ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459
Date: Sept 26, Time: 5 pm PT – New Tiered Registry Law

Monthly Meetings

Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

General News

General Comments July 2017

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

Join the discussion

  1. AJ (to mike r & Chris F mostly)

    Here’s a Stanford Law Review article about Bills of Attainder. It has some dry spots, but also has some good rationale and citations (case law, Federalist Papers, etc).

    The Stanford author also makes reference to some work by a gentlemman named Akhil Reed Amar. Here’s that link (I have yet to read this paper):

    • Jtc

      Good info RJ…good olace also to post info to help others that maybe new too.

  2. 647.6 on Web or not?

    Can anyone comment on whether a misdemeanor 647.6 would be listed on the web with the tiered bill? I’ve read it multiple times and can’t figure it out. A single misdemeanor of 647.6 is listed as a tier one offense. However, under the tier two Internet listing, it mentions 647.6. It reads as though it’s all 647.6 convictions. The only thing I’m not certain of is because it reads as though it could be interpreted as though you must be a tier two and have a 647.6 conviction to be listed. Has anyone got confirmation on this or more clear on it than I am? Thanks.

  3. Anonymous Nobody

    There is an article in today’s Los Angeles Times about federal law on housing discrimination, and while they were not talking specifically about registrants, it certainly appears that as federal law and regulations for all intents and purposes bar housing discrimination against all people with a criminal record, that would apply to sex offenders. While the article was talking about policies or actions by condo home owners associations for renting or selling, as well as other landlords, as it explained the law, it would seem it would reach to any state or local laws that limit where registrants can live.

    Why in all these years that we have been complaining about this housing discrimination against registrants have I never heard of this argument?! HUD has established a three-prong test that virtually no housing provider can meet in order to justify the discrimination. Why have these residency restrictions not been challenged on the basis of failing to meet that three-prong test? I note, the story even specifically states that you can not justify them on the basis of stereotypes — and I need not explain that word any further here, we all know we suffer that.

    This is another reason why even the new name of this group, and any such focus, is greatly misguided, as the Constitution is not the only thing that matters. And this federal law and regulation is an example of other things we can use (as well as just plain common decency, regardless of law!) Laws against us are NOT OK simply because they might meet Constitutional muster.

    • New Person

      Call me a cynic, but I’m sure that afterwards, they’ll change something to the effect that it will still exclude registrants just like when the sheriffs decided that every jailed person gets an early out except registrant – although, the law never made such an exclusion.

      A registrant cannot get HUD assistance. See, we’re already discriminated by HUD.

    • kind of living

      @Anoymous Nobody ,,, you right , my family and my self ran into this some year ago with HUD , what drag that was , because we are still running in to the same problem with all housing , its all bad here and where I live we have a lot of trouble being able to save money to be able to move on , but where ? this sucks we want out of town where we belong , but even out in the cut we cant find one that will let us in

  4. BAM

    As i stated previously. I would come back and give you guys an update of me being able to Cruise with Royal Caribbean Cruise lines. They accepted me to go finally. If any one who is going to cruise, I believe that you can cruise anywhere but Mexico and Canada. Its the recieving port that will turn you away instead of the Cruise lines if it doesnt allow registrants. It appears that the Cruise lines are turning us down, however, If the port doesnt allow registrants, the cruise line will refuse you as well. I got in contact with the cruise lines before I was ready to book my cruise. The security department explained to me what i had to do if I wanted to cruise being a registrant. You have to let the sheriff department know that you are going and give them a 21 day notice of where you are cruising to and provide proof of it to the security department. You also have to give a brief statement inregards to your case ( what did you get in trouble for) pc codes , what have you done to rehabilitate yourself, have you had any counseling etc. Most of us registrants have had some counseling at some point. This is some positive feed back. A step in the right direction.

    • AJ

      Thanks for the update on your trip, and congrats on a successful trip! From your posting, it sounds as thought 1) the cruise line is individually assessing RCs–something it would sure be nice for the govt. to do, and 2) they don’t want any problems dealing with countries where RCs are unwelcome. One cannot blame them for wanting to keep things running smoothly with the countries, nor can one blame them for wanting to avoid any possible media fallout if there’s a “dust up” at a port of call.

      Heartening news.

      • E

        I appreciate this thought but it would be horrifying if airlines started doing the same thing (avoiding flying passengers who might have an issue with entry at the receiving country).

      • Joe

        @AJ – “the cruise line is individually assessing RCs” and “Heartening news.”

        No, no no. NO! It is NOT up to Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, or any other business, to assess a, any, paying customer. Keeping in mind they would not feel compelled to do so for the child killer. No no, NO.

        @BAM – I have been on one cruise. Was invited. Do not think I will go again, even if invited. Certainly will NEVER go again if having to pay. ABSOLUTELY would not go if I had to relive my past and throw myself on their (whose, exactly?) mercy for being able to spend my hard-earned money like any citizen, any criminal, would. There is simply nothing more off-putting than that.

        I have been on countless foreign vacations on my own. Had a blast on most. Why anyone would go on a cruise when they could spend twice the time, have twice the fun, at half the cost, is beyond me – even without these obscene hoops to jump through. For anyone to do so when they have to explain, dare I say grovel, about their past – for which they have “paid their debt to society” – I will never understand.

        My 2 cents. Enjoy your vacation….

        • AJ

          The heartening news has nothing to do with comparing to another ex-offender or anything else. It’s heartening that there’s not a blanket dismissal of people *based on a risk assessment.* Sorry, I won’t change my thought or opinion: ANY improvement in how a RC is received by the public, the government or a business is indeed heartening news to me. Anyone waiting for an “all or none” outcome may be disappointed.

          “It is NOT up to Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, or any other business, to assess a, any, paying customer.”
          Agreed. But that they are doing so instead of just saying “no” is an improvement….heartening. It means they are starting to see the scheme is unreliable. And it means every time they have a RC aboard and “nothing happens,” it strengthens things for us. Royal Caribbean, just like any business (FB, etc.), has every legal right to refuse service to a RC, or a child killer, or anyone they *perceive* to be contrary to their business success and plan, as long as it’s not done based on protected status.

          “Keep[] in mind they would not feel compelled to do so for the child killer.”
          Is this conjecture, or do you have supporting information for this? I suspect that if Royal Caribbean was aware of a child killer trying to book a cruise, they may well deny him or her for the same bad PR reasons. But, as is probably the case with you, I have no proof either way. How many domestic violence perpetrators have they denied? How many animal abusers have they denied? How many repeat DUI offenders have they denied? I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, and I suspect neither do you. The answer is somewhere between “zero” and “all,” is the only fact I can espouse.

          Mind you, I am not defending the scrutiny a RC receives; I’m simply glad that (some) trust and acceptance are even occurring. Or would you prefer complete ostracizing over partial?

          • Timmr

            Most of the sexual assaults, as recognized by the cruise industry itself, are perpetrated by staff and are often not prosecuted for reasons related to jurisdiction at sea.
            It is good they actually screen now instead of outright ban, but it is only to make passengers feel safe, when the real danger is ignored. That is a type of fraud, and government has a interest in regulating the industry against it.
            If they spent as much time watching their own employees then safety would be enhanced.

        • Follow the $$$

          It actually is there right to refuse service to anyone except those in a constitutionally protected class like race gender sexual orientation religion etc. As a private corporation, they have every right to turn away paying customers especially those in a disfavored class. I would be that if there were registries for other violent crimes or crimes involving theft or harassment they would deny service to them as well. The SOR just does their work for them by identifying us. It sucks but no law compels them to provide service even to paying customers. If they denied you at cruise time you might be able to recover money in a civil suit though. This is why registries violate equal protection. One class of criminals is clearly treated to a different set of rules and punishment than another.

        • kind of living

          @ Joe ,,, that is how I feel about it , sure its cool for that its not blanket and all that , but to me I would rather not be beat over the head with my past by just willingly give any dang info , its is not only over intrusive , but something that’s already hard enough to leave behind , last thing I would want to do is pay to only drag my past with me, but that’s just me , when I go to relax that is what I am going to do , if I am not bothering anyone then no one needs to know anything , money is really hard for us to come by , but most of the things me and my family enjoy the most are things that put us out where we would want to live , out in the country , but I am glad that some are cool with doing what ever it is they have to , to travel , I don’t know all the different ones they have turned away , only thing I know for a fact its not going to be me and mine ,

    • Beenagreatdad

      I don’t get this I travel to Mexico on a regular basis. How do they know you are a registrant?

      • James

        Dear Beenagreatdad:

        How are you crossing into Mexico? By car? At the San Ysidro walk across border they are scanning Passports…and people have been turned away.

        Maybe you’ve been lucky…

        Or you have a trick….;>}}}

        Best Wishes, James

        • Beenagreatdad

          James, I usually go through the Otay POE and they have never asked me about registry. I guess I have been lucky. Now I’ll be nervous going across. 🙁

  5. mike r

    so in other words we pretty much have to re-litigate our cases and hope they let us cruise..whatever…AJ ..I’ll check all that out tomorrow I’m still working on revising my draft and I feel really good about how it’s going …

  6. E

    Has anyone heard anything about new passports (timeline, what are the markers), or even received one?

    • David

      Is there anyone left staffing the State Department?

      • AJ

        LOL, nice. And I think if things keep going the way they are, State may be needing a new Secretary. The Eagle Scout is not happy being undermined by the son-in-law. I think we all know son-in-law will always win versus anyone (other than the daughter whose own father lusts).

  7. AJ

    Looks like we really have to hope Snyder is accepted and decided convincingly in our favor during the October 2017 SCOTUS term. (

    • 1

      Broken link…what was the article stating?

      • AJ

        Oops, I had an extraneous 0 on the end. Try this:

        In a nutshell, Kennedy is indicating next term may well be his last.

        • Who is starting the betting pool on SCOTUS Justice replacement?

          Let the speculation begin on who will be the next nominated Justice!! Crazy I say…..

        • Follow the $$$

          People like to claim the right leaning justices will offer no hope but I don’t see the picture as that bleak. Remember the liberal justices and politicians have offered no support or indication that they see the registry laws as anything but constitutional. Conservative justices, while typically la and order rubber stamps, also tend to take constitutional violations of rights seriously. If we can get a case to the SC which challenges the laws and offers extensive evidence of the punitive nature of the laws (of which there is a plethora), there is good chance to think they will reverse course. We don’t need all 4 (or 5) just one or two. I think the best thing now is all the publicity and fact checking of the bad information that keeps getting repeated regarding recidivism.

    • Bobby


      What do you mean AJ ?, Link was broken, I live in Michigan and I have not heard anything regarding Snyder as of yet. Do you have new info you can share with us. Thank you

      • AJ

        @Bobby, and anyone wondering about any progress on Snyder.

        There will be no SCOTUS movement on Snyder, as the 2016-17 term ended in June, and, by statute, the new term won’t start until October 2, 2017 ( The only possible–probable, actually–progress on it will be the USSG submitting its views in reply to the CVSG.

        To put people a little at ease as to whether SCOTUS will accept Snyder, know that it takes only four (4) Justices–not a majority–to have a case accepted. I would say we’re in good shape there, as I foresee some group of four out of the five-person group of Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor voting for accepting. Given Ginsburg and Breyer dissented on Smith–and fully joined Kennedy in the Packingham opinion–we really only need one more, if you count Kennedy as a yes. Kagan and Sotomayor also fully joined Kennedy in his strongly-worded Packingham opinion. As to the others in Packingham, three (Roberts, Alito, Thomas) filed their own, concurring opinion, and Gorsuch was merely a spectator, having not taken part in oral argument.

        So, let’s do the math: Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Kagan, and Sotomayor (that’s one more than needed!) will quite likely vote to accept the case. I’ll be stunned if Snyder is not accepted, no matter what the USSG says in its CVSG reply. In fact, I think the USSG needs to be very careful in its reply to avoid ticking off SCOTUS with deception and misdirection–again. I think Kennedy is champing at the bit to fix his oft-repeated, and patently false, quote from Smith.

        I will go out on a limb and say Snyder is decided in our favor 5-4 (Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch) or possibly even 6-3 (Gorsuch). Here is how I get to that vote: 1. Kennedy has “seen the light” of not only the false data presented in Smith, but also the unbridled monster the scheme has become. I think he wishes to correct his legacy before stepping down. 2 & 3. Ginsburg and Breyer dissented on Smith. 4 & 5. Kagan and Sotomayor vote quite alike with a liberal bent ( Possibly 6. Gorsuch, depending on if his libertarian, Government-suspicious persona comes out.
        I would even consider putting Thomas out there as a far-outside vote 7, given his comments lately about asset forfeiture (read: executive overreach) and his joining in the gerrymandering decision (read: legislative overreach) (

        I think Roberts, who argued Smith for the Government, and Alito, an arch-conservative, are beyond reach.

        That’s the $0.02 opinion from this arm-chair constitutional “scholar.”

  8. Bill Arthur

    Anyone have recent experience with Princess Cruises? My wife and I are booked on a Panama Canal itinerary next January, Ft. Lauderdale to LA with multiple Caribbean stops. I recall someone said that Princess had told him that they had no problem with RCs, but that was a while ago. I’m reluctant to call their security to ask since I don’t want to inadvertently alert them to a problem that doesn’t now exist. I too have liked independent travel, but at age 75, it’s not an option. As to one-day shore excursions, from my reading of the travel blogs and according to the Princess agent I booked with, you get on and off the ship using your cruise ID card, there is no customs check at each stop, and most people leave their passports in their cabin safe so they don’t lose them on the beach. I suggested to Paul Rigney that he add cruise ships to the Travel Matrix, but haven’t seen that happen.

    • Warren

      My wife and I recently took a cruise with Princess Cruises. The last one was March of this year on a 10 day Caribbean cruise out of Fort Lauderdale. No problem with RC’s at this time. There is no customs check at any port we visited on the Caribbean. Just need your cruise ID card to get back on board. We did the Panama Canal trip two years ago (with Princess) and loved that trip and again, had no problems. Go enjoy yourself!

    • Lake County, CA

      Here’s an old (March, 2016) discussion we had about cruse ships:

  9. WaPo SCOTUS Justice Kennedy story today

    Analysis | Republicans just quietly got some very good Supreme Court news

  10. NPR Justice Gorsuch story

    Justice Neil Gorsuch Votes 100 Percent Of The Time With Most Conservative Colleague

  11. Follow the $$$

    Wtf…just learned if I visit Florida for more than 5 days I have to register there. Not only will my info be then posted on their public site but it will be there forever as they don’t remove info even if you are just visiting. Was taking my family to DW but now not sure. Anyone have any relevant stories or advice from their experience? How can they register me for life in FL if I am only visiting temporarily?

    • Check on the D World visit too

      You may want to double check the DW visit too because, as I have learned recently, if they search on your name, provided you give them your name (a multi-day pass I read where names are submitted), you may be blocked at the entrance, pass revoked (not sure on $$ refund) and denied entry due to your status. Might be a touch embarrassing. Recently learned Six Flags is similar. Not sure how but this is what I have learned from others traveling there as RCs as I have not traveled there. I read that over on the NARSOL website, but others here may be able to help to you save some embarrassment.

      • Follow the $$$

        Thanks for the tip. I did some research and it doesn’t look like there is a blanket ban. Also read that they do not conduct background checks for DL or DW (unverified). Only their cruises. BUT… I wouldn’t be surprised if they tip off local LE about my stay. Since CA has no conspicuous identifier on our licenses they would only be able to tell via name search. Got my 17(b) and 1203.4 so I should be off public shame site (hiring attorney to write letter to DOJ) as only felony conviction should be published. If that’s the case then they would have to do a paid background check.

        Might decide to limit stay to less than 5 days so I am not in violation of FL law.

        However, I will call Disney and play devil’s advocate and pretend I am a concerned citizen trying to protect my innocent kids from “evil SO’s” and see if they give up any info.

        Please note that I am being sarcastic about statement above so don’t jump all over me.

        • Warren

          Went to Disney World in March on a 4-day multi-pass with family and had no problems. Bought the tickets through Disney website in my name about 3 months in advance of my trip. You can always buy entrance tickets at the gate with cash if you’re really worried about being blocked.

          • Follow the $$$

            Stay at a DW resort or off property? And was the 4 days to make sure you didn’t hit the aggregate 5 day rule?

    • AJ

      @Follow the $$$
      “How can they register me for life in FL if I am only visiting temporarily?”
      Because it’s just regulatory and merely publishing publicly available information, said SCOTUS in Smith. There are other states which do likewise.

      • New Person

        And what of dismissed cases? Those are no longer public… yet you’re still on the registry.

        • AJ

          @New Person
          It depends on how FL wrote its laws. Without looking–or caring, as I will not visit that swamp–I suspect the law says something to the effect of if charged, or arrested or similar. In other words, they probably based their registry on accusation, outcome. This highlights how harmful it is for things to be classified as “regulatory”: the State can pretty much make any rule in any manner they wish. Just like civil asset forfeiture, if something is deemed civil regulation, our courts have for some reason decided constitutional protections don’t apply.

          • Follow the $$$

            Florida is as draconian as California just with more vindictive intent. They clearly do not want RC’s to come ever to their state and do what they can to make sure those already there leave. All their recent laws making it stricter are justified by saying they are becoming compliant with Fed law and AWA.

        • John4

          New person…… regarding dismissed cases via 17b, 1203.4 , internet exclusion that of a 243.4. If SB 421 does pass would u happen to know what tier that would be placed in. I appreciate any and all input.

    • MyLifeRuined

      Mississippi keeps people on the registry after they’re deceased. The page still appears with DECEASED on it.

      So much for the argument, “But it’s for our children!” A dead guy can’t molest anyone. This proves the intent is merely to shame a person, even after dying.

      • AJ

        That’s for those who believe in ghosts.

      • Beenagreatdad

        Wow that is ridiculous.

      • Follow the $$$

        So does FL for 1 year after death certificate is issued. They say it is so they can notify all parties (victims too) of the death so no one complains that they were taken off the site improperly. Strange.

    • i can't wait to die

      Follow the $$$

      read comments in this thread:

      now, if you go to the park and just buy a regular ticket and don’t get a hotel room at the park you should be fine. most people that get banned from the big rat’s property are residents getting a resident discount ticket thus they must show id or are staying on property at hotel or campground and must show id.

      • C

        We visit Walley World at least once a year and never have a problem. I’ve heard only the annual pass requires an ID for them to cross reference with the Price Club database which can cause issues. But, man, at $1000 bucks a pop, you gotta really love standing in long lines to drop that much cash.
        We bought season passes to Universal Studios and have not had an issue. They take our picture at the gate to verify user identity.
        Bought annual passes for Sea World. No problems there, either (knock on wood).
        I also have access to many other things here I won’t mention for fear of ruining it somehow.
        Maybe some of you do, as well. My fear is some Gladys Kravitz do-gooder will read that my family and I frequent certain venues and ruin it for the rest of us by causing a fuss.
        Well, kept on truckin’, people. I hope you all had a great 4th, as we did, and a wonderful summer.

    • Bam Ward

      They will keep you on there sight forever if you register with them. Make your stay limited to four days so that you don’t have to contact them at all. I have seen Doctors who come from a place where they are exempt from Megan’s law to Florida where no one is exempt end up staying here more than 5 days and contact the law trying to do the right thing to end up on the Megan’s law website for life in Florida with no exceptions, trust me, When I moved from California to Florida at which I was exempt from Megan’s law exposure. Florida doesn’t exempt anyone. It has been a disaster.

    • Lake County, CA

      First you couldn’t pay me to visit Floridah. It’s just too risky for us. As far as going to any Disney Parks, I would never take the chance of being refused entry and forever banned unless you went with someone else that used their ID for hotel reservations or advance tickets. You can also buy tickets for the park off of eBay.

      This is a must read for anyone planing on going to Disney properties.

      • kind of living

        @Lake County ,,, thanks for posting , its sad how it has become , but to hell with Disney anyway , I know that they had many problems in the past of there own maybe they should make the park Register as a place to not take ones kids to, because of things that happened that Non RC’s were not responsible for , all these people talking about feeling safe and all , we as RC’s know that feeling safe in our life don’t mean we are safe , the sky is falling , or is that smoke over by my house , or why is this fool standing at the door with a hammer , but to really think anyone is 100% safe in public is absurd , fact is bad people are always out there , who is to say that the people that run the park are safe for our kids to be around ? lol maybe we can get tickets to the pumpkin farm lol

        • New Person

          Isn’t banishment punishment?

        • Mot

          My son and his family just moved to FL and my wife and I are planning to visit them in August or Nov and I need to find out how long we can stay in FL without having to register. Since we will be at a private / family residence does that come into play. NO intention to go to the MOUSE HOUSE. Also, if I do have to register does it void my registration in CALIF?

          • Tread carefully in FLA @ Mot

            @ Mot

            Their house will matter if you intend to register there because it will put a big dot on their place and all sorts of possible ramifications to follow for you, them and everyone. Others here are more familiar with FLA laws, but tread carefully.

            • Tired Of Hiding

              I agree on this. Florida is simply NOT a safe place to go PERIOD!

              The mentality of law enforcement there is pathetic. They really should do psychological screening as it seems that the vast majority of those in LE there are sociopaths and many sadistic sociopaths IMHO.

              You might be stopped for a simple traffic violation driving a rental car and if they run everyone’s licenses (which is the real reason that most traffic stops are made) they will give you endless grief!

              They might go as far as to investigate how long you have been staying at the home or hotel you tell them (and just try to refuse to give them that information) and could result in an arrest and being placed forever on the Florida Sex Offender registry.

              Is it really worth it to risk all that for a visit to god’s waiting room? I think NOT!


          • Follow the $$$

            If you plan on staying a total 5 days or more aggregate each calendar year, you are considered a temporary resident and you are required by FL law to register at the sheriff department local to your temporary residence (family house) within 48 hours of arrival. You must also notify them 48 hours before departure. You will be posted on the public site for life even when you leave as Florida has very few exceptions to the ML site. It will not affect your CA registration.

          • Mr. D

            Mot – I believe it’s any stay after four days but I would doublecheck that . From what I understand also once you registered for your visit in Florida they do not take you off the registry when you depart. I was there last year for six days on vacation and did not register. Went about my business and make sure I’d behaved appropriately (i.e. No drinking and driving). Enjoyed my time and flew home. It certainly your choice but if you are staying at a private residence and not renting a car no one will ever be the wiser that you were ever there. Enjoy your trip!

          • Paul

            DO NOT GO!

            In November 2008 (almost 9 years ago), I spent a week there and, as such, registered accordingly. Mind you, my offense was not one that required inclusion on CA’s Megan’s Law website. Also, I was fairly new to the registry and completely unaware of Florida’s scheme.

            To this day, I am still posted on Florida’s website. 9 years later, only spent one week in Florida, and I’m STILL paying that price.

            DO NOT GO!

            • Timmr

              That means you will still be affected by International Megan’s Law and require to post a 21 day advance notice of travel, even if you get off the registry in your home state? The registry is like the chicken pox. You never totally get rid of the virus.

        • Timmr

          I don’t care to pay all that money to go to Disneyland just for entertainment. If I am going into debt, I would much rather take a trip to the State capitol to protest these laws. It is a better return on investment.
          I get more entertainment value out of any farm, or getting front seat before the vast universe on a dark night far from town.

  12. i can't wait to die

    HIPPA, ADA and Today’s Sex Offender

    I have a question for the knowledgeable people

    The gov., etc.. say sex offenders have a mental disorder this would be especially true in states where they have civil commitment than how is it the government can release a person information? How is it a person housing is limited sometimes in woods/fields cause the gov. says a sex offender can’t live here or there.

  13. mike r

    looks like 48 hours in nevada…I was planning on going to Vegas for a few days but not sure if I even want to now…I wonder what happens if you stay 47 hours leave Nevada for an hour and come back how that would work…I am so fed up with this bs…

    • kind of living

      Nevada , I feel you , maybe try staying CA side and trip over the line as you need , like Tahoe ,

  14. kind of living

    mike r ,,, Tahoe may not be anything like vegas its just an idea , wish I could help , Nevada is kind of a hard ass state , the best way to do Nevada is by RV many places offer free parking of RV’s and or did last time I was there , good luck on your trip

  15. 'Little guys' win big at Supreme Court

    ‘Little guys’ win big at Supreme Court

    Good article….nice insight….Packingham is mentioned, but overall, interesting to see this

  16. Beenagreatdad

    I just want to throw this out there. I was completely unaware of this and I asked for a Restraining Order against my wife and custody of my kids. Well that went wrong. If you have children, or even live with children in the same home be careful. As soon as I filed for custody I got slapped with this. My children were removed from the home and placed in a Domestic Violence Shelter with their mom despite the fact that I requested a restraining order to prevent her from physically and emotionally abusing the kids. The Judge said I only wanted custody so that I can have “full access to the boys” wow. This is so unreal.

    Family Code 3030.
    (a) (1) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person is required to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code where the victim was a minor, or if the person has been convicted under Section 273a, 273d, or 647.6 of the Penal Code, unless the court finds that there is no significant risk to the child and states its reasons in writing or on the record. The child may not be placed in a home in which that person resides, nor permitted to have unsupervised visitation with that person, unless the court states the reasons for its findings in writing or on the record.
    (2) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if anyone residing in the person’s household is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, unless the court finds there is no significant risk to the child and states its reasons in writing or on the record. The child may not be placed in a home in which that person resides, nor permitted to have unsupervised visitation with that person, unless the court states the reasons for its findings in writing or on the record.
    (3) The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk. When making a determination regarding significant risk to the child, the prima facie evidence shall constitute a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. However, this presumption shall not apply if there are factors mitigating against its application, including whether the party seeking custody or visitation is also required, as the result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code.
    (b) No person shall be granted custody of, or visitation with, a child if the person has been convicted under Section 261 of the Penal Code and the child was conceived as a result of that violation.
    (c) No person shall be granted custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person has been convicted of murder in the first degree, as defined in Section 189 of the Penal Code, and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child who is the subject of the order, unless the court finds that there is no risk to the child’s health, safety, and welfare, and states the reasons for its finding in writing or on the record. In making its finding, the court may consider, among other things, the following:
    (1) The wishes of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference.
    (2) Credible evidence that the convicted parent was a victim of abuse, as defined in Section 6203, committed by the deceased parent. That evidence may include, but is not limited to, written reports by law enforcement agencies, child protective services or other social welfare agencies, courts, medical facilities, or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations providing services to victims of domestic abuse.
    (3) Testimony of an expert witness, qualified under Section 1107 of the Evidence Code, that the convicted parent experiences intimate partner battering.
    Unless and until a custody or visitation order is issued pursuant to this subdivision, no person shall permit or cause the child to visit or remain in the custody of the convicted parent without the consent of the child’s custodian or legal guardian.
    (d) The court may order child support that is to be paid by a person subject to subdivision (a), (b), or (c) to be paid through the local child support agency, as authorized by Section 4573 of the Family Code and Division 17 (commencing with Section 17000) of this code.
    (e) The court shall not disclose, or cause to be disclosed, the custodial parent’s place of residence, place of employment, or the child’s school, unless the court finds that the disclosure would be in the best interest of the child.
    (Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 207, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2007.)

    • C

      My God, what a nightmare. My kids are young and we try to shield them from this BS as much as possible. Like many married couples with children, we stay together only for their sake, because we know that two loving parents at home is better than splitting their time between two households. My wife and I do not fight and live together as friendly room mates We’re very dedicated to our kids. Raising them well and getting them into the best universities is priority #1. Mayne at thay point we’ll go our seperate ways.
      I pray it stays this stable for us and hope things turn out well for you and your family.

      • Beenagreatdad

        Even though I was doing the right thing by seeking separation, I sure regret it now. I had no idea that pitfall was there and now my kids are with the person I was trying to protect them from. wow so much for justice.

        • kind of living

          Beenagreatdad ,, it makes me sad to here your story , and I truly hope for better days on down the road for you and yours , being the way things are all one can do is to keep being the good dad you are , and your kids will always have you to look up to , good luck

        • Steve

          When I was going thru my criminal court process I was also going to children’s court or family court. I had an entirely separate lawyer for that. It was a process and believe me their intention is to not reunite families. I had a good lawyer and got my visitation and eventually my full parental rights back. Consult a lawyer specializing in family law. It’s a process and expensive. One thing I had going for me is my wife wanted the family back together but they still made it very hard.

    • David Kennerly, The Possessed Dispossessed

      This is shocking! I had no idea. Thank you.

    • New Person

      Wait… so you can’t babysit your own kids or your nieces and nephews on your own (non-profit b/c you know, it’s family)?

      once a monster, always a monster.

  17. Bobby

    Hi Guys and Gals,

    Well this has nothing do with the registry , and I would like to say sorry to everyone having issue’s with the police ,because of being on the stupid registry, anyway I would like to give props to my small town police department for being so polite , patent and understanding to my Niece the other night.

    See the other night my sister was being a real drunken idiot, and my my Niece has had a real rough life with a drunk for a mother, and a father who is in a nursing home now becaue of strokes do drugs and beer.

    Well we get a call from my sister who lives 2 doors down from us at 3am drunk off her ass, saying her car and car keys were missing and my Niece was gone, she is 16 but only has her permit right now, she took her moms car and drove 45 minutes to a friends house, and ny idiot of a sister called the cops on her and obviously my Niece was afraid to come home, the cops asked my mom who lives with me because she is 69,anyway I tell the cop wh have a different last name then my Niece, so how does telling you who we are prove we are all related, the one cop is like relax Bobby it’s nothing to get upset over, obviously they no me for an obvious reason, so they say have we gave you any trouble in the last 20 something years you’ve been out I said NO and they were like and since all this stuff is now in the Michigan Supreme Court and SCOTUS we can’t mess with you even if we wanted to, we are here for your Niece not you so relax.

    Well she finally pulls up at about 4-430am and instead of the 2 officers being dicks to her and taking her to juvie, and taking her permit from her to where she would not get her license until she turned 20, they just spoke to her told her that she could of gotten hurt or worse because it was the 4th of July with a lot of drunks on the road, they understood why she took the car, because of my sister being a drunk and yelling all the time, they made sure she was alright,and made her mom go back in to her apartment and my Niece stayed with us that night so again unlike a bunch of cops out here I really have to say thank you to our police ,and actually they have never gave me any problems at all and I have been out since 1994. They actually stop just to say hi and ask me how everything is going. It might be because I live in a small town and I have lived here my entire life, but I have to admit they are pretty cool and understanding. Just had to let people know they are not all pricks. at least not here anyway. Thanks for letting me say my peace.

  18. Doug

    Thank you, Frank Linsey
    Front page in the Tribune , San Luis Obispo !
    Thanks for having the Balls to put your self out there. .. you made front page For us today

  19. mike r

    provide the link I didn’t see anything about Lindsey

  20. ML

    Is there anyone here that is from OR and might be able to give me some info about that state?

  21. AJ

    Nothing like some DHS mission creep:

    This country is a disgusting shadow of its former self. Anyone who thinks Al Qaeda didn’t “win” on 9/11 hasn’t paid attention. They turned us into a paranoid, bogeyman-everywhere society.

    • Lake County, CA

      Facial recognition data is a major income source for Facebook and Google. The technology has been perfected and works pretty good (but not 100%). I just watched a movie today called “The Circle” (2017 Tom Hanks). It was very good and is basically about a company like Facebook on steroids. This movie can be found online for free if you know how to search for it. This technology is definitely going to be invasive to everyone’s life.

      • AJ

        I don’t care the success rate of facial recognition, because 1) if I’m in the group that falses, I’m going to have to somehow prove my “innocence” or whatever it is they’re scanning for, or 2) it’s 100% accurate and they know exactly who and where I am (i.e. total Big Brother). Either way, it’s bad. Convenience and security/privacy are opposing forces–almost mutually exclusive, but not quite. Personally, I’ll take privacy.

        @David Kennerly
        Yeah, I recall the same shock at seeing the CBP boys stationed in the jetway in 2003 on a trip to Belize. Same questions about $$$. And it’s not just $10,000 in cash. It’s in convertible assets. Some gold mixed in with some money? Better not exceed the cap without declaration. It’s the first and only time I have had to go through any manner of emigration in the country. On a similar note, it ground my gears that I had to show a passport when I was leaving the USVI for the mainland back in 1995. A passport? For “domestic overseas” travel? Of course, things have only gotten worse. Now they don’t need to bother to ask about money. Thanks to the bank law changes due to 9/11 the fears it caused, and the Patriot Act (horrible legislation), you’re being spied upon with every transaction.

        • Timmr, not an expert

          All this because of a miniscule chance of Americans being killed in a terror attack. You have ten times the likelihood of being killed on a bicycle, which is still pretty small.
          I am of the mind that really providing a safe environment can in certain cases, enhance freedom, imagine how free the Syrians would feel now if they didn’t have to always avoid being blown up every day. But, safety should be achieved using empirical evidence not emotion. In fact you have more than 5 times the chance of dying from the police as from a terrorist.

        • Jim S

          When I was flying out of Newark a couple months ago, there was CBP checking passports at the gate. I had mine checked and went through. Once everyone boarded, my name was called to come to front of plane. I went and was greeted by CBP who then went back with me to get all carry-ons and exit the plane. They asked how much cash I had on me, then had me sign a doc that said i was aware I could enter or leave US with more than $10k without declaring. They then proceeded to search through my phone and pics on my phone. They also did a quick look through my carry-ons. They did let me re-board and get on my way. Pretty embarrassing though as everyone saw me getting escorted off plane by CBP and then come back on. So they are doing some searching on outbound flights.

          • Destintation?

            @Jim S

            Where was your destination? If you don’t mind sharing of course….wondering if that made a difference in you being called out (for lack of better term)

          • AJ

            “They then proceeded to search through my phone and pics on my phone.”
            This sounds like a warrantless search (read: 4th Amendment violation). They can do what they did when you are ENTERING the country, but not when you are already IN the country (which is also why you can remain silent and decline to answer questions from the DHS goons on I-5, I-35, and wherever else they have to interstate diverted to a stop). What was their reasonable suspicion? What kind of money and convertible assests did they expect to find on your phone and in your pictures? I smell a rat!

            • Jim S

              I couldn’t miss the flight so I cooperated. What’s interesting is that they never held my phone, but asked me to scroll through the pictures. So this was not about money, it was about trying to find something based on my 2010 conviction. But they DO have the right to do this as I found out from a couple lawyers, just like they have the right to do it when you enter the country – which typically happens to me, though not every time (though I do go through secondary screening every time).

              Only mentioned this because others were commenting on the pre-flight screening using the $ issue as the cover. So be prepared, don’t stress if this happens. This is part of the larger fight.

              • AJ

                I did a little digging, and found the basis for what the lawyers told you (I should have done so initially…shame on me). There’s something severely wrong with CBP having such broad authority. I hope there’s case law that weakens what the CFR says, or else they can stop anybody, at anytime, anywhere, for any or no reason whatsoever. (, para a)

    • David Kennerly, Anti-Social Network Administrator

      Yes, the borders (which includes international airports) are the PINCHPOINTS through which government will sneakily enter in order to erect a wall-to-wall, turnkey surveillance and police state that will soon cover everyone’s trip down to the corner bodega and back.

      You know, the F.B.I. can put in an ongoing request to CBP to search and copy the contents of a traveler’s electronics e.g. cell phone, tablet or computer if they should ever go through Customs. They do this because they don’t have the necessary probable cause for a search warrant for their own investigation or general nosiness so, this way, and because DHS/CBP/ICE all CAN look at a traveler’s data – and copy every bit of it – in the course of just letting them back in the country. No problem, no probable nothing required.

      I’ll tell you, I got really scared the first time I saw uniformed CBP hiding just inside the JETWAYS to interrogate (and scare the hell out of) those who thought they were simply boarding a plane to wherever (I forget where I was going. Probably Amsterdam). This was maybe 2010 or so.

      And what were these uniformed Customs agents (who I had never seen on this side of the airport before, only at Arrivals/Immigration) looking to find out from passengers?

      “How much money are you travelling with today?”

      Better not be more than $10K or you’re going to lose all of it. You do know about that, right? They can seize your money if it’s more than $10K. It is now considered that you must be up to no good when traveling with such a large amount (but is it, really?).

      I’ve traveled with that amount, plenty but apparently there is no legitimate reason for me to do so and so I forfeit my ownership of that money if I’m caught at a gate jetway trying to board a plane with it among my possessions.

      Yes, none of this should put anyone at ease. It is all terribly ominous and menacing and I fear for where it may end.

  22. anonymous in lala land

    Just as a warning to anyone with a Facebook account: A couple of days ago, someone friend requested me on Facebook. The person was female and had no photos or ANY personal information on their page. This person has 11 friends. I don’t accept friend requests from anyone I don’t know and the lack of info on the page made me suspicious. So I searched out 2 of the real looking names on their friend’s list and verified from their pictures that they were registered citizens. I believe that all 11 friends were registered citizens but I didn’t want to spend the effort to find out for sure. So basically someone is friend requesting registered citizens for some reason. What concerns me most is that I don’t use my real name on Facebook, so why were they friend requesting me? The whole thing is very shady so I’m just posting this so anyone with a Facebook page to be careful of any friend requests from anyone they do not know. If you receive such a request, I recommend that you block them like I did.

    • C

      That is really weird. Adjust your FB privacy settings as tight as possible so that only friends of friends can send requests.

      (I know this is petty and unrelated but I love it when people who treated me like sh1t in high school send me friend requests and I get to ignore them. Sweet revenge!)

  23. AJ

    Another example of our police-state in action. I’m sure somehow, it was for the kid(s).

  24. Bobby

    I was not sure if this was the proper section for this or if it should be posted under the Michigan section, there is a case in the Michigan Supreme Court The State of Michigan v Boban Temelkoski, and accoeding to Ms Aukerman it is/was suppose to e decided by the end of July.

    I would like to know if some one would please dumb this down for me and tell me if I am understanding this correctly, that they have granted both parties, a chance to reargue the case in the up coming term of October, and the court is waiting to see what happens with the Snyder case. Iam really hoping I am reading this wrong and that there will be a decision by the end of the month.

    I would really appreciate it if some one could and would explain this order to me in layman’s terms Thank you here it is:

    Thank you again.

    • AJ

      Yes, the Court is asking if the Parties think it wise to wait for the outcome of Snyder with SCOTUS. It sounds as though the Court foresees Snyder having some sort of impact on this case, good or bad. If SCOTUS refuses Snyder (doubtful, I say), this case can pick up and proceed. If Snyder is decided by SCOTUS, it will have some effect on what the State can do (good or bad) and will then quite probably cause this case to need to be re-heard. The chances of there being a decision on this by the end of July are remote, especially since the Parties have until August 4 just to respond to the Court! If the Parties decide to go ahead, they would then have to schedule the case for sometime later. I don’t know MI courts at all, but I would expect any trial would be a few weeks later. In other words, if they decide to proceed despite Snyder, I think even late August would be extremely optimistic for a decision. If SCOTUS takes Snyder, it may be this time in 2018 before it’s decided, meaning this decision could be over a year away.

      The other two items appear to be the Court asking whether a “bait and switch” of a plea agreement applies here (Santobello v NY), and whether this Court even has jurisdiction to decide the case. I’m guessing this last item probably has to do with where the offense was committed, versus where the defendant now resides. These are beyond what you asked, so I haven’t bothered digging into them. 🙂

    • New Person


      It looks as though you’ve read it correctly. The case is pushed back to the 2017 October session for re-argument and re-submission. Yet all of the extra briefs to the case need to be turned in with 56 days of June 9, 2017.

      I dunno when or if the Snyder case will be seen this year. But that’s one of the three items that will be discussed.

      So no decision will be made until the October session.

  25. Bobby

    @AJ and New Person,

    Thank you both for responding, and dumbing it down for me, and explaining it further for me, I was hoping for a decision on this particular case in Michigan, by the end of this month, because of Snyder I guess we sit and wait, or at least wait and see what the two parties decide to do regarding the 56 days to respond
    Thank you again to the both you

  26. DavidH

    I’m considering taking some classes at the Cal State University system. I’m uncertain and afraid of what to expect. Does anyone have any experience(s) in attending a school?

    Is the whole classroom placed on notice or something so humiliating as that would be

    • Stanley K.

      I don’t want to scare you but you will be under a certain level of scrutiny.

      I graduated from a CSU in May 2016 and experienced mild humiliation due to my registrant status.

      For one, you have to register with campus police. In my personal experience, they asked what classes I was attending, and was given a lengthy lecture about my focus being on school and not “harassing” anyone. Seriously.

      I indirectly refused to give them my class schedule; they notified my professors anyhow, or, they notified the department head who in turn notified my professors. I know this because I once had an issue regarding a grade with a professor and spoke with the department head, as is the procedure. He started the conversation by saying, “Oh, haven’t we met before?” When I asserted that we have never met before, he chuckled to himself and said, “Maybe I saw your face on a piece of paper somewhere,” and immediately changed the subject. I took this to mean campus police shopped my status around campus.

      In another situation, I once had a documentary professor look me square in the eye and call me Roman Polanski during a lecture.

      So, yeah, there will be moments of being uncomfortable. People are people, teachers/professors are not exempt and may not be as objective and/or utilize their critical thinking skills as much as they say or think they do.

      I will say, though, the best thing you can do for yourself is get an education. To hell with what anyone at the university thinks or feels about your situation. Put your head down, or keep it up, and focus on your work and graduate.

      In the end, there were comments that were obviously directed at myself and my situation. I swallowed it for the most part and focused on getting the hell out of there. I was only interested in the degree.

      Good luck.

    • NoFear


      I have been taking classes for the past six years while working fulltime and have never once had an problem with either the campus police or the police of that jurisdiction. I have taken classes in Alameda, El Dorado, Nevada, and Sacramento counties. I have been to a total of eight junior college campuses never had a single issue. My crime was a misdemeanor PC 311 for four picture files of a sixteen year old. With be transferring to Chico in two years.

      As Stanley K. wrote just go for it, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

      Chin up! you can do it

  27. Lora

    Does the 20 years on this new tiered bill start from release from jail or end of probation?

    • Lake County, CA

      Without looking it up, I think the clock starts upon release from custody.

      • Timmr

        What’s custody? Some view it to mean the same thing as supervision. I feel I am still under supervision when the compliance crew comes around, and like I am in custody when I can’t go where I want to go without notifying the police. They should be more specific in the bill.

        • steve

          I have posted this a million times…have someone look at your megan’s law website IT SAYS YOUR RELEASE DATE ON THERE. It’s from custody.

          • New Person


            Timmr meant that in an analogous way. He means we’re still under custody despite the official notice that we’re not longer under state supervision. This is akin to Justice Kennedy’s inferred “troubling” remark about people being on supervision after they’ve completed their term.

            You are still serving the state if you’re subject to their supervision – something that no other free person is subject to. You can be penalized for not living where you told the state you should be living. No other free persons can be penalized for not telling the police or state where they live. They’re free to come and go as they please.

            You can’t quit the registry. You can’t even retire from the registry alive. Remember, it’s a service to be a part of the registry as ML states “it’s your duty to register”.

            I hope that clarifies what Timmr was implying.

          • Timmr

            What happens if you don’t have a Megan’s Law profile? And I do remember a disagreement between lawyers on this very point, when they discussed the bill at the conference.
            Not all of us are legal scholars. From this layman’s point of view, words like custody are confusing, just like what is punishment and what is regulation, they have been muddled. It could make a big difference, some probations are ten years.

        • AJ

          Is it any wonder you/we feel as you/we do?

          Custody: The care, possession, and control of a thing or person. The retention, inspection, guarding, maintenance, or security of a thing within the immediate care and control of the person to whom it is committed. The detention of a person by lawful authority or process. (

          Detention: The act of keeping back, restraining, or withholding, either accidentally or by design, a person or thing. (

          Restraint: Confinement, abridgment, or limitation. Prohibition of action; holding or pressing back from action. Hindrance, confinement, or restriction of liberty. (

          • Timmr

            I envy you guys who can interpret the fine points of legal diction that sticks in my mental craw. Me, I feel like the peasant dragged before the King’s court. All the fine babble and glowing robes (Armani suits), they must be very wise, I hope their wispering behind hands means I can be released to the pub and wash it all down with a pint.

            • AJ

              Having spent 25+ years in an occupation that required reading, parsing, and applying documents written by attorneys, I’ve acquired a certain amount of understanding. I’m by no means an expert, and law, though based on words in black-and-white, is a very fuzzy world of gray. That’s somewhat intentional, as wiggle room allows for broader application, not to mention more time in court for attorneys (read: money!).

              • Chris F (@AJ)


                Well, that explains why you’re so good at finding and interpreting relevant cases and legal papers! I didn’t know.

                This quote immediately pops into my head:

                “If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career.”

                • AJ

                  @Chris F
                  Thanks for the kudos. As to the quote, it still boggles my mind that the same guy who was Darkman became a bad@ss revenge-filled dude. Go figure, but good flick, too.

  28. Registry Rage

    I’m getting ready to put a huge 4×6′ sign in my front yard that reads either:

    “NOT THE REAL DEAL.” or “Guess what? Your kids will die anyway.” or “Phantom threat.”

    • Lake County, CA

      Make sure you sit by your sign so you can easily pick up all the rotted food and eggs thrown towards it.

      • Registry Rage

        …and I’ll be ready with my paint ball gun.

        More ideas:

        “Your sheriff is lying to you.”

        “Congratulations. You fell for it!”

        “Trump is the real threat to your children’s future”

        “I don’t want your fat, ugly children.”

        “Knowing where I live will not protect your kids from an active shooter at their school.”

  29. David

    7/11/2017 10:00 a.m. U have been watching a livestream video of the CA Assembly Public Health Committee Hearing. They are still listening to public support comments for a Bail Reform Bill. My God, the endless support of this Bill (SB-10) is so heartening that I can’t help but daydream seeing that kind of overwhelming support for our favored bills. One can dream, right?

  30. David

    SB-421….What was the committee vote??? Did the pass it forward to Appropriations Committee??
    (I couldn’t hear it on my livestream!!)

  31. David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

    Interpol enthusiastically crows about its technical capabilities to identify you through its extensive databases and emerging technologies at Interpol World Cybersecurity Conference in Singapore. This is technology that is coming to ports of entry worldwide.

    Remember, each country has the sole authority to determine what data is provided through Interpol about their own citizens.

    “Interpol’s global criminal database and my face”

    • AJ

      @David Kennerly
      Thanks for that link. It was an enlightening (and humorous) article. No surprise such surveillance was put on proud display in Singapore, of all places. That country is seriously into surveillance, as some friends who lived there for a number of years related to me many times.

      I find it odd that Interpol has only 165,000 sets of fingerprints. Sounds like the U.S. isn’t sharing as broadly as I would expect. I figured Five Eyes would be stuffing Interpol full of all sorts of “safe” criminal data.

      • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

        Yes, Singapore is probably the ultimate nanny state but they have been so smooth and so sophisticated in their approach that it holds broad appeal worldwide. They have many fans in the States. And, in some ways, S’pore is a pretty livable place. It’s clean, everything seems to work well and is on-time and, of course, crime is extremely low. I have a friend who lives there part-time and who has become a huge fan of the Singapore Method and Lee Quan Yew. To me, it is a very boring place, after an enjoyable two days of shopping and touring, and I could never forget that one only gets to do what the government explicitly allows. And they hang an unknown number of people at Changi prison, just outside of Changi Airport, on Fridays at Dawn.

        Commercial vehicles actually have a rotating red light on top of them that illuminates and spins when they exceed the speed limit (no Fifth Amendment there). And, every vehicle has a transponder system that communicates its location to the police.

        It’s a kind of Disneyland for fascism.

        • Timmr

          Here we have Next Door. You don’t even know who is spying on you and what their agenda is. Capitaliste fasciste.

          • What?

            NextDoor is spying on me?

            • Yes, NextDoor is

              Yes, NextDoor is spying on you. See a previous entry by David Kennerly about his attempt to register for it recently. Wouldn’t let him. NextDoor is a new neighborhood watch thing online.

              David would be best to share his experience.

              • Timmr

                NextDoors’s new challenge is to appear the Nanny Big Business and eliminate racism in its neighborly conversations. They are engineering the platform to make profiling your neighbor in the crime section more difficult. Good luck on that. To do that they monitor all the comments people post.

            • kind of living

              better know it ! and its getting worse the more our country sells fear and hate as a way for the people to stay “safe”

        • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

          Although, come to think of it, Disneyland itself is a kind of Disneyland for fascism.

          • Timmr

            That’s what I was thinking. Wasn’t the old man partial to the Reich?

            • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

              He may have been, like so many people in his generation, antisemitic but the Family Guy aspersions of him are, apparently, completely unfounded. For one thing, he made a number of anti-Nazi propaganda films during WWII. He did cooperate with the HUAC inquiries into suspected Hollywood communists, but that hardly makes him a Nazi.

              He would likely have come under suspicion today, were he still alive, as a suspected “pervert.”

              Today’s hysteria started long after Walt died in, what, 1965?

        • AJ

          An interesting addendum to the prior discussion regarding CBP and phones at the border:
          CBP gives a bit of a slippery answer, but thankfully Sen. Wyden (D-OR) isn’t letting it sit there. He’s asking for further clarification.

          • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

            We should keep in mind that, in 2014, SCOTUS let stand a ruling that exempted sex offenders from rulings against “deep” searches of their hardware that they present with at borders.

            In other words, SOs could be “deep searched” (which includes forensic-level analysis to retrieve erased files) while others could not.

            That is a separate issue from searching through the cloud but it tells us where we stand. Could it be that CBP could search through OUR clouds while at the border whereas others are safe?


            • Feel safe now, not

              Thanks David, now I feel really safe going across a border with electronic devices even after doing a cleanse of files no longer needed etc. Get a CBP agent on a bad day and who knows what they feel could be justified. SO much for those narcos and money launderers going across the borders with deeply cleansed files.

              • AJ

                Two words: Burner phone. Use it only outside the U.S., and destroy it prior to reentry. You could also discreetly carry your memory and SIM cards, but if they get found by CBP, they’re probably going to “get medieval on your a$$.” ( Easier would be to transfer the memory data, leave the card at home, then pull the data once overseas.

                Three words: Air Gapped Laptop. Only have one if absolutely necessary, and keep everything on it benign and blase. Bringing along a spare, cloned drive with little on it, swapping them out, and destroying the old one prior to reentry would help, too. Using a SSD with garbage collection and TRIM turned on, then scrubbing with a deep cleaner designed for SSDs will do wonders (though I suspect DHS has managed to crack the proprietary algos the SSD makers use).

                • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

                  What I started doing, after some really terrible and arduous inspections at Customs, was simply mailing all my electronics, laptop, phone, cameras and SD cards, back to myself. There was, of course, nothing to worry about on those devices but the trauma of going through endless searches convinced me that I never wanted to go through another one.

                  It was expensive and a hassle to get to a post office or a FedEx the day before my flight but it was worth it.

                  If they wanted to search the shipment when it arrived in the U.S., at least I wouldn’t have to have been standing there while they scrutinized it. But they didn’t and they usually don’t.

                  • AJ

                    @David Kennerly
                    Yes, shipping is always a good method. Like you say, it cuts out that extra hassle and delay at arrival. It also takes away the traveler profiling that we all know happens (CBP will always claim you looked nervous, or not nervous enough, or whatever cockamamie excuse). I also suspect a routine shipment of electronics via FedEx of post maybe gets x-rayed for explosives and drugs, and that’s about it. Also, I’m guessing Postal Inspectors and Customs Agents at Ports of Entry lack the computer screen full of your life details, as is present at an airport immigration checkpoint.

            • AJ

              Though this case involved a SO, to say it carved out a specific SO-only is an overstatement.

              Reading from the Summary provided by court staff which precedes the opinion: “The en banc court held that the border agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an initial search at the border (which turned up no incriminating material) and the forensic examination. The en banc court wrote that the defendant’s Treasury Enforcement Communication System alert, prior child-related conviction, frequent travels, crossing from a country known for sex tourism, and collection of electronic equipment, plus the parameters of the Operation Angel Watch program aimed at combating child sex tourism, taken collectively, gave rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”
              It was the totality of a number of data points that yielded the reasonable suspicion, his offender status being one of those. It’s no different than an officer stopping me if I’m weaving within the lane, after bar-closing time, and I have a previous DUI from having reasonable suspicion. Any one of those items may not rise to reasonable suspicion, but the totality does.

              From what the Court decided, the following could apply to anybody, SO or not: “the defendant’s Treasury Enforcement Communication System alert, prior embezzlement (or tax fraud) conviction, frequent travels, crossing from a country known for off-shore banking, and collection of electronic equipment, plus the parameters of the various operations and systems aimed at combating money laundering (ex.: US Money Laundering Threat Assessment), taken collectively, gave rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Similar situations could arise for someone on a watch list, previously convicted of a drug offense, traveling frequently, crossing from a country known for drug production/smuggling, a collection of curios and figurines, plus the parameters of whatever Government program is aimed at combating drug trafficking.

              If fewer of those data points intersect (infrequent travel, travel to-from countries with little or no infamy for sex tourism, fewer pieces of electronic equipment), even a SO may not be subject to forensic investigation.

              • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

                You would only need one data point to have them do a deep inspection of your gear: being a registered sex offender.

                I guarantee it.

                If they were to convict an SO who had presented at a border with just that one salient point, there wouldn’t be a court in the land that would call it an illegal search and overturn it.

                CBP goes way outside of permissible searches and harassment routinely. They are a cowboy agency. The court rulings won’t stop them from conducting such a search and only the court’s willingness to throw out a conviction would provide relief and the courts won’t do it.

                • AJ

                  @David Kennerly
                  Your reply fails to address your original claim. You initially stated, “SCOTUS let stand a ruling that exempted sex offenders from rulings against ‘deep’ searches of their hardware that they present with at borders.” Please cite the case that carved out an exemption specific to SOs, as this one is not it. This case was not about the person being a SO, whether CBP had reasonable suspicion.
                  SCOTUS long ago allowed a 4th Amendment exception* for CBP ( Were it not that way, CBP would be unable to accomplish its mission. (Similarly, Postal Inspectors are allowed to open mail from abroad without a search warrant.) Perhaps you would prefer that CBP be required to get a warrant for each and every search of every single entrant and his/her possessions. Also, that CBP and LEAs may be abusing the exception is an entirely different argument. (I wholly agree they abuse it as a 4th-Amendment-end-around.)
                  Based on the facts enumerated in this case, CBP had reasonable suspicion the entrant, a convicted criminal, may be in possession of contraband associated with his criminal conviction (i.e. CP). That gave them the legal right to thoroughly (forensically) search through the traveler’s possessions prior to allowing said possessions into the country. This is no different than CBP, upon reasonable suspicion, tearing a vehicle apart (i.e., forensically search it) looking for drugs (read: contraband), or their holding–and even x-raying–suspected drug mules, sometimes long enough for the evidence to work its way out and drop into the “Drug Loo.” ( & (It sure beats the “good old days” when they would seal the person’s pants legs with tape and wait until they had soiled themselves!) To paraphrase, “[y]ou would only need one data point to have them do a deep inspection of your gear (luggage, vehicle, alimentary canal): being a convicted drug trafficker. I guarantee it.”

                  *A right is rarely absolute, but rather gets weighed against competing rights, roles, and interests.

  32. Mot

    With the newest policy at Mouseland where you now will have your pictures taken upon entry will it allow them to run facial recognition and then approach and eject a RSO?

  33. mike r

    Love the in Custody issue and definition..(In my motion now) As well as the family code barring access to our own children,(in my motion now) and the following that I’ve added…Plus much more I will unveil later..

    135. I’m not sure how it doesn’t “shock the conscience” that every one of our 19,354 cities are allowed to make laws against anyone, (especially retroactively applied laws), based on a past convicting or by them simply pleading no contest or guilty to any crime long ago; even many having convictions set aside or deferred and not actually being convicted. By that logic in effect, that means anyone that was ever charged, convicted or pled to a DUI charge could have a plethora of retroactively applied laws applied to them and they would have to research every city they drive through to determine if they are violating some city ordinance or state law by doing so. After all, driving is a privilege and isn’t even a protected liberty interest. There would be a much more rational basis to retroactively restrict DUI drivers from being near liquor stores or bars; from having children in their cars or driving where children gather; to have lifetime ignition interlock devices installed on their vehicles; or to be simply banned from ever driving a vehicle unsupervised again since statistically they are much more likely to repeat their offenses and to cause more harm to a child then ex-sex-offenders are. See, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA), US Department of Transportation, “Traffic Safety Facts”, In Category 1 (arrests), DWI recidivism ranged from 11 to 41%, the median was 25% and the weighted mean was 25%. Minnesota had the highest percentage of repeat DWI offenders with 41%, and Mississippi had the lowest percentage of repeat DWI offenders with 11%. The number of drivers arrested for DWI in each State varied significantly, but there was no relationship between the number of drivers arrested and the percentage of repeat offenders. For instance, Minnesota had 166,962 DWI arrests with 41% recidivism; Dakota had 18,485 DWI arrests with 29% recidivism; Missouri had 185,273 DWI arrests with 13% recidivism; and West Virginia had 46,454 DWI arrests with 20% recidivism. The figures are detailed in Table 1. . See also, (NHTSA). In 2014, a total of 1,070 children 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Of these 1,070 fatalities, 209 children (19%) died in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes,(pg.2). . There is actually empirical evidence suggesting that regulations such as the ignition interlock systems are effective, see, Alcohol Research Current Reviews, “ While on the vehicle, interlocks have been shown to reduce recidivism by two-thirds”, . Surely my other regulation suggestions would undoubtedly decrease the real and proven “Frightening and High Recidivism Rates” of drunk drivers; without the “sex offender” label such a public outcry would ensue that the public at large would never let such laws stand therefore lawmakers will not even suggest such ridiculous regulations be enacted. I imagine the courts may also have a completely different opinion and approach then they have for the “sex offender” laws.

    Man this new and improved motion is really coming together now that I am putting your and my personal touches in it and not just relying on a lot of cut and paste pieces. It’s going to take me a while but I will post it as soon as I am done on my page and let you guys know…

    You know I applaud Janice and team and any others that fight for our rights but I find it really disturbing that none of these civil rights activist have stepped up to the plate and used some of the lowest risk offenders such as Frank and even myself to challenge the ex post facto issue and let level three offenders bring the argument which can surely impede and complicate our cause even more then what it already is. I am really concerned and will be surprised if they don’t deny Snyder based solely on the higher risk of recidivism of level three offenders such as all those involved in that case….It will not necessarily bar lower level offenders from bringing such an argument but it sure wont make it any easier…

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      @Mike R

      For number 135 above, I have some suggestions. These suggestions are without understanding where 135 fits in your motion and therefore my opinion may be incorrect.

      First, you may want to reduce the amount of statistics for DUI problems to just a couple main examples. The judge will see too much emphasis on that as you asking for the judges to legislate from the bench and you’ll lose the impact. As long as you put the idea in the judges head that making this OK to do against any crime with a sexual component is allowed, then it has to be allowed for all crimes (like the DUI example) which would lead to an unmanageable explosion of laws that no normal individual could possibly comply with.

      Second, if not done clearly elsewhere but near 135, you may want to mention that the reason 19,354 cities should not create laws against past criminal conduct is because protecting the public from those individuals is the job of the judiciary, one time during sentencing when both sides are able to be heard, and specifically tailored to the individual and the circumstances.

      In some place (and it may already be) it should also be mentioned that these city and state laws tend to compound and escalate over time, as every jurisdiction wants to have tougher laws than their neighbor in order to keep out the “moral lepers” and not be considered a safe haven for them. Thankfully, our for-fathers anticipated this when the created the “Bill Of Attainder” clause, but it is so rarely used that judges tend to ignore it and defer to legislature to fix something legislature cannot possibly fix.

    • Right vs Privilege

      @ mike r: It was brought to my attention that DUIs are different from sex offenses because driving is a privilege, not a right. If the government wanted to implement retroactive laws against DUI drivers, it would have more leeway to do so b/c driving is a privilege. The S.O. restrictions (punishments) they keep adding affect our basic Constitutional rights. Therefore, at least in theory, the government should be more restrained in creating those S.O. restrictions/regulations.

      • Chris F

        I believe that is exactly the approach Mike R is taking.

        He states “After all, driving is a privilege and isn’t even a protected liberty interest” and after that makes the same argument you do. That’s why it works as a great analogy, because sex offenders should have a greater interest in having liberty protected, yet, most won’t be shocked by SO regulations but would be if DUI was treated in a similar fashion.

        • Right vs Privilege

          Thanks for clarifying. That’s a strong and valid argument (IMHO). 👍

        • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

          I’m not sure about the commonly stated phrase “driving is a privilege, not a right.”

          For one thing, the Constitution and Bill of Rights uses the term “privilege” as if it were a right, in which case, it is a right since the limits of government authority and rights of the people are derived from it.

          I know that states may make this argument (“driving is a privilege, not a right.”) as it is in their interest to do so, but I’m not at all sure that “privileges” as understood here can be found within a constitutional legal framework as anything other than a right. Outside of the Constitution, and in my brief examinations for the term “privilege” within law, they invariably mean things which are much different from authority to drive and include such things as Executive Privilege (which would be an authority, not a right), attorney/client privilege (which is a right), the right to remain silent is a right or immunity in connection with legal proceedings conferred upon a person by virtue of his position.

          One person says this: “The phrase “Driving is a privilege and not a right” works as a slogan, but it’s not the law, and it’s not entirely meaningful or even true.

          It works as a slogan because it implies that there’s no guarantee that you can drive. The state can take away your ability to drive if it chooses to do so.

          But in law, lawyers do not argue about privileges versus rights. A lawyer might argue about whether a person has a right or whether the government is unfairly denying a right, but cases do not turn on the difference between right and privilege.”

          That articulates my considerably vaguer response to the phrase “driving is a privilege, not a right” which has always struck me as trite and dumbed-down authoritarian folklore of the type that patriotic 5th grade teachers liked to reiterate. In this case, “rights” versus “privileges” would be a false distinction.

          I would say, from my limited understanding, that freedom to travel is a right but that it is a contingent right, the exercise of which can be regulated by the state.

          To call something a “privilege” suggests that it is an authority that can be conferred upon one by the state for reasons not intrinsic to the possession of rights and that can be capriciously rewarded or withheld. A kind of “favor,” if you will, unconnected to a fundamental right of freedom of movement.

          Again, states (in the larger sense of government, in general) will make arguments asserting this notion of “privileges” but it is a kind of condescending notion of authority that they like to propagate and which, unfortunately, gets disseminated by an obliging citizenry as fact.

          • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

            Instead of “I would say, from my limited understanding, that freedom to travel is a right but that it is a contingent right, the exercise of which can be regulated by the state,” I should have made clear that I was speaking only of the right to DRIVE and not travel, in general.

            It should read: “I would say now, from my limited understanding, that the right to drive, as an exercise of the freedom to travel, is a right but that it is a contingent right, the exercise of which can be regulated by the state.”

            And remember always that people have rights, governments don’t. Governments have authority, provisionally held and subject to revocation by the people.

            • kind of living

              Drivers Licensing VS Right to travel ,, google , it was good reading really ,

              • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

                I had spent considerable time googling just that. Is there a specific link?

                • AJ


                  It seems to be a rather dubious argument. I’m thinking a court would say licensing is a form of regulation in the interest of public safety (sound familiar?), and would shoot down the arguments made.

                  • New Person


                  • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

                    What’s a dubious argument? I did say that driving can be regulated by the state. Rights can be regulated. That doesn’t mean that they’re not rights.

                    • AJ

                      @David Kennerly
                      The “dubious argument” was referring to the URL I posted, not to anything you said. Sorry for the ambiguity.

                    • kind of living

                      @ David Kennerly ,,, if you still want to look at one of thing I was reading here it is , go to the reading room pick right to travel , and you will see Drivers Licensing VS Right to travel ,, lol , I am just saying that much of the wording of the law left me with why are made to Reg but any way it was an interesting read lol

                    • Timmr

                      That’s a good way of putting it, he who like me is not JWG. The government (well actually the people authorizing the government to manage the roads) provides the roads. Generally they do support the freedom to travel and have even enhanced our natural abilities to do that by providing freeways. But there has to be some rules or travel on the road will indeed be hampered by chaos and threatened by poor drivers. I was glad my mother, bless her soul, caught driving 10 MPH on the freeway, had her license taken away. It probably saved her life. What more freedom can one want than driving along route 66 or I 80 and never paying a toll or having to ask permission from anyone. If SO registration facilitated such feeling of empowerment, I would be saying yes this is regulation not punishment. It is 180 degrees from that.

                    • AJ

                      I think I saw a movie a few years back that maybe had your mom in it! 🙂 (

                    • Timmr

                      Hilarious! Thank you, yes, that is her.
                      You don’t mess with momma.

                • kind of living

                  David ,,, sorry I just taped it in and it came up at the very top , the reason I said something was that I looked it up before because I watched a youtube vid onetime about this old guy that was fighting the court because he said he had a right to drive and travel as well as move his things , well it went bad for him , I felt after reading up on it that again the court was in the wrong , but also felt that they do the same thing to RC.s , over look what ever they want to , make it up as they go along , lol but maybe that just how I see it , that don’t mean I have it right

                  • Lake County

                    A friend of mine had been driving around for many years now without a CDL. He took the advise that is posted on many non-attorney web sites that the right to travel gave him the right to drive a vehicle without a license. After being caught twice now without a license, he has spent a fortune for his defense. He kept changing attorneys since they wont even try and use the right to travel defense. He now (after 2+ years of hearings, motions and delays) is representing himself and is facing a harsh sentence since the DA and Judge appear to want to make an example of him for wasting so much of the courts time on a defense that never works.

                    If we all have the right to travel without a license, that would mean that we all should be allowed to drive a train or a airplane too without obtaining a license.

                    • AJ

                      @Lake County
                      Maybe he should see if IL is still selling them illegally. (

                    • kind of living

                      yeah lets not have the courts really looking at the law like they are paid , we should just take the cops word on how to view the law , or find our place and not fight what a court says , when you can clearly see the court is wrong in the true law of the land , maybe we should just get on with calling them what they are” Master ” rather than wasting masters time , and it clearly said if you drive some big stuff like trains transport trucks you would need a license , we should stand behind people that do as the Man you was talking about , or get on with how thing have become and we just get the fact that you just don’t mess with Master court , master Cop , Master Banker , yes sir we don’t need no money sir , we don’t need no rights Master

                    • Lake County

                      I wish I had an AZ license, it’s good for many years. As a former CA part time bartender, I was shocked when someone showed me their AZ DL that was good for almost 40 years. I thought it was fake, but I checked and found it was very real. “Arizona has an extended driving license which is issued only to those who are eligible and qualify for an extended driver license, which is valid until age 65.”

                      “kind of living” – non attorney web sites say you don’t need a drivers license and they quote legal statements that do not apply to the real issue, all the attorney web sites say you do need a drivers license and also explain why the non DL advocates are 100% wrong. Go ahead and drive without a DL, I dare you. SCOTUS has clearly stated that the states control the issuance of a DL as a public safety issue.

                    • michael w

                      @Lake County

                      While your comment below about Az having DL’s that are good for 25 years or until age 65 is true for the most part there is an exception for anyone that must register as a SO. SO’s are required to renew their License/ID yearly, an old family friend lives in Kingman and (Az) has been putting “Sex Offender” on his License for decades.

            • AJ

              Likewise, there is no “government property.” It’s “public property.”

              • kind of living

                @Lake ,,,, I have one , but I don’t care what the courts say , it don’t make them right , why do you think we have to Register even know that the constitution clear , the courts say this is not punishment , and many other things , here we are , it is clear what the constitution says about your right to travel and just look for the $ sign and or the control , I should not even have to tell you Lake County since you live in CA that they are regulating us to death , regulating is how they get away with so much , thanks for looking lake ! I have much respect for you and yours , good luck in our fight for freedom

    • @Mike R

      @Mike R

      It may help you in your quest if you read the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals finding (Calhoun v Colorado State Atty General, No 13-1047) from March 18, 2014 where Ronald C. Calhoun, pro se, talks about registry and custody.

      Just want to help you avoid any pitfalls that may be already delineated in that doc. I have a softcopy if you or someone else cannot find it online to review.

  34. mike r

    you know what i meant..i am worried that scrotus will accept the case and rule in favor of the government simply because they are level three offenders..I know it shouldn’t matter but it doesn’t help the biases associated with the sex offender label…

    • AJ

      @mike r
      I understand your worry, and I agree it may be dicey. But I also think SCOTUS takes its job *very* seriously, understanding there’s no further petition available to a citizen. They are extremely protective of the 1st Amendment, last evidenced with Packingham, but ex post facto, I’m not so confident. I think what plays in our favor this time is the bevy of lawsuits and decisions across the country, and disputing Fed Courts. SCOTUS knows it will have to step in at some point. Any rational application of the Mendoza-Martinez Factors will show, even under the most liberal analysis, that things have gone haywire since Smith. SCOTUS is not big on reversing itself, but it does happen now and again (see Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education).

      • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

        Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas. That’s probably the most relevant instance, for us, of SCOTUS overturning itself.


        • AJ

          I wasn’t going for relevance, just an example. Both what I cited and what you cited fit. Of note, in my eyes, is that it was good old Anthony Kennedy who delivered the (6-3) opinion in Lawrence v Texas.

  35. Chris F

    I see where Texas has HB2575 getting closer to becoming law that could go in effect Sept 1st 2017.

    It makes it a crime for any registrant to go to their own kids school if they do not stop first at the schools admin office and declare their registration status every time. This bill is retroactive, and applies to anyone registered no matter when the original crime occurred.

    I’ve looked on Texasvoices web site and don’t see anything about it.

    This will greatly impact my participation in my kid’s education. Does anyone know if there is an organized challenge to this bill in Texas and if any lawsuit is prepared to be filed if it passes?

    Has there been success anywhere else in stopping this sort of thing?

    • lovewillprevail

      Chris F, I would go to Texas Voices and contact them about this issue. They can help clarify. Without re-reading the law, if I remember correctly, the law allows one to get permission from the school so that you don’t have to check in every single time.

  36. mike r

    thanks for the effort but calhoun has zero relevance in my motion since the case you cited is only concerning habeas corpus issue…calhoun should of used a different approach because habeas corpus is only for those in custody…

  37. mike r

    well stated david….great observation…I will correct that…

  38. Neil B Fisher

    I want to make a very important general comment .
    I think it would help a great deal if we get the true and correct meanings and facts to the general public . Just for a couple of examples : the word molestation only means to vex and or to bother it does not mean to to have sexually attacked or raped someone .
    To be seen taking a pee in the bushes by some child who reports this could be taken as a child molestation etc. The 288. (a) conviction in itself with no other statues really only mean a wrongfully committed touching or fondelling with a sexual intent and without the use of force , fear, VIOLENCE , injury or threats .Wrong and bad yes ! but it is not a 288.(b) or a 288A or a 288.5 or a 261 etc.
    The 288.(a) and the 288A should not be so close as to confuse persons .

    Also the statue of 288.(a) says it in black and white it’s written law Without the use of Violence so how can it be made to be a violent law ?serious yes Violent no the written statue say it’s not. The 288.(a) only with no other statues should be made a wobbler think about it no force no fear no injury no threats no intercourse no use of a forigen object (like a finger) no sodomy it is a lighter sexual touching or slang copping a feel again bad yes wrong yes serious yes but not a lifetime registration nor is it a violent felony .
    I am thinking with my head not my heart with it’s emotions.
    And this along with all the true facts without all the misunderstandings or false facts and propaganda . The Courts and the lawyers know the difference but most of the general public don’t. It would be a great help if we had someone like MOSES like the NRS had to say something to the general public when a severe sexual act occures to keep the hate and rage down to a minimum.

    • 3Neil B Fisher

      Again what can be done to help thoes with a failure to register on time violation IS it (with regards to SB 421) as to add 1 year to the amount of time to be allowed to be removed from the list for each misdemeanor violation and to add 3 years to the time to be allowed to be removed from to be removed from the list for each violation and can an individual get the violations set aside as per PC 1203.4 and if so would that prevent the added time being placed upon the individual.

    • Timmr

      Lewd means crude and offensive in a sexual way. Lascivious means inclined to lustfulness.
      From the description in CA penal code 288 (a) a lewd act can be touching someone’s hair or stroking someone’s arm as long as that someone getting stroked is under 14 and it can be shown the adult was trying to arouse himself or herself or the minor or, as it is awkwardly put in the code, “lewdly commits a lewd and lascivious act” (I wonder how someone cannot lewdly commit a lewd act, but apparently noone has taken the trouble to make the wording less silly). No wonder it is the crime that puts most people on the registry. You’re right Niel, molestation has taken on a lot more disgust value in recent years, and molester, rapist, pedophile, predator are all used interchangebly. It only creates confusion, because noone really knows what they are talking about when it comes to sex.

      • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

        Yes, everyone assumes that they know what is meant by “molest”, “rape”, etc. but the meaning of those terms, and others, have radically changed during the past thirty-to-forty years.

        There is no value attached to providing a clear understanding of the actions which bring “offenders” to the criminal justice system since everyone has a mental image of what those acts must have consisted of. We know what those images are. They are, invariably, violent, forceful and penetrative acts which are conjured in the popular imagination. Curiosity which might accommodate a reasonable doubt is now regarded with contempt and suspicion. Doubt is no longer an acceptable position, only blind certainty and furious revenge.

        The ever-more-elaborate and complex skein of laws which have come to regulate personal behavior take subjective interpretations, in which the motivations and the thoughts running through the accused’s mind, are said to be knowable. It has created different classes of people to whom we can confidently assign either mal-intent or benign and the words of a single accuser, alone, are sufficient to condemn. It is the victory of the authoritarian in appeasing the incurious and the credulous.

    • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

      You’re right. The public needs to be confronted with the true meaning of the words that are used in law and in the media to condemn the accused. The public has no idea what it has signed on to. Not that they would all object, were they to know, but it would peel off a significant number of rational people from the unanimous hordes.

  39. 3Neil B Fisher

    This is to everyone and anyone .
    America is a very sex anixity country heck we could not even have a married couple in the same bed until the 1970s (the Brady bunch) and this is only one of a very few sites where the true and real facts can be discussed without people getting hot under the collar I think that giving a little donation sure could not hurt it’s true purpose. I at last have gotten both my Social Security along with my SSI and can donate a bit each month now. I would very much like to hear that qaity

  40. pgm111

    I have a question for the group and I am respectfully requesting your answers and opinions.

    I am an RSO with a friend in Morocco. I would like that friend to come to the U.S. for a 4 – 6 week visit via a U.S. tourist visa. Is it lawful or possible for me to sponsor her with Form I-134 Affidavit of Support or a letter of invitation? The Form I-134 requires full disclosure of my name, residence, SSN, etc. If I submit this form will my friend’s visa application be denied?

    In your opinion, what is the best way to help a friend attain a U.S. tourist visa?

    I appreciate your feedback and response to my inquiry.

    • Lake County

      I wouldn’t take the risk of sponsoring anyone for anything. If they deny the person a visa because of your status, then that will stay in their file and they will likely never be allowed in. It’s not worth the risk of having your friend flagged by customs. Remember we are not allowed to sponsor anyone we are wanting to marry or have married so I would imagine sponsoring anyone would be a no go. Have your friend apply on their own or get a close friend of yours to sponsor them if needed.

    • Notgivingup

      She will be denied so do not even think about it. They will not let a SO sponsor anyone. These are facts as it is now.

    • @pgm111 - immigration atty is best bet


      Talk with an immigration atty if you can. If someone has violated the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), where you can find the details about not being able to sponsor someone, they won’t be able to sponsor someone or even be seriously considered a waiver to sponsor, which is tried many times it appears. If it is something else, the immigration atty would be a good source to consult and get some guidance in addition to some deep internet research.

      I was only able to find the AWA data on SO and sponsoring someone.

      • pgm111

        I believe the AWA provision denying an RSO the ability to sponsor a foreign national is unconstitutional and I would like to sue the federal government. Any ideas on the best approach? I am willing to be the plaintiff in this case.

        • Lack of visa sponsorship on what grounds?


          Talk with an immigration atty to gather their perspective first then find a civil rights atty (possibly) to do the work and gather more info if they believe you have a case. Would be interesting to hear on what grounds you believe it is unconstitutional in these heightened security times.

          • AJ

            Yeah, fighting an immigration issue is tough, as the courts give the legislative and (particularly) executive branches broad authority. You’d need to show that there is no immigration issue, rather a sponsor (read: you) issue. You’ll most likely face the same “frightening and high” argument in any suit you bring. If you can attack the AWA provision as a Substantive Due Process (they’re not individually assessing your being a worthwhile sponsor) and Equal Protection (ditto, especially compared to other citizens) issue, you might have some leverage. If you can make it a SDP issue, the Government would have to show a compelling interest as to why the AWA provision is necessary. Sadly, they may concede it isn’t, then “magically” turn down your sponsorship during “routine review.” A very tough case to take up.

  41. AJ

    Oops, another upstanding thin-blue-liner caught: (Warning: NSFW language)

    Any wonder cops don’t like cameras on them? Any wonder the public trust of LEOs is sinking? Next stop, anomie ( (Anomie is one of two things I can recall learning in Sociology in college!)

    • kind of living

      @AJ ,,, thanks for posting , I love seeing stuff like this pop up on this site from time to time , a good reminder to some that a good many of the people we are trained to trust so much are really dirt bags , the very system that keeps us suppressed are dirty all the way to the top ,

  42. AJ

    This afternoon while waiting for the local news to start, I caught the last couple minutes of Dr. Phil. The show was about a woman who has a young daughter and is dating a RC. I didn’t care too much about that, but at the very end of the show, Dr. Phil said something about the RC re-offense rate being much lower than you’d think. The show was Season 15, Episode 79, and is re-airing on OWN (Oprah’s channel) on July 19th. I may have to watch it just to see what Dr. Phil has to say about us.

    It’s good to see Dr. Phil getting the truth out for us, too. Maybe some of those bonbon-eating soccer moms will to get it.

    • Lake County

      I had watched that episode of Dr. Phil. It was actually not a good episode for us. He definitely was supporting the idea that dating a sex offender was bad judgement and he was quoting statistical myths. The one good comment he made about the reoffense rate being lower than you think was literally the last statement he made as he was saying goodby to his quests and leaving. That last statement was easily missed since the show was basically over at that point. Dr. Phil has never been someone that uses evidence based statistics when discussing issues about sex crimes. The real facts about sex crimes are not something his audience would have much interest in. Emotionally charged subjects is what sells TV shows.

      • AJ

        @Lake County (are you in FL or CA? 🙂 )
        Thanks. I was hoping someone had perhaps seen it. I guess I caught the only bright spot of the episode. It’s a shame Dr. Phil *knows* the truth, but won’t espouse it…not surprising though, for the reasons you state.

  43. Paul


    10 years, 3 months, and 8 days later, I am officially off the registry as of this morning! I really can’t describe how this feels to know that I’m done. All I do know is that it’s over.


    • ma.concerned.citizen

      Wow Paul, that’s amazing!!! Congratulations!

      Hopefully we’ll all eventually be able to experience that great feeling of relief you’re feeling now!

    • AJ

      Congratulations! I’m sure it’s a wonderful feeling to be considered “normal” again. Be sure to keep multiple copies of whatever documentation. Scan one and save it in the cloud, print one and leave it in a safe or safe-deposit box, etc. Treat it like you would your Will.

      God Bless, brother.

    • pgm111


    • Tired of this

      What state, if you don’t mind me asking?

    • New Person


      Congrats! What state did you get relief from?

      Also, remember, some states don’t care if you’re off the registry like Illinois. They still have presence restrictions that is a felony charge, iirc.

    • Chris F (@Paul)

      That’s great Paul!

      What state?

      Just so you know, if your time on the registry was less than the time another state requires, then you may have to register in that new state if you stay there more than a few days. Most states don’t care if you got off, and have their laws stating that if you plead guilty or no contest regardless of any type of deferred or set aside adjudication, you must register for X number of years or life.

      I get off in a year in Texas, but if I go to a state like Louisiana for more than a few days I’ll have to be on their registry for another 10 years still. If I go to Florida, I will be on there registry for life even if I leave the state, and therefore it would feed the national list and disqualify me for federal housing as well as put me on the IML restrictions of a marked passport.

      • New Person

        Isn’t this absurd? You still are seen as a sex offender after you are no longer required to register (and presumed you have your conviction set aside).

        I’m curious if someone could bring this up at a federal level b/c this is completely extra punishment without judgement. Also, if you are still on the IML listing.

        Also, why is Illinois putting a felony penalty on someone who no longer has to register due to presence restrictions? That is where this whole “regulatory scheme” has truly no form of review.

        Why isn’t there a review? B/c it’s not punishment. So who can do a review on regulatory things?

        Answer: There shouldn’t be any regulatory things, or rather compelled service.

        Why: 13th Amendment – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

        • AJ

          @New Person
          “Also, why is Illinois putting a felony penalty on someone who no longer has to register due to presence restrictions?”

          This is pending before the IL SC, People v. Pepitpone ( The Appellate level overturned the County court and ruled for Pepitone. The State is appealing because dontcha know RCs can never be “cured”?

      • AJ

        As the others have pointed out, celebrate, but remain cautious with interstate travel.

        There’s something wrong when, even when “off the registry,” you’re not free of being placed on a registry. That actually brings me to something that has occurred to me recently. How is it that a State can make me a resident for regulatory purposes, but exempt me from all other benefits of residency? I suppose they could just replace the wording and achieve the same result. How many States make RCs residents? I have no idea if it’s universal, but if it is, there must be some legal reasoning behind it. Perhaps they cannot regulate a non-resident? (Doubtful, as they do it with fishing and hunting licenses.) I’m looking for a legal hook that “residency” may provide me that the States may not like. There may be none. Thoughts?

    • kind of living

      @Paul ,,,, good going , and thank you for shining a good light on us in the time you have been an RC , good luck , don’t for get us

  44. AJ

    Gee, nothing like protecting your own and having a double-standard:
    If it’s true, that the cop, “also asked a female student to perform a sex act,” that would be solicitation of a minor….yet nothing happens? FL, I think you’re watching the wrong people!
    Maybe LEAs should be paying a little closer attention to their own, especially School Resource Officers.

    • kind of living

      @AJ ,,, good job man , its easy to see that there are 2 sets of rules and laws when it comes to the powers that be covering there own A$$’s as they ride with the flow of this bull crap if it just saves one

  45. Tired Of Hiding

    Just a heads up.

    I just received a voicemail from a detective at the sheriff’s station where I register. He informed me that “the state has a new form you are required to fill out. It will take about 5 minutes of your time. Please call me to set up an appointment.”

    So WTF is this?

    I called back to inquire and setup the appointment but naturally got his voicemail.

    I will post what this is about once he either returns my call or I actually go in to fill out this “new form”!

    Getting sick of this as my annual is next month so I really do not see what can’t wait 2 weeks for me to sign when I have to go in and do my other state required paperwork!! 🙁

    • David

      I wonder what’s to stop these ass-hats from creating a new form every few weeks that “you have to come in and fill out”? There’s one 290. Period. If they wish to amend that form, then let them go through all the required hoops and get it completed at each person’s annual. No new forms just because Joe Ass-Hat thinks it would be nifty!

      • Timmr

        I always ask them at my annual where the list we initial of what reads like probation conditions comes from. Does that list comes from 290 or the AG or where? They never know. They just say it comes from the state. And then they ask if you understand all those conditions, and if you don’t they will explain them to you They can’t even cite the authority behind the list. I don’t trust their forms or procedures. It’s bizarre.

    • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

      What state are you in?

    • James

      Geeze, what is my duty here?

      All of our dealings with the police are fraught with worry…and I don’t want to increase you anxiety…also, what state are you in? If CA, there should be nothing new…if in a different state this could be legitimate…

      Okay, I will take the leap to actual advice…whenever you go in, have a friend or a relative go with you or be on standby.

      I am sorry to have to say this…but my duty is to try to give helpful advice.

      Good luck and let us know what this is all about.

      I am seriously sorry to have to post this.

      Best Wishes, James

    • TG

      I got the same call, about a week after I went in for my annual registration.

      She explained that the California DOJ requires local agencies to inform us of our duty to register every 10 years. It was basically the same form to sign, and I didn’t have to talk to a detective. Very easy.

      maybe you can ask them if you can wait for your annual update?

      • Tired Of Hiding

        Ok, I did call back and got ahold of the detective. I did point out that my annual was in 2 weeks and I asked what the form was. He told me just what you were told. A form that they have us fill out every 10 years so HOPEFULLY this will be the LAST TIME I fill out that particular form!

        At any rate, when I pointed out that my annual was in 2 weeks he told me no problem to put it off and do it at that time.

        For those who asked this is in California West Hollywood specifically.

    • cool RC

      it could be a scam ASK for ID

    • Someone who cares

      Tired – probably another way to see if you provided the right phone number and get people in trouble (or at least try) since this is more BS. We were actually told about this so-called new form at our annual a couple of month ago. It is just 1 page and they said to just fill it out to the best of your knowledge. Still it could have waited until you have to go in anyways. And of course you would want to take care of it now because you just never know what bs they will come up with if you wait. But remember, it is NOT punishment.

    • Lake County

      If in CA, you’ve completed your annual requirement to register. If they forgot something, too bad on them. Tell them you’ll do it through the mail. If you’re on probation/parole, then you’ll need to just cooperate. If not, what charges could they place you with as long as you have your proof of registration. The only thing I know that’s new in CA is that they are being asked by CA DOJ to provide the missing information needed to update ML that they are required to post (conviction date and tier level). When they asked me about the new data they had to provide Sacramento, I just played dumb and let the officer figure it out for himself. If they don’t have the data, how can they expect me to remember the info after almost 20 years? Bunch of idiots.

      • Nondescript

        How can they just call you up and demand that you go down to the police station on their whim to help them out so they don`t get reprimanded by the DOJ?
        And why isn`t this form sent by certified mail?

        PC 290 does not require a registrant to have any further contact with law enforcement beyond the yearly in person re-registration ( with a few exceptions) Ridiculous.

      • David

        This might be the same form I was asked to complete a couple years ago. I was told it was because the State’s Registry was being audited, so they wanted to update any missing info. Ridiculous B.S.!

        • Timmr

          Update any missing info? What do I go down to the station for every year if not to do that. Sure looks like the clerk is checking the data on the computer. I can’t see the screen, maybe she was chatting on facebook the whole time.

  46. Chris F

    Regarding the issues mentioned on the government putting the SEX OFFENDER label on driver’s licenses, on passports, and making sex offenders announce their registration to enter a school…

    How is this not all challenged as Compelled Speech and the government having to meet Strict Scrutiny?

    Look at this:
    West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette32×
    32. 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (striking down a regulation requiring flag salutes by schoolchildren).
    and Wooley v. Maynard33×
    33. 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (striking down a requirement to display a state motto on license plates).

    “at the least . . . the State may compel speech only if necessary to prevent a grave and imminent danger.”

    When you add in the facts that we are a politically powerless class called out by name, invasion of privacy, right to raise children, Bill of Attainder, Substantive Due Process…etc…I don’t see how it survives a hearing.

    • AJ

      @Chris F
      Nice find, and you beat me to the punch! I’ve had “compelled speech” case law searches on my to-do list the last day or so, but lawn care took precedence. I’m going to have to read up on these, especially the license plate one.

    • AJ

      @Chris F
      How could you overlook the one in your own backyard? ( The vanity license plate SCOTUS decision would seem to align nicely with special driver’s license markings. This case also reference the Wooley v Maynard case.

      I’m still reading it, and already see that I’m going to have to bone up on “forum analysis” (i.e. what constitutes a public, limited public, or private forum). It does seem to point towards limits on government speech in such instances.

      • Chris F (@AJ)


        Nice find, I can’t believe I didn’t know about this in my own state!

        When I first read it, I agreed with the majority. After reading the dissenting opinion again, I am shocked that I’ve switch to agreeing with Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Scalia. I think that Texas plates stopped being government messages as soon as we went from a dozen or so obvious state messages, to over 350 messages that includes all types of organizations and their messages. At the point we are at now, the government is in the dangerous position of obviously pushing some groups opinions to all while not allowing some that it doesn’t agree with.

        The real solution, is to ditch the revenue generating specialty plates created by organizations, and limit them to just state slogans, state sports teams, and military related designs. The state has effectively created a small public highway billboard on each car, but is hand picking who may express their views. This is very bad policy and should not be what the government is in business for.

        Other than the Wooley v Maynard mention, the Texas license plate issue may not be relevant enough to us. The more relevant cases are the ones where you are forced to say a message by the government that you don’t believe in.

        I would think nothing fits that better than a mark in any form that indicates you are a “sex offender”, or telling you that you must declare to someone that you are a “sex offender”. That term is no longer just forcing you to provide true information, because the government itself (BOTH legislatures and Judges), through perpetuating false facts like “80% recidivism” and “frightening and high recidivism” makes it so those falsehoods are the definition of “Sex Offender” and that label is now completely incorrect. I refuse to tell a school administrator the false fact that I am a currently dangerous person that is highly likely to molest a child if I can lure them into being alone with me, but that is exactly what the government has turned the term “sex offender” into and is forcing us to say.

        I look forward to what else you can dig up!

        • AJ

          @Chris F
          I initially thought the TX SCV case would be helpful, but after a full reading of the opinion (haven’t done the dissent yet), it actually appears harmful. SCOTUS seems to be carving out a First Amendment exception for “government speech.” That’s a very scary, and IMHO dangerous, route to go. Justice Souter, in the 2009 Summum case, warned, “it would do well for us to go slow in setting its bounds, which will affect existing doctrine in ways not yet explored.” Indeed.

          I think what needs to be looked at is not the DL per se, but that it’s a State-issued ID. Were I able to get an ID from the State, separate from my DL, that has no marker on it, the problem would be solved. I cannot. Whether I get an ID or a DL, the State issues it with “sex offender on it.” IOW, the driving aspect is of little relevance.

          Taking that angle, the State is now mandating that I speak for them in every instance where I must positively identify myself via a State-issued picture ID (w/ or w/o driving credentials incorporated). They are effectively forcing me to publish most my ML information. However, unlike the State’s system of public notification (ML site), there is no disclaimer or warning about what’s to be inferred from the information, nor penalty for misuse of it. What specific interest does the State have in compelling this form of speech? The information is already readily available via the ML site, not to mention the various push notifications the State does to schools, online entities, etc. What public safety benefit is there when I am so identified in a one-on-one transaction? What need or value does the State maintain exists, given this information is only disseminated when I conduct business with a private or public entity? I try to be a devil’s advocate on things, but I cannot for my life find any rational State purpose or goal that isn’t already achieved elsewhere. The only explanation I can find is shaming.

          I feel as though I rambled a bit there. Apologies. Between watching the TDF and trying to read SCOTUS decisions, I’m a little off.

          • Chris F


            Don’t apologize, you weren’t rambling at all. Those are very good points.

            I think where the problem comes in, is the marker should be invalidated for numerous constitutional violations, but when they look at each one, one at a time, they can find ways to allow it. There should be a method where something gets a higher scrutiny due to the broad picture and not nibble at the problem one violation at a time.

            To an extent, it violates:

            Privacy – Obvious

            Substantive Due Process – You were never fairly judged to be a danger enough to warrant it

            Freedom of Speech – This is compelled speech to say something that you do not believe is true, that you are a “sex offender”, which the government has clearly stated is a person 80% likely to commit another sex crime and a present danger to society.

            Freedom of Association – You cannot participate in forums and clubs that ban sex offenders and check ID

            Separation of Powers – If you do need to let the public know you are a danger due to a crime, then that decision to place a restriction on you needs to come from a judge, not a legislature. It is the Judiciaries specified job to protect the public.

          • @AJ - DL stamp for more public shaming

            @AJ – three years ago, TN wanted to stamp SO on the DLs as you can read in the article below and why this particular Rep thought it was best. It really encapsulates reasoning why and from who before being rebuffed in the end.

            Tennessee Rep. Wants to Print “Sex Offender” in Red on Every Sex Offender’s Driver’s License


      • Chris F (@AJ)

        Wow….I have to include a section of this old gem from SCOTUS where “to prevent grave and immediate danger” came from:

        West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

        The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

        Page 319 U. S. 639

        In weighing arguments of the parties, it is important to distinguish between the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as an instrument for transmitting the principles of the First Amendment and those cases in which it is applied for its own sake. The test of legislation which collides with the Fourteenth Amendment, because it also collides with the principles of the First, is much more definite than the test when only the Fourteenth is involved. Much of the vagueness of the due process clause disappears when the specific prohibitions of the First become its standard. The right of a State to regulate, for example, a public utility may well include, so far as the due process test is concerned, power to impose all of the restrictions which a legislature may have a “rational basis” for adopting. But freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the State may lawfully protect. It is important to note that, while it is the Fourteenth Amendment which bears directly upon the State, it is the more specific limiting principles of the First Amendment that finally govern this case.

  47. mike r

    Hey maybe people can email or contact the following organization in support of my request for legal assistance.
    Legal Intake Administrative Assistant
    Alliance Defending Freedom

    This is what I sent them in reply to their email stating it is out of the scope of their organization.

    You do realize that families are being separated where parents and grandparents cannot live with their children, cannot participate in the upbringing or school and extracurricular activities, including activities such as attending religous services? These people cannot attend churches or other places of worship, and are being forced to live under bridges and along railroad tracks in squalor conditions all across the country and have no way of improving their situations or getting relief for as long as they live; most of the time for relatively minor offenses. The laws are so draconian that Canada has refused to extradite a person who has been accused of sex offenses against minors because of the human rights violations that are occurring in this country. This is a freedom of religion issue as well as over a million children’s well being and religious interests issue. These laws are directly affecting marriages and families and effecting the sanctity of well over a million people in this country. Please investigate these issues before making a determination that this is not in the scope of your organization and please don’t simply disregard this as a first impression case of we will not represent sex offenders. These laws go far beyond just those criminal charged or convicted of crimes. These laws effect the lives of all the family members, especially the children’s lives as well as familial ties and religous freedoms and the sanctity of life.
    Thank you very much for your time.


    • AJ

      @mike r
      To my knowledge, the ADF pursues cases where (Christian) religious freedoms are denied or abridged (or at least perceived to be). I can see why it would be outside their scope. Likewise First Liberty out of TX.

  48. AJ

    Re: shaming on State IDs.
    I wonder what SCOTUS would say about them now? In Smith, they said, “[p]unishments such as whipping, pillory, and branding inflicted physical pain and staged a direct confrontation between the offender and the public. Even punishments that lacked the corporal component, such as public
    shaming, humiliation, and banishment, involved more than the dissemination of information. They either held the person up before his fellow citizens for face-to-face shaming or expelled him from the community. []” Hmm, face-to-face shaming…kind of like when I hand over my ID to whomever requires it. How big of a public forum must it be for it to be shaming? I would say that even though I am only “held up…before [my] fellow citizens” one at a time, it’s a chronic, unending display. Is 100 people all at once better or worse than 1 person at a time for 100 times?

    They went on to say, “[o]ur system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objective as punishment.” What is the legitimate governmental objective of having it on the ID?If it’s for the public safety claim, they have a problem: I have exclusive control over the “public safety information” on my ID. Only when and if I choose to display the information is the “public” given “safety information.” That would be a little late, were I a risk, and certainly flies in the face of the stated intent of letting the public safeguard themselves. Safeguarding requires advance, not instantaneous, information and knowledge.

    Later, “[o]ur criminal law tradition insists on public indictment, public trial, and public imposition of sentence.” Oh, you mean like pillories and branding, such as on an ID?

    And then, “[i]n contrast to the colonial shaming punishments, however, the State does not make the publicity and the resulting stigma an integral part of the objective of the regulatory scheme.” They do in today’s world, SCOTUS! Publicity and stigma via the stamp on my ID. Stigma via not being able to go to schools, libraries, parks, etc. Publicity and stigma via a sign posted on public property in an Arkansas town. Stigma by both ostracism and banishment. It’s ALL about publicity and stigma, SCOTUS.

  49. anonymous in lala land

    The few ruin life for the many. I just read my local newspaper and found out that a local listed sex offender was just captured after raping, kidnapping and stealing his victims car. The victim’s car was later found not too far from my house. The only reason he was caught is because his DNA was already in the 290 database and it was found on the victim. The police got the DNA results and identified him quickly. I have left out any details of this story or location so I won’t be helping get additional media attention on this crime. It’s this type of person that makes me worried that any reforms we hope to get just can’t happen as long as a few of these repeat violent offenders exist. 🙁

    • AJ

      Details aside, this case really isn’t much different than the repeat-DUI driver who continues to drive, drunk no less, despite the State “regulating” him/her by revoking the driver’s license. There is not a law in the world that can stop someone from doing an act if they don’t care what the repercussions are. That’s true of murder, DUI, sex offending, tax evasion, etc.

      It’s cases like this that reinforce the need to be brutally honest that yes, some people who have sexually offended will re-offend, and those people deserve higher scrutiny. But that doesn’t hardly justify the huge amount of “bycatch” the registry has. It’s also a good time to stress the importance of evaluation during the judicial process as a preventive measure, instead of trying to do it retroactively through “regulation.”

  50. JM of Wi.

    10 little steps uphill; one huge slip back into the abyss.

  51. Chris F

    @AJ and Mike R and anyone else that likes the legal and SCOTUS discussions

    While researching cases referencing the SCOTUS Booker decision that took away mandatory sentencing duration and made them “advisory” (even though sex offender registration is still mandatory and judges have no discretion), I found some interesting parts of a case here in Texas:

    5th Circuit – UNITED STATES v. ARMENDARIZ 2006

    In this case, the judge actually gave a guy 5 years in prison, but didn’t give him the mandatory 3 years to life of supervision following release. He gave him no supervision period, justifying it because sex offender registration was supervision enough for this person.

    Of course, the state didn’t like that, and got it remanded back for re-sentencing on appeal to add supervision.

    I do find it interesting though, because this goes to show how much Sex Offender Registration interferes with a Judge’s sentencing. Had mandatory registration not existed, the judge would have sentenced him according to the individual circumstances and crime with what was needed to protect the public, which probably would include supervision and treatment after prison. This also reminds me of the recent case where a college student raped a classmate behind a dumpster and got a “slap on the wrist” of 6 months, because the judge considered registration as the biggest punishment for his actions. Basically, the judge assumes the registry will continue as is, and has to rule that way. However, if the registry is suddenly found unconstitutional and goes away, that sentence is now too weak and justice wasn’t done due to the interference of the moving target of registry laws.

    This case could be a good example of how the registry interferes with Justice. Judges essentially have to take into account this moving target. The registry can be made harsher or easier (not often) at the whim of legislation or SCOTUS decisions, yet it is considered one of the consequences of the trial. This is why all of the consequences of registration need to be done away with, and the needs of rehabilitation and protecting the public put back in the hands of judges during the fair sentencing portion of the trial and tailored to the individual and his crime. To do otherwise, is a clear violation of separation of powers.

    Another tidbit of this case I found interesting:

    “See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), (k);  see also United States v. Allison, 447 F.3d 402, 407 (5th Cir.2006) (noting that “the policy statement recommending a life term of supervised release cannot be read in a vacuum, as the policy statement is derived from the statutory authority in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) and is consistent with Congress’s intention to punish [sex offenders] with life terms of supervised release because of the high rate of recidivism”). ”

    So… there is another example of how the debunked “high rate of recidivism” negatively impacted all convicted of a sex offense by unjustly recommending lifetime supervision. I’m not sure if that statute from 2006 is still there…I’ll have to see when I have more time. I looked here and don’t see lifetime supervision :

    Also, here is another interesting argument on Booker before SCOTUS:

    and the result of Dean V United States 2017 by SCOTUS:

    Which shows that SCOTUS is unanimous in protecting the power of judges to ultimately take into account everything in a case and come up with a just sentence. I think the time is right to get more cases in front of SCOTUS challenging the legislature taking away a judge’s job by arbitrarily mandating sex offender registration, the length of registration, and also allowing individual cities to undermine the judge protecting the public by the city tossing on its own restrictions based on nothing but a past plea or finding of guilt for a particular offence. In essence, if any City restrictions are allowed to stand, a judge effectively has to take these into consideration during sentencing as well, thus making their job impossible in a world where the consequences from trial can change with any future whim of a legislature, even down to the city level.

    I don’t understand how the complete interference with the judicial process (and ordered liberty) by the sex offender scheme and laws aimed at those on it isn’t a big part of a legal challenge against the registry.

  52. mike r

    Man this is so much work I am just exhausted after working on my motion. I believe I am done with it and am ready to have it peer reviewed so to speak. I know it’s arduous but here it is…….
    Hope I can get you guys to give me some feedback…I think this is enough to file and anything else I can address when I get the reply from the opposition….

    • AJ

      @mike r
      I’ve downloaded the revised doc. I’ll try to review it in the next few days.

      Did you include any of the USSG’s brief to SCOTUS? Did you include any of the PA SC’s statements? Both are fresh and helpful, especially the USSG saying risk assessment should be done.

  53. mike r

    England has denied three extradition orders. Wow I was unaware of that…It’s in my motion now though….

  54. Lake County

    I guess this is why SORNA is not followed by most states:

    In every state, the first-year cost of implementing the Sex Offender Registration and
    Notification Act outweighs the cost of losing 10 percent of the state’s Byrne money.

    Old statistics, but still apply.

  55. Lake County

    I’m not sure if this has ever been posted before, but it is very good reading. I covers several important constitutional issues:

    Practitioner’s Guide to the Adam Walsh Act

  56. Chris F (@Mike R)

    What I’ve read looks great, and I’ll post as I see things you may want to address in your motion, and here are my first suggestions:

    Substantive Due Process

    Since I can’t find the exact dates and changes to restrictions Connecticut added against registrants, I would leave it more open and vague and probably add a little more. Try this out as replacement:

    12. Once a state’s legislation (as they have done hundreds, if not thousands of times since Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003) made the first restrictive law against a registrant that indicated they pose some form of danger, you void that ruling, and violate Substantive Due Process by not having restrictions tailored to the individual during the fair sentence portion of the trial where both sides have a chance to be heard.

    The last sentence in #23 I would change to:

    23. …. Surely the legislative branch is subject to at the least the same discretionary requirements that the courts must follow when crafting legislation that goes well beyond the scope of the punishment phase and places direct deprivations of liberty interest on these individuals, in my case and many others, for the remainder of their lives and almost always beyond the length of time of the judicially determined period of required supervision by the criminal justice system.

    after this I would stick something about this in the next slot, I’ll call it 23.1:

    23.1 The fact that deprivations of liberty continue long past the fairly determined period of supervision was recently recognized by the majority in the SCOTUS decision of Packingham V North Carolina, where it was stated, “Of importance, the TROUBLING FACT that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.” (emphasis added)

    I’ve got to get some sleep now!

  57. Bobby

    Hello Everyone,

    Just a small update on the Frightening and High Recidivism rate we are all wondering about, well I have e-mailed Ms Aukerman about this many many times in the last 2 weeks, and she still has not gotten back to me as of yet,but I will do my best and keep trying to get a hold of her.

    I do have a question for those that might be able to explain a few things for me concerning Michigan v Boban Temelkoski. It is basically very similar to the Snyder case, except for it ONLY deals with Michigan SO’s.
    The case was suppose to be decided by the end of July, but I think they are now waiting to see what is going to happen in the Snyder decision.

    I did however find these 2 things why trying to find out what was going on with the Temelkoaki case, so if some one couple explain these to me I would appreciate at


    Thanks in advance

  58. mike r

    that’s good chris…I ‘ll be making those changes..when you get a chance jump down into the involuntary servitude argument and give me some help on that one. I am having trouble articulating it and it sounds so repetitive and I have no authorities or case law on that issue…Alright thanks man…

  59. anon

    So these are some of the people that, in the State of Florida, you hug and kiss and have a relationship with, are child victims of sex abuse. Because they are mere children and have no concept of consequences. smh.

    • Consistency, the hobgoblin!

      Silly anon! Of course, they are defenseless, innocent children incapable of decision-making or consent ……. unless they kill someone at which time they automatically reach legal adulthood for criminal prosecution. It’s right up there with enlisting in the military – old enough to die for your convictions but not old enough to drink a beer. 🙃
      [I am very confused – I wish someone would make up my mind!]

  60. kind of living

    where did everyone go? did I not get invited to the secret gathering? dang it I am going to miss out on the toy drone crashing games ,OOPs secret lol

  61. Chris F (@Mike R and @AJ)

    @Mike R, @AJ

    I was proofreading Mike R’s motion and going through the Bill of Attainder part. I wanted to look at this quote, since I was concerned that it comes from the dissenting Justice:
    Brown, 381 U.S. at 456; see also 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.”).
    My concern is that this quote may have been made as sarcasm, considering this judge does not agree that the issue is a bill of attainder. I think he is making this claim as a joke, because after reading the rest of his dissenting opinion there are numerous examples where it has not been a bill of attainder when an entire class didn’t necessarily contain a certain feared characteristic.

    I think there are other good arguments in the dissenting opinion that make a case where this would still be a bill of attainder against sex offenders. He points out that this particular law shouldn’t be bill of attainder because it doesn’t satisfy the Mendoza-Martinez factors, but we know sex offender registration does easily meet these factors.

    Read through it all here if you guys can, and hopefully we have time to iron out the best approach for proving Bill of Attainder:

    Search for “common knowledge” to skip to the dissenting opinion. There is a lot of good stuff here, and I haven’t even read the majority opinion yet, which should have much more we can use.

    Oh, Mike R, I will try to read the involuntary servitude part on Monday. You may want “New Person” to help since he has the most knowledge on this. I’ve always been of the mindset that Involuntary Servitude is good to challenge briefly, as it adds to the arguments of the other issues, but I don’t think it is the most winnable or the most egregious constitutional violation to focus on. I believe too much text in that section could put off a judge that feels that argument is too much of a reach and could make us out to look like whiny brats when they don’t really understand how troublesome their registration burden really is.

    • Chris F (@Mike R and @AJ)

      Wait…did I just have a Eureka moment, or am I just sleep deprived and missing something????

      I think after reading my above link to the Bill of Attainder challenge, I understand BoA better than from reading other sources. If I am correct, it may be really simple.

      If sex offender registration has already been deemed ex post facto in multiple jurisdictions due to the Mendoza-Martinez factors, those same factors are used to determine Bill of Attainder.

      Therefore, in all of those jurisdictions, the registration laws shouldn’t only be knocked out to those who committed their crimes before the registration enactments (as ex post facto punishment), but to everyone as a Bill of Attainder. If legislation can’t prescribe “punishment” to a named group, and only a judge can, and sex offender laws are punishment, then it can’t be legal legislation. Period.

      Is it really that simple, or am I missing something?

      If it’s true, then someone in those jurisdictions with recent crimes needs to hurry up and get a Bill of Attainder challenge to snuff out the current registry scheme for all because those courts can’t say it meets the Mendoza-Martinez factors for ex post facto but doesn’t for Bill of Attainder. Its the same darn test.

      • AJ

        @Chris F
        I recently posted something along this line of thinking:

        The hook has long been overcoming what SCOTUS said about BoAs: “The Court modified the punishment prong by holding that punishment could survive scrutiny if it was rationally related to other, nonpunitive goals.” (

        I was awaiting Snyder, but RCs in PA would seem to have hot iron for striking right now.

        • Chris F (@AJ)


          It’s disturbing how many excuses the courts are adding to keep something that is clearly a Bill of Attainder from being labelled as such. The next line of that Wikipedia section you pointed out is similarly disturbing:

          “legislation enacted for otherwise legitimate purposes could be saved so long as punishment was a side-effect rather than the main purpose of the law”

          The legislation can always claim it means not to punish to get away with anything. It’s time for a re-think and new Bill of Attainder clarification by SCOTUS. Certainly, if the legislature’s law doesn’t actually meet its intended goals, has a history of quotes where the intent is to punish, can be achieved through the normal fair judicial process, isn’t narrowly tailored, and is against a politically powerless and hated group, then it should receive additional scrutiny.

          • AJ

            @Chris F
            Indeed. The Courts seem to hold to this quaint view of how legislatures work. The Courts seem to take legislatures at face value, always assuming they are acting nobly. That maybe worked back during the days of Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, but that is certainly no longer the case. Unfortunately, the Courts continue to self-neuter, emboldening the Executive and (particularly) the Legislative branches ever more.

          • kind of living

            I don’t see how they can place a punishment on a person after they have been to court did there time and paper , like there not even being a fed registry before many people were put on it , CA had one that of course from 1947 , but was nothing like what we have to live today , I don’t see how any of us that took pleas would have to that was years before the laws we are to register , now even some RC’s are saying its ok , as long as its the so called worst of the worst or level III , I mean how is that right ? not just myself but many others have light years of time already done as well as clean time , as well as the paper we had to walk was made ex hard , my PO was no dang push over , but they had these other guys that were PO’s that would come around and search your house turn it upside down step on stuff and brake it , then jack your a$$ up put you in the back of there car ,drive down to have lunch and leave you in the back of the hot car while they ate , and come back out and tell you to kick rocks , we were really punished ! we did real prison time , all before there was any such thing as an online peoples punishment web site , I don’t think its right for anyone at any level , do your time and paper in ace’s we should be free , there was no deal in court or court papers that says any thing about this whipping post freak game , and don’t even get me going on drawing lines between us , and I ain’t talking bout peeing in public , its no wonder more don’t want to step up , just so a fellow RC can say some of us have this coming , its not like anyone could get help without some stigma attached to it , some of us had programs we had to do before we got out depending on what state you happen to be in , but we don’t need to have cops watching us that could very well have raped someone on the job or beat our sisters up , and we sure don’t need some hooded hero to smash our heads with hammers , matter of fact we don’t need to have this open season on RC’s by victims or anyone else , we have family’s , we need housing , we need jobs , we need safety same as other humans , oh yes and we are only aloud to be victims if we are murdered and even then boat loads of so call law abiding people say we had it coming and the murderer gets rock star status , this registry has created nothing but hate ,and victim’s of our family’s that broke no law are also being punished , when is it that we are at least going to be on the same page ? if your a lel1 good for you I am truly happy for you , but at the same time I am sorry that there was even a registry for you to be on , I don’t care what they call this thing [tier] , what ever! , fact is it is punishment on top of punishment based on bogus studys and stats , but I refuse to play the look over here game on this matter or point the finger at other RC’s in the attempt to make myself look any better than anyone else , the scales are much more than tilted in the system of law from the time of arrest to the time of our release and then continue on , and as far as regulation go’s other regs in state you can chose to not drive , you can chose not to many things so you don’t have sweat what ever regulation , this is a forced Reg that has some really bad teeth that we can in no way step around no matter how law abiding we are or for how long , in many of our cases its fore ever , on this site I have met some really nice people that are not afraid to at least give you the benefit of talking to you like a human , if its all about the good old boy club we aint in it , nor do we need to make one here , thanks for your time

  62. mike r

    I hear you guys…didn’t the scrotus just rule against mandatory sentencing laws? There goes mandatory registration. Then we have an equal protection issue since no other criminals whether felony or misdemeanor are subjected to these types of punishments. I think the ” these types of punishments ” is a very important issue in an equal protection argument especially when we have the lowest recidivism rates of any others..Then we have cruel and unusual punishment which you see in my argument is much more complex than just the old ” shock the conscience ” scrutiny. it is also used for excessive and disproportionate legislation. All my arguments still have merit in light of anything I’veheard or read so far it just has to be articulated correctly..words have power especially in a court of law its all about how you put those words together that matters. between all your guy’s help and my own abilities we have a real chance.

    • kind of living

      @ mike r ,, I wish you good luck man , it sounds like your on to some stuff that’s way over my head , but all the same thanks for all of your effort I know you have been at this for some time

    • AJ

      @mike r
      If you’re referring to Dean v US, no that’s not what was decided. Mandatory minima remain on the books. In Dean, SCOTUS said judges have discretion to consider the mandatory sentences when imposing sentence for other aspects of the crime. In other words, some judicial discretion has been returned to the bench.

      Previous cases had already determined the US Sentencing Guidelines were not mandatory, but rather (duh!) guidelines.

      See the site of one of the amici in the case:

    • Mandatory sentencing tie in

      Good tie in on mandatory sentencing and mandatory registering. If you can make that in writing, even better.

  63. mike r

    still researching the bill og attainder issue but I just received the following email that Janice or other non profits might be interested in..I know I sure would like to know what Watson would come up with..interesting avenue ig you ask me that should be pursued..

    I read your postings on the CA site all the time. This is a suggestion. The IBM super computer Watson is available for legal research. I saw a Ted talk about using the super computer to do legal research. I understand that a non-profit group may use the computer free of charge. If you have any contacts with any of the groups like ACSOL, RSOL or WAR, or any of them, this might be an avenue to pursue. The super computer not only has access to all of the documents but also “thinks” and can formulate strategies with legal precedent.
    Just an idea.
    I think I will look into more and if it is feasible I will pay to find out what it can do…

  64. mike r

    I’ve already checked into it and subscribed but they wanted money so i just dismissed it and didn’t really consider it as much as I should of maybe..

  65. David

    How long before some asshat politician “offers” these to Registered Citizens?

    • Lake County

      I keep seeing people misunderstanding the technology of the difference of The RFID (Radio Frequency ID) chips and the GPS we have on ankle monitors and our cell phones. So I will repeat that I’ve posted several times before. The technology of a chip that is implanted in animals or humans can only communicate with a device within a few inches. It cannot communicate with a satellite for the purpose of tracking. We are a long way from technology like that because of the required amount of power and size of the antenna. If we had technology like that, we would already be using it to track our lost animals. Chips placed in animals are only able to be used to verify an animal’s owner when you place the chip reader very near the animal’s chip. Even if we were able to make a battery stronger and much smaller, how would you keep it charged? Although some RFID chips do have micro batteries that can last up to 10 years and can extend the range of being read a few extra feet (2-6 ft) most RFID chips don’t need battery power since they do not actually transmit anything but are only being read by the antenna scanning device. Any RFID chip used in animals or humans must be placed just inside the skin or it cannot be read. You can’t just swallow a RFID chip for many reasons.

      The technology this article is talking about just places the chip inside the skin in your hand, then you place your hand next to the reader to identify you. It would be a handy device and I would be happy to have one it there were readers everywhere. However someone could just cut off your hand or dig the chip out from under your skin to fool the reader.

    • Freddy

      A quick Google search on that company and CEO shows that it IS a private prison company and not just a “tech” company. 😀

  66. mike r

    I don’t know where they got this statement or cite from but I have searched extensively and can not find it in any of the cases mentioned….

    Finally, the Court concluded that the legislation must not be intended to punish; legislation enacted for otherwise legitimate purposes could be saved so long as punishment was a side-effect rather than the main purpose of the law.

    If someone can find that quote I would love to see it and to know in what context it was made……….

    I have found so much in that case that is in our favor its incredible…This is obviously without a doubt a separation of powers issue as well as a bill of attainder issue…..Without a doubt……..There is nothing in the concurring opinions or in the dissenting opinions that would lean any other way….

  67. mike r

    AJ that case only bolsters that contention that sex offender registration as a mandatory sentence may not be invalid or unconstitutional as a separation of powers issue ( even though I can make a solid argument that it is) it is a attachment to the original crimes and therefore has to be considered when imposing a sentence for the committed offense. A lifetime of punishment would certainly weigh heavy in the sentencing phase of a trial on the amount of time a person is to be incarcerated.

  68. mike r

    Wiki cites several times quotes that cannot be found in case law but was only cited as the following…

    Stark, Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution, 2002, p. 30.

    Wiki refers or implies that the quotes are from the Nixon opinion and I have not found a single one of their quotes in that case or any others….I might be wrong and enlighten me if I am.

  69. mike r

    Yeah I don’t see anything that suggest the legislator can impose a minimum or maximum sentence outside of that which is included in statute for the committed offense. Hence mandatory registration……….

    From wiki on Booker v..

    In a split but majority ruling, the Court struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the Federal Guidelines range, along with the provision that deprived federal appeals courts of the power to review sentences imposed outside the Guidelines range. The Court instructed federal district judges to impose a sentence with reference to a wider range of sentencing factors set forth in the federal sentencing statute, and directed federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for “reasonableness,” which the Court left undefined.

    This ruling was the direct consequence of the Court’s ruling six months earlier in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), in which the Court had imposed the same requirement on a guidelines sentencing scheme employed in the State of Washington. The Blakely decision arose out of Apprendi v. New Jersey in which the Court held that, except for the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the defendant’s punishment above the statutory maximum punishment had to be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    • AJ

      @mike r
      The problem with citing any of these is that they are all based on cases of punishment (i.e. punitive). A judge hearing it will simply strike it as without merit due to the registry being regulatory (i.e. civil). Were it seen, or more often once it’s seen, as punitive, the whole minimum-maximum falls be the wayside, as the burden shifts significantly. If punitive, no sentence was ever given as to the length of the punishment/supervision (registration), no psychosexual evaluation or PSI used to determine risk level, etc. This is the circular argument in which we’re stuck.

  70. mike r

    Here is just one tidbit of case law I have found in the last couple of hours and I have a lot more that will go into my motion…..

    Any case in this Court calling upon principles of separation of powers, rights of privacy, and the prohibitions against bills of attainder, whether urged by a former President—or any citizen—is inevitably a major constitutional holding. Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking of the tendency of “[g]reat cases like hard cases [to make] bad law,” went on to observe the dangers inherent when
    “some accident of immediate overwhelming interest . . . appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend.” Northern Securities Co. v. United States,193 U. S. 197, 400-401 (1904) (dissenting opinion).
    Well-settled principles of law are bent today by the Court under that kind of “hydraulic pressure.”

    Mr. Justice Miller observed for the Court that encroachments by Congress posed the greatest threat to the continued independence of the other branches.[2] Accordingly, he cautioned that the exercise of power by one branch directly affecting the potential independence of another “should be watched with vigilance, and when called in question before any other tribunal. . . should receive the most careful scrutiny.” Ibid. (Emphasis supplied.) See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976).

  71. mike r

    David if they abolished all the registry and all the laws pertaining to the registry and i mean everything, IML, notification, rules regulations and restrictions, everything. I would submit to the chip. it wouldn’t bother me even though it would be unconstitutional I could swallow that pill much easier…

  72. mike r

    you’re right though some A hole is going to intro legislation that requires the chip as part of the registry…its only a matter of time before we all have to go get chipped on top of the registry if something doesn’t prevail in court soon that abolishes the registry or forces the government to seriously revamps it.

  73. mike r

    Booker is extremely relevant in my case since the court sentenced me to the maximum sentence it could give me for the offenses committed….So if the registry in any form is considered punishment in any way the court has to present evidence to a jury to prove a fact that justifies the increased punishment and that fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is true, another words the jury would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that I WILL re-offend in order to justify the registration scheme being imposed upon me outside of the mandatory maximum that I was already sentenced to…Haaaaa, good luck with that….Every case I have read only bolsters my argument and it is unambiguous and undeniable…..

  74. mike r

    My god the Booker case even takes the discretion of the judge out of the picture and puts it directly in the hands of a jury to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt…Am I reading this wrong or am I reading this correctly????????

  75. mike r

    From what I am reading OI could just walk in to court and say Booker give me a jury and be done with it but nonetheless I will continue on my path and here is just another tidbit of case law out of about ten pages I have now….This is the last I will post of these lengthy post unless I find something else incredibly relevant such as the Booker case…….

    Statutes that trench on fundamental liberties, like *527 those affecting significantly the structure of our government, are not entitled to the same presumption of constitutionality we normally accord legislation. Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 499 (1977). The burden of justification is reversed; the burden rests upon government, not on the individual whose liberties are affected, to justify the measure. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209, 263-264 (1977) (POWELL, J., concurring in judgment). We recently reaffirmed the standard of review in such cases as one of “exacting scrutiny.”
    “We long have recognized that significant encroachments on First Amendment rights of the sort that compelled disclosure imposes cannot be justified by a mere showing of some legitimate governmental interest …. [W]e have required that the subordinating interests of the State must survive exacting scrutiny.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 64.

    Constitutional analysis must, of course, take fully into account the nature of the Government’s interests underlying challenged legislation. Once those interests are identified, we must then focus on the nature of the individual interests affected by the statute. Id., at 14-15. Finally, we must decide whether the Government’s interests are of sufficient weight to subordinate the individual’s interests, and, if so, whether the Government has nonetheless employed unnecessarily broad means for achieving its purposes. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, 310 (1965) (BRENNAN, J., concurring).

    And, MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S.618, 634 (1969), stated that when “fundamental” rights are at stake, such as the “right to travel,” government must demonstrate a “compelling” interest, not merely a “rational relationship between [the underlying statute] and [the] . . . admittedly permissible state objectives ….”

    the Government has nonetheless failed to choose narrowly tailored means of carrying out its purposes so as not unnecessarily to invade important First and Fourth Amendment liberties. The Court demanded no less in Buckley v. Valeo, and nothing less will do here. Cf. Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U. S. 610, 620 (1976).

    To the contrary, he said flatly: “It would be archaic to limit the definition of punishment to `retribution.'” Indeed, he expressly noted that bills of attainder had historically been enacted for regulatory or preventive purposes.
    “Historical considerations by no means compel restriction of the bill of attainder ban to instances of retribution. A number of English bills of attainder were enacted for preventive purposes—that is, the 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.” United States v. Brown381 U. S., at 458-459.

    There’s no doubt that this is a classic separation of powers and bill of attainder issue on top of all the other issues……..There is no way of getting around it under the current case law.

    • Hopeful

      I know U have put a ton of work into ur motion and I just want to let u know that ur in my hopes and prayers. Thank u Mike r

  76. mike r

    I know I keep going on and on but I am extremely excited over these new finds..Read the following and take note that since that particular legislation only applied to Nixon himself and not any other person and rest on that fact and it would not create precedent for others is the only reason it survived scrutiny…

    The concurring opinions make explicit what is implicit throughout the Court’s opinion, i. e., (a) that Title I would be unconstitutional under separation-of-powers principles if it applied to any other President; (b) that the Court’s holding rests on appellant’s being a “legitimate class of one,” ante, at 472; and (c) that the Court’s holding “will not be a precedent.” Ante, at 486.

    Chris or AJ or anyone else let me know if I am misreading or misunderstanding anything I have stated so far…
    Man I am really stoked and energized by these new finds and look forward to any analysis you guys make….

  77. mike r

    One more thing I want to throw out there is the fact that the requirement to register not only had to be subjected to the scrutiny of a jury but would also be appeal-able for reasonableness…..

    “The Court instructed federal district judges to impose a sentence with reference to a wider range of sentencing factors set forth in the federal sentencing statute, and directed federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for “reasonableness,” which the Court left undefined.”

  78. mike r

    Screw it I might as well keep throwing it out there. The following is under the ex post facto argument. Tell me how you like the comparison of conditions of parole to registration conditions as well as IML.

    267. I face the frequent inconvenience of reporting to law enforcement in person whenever I change residences, change employment, enroll (or unenroll) as a student, change my name, register a new email address or other ‘internet identifier,’ wish to travel for a hodgepodge of different lengths of times, or buy or begin to use a vehicle (or cease to own or use a vehicle) or all the other reasons outlined in this motion. See, KEEPING THE REGISTRATION CURRENT.—A sex offender shall, not later than 3 business days after each change of name, residence, employment, or student status, appear in person in at least 1 jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection (a) and inform that jurisdiction of all changes in the information required for that offender in the sex offender registry. That jurisdiction shall immediately provide that information to all other jurisdictions in which the offender is required to register, 42 USC 16913. Sect. 113(c). Also see, Sacramento, California’s registration form “REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS” in which there are 18 “conditions of registration” that I must comply with along with the federal or other state statutes., See, Ca Penal Code sections 290.014-290.024. Also see, International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders (H.R. 515). In addition to HR 4573, the final version of HR 515 requires a visual “unique identifier” to be placed on the passports of registrants convicted of sex offenses involving a minor. Law would also require covered offenders to notify law enforcement 21 days before traveling abroad. “S.1867 – International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders”. 114th Congress (2015-2016). Also, 42 USC 16914(a) (7) Information relating to intended travel of the sex offender outside the United States, including any anticipated dates and places of departure, arrival, or return, carrier and flight numbers for air travel, destination country and address or other contact information therein, means and purpose of travel, and any other itinerary or other travel-related information required by the Attorney General.
    268. These “conditions of registration” requirements and the IML requirements sure resemble the 19 general “conditions of parole” as outlined in the CDCR’s Division of Adult Parole Operations, see and I would say even go further then those conditions of parole supervision.
    269. I am entitled to relief because a)I am facing punishments in multiple states across the country that were enacted well after my conviction and sentence took place, i.e. residency and presence restrictions, b) I am being subjected to punishments in California that have been enacted well after my conviction date, i.e. residency and presence restrictions, c) I am being subject to a myriad of punishments that have been enacted by the federal government well beyond my conviction date, i.e. IML, government sanctioned Angel Watch Program, d) I am being subjected to “conditions of registration” that is as severe as, or more severe, than the “conditions of parole supervision” when I am supposed to be, and am, a “free citizen” that is no longer under the supervision of the state.

  79. Chris F (@Mike R)

    @Mike R

    For the Separation of powers and Bill of Attainder section, I was wondering if you need to elaborate more on the Separation of Powers part using more stuff from Section V titled “STATUTORY MANDATORY MINIMUMS VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE” from this article:

    I think you’ve used quotes from here, and replacing “Mandatory minimum” with “Sex offender laws” makes the arguments work for our cause perfectly. I think we’ve discussed this one before.

    I would start by laying out the problem. I can’t put it eloquently this late at night, but basically start explaining again how It should be the job of the Judiciary during the fair sentencing portion of the trial where both sides are represented to determine punishment and protecting the public tailored to the individual and circumstances. Protecting the public from this individual should not be determined blindly by legislature for an arbitrary duration, and certainly should not be done by laws created by every state and even individual city based merely on a plea of guilt or no contest.

    Then follow up with all the good stuff from section V….things like this (I’ve replaced the words “Mandatory Minimum sentences” and you’ll need to put the real sources):
    Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
    every defendant receives a sentencing hearing after his conviction of a
    federal offense.171 At that hearing, the judge weighs facts and evidence in order
    to create a fair sentencing result. Mandatory Sex Offender Registration Laws prohibit
    the judiciary from fully conducting one of its basic tasks: weighing the evidence
    in individual cases in order to produce just outcomes. Although defendants
    who face Mandatory Sex Offender Registration still receive a sentencing
    hearing, the discretion of the judge in applying the proper sentence is often
    curtailed through the inability to impose a less severe sentence than that required
    by the legislature. The legislature, with no knowledge of what might be
    just and fair in individual cases, oversteps its sphere of power by mandating
    Mandatory Sex Offender Registration.
    There are tons more good stuff in that section.

    I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it. I think it’s one of the strongest arguments because it so clearly obstructs the role of the Judiciary to protect the public one time, at a fair trial, instead of every state and town doing it thousands of times for an arbitrary duration.

  80. mike r

    Great feedback AJ and Chris. AJ you are exactly right, we must convince the court that it is indeed punishment but if that fails then we have an issue with the involuntary servitude argument, right? I have full faith that we will prevail on the punishment argument although I will not depend solely upon that assumption moving forward.

    Chris you hit it man.. I have several pages of citations, case law and quotes addressing that exact issue of the separation of powers. That is going to be our strongest argument I believe and we need to really focus on that issue which I have been doing for days now so stay tuned and keep it coming…You guys are very perceptive, man this is going to work.. It has to, we cannot fail…..I’m going through every line one by one making changes you guys have suggested in almost every case and will continue to do so…This may take awhile but we have to get it right and who better to do it then people who actually have a real stake in this screwed up game they’re playing. Apparently no civil rights attorneys, or any other attorneys for that matter are going to do it, at least not effectively so it’s on us man….Shi… were all going to have chips as David suggested and all kinds of no telling what BS still coming if something doesn’t happen soon…..

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      @Mike R

      “Apparently no civil rights attorneys, or any other attorneys for that matter are going to do it, at least not effectively”

      You hit that nail right on the head. Back when I had some money left I hired the best Civil Rights attorney in my area and while he definitely knew the best legal ways to get things done, I had to teach him about our legal situation and relevant constitutional arguments. Nobody will do the real research needed on our behalf.

  81. SO4life

    Mike, u might also need to point out to several incidents in Maine that 2 s*x offenders were killed by people looking for peep on the registry to kill, not to mention several were assaults in recent yrs. I dont have the links to give u, but the news articles are there if u take time to google. In fact we were able to win in state of Maine because of the killing incidents cited. How about also focus on home complaints checks, banned on federal subsidizing housing, yearly driver license renewing…

  82. Chris F (@Mike R)

    @Mike R

    After the Packingham win, do you want to include a “Freedom of Speech” violation?

    Even though California doesn’t ban you from social media, they do provide the list of all registrants private email addresses to social media so that they may be banned. It would be helpful if we could find another similar issue where the government didn’t violate the rights but helped someone else do it.

    • New Person

      Peckingham won “Freedom of Speech” b/c it was in the US Constitution.

      If “Freedom of Speech” is the ability to speak with anonymity be protected, then the opposite can be true as well. One can have the freedom to not be heard, like how a person in a Union not wanting his/her dues going to a political group not of thier choosing.

      If “freedom of speech” was held, then why can we not apply it similarly to the California Constitution? The registry is about your private information being exposed.
      SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
      inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
      liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
      and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

      “… have inalieable rights. Among these are… pursuing and obtaining… privacy.”

      The lifetime negative of privacy is in direct violation of the California Constitution. Remember, in California, all registrants are all inherently negated of their privacy for a lifetime term. A lifetime term inherently implies the negation the pursuit and obtaining of privacy. There is nothing built into the registry that allows you to pursue and obtain your privacy. You need to go outside of the registry via Certificate of Rehabilitation, CoR, as a possible way off the registry. Even then, some registrants cannot be relieved “of the duty to register.” The next step is a Governor’s pardon. Simply do a research to discover the inequity of pardon relief from the Governor to reveal the extreme lack of relief.

      On a tangent about negation of relief from the registry… I stumbled upon this gem inside the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7(b):
      (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
      or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
      Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or

      This is very important to all registrants who qualified and earned 1203.4 dismissal. All the benefits (privileges) and immunities granted by the 1203.4 are not extended to registrants. In quotations is the first part of 1203.4:

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

      I want to re-emphasize this excerpt from the aforementioned quote:
      ** and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted **

      1. There is specific language that exceptions are only noted below in this statue, not in any other statute. Nowhere below does it state one must continue to register, but it does exclude with sex crimes cannot qualify for 1203.4. (This establishes inconsistency of the application of a different statute when a legislation can insert an exception of sex crimes.)
      2. Anyone who earns 1203.4 will be released from all penalties and disabilities.

      The only immunity provided for registrants who qualify for the 1203.4 is the ability to say the case is dismissed. But it does not partake in the other immunities provided to all others who earn the 1203.4. Proof of this there is no difference of penalties between a registrant who qualifies for 1203.4 and a registrant who does not qualify for 1203.4, besides the ability to state you case was dismissed. What was the whole point of excluded certain sex crimes if the other sex crimes do no share the benefits of any other convict who does qualify for 1203.4?

      So while the Article 1, Section 7(b) of the California Constitution implies that a select few cannot be above the law, I am viewing this in a registrant’s term:
      (b) A citizen or class of citizens [who do not have to register] may not be granted privileges
      or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

      Essentially, this is an equal protection clause that specifically states that either everyone shares the immunity or no one gets the immunity. Apparently, registrants do not share the same immunity provided in the 1203.4 like all others who qualified for the 1203.4 that are not registrants.

      Boom. I think the two pieces of legislation {California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 and California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7(b)} are more than enough to prompt a suit. The state of California is removing the pursuit and obtaining of privacy by excluding registrants of equal immunity under 1203.4. IMO, that’s a double whammy and seems like a checkmate move. Anyone else have an input on what I found?

  83. Lake County

    In CA we are also banned from receiving financial help from the Victims of Violent Crimes Fund. We are the only group that is excluded. All CA residents (except sex offenders) can receive up to $46,000 in medical, death or wage loss if you are a victim of a violent crime.

    • Chris F

      That should definitely be in Mike R’s lawsuit. That is just as bad as being denied federal housing assistance for no good reason.

      In addition to that, and the Facebook denials I mentioned to Mike R that need to be challenged with references to the Packingham case, there is also Nextdoor denials.

      Nextdoor is the biggest social media organization that is essentially your neighborhoods electronic gathering place. While the government’s directly giving Facebook our email addresses should violate the First Amendment for the governments participation in the process, it is a little different with Nextdoor. For that, it is the address’s appearance on the registry that causes the denial, and not just for the sex offender, but for the entire household.

      “Convicted sex offenders, including registered sex offenders, and their households are not eligible for Nextdoor accounts.”

      Our government is facilitating the denial of “freedom of speech” to a politically powerless class with no safeguards to stop it, or process to be removed from the moral leper class they created.

      Can anyone else list more services we are denied, and hopefully links to the policy?

      • steve


        “The YMCA reserves the right to deny access or membership to any person who has been convicted of any crime involving sexual abuse, is or has been a registered sex offender…”

      • AJ

        @Chris F
        Nextdoor, just like FB, is legally allowed to exclude whomever it wishes from their site, as long as it’s not based on one being in a protected class. Nextdoor could just as easily say, “residents of houses with prime numbers for house numbers are ineligible,” or “residents of blue houses are ineligible.” As I believe you well know, the Packingham Opinion did not place any burden on FB, it merely prevented NC from placing a burden on Mr. Packingham. Those are two distinctly different ideas. FB, Nextdoor, the New York Times, ABC News, this site, etc., are under no obligation to partake of or promote your exercising First Amendment rights, whether speech (posting online) or assembly (site membership). (Religion would of course be a different matter, as that’s a protected class.)

        I do have a big problem with the Government providing the “blacklist” to FB, etc, though. As I’ve said before, that’s akin to their giving a dossier of pictures and identifying information to someone in the public square. Blacklisting definitely raises some Constitutional concerns, as it interferes with my right to speech and assembly. IOW, it’s up to the host of the forum (FB, emcee at a rally, etc.) to root out those from whom they don’t want to interact. The Government aiding and abetting through notification would seem to be an unconstitutional interference on my First Amendment rights. Also as I’ve said earlier, SCOTUS has already decided citizens have a right to anonymous speech, they also have a right to speech online, and now Packingham says that also applies to RCs. Put them all together, and Government needs to show a compelling interest for my disclosing my Internet identifiers to them (i.e. losing anonymity)–which multiple cases, including Packingham, show are used by Government for active monitoring of free speech. I would hope there’s not a judge in the land who would support the Government forcing a citizen to identify himself when speaking and monitoring all speech of that citizen.

        • Chris F (@AJ)


          “Blacklisting definitely raises some Constitutional concerns, as it interferes with my right to speech and assembly”

          That’s exactly why I brought it up. I want a challenge made to the way the government manipulates the “regulatory” angle to still violate our speech since the main forums of free speech are now owned by businesses that have no “Freedom of Speech” requirement.

          It’s the same as if the government sold our public parks to a business in order to control the speech in those parks in a sinister way. Turn the park over to a specific Church for instance, and you’ll be sure to stamp out any speech on pro-gay or pro-abortion agendas.

      • Lake County

        Here is a review site that has hundreds of reviews for Nextdoor. Almost all reviews give it 1 star. It’s total average rating is 1 star after 560 reviews. Doesn’t sound like this company has a good future.

        “Nextdoor has become a soapbox for people to vent about total nonsense. Neighbors verbally attacking each other everyday”.

        • Lake County

          I’m glad I can’t go on nextdoor, it would only stress me out. I really have enough drama because of the ML website, I certainly don’t need to get involved with all the nextdoor gossip drama also. For some reason, even though I watch my neighborhood and report crime more than most people do, I never get invited to the neighborhood watch meetings. I wonder why? (lol)

    • AJ

      @Lake County
      Unfortunately, removal of a benefit or a legislature choosing how, when and where money is spent is not considered punishment. This was the crux of the Bill of Attainder case ACORN lost.
      It certainly points to extreme ostracizing of RCs. I guess if an RC is sexually assaulted, s/he isn’t a victim, or perhaps deserves it. Taken on its own, it may seem minor, but as part of a pervasive legislative scheme, it becomes noticeable.

      Apparently some are more (or in our case, less) equal when it comes to Equal Protection, etc.

      • Lake County

        By the State listing us on a public registry, it increases the likelihood we will be assaulted or murdered. But if this happens, we cannot seek compensation for our medical or burial costs. Government Code 13956

        The state also denies compensation while anyone is on felony parole or probation. However only sex offenders are denied compensation after they are no longer on parole or probation. Anyone on probation for a misdemeanor is allowed compensation except registered sex offenders.

        We also cannot participate in a preguilty plea drug court program. Health and Safety Code 11375.7

        I did a complete search on all CA codes related to sex offenders. The only other thing I could find we are disqualified from was many State Licenses. I did not search for any Federal codes.

        • AJ

          @Lake County
          I’m not disputing that RCs are singled out. I merely said that SCOTUS has said it’s legal and okay. I patently disagree with that, but I don’t sit in a black robe with 8 other old people.

          • Lake County

            I was just pointing out the things we are excluded from so that Mike r would have it if he needed it for his case.

            The victims of crime program covers ALL violent crimes like assaults, injury from a drunk driver, homicide, therapy because of a violent crime or kidnapping in the immediate family and of course therapy for the victim and their family for sexual crimes. They cover up to $70,000 in medical expenses, $7,500 for burial costs or $10,000 for counseling. Any CA resident (except registrants) is covered no matter where in the world the crime happens. All visitors to CA are also covered. All states have this program, except each state has different guidelines as to who is eligible or excluded. This is not taxpayer funds. It all comes from restitution fines imposed on court defendants. I assume that if a registrant is murdered that the person financially responsible for our burial would qualify for burial reimbursement as long as they were not also a registrant. Even if we can’t apply for these benefits, it’s good to know about this program in case a friend or family member needs it. This program is a last payer, so any insurance or civil recovery must be used up first.

    • MS

      They exclude us because they know damn well that we are very high risk for being victims of violent crime thanks to them (the government) publishing our pictures and home addresses for every vigilante to see. I’m surprised they don’t take it further and offer a reward for those that go out and attack registrants.
      They put us on blast and deny us of anything and everything they can…our freedom, our privacy, our safety, any chance at a normal life after serving out our court ordered sentence. Our tax dollars at work…working against us. This country was started because people were pissed with taxation without representation. We have it worse…our tax dollars are used to perpetually persecute us. Persecuted by hypocrites like Adam Walsh, punished by hypocrites like Hastert & Weiner. Adam Walsh has yet to pay for his crime, or should I say crimes as I’m sure he victimized his 16 (but very mature) girlfriend more than just once. Total bull***t

      • AJ

        John Walsh. Adam paid dearly…for no crime.

        • kind of living

          so have we and our family , yet we are still paying , and none of us did sh!t to john walsh , and would venture to say that none of our crimes are anything close to pertaining to what happed to adam walsh bless his soul , and if we look at the phony stats/study’s then we must see in those stats that John Walsh is good for 4 times what he has admitted , there for we must see that there is no cure for him and must register because he is a danger

  84. mot

    I am wondering if there is a statistic that shows the number of repeat offenders vs. the first time vs. family members? It seems to be that with all of us being on a watch list and if it does work (???) there should be no one offending since we are under the eye of the public?

  85. AJ

    Here’s an interesting (and fairly easy) read I stumbled upon: “Constitutional Constraints on Retroactive Civil Legislation: The Hollow Promises of the Federal Constitution and Unrealized Potential of State Constitutions” (

    It does a really good job of talking about the futility of challenging civil laws at the Federal level, and points to the higher chance of success at doing so at the State level–depending on the State.

    • Chris F (@AJ)


      Wow, another good find!

      I didn’t realize that my state, Texas, is one of 9 that declares in its constitution that no Ex Post Facto legislation can be passed at all, and not just for punishment, but for civil regulation as well.

      How in the heck have all these changes to registration survived here? Are lawyers just fighting the US Constitution version of ex-post-facto instead of the easier to win state one? I know many amendments specify that they don’t apply to those who committed the crime before enactment, but not all.

      • AJ

        @Chris F
        “Are lawyers just fighting the US Constitution version of ex-post-facto instead of the easier to win state one?”

        That’s pretty much what the paper’s author says. For me, these statements from the paper say it all: “One of the key reasons that so few lawyers are prepared to consider state constitutional protections is that so few law schools teach state constitutional law or put any emphasis thereupon. Constitutional law courses are reflexively courses about the Federal Constitution and fail to bring significant, if any, attention to state constitutions. . . .The quality of understanding state constitutions is so deficient that the Conference of Chief Justices formally adopted as their number one Resolution in 2010 a recommendation to law schools that they provide a course in state constitutional law.”

        • Lake County

          I had taken 3 law classes years ago (I should have stayed with that) and I can’t remember that they ever really spoke of the CA Constitution. But they did teach about some of the CA Penal Codes that were related to the U.S. Constitution. But yes, teachers are really dropping the ball by not teaching State Constitution laws.

  86. SO4life

    Chris, in Feb of 2014, in Craig Rudy REYNOLDS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, we ALMOST had a chance for the highest tx court to tackle the retroactive issue, but the court refused and ruled on statutory ground that registration is civil and thus not punishment! Before that, we also lost several rounds on the saving clause that allow for early remove from registration if conviction was before sept of 1997 and a person was not in custody at the cut off date. The high tx court ruled the new 2006 amendment (retroactive life time registration) supersede any existing laws, therefore, we were no longer able to petition to get off the registry. We the amount of register citizens we have in texas, I am suprised we dont have a proper case litigating the retroactive issue!

    • AJ

      Thanks for that court case reference. This case is interesting, especially as to the retroactive aspect. The Court intentionally dodged the retroactive claim due to a procedural error by Reynolds–he only raised it during appeal, not during initial trial court. (This is a total BS way to handle the case, dodging the true issue of the case simply because it wasn’t explicitly espoused. But I’m guessing they wanted to law to stand, because RCs are incurable, dontcha know.) Whether or not the law is unconstitutionally retroactive was not addressed. “Therefore, because no specific, timely objection was made, we conclude that [the retroactivity argument] was not preserved for appellate review and we, therefore, will not consider it.” Essentially, the Court twisted this into a Procedural Due Process claim about the State’s application of the law, ignoring the Substantive DP issue about the law itself. The Court should be ashamed of itself.

      I wonder why nobody has bothered to pick up the torch that the Court refused to review, and sue specifically about the retroactivity. I also wonder why it wasn’t further appealed to the Supreme Court, where they may have addressed the retroactivity.

      • Chris F (@AJ)

        It almost appears like retroactive issues in Texas still try to use the federal version if it has to do with sex offenders. They still try to claim that it has to be punitive, or retro is fine. That’s not the case though, and one case I saw was related to asbestos laws and all they followed was this:
        violates the fundamental principles to act on “things which are past,” disrupt “settled expectations,” and “change the rules after the game has been played.”

        Clearly, retro-active sex offender laws fit the Texas definition of what retro things can’t be done, but they either dodge or use federal guidelines to avoid the issue. We need better lawyers in Texas. I am not impressed with what I’ve seen here at all.

        I’m still fuming that residency restrictions were held constitutional in Lewisville TX due to the lawyer not challenging Banishment, or Substantive Due Process and instead going with Procedural Due Process where Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 clearly said that won’t work in a unanimous decision.

  87. mike r

    That was an interesting read AJ and I understand it’s a long shot on some issues but I think once we establish that registration is now punitive then we open the door for all these other issues to be brought up..Remember they are now infringing upon numerous constitutional liberties now with these ramped up super registration schemes. The court already recognized that the right to reputation is a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny, the right to raise ones children without interference, and they have straight up said that we have a substantive due process issue and in the CA court pretty much stated that we have an unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official actions claim not explicitly but implicitly by declaring there was no rational basis for residency restrictions opening the door for no rational basis for any of the restrictions or even the registration scheme. I think we have a very good chance in the federal court on every argument I have in my motion and it is only getting stronger everyday….He…if even we don’t win in the federal court, which I know we will, we always have a slam dunk in the state level right??? I just want a federal court to declare it’s unconstitutional and that states or the federal government cannot apply it to anyone without a fair hearing and at the very least proving with the clear and convincing evidence standard that they pose a threat great enough to justify inclusion on the registry..even though I want to abolish the registry I think it is very reasonable to demand at least that…..

    • Steve

      So does being banned by ayso watching my daughter play soccer constitute infringing on my rights as a parent? I was threatened with don’t come around or “we’ll tell everyone about you”

      • Lake County

        “banned by ayso” who is that? And it sounds like you were not banned, but instead they threatened to have your status exposed. Which could happen under any circumstance once any parent finds you on the internet. If you were banned, anyone banning you would need the right to tell you not to trespass. Being exposed is a risk we all face daily no matter where we go.

        • AJ

          @Lake County
          AYSO = American Youth Soccer Organization.

          As LC touched on, banning and being outed are two different things. Sounds like the AYSO person was threatening to out you. They cannot ban you from public spaces….that abuse of power is specifically reserved for the State.

      • That is harassment by others which is illegal

        And if they out you by telling everyone like they’re suggesting, that is harassment plain and simple, which is against the law, especially RCs as noted in the registry footnote. The threat of that alone is enough to possibly look into legal action under possible blackmail. You can even probably tie in the registry as their source of info, should they admit it one way or another, which will be helpful for you and those against the registry. A nice tidy lawsuit against the league, AYSO, person(s), etc will certainly help here if they crossed the line of outing you. Just the threat of it will help you if you have it on letterhead from a legal professional willing to help. Certainly can look at cancelling the league’s insurance policy for sure. I think you can corner them easily enough with their threat already done and what the future could hold.

        Your daughter may not fare well out of this, but as long as they are aware of the consequences of their actions, they may shut up and let the games be played in peace.

        • Steve

          I should have prefaced this was 7 years ago and have since moved on. Plays high level club now and even though tough at getting through it at the moment everything is survivable. It was one asshat that created the turmoil and we play now with most everyone from 7 years ago who know the deal and treat us fine. If anyone has kids and need advice I have been through it all…

          • AJ

            Thanks for being a “face” for us all, even though that was not at all your drive. When others learn that RCs can also be “normal people,” it only helps our cause and subtly changes public opinion.

            I’m glad all turned out seemingly well for you and your family.

  88. AJ

    I came across another nice paper talking about registry laws and their tipping into punitive territory. As close as some of their statements and arguments mirror the Snyder decision in the 6th, I have to believe it was used as part of ACLU-MI’s case. The article addresses some other items too, and is so chock full of case references, it would take me a month just to find them all, let alone read them! I highly recommend reading the associated footnotes, as many of them have some juicy tidbits.

    If this paper has been previously posted, sorry for my thinking I found a gem. 🙂

    @mike r – I would say this paper is mandatory reading for you in your cause.

    • Chris F (@AJ)

      LOL, I posted that one June 24th in the June 2017 general comments, and now that I look they featured it here in April way back in 2014 too!

      It is DEFINITELY a MUST READ for any of us, and for those with lawyers, force them to read it too.

      I just did another search for the title, and apparently Mike R himself posted that “The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws” is “a must read” back in August general comments of 2016!

      I guess if the 3 of us were all drawn to this article by our own separate searches and reached the same conclusion, it doesn’t get any better than that.

      • AJ

        @Chris F
        I figured it has been posted, but was too lazy to do even a cursory search on here. My bad. I was stunned by how much it aligns with what was argued, and upheld, by the 6th with Snyder. Hopefully a similar paper is put under SCOTUS’s collective noses.

  89. TXSO4Life

    Please forward to Janice or anyone that could make or decide this. You know I got to thinking, whatever we said or write in this forum, it is only to VENT our FRUSTRATION, ANGER, SADNESS, and AGREEMENT toward our point of views of how the Federal and / or states government and public are treating us. It is merely a forum to express within the confinement of THIS forum. What can we do or collectively as a group to better take a COURSE OF ACTION to make better our situations, we could donate to make our causes, but do we have the cause of actions in writing to set a goal that we can better see or envision our goals to help all that are being supressed by the ever changing laws to target registrants? For now all I see is alot of frustrations in writings within the confinement of this forums. Beside the fights of writing letters to legistatures to opposes certain bills, can we set aside the targets and donations toward certain ongoing or planning litigations toward certain laws that we are planninng to litigate? Can we, as members see the goals and or the amount of donations toward certain cases or lititation that we wish to pursue? Is it possible as members to see this being displayed so we could make this an even stronger goal toward our goal to abolish the registry or at the minimum a fair and just registry for the truly and dangerous people? Feel free to edit as u seem fit…

    • Lake County

      In simpler words, you are asking if ACSOL could set up separate donation accounts with cash goals for different issues we want to challenge.

      This idea has been mentioned in the past. I’m not sure if Janice would want to loose the ability to control how donations are spent. She often has to fight issues to based on new state or federal legislation as it comes up (especially during election times). All of the many issues related to registration are important and we all have different opinions as to which issues are most important. I think that dividing up donations between all the different issues might end up causing all the issues to be underfunded. The other major problem is that just because we have the money to file a case, that does not mean we will have a good plaintiff with the right case circumstances to file a case. And lastly can a non-profit hold on to funds from one budget year to the next (I have no idea)?

      One possibility is for anyone of us to start up a go fund me account to file cases. However, I’m not sure Janice would agree (or should agree) to advertise here any donation account that could compete with needed donations for ACSOL.

  90. mot

    I just copied this from the KFI 640 AM website I hope you will let it stay as is hows how many ‘sex crimes’ are now considered low level in CA
    Prop 57 was one of the worst propositions voters have ever approved in this state. Jerry Brown is so concerned with prison overcrowding, that he thinks it’s better to let all of the violent people out instead of making more prisons.

    California laws enable and embolden criminals, and the criminals know this! Under Prop 57 there are many disgusting crimes that are considered “non-violent:”

    Rape by intoxication
    Rape of an unconscious person
    Human trafficking involving sex act with minors
    Drive-by shooting
    Assault with a deadly weapon
    Taking a hostage
    Domestic violence involving trauma
    Supplying a firearm to a gang member
    Lewd acts upon a child
    Hate crime causing physical injury
    Failing to register as a sex offender
    Arson causing great bodily injury
    Felon obtaining a firearm
    Discharging a firearm on school grounds
    False imprisonment of an elder

    Read more:

  91. mike r

    Imagine this ..

    Now, the parole boards will look at whether or not the criminal has changed for the better during incarceration:

    What they now have to consider if their so called “rehabilitation” during incarceration has had any effect?????that’s a novel idea….

  92. SO Articles of Interest

    Prediction of dangerousness, length of treatment, and psychological damage.

    Dozens of probation officers who keep tabs on W.Va. sex offenders to lose jobs

    • New Person

      Excerpt from the first article link:

      Prediction of dangerousness, length of treatment, and psychological damage.

      July 27, 2017 NARSOL
      As many of you might realize from my writing that I have a real problem with the pseudoscience of psychiatry and psychology. Especially when it comes to constitutional values and allowing the government to control the thinking of the populace through the questionable methods of mind control, which is in fact, what behavior modification programs are. It’s one thing if someone goes into these programs of their own free will, because they want to make changes. It’s another thing for the government to force them into them. This is especially true when the programs have numerous side effects including posttraumatic stress disorder.

      In Robert Wolfe’s article Sex Offender Treatment; A Legal Extortion Business. He points out the dangers both mentally and constitutional ly of forcing people into treatment programs that they don’t need or don’t want.

      According to the US Supreme court in Vitck vs Jones 100 S.Ct 125, While a conviction and sentence extinguish an individual’s right to freedom from confinement for the term of the sentence, they do not authorize the state to classify him as mentally ill and subject him to involuntary psychiatric treatment without affording additional due process protections. In Ohlinger vs Watson 652 F2d 775, it was brought out that people “have a constitutional right to such individual treatment as will give each of them a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve his mental condition” and “rehabilitative rational is not only desirable, but it is constitutional ly required” plus “adequate and effective treatment is constitutional ly required” if inmates are being forced into treatment programs through coercion by threat of loss of their good time, or privileges afforded to other inmates than it is quite obvious that the prisons officials are attempting to change the thinking patterns through forced treatment in violation of these constitutional standards and this issue was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Stanley v. Georgia, 89 S. Ct. 1243, 1248 ” Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government power to control men’s minds“. It is interesting that behavior modification programs use the same principles as are used in brainwashing and mind control something that the American people are adamantly against.

      Make no mistake, having the government force you into any type of treatment program. Especially when it is too alter your thinking patterns would be totally frowned upon by our founding fathers. It would be no different than being forced into a religious group and told that you had to follow their believes or be imprisoned.

      In my article, Static 99 developers attempting to deflect criticism of their program admit the obvious.
      I again tried to point out the flaws in the believe that pseudoscience has some type of accurate information that could be relied upon and the fallacies of using that information to deny constitutional rights to a group of people as well as the possible reasons why psychiatrists and psychologists continue using the rationalization and justification to the lies they’re spreading to justify their position.

      In my article “Ever have your fortune told” I tried to point out the scientific flaws in attempting to project what an individual will do, based on a strict set of rules. Every true scientists and physicists out there understands that the Chaos theory comes into play when you have so many variables to consider such as those that come into play in an individual’s life. But people in the pseudoscience area act as if they have all the answers, which makes them appear to be nothing more than snake oil salesman or witch doctors.
      And now another article has come out showing that the development of the The Static-99 risk assessment tool and how although legislators and the judiciary department have been using it for the decisions rather a person should be placed in civil commitment or evaluating the dangerousness to provide the different levels for the sex offender registry that in fact the whole time since its inception in 1998. It has been in a constant state of flux, and it earlier versions have been proven to be so inaccurate as to open up the entire use of it as any type of determining factor to so many constitutional lawsuits that the states can ill afford to lose.

      From a scientific point of view, nothing should be put into practice until it has actually proven repeatability , but the users of the pseudoscience of psychology and psychiatry. Do not follow the scientific method, but rather they allow their theory’s to be tested on unsuspecting patients . Over and over again causing mental and emotional damage to not only their patients but to the family members of those patients who have to live with the patients who have to live with the damage done by the treatment providers. We have set guidelines for medicines to be tested again and again until the results come back positive . And if they are not positive they do not make it to the store shelves and even if they do make it to the store shelves. They have to list all the side effects that may be damaging. This is not true in the pseudoscience of psychiatry and psychology. The final statement in the article “Static 99: Yet more bumps on the rocky developmental Path”

      says volumes about how the usage of this unproven, risk assessment that has had major changes to it almost every year since its beginning usage in the late1990s, may be responsible for untold damages to individuals and their family members.
      “It is unknown how many sex offenders were civilly committed in part due to reliance on the now-obsolete data.”

      the auditors also recommended re-examining the practice of mandating lengthy treatment that can lead to demoralization and, in some cases, iatrogenic (or harmful) effects.
      Study questions need for lengthy treatment of detainees

      “Our neighbors to the north are far more sensible, as it turns out. At the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC) in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, civil commitment is nonexistent, and the highest-risk sex offenders may be released after an average of just seven months of treatment.”

      “Comparing high-risk Canadian sex offenders with similarly dangerous offenders civilly committed in the U.S. state of Florida, the researchers found the two populations to be virtually identical.”

      “The low recidivism rates in Canada after only brief treatment suggests that the interminable treatment regimens at U.S. civil commitment sites, which typically last for years and years, are “more cultural than practical,” reflecting the U.S. propensity for severe punishment, according to the study’s authors, … One downside of such interminable treatment is that offenders may become institutionalized, with negative affects on their personalities,”

      Interesting comparisons.

      • Correct attribution of the article is this

        That actually came from SOSEN website originally and was posted on NARSOL with permission.

      • kind of living

        @ New Person ,,, that was a lot to get my mind around , but the links you posted were very helpful , thank you

  93. AJ

    Something occurred to me about the USSG’s amicus to SCOTUS regarding Snyder ( This may have already been addressed by others when the USSG amicus came out; if so sorry. The question petitioned to SCOTUS asks, “Does retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders’ activities within school zones impose ‘punishment’ in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause?”

    Note the three items asked: 1. offense-based tiers, 2. in-person reporting within days, 3. presence and residency restrictions. USSG’s amicus never answers 1 nor addresses that AWA has this; qualifies 2, admitting that though AWA has in-person requirements, there’s no “within days” mandate; and gives no answer on 3, saying there’s no such provision in AWA (true, but that still fails to answer the question). In short, USSG dodges the question before SCOTUS and instead throws MI under the bus.

    USSG maintains that AWA is all fine and dandy, but SORA-MI is bad. While I agree with the latter, they are being cagey with the former. Notice how USSG glides over that AWA mandates offense-based tiers, which is one of the three criteria the 6th found contributed to punitive. Notice how USSG glides over AWA requiring in-person registration, which both the 6th and Smith addressed. USSG is trying to do a sleight-of-hand regarding these, and diverts the discussion. USSG quickly mentions that MI and AWA have offense-based tiers…but then only discusses that MI requires Internet publication of the tiers, which AWA doesn’t require. USSG mentions that AWA and MI both require in-person reporting (which the 6th didn’t like, but didn’t need to find SORA punitive, and which also was a discussed item in Smith)…then only discusses that MI has more stringent requirements than AWA mandates. USSG then hides the in-person reporting requirement in the footnote, hoping nobody will notice that AWA has such too.

    I am quite sure ACLU-MI will notice this “oversight” by USSG and mention it in their supplemental, which should come along any day now (I think they have 30 days from July 7, which means due by August 6). Even if they don’t, I would hope some other amici, or SCOTUS and staff notice it. Once again, the Government is trying to pull a fast one on SCOTUS. I think they–or at least Kennedy–learned a lesson with “frightening and high.” At least I hope they did.

  94. That Guy

    Can anyone tell me about the Anaheim registration process? I am potentially purchasing a home there and want to know how it goes.

    Thank you!

    • C

      I’m curious to hear about how moving into your new home goes.

      When I bought my house in 2000 there was no ML web site. Was a little rough with the neighbors at first when that cursed site went live, but that blew over quickly enough.
      Neighborhood has gone downhill since. We want a bigger house in a better area. Hard for me to leave my comfort zone, however, fearing new neighbor backlash and potential impact on my youngins.

      Would love to hear from others who purchased a home when they were on the public registry. Any fallout? How’d you handle it?

      • That Guy

        Fortunately I am on the website but am a zip code only person. Sp I do not appear on the map. I have never had trouble with neighbors.

  95. Lake County

    Rep. Ted Poe, Republican from Texas is speaking in the House of Representatives on C-Span right now. His subject is sexual violence, victims rights and how rape is worse than death. And how we need harsher penalties for offenders. (11:00am PT)

  96. New Person

    Any thoughts on this

    California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7(b):
    (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
    or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
    Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or

    I bring this up b/c registrants do not share the same immunities like other convicits who qualify for the 1203.4. Aside from stating your case is dismissed (and for some registrants, no longer being uploaded onto ML), there’s no difference in penalization/supervision/service to the state. That means every other convict receives immunities that registrants who qualify for the 1203.4 do not get.

    Am I missing something here or is there something here as it is written in the California Constitution? Doesn’t this implicitly denote equal protection in respect to immunities?

  97. Curiouser

    The process changed a bit about two years or so ago. Previously, you would phone in for an appointment. On that day you would go into the main lobby of the downtown station. A custody officer or cadet would handle all of the paperwork while you waited in the main lobby. When everything was ready, you would go inside for printing and photographing.

    That changed recently. You call in for the appointment, and are told that on that day, you go to the back of the building and get buzzed into the custody section. There, a custody officer handles the paperwork updates. After its all ready, you sign and give the thumbprint. They then have you come back through the security door. The custody guy is required to search you for weapons. After that, its printing and photos as usual.

    Some complained that moving the process to the back is more embarrassing, but to be honest, it is actually better than being out front. Everyone in the custody area is there for the same thing. The guy I’ve had do my work for the past two years is extraordinarily professional. Anaheim has a lot of transient offenders, so they are really used to the process (every 30 days for those folks). It goes pretty much like clockwork and I’ve had no complaints.

    • Lake County

      So are they taking you into a secure area that you cannot freely leave? Like being in custody?

      • AJ

        @Lake County
        Touche’. But that cannot be, as that would be akin to parole/probation/supervision, which we all know the registry game isn’t. Just ask the Legislature, they said so!

        • Chris F


          I wish registration was as easy as probation. For probation, I can set the time and date around work and get in and out pretty quickly in an office environment by people trained to do what they do.

          With registration, for me, it’s in a police station at the specific time and day they set, with someone that is trained at only being a police officer, and they can make me wait for hours.

          • AJ

            I guess I’m “lucky” in having to do it through the DMV. Aside from the wait, which can be 20 minutes or 2 hours, the process is fast and easy. No fingerprints, etc., “just” a picture and a form (of which they supply extras for filling out at home), and out the door. It’s still objectionable and obtrusive, though.

    • That Guy

      Thank you for the info. It looks like we will be closing soon and moving in before the end of the month.

      When I live in Westminster you would go through the jail and a jail officer would register. Kind, polite and professional. Sounds like the same in Anaheim.

  98. The Unforgiven

    With regards to a compliance check…whether or not a person engages with the police when they visit, they do have some sort of paper they are attempting to have filled out. For me, it’s just a copy of my info straight from the Megan’s Law website in which they request my signature. I have signed a couple in the past and currently deny to sign any more. They make some sort of note about that. Not interested in stirring the pot but frankly, I have no idea what they write when I don’t comply and I have not been given a reason to fully trust law enforcement. Whether or not I choose to comply, something is being written down. Should I, or all of us in this situation, request a copy of this paperwork?

    • the truth 101

      You could try doing a FOIA request on the document. It would be a good idea, in my opinion, to know what they are saying about you.

      • The Unforgiven

        Hmm, interesting. I hadn’t thought of that. Had to look that up. Thank you.

  99. AJ

    Here’s a legal Article that makes a compelling argument that could quite easily apply to DLs with “sex offender” somehow included on them:

    Hopefully the OK case comes out in our favor.

    • @AJ - Clev State Article

      Fascinating read!

      • AJ

        Thanks. I think this Article could be quite helpful arguing that the label on one’s DL is compelled speech. Furthermore, since the State already has another, effective manner in which to ensure the speech gets out (i.e. its registry), the State has no compelling reason this speech needs to be on one’s DL. I’m guessing the State would try to compare it to having “DONOR” on the DL for organ donation, however that argument leaks like a sieve. First DONOR is speech I voluntarily make; the State cannot compel me to say I’m a DONOR–even if I am one, I can choose not to put it on my DL. (The same voluntary argument holds if the State raises that some DLs have “Veteran” on them.) Second, DONOR is important due to is being time-critical information. Third, there is no other method, effective or otherwise, in place to get the speech out. There is no “donor registry,” but even if there were, the time-critical element stands on its own.

  100. KM

    Has anyone done research on the best states to live as a RSO? I’m curious to which states have the most lax restrictions.

    I found out that my misdemeanor conviction of 647.6 isn’t even a crime in any other state, but since most states require you to register if you have to register in the convicting state, I’m mostly screwed. I did find that New York won’t require me to register if the crime isn’t a New York crime and is not an out-of-state felony. So my best bet is to move to new York. Has anyone else found another state like that?

    • To KM

      Unfortunately, once a person moves from one state to another, they then fall under the purview of SORNA / AWA due to the Interstate Commerce Clause (permanently even if you move back to CA). You or an attorney need to review the offense and registry implications of the AWA. While AWA would have a 15 year period for a 647.6, the law says ~”or the maximum registry length of the state of conviction.”

    • Chris F

      In Texas, if it isn’t on our “Chapter 62” list of offences, then you shouldn’t have to register here.

  101. AJ

    “The Roberts Court Has Been a Free Speech Champion”:

    It seems that under Roberts, SCOTUS is staunchly defending the First Amendment, clawing back overreach by the Legislative and Executive branches. That would certainly help people suffering from freedom of assembly restraints such as, oh I don’t know, residency and presence restrictions.

    As the article notes, the addition of Gorsuch is probably a boon to First Amendment freedoms.

  102. mike r

    I am getting rid of every mention of the CA constitution since the federal courts do not even consider state constitutions when making decisions..AJ, Chris, This is correct right????

  103. mike r

    But the federal courts can determine state laws unconstitutional and order injunctions nullifying state laws based on US constitutional violations. I am correct as far as I know. correct me if I’m wrong.

    • AJ

      @mike r
      Correct again. A Federal court *always* has jurisdiction over something that violates Federal Law or the U.S. Constitution. State courts can rule on Federal questions, but if one party is unsatisfied, it may end up in Federal court anyway. Two examples are Snyder and Muniz.

      In Snyder, the Federal Court ruled MI’s SORA violates the US Constitution. (I believe they also ruled it violated MI’s constitution, but that opinion holds no power over the State.) IOW, they ruled that a State law violated the Federal Constitution.

      In Muniz, the State Court ruled PA’s law violates the Federal Constitution. The State can appeal this in Federal Court (SCOTUS). They also ruled PA’s law violates the State constitution. The State has no further recourse on this question, as Federal Courts (SCOTUS included) have no jurisdiction.

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 *