ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Next Call: June 14 (California Tiered Registry Bill – SB 421)
Conference Call Recordings Online (May 10 call uploaded)
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q2: 6/16-17 in LA (Conference) [details], Q3: 7/15 in Berkeley [details]

General News

General Comments May 2017

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

Join the discussion

  1. Joe123

    How is progress with the IML lawsuit? Will the findings of the 6th Circuit Appeals be used to argue that it is “punitive” and “banishment”, seeing as that’s exactly what the court found? What about the plethora of cases of citizens traveling abroad and being denied entry? I hope that will be used as well to show that registered citizens are treated as 2nd tier citizens even after their punishment has been served. This must be abolished, or at the very least, allow for a registered citizen to get a petition to be removed.

    • Chris F

      I also hope they bring up the fact that the IML applies to people under the same circumstances differently. That’s a clear violation of the 5th amendment “Due Process” that requires the government to treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

      One state may have lifetime registration, while another has shorter or no registration, and the person not registered doesn’t get the mark on the passport. Another example is two people form the same state that are no longer required to register, but one of them traveled to Florida or New York for a week and got permanently stuck on that registry that feeds the national list.

      There should also be enough real examples now of countries outright banning those they get alerts about, so IML is more than just alerting another country of public information and letting them decide what to do. If our own government won’t assess its own citizen once time as to them being a threat or not, then why should other countries have to do it for our citizens over and over again? They won’t.

      • Joe123

        Good point, I remember you or another member mentioned this. I hope NARSOL and ACSOL are taking notice to bring up these points in court! As a donator to both, I want to make sure all points like this are presented to give us the best possible chance of winning. In addition, due to sex offenders’ Low recidivism rate, it is a moot point to have IML or any version of, because it’s not supported by evidence whatsoever. Not a very hard point to get across, hopefully the lawyers can add this during the case, push forth that ‘fact-based law making’ that’s so desperately needed.

      • Political Prisoner

        The Federal government claims they are not deny our right to travel with IML and are saying the receiving country is making the choose to refuse entry. But if the notice was NOT sent then the receiving country would no reason to refuse entry. So by sending the notice they may not be denying our right to travel but they sure are interfering or impeding our right to travel freely and unmolested.

        • David Kennerly, the Entrenched Client

          Well, they ARE denying our right to travel since it is their intention, with IML, that we be so denied. Representative Chris Smith, the author of IML, stated explicitly that it was his intention to thwart our ambitions for international travel. He made this explicitly clear in his discussions with visiting Thai officials and later in his recounting of those discussions. It’s all on video. The effect of this law and the motivations behind it give lie to their pretense that their intentions are merely advisory and without any expectations for their inevitable consequence. They can make no good-faith representations that theirs’ is not a cleverly-conceived attempt at actively preventing “sex offender” travel. Such a representation is entirely disingenuous within the context of Smith’s stated ambitions for the law. This should be a fundamental element in any future challenge to IML.

        • someone who cares

          The receiving country may make the decision to deny entry, but the US who is sending the notice give them reason to deny entry. It is like me telling the host of a party that the person who will be attending has a contagious disease. Sure, I did not tell the host to turn that person away, but I gave them a good reason to deny entry. Otherwise, they would have never known. The one sending the notice is the one responsible at the end.

          • Timmr

            It is more like you telling the host the guy had a disease but failed to mention it was chicken pox he had when he was 7 years old.
            It is worse, because of the element of deception in the notice.

        • Tired Of Hiding

          The USA with the passage of and signing by Obama put in place IML which is a system to effectively lock us inside of a virtual prison called the United States. They do so with the cryptic alerts/warnings about the travelling sex offender. We will be forever labelled sex offender when our names are mentioned.

          Then to add insult to injury they actually plan on putting a mark on Passports. If they do not want us to travel then state it out for all to hear or just deny issuing passports…Oh wait…that would surely be found illegal…but somehow…they are going to do what only the Nazis accomplished with the Jews and people are fine with it!

          The right to travel the world that we have evolved on and are a part of is a fundamental HUMAN right and not something that the government of the United States can alter.

          This MUST be fought until it is won!

          America the free – what BULLSHIT

          Lee

        • Anonymous Nobody

          A side issue this could be used for that no one has recognized:

          Since IML is absolute in its link to registration, as opposed to offense or something else, this jeopardy it puts registrants in is definitely punishment. This jeopardizes travel by registrants, and that is a recognized punishment. It is not the same as making you register if you move to another state, because that is not blocking the travel. IML is jeopardizing the travel — and is even specifically aimed at that, aimed at providing the foreign countries information they might want to use to turn us away. That is the stated reason for IML.

          And so, this makes registration itself punishment, since imposing registration on FORMER sex offenders (all registrants are FORMER SOs as they will not be registering if the are current, they will be sent to prison) is now decidedly and automatically and unchallengably imposing IML on them. The collateral consequences of imposing registration can make it punishment, and this collateral IML absolutely is punishment. Gee, it would be unconstitutional and punishment if they imposed a domestic IML, it certainly is punishment with an international one even if they have deviously maneuvered around the Constitionaity issue.

          As they say, there are consequences and repercussions for your actions, and the people who promoted IML have created the consequence of making registration undeniably punishment.

          That is, IML has changed the very nature of registration and made it punishment. Thus, registration and its requirements can no longer be imposed retroactively. I’m sorry if the promoters of IML were so blinded by their hate that they did not think it through, but that is how it is.

          Thus, all those who were relived of registration by 1203.4 when that was the standard cannot have that relief taken away, as it has been via retroactivity. (That relief via 1203.4 was ended for misemeanants in 1994 and for felons in 1981. People who had earned an end to registration and not been required to register for years,maybe decades, suddenly had to start registering again.) And I think it also means nothing added to 290 since you started registering can be imposed on you.

          This now gives us the punishment angle we have needed for decades to fight retroactiveity. But no one is pursuing that.

          • AJ

            Something that makes me scratch my head about IML is that it doesn’t seem it comports with the rational of ML and the like. Domestically, it’s all painted as a way for a legislature to regulate activity in order to maintain/improve safety of the community.

            The ML/SOR laws are passed by legislatures for their jurisdictions (a particular state or the union as a whole). When was Congress given global jurisdiction? Just a thought.

            –AJ

  2. JCrsn

    The next hearing for AB 558 in front of the Asm Appropriations has ALREADY been scheduled for next Wednesday, May 5th.
    That gives very little time to make calls and send letters!
    This is truly terrifying.

    • Lake County

      There is no Wed, May 5th – Today is Friday May 5th

  3. KM

    Does anyone know of any psychiatrists in California that are rational and friendly towards sex offenders, that are able to provide assessments? Any recommendations?

    • Jack

      @Km, no, don’t trust any of them. Your best hope is just to lie low until treatment is finished, then get out.

      • Nondescript

        Rational psychiatrist?? Many have their own issues and are themselves, cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. If you pay them enough, your psyche eval/ report will be commendatory and favorable. It’s just a business.

        • KM

          I am willing to pay for a favorable result.

          • Nondescript

            Then you might try contacting your attorney or any criminal defense attorney in your area for a recommendation. Defense attorneys are more likely to send their clients to a neutral or pro- defendant psychiatrist who knows how to write up an assessment for the court.

    • David Kennerly, Disinterested Observer & Major Stakeholder

      This article appears, serendipitously, in The Atlantic:
      “Is Psychiatry Partisan? A debate on the nature of expertise in mental health could decide three people’s lives, and many more to come.”
      https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/objectivity-in-minds/525036/

    • Anonymous Nobody

      When getting your own to provide a report, consider: If you don’t like the report, you just go to a different one until you get a report you do like. But of course, you are being smart in asking, no need to waste money of the wrong one.

  4. j

    Hello…

    So the halfway point of my 5 year probation is coming up in a few months. The law says I can try for early termination at the halfway point but some say it’s just best to wait until at least 3 years.

    The question is… is there any downside to trying at 2.5 years? I mean, if I get denied, does that jeopardize trying at the 3 year mark? Other than paying a lawyer twice I guess.

    Thanks.

    • Chris F

      You will just be annoying the judge to keep trying, and will be in worse shape than if you waited.

      You would have to find out the judge’s track record with sex offenders. He is elected, and won’t risk his career by letting you off early without darn good reason. Any other crime, maybe, but not a sex offense.

      Your best bet is to wait 3 1/2 years and have a darn good reason why probation is not needed and interferes with you being a productive citizen. You would need supportive documents from your treatment provider, clergy, wife, boss, and anyone else that will support you.

    • Joe123

      I’m in a similar situation. I am actually at 2.5 years of official probation plus 9 months of pretrial probation (all had required the GPS by default and basically identical terms, so hopefully can be lumped together as 3.3 years total). Total probation required is 5 years. We’re looking to do the same with my lawyer very soon. It comes down moreso to the judge than the lawyer. I think we all know this. At least half way through probation is the ‘mark’, from what I’ve read. You have to keep in mind that because of the ‘Sex Offender’ label, it will likely be harder to get off probation, unless this is a highly intelligent and fair judge, which isn’t always the case, the lawyer should know. The more time you give of course, the more leverage you have in court I believe. It’s worth taking a shot now or waiting a few more months, go in when there is a more lenient judge. Let us know how it goes. I suggest using the circuit court ruling about GPS being a form of search as well, and that it may be unwarranted in your case to keep GPS on you. I believe anyone with a level 1 has a chance for early probation termination, after at least the half way mark. I have no evidence for this, just an educated guess, taking into account the case from a judge’s perspective of weighing ‘public safety’. Remember, you are fighting a label of “sex offender” with a false notation of “high and frightening re-offense rate”, more than anything else. You could have attempted to rob a store at gunpoint and looked better in front of the judge, since you wouldn’t have a ‘sex offender’ label. That’s how screwed up the US justice system is.

    • Alex

      Not sure where you are or what your laws require, but here in California 3 years or probation is minimum. If you get more than that, you may file to be removed after the three year mark provided you’ve completed all other portions of the probation such as jail time, community service, paying off restitution portion of your fees, and completing your rehab program (the program in our county is 3 years, one of the longest in the country). If you have anything like this outstanding here, you won’t be granted early release.

      I’d check with a lawyer. They’ll likely tell you something similar but much more definitively.

    • j

      Thanks for the replies.

      Forgot to mention that I’m in LA County, California.

      Would it be the same judge that handled my case? I was caught in an online sting, so hopefully whoever it is will recognize the BS of it all.

      • Forward

        My 5 year probation was terminated 3 years into it. The angle my attorney used was that while the judge was obligated to give me a minimum of 5 years it does not say that the sentence could not be modified after the fact. My attorney pointed out several drug offences that spelled out the fact that the sentences could not be modified in comparison to my CP sentence. The judge declared my sentence Nunc Pro Tunc (now as before) and changed the sentence to the few days in jail I spent years ago. My record no longer shows a 5 year probation just the few days in jail.

  5. TG

    The hearing for AB 558 is on Wednesday! There is no more time to contact the Assembly Appropriations Committee!

    Why was the information about contacting the Assembly Appropriations Committee not placed on this website? We need to do better than this!

    Has anyone sent letters/made calls? I sent my letters yesterday… but it’s too late!

    • JCrsn

      Perhaps CA RSOL sees AB 558 as secondary to the Tiered Registry Bill due to the conflict between the two bills?
      Is CA RSOL going to meet beforehand on wednesday to speak in opposition?

      • AB

        Will there be an opportunity to speak in opposition to the bill with this committee?

    • Timmr

      The number is (916) 319-2081. How does one taylor objections to this bill for the Appropriations Committtee? Any ideas?

  6. Chris F

    For those interested in reading some legal cases that show how even courts that recognize we have low recidivism still rule against us, look at this one:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1218655.html

    I found it interesting that we don’t qualify for strict scrutiny as a suspect class even though we are “politically powerless” because our crimes made us powerless, not that we were born that way.

    They also don’t consider our privacy important enough as they claim its all available anyway, and only allow “rational basis” review that holds up because we are more likely than a person not convicted of a sex crime to commit another.

    It doesn’t address other fundamental rights though, like right to travel, which the registry clearly hampers.

    For those that have time to read it, what challenges would work that weren’t tried?

    • Chris F

      To follow up, I see this interesting article that seems to say the “intermediate scrutiny” we had on a California Doe V Harris case involving 1st amendment protection probably wasn’t enough scrutiny either:

      https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/05/doe-v-harris/

      Basically, even if, unlike minorities or other protected classes, we caused our own problem by committing a crime, the underlying reason for strict scrutiny is still valid because our unpopularity as a group means it is more likely government action against us is more likely due to that hatred than the legitimate interest it pretends to have. Thus, we are so likely to be oppressed in our efforts to try to change opinions of those misinformed that hate us that there should be extra scrutiny in laws that lead to more oppression.

      In essence, the excuse to deny any group strict scrutiny for violating that group’s rights should not depend on them being “born that way” and should apply to any group that is unpopular by the majority and likely to have laws against that group influenced by the uneducated hatred of the majority.

      Maybe SCOTUS will weigh in during the current Packingham case…but more likely to side step the issue.

      • Packingham

        @Chris F
        SCOTUS usually does all they can to address a very specific issue which can resolve a case before them. They do this in the interest of great caution. If they address broadly, it may well cause great harm in some unknown case down the road, sometimes decades later. Though one could argue that future SCOTUS could “just overturn” the parts they wish to do, that’s not how SCOTUS likes to behave. It is big on precedent and tradition, so overturning is anathema* to it.

        I think SCOTUS will find for Packingham and say that NC’s ban is too much, and violates the First Amendment. NC cannot provide one shred of data showing any rationale for the ban, only conjecture. During oral arguments, even the righties were attacking NC on that. But I doubt SCOTUS will expand the ruling to say anything about registering online IDs and the like. Striking down the ban is a nice, narrow ruling that solves the case; striking down registration of IDs would be overkill and may cause future problems.

        –AJ

        * For the record, this word easily applies to RCs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema)

    • New Person


      They also don’t consider our privacy important enough as they claim its all available anyway,

      What does it say about dismissed cases? I know in the 2003 Smith decision it was specific to say only a conviction that can be seen by the public are who people have to register. This implies if you no longer have a conviction, then you shouldn’t be on a registry.

      Yet here we are.

      I mean it’s the same law breaking as in-person annuals. The 2003 Smith decision identified that in-person annuals are punishment attributes. No one is even trying to fight that. I thought Federal law has precedent over State law. State law cannot supersede Federal law.

      • Chris F

        Funny you mention that because I was just looking at what my state, Texas, does.

        Most felony offences that give deferred adjudication, you can apply for non-disclosure after a few years. However, they’ve added that any register-able sex offense is not eligible for non disclosure. It doesn’t matter how major or minor, if it requires registration, you are in the system forever and visible to any background check.

        How is that not a Bill of Attainder to make a law that allows another unjust law to look legal because now we can’t seal our record like any other crime can?

    • Chris F

      Sorry to keep replying to myself, but I found this article extremely enlightening as to the direction the courts should go in deciding what powerless groups need extra protection. In some definitions, we tick so many boxes I don’t see how we don’t get strict scrutiny:

      http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12100&context=journal_articles

      I especially like this part:
      *****
      “Likewise, a group’s descriptive representation (the third definition)
      takes pride of place in the work of Daniel Farber and Philip
      Frickey94 and Suzanna Sherry.95 Sherry has written that “heightened
      scrutiny would be appropriate” if “a discriminatory decision is made
      by a political body in which [a group is] underrepresented.”96 A
      group’s socioeconomic status (the fourth definition) is the core of
      Kenji Yoshino’s conception of influence.97 Three of his “factors [that]
      can influence a group’s political power” are “the group’s income and
      wealth,” “its education level,” and “its social position.”98 And the passage
      of protective legislation (the fifth definition) is endorsed by
      Eskridge in another piece99 as well as by Marcy Strauss.100 Strauss has
      put the point nicely: “Political powerlessness refers to a group’s
      inability to rely on the legislative process to protect its interests.” ”
      *****

      We have the least income, worst social position, and no protective legislation. How can it be justified to allow anything but strict scrutiny to the hate mongering laws that are passed against us? Just because it was our mistake to become part of this class in the first place, we should bare any injustice without limit or reason and those injustices can compound exponentially because there is no way to stop it?

    • More to it than recidivism

      @Chris F
      Though the Supreme Court of Maryland (SCOMD) did mention recidivism numbers in their opinion, it appears to me to have been of little weight compared to many other items in the case and opinion. But yes, it didn’t seem to matter to SCOMD that it was low, only that it was higher than others, regardless of whether they had ever offended in any manner. I think Doe had a weak case to begin with, but that aside, I take the result with a grain of salt, as this case was way back in 2008/9, i.e. closer to Smith & CT DPS than to today. Data have increased and improved. Social science has improved. Fallacy of the system has grown and been witnessed. Those all trend in our favor.

      Pure and simple, registries will never go away. They are routinely viewed by courts as simply compiling and publishing readily available, public information. That there’s pain for those on the list is moot in the courts’ eyes. Our only hope is that we can get them pushed back and stop the ridiculous residency and presence restrictions, the special IDs, the Internet limits/bans, etc. I think the best we can ever hope for would be a law-enforcement-only registry, but I don’t see that ever happening. It’ll always remain an question of, “why should this particular public data be withheld from the public?” I don’t see an answer to that which can withstand legal scrutiny..let alone public opinion (upon which legislators thrive).

      What I found interesting in the opinion is, “unlike the people in the established suspect classes, who are members of the class because of an accident of birth, people classified as sex offenders had control over whether to become a class member. . .Because their voluntary actions put them in the disfavored class, we hold that the ‘sex offender’ class is not suspect.”
      Suppose we change “sex offender” to “transgender”. Without offering any opinion on transgenderism, I foresee this concept playing very, very poorly for a TG people seeking to be a protected class.

      –AJ

      • Timmr

        ‘ “unlike the people in the established suspect classes, who are members of the class because of an accident of birth, people classified as sex offenders had control over whether to become a class member. . .’
        This statement divides people by class very cleverly. It assumes there is a class of those who have no control and another class of those who have control. It assumes those who have control over sexually illegal acts are so defined because they have not been caught. It also assumes that those who have been caught actually did the deed, as opposed to an internet sting or false confession to arrive at a plee bargain. It also presumes that some humans are above making poor decisions related to sex and that others are somehow incapable of redemption. Like all descrimination it dehumanizes a whole class based on one shared characteristic.

    • D.H.

      I guess my question would be if someone would create a website. This would be a list of all public employees to include politicians, judges, city, state and local servants. A profile to include gatherable information to include addresses, marriage status, court records of any kind. Also to include only negative information that is publicly available. How long would it take for the creator of this site to be sued? Just saying sometimes you should fight fire with fire.

      • Joe123

        I would DONATE to this cause in a heartbeat. This may take someone only 2-3 weeks to put together after extensive research and collection of information, but it would send a big message and grab attention, it would absolutely be worth it.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        That’s already out there — you can get that for $19 online. This has been a big peeve of mine for many years, that these places collect up personal information on us — from credit to criminal record to employment to everywhere you have ever lived, etc. — and then sell it. It has always seemed to me that my personal information in mine, and they cannot use it unless I give them permission. But that is not how things work.

      • Nondescript

        California Government Code 6254.21
        [No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number.]

        There are no criminal penalties attached to it though. However, unlike registrants posted on the internet, the public official can seek an injunction and sue for damages.

        • Come get me!

          @Nondescript
          Of course that only applies to CA residents. Those of us living in the other 49 states and pretty much every country in the world are free to post that information all day long… So were I to post such info, good luck Mr. Assemblyman! BTW, what are they afraid of?

          As an aside, I wonder how well that law would stand up to judicial review. We all learned in 2003 that publishing data that’s already public–including addresses–is not punitive, shaming, or anything dangerous or harmful.

          –AJ

  7. David Kennerly, Enraged Mother Of Two

    “Bill would reform CA sex offender registry”

    This is an article about the tiered registry bill that appears in Bay Area Reporter, a gay newspaper in S.F. Most of the comments in reaction are pretty appalling.

    http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=72553

    • Tired Of Hiding

      Yes indeed, it shows you the kind of hate filled god-fearing people we are having to fight against for any sort of justice. These holier than thou types really sicken me.

      Really shocking that they can live in a world where they THINK (falsely) that they live in the freest country on earth when we have more of our citizens looked away in cages than another other…Free? Really?

      Hypocrites! “Turn the other cheek”…RIGHT…only when it is to their advantage!

    • steve

      Someone who has Facebook needs to ask why “Lisa Roberts” is afraid to use her real name. Just started a Facebook profile to comment on these posts…hmmm. This sounds just like the lady who’s spoke against the bill.

  8. Jack

    @ David Kennerly, Enraged mother of two, I understand your concern, but I wouldn’t take Lisa Roberts too seriously. If you looked at the other comments it was everyone else trying to calm her down, not agreeing with her. And given her slippery slope attitude on the subject, I think it’s relatively safe to assume that she’s a republican. Or at least she thinks like one haha.

  9. Lake County

    I’m posting this for those that would like to listen to Neil Gorsuch during a U.S. Supreme Court case that was recently heard; Maslenjak v. United States Oral Argument, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could determine whether the government can strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship for lying during the naturalization process even if the lie was irrelevant to receiving citizenship.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?425470-1/maslenjak-v-united-states-oral-argument

    I haven’t finished listening to this, so I’ll comment later. It’s good to learn everything we can about the people that control our future.

  10. AB

    Any posts or statements on AB 558 for Wednesday would be very helpful.

    • Nondescript

      Bill 558 has been whittled down to only apply to molestation of a person under 18 , penal code 647.6 which can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony. Even if prosecuted as a felony, is not listed under the classification of a serious or violent felony.

      [A person is a tier one offender if the person is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c), or for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent felony ]

      If bill 421 passes , tier 1 convictions which are presumably not subject to public disclosure would include 647.6, rendering these bills inconsistent and in conflict with each other. So, why wastes the public money sifting through the registry, sending out 30 day notices retracting an exclusion that is currently excluded, and will definitely be excluded in upcoming legislation. Of course I’m focusing on the costs to the State here but the real cost is to the socioeconomic stability of the registrant affected.

      Basically a waste of time and resources, all for a lady politicians sense of false pride about a complex subject she probably knows little or cares even less about anyways.

      • Timmr

        I suppose, because SB421 is still in process, changes are possible. I’d be surprised if there were not more changes, especially if changes are seen as necessary by the sponsor and supporters like the CASOMB and ACSOL to ensure passage of the bill. I am sure there are also many senators who believe like Quirk-Silva that the exclusions are loopholes They may be thrown a bone for their votes and meld AB 558 into the tiered bill. I can see them thinking something like this: “hey they (registrants) are going from lifetime to only ten years! Let’s make those ten years as uncomfortable as possible for them.”

      • David

        (Specifying “lady politician” is sexist. Need I remind you that it is a “lady lawyer” who regularly kicks ass in the courts and halls of legislature on our behalf?)

        • Anonymous Nobody

          David, in most circumstances I would agree, but not this one. I have watched for many years, and consistently it is the women’s movement that has been a big pusher of a lot of this crap against us. Yes, there are all kinds of women out there, plenty who do or might support us, but the power is in the organized women’s movement, which has very much been against us. I have pointed this out in these threads before.

          • David Kennerly, Disinterested Observer & Major Stakeholder

            It is BECAUSE the women’s movement has so fundamentally transformed our lives that women can be more effective at challenging these injustices. They are far less vulnerable to the cloak of suspicion that surrounds men who advocate on our behalf.

          • Nondescript

            You are correct.
            Modern feminism is not the result of a grassroots movement- it was organized by the US Communist Party, the CIA and the media in the 1960’s to foster division and conflict between the genders. But I digress…..

            Getting back to the lady politician.

            Yes, she will be referred to as ” lady politician” in a subtly derogatory untertone and for this reason: women are wired for empathy and compassion. From an spiritual evolutionary perspective our mission is to promote equality, empathy, fairness, courage and most of all liberation from oppression at any and all cost- not to promote grief and anguish. Have women been oppressed? Of course, but you do not become that which you hate in order to change the world. Eschewing our true feminine essence and taking orders from the same diabolical source as other politicians only makes us traitors to humanity. So, as a female ( myself) , when I see a lady politician proposing laws which will knowingly further humiliate and negatively impact children and spouses of registrants , destabilize families, it disgusts me.

            The divine archetype of knowledge and truth is almost always represented by a female. And I really think it will be females that will be at the forefront of ultimately tearing down the registry…… forever.

        • David Kennerly, Disinterested Observer & Major Stakeholder

          Indeed! Let’s also state the obvious: a woman, or women, are probably the only ones who can successfully lead this fight. Men who challenge sex offender laws are regarded with limitless suspicion. It’s very much harder to make that suspicion stick on women. Most of those visibly fighting this battle are women, and for good reason. I am enormously grateful for them.

  11. JCrsn

    CA RSOL is being unusually quiet about the new hearing for AB 558, is there any reason for this?

    • David

      CAROL doesn’t exist independently any more: CARSOL has become ACSOL. This change occurred a number of months ago – maybe as much as a year ago. (Note the new URL and organization name.) This is the ACSOL website.

  12. Chris F

    Here is a very good read (from 2006) about why criminals should have heightened scrutiny when legislature runs amok to please the majority and fear mongering press:

    http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1256&context=californialawreview

    I particularly like this from page 1224:

    “Furthermore, legislatively enacted
    retribution against a class of persons falls squarely within the
    Constitution’s prohibition against bills of attainder.”

    Tons of good stuff in here.

    • steve

      Wow nice find. The question remains, why won’t the bill of attainder clause be used to fight the registry. I would love to hear an argument from someone as to why it won’t work if there is such an argument.

    • New Person

      ex-offenders are an immutable class (helping to paint bill of attainder)

      immutable – unchanging

      this article identifies that California does expungement and such, but they only present the opportunity and not the success rate nor quantity of application.

      Also, just because “expungement” is available, that does not equate to immutability in respect to the registry. You are still on the registry. You still have employment restrictions. You still have travel restrictions in respect that you cannot travel unmolested – such as being forced to register with another state.

      while you say you were never convicted of a crime, your registry status matters for employment. tangentially, if your job includes to travel to other states or countries.

    • Suspect class?

      @Chris F
      I agree with @steve: nice find!

      Reading through it, the one concept that particularly sticks out is that alienage is automatically a suspect class. As the author points out, this was not an accident of birth–they weren’t aliens at birth, they were citizens of their native countries. These people actively chose to commit an act (immigration). It is only through their own willful act that they became aliens. How is that different from me, a person who actively chose to commit an act (some sort of crime)? It is through my own willful act that I became an ex-offender.

      Additionally, though alienage is considered immutable, that’s patently false. They have full, personal control over their status as aliens. All they have to do is exercise freedom of travel and go back to their native countries. Nobody in the U.S. can or will stop them from that.

      Contrast that with an ex-offender who has no control over his/her status. Though I can ask for a change in my status via pardon, expungement, etc., I am personally powerless to effect or ensure the change. An ex-offender is, at minimum, a quasi-suspect class, since status is personally immutable, but mutable by others–those others being the same government who decided the original sentence.

      I’d love to see a court face this quandary. Do you remove aliens, or add ex-offenders to the suspect class designation? 🙂

      –AJ

  13. steve

    This would be fantastic from 6th circircuit and we all know what they just did

    “Trump will nominate Joan Larsen, who currently serves on Michigan’s Supreme Court, to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnat”

    • steve

      Actually mis-read that…she’s going to the 6th circuit I wonder how she voted on doe vs Snyder when it wasat the Michigan siupreme court..anyone with that stat?

  14. ReadyToFight

    Wait….
    Bill of Attainder- an act of legislature finding a person guilty of treason or felony without trial.
    What am I missing? Why do so many keep asking about this? Especially if the majority have taken a Plea deal, how would this fight the Registry?

    • Chris F

      A Bill of Attainder is much more that that.

      It also “reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial or executive functions”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

      Basically, it keeps the legislature from making laws against politically powerless and hated groups, and even if tailored to a specific legitimate purpose, it must apply to all citizens and not just that hated group.

      Even though those on the sex offender registry had their day in court, the judiciary didn’t specifically say an individual is a current danger, needs to be listed on the registry to alert the public, and cannot be 2000 feet from a school. The legislature said that, and it isn’t their job to do that when the judges should tailor punishment, rehab, and protection of the public to the individual circumstances.

      • The recurring problem

        The whole Bill of Attainder concept is much trickier than it appears. Simply put, a BoA imposes its punishment on specific persons without judicial trial. Though this sounds exactly what we’re fighting for/about, there’s still the “punishment” hook. It’s all been deemed as not being punishment, and thus the BoA claim falls flat in a heartbeat.

        If/When the SOR hoops and hurdles are found to be punishment, then both ex post facto and BoA claims should be a bit easier. The former for those convicted before any of the rules were created, the latter for the rest.

        No court, SCOTUS included, appears to like to address BoA claims too much. It’s a murkier piece of the Constitution that’s seems to have beguiled justices for 150 years. That doesn’t in any way mean it’s okay, it just means it’s a tough challenge to launch and win. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton addressed the concern that legislatures would overstep their boundaries:

        “Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement, and banishment by acts of the legislature. The dangerous consequences of this power are manifest. If the legislature can disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government, would be a mockery of common sense.”

        The BoA clause was included in the Constitution to prevent that–yet courts have routinely ignored or misunderstood that and have seemingly abdicated their position as a separate, yet equal, branch of the tripartite government.

        SCOTUS has previously said that what we’re enduring “may be” classified as punishment, but it depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation. So far in our case, they’ve held the situation is such that it has not risen to punishment. So far.

        If/When SOR laws are found to be punishment in any manner (Snyder, anyone?), it would make sense that a BoA claim will have a much stronger case, with the laws being legislatively-derived punishment against an identifiable class. But until then, the problem remains that it’s not viewed as punishment.

        So, so very much hangs on Snyder. I’ll keep praying for wisdom for SCOTUS.

        –AJ

  15. kat

    The new French President was 15 when he fell in love with his then married, 39 yr. old drama teacher. In this country she would have been thrown in jail, given the title of Sex Offender and put on the registry.
    They are now married, to each other.
    No sex offender, registrant title for her, instead it’s First Lady of France!

    • Lily

      Such nonsense…. nowhere is it a crime to fall in love with anyone. Why on earth would it be an either / or between Registered Sex Offender and First Lady?

      While the age of consent in France is 15, it is illegal for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a student. France is one of the few non-anglo countries that has a sex offender registry (FIJAIS), and sexual conduct with a minor student is a registerable offense, for a teacher.

      The student’s parents did not approve of the young man’s feelings and most likely would have lept at any inappropriate activity to have the teacher put away. They never even got the chance to try. It would appear the student waited until he turned 18 and had graduated from school, and then did as he could and should, as an adult.

      Mme. Macron was never accused of any illegal activity, and certainly convicted of none. The much-talked about photo of the kiss after a theater performance is equivalent to a firm, congratulatory handshake. Vive la France.

      So no, Mme. Macron would not have been thrown in jail or put on the sex offender registry, since apparently she did not do anything illegal.

      Should there be a registry? No. Should a teacher who has a relationship with a mature teenager be on this registry? No. But using this as an example, comparing apples to oranges is not helpful here.

  16. Bobby

    Hi Guys,

    Well I wasn’t sure if I should post my comment here or in a Michigan post, so anyway here it is
    I was watching the news today here in Michigan and found out that 1) Justice Young retired last month and also I wonderful Governor(NOT) has elected Justice Kagan to the 6th Circuit Court in Ohio.

    This brings me to my question, I know it won’t effect Does v Snyder in anyway since it is now in the hands of SCOTUS, but since Justice Young and Justice Kagan is now going to the 6th Circuit How will this effect the Temelkoski case here in Michigan since Young and Kagan were both part of the oral arguments and
    it is suppose to be decided by like July I believe, and some one named Wilder is replacing Young,and he is a Conservative. Any thoughs on this Subject.

    • D

      First of all, the Governor does not “elect” a judge to the 6th circuit, that is a Federal court and the state governor doesn’t deal with that. Secondly when a judge hears the case, they are the ones to provide the decision, even of they are “moving up”. The new judge will have nothing to do with cases that were already heard.

      • Bobby

        To D.

        That was my bad, I meant Judge Larson of the Michigan Supreme Court NOT Kagan, Judge Laron was nominated to the 6th Circuit by Gov. Snyder so that is why I was wondering how Michigan v Temelkoski would pan out, and since Judge Young has retired and both were/are part of the Temelkoski case.

        I was just wondering because it is suppose to be decided soon like July I think, just like a decision concerning Snyder should becoming soon as well late summer early fall I think, or possibly sooner.

  17. j

    Quick question… for those of us who aren’t listed on the ML site, how do people know you’re an RC? Specifically in regards to things like being denied on a cruise (well, assuming your conviction has been expunged), or Disneyland or other things like that.

    • New Person

      jobs will probably find out. if you go to college, they find out. you could be denied housing as well.

    • NPS

      I’m not on the ML site either. People will know only if you tell them. The only thing you need to worry about is those people you choose in your circle. Do you trust them enough that they would not use the information against you?

      During probation, I went back to graduate school and earned my MA degree. While I was working on my degree, I had a work-study job on campus. Everything was fine until I broke up with my boyfriend (I had already disclosed my past and that I am an RC before we began a relationship). He and his sister decided to contact my employer and informed her of my status. I was forced to quit. He then proceeded to make copies of my photo and distribute them on my neighbors’ cars informing them that I’m an RC. He didn’t know that I had a different vehicle, so one of the fliers was on my windshield. I was able to remove most (if not all of the fliers) from the cars. I contacted local police but they did nothing about it even though my probation officer said that it was a violation of the law. No one is allowed to use the registry to harass nor are they allowed to create and send notifications; only police do that.

      Regardless of his harassment, I still managed to earn my master’s degree, terminate my probation early and expunge my record. I now have gainful employment, and I just bought my own house (in the SF Bay Area no less). All of my friends know my RC status, and they have been nothing but supportive; they were disappointed in my ex for having outed me. Needless to say, they’re no longer friends with him.

      I’ll admit I still have that fear of being outed, but more often than not, it would be a jilted ex- or jealous old friend that would do more harm.

  18. Chris F

    The most amazing Bill of Attainder argument I have ever read, and it has historical examples that specifically make Sex Offender laws unquestionably punishment:

    http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=plr

    see this on page 1315:

    Brown, 381 U.S. at 458. Some are critical of those who would suggest that prevention is
    punishment, believing that, because prevention purports to serve a public safety purpose, it is
    somehow less than punishment; however, the Brown Court expressly states the contrary. Id. “[T]he
    legislature made a judgment, undoubtedly based largely on past acts and associations . .. that a given
    person or group was likely to cause trouble . .. and therefore inflicted deprivations upon that person
    or group in order to keep it from bringing about the feared event. Id. at 458-59. Further, one of the
    very justifications for imprisonment (which is punishment) in our society is to prevent future reoffenses
    and harm by the convicted during their time of incarceration. See id.; see also
    Punishment-Theories of Punishment, supra note 20 and accompanying text (“[L]aws that specify
    punishment for criminal conduct should be designed to deter future criminal conduct …. General
    deterrence means that the punishment should prevent other people from committing criminal acts.
    The punishment serves as an example to the rest of society, and it puts others on notice that criminal
    behavior will be punished. Specific deterrence means that the punishment should prevent the same
    person from committing crimes. Specific deterrence works in two ways. First, an offender may be
    put in jail or prison to physically prevent her from committing another crime for a specified period.
    Second, this incapacitation is designed to be so unpleasant that it will discourage the offender from
    repeating her criminal behavior.”). The prevention/deterrence purpose is likely the most relevant to
    try to strike down sex offender regulations because often the main purpose for the legislation is to
    prevent the offenders from inflicting future harm.

    • Deterrence

      @Chris F
      SCOTUS has previously discussed laws of deterrence. I forget the exact case (I’ve read so many of late!), but they essentially said that not every law of deterrence is punitive, and making them so would completely gut Government’s ability to regulate any sort of behaviors. Ex.: speed limits are laws of deterrence, but does anyone consider the placing of a speed limit as punitive?

      –AJ

      • Chris F

        @AJ

        From the document I mentioned above, I did find this part to support what you said:
        *****
        Nixon, 433 U.S. at 425. Nixon was arguing for an individual or defined group to be attainted
        whenever either was compelled to bear burdens which the individual or group dislikes. Id. at 470.
        In rejecting such an expansive view, the Court said, “[it] would cripple the very process of
        legislating . . . invalidating every Act of Congress or the States that legislatively burdens some
        person or groups but not all other plausible individuals.” Id. at 470-71.
        *****

        What makes the registry punitive, is that it doesn’t only fulfill one aspect of the tests for being a punitive bill of attainder, but most if not all of them.

        For instance these tests:
        1) analyze the type and severity of burdens imposed by the law at issue to see if they can be reasonably said to further any non-punitive legislative purposes.

        2) “existence of less burdensome alternatives” by which the legislature
        could have achieved its legitimate non-punitive objectives

        3) impermissible legislative punishment: “a legislative enactment barring designated individuals or groups from participation in specified employments or vocations, a mode of punishment commonly employed against those legislatively branded as disloyal.”

        4) look at legislative record to determine if there is evidence of a legislative intent to
        punish (See OnceFallen’s web site for lots of quotes proving this!)

        5) Congress oversteps its authority when it engages in the “forbidden fact-finding” about individuals and groups that the Constitution reserves for the judiciary. Id. at 464 (White, J.,
        dissenting) (“The legislature may focus on a particular group or class only when … it is common knowledge that all, not just some, members of the group possess the feared characteristics and thus such legislative designation would require no legislative fact-finding about individuals.”

        6) A number of court decisions have examined the factor of “escapability” to determine whether an act is punitive in nature and whether it singles out a particular group – We can’t escape our sex offender label.

        • Agreed

          @ChrisF
          I agree with you completely, but sadly I don’t sit in a chair at SCOTUS. I think the Bill of Attainder argument is given wide berth due to its rare usage and even rarer success. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong path or an impossible one, just that there are probably few attorneys who feel comfortable enough to argue it.

          I’d love to see a BoA claim somewhere, anywhere. I think arguments similar to what you delineate, as well as the heightened/quasi- suspect class argument could possibly make headway with an open-minded court/judge. That’s a lot of holes to align to get through, but difficult doesn’t mean impossible.

          It seems like a Catch-22 wherein it’s not deemed punishment, thus a BoA fails, yet at the same time were it deemed punishment, a BoA would be moot due to other more widely used vehicles in the Constitution.

          Maybe someone under the 6th Circuit should give it a try. That panel of judges seems to get it.

          –AJ

      • Timmr

        Speeding laws would look like registry laws if they were applied solely to people formerly convicted of a traffic violation or crime, and waived for everyone else… say convicted DUI’s could not go over 55 mph, for example.

        • Moot point

          @Timmr
          Yes they would, if they were. But they’re not, so they don’t.

          –AJ

  19. David Kennerly, Boogeyman Extraordinaire!

    “South Carolina Supreme Court: Teens can be kept on sex-offender registry for life”

    This is from Bill Dobbs:

    “South Carolina’s Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a law imposing *lifetime* registration and electronic monitoring on juveniles for some sex offenses. The Associated Press has the details in a short article, below. In a longer story reporting reaction to the ruling, Charleston’s Post and Courier found an “outcry” from researchers and lawyers. Doug Berman chimes in with legal analysis for Sentencing Law and Policy followed by a link to the court’s decision. Have a look!” –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire

    By Jeffrey Collins

    South Carolina can continue to require some teens convicted of serious sex crimes to appear on the state’s public sex-offender registry and wear an electronic monitor for the rest of their lives, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
    A boy from Spartanburg County who was 15 when he sexually assaulted a 5-year-old boy and ended up on the registry challenged the law.
    The justices had already ruled that it was legal to list juveniles for life on a registry that can only be viewed by law enforcement. Wednesday’s ruling extends that to the public registry on the State Law Enforcement Division’s website .
    The teen’s lawyer said being publicly branded a sex offender and electronically monitored for the rest of his life is too harsh a punishment, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban on the death penalty for anyone under age 18.
    The justices, however, said the Legislature was well within its power to pass a law that treats juveniles and adults differently in criminal punishment, but establishes the same requirements for the registry. They noted that the registry’s goal is to protect the public.
    “If the requirement that juvenile sex offenders must register and must wear an electronic monitor is in need of change, that decision is to be made by the Legislature — not the courts,” Associate Justice John Kittredge wrote.
    The teen was convicted in Family Court of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, and a judge ordered the lifetime monitoring.
    http://www.thestate.com/latest-news/article148323554.html

    The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) | May 8, 2017
    Should minors convicted of certain sex crimes be required to register as offenders for life? S.C. Supreme Court rules yes as attorneys, researchers cast doubts
    By Gregory Yee

    Excerpts: Last week’s S.C. Supreme Court ruling that juveniles convicted of certain sex crimes must be registered for life on the state’s sex offender registry is drawing outcry from attorneys and researchers. Prosecutors applauded the ruling, saying that some young offenders are beyond rehabilitation and need to be monitored, but other attorneys and researchers say the lifetime registry makes rehabilitation difficult if not impossible.

    Ninth Circuit Public Defender Ashley Pennington said it is clear from the court’s decision that there are major issues with the registration requirement. “The isolation and stigmatization of children and adults caused by these laws can have the effect of increasing despair and future criminality,” he said. “Researchers in (South Carolina) and Ohio have studied this issue and found that their law was not reducing recidivism but tending to generate instability and criminal behavior. Ohio, Rhode Island and other states are now considering changing their law.” MORE:
    http://www.postandcourier.com/news/should-minors-convicted-of-certain-sex-crimes-be-required-to/article_ee9c39b4-30ef-11e7-b160-176003785d08.html

    Sentencing Law and Policy | May 4, 2017
    South Carolina Supreme Court rejects constitutional challenge to juvenile sex offender’s mandatory lifetime registration/monitoring
    By Doug Berman

    Yesterday the South Carolina Supreme Court handed down an opinion in In the Interest of Justin B. unanimously rejecting the contention that “mandatory imposition of lifetime registration and electronic monitoring on juveniles is unconstitutional.” The relatively short opinion is a bit curious because, after reviewing a bunch of previous rulings in which it had “upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory lifetime sex offender registry requirement with electronic monitoring for adults and juveniles,” the opinion does not discuss Graham or Miller but does confront and reject the juvenile’s assertion that the constitutional analysis should “yield a different result under the reasoning of Roper v. Simmons.” MORE:
    http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/05/south-carolina-supreme-court-rejects-constitutional-challenge-to-juve-sex-offenders-mandatory-lifeti.html

    In the Interest of Justin B.
    South Carolina Supreme Court, Case No. 2015-000992
    Opinion filed May 3, 2017
    http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27716.pdf

    • Both sides of mouth

      “Prosecutors applauded the ruling, saying that some young offenders are beyond rehabilitation and need to be monitored.”

      Nothing like contradicting all the social and behavioral science work over decades. This flies right in the face of what other states are doing in curtailing the registry onus for minors, for the very reason that they CAN get counseling and rehabilitation.

      I fear it’s going to take many more travesties like this before there’s any real concern by the populace…and even then it may not occur, because don’t you know every single RC is a trench-coat-wearing pedophile lurking in a van by the playground?

      –AJ

      • Jack

        This whole scheme is nothing more than puritan influenced fascism. Simple as that.

  20. David Kennerly, Thought Criminal

    This also from Bill Dobbs:

    “Flashback to 2006, ‘civil containment’: For wrongdoing, the criminal justice system provides accountability — charges are brought followed by a process to determine guilt and then punishment. Plenty of flaws and glitches and biases in the system but the idea is to reckon with bad conduct. What about locking people up, not for what they did but for what they *might* do? Should liberty be taken away with just an expert’s hunch and a judge’s order? As states were passing ‘civil confinement’ laws in the mid-2000s, Mark K. Matthews reported on the issue for Stateline. In the years since it was published the number of people locked away has increased and is now more than 5,000. Haunting are the 2006 words of New York City’s bar association, “It cannot be overstated how readily sex offender civil commitment laws may be abused.” -Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire

    Stateline | Feb. 9, 2006
    Molesters confined even after jail time is up
    By Mark K. Matthews, Stateline.org Staff Writer

    Sex offenders are a different type of criminal, increasingly punished under a different set of rules. Upon release from prison, they are followed by satellite, showcased on the Internet and prohibited from living in certain neighborhoods. In eight states, they even face castration.

    But it is the issue of civil confinement that is causing the most controversy. When the most dangerous sexual predators are due to leave prison in 16 states, officials can revoke their freedom and toss them into mental hospitals indefinitely.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the practice, and at least eight states this year are considering similar legislation. MORE:”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20060909053302/http:/www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=87312

    • American Detained in America

      Thought criminal….that’s me! An undercover sting tried to get me to expose myself on cam, I told them I knew they were a cop(admitted by the DA’s investigator!) in a very crude way to go first, and they got me for trying to get a minor to expose herself. If you look at the charges in detail, it boiled down to what the investigator called called an attempt to get a minor to expose herself with intent to attempt to use the photos for the purpose[an intent] of sexual arrousal….so it was an attempt with intent to attempt with intent. And for that, I got forced into a plea for a life sentence! So again, that’s me, the dangerous thought criminal!

  21. D

    I thought that I would let everyone know about this site I have been reading that explains law and the constitution in comics. It’s pretty good at boiling it all down to manageable sections to read and understand. http://www.lawcomic.net

  22. mike r

    anyone heard anything from WAR and their supposed class action that was supposed to be filed last fall? I used to get answers back when I emailed them asking what was up but my last few emails about the supposed suit have been ignored…just curious because they told me that they had a complete legal team working on it and it was going to be filed in January and that’s the last I heard from them.

    • steve

      Mike I just got a response from Vicki at WAR she said if everything goes as planned it will be filed in state and federal courts in June. Great news!

    • Bobby

      Mike and Steve,

      I Just got an e-mail back from Vicki Henry from WAR, as well and just like the two of you this is what she told me.
      Yes, will be filed in June as I am told.  Nothing yet on Doe v Snyder

       
      Vicki Henry
      Women Against Registry, President
      800-311-3764
      Fighting the Destruction of Families
      http://www.womenagainstregistry.com
      Facebook:  Women Against Registry
      Follow us on Twitter:   @WomenAgainstReg
      LinkedIn group Families of Registrants

      • AJ

        @Bobby
        I don’t think we should expect anything on Snyder for a while. About the only thing one could expect would be SCOTUS to grant certiorari for hearing in the Fall (October) session. Personally, I think they will take the case once they get the Solicitor General response.

        –AJ

  23. ReadyToFight

    Mike r and Steve, what is the class action for again? In what state? Thanks.

    • steve

      I think Vicki is in MO and she mentioned 8th circuit but that could have changed.

      • AJ

        Yes, WAR’s mailing address is Arnold, MO, a south suburb/exurb of St. Louis. Lord knows MO needs some bitch-slapping!

        –AJ

  24. mike r

    thank you Steve..I don’t understand why she didn’t email me back the last couple of times like she did before but ok. from what I was told the suit will be attacking the core elements of the registry and the recidivism issue directly. I hope it happens she said way back in May or June of last year and again in September and then February which was the last I heard from her that there was a complete legal team working on it..so I really hope that they bring a cognitively sound arguments…

  25. The Unforgiven

    My annual was the first week of Jan. Just had my first ‘compliance check’ of the year a few minutes ago. Two officers requested that I step out of a security door so they could ‘see’ who they were speaking with. I did acknowledge that I was who they were asking for. I told them that I am refusing to sign the paperwork as it is not part of 290. They asked if they could see my face more clearly. I put my face closer to the screen door. Officer commented on me shaving, lol. Same officer mentioned that they would keep coming back so they could figure out who I am, and if I live at the address. They come anyways. Other officer asked for my birth date, I provided that. For more clarification, someone else answered the door so I had to at least address the officers and I haven’t been on probation for years. Unbelievable how I get all worked up and my adrenaline fires up every time this happens and how long it takes for me to calm down.

    • James

      ” Unbelievable how I get all worked up and my adrenaline fires up…”

      You reaction is not unbelievable at all…I would suggest that such a response is entirely normal.

      This is a threatening situation!

      As nice as the police can be at times, (and they have been for me, by in large), they do not mean you well…in my opinion.

      Actually, I don’t even open the door anymore…

      Let them think I am not home….or at least this is my attitude…I wish you well.

      Stay strong,

      James

      • The Unforgiven

        Thank you, of course, for your words. It does come off as an interrogation at times. It is a little fascinating watching the ‘politeness’ of an officer totally disappear when you don’t comply with their wishes of these ‘compliance checks’.

    • AJ

      @TheUnforgiven
      Were I you, I wouldn’t answer any of their questions beyond what is legally required. Depending on your state, that may be nothing unless arrested, or it may require identifying yourself–though I doubt you need to do so when inside your own home. You can then politely inform them that you don’t answer questions without assistance of legal counsel, then stare at them. They’ll continue to try to get you to answer something, ANYthing, but either repeat your statement about legal counsel, or just continue to stare at them. (If they get snippy, you can always add that you’re not refusing to answer questions, but will refrain from such until assisted by legal counsel.) They’ll get bored with that and leave eventually. But never EVER invite them in and never EVER step across the threshold of your domicile!

      Without any sort of reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause (a higher standard), they cannot do anything. They cannot peek in your windows, they cannot walk around the property, etc.

      –AJ

      • steve

        I think everyone in California should seriously think about what they say to the cops during a check. Remember they are going to have their two cents thrown in when it comes time for them to submit your paperwork if the tier registry happens. I am going to comply and be as helpful to them as they want to an extent…for now. (As much as I don’t like it)

        • Lake County

          I would absolutely love it it I was denied relief from the registry just because local cops said that I had not cooperated with non required compliance checks. Especially after years of being a law abiding citizen. I would definitely contest that issue all the way to the CA Supreme Court if I had to. It might go a long way to establish that compliance checks can’t be imposed upon us. However I don’t believe a DA would be so stupid to use that against us without a legal basis or that the court would punish us for not cooperating with something that is not required by law. They’ll have to find a better excuse than that to deny us.

        • David Kennerly, Thought Criminal

          That is contrary to the advice that is given by criminal defense attorneys. In one’s eagerness to appear helpful, getting chatty with the police is a really bad idea.

          • steve

            There are ways to be helpful without being over done. Where did I say be chatty? You can be stupid if you want your choice. All it takes is one of them to write that you are angry and a problem and you could be denied.

  26. Political Prisoner

    So now the Police are a protected class of people?
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/a1cd10aa-c482-3bcf-b8de-edfba0bf54ef/ss_ny-senate-passes-bill-to.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

  27. New Person

    I’m really curious here. State law cannot be more burdensome than Federal law. So in the 2003 Smith v Doe case, in one of the seven factors why registration is not punitive, but regulatory write this:


    Although the public availability of the information may have a lasting and painful impact on the convicted sex offender, these consequences flow not from the Act’s registration and dissemination provisions, but from the fact of conviction, already a matter of public record. The State makes the facts underlying the offenses and the resulting convictions accessible so members of the public can take the precautions they deem necessary before dealing with the registrant.

    Here, the SCOTUS is stating specifically that only convictions need be disseminated. That is its only requirement to be on the registry – or have your information disseminated. The emphasis is on “… but from the fact of conviction.” cements that only convictions qualify for this scheme.

    In California, some registrants can earn a 1203.4 case dismissal. This means your conviction is set aside. But laws in California negate the removal of all penalties and disabilities provision provided in 1203.4, specifically for all registrants to continue to register, which is a penalty. And according to the SCOTUS, penalties can mean either punitive or regulatory.

    A case dismissal is no longer public record because you were never convicted. It is a fact that I am no longer convicted, but I am forced to continue to participate in continuance to disseminate my information. In essence, my privacy is no longer public, but I’m forced to register my privacy to still be public. Well, this runs contrary to what the SCOTUS has written and is the pinnacle of the regulatory scheme – the dissemination of your information (or private information/privacy) to be public.

    I want to know if a case can be set forth that California is superseding Federal law in forcing those persons who no longer have convictions to continue to participate in the regulatory scheme, as specifically set forth in the 2003 Smith v Doe decision, to which I quoted verbatim.

    Also, that California is not following it’s own statute in its own Constitution that its citizens have an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Remember, the registry is the dissemination of public information. A case dismissal makes your case no longer public. Recall, SCOTUS defined penalties to be punitive or regulatory in nature – which is why you can still be punished for breaking a regulatory punishment. A 1203.4 grants the removal of all penalties and disabilities stemming from the conviction. Yet, California has removed this venue of pursuing and obtaining privacy, which is supposed to be protected by the California Constitution. Registration is a penalty, as defined by the SCOTUS as well as defined by previous case law in California that allowed the removal from registration with 1203.4.

    So with this IML, it requires only those who have to register. Welp, since the IML is a federal law, then I really want the federal statute stated in 2003 Smith v Doe upheld that only convictions participate in the regulatory scheme of dissemination of information b/c it is “in fact NOT A CONVICTION” when a case is dismissed.

    You can’t have two different laws conflicting when there’s a federal law stemming from the two conflicting laws. According to the 2003 Smith v Doe decision, I should not be part of the regulatory scheme so that I am not part of the IML. California is forcing me to register despite my conviction no longer exists. So who wins? Federal Law or California law? Or am I wasting my time with this notions that the 2003 Smith v Doe decision specifically stated that only convictions are to take part in the regulatory penalty scheme?

    • Chris F

      @New Person

      Unfortunately, the Attorney General was illegally granted the power to define the terms the legislature created in SORNA guidelines, and he chose to “re-define” “CONVICTED” to mean if you were convicted OR plead guilty or no contest regardless of final disposition in the case. This was of course, an illegal delegation of power to the executive branch. In addition, the Attorney General illegally decided to make SORNA retroactive.

      See the AMAZING dissent written by our new SCOTUS justice on an old case here:

      http://library.law.virginia.edu/gorsuchproject/u-s-v-nichols/

  28. someone who cares

    I think I mentioned this a few times, but nobody seems to ever have an answer. How hard would it be for someone to gather all the cases of sex crimes and then figure out how many of these crimes were committed by someone on the registry? That should be the only way to figure recidivism rates rather than making up lies and false statistics. It seems pretty cut and dry to me?

    • Lake County

      It would be very hard to do. You would have to do a background check on everyone who committed a sex crime. Very expensive and time consuming. That’s why studies are limited to a set number of people who have committed their first crime and then their criminal status is checked every so often for a set number of years depending on how long that study is funded for.

  29. Eric Knight

    And here we go with one of the most blatant conflict of interest stories in the country. A man who runs a polygraph company is on the Colorado Sex Offender Treatment Board. Seriously??

    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/14/polygrapher-conflict-of-interest/

    • New Person

      while we aren’t producing cotton to create revenue, the stigma that we’re monsters does create a lot of revenue. this being a prime example of corruption to make monies off of our backs, both literally and figuratively.

      oh hey, the judges and DA’s are supposed to be involved with petitioning off of the registry in the tier proposal right? how can 10,000 get off the registry without a petition and the rest do? doesn’t make sense and isn’t fair.

  30. David

    If the Registry makes it to the Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch may he a dark horse in the outcome, standing by his own opinion even if it opposes the majority (or public opinion?): http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/13/528273942/middle-schooler-arrested-for-burping-appeals-armed-with-gorsuch-dissent

    • AJ

      @David
      So much for SCOTUS supporting the citizen over the State, re: burping teenager case. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-burping-idUSKCN18B1QY)

      “In her appeal to the Supreme Court, the teen’s mother said Acosta should have known that New Mexico law clearly establishes that arrests of school children must be reserved for violent offenses or when other students are at risk of harm.”

      So I guess ignorance of the law IS an excuse…if you’re a LEO? We no longer live in a rational society, folks. (I know, no surprise from this forum!)

      –AJ

      • Ignorance is bliss...if you are a LEO

        Supreme Court Says Ignorance Of The Law Is An Excuse — If You’re A Cop

        https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-says-ignorance-of-the-law-is-an-excuse-if-youre-a-cop-d8bdb99987f1

        There are other citations similar to this outcome online

        • New Person

          This is scary.

        • AJ

          Scary doesn’t even start to describe this. So now SCOTUS has added a threshold even lower than probable cause. Now we have “investigatory stop” as a way for LEOs to snoop around “just because.”

          I truly miss the country that existed when I was growing up. I feel sadness for the generation coming of age who think this is all normal and proper.

          I think it’s time to start seriously scouring the globe for a country where a guy actually has a right or two.

          –AJ

    • Chris F

      I don’t see Justice Gorsuch as a dark horse. In this case, he was only one of 3 judges, so dissenting isn’t a big deal.

      I see this as a positive for our issues. He says that judges usually should just hold up stupid laws because legislature created them with the support of the people. But then he says he won’t do that, and dissents.

      If any Sex Offender cases get before him, I would hope there is some challenge to “Bill of Attainder” as a part of it that specifically calls out the judiciary to fulfill its role to keep legislature in check and prevent laws written against a hated and politically powerless group.

      It wouldn’t take much, in any case against Sex Offenders, to demonstrate that legislature is reacting to false fears of the public and that the only solution if for the Judiciary to keep them in check and not use the lame excuse to leave laws to the legislature no matter how stupid or unconstitutional. The problem is, most lawyers won’t point that out and judges will use any excuse to ignore that and rule against us.

    • Jack

      Gorsuch, like Scalia, is a fascist lunatic. He will never vote in our favor. Ever.

      • Chris F

        If Gorsuch is bad for us, please show me the cases and results.

        In this one, he dissents the majority to rule in favor of a Sex Offender:

        http://library.law.virginia.edu/gorsuchproject/u-s-v-nichols/

        Based on his lengthy reasons, he is the type of Justice that sides with the way the framers of the Constitution meant it to be interpreted and sites the federalist papers. That’s exactly what we need to stop the “trial by legislature” position we are in, where the legislature has diminished the power of judges with this separate system of registration that mimics parole and probation but without constitutional considerations and judges discretion. I believe he will stand up against legislature, and not cower from it like most judges we’ve seen.

        • Jack

          @ Christ F, I regret to inform you that Gorsuch happened to be describing a case that went to the supreme court and the supreme court actually agreed with his dissent. However, the problem in Lunsford’s case was corrected by the International Megan’s law, which as we know is a republican bill, invented by Chris Smith who is also, a Trump voter. So no, I’m afraid in spite of the Lunsford case, we have nothing to gain by having Gorsuch on the court, or any republican, (Fascist) for that matter.

          • Chris F

            Well, it’s not like Democrats have voted pro-sex offender that I’ve seen.

            I’ve read many opinions like this one:

            http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318565-could-court-pick-gorsuch-be-a-crypto-liberal-conservatives

            So for me I would rather take my chances with a Justice known to follow general principals of fairness and that rules with the US Constitution in the ways referenced in the Federalist Papers as opposed to most modern judges that think the original ideas behind the protections don’t apply now. He has no reason to be loyal to Republican’s and doesn’t strike me as the type to do that.

            Time will tell.

            • David Kennerly, Thought Criminal

              I agree. We need to get past this idea that Democrats – or Republicans – are our friends while recognizing that Republican lawmakers have been worse for us than the Democrats. We have to consider judges and justices individually based upon their historical jurisprudence and judicial philosophies and regard for individual liberties vs. majoritarian tyranny.

              In considering both Gorsuch and Obama’s candidate, Merrick Garland, it is clear that we should prefer Gorsuch and count ourselves lucky for not having been subjected to Garland.

              Nevertheless, with very little to go on in terms of “sex offender” rulings, it remains to be seen if Gorsuch will emerge as a critical challenger to these horrendous laws.

              All we can do is to wait and to hope.

            • AJ

              @Chris F
              +1.
              I think Gorsuch is very attuned to the need to hold back the Government from citizens and the freedoms and rights in the Declaration and Constitution. Even if he’s currently leaning slightly right, he’ll probably drift a bit left as almost every justice does once seated a few years. Even Justice Thomas has, if you read some of his recent comments and also separate opinions he writes every now and then.

              I don’t know that there are (m)any pro-RC politicians to be found anywhere, regardless of their political leanings.

              –AJ

  31. New Person

    As I was trying too look up COR exclusions, I found a worksheet from Sacramento Public Law Library.
    Link: http://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sbs-certificate-of-rehabilitation.pdf

    The headline of the pdf worksheet is this: “Cleaning up Felony Convictions when Expungement is Not Available”

    Well, that doesn’t make sense to me. On the face, it means the COR is for those who can’t earn the 1203.4. But if you’re a registrant, the 1203.4 doesn’t really mean much and you need the COR to possibly not register.

    I don’t understand why the law isn’t treating registrants equally for the 1203.4 and/or 17b? I point to the firearms people – once they have their charge reduced to a misdemeanor, then they get their rights to bear arms again. Registrants don’t get their rights to obtain privacy at that same level of law?

    What’s the point of giving out 1203.4 when it essentially does nothing to change the outlook for a registrant? In California, the govt loves to require licenses to get a job. If you’re trying to apply for any job that involves possessing a license, then they can question you about a charge or arrest. Those types of jobs can bypass asking you about prior convictions. (I read this recently on what an expungement does or doesn’t do.)

    Essentially, it seems as though the state is purposely creating a barrier for registrants to have equal opportunities for jobs. I would like to clean my record, but it appears there’s actually no way to do it sooner than via COR and a Pardon – which is a decade’s worth of waiting.

    • Chris F

      Texas allows felonies with deferred adjudications to have their record sealed after 5 years, but then they came back and added that you can’t for ANY registerable offence, no matter how minor.

      Why do these types of things never trigger “equal protection” and “Bill of Attainder” type challenges?

      The government is allowed to treat people in different situations differently, but not when there isn’t a real justification for it.

  32. Chris F

    To everyone that has researched our new SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch:

    Have you read his dissent in this older Sex Offender case?

    http://library.law.virginia.edu/gorsuchproject/u-s-v-nichols/

    Shouldn’t the same argument as to why SORNA shouldn’t have been allowed to be retro-active be able to be applied to how SORNA applies to those with Deferred Adjudication???

    Based on Gorsuch’s reasoning, it sounds to me like the Legislature should not have been able to delegate the authority to the Attorney General to either make all of SORNA apply retroactively, or to re-define “CONVICTED” to mean pleading no contest or guilty even though the case gets dismissed as not convicted. What am I missing here?

    @Mike R, there are lots of good references in this article for use in your filing. Please read it!

    I think Neil Gorsuch is just what we needed on SCOTUS.

    To quote Gorsuch: “If the separation of powers means anything, it must mean that the prosecutor isn’t allowed to define the crimes he gets to enforce. Yet, that’s precisely the arrangement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act purports to allow in this case and a great many more like it.”

    • AJ

      “'[a]bdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.’ Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 452 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring)”

      Someone should alert SCOTUS to their own words regarding abdication.

      “And might not that concern take on special prominence today, in an age when federal law contains so many crimes – and so many created by executive regulation – that scholars no longer try to keep count and actually debate their number?”

      This phrase, to me, shows Gorsuch’s libertarian bent. He really seems to be a student of James Madison in a lot of ways.

      –AJ

  33. Lake County

    Law protects Palo Alto H.S. student convicted for sexual assault:
    http://www.ktvu.com/news/2-investigates/253927812-story

    IDK, so where is this kid supposed to go to school? The State is required to teach him.

  34. Lake County

    California Licenses-Real ID story
    http://www.bakersfield.com/ap/state/correction-california-licenses-real-id-story/article_71179b62-16bd-5b7b-bdaf-7290f73de085.html

    This real ID requirement has been talked about before a few months ago on this site because everyone will soon be required to get the new ID for all airline travel. Of course the newer passports are already compliant. Everyone getting the new DL or ID card is required to apply at DMV in person. No through the mail or internet applications.

  35. Broken

    I met with my probation officer yesterday. For some reason, he is either too stupid to remember my situation, or just doesn’t give a damn.
    Because of my felony, I can no longer work ANYWHERE in my profession. Mandatory fingerprinting has made my working life a distant memory.
    My P.O., in his infinite stupidity, has “suggested” that I start another “occupation”.
    This ordeal has left my broke. I am in my 50s, and his suggestion is a “new path”. My “program” therapist keeps repeating the same shit, like “have hope”, and ” it’s only a few more months on probation”. Are they both so ignorant that they think I can’t tell they are only worried how if I off myself , how it would affect their job record.
    Isolation is a normal life now.
    I am not looking for or expecting a future. I only wish the end to be comforting and peaceful. There is no longer a feeling of hopelessness, but more an acceptance of the enevitable.
    I read about death, and If you just accept it, then what does it matter when it comes, because it will come.

    • Chris F

      I’ve specifically seen determined people in your situation minimize their expenses and lifestyle, start over, and build up to almost where they used to be over 5-10 years.

      I’ve seen them start their own knife/scissors sharpening on-site business, become a well tipped waiter in a Steakhouse, become a vet’s assistant at a pet-hospital, become a top earning car salesman at a Lexus dealer, and start their own web design business.

      Of course, I’ve also seen a few give up and purposefully break rules on probation to go to prison for 10 years knowing that when they get out they’ll be old enough to collect social security.

      It’s all up to you, any family/friends you retained through all this, and any support you can get from church or other groups to get help if possible.

      I’m in the same place you are and haven’t found my new niche yet. I’m still hopeful though. I’m giving writing a try.

      Thankfully, even with the S.O. label, I can still go into a restaurant, bar, or barber and be talked to and treated like any other person. They haven’t branded my forehead yet…but maybe they’ll still try to do that someday if we give up the fight.

    • Harry

      Dear Broken, as a follow Registrant and as most on this site, do understand your depression. However, your PO did give you some good advice, “has ‘suggested’ that I start another ‘occupation'”. Col. Sanders was 62 years old when he started KFC. So get out of the gutter, get on your knees, than get to your feet and step out in to something. The quicker you do this the better and start making lemonade out of your lemons.

  36. MatthewLL

    Let’s all give Anthony Wiener a warm welcome to our ranks and issue him a membership card to the Registered Sex Offender club. Surely he voted in Congress for Adam Walsh, now he can enjoy the fruits of his labor.

    • Robert

      And today Anthony Weiner plead guilty to Federal Obscenity charges for sending picks of his gonads to a 15 year old girl. And NOW he has to also register as a sex offender. I find it so laughable that Weiner told the judge that the sex offender registry is stupid. And he was one of the idiot politicians who helped push through the Adam Walsh Act. Let’s see how he likes his name on the states SOR website now when he had no problem with other people’s name on it. I am still LMAO !!!!!

      • MatthewLL

        I am not sure Anthony will show up on the public registry in NY. From the state FAQ website. http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/nsor/faq.htm

        “When an incarcerated offender is set to be released into the community, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders will evaluate the case and provide a risk level recommendation to the court. The court will hold a risk level hearing and assign a level to the offender prior to release. The risk level determines how much information can be provided to the community.”

        • Nondescript

          I don’t think it’s going to matter much if he is or isn’t posted on a public registry. Everyone knows who he is and what he’s convicted of anyways. There is no escape for him. He is a nitwit for sure, but he probably also has some serious addiction/ mental problems.

      • Lake County

        The Adam Walsh Act was passed by the House of Representatives by voice vote so no record of individual votes was made. But I would assume he voted for it to pass.

    • AJ

      Though I doubt it, perhaps this can provide a smidgen of traction within government. “Carlos Danger” is certainly a pariah, but his ex is still a BFF of HRC (and no, Michael, I’m not a misogynist, either). Again, slim chance, but one can hope and pray that it may make someone stop for a second and look at the ridiculous scheme ML is.

      –AJ

  37. Contact your Rep.

    The reauthorization of the AWA is scheduled for the House this coming week. Time to contact your member of Congress and let her/him know you urge her/him to vote no. If I recall correctly, the same sponsor (Sensenbrenner of WI) failed last Congress, but things are a bit more “rabid” now than then.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1188

    –AJ

  38. Lake County

    This is a five year old article, but I’m posting it because I hadn’t heard about this and wasn’t sure if everyone else had known of this gaming ban by many social gaming sites.

    2,100 more sex offenders banned from online games:

    https://www.gamespot.com/articles/2100-more-sex-offenders-banned-from-online-games/1100-6401753/

    • AJ

      “‘The Internet is the crime scene of the 21st century, and we must ensure that online video game platforms do not become a digital playground for dangerous predators,’ Schneiderman said in a statement. ‘That means doing everything possible to block sex offenders from using gaming systems as a vehicle to prey on underage victims.'”

      What a moron. Yeah, playing online games is how and where grooming and enticement occurs, right ahead of posting comments in blogs. Unless/until SCOTUS strikes down NC’s stupid law, I think I’m going to call this type of knee-jerk, headline-grabbing activity, “The Packingham Principle.”

      Mr. Schneiderman fits the gist of this quote:
      “Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.”
      ― Rick Cook, The Wizardry Compiled

      Or another way I’ve heard it is, “you can’t make anything idiot-proof, because nature keeps making better idiots.”

      –AJ

  39. ml

    Well I welcome all high profile additions to the Price Club. They often have some money and connections that may prove valuable. I guarantee his ex has some extremely powerful friends.

    • Timmr

      Don’t bet on it. So did Foley and Hastert. Where are they now with that money and influence?
      More likely they will spend their effort to claim they are ‘not one of those’ kinds of sex offenders.

  40. bluewall

    I feel depressed… and sickened… So a friend showed me my Megan info… They finally updated my photo… but no dates or anything.. just my crimes… Not saying they are now over 15 years old… just those lines are blank… I thought it was suppose to change that people can see its been years..
    but its not… California

  41. mike r

    Just imagine that you had to wake up every day for the rest of your life knowing that you would go to prison for three or more years, not for committing a crime, but for any number of things that normal people do every day for some stupid mistake you made almost 15 years ago even after you already lost everything that you owned, your good job, all your vehicles and family photos, while you went to prison for three years and then spent three more years on the most intensive parole supervision that you can imagine while being forced into homelessness because of all the restrictions placed on you at the time. That’s not to mention that you couldn’t have any contact with your own son for five years except over the phone. Well, I don’t have to imagine because this is reality for me.
    Imagine waking up every day knowing that you would go to prison for three or more years if you do any of the following for the rest of your life. If you don’t report personal info to the government within five days of your birthday for the rest of your life. If you don’t report within three days if you change your phone #, borrow someone’s car, rent a car, move, stay anywhere for more than 5 days, plan to leave the state for more than 5 days, that you intend to leave the country for any time and report at least 21 days before leaving and giving your complete schedule-where you are going exactly-what plane you are taking-what hotel you will be staying at-what car you may rent- when you’re coming back- just to name a few and then being denied entry into most other countries because your government notifies them that you are a danger to their country even though you’re not. If that isn’t good enough you get a big red stamp on your passport like the Germans did to the Jews during the holocaust.

    Then imagine that you can’t attend any of your grandchild’s school play or events, can’t participate in any of his sporting events such as T-ball or anything else that’s in a zone that the government says you are not allowed in. That you are not allowed to visit certain places such as national parks or monuments, state parks and beaches, certain restaurants or any # of other places the government says you can’t go to. Once again this is just to name a few of the things that I WILL go back to prison for if I get caught doing any of these things or a huge list of other things that to lengthy to list here.

    All of this because you made one huge mistake nearly 15 years ago and that you were already severely punished for and you just want to move on with your life.

    On top of all that imagine having to face every day for the rest of your life knowing that every time you or your family members walk out of your house or apt. that there’s a 50/50 chance that someone will either try to physically attack you or verbally threaten you or you find your vehicles damaged or shit written all over your porch for all your neighbors to see.

    Well I don’t have to imagine all that because this is what I face every day I wake up and will continue to for the rest of my life unless I get some help and do something about it myself because no one else will.
    This can’t continue. Go look at my post on shackled for life to see how you can help. If we allow the government to take away rights of others without any consequences then no one is safe, and you may be next!!Look, Ca is already trying to take away all your gun rights and have actually created a law that states that everyone with a more than ten round magazine must destroy them or turn them into the government which just made hundreds of thousands of California’s criminals because as of now no one, not one person has turned in any clips and the people I know never will. Their also are taxing the h…. out of us all with gas taxes, cigarette taxes, DMV taxes and still all our schools, roads, and infrastructure is just growing worse daily to where you can’t even drive down the road without hitting huge potholes and our schools so outdated and in disrepair that you wouldn’t house your dog in such places, all while the politicians are stuffing their pockets. Lawmakers are out of control and it’s going to get worse if someone doesn’t take a stand.

  42. kind of living

    someone please give me some info , I live in Kern county Ca and need to find out IF I was to buy a small piece of land in the middle of no where that has nothing on it and with no address on the land , then moved an RV on it and moved in. would a GPS on the land be enough to use as an address on price club day ? GPS and paper work on the land of course , thank you for any feed back , Off Grid is what I am looking at

    • C

      Are you asking if GPS ccordinates would satisfy the Price Club? Great question and good luck.

      You might check with Building and Safety for the area, or whoever issues building permits. We bought some land in a semi-rural area and they won’t let you live in an RV on your property until you have a building permit. This prevents a neighborhood full of RVs instead of nice homes.

      • kind of living

        C the stuff I am looking at you can live RV , there are people out there doing just that I am just unclear about the price club , thank you for getting back to me , hope to hear from you again

        • AJ

          @kind of living
          Wouldn’t the indigent/homeless rules apply? There must be a section of the code that addresses those who don’t have addresses. It may require more frequent reporting, though, depending on your state of residence. That you’re willing to geo-locate your habitual location while without a permanent address can only play in your favor. But maybe in their stupidity, I can see them refusing the aid of the GPS coords.

          –AJ

          • kind of living

            not really sure , I don’t think its the same if you own the land , if your homeless I think you have to come in more often???, if the GPS And paper work is enough to satisfy them , then everything would be all good , If that makes any since , lol

    • Lake County

      kind of living

      It would be the same as homeless camping. You would need to register every 30 days like any other homeless Registered Citizen. An RV on unimproved land, especially without an address, would never be considered a real residence. There are many other things to consider too; is the property zoned for a residential? Does it have a legal septic system? Most Counties have very strict rules on where you can live in an RV and the State of California has strict rules on this that all Counties must follow. California has especially strict rules regarding RV’s and mobile homes. Just because you’ve seen others getting away with living in an non-permitted RV on unimproved property, it doesn’t make it legal and you will likely get added scrutiny due to your status. Call your county building and planning department before investing money on property that will likely get red-tagged by living on it without permits. All counties make a majority of their income from property taxes and permit fees on improved properties.

      I just looked at Kern County’s Rules on land use and permits. Kern County has just as strict laws on where you can live in a RV, as every other county in CA. I would not advise you to do this as law enforcement will be conducting compliance checks on you, especially as you will be designated as homeless and it will be likely that the Sheriff will notify the Planning, Zoning, Building and Health Departments of your illegal occupancy on this property. Some people might get away with doing this without the required permits (until the County is notified), but it is unlikely that a registrant who is visited by the Sheriff will get away with this at all. When you are living on a property without the proper permits, you are not paying the proper amount of taxes that pay County employee’s wages (like the Sheriff).

      I see people in my county that try to do this without permits, but eventually they get caught and the property is red-tagged. If you don’t follow the red-tag, the County will then start to place daily fines onto your property. Eventually the county will hire someone to remove the RV and clean up the property and place these exaggerated costs with a lien on the property. And lastly the County will sell your property to pay off all liens and fines.

  43. C

    Oh, how I’d LOVE to see Tony Rackauckas go down in flames…

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-oc-spitzer-rackauckas-20170522-story.html

  44. ReadyToFight

    Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
    The surface has been scratched. It’s everyone’s job to fan the flames before it’s swept under the rug. Thanks for the post C

  45. AJ

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/19/new-laws-force-drug-users-into-rehab-against-their-will

    Hmm…sound familiar? I’m sure it’s merely “regulation” or “for the kids” or “public safety” or some other platitude. The extreme abuse of power under the guise of civil regulation continues to spread. Hopefully courts start to realize and rein it in before it’s too late–getting there quickly, IMHO.

    –AJ

  46. T

    Doesn’t it seem that the sex offender registry is the most effective method for US mass incarceration which is a problem? there are all sorts of SOR laws that are being passed have made it incredibly difficult for registrants to live by in order to change their lives. The more these laws are getting passed, the more difficulties a registrants will have and the recidivism rate will rise only because a registrant is left with nothing and in destitute and no choice but to go back to prison, while the public is conditioned to the myth through media of registrants being the most evil people and that they can never seek help to change their lives around.

    • Timmr

      And then there are the registrants’ children. It’s ending up like the drug cycle, parents thrown in jail, spouses forced to support themselves and their children, and they grow up with little options besides crime. Registrants are not only set in an environment that may lead them back to committing a sex crime, but more certainly set in circumstance where to survive one has to engage in other crimes. And the sins of the fathers will be levied on their children. The US is the great criminal manufacturing plant of the world. That Antionette in the White House and the theives in Congress, cut whatever funding that helps the poor while gorging on caviar at Mar Lago. Let them eat beautiful chocolate cake as the bombs fly. Enjoy it while their heads are still above water. Nonetheless, the masses will continue to be content with lowering wages and the ongoing sex offender witch hunt. I think it is time for registrants to weigh in.

  47. j

    So in California you have to ‘have good reasons’ to ask to off probation early. If I say that I need the ability to travel to Europe for my job would the judge say “with IML and Angel Watch they probably wouldn’t let you in anyway so that’s not a good reason”?

    I have traveled to Europe several times for my job before this so this need isn’t out of the question.

    • Lake County

      j

      I would just say you need to often travel out of state for your job. No reason to even mention travel to Europe. Mention how not being allowed to travel will likely cause you to loose your job or limit your income and how this effects your family. In your request, mention how you have learned from your mistake, therapy received, the changes you’ve made in your life that will keep you from offending again. Mention your connections with family especially immediate family and the reasons why you being off probation will also benefit your family. And lastly explain the things you will continue to do after probation to improve your life and be a benefit to society. Keep your letter simple but complete with the above info. Don’t go into a long rant and don’t blame anyone else, especially the system, for your situation or probation limitations. Also show proof that you have paid all court fines, probation fees and any restitution ordered.

      Good luck.

  48. DLP

    Does anyone know if when you travel by air domestically, whether the airline or security know you are a RO when you provide your drivers license for ID?

    Thank you

    • Tired Of Hiding

      Yes of course they know. Your name, ss#, address on file (always current since you must register where you like or face felony charge), driver’s license # are all tied together in a cross matrix database. All travelers are run through various databases when they are ticketed…the no fly list for example, also wanted felons, and of course RSOs.

      Domestically, unless you are in violation of the sex offenders rules and they have issued a warrant for your arrest you should not encounter anything with the status.

      International travel is a whole different story.

  49. AJ

    Sounds like a few of the thin-blue-liners are missing out on being Price Club members:

    http://reason.com/archives/2017/05/25/cops-fight-for-the-right-to-sexually-exp

    Tough job, being a vice cop.

    –AJ

  50. Chris F

    I saw this amusing article today and it got me thinking:

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/11-year-old-claims-classroom-punishment-violates-geneva-convention%E2%80%94and-she%E2%80%99s-right-kind-of/ar-BBBwPtK?li=BBnbcA0

    How much of S.O. Registration and the laws against us actually violate the Geneva Convention as well?

    It seems to me, especially things like IML would violate it. You aren’t supposed to punish the masses for the actions of a few, and that’s exactly what IML does to the letter. It’s also what residency restrictions do, and restrictions on employment. It’s hard to find what part doesn’t violate it.

    • AJ

      @Chris F
      Too funny! I’ve mulled over a number of UN treaties and such that are almost assuredly being violated, but in the end it’s probably moot. SCOTUS has previously ruled the Constitution supercedes any international agreement. So even though our President and the Senate may decide something is super-great (certain civil liberties come to mind), if it’s contrary to the Constitution, we get none of it.

      –AJ

  51. MS

    Four middle school kids facing CP charges. Another example of how giving your kids “Smart” phones can be really dumb.

    http://www.tbreporter.com/crime/juveniles-facing-child-pornography-charges-hillsborough-sheriff/

    Minors have been having sex for let’s see, um thousands of years, and now we will ruin your life if you ever possess any physical evidence (pics, videos) of it.

    Whenever I get a compliance visit…I always wonder how many of them are unregistered sex offenders (like how many of them had sex with somebody under the age of 18 when lets say they were 18 or 19).
    Also wonder how many of them have teenagers with smart phones with CP on them.

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 *