style” of their so called parents.

                In addition once Capital Punishment has been Executed upon the children via the technique of tearing and slicing their delicate bodies into Cuts and Pieces, the children are “Made a Merchandise Of” by the sale of their body parts by a “Medical Professional Butcher Shop”, mind you! –

                This is nothing New Under the Sun: 3500 years ago the Canaanite Religions practiced the same Evil, the priest to Baal aka Cohen Baals who are Cannibals, before the arrival of The Freed Children of Israel out of the Sinai Desert carrying The Torah giving to Moshe by the Strong Arm of Yehovah, which by the way (Path) the same Torah in 1776 further Freed human kind.

                Ladies & Gentlemen we can not deny the Truth,

                The Creator of the Cosmos & Spiritual Worlds, The Most High Possessor of Heaven and Earth the Elohim (God) of Abraham, Issac, & Jacob. Revealed to Moses & to all nations what is correct & what is incorrect aka The 10 Commandments, that is: Objective Morals.

                The Global Governmental Bureaucrats have denied the existence of The Most High of Heaven because they Covet & Desire to place themselves in His rightful Position. The fruit of their tree is Murder & Accusation of others to cover over the evil (Want) they produce.

                In the same Spirit of Jona I repeat what The Most High of Heaven can not bear to look upon, I.E. Hates. And because of these acts I call Heaven & Earth to bear witness of the Rivers of Blood that cry out & Stain the Land.

                Proverbs chapter 6

                16 There are six things which Yehovah hateth,
                Yea, seven which are an abomination unto Him:

                17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
                And hands that shed innocent blood;

                18 A heart that deviseth wicked thoughts,
                Feet that are swift in running to evil;

                19 A false witness that breatheth out lies,
                And he that soweth discord among brethren.

                20 My son, keep the commandment of thy Father,

                As Yehovah lives, I speak truth

  7. John

    SB 813: Sex Offenses, Statute of Limitations— Linked to the accusations against comedian Bill Cosby, Senate Bill 813 ends California’s 10-year statute of limitations on sex offenses, allowing sex crimes to be prosecuted regardless of when they occurred. The law will cover new offenses after January 1, 2017, and cannot be applied to cases retroactively. Now why can it not be possible to have this new law retroactive? Becouse there is punishment? Ok so hold it retroactive with no punishment, and if there guilty just have them register since it’s regulatory…

  8. SOinthe808

    Don’t know if this is the right place to start this discussion, but wondering if anyone has tried to, or knows someone who did relocate outside the US and how they went about informing the registration office so they no longer had to do the periodic and annual updates. Specifically a non SORNA state as Hawaii is not compliant with it yet. I’m looking to leave the US permanently, but don’t know how to inform the AG. Moreover, wondering if they’ll contact anyone in the country I’m moving to. Any insight to this is greatly appreciated!

    • ml

      In the state that I was in, I had to notify my registration officer 10 days before moving. Which I did. Then I just left the country and lived in Mexico for 18 months. Then when I flew to the states for medical treatment, upon return I got sent back. It was easy. The problem now is that other countries will not allow you to enter.

    • lovewillprevail

      Response to SOinthe888

      It does not matter if you are or are not located in a state that adopted SORNA. As soon as you cross the state line to leave the country, SORNA applies. There have been federal court cases about this issue that ruled against the RSO when the RSO did not give notification. The RSO ended up in prison for not giving notification. And if you are leaving the country, the feds will know as they view daily all the airline info. So if you do not give proper notification chances are you will be in prison.

      If crossing the state line to leave the country, give your required notification (read SORNA for the notification requirement and ask an attorney if you do not understand). And, if the IML applies to you (read the IML and ask an attorney if you are unsure whether it applies to you and for understanding), then you have to give notification. The IML has a much stricter notification requirement so if the IML applies, then follow the IML notification requirement.

      Your local registering office who you give notice to will not notify the other country, but the fed gov will notify the other country by sending a green card before you even set foot on the plane to leave the US since the feds are viewing all airline info daily. So, if moving you better move to a country that is currently accepting RSOs. And for Europe, I read that will change in the next few years where they most likely will not longer accept RSOs.

      So if you are moving, you better do it as soon as possible as soon there will be no country left willing to let you into the country. And you better first talk with an attorney if moving because of the VISA and other related issues. Better do lots of research to cover your butt and to not waste too much money. Good luck.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      You need to read up on IML, the International Megan’s Law. For starters, you might not be able to move to whatever country it is you had in mind, as in the face of what Obama was doing at least three years on his own initiative and now IML, you will find few countries you can even enter, registrants have been getting set back when they arrive at the border.

      Depending on your offense, you might have a very nasty and libelous notice sent saying you are traveling for the purpose of committing offenses against children. But even without that notice, they are now sending your full record, so the receiving country will know. And they are adding some sort of Scarlett Letter on your passport so everyone checking it will know you are a registrant — this group’s suit challenging that failed, unfortunately.

      So, yes, the U.S. will be giving your information to the receiving country.

      Trump might be looking to lock people he sees as undesirable out, but Obama and Congress have been locking us in.

      But to your question: You simply handle the notice as you would any time you are moving from your place of registry to another or to out of state; you must notify the place where you have been registering of where you are moving. The only difference is that the address you give of where you are going will not be in the U.S.

  9. James Townsend

    It has been a long time since I have been on here. To all that have an ear, please listen. A lot of this sex offender stuff is a man’s device to overcome others and to control others. Yes, we are suppose to obey government but when they go against God’s teachings we are to obey God. Now I am on the registry myself and was caught up in an internet sex entanglement. Right now I am going thru my probation as some on here are but one should never give up hope.
    A lot of this is sex offender stuff is type of man’s debauchery to man in this greed and pride ordeal and actually we may seem to have lost all our rights but we do have the rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness…… We are all created equal.

  10. Bobby

    Hello Everyone,

    To people in Michigan and for anyone else who is interested, I spoke to Ms Aukerman today, about what is going on with Does v Snyder and People v Temelkowski , and when we might hear something from either case and this is what was said.

    this is me Hello, Ms Aukerman

    I hope you had a nice Holiday, I was just wondering if you could tell me,or if you had any idea on, when SCOTUS,might make a decision on whether they will hear Does v Snyder,and do they have to make a decision on that this year.

    2) I watched your oral argument on People v Temelkowski ,on December 7 2016, which was excellent,and sounded as if the justices were on our side,any way,in rgards to that does The Michigan Supreme Court, have to make a decision on that case this year?,or can they put it off till next year 2018.

    Just woundering how all this works,and when both courts have to make their final decions/orders. I also know you said to be patient,but that is getting hard to do,the longer they take to make their decions on the cases.

    her: We will know in late spring if the Supreme Court takes Does. If they do, we won’t have a decision till late 2017 or 2018. The Michigan Supreme Court could decide Temelkoski at any time, although I suspect it may be several months

    Me:Mrs Aukerman,

    One more quick question, So if SCOTUS,does not hear Does v Snyder, then the 6th Circuit ruling stands,correct? How will that effect the Temelkowski case if at all. Thank you again for everything

    Her: If they deny, then the ruling stands. But it does not mean everyone comes off the registry. Just that certain things cannot be enforced, and people don’t go from 25 years to life. Temelkoski will probably get decided on due process rather than ex post facto.

    Me: Sorry to keep bothering you, but how would that affect me then, since my conviction was in 1992,before Michigan had a registry and I was not order by a judge to register since it did not exist in 92, but in 96, I was but on it for 25 years,but now it’s life, so wasn’t my right to due process and other things violated.? They also changed my registration date from 96 to 92. So in my opinion I should be removed altogether or put back to 25 years.correct

    Thank you,Bobby

    Her: You would probably to back to 25 years.

    not sure if she is correct,but it seems to me that since i have not been in any trouble since 1992, that i should be remoced altogether, any thoughs or opinions on this,thank you.

  11. Paul

    Besides obtaining a ticket and getting denied at passport control, how would I know that my passport has been revoked?

    • Quint

      Nobody is sure…passports haven’t been revoked or denied yet. That being said, probably an official notification via certified/registered mail.

      • Paul

        Thanks for the response. Unfortunately at this juncture in time I don’t have expendable cash on hand and couldn’t take the risk of getting turned away after the ticket is purchased. I guess I should just email someone in the government.


    Interesting read. Side note: Mentioned in the article was a Stingray. Alaska has one, how about your state?

  13. zack

    I got off parole in November and just found a job and will have to start driving. I haven’t worked or driven since sentenced almost 4 years ago. Since I am 290, will I have to register again right when I start driving or working? I am confused because the penal code isn’t quite clear if I have to update vehicle or employment status other than on my birthday or when I move. By the way, my birthay is on October 14. It would seem like a burdened addition to registration obligations. Thanks in advance for everyone’s input! – zack

    • Lake County

      My understanding is vehicle and employment updates only need to be done on your yearly update.

  14. BAM

    I have a question that many others may want an answer to as well. I live out of state with a california conviction. I would like to know what will be our process to come off the registry when the tiering system takes place in California. Like i have stated before, Florida is only making me register due to Me having an obligation to be on the California registry for life. I know that i fall under the tier one or two category because i had a wobbler case, either way , i have been registering for 20 years already. Florida has stated that I can petition their court if i can prove that by law that i no longer have to register per california law. o I am just curious to know if i have to move back to California in order to obtain removal from my registration duties. I am a business man and moving back to California , i would have to start over in business, it took a long time to see some success in business. I Dont want to move back to California at this point unless i have no other choice to clear my name from its registry. I didnt check the Florida laws before I moved back home and before I knew it, it was to late. If you visit Florida, they keep your photos and name on their registry and will not take it down until you dont have to register in your originating state of conviction. I know that Florida just joined Sorna, however , they are not fully compliant. Again Florida states that you have to prove that the law has changed in the convicting state in order to come off of the registry in their state. Somebody please give me some input and does somebody else have this same problem.

    • New Person

      Currently, as the law stands right now, here’s what I found online for ya:

      1. You were convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor sex offense specified in Penal Code section 290 that was dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4; and
      2. You have been discharged from custody, parole, or probation; and
      3. You have not been incarcerated in any penal institution, jail, or agency since release; and
      4. You are not on probation for the commission of any other felony; and
      5. You have resided for five years in California immediately prior to filing the petition.

      Read more:

      There’s actually more b/c you can’t apply for a CoR until after 10 years (7 for other specific offenses). Since you’ve been out for 20 years, then the only criteria that you need to adhere to is the five years of residency prior to the application of the CoR.

      As for the proposed new tiered system, I don’t know what that entails and if it will actually be passed.

  15. James

    I have bit my tongue a half a hundred time…and have wanted to say…It was only sex.

    I know this is not an allowable response, certainly not in contemporary United States, but often I look around and sadly want to just shake my head in wonderment at some of the ways different societies approach this.

    For example, out of Germany today in the BBC:

    A spokeswoman for the Green Party in Germany has said disabled and seriously ill people should be able to claim back public money if they pay for sex.
    They would have to prove a medical need and show that they could not pay to visit sex workers otherwise.
    Elisabeth Scharfenberg, an MP, told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that she “could imagine” local authorities paying for “sexual assistance”.

    Astounding and probably humane…

    Be that as it may, there is a serious point to my post…I doubt that this hateful registration scheme, that really wasn’t that bad until around 2010, will not appreciably change until there is some recognition that, probably for the majority of us…what we did was not that perverse, not that strange, not even particularly odd.

    Though, of course, I understand that it was illegal, probably even morally wrong at some level, but, it was also only…sex.

    Different societies treat this issue differently…were I dangerous, I would get what is happening to me now, I may not like it, but I would understand.

    I think that this is what perplexes and bedevils most of us.

    It just doesn’t make rational sense…but as long as tongues love to wag and people derive a deep but real joy at waving a finger at someone less fortunate…

    Then for that long, our condition will continue.

    Best Wishes, James

    • Timmr

      There is also a dicotomy of what is legal and what is accepted, like drug use by white people in this country or alcohol use in Iran. Both those can have serious consequenses but flourish nonetheless as long as society and the authorities look the other way.

    • Tired Of Hiding

      Prostitution should be totally legal in the entire USA, but just as the war on drugs, this war on sex will never be stopped because this country is more conservative than Iran. It is just not quite so out in the open about it and my hypocritical about it…that’s just the American way. Deny reality and live a in Disney World world.

      Yes, sex is sex and exchanging money for it as long as both parties are consenting and at least the age of consent should be legal as in so many other more socially advanced countries than the USA will ever be.

      We are great a wars, destruction, and killing people…not so great on treating people as human beings.

  16. Bay Area RSO

    To California RSO’s,

    Do we need to notify our local LEO if traveling outside of California, domestically?

    This is the part of the law that confuses me. I just went to my annual and noticed the sheet that you initial had one new item: online schooling. But nothing about traveling outside of California notification.

    At the same time, the ML’s website states that: “registrants who plan to travel out-of-
    state or internationally should provide advanced written notice”.

    • David Kennerly's Rational Basis

      I was in my registering office last week to notify them that I had changed cars and asked the clerk if I had to notify them if I were going to be traveling domestically. She asked me how long I would be gone to which I replied “Two weeks” to which she replied “Nah.”

      Isn’t it wonderful that we know just what the rules are?


        Hopefully that was sarcasm and you’re not trusting her information.

      • C

        You had to notify them that you changed vehicles?

        • David Kennerly's Rational Basis

          That’s my understanding. I had previously asked them at my annual if I would be required to come in to notify them of a new car and they said that I would.

          • C

            Each year they just ask me if I have any new vehicles and I bring in the registrations accordingly when I have something new. Even when it’s the same vehicle they takes pictures of it. They even asked for my boat registration one year, an 18′ runabout. Idiotic.
            Welp, hope they don’t get mad at me next month – got a new truck in June and did not tell ’em about it yet.

          • Timmr

            It was my understanding, but I am not sure if it is required in the law. Notification on changing residence? yes. Telling them when you get a new vehicle? Don’t know.

    • Hiding in Plain Sight

      @Bay Area
      I live in Los Angeles county and i asked the deputy at my last registration (Sept) if I need to give notification for international travel. California is not a SORNA state so it is not mandatory but he advised to just fill out the DOJ notice, we both sign it and he would just put it in my file. I would then keep a copy with me on my trip. The laws are confusing/conflicting/overlapping/contradictory so it is best to CYA. I don’t like having a leash around my neck but until the law is changed I will comply.

      As far as travel domestically, it is my understanding that you only have to give notice if you are moving and changing addresses. You need to be aware of the laws in the states you are visiting to comply with their individual/idiotic laws and not get caught up in a wreck.

      Good luck and safe travels.


        “You need to be aware of the laws in the states you are visiting to comply with their individual/idiotic laws and not get caught up in a wreck.”

        Good advice. As far as I understand, they’d get nothing for giving you incorrect information. You’d wind up behind bars however if you followed it.

  17. Jack

    I saw this video on youtube recently and assumed you guys would too. Also it needs more likes. There seem to be a lot of right wing nazi trolls around on this video and I think todd could use your help.

  18. mike r

    man i need help with my final issue for my motion..Can anyone articulate or provide any other evidence or suggestions to this claim????????

    (Right to Travel and Association and Unconstitutionally Vague)
    (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 layman of average intelligence to cite each and every statute, law, or ordinance in order to determine exactly what statute, law, or ordinance is unconstitutionally vague or that violates my right to travel and association. It isn’t any single law or ordinance but a conglomerate of these laws in all the different states, counties, and municipalities that make them unconstitutionally vague. When applying the constitutional vagueness doctrine, the Supreme Court distinguishes between statutes that “require a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard” and those that specify “no standard of conduct.” Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971). Statutes falling into the former category have, as the State terms it, a constitutional “core” in the sense that they “apply without question to certain activities,” even though their application in marginal situations may be a close question. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 755-56 (1974). Conversely, those statutes that fall into the latter category are unconstitutionally vague. The distinction between these two types of statutes, in some instances, may be somewhat difficult to decipher. Indeed, an unconstitutionally vague statute may still have some clearly constitutional applications. See Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2560-61. But where a statute specifies no standard, the fact that it has one or more clearly constitutional applications cannot save it. See id. Supreme Court precedent “squarely contradict[s] the theory that a vague provision is constitutional merely because there is some conduct that clearly falls within the provision’s grasp.” Id. That is the case here and why it is unconstitutionally vague, even though some conduct may “fall within . . . [its] grasp,” id., because it fails to “define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). 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 cannot 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 cannot 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 not only of my registration status through the International Megan’s Law (IML), and the Angle Watch Program but are implying implicitly that I am traveling to commit child exploitation acts in their country so therefore I am denied entry by the destination country. Unless the courts address every federal, state or local ordinance throughout the country individually then there is no remedy to rectify this situation other than to relieve me of my duties to register and barring my inclusion on the sex offender notification laws. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty.


      I’m not going to try and give that depth of legal advice, just don’t know law to that degree.. I will give an opinion on the whole after reading it. It sounds good but it seems like you’re hitting on something that SCOTUS would have to take up. I’m not sure how convincing that would be to a state court. You might make it more specific to travel inside your state. I travel freely here but I know some states, like California, have county to county problems. Right?

      Just my two cents.

    • New Person

      Well… I know the registration creates a disability. The right to travel unmolested is a right that is shared among free people.

      Thus, registration limits the right to travel. Each state carries it’s own statutes on how long one can stay before they are “compelled” to register for that state, regardless if you are simply visiting and not the usual standard of practice for establishing residency. Also, the laws in other states may differ vastly than what is stated in California.

      Now, if one has earned a 1203.4, then it clearly states, “…he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted”.

      The pertinent word here is “to travel unmolested” as to compare to one who his free, which is what the 1203.4 actually states.

    • BA

      I have a question on legality of registration per state, example I want to go to Bahamas but do not want to go from florida!some states say VISATORS must register by a certain date , THAT MEANS i’AM A VISTOR, as opposed to RESIDENCE how dam confusing in there favor.!

  19. B.Wat

    New Person
    I was granted a 1203.4, after probation in 1992, I wonder how many of us have been granted a 1203.4? Enough to file a class action suit? If so count me in!

    • NPS

      I was also granted a 1203.4. I’m still registering. Thankfully I’m not, nor have I ever been on the public registry. If there’s ever a class action suit for RCs granted a 1203.4, count me in, too.

      • someone who cares

        We are done with probation and would like to apply for a PC1203.4. I spoke to an expungement lawyer, and he said this can be done immediately after probation and there is no need to wait to let some time pass? I am not sure about this law firm since he also said that the judge had no say in denying the motion and the attorney would not ask for a dismissal but simply tell the judge to dismiss it since it is California Precedent? I know I read that if someone completed probation without any violations the judge HAS to grant the dismissal? Can someone who has successfully filed this motion let me know if this lawyer is full of it or telling the truth? He also has a 100% money back guarantee if he does not win the case. If we get the PC1203.4 granted, we would also be interested in any class action suit regarding the registration after the dismissal is granted. As some said, with the dismissal, you can honestly say you have never been convicted, so why the continued punishment having to register? Register for what crime if no crime exists?

        • Joe

          I believe you are entitled to a dismissal under 1203.4, if eligible. An attorney would not offer you a money back guarantee if it were a toss-up. This is something you can easily do yourself. Many people have.

          Here is the form.

          It is brand spanking new and seems more complicated than the previous version.

          This is also the form to request a felony reduction to misdemeanors, for wobblers. This can make the difference between terminating registration with a CoR or not.

          It is not rocket science, but there are form and time requirements that must be adhered to. For that I would retain an attorney. There are post-conviction relief specialists doing nothing but this that know exactly what to do. In the interest of messing up a formality and prolonging the procedure I would consider it money well spent. But not necessary.

          The Public Defender in your county may help you, or is a good place to start in any case.

          Good luck!

        • NPS

          The attorney is correct that you can file 1203.4 any time after you end probation. As Joe said, if the PC is a wobbler, go for the 17b (reduction to misdemeanor).

          You don’t need an attorney. Have you considered filing the motion on your own without one? I filed my 17b and 1203.4 on my own, and it was without cost. I wrote my own motion along with a personal statement to the court. I provided numerous letters of reference including one from my former probation officer and therapist. The judge granted both the 17b and 1203.4. Again, the cost was $0.

          Prior to this, I had also filed an early termination of probation. When granted, the judge set a new date 4 weeks later for the 17b and 1203.4. I know that doesn’t apply to you since probation is over, but it gives an idea of how little time is needed between ending probation and filing 1203.4.

          If you decide to go this route of filing in pro per, the moderator has permission to provide my email and I can give you further advice. Good luck!

          • someone who cares

            NPS ~ thank you for the tips. Yes, if the moderator could provide your e-mail, address, I would really like to discuss how to go about all this without getting an attorney. Money is tight as it is. I appreciate the help. Also, I have not seen where it really says that a PC 1203.4 will NOT relief you from the duty to register. I saw many articles where it mentioned what a dismissal will NOT do, but not being able to stop registering was not mentioned as far as I could tell.

            • NPS

              Unfortunately, there is a PC that says exactly that about 1203.4, and the DA was quick to remind me of that.

              290.007. Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.

              • someone who cares

                NPS ~ thanks for the info. I saw that clause now, too, but if there is a class action lawsuit coming, arguing that exact fact that if you can honestly say you have not been convicted, how can they make you keep registering. What are you registering for if there is no conviction? I give the moderator permission to give out my e-mail address to NPS. I would really like to discuss this more.

  20. Lake County

    Dr. Phil had an episode today (Jan 13, 2017) entitled: “Was Her Boyfriend Falsely Convicted of Sexual Assault? Her Parents Want Him Gone”. Link:

    The subject of this episode is a Tier III sex offender convicted of groping a 14yr old girl over her clothing. He was on Dr. Phil because he denies he was guilty of the crime and he is now dating a understanding woman who has a 2 year old girl. The woman’s mother want’s to take her granddaughter away from her daughter.

    Dr. Phil used a lot of fearful statistics like 70% of sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims. Well with that statistic, people will only see the number 9, not the more appropriate 1 victim for most offenders. At the very end of his show, in a low voice while everyone was clapping goodbye, he did state that the recidivism rate was a lot lower than what most people think.

    These charges came to light during his divorce from his ex. The registered citizen in this story showed the results of a polygraph exam he took during treatment that showed he was telling the truth when he said he did not grope the girl. Dr. Phil agreed that this was a valid polygraph exam. Dr. Phil also got the victim to agree to a polygraph after she offered to take one. Her results were posted at the end of the show and her responses were said to be deceptive.

    Other than showing the world that this man may likely be innocent, this story with Dr. Phil’s scary statistics certainly did not help us.

    • Lake County

      This episode gets repeated on Monday 10am in the SF Bay Area and in many other areas around the country.

  21. mike r iscensored

    never mind I got it….my motion is ready to file…just a cover sheet and fee waiver are my last steps….and I’m taking speech and public debating this semester so I’ll be as prepared as possible….this motion is incredible if anyone wants to see it say so on here and ill post it or send it to you or Janice’s team so they can forward it…thanks

  22. mike r

    Lets see if they will let me post the beginning of my motion….Just so you all know It is formatted in the proper format and argued on pleading paper…..I am very proud of this that I spent hundreds of hours preparing while many have said to stop crying and start doing this or that or whatever they thought I should be doing to support our cause.. Believe me when this prevails all the naysayers will be chomping at the bits to file their own motion based on mine…

    PRO SE


    ______________________ )
    ) Case No._________________


    Violation of First, Fifth Amendments, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, and California’s Constitution’s Article I sect.1 and sect.7

    I the plaintiff, Michael Richardson, do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief. I am not an attorney and I have no formal education in the field of law. I am filing pro se since I cannot afford legal assistance as I do not have unlimited disposable income so I am asking this court to consider the issues in this motion based on the merit of each issue without regard to court rules and procedures or technical errors. See. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905″… the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws.”Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) “Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgmentt.”Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson.Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff’s civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as “inept”. Nevertheless, it was held “Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff’s Pleadings without regard to technicalities. See also the California’s Constitution’s Civil Rights Amendments Article I section 3. I am also asking this court for assistance in determining exactly what rights are being violated and exactly what type of remedies the court deems applicable in my case. I am asking the Court to determine if such action by a Court can or should actually be taking to administer a fair and just Judicial process.
    This motion is being brought forth as an as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law (CA Penal Code § 290-290.024, Sex Offender Registration Act) and to SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Notification Act) 42 USC § 16913 as applied to me.
    Governments have an obligation to protect people and take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction to protect them from violence. One element of that duty is to take measures to deter and prevent crime. They must do so, however, within a human rights framework, which places restrictions on those measures that infringe on the human rights guaranteed to all. A person’s conviction of a crime does not extinguish his or her claim to just treatment at the hands of government.
    American policies regarding sex offenders mark them as a special category of criminals for whom no stigma is too crippling, no regulations are too restrictive, and no penalty is too severe. This attitude, driven by fear and outrage, is fundamentally irrational, and so are its results, which make little sense in terms of justice or public safety.
    Sex offender laws interfere with a panoply of protected rights: the rights to privacy, to family and home, to freedom of movement and liberty (including the right to work and to reside where one chooses ), and to physical safety and integrity (including protection from harm by private as well as public actors), while not achieving any legitimate legislative objectives. None of these rights are absolute, but laws that infringe upon them must be necessary to serve a legitimate public interest and they must be rational and evidence-based. It is important to recognize that constitutional protections must be afforded to all regardless of the public having a perception of certain classes having a pariah reputation. The government cannot allow rights to be taken away arbitrarily “based solely upon the category of the crime for which the offender is found guilty.”
    This is a civil rights action seeking 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. ) and to SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Notification Act) 42 USC § 16913 as applied to me in violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States of America as well as California Constitution’s Article I, Section 1 and 7 on “ life, liberty, property, due process, and equal protection”. Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
    This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 2201, and 2202; as well as 5 U.S.C. section 702, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to any action for injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.
    Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e), venue is proper in this Federal district because defendants are officers of agencies of the United States sued in their official capacities, and because this judicial district is where Plaintiff Michael Richardson resides, and where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims have occurred and will continue to occur.

    I dont know if this site will allow me to post the entire 47 page motion but if enough people state they want to see it then they might let me post it…if not oh well their lossssssssss


      I for 1 would be very interested in looking at your work. It would be interesting to see how you present the arguments.

    • Steve

      Very impressive. Good luck!

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      mike r

      In the face of tremendous Ha Satans (Barriers) placed before your path in life you show forth courage as did Joseph when his own brothers made a Merchandise of him, sold to the Mitzrahym (Egyptins) like a loaf of bread Joseph withstood calamity with Wisdom, a Strong Heart, and Calling out to the Elohim (God) of his forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

      Out of the miry clay, he was brought out of the Pit.

      In that same spirit of Joseph the Nazrite (separated one) I call out to the same Elohim Yehovah The Most High Possessor of Heaven and Earth The only Eternal One who formed light and created darkness:

      I bid Yehovah The God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob.
      Yehovah bless thee, and keep thee:
      Yehovah make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
      Yehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

  23. mike r iscensored

    thank you steve..I really appreciate the positive comment..especially coming from one of my most vociferous critics…This is still just a draft on this issue that I prepared in about 8-10 hours or so..I will continue to strengthen this argument before it’s completely ready but eveven at this stage I believe it is a very strong argument…the other five arguments that I have are even more rock solid all have an extreemly great chance of prevailing on each issue…..if I see a couple more people who state they really want to see the entire motion then I will go ahead and post it in its entirety…like I said it’s 47 pages so I want to hear if people really want to see it…

    • Joe

      No one has ever criticized your efforts. It is not your output that is criticized, but your behavior, attitude and tone on this web site.

      What is not acceptable is your incessant whining – down to alleging they derive some sort of profit from their activism – about a bunch of volunteers, many of whom have no stake in this and for some reason feel compelled to work for free and ruin their reputations.

      What is puzzling that for some reason you are under the impression that this organization is required to follow your opinions and recommended course of action. For that there exist private attorneys. You should hire one.

      What is objectionable is the contention that you know better than California Bar and SCOTUS admitted attorneys who have actual legal experience and success in this arena.

      What is not appreciated is for you to continually to copy and paste vast amounts of text here – against the guidelines – making it difficult to use this site on a phone.

      What is ridiculous is for you to continue to expect to dump on the volunteers of a private organization on the public forum operated by the very organization. Me? I would ban you for your rude username, for starters.

      Go forth and file your law suit. It may just do the trick once and for all. If you are right – I have said this before – I will be the first to donate $100 to the mike r party fund. Until such time… get your own attorney or start your own web site (trying to stay polite here). Simple as that.

      • NPS

        Well said, Joe.


        So you’re going to send him money AFTER he wins. Lol

        • Joe

          Forget money – sorry I mentioned it…. I will contribute to his victory party once he wins. Okay?

          I will bake him a dozen cup cakes if he ever files his ‘motion’. Fair? Where do I send them?

          Money…. Baked goods…. whatever. As long as I do not have to listen to his incessant whining no more. Because he is going to alienate the only real advocates 100,000 individuals in the Golden State have ever had.

          What have you accomplished lately?


            If he or I or anyone else had that kind of power over her then she never was committed in the first place. so run back to your safe space.. In the real world there are dissenting views that grownups have learned to cope with.

            • David Kennerly's Second Great Awakening

              Let’s all just turn it down a notch, shall we?

              The truth is that some like the tiered system but most of us don’t. Let’s accept that we have differing opinions and MOVE THE HELL ON.

              ACSOL has not endorsed the tiered system and has responded to our comments saying that they do not either, at least in its present form.

              That may not even be what this particular thread is about. It may be about Mike’s lawsuit; I’ve lost track.

              Well, more power to Mike. I do hope that he is successful with that. However, I do think that he should also dial back some of the grumbling and recriminations. And posting very long drafts probably should be placed somewhere else. Perhaps he can link to them here so that those of us who would like to can read them. Likewise, others should not be so quick to bait him antagonistically. Learn to accept that other people have different ideas.



                When it concerns the registry, life, liberty and rights, I’m at the lowest notch already. 🙂

                I commend ascol for actually asking everyone their opinion on the current bill (that should’ve and should be the goto action on every bill and overall agenda), it was a good move. Now I suggest putting up a poll for tiered registry vs legal action to directly remove it. I’m pretty confident it would be no registry almost overwhelmingly. So why no action from any of these groups.? Answer me that.

  24. ReadyToFight

    Mike R…… Give em Hell

  25. mike r iscensored

    that argument was just a quick draft my revised version is exponentially more solid and I really hope enough people are interested enough to voice their opinion and desire to see it in its entirety so that hopefully the moderator will go ahead and let me post the entire motion..Plus it is very inspirational and a great motivator when I get feedback from others..

    • New Person


      You can put your entire motion somewhere else, but have a link to it on here. That way it doesn’t take up 3/4 ths of the page and lets those who are interested to view the entirety. They can comment on it here still, under your linked post.

      It’s a win-win situation.

  26. JohnDoeUtah

    Anyone know how to deal with getting their info off My requirement to register has ended, yet this guy makes it clear he will not take your info down. I’ve gotten it off all the other private sites but this one.

    I even reported it to the hosting site, and they came back in their investigation saying he was saying it was a public record and authentic. I pointed them to the registries and showed I was not there. They said I’d have to go through his online request for removal, and they would not take down the pages.

    He states on his removal request form that any information you provide is not confidential (which means he will post whatever you put in the online form), he also threatens that any legal process upon him will be posted with your information on his website. Also, he will only accept receipt of a removal request if it comes from an attorney, again with no mention of actually deleting the information.

    Since the lawsuit in Arizona against this guy, he no longer tries to get payment for removal, he just won’t do it.

    • Tired of this

      You most assuredly aren’t alone, my friend. I, too, am featured on his site. He is a bully, pure and simple. He has found a segment of the population that he can legally bully, with complete impunity. But I don’t believe he will get away with it for much longer.

      I gotta say, I can’t believe his site hasn’t been hacked and taken down yet. There are a lot of people negatively impacted by that website (read: a lot of people quite pissed off at ol’ Chuckie) and I find it hard to believe that none of us (or our friends) have the ability to do so.


      Go back to the other company and threaten to file since you’ve made them aware, proved your case and they deflected. If they think you mean business, they probably won’t risk it.


    Why don’t you just post it to a free blog site or free web site and post the link here. When you place long posts here, it makes it impossible to view this site on a cell phone. Many of us only have access here through our cell phones.

  28. mike r iscensored

    here we go there seems to always be a bad apple in the barrel.
    thank you so much jo for your totally enlightening and in depth analysis of my short cummings I really appreciate the positive productive conversation that is contributing so much to this conversation…it’s a real honor to have someone of your character and disposition on this site to keep the degenerates such as myself in line…I really look forward to all of your intelligent contributions to any and all of the issues brought up on this site…keep em coming…lmfao…

  29. mike r iscensored

    man the hostility coming from jo there….I think he may need to consult with some type of proffesional to address his anger issues….I believe most people on here would vehemently disagree with your statements on how I should act, what I should post, and what i should according to you…thank you all mighty one…I will definitely abide by all that you command and will obey and follow you to the ends of the world…

    • Joe

      Are you talking about comments by me – “Joe”? Or “jo”? And would this attention to detail be by the person who claims he has the wherewithal to bring 290 registration to its knees? Who – correct me if I am wrong – not that long ago could not find the “General Comments” thread on this web site? A web site he continues to trash with every comment he makes? And I(!) need professional help? Ha! That is rich.

      You can make snide remarks about me all you want, but if it keeps you from alienating the only people who have ever accomplished anything of value, I will take it. I hope you will abide by that.

      And best of luck with your law suit.

  30. mike r iscensored

    good respectful comments one day I will definitely consider and take you opinion into account..I wish others would be so professional…

  31. mike r

    no more I took your advice I am tired of hearing the whining and crying by the PC police on this site so here we go….anyone that is interested in viewing my motion go here… man i like how the moderator will let others bash me and discredit what I say or do but wont even let me give any kind of feed back to their comments… and Joe says my screen name is offensive…No its the truth…..


      It happens to all who have opposing views here I bet. Probably the only reason you were allowed to say the above was, they saw an opportunity to get free of you and get back to their echo chamber. Ya know, the 10 people who support the tiered registry vs the hundreds of thousands that don’t of which she never bothered to ask.

      • i can't wait to die

        I’m in florida and read this board and florida’s board everyday well use to read Floridas until i post a correction of their false post and it was censored i will never donate to them any longer

    • Spoonful of sugar may be requried first....

      Mike R –

      Kick butt and takes names in your effort! Rooting you on silently while watching this all unfold….others may not want me to encourage you, but in reality, if you make headway, DO IT!

      Everyone can be acerbic in their writings here from time to time. The in-fighting needs to chill and realize that being on the same team and working together is more productive then acting like kids in the back of the station wagon on a Griswold family vacation.

      Just IMHO….

      Just remember, tone is sometimes hard to convey in writings when meant well and taken otherwise.


        But we aren’t all on the same team. A number of us are against the registry while others fight for it as a supposed short term “fix”. I find that completely shortsighted and lacking strategically. By touting Hanson’s flawed 10 question minority report test as “empirical evidence”, it introduces junk science as proof into the mainstream. It’s assbackwards to the direction that’s promoted. And I’m being nice….

        • True when you say it that way.....

          Yes, I concur with those sentiments, we are not all on the same team. Finding out the percentages of who is where within the topic is not required to be known either.

          Would rather see the registry abolished altogether and the ten questions shredded forever from use while still rooting Mike R on in his effort to make changes through his methodology.

          If we can see through the acerbic wording at times from commenters, then we can see the message for what it is really intended most times.

    • New Person

      ha ha ha ha

      I didn’t scroll down all the way before posting my comment on linking your entire work. great job on doing that!

  32. mike r iscensored

    well thank you for at least posting my website… they even changed my screen name …talk about being biased and completely unfair…

    • Moderator

      We most decidedly have better things to do than change your screen name and have never done so. ***Moderator***

  33. B.Wat

    Does anyone know anything about residency rules, or any other restrictions in Livermore? My wife and I are thinking about moving over there, to help my son and daughter-in-law, who are expecting twins, in April. We already have a two year old grandson, and she is going to need some help! In general. How does LE treat registered citizens? Any information would be appreciated.

    • NPS

      There used to a PDF file regarding all the residency restrictions for each California county, but since the In re: Taylor decision, I haven’t seen it. Regardless, none of the 9 Bay Area Counties had residency or presence restrictions prior to this case nor do they have any now.

      As far as how RCs are treated, I’ve heard that Santa Clara County is the worst and Sonoma County is a close second. Livermore is Alameda County, and I’ve not heard anything negative there. I’ve lived in 3 of the Bay Area counties (SF, San Mateo and now Contra Costa) and never had any issues. Of course, I’m not on the public registry, so this could be why I’ve been okay. But law enforcement definitely leaves me alone.

      • someone who cares

        NPS ~ how to I contact the moderator to get your e-mail address? I printed the CR180 form for dismissal but wanted to find out what other points you can give us before attempting this. Also, I think I have that PDF about all the city ordinances that I could e-mai to you. It is not up to date, I am sure, but at least it shows what cities never adopted any residency or presence restrictions. Thanks!

        • Moderator

          We do not have the resources to connect individuals. If you (understandably) do not wish to leave your contact info here, we suggest creating a throw-away email (easily googled) and posting that. Thanks for understanding. ***Moderator***

          • Someone who cares

            Thanks moderator. I completely understand. Nps- you can email me at


              Please keep in mind, anyone required to update online accounts, would have to report even temporary accounts and report them when their done being used.

              • NPS

                Not quite. In the state of California, you are required to report your email and other online identifiers only if the internet was used in the commission of the crime and it’s only for convictions after January 1, 2017.

        • NPS

          I just generated this email from a throwaway site: This only lasts for 48 hours.
          Send me a message with your email, and I will reply with my real one.

  34. mike r iscensored

    so if anyone reads my motion I would like to hear some productive feedback…thanks..isn’t there a list somewhere that outlines what cities or municipalities that still have the exclusion zones here in cali? if so please post…

  35. Chris F

    Mike R,

    Great work on your lawsuit, and I’ve got some suggestions/observations. I still need to read the entire thing, but only have a few minutes so I’ll toss these thoughts out there.

    First off, many items in your list of constitutional violations may get immediately shot down by existing precedents unless you can distinguish what is different now VS then, or between you and those precedents. It may take a simple few lines to counter Smith V Doe and Conn Dept of Transportation SCOTUS cases so they don’t try to write you off right away.

    Use some specific examples of the vagueness of other state laws for visitors. The resource on this very site lists some that don’t even say what timeframe you have to do anything if you aren’t “moving” to that state:

    I noticed you don’t go after a violation of “Bill of Attainder” and that may be the new ground you need to cover. If you start with that as your main challenge and then list all the other constitutional violations, it allows a judge to take the easy way and grant you relief on Bill of Attainder and not have to go through all the rest. All of the rest, even if they can pick apart and not grant individual violations, as a whole will show how it adds up to Bill of Attainder. If you lead with Bill of Attainder, I would go to OnceFallen’s web site and take the examples of what those who introduced Sex Offender restrictions laws said that shows their intent to punish and not have any legitimate regulatory purpose. There are lots of those quotes from Senators to victims parents that had laws named after their kids.

    I would also find a place to mention the stuff that won the case in the 6th Circuit. I’ll have to go back to it, but I believe they had tons of officials questioned and they couldn’t answer questions about sex offender laws they were in charge of carrying out. It proves the laws are vague and that they actually don’t serve a purpose other than to make life hell. You can also show that none of the information collected at “registration” is actually used for anything and just created as a nuisance. The info collected is already in their system and easily found through standard means without having to report to a police station. Since you are Pro Se, perhaps you can use the data from the 6th circuit suit as funding your own research in your own district isn’t practical.

    I’ll post more when I can to chat with you about all this. Great job!

  36. B.Wat

    Thanks, NPS.

  37. mike r iscensored

    Chris you have suggested exactly what I am planning to do…I mean ironic…I’m definitely going to create a bill of attainder violation and tie it all in with the rest of the far as the exclusion zones I want to include any cities or municipalities or even HOA’s codes ordinances mainly focused hear in cali that’s exactly why I need to know where they are still enforcing those in cali and then I’ll shorten the Tennessee example but include codes from florida and some of the strictest states or counties on those exclusion zones…excellent feedback…very positive and productive…thanks and keep em coming….

  38. mike r iscensored

    you know that right to reputation argument was already successful in Hawaii vs bani and the Hawaiian legislators amended their laws to include individual assessment hearings in order to comply but the laws have been ratcheted up even further so now I don’t believe even assessment hearings are enough to negate all the the laws as a whole..the right to reputation issue is the solid settled argument that their is a violation of a fundamental constitutional right in order to trigger the intermediate scrutiny at worst or strict scrutiny which is key in this motion…and the cruel and unusual punishment claim is something that has never really been tried in the way that I am presenting it,,im arguing that it’s excessive and I believe have portrayed and proving that it is also a fundamental right to trigger those higher standards of review…there’s still work to be done and like I’ve said I want to file by fall of this year so I have time…I will not file until I believe it’s completely rock solid and have had it reviewed by law library clerks and I am going to try and get others to comment…every comment helps and is taking seriously and into account..

  39. Chris F

    Mike R, I have some other random thoughts I want to throw out there that could be included somewhere in your lawsuit in order to show the absurdity of current policy. The first bunch may be more federal related than state related, so I am not sure how that could be included in your state filing other than the state’s “label” affecting your ability to travel.

    The Sex Offender label is a federally mandated label that includes discrimination by the federal government against this created class in the form of IML, federal housing programs denial, and EEOC guidelines defining being on the Sex Offender list as grounds for employment denial. While this should only be possible if applied equally to all people in the same circumstances, it is most definitely not. Each state controls what crimes qualify to be on the Sex Offender list as well as the arbitrary duration, and to what extent juveniles are included. There is no individual due process to assess potential dangerousness or duration appropriate to the specific action, individual, and circumstances in order to justify denial of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after the debt to society has been paid and parole/probation has been completed.

    In addition, the mere traveling between or moving to other states can result in being added or taken off of this Sex Offender List though there was no change to the original circumstances. Even irregardless of ever actually being on the Sex Offender registry at some time, anyone that has received “deferred adjudication” and has no conviction or a has a conviction of any crime could be in violation of another state’s laws and/or required to register in that state due to each state being able to set the prior criteria for inclusion on the national Sex Offender Registry.

    Based on the thousands of city, state, and federal laws against anyone labeled “sex offender”, you would have to research every city along any route of travel or could be in violation of residency restrictions, locations you may enter at all, violating a 2000 foot perimeter restriction, restriction to type of building you may enter, restriction to what web sites you may go to while passing through, and restrictions from who you may associate with. This could put you at risk even in emergencies when seeking medical assistance or a hurricane shelter.

  40. Potential SCOTUS nominee meeting

    This ought to scare registrants……if nominated, get out the letters and telephones to send in opposition

    Trump meets with a leading SCOTUS contender

    • Chris F

      Wow, that is VERY scary.

      Especially this part:

      “Pryor referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade as an “abomination,” and authored an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of a Texas anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas.”

      Definitely someone that values his own personal opinion and agenda over the US Constitution.

  41. mike r iscensored

    beautifully worded Chris I will definitely integrate that into my equal protection claim….man the things we could accomplish if all of us worked together like this….and im going to be challenging both the state and federal agencies in this suit and will file it in federal court…I can’t wait to get ahold of the data from this 20 year study of ineffectiveness discussed in the new thread….I need that evidence. it will improve my motion exponentially..I am still looking for that link to all the different exclusion zones here in cali….keep it coming Chris and anyone else who might believe we can prevail and even those that don’t I would love to hear from you and pick my arguments apart and tell me why you think that particular argument is flawed in any way…

  42. mike r iscensored

    oh wow I just looked at the link you provided Chris…..that’s one of the best contributions to the cause I’ve seen yet…exactly what I needed…..I still want to find exactly what counties or ordinances are still enforcing residency and presence restrictions….

  43. Robin Banks

    Can anyone answer this question? – The closest branch of my county’s public library is on a high school campus – just a two minute drive from my home. Is it unlawful for me to visit this library after regular school hours are over? The next closest library is a 35 minute drive from my home.


      What do your states restrictions say? If it states you’re not allowed to be on school grounds then I wouldn’t do it. Here as far as I know, there aren’t restrictions. Depends solely on your state.

    • No way, No how

      If it’s really on a high school campus, then no. Not without school administrations permission.

  44. David Kennerly

    “Documentary Reveals How States Use Interpol’s ‘Red Alerts’ to Persecute Political Opponents”

    This is the same agency that is disseminating information about traveling Registrants. Interesting that others are also finding it virtually impossible to obtain the content of Red Notices or Diffusions.


      I suspect if someone were able to get a notice or two you’d have an interesting read and possibly a bit of evidence for a certain IML case.

  45. Harassing Police

    Hi everyone,

    Well I just had the worst and most harassing registration update in the past eighteen years.
    It was my understanding, that if I am enrolled a college that it is my duty to register with the campus police, per PC290. I have done so in the past, with no issues. As a matter of fact, the campus police officer in charge of campus safety where I am attending, had asked why I don’t pursue a certificate of rehabilitation, for the four picture files of a sixteen-year-old that where found on my computer. He is a really cool guy.

    But not this semester I was contacted by the police department having jurisdiction over the college I am attending, that I would need to register with them as well. I figured no big deal, was I ever wrong.
    The women that performed the registration had me taking my photos front on, left side, right side, look up look down, etc. She wanted new electronic finger prints (never done this in the past just the old black ink finger prints) she wanted, thumbs, index, middle, ring, pinky, whole hand, palm, sides of palms, top of hands at this point I have been in this room for thirty eight minutes. After wrapping things up in the booking room, I was then told to wait in the lobby until she received an update that my records were accepted. I waited in the lobby for 52 minutes before calling back to see why it is taking so long, she said you are just going to have to wait. I asked her if anything major has changed in the registration process, that would required me to be here anymore than an hour? Her response was “you can leave if you want, but you are not going to get the update the law requires”. I told her I can’t leave because you have my driver license. In the end the regeistrtion update took one hour and fifty one minutes. And to top it all off, my color is still wrong LOL.
    This is crazy, considering that I do not have to register with the police department having jurisdiction over the campus I am attending!!!! Am I wrong here?
    Below is line 14 from the registration form here in California.

    14. If I am enrolled or employed (with or without compensation) at an institution of higher learning, I must register in person, within five (5) working days of commencement of the term of enrollment or employment, with the campus police department or, if no campus police department exists, with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over that campus. I must also register in person with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over my place of residence or transient location. When I cease being enrolled or employed at that institution, I must notify in person the registering agency for the campus within five (5) working days. (PC §
    290.009, 290.01)

    I don’t think I need to put myself through that again do I?

    There is a “campus police department” on campus, as a matter of fact, the officer that did my update on campus belongs to the same police department as the nasty women that took my info down at the booking office.

    Your response is much appreciated


      Looks like you are required to register with the police department in the jurisdiction the campus resides in ONLY if your school doesn’t have campus police. So as I read it you have to with the campus police and the police department in your residential area only. Of course there can be overlapping rules that give these aholes the power to just have you come in. Better talk to an attorney cause I ain’t one.

      Personally I’ve spent 14 plus years not rocking the boat unless I was prepared for the cold water. Just saying…. 🙂

      • Harassing Police

        I register my primary residence, am only home on the weekends 110 miles from the college.

        I stay at my parent’s home during the week because my job is only 20 miles away from their place, versus driving 220 miles every day to get home. I have registered their address; their home is 32 miles to the college campus.

        I have registered with the college’s campus police and the Sargent that does my registration belongs to the same police department as the nasty women that took nearly two hours before my registration was complete.

        I don’t owe them anymore than what is written on the form.

        Have I registered with campus police? YES

        Have I registered all the addresses in which I reside? YES


          Did you register that you’re going to school at your residential department? That’s what it means. If you start school, you have to register with the campus police first. Second, you have to go to your residential police department and register that you’re going to so and so school. If your residence department form has a place for school, that’s what they mean by “register”.

          Ive lived in a few states and two of them required updating your information about the school you’ll be attending. The form had a special place for that information and you were required to update your registration just as if you would when you changed address, cars, changed your diet…etc. 🙂


            If I were in the same boat, I’d check my forms…if there’s a place to list the school you’re attending, I’d tell them. I’d also visit all 3 departments… Primary residence, secondary residence giving them the name of the school you’re attending and of course your schools campus police. That’s just me. I’d rather make sure I was complying because they’d LOVE to put you back in jail. Wouldn’t you hate to go to jail on some stupid technicality that was easily doable? I don’t comply because I’m scared of going back to jail, I comply because I’d hate to give them the satisfaction of putting me there.

    • Curiouser

      I register at two residences in two different jurisdictions and for a time I also registered at a junior college in yet a third city. All I had to do was make an appointment and sit down for about 30 minutes total with one of their officers, who filled out the usual paperwork, took only thumbprints for the forms, and snapped a digital photo. He said I did not have to come back and renew my registration within five days of my birthday, but only had to let them know when i was no longer enrolled. Upon completing my program, I called the same security department. They said, “thanks! we’ll notify DOJ.”

      That was it, nothing more. I wish I could give you more info, but I think as a lot of folks have discovered, local law enforcement likes to interpret these laws in their own ways.

      • Harassing Police

        Thanks for the reply Curiouser

        Do you recall if you just registered with the campus police in the third city? or did you also register with the local police department having jurisdiction over the junior college you attended?


        • Curiouser

          No, just with the campus police office. They handled everything. I even advised probby officer of this, and he confirmed it was just with the police entity on campus. From what I read under 290, it confirms what other posters have mentioned, that you would only need to register with the law enforcement of the city/county if the school you were attending did not have a police entity.


      Follow the law and only register at your residence(s) and school. Be prepared for a small fight though. Even a public defender could win your case. But also call Janice if they try to prosecute you for not registering.


        Being enrolled at or employed by a California college
        Students and employees enrolled in or employed at any California college or university, must… in addition to the initial reporting requirements that apply to all sex offenders…fulfill the following requirements:
        1. register your information with the campus police (if the college or university has one) within five working days of enrollment or employment, and
        2. within five working days of leaving the institution. 16
        If there is no campus police department, you are required to register with the local law enforcement agency that patrols the area in which the campus is located. Again, this is in addition to registering with the agency that is located in the area in which you live. 17

        Since he technically lives at two locations, I’m guessing he’ll have to make both places aware that he’s attending school as well as campus police. Again, I’m no lawyer but usually when they speak of registering in your residing location concerning schools, it’s about updating your already given registration. He should contact a lawyer BEFORE he gets into a mess.

        • Renny

          I had to do this as well.
          I attended college outside my residence jurisdiction.
          The college did not have a police force. I am not even sure their doors locked, lol.
          I had to register with the City of Ontario Police Department.

          This was not an initially easy process since I had to argue with Ontario to be “allowed” to register. Once that was covered, the first registration was humiliating. If you have ever been to the Ontario station, the holding pen has a huge window to the lobby. I was required to undress from the waist up and wait in the holding cell to be photographed while Americans were in the lobby waiting to be served and protected.

          The registering officer was soft, petulant, snotty, unprofessional continued to turn his back to me and was completely unaware that I could have killed him in five seconds with my bare hands. But I allowed him to live. I did not want to get killed back. LOL

          Each of the following annuals at Ontario was handled by cadets, whom to my perception, were too young to be handling the job, but they were more polite, professional and competent than the all the sworn officers from the City of Ontario Police Department I dealt with.

          Deregistering was a complete nightmare. they did not want to allow me to deregister, I had to to an extra annual, three months after I finally deregistered. I actually had to get my residence jurisdiction involved at this point and they made the call. Even then I had to prove that I actually deregistered with a copy of the form from Ontario before my local would make the call.

          I spent four years getting a completely useless degree because UCR told me I was not allowed to pursue an engineering degree with them (turns out the registar LIED to my VA Chapter 31 counselor, UCR did allow Former Citizen Detainees at the time!), in a city whose police force was not even partially competent at the time in sex offender requirements. I pity any Former Citizen Detainees who have to register with the City of Ontario.

    • American Detained in America

      If your school has “Campus Safety” officers, not true police, then yes, you have to register with the police department that has jurisdiction over the school. If the campus officers are actually police officers, then registering with them should be enough according to the way the law is written. I ran into something similar when I went to a community college while on parole. My parole agent told me I didn’t have to register with the city police, just the campus. However, after a year at the school, the police at my city of residence asked to see proof I registered with the city the school was in and explained that the school doesn’t have a true police presence, just “Campus Safety” officers, which were just security guards under a different name.

  46. mike r iscensored

    I m enrolled in college for my Fifth semester and all I’ve had to do is register with campus police 5 before or after I start attending classes…the campus police are supposed to forward that information to the agency having jurisdiction over you…the college didn’t forward my info last semester so when I went to do my annual I asked them about and since the college didnt forward my info I had to go back to campus police and made sure they did their job and forwarded my info….thats my experience..check with your registration agency but mine here in Sacramento told me that is the protocol…

  47. David

    (This is unrelated to any specific topic.) I attended my City’s “State of the City” Address yesterday. It was in a school auditorium and I had requested authorization to attend. After several emails back and forth this week, I had been granted permission to attend. No problems, all went fine.
    But the principal’s final email stated, “You are free to attend the event.” And my immediate thought was, “Not really. If I were free to attend, I wouldn’t be required to ask your permission.”

  48. mike r iscensored

    well stated david..update for harassing police..just did my campus registration 5 minutes in and out they recomfirmed protocol so you should be alright..

    • Harassing Police

      thanks again mike r iscensoredagain

      am going to speak to an attorney who knows the 290 laws.

  49. mike r iscensored

    I just wanted to throw this out there..notice the common factor in each of these statements…
    “There is no failure except in no longer trying.” – Chris Bradford
    “Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.” – Winston Churchill
    “I’d rather be partly great than entirely useless.” – Neal Shusterman

  50. Trump's statement on sex crimes

    Posted By Lake County

    Will he lump all of us in the same category? It would make him look good to to pass laws against all registered citizens in the first 100 days of office.

    Trump’s Twitter statement dated Oct. 8, 2012: “Got to do something about these missing chidlren grabbed by the perverts. Too many incidents–fast trial, death penalty.”


      Not surprising coming from any president, presidential candidate or any politician in general.

    • LM

      To make matters worse, John Walsh will most likely visit Trump soon (probably February) in the White House to brainwash and reprogram him even further.


        A well timed petition making him aware of Walsh’s confessed but hypocritically uncharged sex offender status might get a few eyes on. Just saying…

        • Tired Of Hiding

          You crazy! You think that the various sex offender reform chapters have any sort of desire to be that organized as to rally all the RSO in every state together and to do something that you don’t even have to leave your house to do…log on and sign a petition?

          Nope…not sure why…only reason I can think of is that they make money just like the “save the children fund” doing a job that will never end and they really don’t want it to.

          I think we need someone commanding the ship. Someone who thinks outside the box because seems all of us are inside the box!

      • Congress turning a blind eye?

        I just wonder if the Congress that was not happy with Trump’s alleged women issues will actually do something where he is signing the bill in the end. Turning a blind eye perhaps??


          Don’t know but bringing his past into the spotlight before he can probably encourage trump to go after us might be beneficial. I doubt he’s going there to play golf.

        • Timmr

          They wouldn’t care. Trump’s the alpha male in the gorilla nest America has become, and all females young and beautiful are his property, so to speak, to grab at will. Maybe Walsh has earned the status of beta, because of his celebrity and acts of domineering legislation. They both posture as protectors of the harem. The rest of the Republicans are subordinate now and the Democrats are sulking and plotting on the fringes. A few have been so fleeting bold like Mr. Gingrich to challenge him recently, but quickly turn their butts when he thumps his chest. They see he has survived still on top, and will provide the bananas and figs they lust after. That’s what it’s all about.
          Their loyalty isn’t to justice, truth and the American way, but to position.

  51. i can't wait to die

    Is Dennis Hastert being protected?

    after reading this:

    i wanted to write a letter to Dennis Hastert but searched the BOP Inmate locator and received zero results; i even went to the prisons website in MN. where it is reported that he is being held to search for this criminal and still zero results. not sure if i’m doing something wrong or is he being protected

  52. Bobby

    Hi everyone,

    Ispoke to Ms Aukerman today from Michigan’s ACLU, and I asked her what was going on with either the Telemoski case,or Does n Snyder.

    she e-mailed me back, saying No update. Weare filing our opposition cert. petition in the Supreme Court in a couple of weeks.

    I asked her what that means exactly,and she replied, That is actually pretty quick. We will know whether they will take the case sometime this spring. If they take the case it will be another year.

    So does any one have any thoughts on what she has said about the case(s)


      Keep us updated Bobby! I’m really looking forward to that case. I only see one way that it can turn possibly bad. If scrotus takes it and smacks it down l, other than that, it’s a win. Maybe I’m missing some other potential problem I don’t know.


      Bold moves are what we need. This is good news!

      A couple of issues.. Using the word “unnecessary” as if there us ever a proper time to take a persons rights, especially while not being punished.

      And I’m not sure how or when “public safety” became the pathway to doing it. The individual has unalienable rights that trump the group, not the other way around.

      • David

        @abolishtheregistry: If “public safety” were a fair and reasonable argument for taking away an individual’s rights, then people would not be allowed to own personal guns. But they are allowed to, so apparently “public safety” is not a satisfactory justification. But isn’t it curious how it remains an acceptable argument to justify sex offender laws and restrictions? 😠 (Sex offenders don’t kill thousands of people each year – but guns do.)

  53. someone who cares

    Ok, how is this possible? Is this not grounds for a lawsuit based on equal protection? How come he only has to register as a sex offender for the term of his probation, and only if he violated probation will it be for life?

    I am angry. There is something we should be able to do to have this work in our favor!!!

    • D

      No where in the law does it give a judge the leeway to require registration during probation only. Either his lawyer was really stupid, or the paper got the facts wrong.

      I believe I remember someone else commenting a while ago that they had the same “deal” but it was not honored when probation ended.

      • NPS

        Possibly because he is law enforcement. The same thing happened here in the Bay Area when a cop exposed himself. You’d think they’d hold a higher standard for law enforcement, but they just get a slap on the wrist.
        Here is the article:
        The article says: “He is eligible to petition the court to rescind the sex offender registration requirement after seven years, contingent on having a perfect probation record.”

      • David

        I had a similar “deal” agreed to by the prosecutor and the judge. But don’t ever believe any of them: once you’re off probation and still on the registry, no judge will hear your appeal. You’re screwed and with absolutely no legal recourse.

  54. Bruce

    It is advisable for Anyone with a Smart Phone to Realize JUST HOW MUCH The DOJ/ LE/ NSA, etc is up Our Ass.. Get the APP(s) “Wire Tap Removal and Camera Block”.. You will Notice How You cannot remove the Apps Spying on You without an Unlocked and Rooted Phone…. It’s amazing How the apps will switch to get a recording even after You disable the Apps doing it they come Right Back…. There Goes Communication Privacy! This Is a Full Scale Deprivation Of ALL of Our Inalienable Rights….a Psychologist told Me once If Your Not Paranoid Your Not Paying attn. I Believe He Was Correct. Oh and Why do We In Kern County Have NO Support, Meetings, Representative etc. Just Askin’ Because We Are Suffering Here BAD.

  55. Bruce

    We in Kern County Have No representative, No Meetings, No Support Groups, No Nadda.. I will Volunteer to Organize these things If anyone wants to Help Me “in Kern County” Contact Janice for My Information She Knows Who i am I arranged a Meeting Here for RSOL some time ago.. If We Have to I have 2.9 Acres We can set lawn chairs on and Have Outdoor meetings Here Privately there is Parking it is Safe. We Need To Organize and Support each other as much as possible.
    Respectfully, Bruce F.

  56. mike r

    I agree abolish…Kudos for these attorneys having the gonads to actually file such a motion and god speed to them but it is kinda weak in a lot of areas and gives credence to their bogus risk factor determinations…Although it addresses a few of the real issues I hope when it is appealed that they have an enormous amount of data to show the recidivism rates as well as the ineffectiveness of the reg….Not to be a braggart but I believe my pro se motion is at the least comparable to this motion if not exceeding it…link to the updated version…

    • Chris F

      Mike R, this is so filled with facts and references I can’t wait to see it filed. Truly amazing job.

      You may want to add links to EEOC mentioning us and the Housing benefits we are denied.

    • Steve

      What if 1000 people took Mike’s complaint, inserted their names and flooded the courts with it? Is that possible?

  57. Cops are above the laws

    another cops that does no jail or have to register

  58. The law turning a blind eye?

    Is the boy really a victim here if he knows what he is doing through blackmail? Shouldn’t he face charges too for his felonious act? The boy has a sheet of previous crimes, so he knew what he was doing. Is she a victim maybe of a con artist? Will she get her money back with interest?

  59. VPN

    Tonights phone in was a little interesting 🙂 Hope my voice helped SMUT UP Parole .. The SOB’s are there just for the $$ (well the compliance checks are anyways !) on ANY LOCKED Doors in your house BUY and put a SIGN on the door that says 24 HR CCTV In USE. They wont even ASK to unlock the door (If you do happen to have a key hidden!) and IF you have a WIFI network and are NOT supposed to be on the internet MAKE YOUR WIFI NAME HIDDEN !!!
    ’cause they like to make ASSUMPTIONS !

  60. Rodger Dodger

    So a 26 year old POLICE OFFICER has sex with a 12 year old for 6-8 months, and the DA doesn’t file “Continuous Sexual Abuse” charges? And no enhancement for being over 10 years older than the victim? And he doesn’t have to register for life???


  61. mike r iscensored

    thanks Chris its good to hear any feedback .Steve, that is exactly my point and why I will make it available to anyone online to use as a boilerplate motion where all they will have to do is substitute their information…I am not finished with it yet, I spent another approx 10 hours on it last night intertwining a lot of the best and most useful information off of the new law suit in NC. it is getting much stronger by the day. stay tuned and keep up the comments and support, I will make it happen. I will provide the link again when I believe I have made enough changes to be worthy of new inspections….

  62. mike r iscensored

    its my opinion and belief that it’s an extreme fallacy to not not bombard the courts with as much evidence as humanly possible debunking assertions the government can throw at us. just look at the extensive record and compilation of evidence that the Court required and had in the winning Taylor case.and that was just for that one issue of residency restrictions…we cant assume anything except that the courts will deny us anyway they can so we need to be sure there is no ambiguities and no way for the government or the courts to debunk any of our claims with some kind of falsehoods…

    • Sock'em mike!

      I like what you wrote mikeriscensored on your site. Kick butt and take names!

  63. Chris F

    Wow…just wow…

    On the plus side, if Sex Offenders can’t get a precedent set in our court system that declares a government shaming “list” unconstitutional, maybe some immigrants can and we can turn around and use that to our advantage. On the other hand, I am sure they’ll separate them from us by pointing out we are not a protected class and do not count.

    • Timmr

      Donald Trump is doing this tinpot dictatorship thing all wrong. If he put all registrants in camps, even a majority of the pussy hats would pause. Indeed, it may be an olive branch he needs.


      He said he was going to do certain things and he is following up on it. He won the presidency whether you like it or not. I don’t like some of his rhetoric but I admire his follow through.

      I’ll wait to see if it’s as gloom and doom as it’s being promoted.

  64. Chris F

    Mike R, or anyone with good research skills,

    Do we have a way to show how ridiculous the number of incarcerations are for Sex Offenders violating S.O. conditions or failure to register? The actual numbers would go a long way to showing the lack of equal protection sex offenders get VS any other criminal.

    For example, in California, I believe I’ve seen the numbers of how many sex offenders have been sent back to jail for a new sex crime and it demonstrates low recidivism, but, how many are sent back to jail/prison for breaking one of the hundreds of rules that only apply to sex offenders during probation/parole/time on registry VS how many other previous convicts are sent back to jail/prison for violating rules/conditions of probation/parole?

    Showing this disparity between S.O and non S.O convicts would be important in any equal protection/bill of attainder/cruel and unusual punishment type challenges.

    Another important statistic would be how much the government actually uses registration information to solve or prevent future crimes in order to show that the registration is just a punishment and not actually used for its intended purpose.

  65. mike r iscensored

    man i got 5.4 years and life on the list for a single incident where I never even had physical contact with anyone and where there wasn’t even any sexually explicit language or images exchanged but was simply inferred of a sexual nature….5 1/2 years life on the list non contact and this guy gets probation and off the list after pursuing and having multiple sexual encounters with a twelve year old…we need a list of all these cases where the courts show leniency like this to use to our advantage some how…

    • Timmr

      …and the guy who got 1500 years for incest. Yeah it does sound more disgusting by some measure, but they both were in positions of authority and trust, both hispanic, why probation in one case and a millenia and a half for the other. Maybe ’cause one wore a badge and the other didn’t. I think in most cases, a swift but moderate punishment is all that is needed, expecially with sex crimes where the recidivism is low. We got the message. Okay? More punishment is overrated as a solution to crime, and downright unhealthy as an ongoing policy. European countries function just fine with lower incarceration terms. What punishment in the U.S. serves to do is not to symbolically enshrine which crimes we dislike more than others, but which types of people we value and can therefore forgive more than others.

  66. Tired Of Hiding

    Want to know what Interpol is doing about sex offenders?
    Want to know what these “Green Notices” that the USA sends to other countries when you travel?

    Here is the link for you:

    Nothing new really but some of you have no idea about this so it is essential to read it directly from the source.

    • ML

      “Likely to commit a crime?” Based on what? I have not seen any explanation how such an unfounded, yet profound statement with serious implications can be issued. Why were these notices not challenged? This is total and complete BS.

  67. mike r

    Both excellent points Chris. I don’t know why but every time I ask for help finding a list of cities and municipalities that are still enforcing residency and presence laws here in Cali or a list of cases such as the one just mentioned my post get deleted….Well I have revised my motion to near completion I believe at this point unless someone else wants to add a rock solid argument or at least a good jumping off point for any other issue..feel free to voice whatever opinions any of you have …. thanks………I dont know why but the numbering is wrong on my site but is proper in my motion….

  68. Confused

    In response to tired of hiding:

    Taken from the site in the link ” Green Notice is issued to provide warnings and criminal intelligence about persons who have committed criminal offences and are likely to repeat these crimes in other countries.”

    How exactly are most of us likely to repeat our crimes in other countries? Especially when a great deal of us haven’t even repeated the crime here. That makes no sense and is so unfairly inacted upon us. What type of measures have they taken to determine that we are likely to repeat our offense or are they just painting us to be people who can’t control ourselves? If they’re really trying to target people who are likely to travel to repeat our respective offenses then shouldn’t they at least start with only those that have actually relected it in the first place? How can this even fly as being legal?

    • New Person

      Sounds like a grounds for libel, considering the several research work reflecting that registrants are among the lowest recidivism rates of all convicts.

    • ML

      I posed this same question in another thread. That is a big leap to predict that a person is likely to commit another crime. I question as to how such a statement is legal and why there has not been a legal challenge to this specific act yet.

  69. Anonymous Nobody

    A California “sex offender” is apparently the first one targeted under Trump’s plan to deport who knows how many, he says millions.

    A contingent of ICE agents swooped into a San Francisco nonprofit that provides services to poor people Thursday, Jan. 28, after a single “sex offender.” Not clear in the Los Angeles Times story, which is full of lack of information, but it appears the guy was staying there in the housing unit as homeless.

    It also is not clear whether this “sex offender” was even a registrant, the story does not say, so it could have been an offense that doesn’t even require registration, like lewd conduct, but I suspect he was a registrant. The story only says it was the last address they had for the guy — but “last” might have been from registration the day before, again, the Times story is vague.

    It does not say whether this guy was covered under the waiver Obama gave for people brought here as children and who have grown up here. But since Obama was deporting any felons regardless of whether they were brought here as children, I have to think this guy is a mere misdemeanant or Obama would have deported him already! A misdemeanant registrant who is so low level an offense he should not even be registering – and the feds do not require it for misdemeanors, but we won’t even raise that issue in conjunction with the tiers proposal, to conform to federal and eliminate registration for offenses for which the US does not require it. If this guy were not registering, ICE probably would never even had known of him.

    This action only gives us more ammunition – but we won’t use it. With our politicians, and so many Latinos, all falling over themselves to go to extremes to block any deportations, they MUST stop registration at least for the offenses for which the US does not require it as that is the state handing over the location of people they supposedly are trying to protect.

    In fact, since we might very well be losing the federal money anyway, which has been the power that forces the state to have any registration, we now have the argument that there is nothing to lose by ending registration for all offenses! We likely will lose it, as the primary defense against that loss seems to be that Trump can’t do it as it is a matter that requires legislation. Well, the GOP is likely to pass that legislation, and with that, goodbye money. So, there will be nothing to lose by ending all registration, and we won’t be able to afford registration anyway.

    I have to note the irony here. The US is locking all registrants into this country, taking action to block us from crossing the border to another country. And now at the same time, it is forcing sex offenders to go to another country! Can the US please make up its mind, can we leave the US or not!

    • Timmr

      Here is a good question, if we are ‘kicked out’, what country would take us.?Do we float around in international waters or are there some counties with policies that accept countryless person? It would kind of be the same problem detainees cleared for release from Guantanamo have. Hard to find countries for those the US had marked as dangerous, even if shown innocent later.
      Kicking us out would have to include, I guess, taking away our citizenship. The Supreme Court has ruled against that, even for treason. You can take away somone’s life before you can do that.

  70. Tired Of Hiding

    Trump is proving to be exactly what we need here. The population of the USA allowed politicians to f with us for years with never a thought it since we are just trash in their eyes.

    NOW everyone is suspect. Countries are being banned. Citizens with green cards are not guaranteed re entry into the country. Families are being torn apart. Families are worried about others being broken up…

    Well guess what – Welcome to my world! This is exactly why I voted for Trump. I want these people who have not given a rat’s ass about me to see how it feels to be questioned, to be uncertain of travel, to be profiled and all of the things I have experienced and not be forgiven for.

    Suffer and enjoy it like I have had to do! Welcome to my world! Enjoy yourself there…


      Citizens with green cards that are felons? Countries being banned? Oh, you mean from countries we’re bombing? Yeah, I saw that. Good news and finally someone doing something to protect our borders. Granted, we wouldn’t be under threat, if we had left them alone. Here we are though, so it’s silly not to do what he has done.

      Even Jimmy carter did the same thing when we had issues with Iran. That issue was of our on making too. We assassinated their elected leader and replaced him with one of our puppets but they figured it out and took the embassy.

      Jimmy was the last sane democrat unfortunately.

    • Steve


  71. NPS

    Okay this is just getting ridiculous. A man kills a cat and he has to register as a sex offender?

  72. Mark Yerkes

    New Topic: Yesterday, a federal judge slapped an injunction on Donald Trump’s executive order disallowing people with approved visas to enter the U.S. from entering if they were from certain countries. From what I see on the news, the judge gave the injunction on the basis that it would could cause these people irreparable harm. I would think that this opens the door for us to complain that the Adam Walsh Act’s restriction on our spouses entering the U.S. causes us U.S. citizens “irreparable harm”. Granted that we don’t have the support of the left that Muslim immigrants have, but is there any room here for us? Could the fact that IML and AWA does cause us provable harm by interfering in our marriages be used as a basis for change given that a federal judge has done this — supposing that the injunction holds up?

    • Steve

      More so, it could help the IML cause.


      1. It probably won’t hold. I’m not 100% sure but I believe, as commander in chief, he has authority to do so, just as Obama opened up the borders.

      2. If it does stand somehow, you’d be right I think. It might be usable in the way you’ve mentioned.


    Well, had a compliance check on Thursday. This is the 18th straight year.
    Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour which disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which appears to be disturbing or threatening.
    Is there any recourse?

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      I hope there will one day be a challenge against compliance checks. Those compliance checks are unnecessary and I don’t know if they are even legal. Where in the Penal Code does it give law enforcement the right to conduct sex offender compliance checks?

      • Lake County

        As I and many others have stated several times in the past. Compliance checks can only be forced upon you if you are on Parole or Probation. If not, then you do not have to cooperate or even open your door. They have a right to knock on your door just as much as anyone else is allowed to if you have public access to your door. I’ve never heard of a Registered Citizen being arrested for not complying with a compliance check while not on Parole or Probation. Until someone is actually arrested for non-compliance, we will not have standing to file a suit on this issue. If you don’t want compliance checks, you should first send a letter to your local law enforcement requesting that they stay off your property. Then if they violate your request without cause, you might have standing to file suit.

        The can do compliance checks because they have not broken any law or arrested anyone for non-compliance.


          They don’t do them here, not that I’m aware of. What they do is a “wellness check”. I’ve simply told them, if I need you, I’ll call so don’t do anymore. They’ve tried it twice already.

          Get a camera system and don’t answer the door!

        • Timmr

          Law enforcement is saying there are arrests during ‘compliance audits’. Just look at the San Diego SAFE Task Force web site.

          • Lake County

            Maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying? What I said was that we know of no cases (under CA law) where someone who is NOT on probation or parole has been actually arrested and charged for not allowing a compliance check. Of course if you cooperate with a compliance check request and they find you are not in compliance with ANY laws, you would be subject to arrest. That’s why if you are not on probation or parole, you should just not answer your door and especially never let them in your home.

            If you are on probation or parole, you MUST cooperate with compliance checks and searches.

            • Timmr

              Yes, I agree with that. But that is not what I see addressing Tobin’s Tools concerns or mine. I see it the same as a highway patrol scanning your license and stopping you merely for having once got a traffic ticket. That may not bother some. And doing that again and again for the same past offense. That would be very abrasive to many. There is no reason for it, unless there is a present incident to suspect you, like a tail light being out. Similarly I have no problem if the officers wish to view me qietly from the public easement, waste away our tax money at will public servants, but no, it is their attempt to detain and question me under no authorization. That is problematic and disruptive. Like Hookscar pointed out, there are in cases loved ones in the household who have had such bad experiences with it all, officials and therapists and maybe made to feel responsible for a crime they had no part in besides being too close to the offender. For them, even the site of the police again at the door brings on frightening memories. There is something called abuse of power or downright criminal insensitivity, without a warrant there is no reason for the officer to attempt to detain you to ask you questions or to verify something you are only required to verify under the terms of PC 290. Lacking that, there is no other reason for it but to harrass. If there was something in the penal code that authorized it, then we maybe are talking something different.

    • C

      When do they come to your house? They’ve always hit my place during the day and I only realized that when I was working from home a few years ago, otherwise I’d be at work and completely oblivious to their visit.

      My recourse: Don’t be there when they are there.

      • HOOKSCAR

        Always 7:30 in the morning. Always on a Thursday and when I take my son to school. Every year. What really is a kicker is that my fiancé has PTSD. Severe enough that she sees a psychiatrist and will be declared disabled.(She has had a rough time in life) Known her for 35 years. She wants them to 🛑.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom


      I would suggest purchasing and installing a “Video Surveillance System” in order to document any Breaches to yours, your family members, guest, neighbors “Rights & Titles” to enjoy the “Peace of the Community” by any Government Officials who have Caused and Permitted there to be a Disturbance & Nuisance for You , Your Guest, Visitors, & Neighbors.

      By the way, Lorex makes a camera which also records audio, that should enable you to gather overwhelming evidence against The Wicked Servants who Covet and Desire to Steal your person and make a Merchandise of you!

      Furthermore: Placing “No Trespassing” signs is needed regardless if you own or rent the domicile where you live.

      Be Proactive in protecting your Rights & Titles which will also protect those around you, who you Love.

      The Most High Father in Heaven be with you and yours

      As Yehovah lives, so should we

  74. JohnDoeUtah

    Utah to add child abusers to registry, or add a separate registry for child abusers.

  75. Chris F

    Some good news…The ACLU has gotten around 19 million in donations in the last few days due to Trump’s ban on immigrants.

    It would be nice if that money isn’t specifically earmarked if it could be used to actually get a good case to SCOTUS to hit the Sex Offender registry scheme at its core. I don’t believe the current freedom of speech case is a good victim or well fought case to help, and could greatly hurt our cause.


      Yeah, that would be nice, but if it was found out that they used it for something other than immigrants… It would look bad for their organization.

      If they could somehow work them together, that WOULD be great.

  76. mike r iscensored

    ya there more concerned with foreigners and the human rights of other countries peoples but screw you’re own fellow citizens…its to bad the entire country is going to pay the price for what the handful of currupt politicians do….

  77. New Person

    I think the SAG awards were on last night or something like that for giving awards to actors. The show was mostly about how the US is mistreating immigrants. It’s sad that all those protections they want for the immigrants aren’t supported for the citizens being treated without those protections. It’s the same plight for registrants.

    Once you’ve done your time, then start anew and become a part of society. How are you a part of society if you’re banned from certain locations, jobs, and travel? Restriction is another word for ban.

    • Timmr, Registered Humanoid Radioactive Isotope, level 2 (Sexoffendium-02)

      Containment is the word from CASOMB. It’s more scientific sounding than the word ban. The operant presumption is we have no will of our own, but instead we are studied and defined in term of properties, like a radioactive element. Their Geiger counter of choice is the Static assessment tool. They apparently believe we all have no choice in the matter. They have taken ‘way your name and given you a number. What’s yours?


        Sexofendium lol. You crack me up.

      • New Person

        Containment… internment camps… it’s all word play to disguise the fact it’s banishment, which is a form of punishment. A lifetime restriction is another word for banishment. ha ha ha

        btw, kudos on the radioactivity! And just like the properties of being radioactivity is the time of decay. I see what you did there!

        • Timmr, Registered Humanoid Radioactive Isotope, level 2 (Sexoffendium238)

          Terms are important, I assume, legally. They use the term containment and not banishment because banishment clearly means punishment, but containment sounds only like it is limited to regulation. One term means restriction within a border the other exclusion to outside the border, but they both in effect deny you access to the commons, more or less. That benefit of the commons is enjoyed by other citizens, whether it is physical property, a park or school or services provided by the commons, like affordable housing.

  78. Mr. D

    Well just completed my annual renewal this morning. As usual the apprehension builds a couple days before hand, But fortunately for me it’s rather painless at least as much as it can be.

    Was in and out in less than 10 minutes. No new forms. Broached the topic of international travel and the Detective stated they had an internal form I can fill out. He also gave me his card and said I could email him my information.

    Also asked him if he was aware of the proposed toured registry bill which will be introduced shortly in Sacramento. He stated no he was not but he was very happy to hear that was happening. He told me that out of aproximally 100 registrants that he deals with, maybe 15 at most should actually be registering each year. I was pleased to hear that as well since he is likely the individual that I will have to go through in order to start the process of eliminating the requirement of annual registration if the registry bill is passed.

  79. Paul

    Regardless of how you feel about Trump’s travel ban, it’s great to see so many lawmakers from across the country suddenly embrace scientific research, which states that such a ban wouldn’t have prevented a terrorist attack.

    Armed with their newfound respect for scientific research, they can begin to rollback their draconian sex offender laws! Right?

    • New Person

      There is research, some 25 years long, that refute the original sin – “frightening and high” falsehood information present in the 2003 decision and continuing on right now in the oral arguments against NC first amendment case soon to be heard at the SCOTUS level.

      Please note that the “frightening and high” falsehood information is being presented as actual fact that was never substantiated as founded by Dr. Ellman.

      So until the SCOTUS admits the err of their ways and admits the new studies are the correct results, then we registrants will always be abused by the government, treated like secondary citizens – not equal.

      • Tired Of Hiding

        You are correct on that.

        Facts be damned…”if it saves one child” blah blah blah

        That is the ONLY “fact” they consider…

  80. LM

    I cannot think of a more permanent and thorough way to destroy someone’s reputation, credibility, future and integrity than to be listed online as “sex offender.”

    Make no mistake, Historians will place Megan’s Law in the same column as slavery, the holocaust and segregation. It will be regarded as how 2 parents made a spectacle out of their daughter’s tragedy and subsequently turned it into a selfish imposition and foolhardy crusade.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom


      I would posit the term “American Apartheid”

      Which is a form of practicing the “Conquest Ethic” the fruit or produce of these trees is a

      “Counterfeit Justice” a “Coliseum Justice” for the Masses to Consume.


      noun: apartheid

      (in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
      segregation on grounds other than race. “sexual apartheid”

      1940s: Afrikaans, literally ‘separateness,’ from Dutch apart ‘separate’ + -heid (equivalent of -hood).

      I continue to PRAYER FOR RELIEF in the Court of the Most High (EL Elyon) Yehovah Possessor of Heaven & Earth and call on these two witness to bear witness to the Wicked Servants Usurping Trespassing Ways:

      How they have created Bondmen of the people Yehovah He His Highness Himself freed, How they have Created a Commodity of their fellows, I charge:
      How they have Formed a Daily Bread of those who have repented.

      As Yehovah מלך Lives, I speak Truth

  81. David

    The Registries are no different from the racist “Jim Crow” laws: Laws intended to single out individuals, at will, and punish them as one wishes.

  82. Sounds familiar..

    Just read an article talking about made-up, non-peer-reviewed stats being spewed by authorities. And nope, it’s not about RCs this time:

    The liars keep on lying.


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 *