ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 Recording Uploaded, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
Challenging Parole Conditions: postponed [details]
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

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. 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.

      http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.62.htm

  2. AJ

    “The Roberts Court Has Been a Free Speech Champion”: http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/27/the-roberts-court-has-been-a-free-speech

    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.

  3. 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????

  4. 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.

      • New Person

        Curious here… In the Smith v Doe 2003 decision, Roberts specifically denoted that only those with convictions be on the registry.

        Conviction = registry
        No Conviction = No registry… because you have no information needing to be disseminated b/c it’s no longer public information.

        Is it possible for all RC’s who have had their cases dismissed challenge still being forced to register as well as continue to be penalized?

  5. mike r

    What someone stated recently that ” I received a call two weeks before departure and was notified that I was cleared to go with the same warnings. “Stay away from the teen areas, etc… ”
    is a major factor. Supervision, permission. Exactly what the justices in smith were saying didn’t exist in that case. There are several issues that smith stated that they relied upon to make their decision that are now indisputably present in this current era of super registration schemes. It is very encouraging that appeal case was for the ninth. I just reread the opinion and it is completely in my favor. It barely passed muster in that case with basically a split decision and two of the justices concurring only with the judgment, not the reasoning behind their conclusions.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      One difference is that, as a private company, the cruise lines can bar you from certain parts of their property (teen areas, etc) for any reason they wish (as long as it’s not based on a protected class item). That they even know about us is the issue, I agree.

  6. ❎ Sex Offense Registry ❎ (David)

    ❎ A suggestion to all: Words matter. Please consider referring to the list as “Sex Offense Registry”, not Sex OffenDER Registry. Don’t buy into their oppressive syntax of ostracisation and vilification!!

    For most of us, it was a bad decision, a foolish/reckless /wrong action, but it was years ago, not yesterday. I am not their reviled present-tense “sex offender” – I was convicted of a sexual offense two decades ago – not today and not yesterday, but 7,000 yesterdays ago, so their present-tense is inaccurate and inappropriate.
    [If you stole a candy bar as a 10 year old, should you forever be identified first and foremost as a thief?? No, of course not. Same notion here.] ❎

    • AlexO

      I’ll add to this.

      Don’t refer to Child Pornography as such or CP, but rather as CSAI (pronounced as “sigh”) or Child Sex Abuse Images. Calling it CP somewhat downplays the matter, as pornography is a legitimate industry. Call such things exactly what they are, which is abuse of children in a sexual matter. BTW, this isn’t something I made up but learned.

      • Joe

        Could not disagree more. Example: photo of a topless 16 year old.

        1. 16 year olds are not children. 2. Nudity is not pornography, nor sexual abuse.

        Don’t believe everything you have “learned”.

        • David Kennerly, Tamper-Proof Package

          Also, it is now widely surmised that most CP is created by kids, themselves, rather than by adults.

          Laws forbidding the depiction of child nudity in art or photography is a very recent, and dramatic, reversal of laws and mores. There are many countries and cultures which don’t have a tradition of America’s puritan-derived hostility to nudity. Nevertheless, these religiously-infused attitudes are changing laws worldwide.

          • Tim Moore

            The Amazon natives have no problem with it. Beats the heat and humidity and hyperthermia. Their culture’s survived eons, until clothes arrived and with it shame, brought them down. Here nudity, or rather teasing with highly ornamented almost nudity, is the market domain of celebrities and other “beautiful” people.

        • AlexO

          Right, so you wouldn’t call that CP either, correct? I’m talking about actual rape and abuse videos and pictures of children to which people most commonly refer to as Child Pornography. Call that SCAI. A nude selfie of a 16-year-old that was sent to their partner is different than a video/pic of a 10-year-old involved in intercourse with an adult. I’m talking about the latter.

          • David Kennerly, 1st Amendment Absolutist

            Well, we don’t really get to see any of this, do we Alex? And because we can’t see it, we cannot come to a common understanding of what comprises it. Our government decides what is, and what is not, child pornography (yes, I’m not changing the term I use because the term “child abuse images” is totally agenda-driven by the real abuse/therapy industrial complex – I’m not carrying their water for them) and because the government criminalizes the very act of viewing those images so-categorized, then we are free to mean anything we like when we say “child pornography” simply because there is no way for us to legally view it, apart from becoming law enforcement or forensic examiners.

            As for real abuse images and rape, well, I can honestly say that I had never seen any material of that sort some decades ago before my one arrest and have no reason to believe that it is any more prevalent today. What is more prevalent today is that the bar for what constitutes child pornography has gotten extraordinarily low and now includes material no reasonable person would consider “pornographic.” Keep in mind that simple nudity is now treated as “child pornography” whereas, once, nudity was perfectly legal. But even nudity is no longer necessary to be “child porn.” Fully-clothed subjects said to be “provocatively posed” are now “child pornography.”

            By the way, that’s why the abuse-complex started using the term “child abuse images,” simply because clothed images of kids not being touched is so obviously NOT pornography in any meaningful way. They had to come up with a term even fuzzier than “child porn.” Now throw into the mix that kids with cellphone cameras are widely believed to be creating more “child pornography” than any adults and you have a huge, black box of unknowable material that we are to trust (the government) is actually harmful, both to their subjects and as viewed by kids or adults.

            We need to stop kissing the asses of these ostensible “experts” and asking exactly what is in the big black box which none of us are allowed to peer into and why lives are being destroyed for possessing it.

            • kind of living

              @David kennderly ,,,, ,, ,, good job braking that all down , that was fuzzy enough for sure lol , it sucks but I think your right

    • David Kennerly, Child-Resistant Package

      For me, 9,865 days, roughly, since my arrest! Yet, it seems like just yesterday, seared, as it was, into my mind.

      • steve

        7300…lol

        • Gralphr

          Wow, 3650 for me and I thought I’ve done some years… At least now I can petition to try to get off (which I highly doubt I’ll get it) I keep reading about people taking a sex offender treatment program, but I was never ordered to do such a thing (which will probably some back to haunt me when I go for relief) Never mind I’m married with children now, obtained an Associates and Bachelors degree, and have been actively employed the majority of time since release…………

  7. mike r

    I hear you David, its like we are reminded of what happened everyday of our lives just because we know we are on that list and subject to any type of harassment from state actors, as well as from the general public. I kick myself everyday for going to trial and not defending myself. I am constantly aware that I am subject to this crap…I notice the first time I become complacent and relax completely something happens to disrupt it. That’s OK though because t’s coming, the registry is going to take a dive, or freedoms in this country is gone as we know it, if it isn’t already. This will just mean the constitution doesn’t mean anything anymore, just like the “left wing radicals” that hate our founding fathers want…I had to throw that in there..Keep reading that motion David and let me know what you think….

  8. mike r

    Yep, April 5, 2004 for me. approx. 4,925 days here. Damn David 28 years man, how ridiculous. You must of killed someone (sarcasm), I know people that have straight killed people and only did 15 (now free from any supervision like a registry).This crap is insane……….See, people like you, I don’t care what you did, are no brainier winners with a motion like the one I sent you. Frank Lindsey would of been a prime candidate also….Oh well, now we have myself only been on the list from Oct. 2008, so not even ten years on the registry, even though the offense was almost 14 years ago.

    • David Kennerly, 1st Amendment Absolutist

      Not only have I been on the Registry forever, but it has gotten progressively worse for me while on it. This is the opposite of how rehabilitation should work.

      Yes, I’m still working on reading your motion (a couple of pages a day) and I wish you the best of luck with it. I do think that we need to start networking with law schools who might be willing to help us with future lawsuits. Legal clinics for Registrants is an idea whose time has come.

    • David

      Mike, if David K had actually killed someone he would probably have been done and out in 10 years …… and not dealing with this lifetime BS we all are!!

      • David Kennerly, 1st Amendment Absolutist

        Just to be clear, the twenty-eight years refers to my time on the Registry, not to my prison time, which was five years.

        And no, I didn’t kill anyone. 🙂 I would argue that I didn’t harm anyone directly, either. What I did do, through my behavior, was to make someone vulnerable to the predations of the state which is the source of tremendous regret. It was quite traumatic, for them and for me.

        • David Kennerly, 1st Amendment Absolutist

          Oh, wait! Where did I get twenty-eight? That’s when I was arrested. I’ve been on the Registry for twenty-three years. As if that’s not enough.

        • A Wife

          After 25 years on the registry my husband learned that he could get a CoR and get off the list (why his high priced attorney did not inform him thereof at the time of the case, which resulted in probation, is another story).

          When calling around to find a psychologist for a psych evaluation he explained his situation and needs. One prospective psychologist responded after a brief pause “Can do, but would be much easier if you had merely killed someone”.

          True story.

  9. hailie

    where can I find out what tier I’m in? I have felony 261.5d and score a 3 on the static

    • Relief

      @Hailie: 261.5d would most likely be in Tier 1, 10 year duration. It is not a felony offense listed in 667.5. It may also be reducible to a misdemeanor per 17b.

  10. mike r

    Agreed David. and also I have tried everywhere and everyone that I think could possibly be interested in helping me in any way. No one will touch it, not ACLU, RSOL both local or national, W.A.R., Sosen-although Will and Robert and Derek have been inadvertently instrumental in the creation of some of my arguments in my motion, law libraries, law schools, both private and public defenders and attorneys, all these people that are creating and writing all the studies, man I could go on but I think you get my drift. And there is no way that they are simply not willing to help because I have some horrendous charges or are considered exceptionally dangerous, or dangerous at all, so its not discriminating. “WHEN” I win my case , I might do a minor in law and just start some kind of clinic or legal support such as a paralegal where I will not be subject to state bar, or practicing law without a license. I do not where this might go, if anywhere beyond my case.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Have you tried seeing if ACLU will file an amicus? At times, they are willing to chime in on a side, but are loath to litigate it themselves. Then again, perhaps they are anti-RC, as ACLU-NY sounds to be. I guess only some civil liberties matter.

      Maybe try Equal Justice Under Law (http://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/). They’re taking part in the AL lawsuit in the 11th.

  11. Phantom threat

    Pollution is the biggest threat against the safety, health, welfare and future of children, NOT sex offenders!

    The threat of pollution is real: It’s imminent, ongoing, escalating and evolving.

    https://www.popsci.com/nine-million-people-killed-pollution

  12. mike r

    The FCRA requires employers to get an employee’s written permission before asking a consumer reporting agency to conduct a background check on that person. Employers must also notify the employee in writing–in a letter that contains only this information–that a background check may be made and may be used for employment purposes.
    http://smallbusiness.chron.com/far-back-background-check-can-employer-go-865.html

    So not only is it difficult to get criminal records we also have to give permission it appears. I am digging deeper into this….

    • Gralphr

      My biggest problem when it comes to employment is the registry itself. My convictions don’t appear on a background check (always says no felonies found), but the registry does. I have a number of background check documents from numerous companies where I was denied the position due having to register and NOT an conviction. Its extremely irritating to go to interviews, be picked for the position (and be considered the best thing slice bread) only to get a phone call after the background check due to finding out I have to register. Mind you I have only worked in adult only environments (such as Data Centers). I was turned away from yet another position just last week due to the registry. I have to admit, while living in California I did NOT have a problem getting a job being on the registry (and made pretty good money in IT). It’s been a huge mistake to think I can get a decent job in the east (Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina). Housing wasn’t a problem for me in California, my wife and I were outright told if we want to live in Georgia we need to find a homeowner who will rent to us because no decent Apartment complex is going to let me rent since I’m on the registry…. 🙁

      • Chris F

        It sounds exactly like an Equal Protection and Bill of Attainder violation of the constitution doesn’t it?

        Even the EEOC says that sex offender and other similar registries can be used to deny jobs, but when the criminal check is used it recommends only going back 7 years. So…most other felons can get records sealed or allow 7 years to go by and get a job…but end up on an registry and you are screwed for life or some arbitrary time limit like 10, 15, 20, 25 years… Yep. Not constitutional yet hear we are still. It doesn’t matter that you aren’t under government supervision of probation or parole and therefore gone beyond the time limit the judge imposed on protecting the public from you.

  13. steve

    Was just reading an article about Mynamar and their assault on the Muslim sect there. Tillerson calls it genocide with this description of it

    “The crime of genocide involves the commission of certain acts with the intent to destroy a group of people, or part of it, on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, race, or nationality. Those acts include murder, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating conditions of life calculated to be destructive.”

    Add sex registrant to that list of groups. Feels about right.

    • AJ

      Yeah, no kidding. I’ve been kind of following what’s going on there, and still can’t figure out how their leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the Nobel PEACE Prize, can be so far off the rails. I figure she’s either fanatic or weak.

      • David Kennerly, Life Spent On A Shelf

        The Western press oversimplifies everything and they wanted a heroine whom they could portray as a great savior of liberty. For one thing, she’s a woman so she automatically got lots of liberal street-cred for that.The same thing was true for Corey Aquino of the Phillippines who turned out to be ineffectual, at best and corrupt at worst. The reality of Aung San Suu Kyi is rather different from the expectations of the West. Burma and its people are lovely, with their charming, tanaka-brushed cheeks and their swaying, unisex skirts. I enjoyed my visit there thoroughly and would love to go back but the government is deadly brutal.

  14. TXSO4life

    Since it is close to halloween, I just had my compliant check yesterday, officer knocked and asked questions if any things has changed or if I am still on parole or probation. And that was it. Last compliant check, a different police asked for all the names and ages of all the people live in the household.

    • AJ

      @TXSO4life:
      Assuming you’re not under supervision, why’d you even answer the door? Or, once that misstep was made, why didn’t you promptly close it again with a polite, “sorry, I don’t talk with LEOs without an attorney present”?

      • TXSO4life

        @AJ, I am not under any form of supervision since 1997. Compliant check by police as I understand it, has been part of registration policy since texas adopted so laws. And I have been subjected to it since 1997. If I dont answer my door, they will just come back at night or late at night banging on my door. They will also knock on my neighbors doors and asked about me. Or they will execute a warrant for my arrest. This is texas and I have seen it happens on the news.

        • AJ

          @TXSO4life:
          In a word: wow. Well, I can certainly understand how they are coercing you into cooperating through the tactics mentioned. I think I’d still be averse to answering anything more than legally required. But that’s probably the Teutonic blood in me. 🙂

        • lovewillprevail

          Compliance checks in Texas…

          Chapter 62 requires no compliance checks. Chapter 62 gives the Department (of Public Safety) the authority to implement rules in order to carry out Chapter 62. Via a public information request, I obtained a copy of the rules and learned when received that the rules are part of the state administrative code. There are no rules concerning compliance checks. The STATE has no home compliance laws or rules or regulations.

          Local law enforcement is not required or authorized by the state to do home compliance checks. Now having said that, if one is on probation or parole, then one can be subject to probation or parole compliance checks.

          For those of us like me who are on neither, I feel my rights are violated. But I co-operate with the local sheriff department as I need its assistance with an issue regarding the state. Once the issue is resolved I have no intention of co-operating with harassing action.

          Any compliance checks in Texas for people not on probation or parole is harassment as far as I am concerned. And any compliance checks are just a policy of the local sheriff or police department. They are not required by the Texas Department of Public Safety nor statute.

          Under the Texas Local Government Code, the county and the municipality can enforce police policies. But, under the Texas Local Government Code, no county court order, municipal ordinance, resolution, police policy, etc… can be enforced with a fine or criminal punishment unless the court order, ordinance, etc… unless it 1st has at least a caption along with the punishment published in the official newspaper of the governmental entity.

          And a public information request can prove this has not been done, and therefore unenforceable, which I plan on doing in the future once I am done co-operating.

          And therefore no need to comply.

          What a waste of taxpayer dollars. The ex-chief of police well known across this country before he resigned, stopped home compliance checks and stated that he has no problems with registered sex offenders so there was no reason and beside with the increase in violent crime and gang activity in Dallas, the resources were needed elsewhere. He was criticized in the paper.

          But guess what, since then, I have seen no articles in the paper about an increase in sex offenders committing crimes.

          Yes, I know, my local sheriff detective will be out next week because it is Halloween. I live in the middle of an industrial district and there is only one family within 1/2 mile and my street has only them and one other elderly neighbor, no street lights, no side walks, the street is part gravel, dirt and asphalt. There is no trick or treating in my neighborhood. There are no outside lights on my property. And I am never home around Halloween anyway as I am usually working.

          Again, what a waste of taxpayer dollars.

  15. AJ

    More shots fired on the Constitution:

    First Amendment: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/24/teen-defy-congressmans-cease-and-desist-letter/793314001/
    —–
    Apparently while it’s okay for Members of Congress to say anything, about anyone, at anytime, it’s a problem when a citizen continually exercises his right to petition his Government.
    =====
    Fourth Amendment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ice-arrest-without-warrant-of-man-inside-house-investigated/2017/10/20/2c61249c-b5ea-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html?utm_term=.8030c9ca7a10
    —–
    I’m curious what exigent exception ICE will claim on this one. That they believed nobody lived in the house is of no consequence. Private property is private property.

  16. Lake County

    I went in for my annual today. The officer was polite and professional as usual. One thing I noticed in this years paperwork is a statement that I must notify them if I travel “out of state” or internationally. There was no mention about how much advanced notice I must provide. There was also no mention of what law code requires this notification. All the many other rules they gave me quoted the law code. I asked him about this and he stated the form came directly from DOJ in Sacramento. If I remember correctly, the ML website also states we must give notification for out of state travel. No where in the 290 rules does it say we must notify anyone to travel out of state.

    • AlexO

      I remember noticing this earlier this year as well. I believe this is part of SORNA. California isn’t SORNA compliant so technically we do not have to follow it. They’re still handing out this info because it’s a Federal law on the books. Basically, think of it like the Sim Valley Halloween thing. The law is on the books, they promise they won’t enforce it, but they sure liked handing out just enough information every year to inform you about it, but not information to say you don’t actually have to do it. It’s like, “Our duty is to inform you of all the laws on the books, not to explain how they work and what you actually have to do. Figure it out for yourself. Here are some hoops.”

      Perhaps Janice or someone else with better understanding can clarify this?

  17. TG

    I live in California. I will be visiting relatives for 6 days in San Diego in December. My question is, do I have to register there? Any help is appreciated

    • AlexO

      I believe the technical law for California is that if you’re going to reside somewhere for more than 5 days, in or out of state, you need to register out with your district. Then, you need to register with the new district if you’re going to be staying there longer than whatever period of time the new district requires. So within California you’d need to register with San Diego due to you being there longer than 5 days.

      Of course you can probably skip doing all this as no one will actually be checking up on you one way or the other (if you’re off supervision). And if you’re not even going to stay at a hotel, there’s really no record to say where you were when and for how long.

      • Change coming

        No. I’ve been registering in California for 25 years. Never heard that, unless it’s a parole or probation condition.

  18. mike r

    I agree no! I would not risk going to prison and being subjected to the extremely draconian parole rules. If you’re willing to take that chance go for it, but you’d be taking an extreme risk….just leave after 4 days, or stay at a hotel out of the jurisdiction for the last night, or something like that in which you can use in court if they decide to arrest you.

  19. Question

    does anyone know what tier would be a person with 288 (a) from deadline NBC with no other history base on the new law in california, please? Thank you

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. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • 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
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

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

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