ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings

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

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

General News

General Comments August 2017

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

Join the discussion

  1. Chris F (@Mike R and AJ)

    Re-posting since we are starting a new month:

    Mike R and AJ,

    I agree with both of you that state stuff should probably be left off in a federally filed case.

    I see where in the PENNSYLVANIA case, the state court was able to consider both Constitutions and rule on both, but I can’t think of when a federal court made an opinion on a state issue.

    I look forward to seeing your next draft.

    I am curious though, does your case stand a better chance citing both Constitutions and being filed in State court? I seem to recall there being a few California rights that were much broader than the national Constitution. Was it the right to privacy?

    In regard to this question: “federal courts can determine state laws unconstitutional and order injunctions nullifying state laws based on US constitutional violations”

    I would say you are correct. I believe a federal court can say a state law violates the US Constitution. I think this happens in Texas a lot. I like this article:

    • Eric Knight

      Conceptually, State Constitutions can enumerate anything they wish, including any law they want to enforce, with the EXCEPTION that they cannot violate basic INDIVIDUAL rights enumerated in the Federal Constitution with regard to any of the current 28 amendments, the various clauses, and upholds the protocol of negative liberty;specifically, the “liberty” of the government to stifle the right(s) of individuals.

      Pragmatically, much of that has been upended with the constant centralization of power to the Federal government, particularly with all the executive branch departments and the consolidation of power within the legislative branches to that of two entities, in violation of the spirit of the original federalist compact.

      And Registered Citizens are the canary in the mine for this Communist / Crony Capitalist goal of Ultimate Dystopia.

    • AJ

      @Chris F
      “I can’t think of when a federal court made an opinion on a state issue.”
      I don’t recall stumbling across one, either, and am doubtful many exist. For one, it would be “poor etiquette” for a Federal court to encroach on the State court’s jurisdiction. Secondly, anything they would say would be dicta.

      With that issue in mind, something about Snyder was gnawing at me. So, I visited the ACLU-MI site that has the docs ( Though the Snyder case pending before SCOTUS is indeed of huge import, it’s not all that was decided along the way. What seems to get forgotten is what was decided in the (Federal) District court case. In that case, a number of elements of MI SORA were found to be unconstitutional, mostly due to vagueness but also due to excessiveness and First Amendment issues. From what I can glean, MI has not appealed this part, which would make these items settled case law in the 6th Federal District (OH, MI, TN, KY).
      Though non-binding outside the 6th, this District decision could be used in other cases as reference and for consideration.

      There’s also a nice FAQ and fact sheet (Exhibit 1 is quite interesting), which I would recommend to all. (

      As for @mike r’s case, I agree that perhaps striking in CA court may be advantageous due to CA’s “friendlier” constitution. The risk, as Chris F mentioned, is election-sensitive judges deciding things, which could mean time wasted on a path that ends up going Federal anyway. Tough call. I guess if anything, I would try to see how CA’s laws and constitution compare to the States where decisions have been made, both pro and con. If the preponderance of the outcomes that match CA are good, I say go for State court. If they’re bad, go Federal. I don’t know that that would increase odds of winning, but it’s about the only way I can think to objectify the decision. Just my $0.02, which may well overstate its value.

      “I believe a federal court can say a state law violates the US Constitution.”
      Absolutely. Federal courts always have jurisdiction regarding the Federal Constitution. Always.

      • New Person


        That chart for Ex. 1 is mind blowing. Low risk people fall below the Redemption line. The Redemption line is a stat for people who committed non-sex crime offense that commit a sex crime afterwards.

        That 17 year max scrutiny from the state can easily be seen on this chart, which was made by Dr. Karl Hanson. That chart alone should make tremendous waves for any state that only applies lifetime registration as the only term given, despite having different risk levels assigned – like in CA.

        • AJ

          @New Person
          Yeah, that chart is pretty stunning. Also of note is that besides low-risk always being below this rate, even medium and high risk eventually fall below the Redemption bar. By 25 years, every single level of risk is below the Redemption bar.

          So why, exactly, do we have lifetime registration? Oh yeah, because a legislative body did a “finding.” I strongly suspect that a finding is not actual work done by research, instead it’s a convenient phrase thrown on the front which, like intent, makes a court go, “oh ok,” and accepts it at face value and as gospel. Good thing legislators never pull fast ones!

          • Civil rights first

            I’m just wondering if someone has ever requested the the “findings” that the legislature supposedly have done under the freedom of information act


    @Mike R,
    I think choosing to litigate at the state court levels might be a better alternative as u know the SNYDER case is currently pending in SCOTUS. What if (GOD forbid) SCOTUS rules against us then it wont have a negative affect (not directly) on your state level petition. Knowing that the recent PA court (state court) ruled in favor of us, it only help to try that route. As Chris R asked, does your case stand a better chance citing both Constitutions and being filed in State court? One has to wonder the posibility outcomes of your case should SCOTUS decided to overturn snyder case. Just my 2 cents.

    • Chris F

      It is possible that his case stands a better chance in federal court, if California courts he would petition are elected and not appointed. Elected judges hardly ever side with a sex offender, even when clear violations of the constitution are involved. I am not sure how California is structured for state courts.

    • lovewillprevail

      State vs Fed where to file issue…also depends on the state laws of the state in regards to recovery of legal fees and damages. I have heard Texas laws in this area discourages filing of civil rights complaints in state court. One would like a decent chance at recovering legal fees at the minimum if one won in court. Plus I have heard that if federal civil rights are violated, one can sue for damages. But what do I know as I am not an attorney. So a consultation with a civil rights attorney in your own state would be a must before making a decision on where to file.

  3. Kari


    I missed the conference call last night about the Pennsylvania casement. Does anyone know if this call was recorded?

  4. mike r

    What an incredible read Chris…The reasoning of these men were impeccable and the intellect for the time seems incomprehensible to be bestowed upon any human so early in the evolution of our country…Those men may have been racist and hypocrites in many cases but they were highly intelligent and if followed by our judiciary and legislative branches of government in the way that the founders envisioned it would create a real democracy governed by a constitution that could continue to bear fruit for eternity. the fact that the judiciary is being politicized and deferring to the legislative branch so deeply, and in fact seem to be melding into just an extension of the legislative branch, is extremely troubling for our country and is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid when they granted the power to the federal judiciary. That’s my take on that article.. Correct me if I am wrong because I want to understand the history and evolution of our country fully; especially if I am to be taken seriously by the court and not considered as Gov. Randolph stated “In the eyes of foreign nations; they discarded us as little wanton bees, who had played for liberty, but had no sufficient solidity or wisdom to secure it on a permanent basis, and were therefore , unworthy of their regard” Replace foreign nations with “the courts” and that is exactly what I want to avoid when going into this……….I want to and will be taken seriously when I submit documents and enter the court room…

    • Chris F

      All the more reason to make it clear in your filing that it is the Judiciary’s job from the clear intent of the Constitution to step in when the legislation creates laws in the heat of the moment to appease a popular but false and ultimately self-destructive opinion of the people against a politically powerless and easily identifiable minority. It is precisely an issue that cannot be left to legislature to fix, as that is impossible to do by elected officials without them being kicked out of office by the people.

      It also must be very clear that the intent of the legislature, to protect the people, was already in full force with the sentencing power of the judges. The legislature is free to provide the Judiciary with any tools it wishes to assist them with protecting the public from those who committed crimes, but the legislature may not interfere with the Judiciary’s job by declaring a specific punishment on all who committed a particular crime.

  5. mike r

    I am not sure if this posted before when I tried to edit my comment so if it’s a duplicate that’s why…Also, can you enlighten me as to what the alternative to the creation of the federal judiciary being the finally arbiter for the constitution because that seems to have went over my head or something.. Patrick Henry seemed to be against this idea and he was a staunch supporter of our constitutional liberties the ” give me liberty or give me death” statement really resounds with me and captures about how I am sure most of us our starting to feel. I want to know what alternative protection from the legislative body was there without the federal court as the supreme word on the constitutional issues….

    • Chris F

      @Mike R

      I don’t believe there was a good alternative.

      The alternative was to allow the president to declare it unconstitutional similar to how a Monarchy might work, but that sent chills up their spines. A Monarch, similar to an appointed judge, is expected to make the right decisions based on wisdom, and freedom from worrying about being voted out for doing something the people won’t like, but must be done for their welfare. A president is elected, and therefore not a good choice to do what is needed instead of what is popular.

  6. Chris F

    Regarding the Pennsylvania case that was won, I often find more information about how to properly fight these laws from the Dissent opinions, if there are any.

    In this case there was one:

    Some things are clear from this dissent. Either this judge just wants to keep the strict sex offender laws in place regardless of the Constitution, or he truly doesn’t understand how much registration has changed since the 2003 Alaska Smith V Doe verdict, and how much the false “frightening and high” and “80 percent recidivism” from Mckune V Liles 2002 affected the 6-3 split on the Justice’s votes back then.

    This points out why it is imperative in cases to clearly outline all of the hardships caused, the consequences of registration, and how easily the state’s interest could be justly achieved if put in the hands of judges during the fair sentencing portion of the trial instead of by one wide brush of legislature. It also must be pointed out that the history behind the legislation’s intent is riddled with comments that show intent to punish a politically powerless class, as well as the lack of actually accomplishing any stated goals.

    Those who have time, please read this judges dissent. It only takes a majority of those type judges to keep these harmful policies in place for another few decades. Thank goodness this close minded judge was a minority in this case. I am both dumbfounded how he sees modern day registration the same as 2003, and also how with modern evidence you could even find 2003 registration Constitutional and not punishment.

  7. mike r

    That dissent is interesting reasoning and just shows how these biased judges can articulate their unreasonable and erroneous opinions. Well guess what the motion I am drafting exposes all the fallacies that are in that dissent..I am almost finished revising it and will be posting it soon.

  8. mike r

    Alright man here it is. My god this was exacting intensive work but I believe I have solid arguments in this motion.

    Removed all references to CA constitution, paired down a lot of material especially in the first claim and conclusion. Check it out see what you guys think……….

    • steve

      Props to you for all your work with this. Tiny thing, and I can’t find it again maybe you have a way to search words. In one of your sentences you wrote “repeatable” I think you meant “repeatably”? It was somewhere after claim of reputation. Not sure if it’s that important. Unbelievable job. I’m pretty much convinced I could never be an attorney now.

    • David

      @ mike r: last sentence, point #9: I believe you mean “MAY work”, not “MY work”

  9. Bobby

    Hello everyone,

    Well I just got an e-mail back from Ms Aukerman about an hour ago, I asked if she(the aclu) was going to file a brief in response to Michigan’s Supplemental Brief, in the Snyder case, and if they were going to write another brief in the Temelkoski case. (That case ONLY deals with Michigan Registrants) and this was her response back to me for those who are interested, in either or both cases.

    We are not filing a supplemental brief in does.  In Temelkoski the brief is due in about 2 weeks.

    • David

      LOL Answered like a skilled lawyer: “In Temelkoski, the brief is due in about 2 weeks.” You did notice that she didn’t answer the question, didn’t you?

      Q: Are you going sailing today?
      A: Well, the sky is clear and the wind is perfect today. (Again, that didn’t answer the question.)

      • Bobby


        Ya I noticed that to, but she is pretty good at NOT answering questions our right, just tib bits here and there, but that is how she works I guess.

        @ AJ, your welcome, I am surprised to , but the last time I actually spoke to her on the phone she said that our Gov. Rick Snyder and our AG Bill Schuette have both pretty much shot them selves in the foot on this case, I guess we will waite and see what happens.

        • AJ

          “Gov. Rick Snyder and our AG Bill Schuette have both pretty much shot them selves in the foot on this case.”
          I’m glad my belief aligns with the ACLU attorneys! It makes me wonder if it’s their incompetence, or that they are trying to defend the indefensible. I know we all think it’s indefensible, but I’m talking from a legal perspective. That a State AG’s office, with all its resources, is unable to mount a clear, solid defense of this law says volumes to me. It reminds me of the oral arguments in Packingham, where the State looked like a complete idiot before SCOTUS. I’m thinking a similar path may befall MI.

    • AJ

      Thanks for the info and update. That ACLU-MI isn’t going to file a supplemental is interesting. They must not have anything more to add (a requirement for a supplemental), and/or they are happy with what USSG said (as they should be!). Sometimes saying less says more. And USSG did fall more on Does’ side than MI’s. Still, an interesting, and somewhat bold, tack.

  10. Matthew

    Not sure who to contact but I recently left my job due to other reasons that made me feel uncomfortable (nothing to do with 290). I filed a complaint to the department of labor. Today, I get a phone call telling me that the person who oversees a lot of the company told him that he is sending letters to all my neighbors informing them that i am a RSO. He is going after me to attack me personally and try to make my life harder since I left. I am thinking of pursing legal action against the company for him acting on behalf of the company.

    • Lake County

      Someone threatened to do that to me when I was not on the public registry. I hired an attorney and they got scared and went away. Of course Jessica’s Law was passed which changed everything for me since they then added me to the public registry. Buy hey, at least I can’t be threatened to be exposed anymore.

    • @Matthew - call that lawyer

      Don’t think about it, do it! That is harassment in the purest form and against the law, not to mention against the fine print of the registry and what people can’t do with the info. They may say they are not using the registry, but they have to prove they are not using public info because private info shared at work between employee and employer remains confidential at all times. If you have their threat recorded somehow, e.g. text, email, paper, recording, then you have evidence for a lawyer to use in a letter. Just the threat is blackmail alone I believe.

    • AJ

      I would definitely get an attorney involved. From your post, it sounds as though the Dept of Labor told you about this threat. That means there’s already evidence, via a deposition of the DoL employee if necessary, of the person making said threat. Given how many sites out there regurgitate ML info, the threat maker can probably dodge how s/he got the info about you. “Nope, not from the CA site. Nope, not from employee records or info.” This is the duplicity of the Government in the whole process. It’s illegal to use the information unless it’s whispered from Government to third party.

  11. It doesn't work!!!

    Can you read this please. Keep it in mind as you live your life on “THE REGISTRY”

    • It doesn't work.

      LOOK ^ The Sex Offender Registry Is Being Used To PUNISH ^

      • AJ

        I don’t see this story being about punishment. I see character assassination going on for reasons unexplained.

    • New Person

      Whoa… read this excerpt from the article link:
      “He’s made these false accusations that Mr. McKnight is a sex offender, absolutely baseless and had put up these posters around the neighborhood and has really jeopardized Mr. McKnight’s safety,” said Peter Kempner with Brooklyn Legal Services and the Director of the Veterans Justice Project.

      How exactly is Mr. McKinght’s safety in jeopardy just by being told he’s on the registry? That doesn’t make any sense. If you’re on the registry, then you’re supposed to be the threat to society. But in this article, it seems as though if you’re on the registry, then you’re a bullseye for whatever may come to you.

      Then, tangentially, being on the registry can coerce one in living situations? Hmmm…

  12. Lake County

    Does anyone remember back in the 1970’s there were “Block Parents”. It was a program where somebody could pass a local background check and the police would give the person a sign to place in their window that just said BLOCK PARENT. We were told in school that if you ever needed any kind of emergency help from an adult, you could trust the adults in that house to take you in and help you. There must be a reason that it is no longer done. Maybe it was stopped because 95% of sex crimes are committed by people who can pass the background check. Also would it be wise for any adult to put themselves at risk of false accusations or homeowner liability by allowing an unknown child into your home?

    This program seems to be very popular in Canada still. Although some communities no longer offer the program due to lack of volunteers.

    • AJ

      @Lake County
      I think there’s still some semblance of this program, but I forget what icon or imagery is used. I don’t know that any of them are on private homes anymore, instead limited to fire stations and the like. Regardless, it has definitely greatly fallen away, probably in no small part to what you point out. Just more proof to the anti-community society we have anymore, which is having deep, lasting effects in so many ways.

    • The modern way for neighborhoods takes care of that now of course unfortunately.

      • AJ

        Another way to avoid actually having to meet one’s neighbors. Connected electronically, but strangers on the street.

    • Lake County

      After thinking about it again, since only a “sign” is needed in your window, and since almost everyone has a scanner / printer at home, the idea of using any sign that could be photocopied would be stupid. So how does Canada make it safe if anyone could put a copy of the sign in their window? That may be a better reason of why we no longer have Block Parents.

  13. mike r

    thanks david. Steve…AJ CHRIS when you get a chance give me some feedback….

    • Chris F

      @Mike R

      Will do! I’ve read it all, but won’t have time to fully comment until Monday during the day.

      To summarize, great job and love how much easier it is to read with the California stuff removed and other things reduced a bit to the best arguments.

      It’s very strong, and I think with the reduction you have some room to expand and touch on more hardships in order to paint the most complete picture possible. I’d like to see some Packingham references, and with that a challenge to free speech based on the government providing email addresses to get us banned from social media. My argument to that and IML would be how the government is providing info that suggests we are dangerous that gives the ones they provide it to with the choice of banning us, or doing an investigation to determine if we are a threat, knowing very well that no company or country will take the risk or expend the resources to do that when they can just ban us all. Instead of our own country determining our dangerousness one time fairly during trial and specifically banning us from only those acts that relate to our crime, they are telling companies and countries they all should do this every time.

      There also needs to be references to the SCOTUS majority remark in Packingham about the “Troubling” idea of restrictions continuing after supervision.

      That reminds me of an epiphany I had last night that could be behind the “troubling” remark. I always think of it as troubling that Legislature extends our punishment and protecting the public beyond the length of incarceration and probation. It’s actually more spiteful of a Judge’s authority that that. In effect, Legislation from Congress down to city level are over-riding the Judge’s determination of length of supervision and what protections they need to put in place with their own, as if they know better. I’ll go into more detail Monday…I’ve already said too much. 🙂

    • AJ

      @mike r
      Sorry for having been a slacker, brother. I’ll d/l the latest iteration and pick through it this week.

    • Lake County

      Less words are always better for the court. Many judges are easily confused which will cause them to rule against you. Keep it simple. But unfortunately, if you don’t mention any issue in your case-in-chief, you can’t bring it up later.

      • A fine line in verbal balance

        Exactly. Enough to get the point across but not too much to appear smug and arrogant. Too few words and you lose the point, too much and people roll eyes then lose interest.

  14. AJ

    While half-listening to a TV show, they mentioned that numerous courts have deemed 12-step programs as being religious. My curiosity piqued, I checked into it a little bit. I did find some reference saying multiple Federal Circuits have ruled AA, NA, SAA, etc., to be religious (, but I also found a PA (under the 3rd Circuit) case where it was said it’s not (

    Anyway, my thoughts are that anyone living in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th or 11th Circuits could challenge presence restrictions as violating one’s fundamental right to religious exercise.

    • PA has it right

      That’s interesting because, for example, AA does not enlist the Christian nature of God as we know it in the western world. They enlist a “Higher Power” to help, which is meditative in nature and where science is proving helps people stay calm in times of trouble. Having read the Big Blue Book of AA for my own interest and understanding of what alcoholics need, I can say there is no western world religiousness to it, but a spiritual component to it to help the person. There is a difference between spiritual and religious, which I won’t get into here, so the Judges are in error when they pontificate on that. AA does not have to pray in their meetings, but can if they chose to. PA seems to have it right.

      • AJ

        @PA has it right
        I, too, have read the Big Book, as well as portions of other 12-step programs (all of which are based off AA’s Big Book). Though AA was founded on mostly Christian principles, every 12-step program of which I’m aware specifically disavows any religion, creed, or dogma. But, given how difficult the program is for atheists to apply, it does point to some sort of religiosity. But in the registry fight, I don’t really care if PA is right or not. Leveraging the Federal Circuit decisions to our favor is what I see and propose.

        As an aside, here’s a nice website that “translates” the 12 steps across various religions:

        • @AJ

          No problem with that tact AJ in chasing it. All the more power if someone does that so one less restriction is enabled.

          • AJ

            Here’s an Article from Cornell University espousing why AA in many courts is a religion, and why it should be across the board. That governmental entities are prohibited from mandating AA due to the Establishment Clause speaks volumes.

            The author definitely makes a solid argument, but I do disagree with him at the end as to other 12-steps not being included. I think he overlooks that they all follow the same framework he puts forth. That they are younger should be of little consequence.


    • David

      @ AJ: ” … could challenge presence restrictions as violating one’s fundamental right to religious exercise.” How so? I’m curious to know your argument.

      • AJ

        Some 12-step meetings are held in places RCs are prohibited from going, either because the building itself is off limits or because of proximity to an off-limits location. If a 12-step program is deemed religious, then an RC’s opportunity to exercise religious freedom is being restrained when not allowed to attend due to presence restrictions. I do not live in a State, nor a Federal Circuit, where this applies, so it’s not something I could even think to push.

  15. T

    The sex offender registry is just like the war on drugs epidemic and it contributes greatly to the US mass incarceration problem and our politicians have played the greatest jedi mind trick on society about registrants being evil, dangerous, and incurable especially through the media.

  16. AJ

    This just crossed my mind…
    Example 1: Feds to States: “Enact burdensome SORNA on citizens of this country, or risk losing Byrne funding.” States to Feds: “Yes, sir! Right away sir!”

    Example 2: Feds to States: “Stop protecting illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities, or risk losing Byrne funding.” States to Feds: “Screw you! See you in court!”

    Is it me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

    • Chris F

      This is exactly why the Judiciary needs to get involved more often and not defer to legislature when it gets a case about a person’s rights being trampled. The legislature and executive branches are easily swayed by a flavor of the month populous that want action, even if it misguided, unconstitutional, and/or not based on real data. To not do that, means they won’t remain in office.

      Only an appointed judiciary can remain unbiased, and even then, can still be swayed by the opinions of friends, family, and co-workers.

      It’s time for the judiciary to return to the way it was meant to be used, and not this watered down thing that constantly defers to legislature and allows legislature to minimize its authority with “mandatory minimums” and take away the judiciary’s job to “punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public” by creating separate laws and registration lists aimed at those that already served their judicially designated time.

  17. mike r

    I think this pretty much covers a majority of our issues so I am going to wait a few days to hear from you guys and if I have no other suggestions I am filing it…

    39. This is a civil rights action seeking to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) and to SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Notification Act) 42 USC § 16913 or the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. (2006) or any known/unknown sex offender registration legislation, as applied to me in violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Ex Post Facto and the Equal Protection Clauses, the protection from Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Bills of Attainder, Separation of Powers Doctrine and the Substantive Due Process clauses as well as the Slavery/Involuntary Servitude Clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    That’s one he…. of a list……

  18. mike r

    I believe the following pretty much covers anyone that I need to include in this suit..

    53. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued as Does 1 through an unknown number are unknown to Plaintiff or are to extensive to list and sue and serve upon since I do not have unlimited resources to serve every state or comprehend who I must sue, I therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names. Some of the does include, but are not limited to, CA Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) officials, the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) officials, International Megan’s Law ( IML) officials along with their counterparts the Angel Watch Program officials, County Sheriffs, Attorney Generals for every state along with the Department of Justices in each of the fifty states and any and all local or state officials that have jurisdiction, or any type of control over the sex offender registration or any part thereof in every state in the United States and the U. S. federal government. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint, if necessary, to reflect the true names once they have been ascertained.

  19. Chris F (@Mike R)

    @Mike R



    #9: You may want to add that these restrictions continue even after being released from the supervision of parole or probation even though that was the length of time deemed appropriate by the judiciary during trial to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public.

    #16: You may want to add that the EEOC (US Equal Opportunity Commission) web site specifically lists government registries like the Sex Offender Registry as valid research tools to deny employment, even though the lengths of time on the registry often far exceeds the time determined by the judiciary to require incarceration or parole/probation to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public.

    First Claim – Right to Reputation

    #0 – You may want to add a line item that states “The only other government equivalent to the Sex Offender Registry with pictures and personal information, is the Most Wanted list of dangerous fugitives that are avoiding the legal system and the proper adjudication of their offenses.”

    #15 You may want to add somewhere after this, that just being on the registry draws the scorn of nearby residents due to the fact that home values drop as much as 12 percent within a tenth of a mile, based on a 2008 report As the modern technology of smartphones makes it even easier to instantly identify a sex offender’s residence, this percentage drop of home values is highly likely to increase over those 2008 estimates.

    Second Claim – Equal Protection

    #16 Please check this for grammatical errors and you may also need to include the quote and reference where you bring up SCOTUS’s opinion.

    Fifth Claim – Substantive Due Process

    #12 Remove the part about “Which Connecticut did the year after the SCOTUS decision” since I cannot find the direct proof of that. I know Connecticut added restrictions, but we would have to do research to find the exact laws and dates to make that statement. Maybe someone can help with this.

    Eighth Claim – Separation of Powers and Bill of Attainder

    #55 You repeat a quote twice here of “the fear that the legislature, in seeking to pander to an inflamed popular constituency, will find it expedient openly to assume the mantle of judge-or, worse still, lynch mob”

    #8 Perhaps directly after this one, I’ll call it 8.5, put something like this:

    #8.5 In Packingham V North Carolina (2017) the Justices majority opinion noted “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”. This demonstrates their concern that the length of supervision to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public was established by the judiciary during the fair sentencing phase of the trial, and is being over-ridden by the legislature with a wide brush without taking into account the individual or circumstances.


    #1 Where does the 99% stat come from?

    #32 add that the police also have access to credit reports, DMV records, Social Security, phone records, and many other private and government databases.


    Mike R, in addition to those corrections and additions, I think there needs to be more added, and possibly more trimming to make room for it.

    Freedom of Speech needs more of a challenge, since Packingham just gave us lots of good quotes from SCOTUS knowing how important free speech is. The Packingham case only stops the government from directly preventing us from using social media, but by the government purposefully providing our email addresses to any social media site that requests it, they are effectively banning us from those sites. Just like IML providing our names to other countries, the social media sites will not take on the liability or expense of making a separate determination that we are not a threat if our own government won’t. They will simply ban us, as there is no reasonable alternative. Therefore, the government has the responsibility to make that determination of dangerousness fairly before dissemination or keep that information private for its own use. Packingham pointed out the importance of any convicted criminal still having access to important social media sites like Facebook and Nextdoor, yet as long as the government purposely provides our information to them they are denying us our first amendment rights to free speech and anonymous speech.

    I think you also need to address what the opposition will bring regarding our low recidivism rate being due to under-reporting. It must be stated that with the majority of sex offences being committed by a friend or family member, the ability for another offense by someone known to have committed that offense is greatly diminished even without a registry. The initial investigation, publicity, and sentence would be hard to hide from those known to the defendant. Therefore, any amount of “under-reporting” would more likely be toward first time offenders where the family is less likely to report it due to the negative impacts the registry has on the family and victim. If a family chooses to hide the abuse due to threat of losing the primary bread winner’s income and ability to live in adequate housing that the registry may prevent, then there is an increased likelihood of the offender not getting treatment and there being more victims.

    Somewhere, it also needs to be stated that all laws directed at sex offenders and the reporting requirements cannot work as intended. If a sex offender is going to commit a crime using his email address, he is not going to use the email address provided during registration. Someone that intends on committing a crime against a child will not be deterred by the remote chance he could be caught with a registration violation punishable by a few years in jail when he intends on committing a crime that could lead to 10years, 20 years, or life. A sex offender that intends to molest a child in a park would not be deterred by a restriction that he not be in that park. Laws deterring normal legal activity only negatively impacts those that are law abiding former sex offenders and do not deter those with nefarious intent. Therefore, there is not even a rational basis for the existence of these laws other than extending punishment to those that have served their time. There is also no indication that the reporting requirements of registration and the various frequencies required to report in any way deters crime, assists in investigations, or improves the safety of citizens.

    I know you want to get this filed quickly, and theoretically we could add to it forever, but please consider my suggestions so that your case makes the biggest impact possible, and hopefully becomes the template for others to use.

    Great work Mike R!

  20. Eric Knight

    Can anyone provide a list of every case that ACSOL (and its predecessor, CA RSOL) has undertaken, including defendant, court filed, date of filing, and current disposition? Ideally would like to see any pdf or text documentation on at least arguments and opinions of each case, or a link or online location of such items. Thanks!

  21. mike r

    Man people dying left and right from drug overdose, DWI, out of control gun violence and gangbangers, car jackers and armed robbers killing people, fraud and corruption out of control, roads infrastructure like a third world country, conveyor belt for released ex offenders no rehabilitation services or reintegration programs, absolutely no preventive services except for private and community programs, now north Korea with nukes. just thinking out loud here..

  22. C

    Should convicted sex offenders be barred from owning sex robots?

    • kind of living

      lol that’s crazy , its an objet and if someone can afford one then they can do what ever they want , are games that you shot people in drive by shooting going to be out lawed ? or maybe stop selling cars? , or dildos ? , at some point people need to see that pushing a dictatorship is wrong , and your not going to make anyone safer by building walls of laws , whats next a computer that reads minds and jail people for what they think ? good post !

    • AJ

      There’s always the next crisis for the Chicken Littles, isn’t there? But, we all secretly know that sexbots are “gateway victims.”

      • C

        “Gateway victims.” Nice. I suppose our hands are the original gateway victims, eh? I must confess to abusing my pillow about the 4th grade, as well.

        How is it that none of these legislative giants (Leyva, Runner, et al) hasn’t introduced a law banning the fantasizing of illegal sexual activities?

        • kind of living

          @C ,,, it looks to me that they are going bypass the fantasizing thing , and just go for the juggler and go after anyone thinking at all , thinkers are a threat to the security of tyrants

  23. AJ

    I think I’m going to come up with Internet IDs to use that will be less than welcome on registration forms. Maybe “RSOLawsViolateExPostFacto” or “GovBrownIsAWeenie” or “JohnWalshAdmitsHeDatedUnderageGirl” or similar. For any states that publish one’s IDs online, it could become rather humorous.

    • Lake County

      That is a great idea. You could even use something like: A political figures home address, There is no limit on the messages or info we could provide through the public registry. Would they even have to publish email names with swear words in it? If you have your own domain name with unlimited email forwarding accounts, you could submit every name in any dictionary and see how they will handle posting all those email names. Sounds like this could be fun. Then they would have to create a law that limits the number of emails a SO can have and limit what the email names say. So if you live in a state that requires the listing of your email addresses, please get creative!

      • Don't defame them of course

        As long as they are not defaming of course.

        • AJ

          “As long as they are not defaming of course.”
          With that thought in mind, I changed “Did” to “Dated” in my one example. 😉 I can verify the latter with his own words, but not the former.

  24. mike r

    Like it all Chris… The thing about the email doesn’t apply to me though since that law was not retroactive so I do not have to provide my email to the gov. I’m sure I could make an argument still but it wouldn’t be a very strong one since the internet identifiers law doesn’t apply to me.
    I will work those other comments into it though…And if you could cite packingham for me that would be great.. Also if you know a way to get what cities and municipalities in CA have presence or residency restrictions still in place that would be great evidence on how I am being effected right here in my home state…….I need codes and/or some kind of references so that I can cite them…….

    • Chris F

      If the email address isn’t part of your registration then you are right, you can’t put it in. They frown on stuff that isn’t affecting you.

      As for the Packingham quote, I would use the one I posted above to add to your 8th claim about seperation of powers and bill of attainder.

      Here it was, and I named it as #8.5 so you’ll need to renumber to squeeze it in right:

      #8.5 In Packingham V North Carolina (2017) the Justices majority opinion noted “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”. This demonstrates their concern that the length of supervision to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public was established by the judiciary during the fair sentencing phase of the trial, and is being over-ridden by the legislature with a wide brush without taking into account the individual or circumstances.

      I’m not sure if it needs to be formatted differently to put it in a lawsuit. Do you have to label it as SCOTUS saying it? I’m not sure.

      • Cite everything

        Cite everything when coming from an external source. It also show completeness of the doc in the eyes of the reader.

  25. AJ

    Looks like RCs aren’t the only people Airbnb doesn’t like:

    Apparently Airbnb isn’t just about putting rooms and people together, it’s also about putting forth an agenda…or at least not accepting any contrary ones.

    • kind of living

      @ AJ ,,, interesting since most RC’s are at different ends of the of the dinner table as the Neo , agenda is a nice way to put it , its truly hard for me to understand what the agenda is , like trump talking about the race horse analogy and his German blood being “good stuff” with one face , then turn around with a new face talking about how he respects all people , hell lets have another War and guess what? trans gender are not allowed to serve , why not ? , , and those of us that served that are now RC’s not being able to be buried in military cemetery and this is cool with now at least three different presidents , or RC’s not even being able to receive health care in hospitals or clinics with them knowing we are RC’s and being shuffled off to a longer time of waiting as well as doctors having an open bad demeanor because they find your an RC ? agenda is painted like a picture of a field of flowers with a distant fire in the back ground , thinking about all this makes me want to drink whisky with a beer chaser and listen to Robert Cray in hopes of drowning the noise of self serving politicians , and I have not drank for 15 years .lol all the same that was an interesting post

  26. Lake County

    Accused Florida kidnapper was actually helping lost child, police say:

    No surprise this story came out of Floridah. Could you imagine the harm it would have done to this person if he was a registered citizen? It’s very sad to say, but I would not help a lost child except to call the police from a distance. It just isn’t worth the risk to myself.

    • New Person

      So the father who lost his daughter goes and punches the guy? Can’t be the father’s fault, right?

    • kind of living

      just go’s to show that all the fearmongering dealing with RC’s the safety of our children are at further risk , because less people will be willing to step up for fear of being branded , or RC’s for sure wont even give a second look to help for RC’s will be scrutinized even if trying to help and fear being charged with some bogus case, or being killed or harmed by witch hunters , its proof that banishment/ registration don’t make anyone safer , clearly its the opposite ,

  27. Notgivingup

    Can someone from California please answer this, I want to visit Redding from out of state, as long as I do not stay longer than 5 days am I good to go without having to register?

  28. someone who cares

    Not Giving Up ~ Here is a link to the State’s requirements, and California has a 5 day registration law for out out state/ visitors. I attached it here.

    Also, the Cities and County Ordinances I posted earlier say that Redding and Shashta County don’t have any Presence, Residence or Holiday Restrictions.

    Can someone explain what the 5 days for visitors ( more than 14 consecutive days ) means? Does it mean that you don’t have to register if you plan on staying less than 14 days but more than 5? Another vague way to confuse people, I guess.

  29. AJ

    There’s a case in ME of the ACLU suing the Governor regarding his FB page (, which also includes a link to the suit). At first blush, this may seem of no importance to RCs, but I think it bears watching. For the ACLU to win, the Gov’s FB page will need to be declared a limited (or “designated”) public forum. If that happens, FB becomes a de facto conduit of official government speech. That could do two things, both of which I could see being beneficial to RCs.

    One way would be that FB is no longer a private party hosting private speech; it becomes an official source of contact with government agencies and officials–of which some speech, assembly, and redress are specific to FB. It’s not too much of a stretch to then equate FB to a telephone conference call, and from there argue that Ma Bell would not be allowed to ban citizens from using their phones to speak or listen to official government speech. (One could also use an example of Comcast/DirecTV blocking the official government TV channels, but only for RCs.) In Packingham, SCOTUS labeled, “social media in particular,” as the most important place (i.e. forum) where exchange of views occur (i.e. speech and assembly). What kind of forum remains to be seen, but their wording hints at either a public or limited public forum–both of which play to our favor (Forums: Anyway, this may well prevent social media from being able to categorically ban some citizens from communicating with their government.

    A second way this could play out for us is that, even if FB avoids the above scenario, it can be argued the government itself is prohibiting RCs from communicating with their government. How, you ask? Well, by government giving information about RCs to FB. The government, through its dissemination of RC information and through granting of immunity to social media operators who use ML data, is denying First Amendment rights (speech, assembly, petition) to RCs. This is akin to the government renting out a venue from a private party for government officials to speak with, meet, and listen to any and all constituents. However, even though the government is speaking indiscriminately and officially, it also gives a list of certain citizens to the owners of the venue. The government doesn’t outright say, “don’t let these people in,” but it is does tell the venue owner that it’s a list of, “undesirables,” and that there will be absolutely no repercussions from the government if those on the list aren’t allowed entry. What happens? Surprise, surprise, the venue owner bans those on the list.

    Is this all a reach? Perhaps…for now.

    • kind of living

      @AJ ,, good points , I don’t like FB but it would be handy to know who is saying what and if you know them , we have family on there we have not seen in years

      • AJ

        @kind of living
        Even if either of my hypotheses were to come true, it wouldn’t necessarily open up FB to RCs for general use. Were their hand forced, FB could well implement some sort of “limited” account that would only allow access to verified governmental accounts.

        • Lake County

          Remember though that Facebook does not ban us from reading any of it’s pages, we are just banned from creating our own page. However you need to have a Facebook page to make a comment on anyones page.

    • Chris F

      This is just the argument that I asked Mike R to include in his suit, but since the government doesn’t supply his email to FB, he can’t add that.

      It’s exactly like what they do with IML. The government supplies someone else with a list of “potentially dangerous” people without any Due Process to determine that, and gets away with it by saying those provided with the info can make the determination of dangerousness. Of course, that won’t ever happen, because nobody is going to expend time and money every time, when our own government won’t do it just once, during the fair sentencing portion of the trial.

      • AJ

        @Chris F
        Agreed. The government is being duplicitous with the ML data. One could use the same concept that was said regarding the terrorism fears about Syrian immigrants: “Suppose you have a jar of jellybeans, and someone tells you there are 25 in there that will kill you. Do you eat any?” Almost everyone will avoid all the jellybeans like the plague, to avoid getting one that kills. It’s no different with the ML data the government supplies: “Here’s a huge list of people, and 25 of them are pathological sexual abusers. Do you allow any on your site?”

        On another note, I really hope PA does appeal Muniz to SCOTUS. (I think they will, as I see them stuck with a Sophie’s Choice in the matter.) If they do, I foresee SCOTUS accepting it and combining it with Snyder–not to mention probably issuing a CVSG for Muniz. Granted, that would delay any Snyder argument and decision, but I will take one definitive decision over a handful of half-a$$ ones trickling out over years. A recent article on claims that the PA ruling, “is in some ways more striking than [Snyder].” ( I wholeheartedly agree. Snyder merely addresses ex post facto, which of course means punitive. But Snyder doesn’t fix it for those under the horrible laws that were in place when convicted. Muniz blows past the ex post facto and punitive argument, and instead says the laws are outright unconstitutional–a much stronger statement. We all owe a thank you to the PA SC for making the discussion (and some sort of decision) unavoidable.

        • ReadyToFight

          @AJ good analogy with the Jellybeans. That’s a hilarious way to describe the kind of…Frontal Lobe impairment we have forced upon us.
          Lets just stuff everyone with this Label into the same Barrel, paint a bullseye on it and see how many we can get in there before it pops.

        • New Person

          Wow! Thanks for the link!

          I didn’t realize PA went beyond Snyder!

  30. When prisoners are a 'revenue opportunity'

    When prisoners are a ‘revenue opportunity’

    • New Person

      That’s always been the case. It’s not just video chat. It’s using the phone that’s quite expensive! The food too is a boon! Ramen costs like a $1 or $1.50 in jail while it’s only a dime outside of jail.

      This is why jails are more popular b/c many others benefit fiscally from many being incarcerated. There are those who can’t afford to bond to bail and have to be in jail awaiting their trial. They’re subjected to that as well.

  31. mch

    Here are some interesting numbers to digest from the U.S. DOJ regarding police misconduct. This topic is a real burr under my saddle because police often get a free pass or a get out of jail free card from their fellow law enforcement cohorts. This study was completed in February 2017, so it is fairly recent. Some of the numbers used were rounded for simplicity’s sake.

    980/100,000 officers involved in misconduct or ~1%

    4861 incidents of misconduct of which 9.3% were sexual misconduct, or 457, or about 9 per state

    $345.5 million paid out/4861 incidents or ~ $71,300 per incident

    The study does not specify how many instances of sexual misconduct involved minors. My guess is that the percentage of police misconduct involving minors is greater than sex offender recidivism rates.

    • Lake County

      If they say that sexual assaults among the general population are under reported, then I would imagine that reporting sexual assaults by the police would be under reported even more. I can’t imagine anyone would want to go through the added trauma of making a report against someone in law enforcement.

      • kind of living

        @ Lake County ,,, I have known some women over the years , ex girl friends , some just friends , one was a dancer that got busted having some coke in her purse and this cop put her in his car and drove off with her so some side street and did some crazy stuff to her , all of these women said the same thing , that they did not want to be marked / targeted by the cops , this go’s for probation / parole as well , as I think I have said before in much more detail , anyway lake county your right that number would be much / much / much higher ,

      • Won't report it unless solid, very solid, proof

        Not without solid evidence against them so they can sue in return for $$.

  32. My Life Ruined

    I’ve been planning a trip to Colombia for months. I’ve been travelling by bus and plane all day yesterday and today. I was just now sitting on the plane to take off and CBP comes and pulls me off the flight.

    I’ve spent months in Colombia the last four years and they never had a problem.

    Now I’m out hundreds of dollars and I’m stuck in Florida. I have no hotel or any way home. It’s the middle of the night and I just want to cry.

    My Colombianan girlfriend doesn’t know and now I have to explain to her why I can never see her again. She doesn’t know my past and I’m about to go tell her. She’s the love of my life.

    I don’t want to seem melodramatic, but I don’t think I’ll make it through this. I have no friends or family left and travel is all I had that makes me happy. I have nothing and I’m very distraught right now.

    • To stuck in Florida

      I feel bad for you, it’s a tough situation, but you will get through this. It took me 3 years before I had to tell my girlfriend. I was very scared, but she was much more accepting of it than I though she would be. Most people we have to disclose our status to don’t realize the full consequences and stigma of being registered or how it effects friends or family.

      But at risk to sounding mean, why would you travel anywhere without having the funds to return home? That’s even more important when you are a registered citizen. Since you came here to report your situation right away, you must have been aware of previous posts here stating the constantly changing risk of any of us traveling anywhere.

      • My Life Ruined

        I have a flight home. I slept in the floor of the airport.

        I told my Colombian girl what happened and why. She said it sounds stupid and doesn’t understand why I can’t come for something silly.

        The Colombians have never had any problems from me. I can only guess that since the US haven’t suspended our passports yet, they made sure they wouldn’t accept me.

        I’m extremely heartbroken and angry and sad.

        I’m going to call a Colombian attorney I know and ask for help clearing this up, but I doubt he can help me.

        • Lake County

          Calling a Colombian attorney is a very good idea. Make sure you get a smart one that has previous success. The right attorney will know how to make an exception to the rules. If you and she love each other, perhaps marriage would help you in being allowed into the country. Find another country to meet her for marriage. But speak to the attorney before doing anything and make sure she can accept your registered status.

    • kind of living

      sorry to here , travel is an issue even right here in the US , but please as a favor to your self listen to what I am going to tell you about relationships , always have your paper work handy before you proceed to next level so your out front pretty much out the gate , you will at least be able to save that person from hurt feelings , or trust issues , even anger , I would be willing to say a good many of us have had to walk away from what may have been a great thing , but being honest and strait for word is good practice , it also helps in finding out what kind of person your dealing with In many ways , I my self was in the mine frame of looking at prospect life partners , as “friends first” never over stepping the boundary’s in tell I really felt I was talking to what could at least be a good friend , being honest with your self and friends are the most important when it comes to the topic of being an RC as well as everything else , others people its of course important to be honest , but I always looked at it that it was a need to know kind of thing while I am not for advertising , at some point one needs to think what being an RC may do to another’s feelings / life , its hard every time , but necessary to save their feelings as well as your own , its one of the reasons its hard to make friends as an RC always feeling like you cant leave it behind , but this is a different day its stupid easy for people to just look you up on some web site ,honesty regardless of the out come will keep you being able to look your self in the mirror each day as a citizen , good luck to you and yours

    • kerry

      When you are an RSO, you must plan ahead to prevent your problem. You have to give 21 days notice unless you live in a non-Sorna state. You could have flew to Belize or Bermuda and then to Columbia without a problem. There are always solutions to the problems. What you did in the last 4 years has nothing to do with reality today. I live in Europe and travel all over the world.

      Good Luck

      • Lake County

        Even if you live in a non-Sorna state, you should always give your 21 day notice. Until IML rules are finalized and gone through court challenges, it is not worth a 10 year jail sentence for a violation of IML. Even if your registration agency says it’s not required, send them a registered letter with your travel plans.

      • Travel

        Kerry / Stuck in FL-
        Seems unlikely for anyone from the USA to get into Bermuda since it’s part of the UK system. Belize does seem OK at present. Aruba could be a good option and is very near Colombia. The 21 day notice of IML does appear to apply to all states independent of SORNA.

        Kerry, have you flown to countries outside of Europe? It seems the APIS for international airline passenger info (operated by the CBP) would tie into databases of those countries as coordinated by the USA.

        Those countries are here:

        I would also guess living in Europe, you could still not get into the UK or Ireland(?)

    • AJ

      @My Life Ruined:
      I’m confused as to why CBP pulled you off the flight. Typically, RC or not, free citizens (i.e. not a fugitive, not under supervision) are not prevented from leaving the country. This is shown on a daily basis when people fly somewhere, then are rebuffed at that country’s entry point, and are shipped back home on another flight. Did you perhaps skip the IML process? Something doesn’t add up for me. There’s gotta be more to your story than “CBP comes and pulls me off the flight.” What reason did they give?

      • My Life Ruined

        I posted an in depth response but I don’t think it’s going to post.

        Yes, I registered my travel 6 weeks in advance. Colombia sent a notice to CBP saying I would not be admitted into Colombia and CBP said they were preventing me from going all the way down there just to have to come back as it was pointless. CBP said they were doing me a courtesy and claimed they didn’t even know my situation.

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

      Please provide any further details as being pulled off of a plane in the U.S. prior to departure for reasons of not being admissible into Columbia (in CBP’s estimation) is not usual procedure, from our experience. I’m not sure I’ve heard of this before except for one man, who was from a SORNA state (I think it was Michigan), who got pulled off of a flight at O’Hare and bound for Europe who was criminally charged with not giving advance notice.

      What did they give as a reason for being pulled from the flight? Were you detained and questioned for any length of time? Did you undergo a search? That seems very unlikely since you weren’t reentering the U.S., though. What did they say?

      Please tell us more.

  33. mike r

    Muniz is incredibly important like you have said. I just recently read it and its way better then still doesn’t go far enough in contesting the gov. or the courts assertions that there is conflicting evidence when it comes to recidivism rates…that is their way out and it can not be ignored and must be aggressively argued. there is no conflicting reports the all have the low absolute rates of recidivism and the under reporting or the competitive rates have absolutely no weight or bearing on these cases…we cannot let them brush or ignore these issues anymore..recidivism is a major, major, issue and we need to be perfectly clear with empirical evidence..I hate seeing that bs that there is conflicting reports or under reporting..those are further misrepresentations of the facts to the court and the court must apply even more strict scrutinizing of anyone trying to mislead the court and effect a informed and just decision by the court. it actually borderlines if not reaches a point to where it can be considered an obstruction of justice issue…that’s criminal as we have all heard on the news lately..

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Yes, Muniz importance cannot be understated. If PA appeals to SCOTUS, we get an answer; if PA doesn’t appeal to SCOTUS, we get leverage.

      As far as the courts glossing over the studies and recidivism and such, I wonder how much of that is done out of deference and respect to SCOTUS as an entity. It’s bad form to dis another judge or court, which is how that would probably be taken. Once (not if!) SCOTUS addresses and corrects the “frightening and high” lie, I think things will shift. Also, the courts are managing to find for us without even using that data, which only works even more in our favor for when the day comes that it is used. Most important to me is the courts, at least in Snyder and Muniz, point directly at offense-based tiers as being a significant element indicating punishment and/or unconstitutionality (and as I’ve previously posted, the tiers are something the USSG dodged in its amicus. Hmm, I wonder why they dodged it?). I think that if/when tiers are required to be risk-based, we’ll also see a huge step back in who is required to register, etc. For one, it will become incredibly more difficult and expensive for the States to do the assessments. But I also think it will sap the energy out of the, “all RCs are pedophiles waiting to snatch children off the playground,” frenzy and phobia. I do not think the registries will ever go away, though I do hold out hope they revert to LE-only or, at most, limited release akin to what a number of non-SORNA states do.

  34. mike r

    man another thing I need to vent. let me be clear I don’t believe in racism or hate and violence but this crap how almost all the gov representatives news media and all these so called patriots are trying to in their own words “silence ” or “prevent” these white nationalist from speaking in public forums their views is another bs crap..these guys have just as much a right to free speech as the black lives matter groups or the naacp or Muslim communities or any other races. I guess since our greatgrandfathers had slaves it means whites can’t express their views or have white pride in their heritage lack blacks have black pride in theirs or other races having pride in their races..I for one am proud of my white heritage just as african Americans should be proud in their racial heritage. it isn’t always about supremacy just because someone believes in saving their racial heritage from going extinct..what kind of world or diversification would we have if we lived in a completely homogeneous society? I condemn all violence and anyone that commit an act of violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent however each and everyone one of us have a right to their own opinions and a constitutional right to express those opinions. these protesters don’t like don’t go listen and the police need to protect people even if they are disgusted by those people. you know it’s kind of ironical that private citizens are the ones who are suppressing free speach and not the gov..of course it opens the door for gov. to do just that.. I hate it man..either denounce or fight against what they believe or your racists and therefore are subhuman..pc and the far left are out of control…

    • Ron

      So you would also support ISIS holding a rally to support their views also?

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

        Yes. We have a right to peaceably assemble and to express our views, regardless of what those views might be. That should be non-controversial since it is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, i.e. not open to debate.

        If we are not peaceable then we can be prosecuted. Speech is not the same as violence. It is necessary to distinguish between the two.

      • AJ

        Yes, to their holding a rally espousing their views. All day, any day. The basis of our First Amendment is that even disfavored speech gets to be voiced. The SCOTUS case about it, by the way, was for the IL Nazi Party…in a “predominantly Jewish community, [where] one in six residents was a Holocaust survivor or was directly related to one”…just 30 years after WWII ended ( The old quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” applies for me…though seemingly not for our society anymore (see: Charlottesville, Berkeley, Portland, etc.).

        Ron, are you in favor of only letting speech with which you agree and support to be voiced? If so, to me you’re more dangerous to my life and liberties than any ISIS, Nazi, or white-supremacist rally.

  35. mike r

    want to know an easy fix to our judicial a d even our gov. as a whole? Very simple, if the legislature or executive branches pass any legislation that encroaches on any type of liberties that it has to be confirmed unanimously by scotus to be constitutional or its struct down. if it is legislation that expands liberties then unless it is unanimously decided to be unconstitutional then it can go into effect..very simple fix and a path back to the original vision of the founding fathers…no individual interpretations or political views and no biased opinions. All gone…

  36. mike r

    well said AJ and David…everyone has a right to speak their views whether you like it or long as they are not inciting violence or panic such as fire in a movie theater yes..I go even further by standing by my comment that it is the police’s and gov. official’s job to protect them against the radicalist that are trying to silence them through violence or confrontations. its a hard call to determine who actually is at fault for the violence and even though both groups have a right to assemble and protest or speak it’s almost common sense that the protesters trying to silence speech are the ones that are actually inciting violence just as they did at Berkeley and Portland ect. this may shock you but with your example I can’t say who I would side with because they probably won’t post it but I can tell you our country’s out if control tyrannical government who thinks they can police and inject their political views and moral turpitude across the globe and attack their own citizens like they are with us isn’t something that I support..remember our second amendment right was to protect ourselves or our fellow citizens from a tyrannical government who thinks they can act eith impunity without any consequences…I will just leave it at that…

  37. mike r

    I hate to say it but the scenario that I described with a unanimous decision by scrotus to uphold or strike down laws is the only way this country is going to avoid civil war..We know the powers of the elite will never relinquish power like that so it’s coming. It might be next year or next month or ten years from now but it’s coming man if our gov. continues down this self destructive path..I am sure if anyone thinks about my idea as more then just some crazy idea the unanimous scrotus court would solve almost every issue in this country..Think about…it isn’t going to happen but that’s how my crazy mind works. See a problem, fix it with the most obvious solutions..

  38. mike r

    You know we already have a name for what I am talking about, It’s called beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Shouldn’t our constitution have deference to at least the same standard as a citizen has. I believe the constitution is much more valuable to this country then any individual or even groups of individuals. What do you think about that idea AJ ???? Pretty sensible isn’t it????

    • New Person

      only problem is the registry needs to be proven beyond doubt that it is punitive.

      That’s a weird concept. The SCOTUS believes all laws are civil first. It seems asinine to believe all people are angels and will act accordingly. The founding founders didn’t believe all people are angels nor make the correct decisions, which is why they designed the government to have checks and balances.

      That’s the hump you have to get over… how to prove it is beyond a doubt punitive? Look at California. All these new laws go up b/c of two things: 1) the guise of public safety from 2) high recidivism amongst ALL registrants. Remember, we’re treated as one class.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      How quaint and traditional of you to consider the Constitution more important than any one person or credo. Anymore, the only thing that’s right is what (generic) I say, and everything that (generic) you say is wrong. I’ve said it before, both on here and to friends, this country is in the early stages of anomie ( &

      People often claim we’re headed for anarchy. No, we’re not. The government is still in existence and will remain so, most likely. But with anomie, cultural, social, and moral norms break down. That’s what we’re facing: societal and cultural, not governmental, breakdown. Pretty scary stuff if you think about how it can play out. That’s why once my life situation allows, I’m gonna be expatriate-AJ. Lots of places in this world that are wonderful, kind and reasonable.

      • kind of living

        @ AJ . expatriate ,,hmmm , why leave? , our Gov’t looks to be hanging by a thread , and our cultural breakdown has been broken for many years , matter of fact the more one reads history can plainly see that in Bull V Buck and many others that seemed at first glance some mistake in medical teaching or a few people feeling they should be placed above the simple folks , but no its much deeper that that and much more sinister , as it has been ,, always an incremental power play to rule over the mass’s as dictators , only losing because of elites being out numbered by some mass of people and their out cry , the “social breakdown” is always pushed by the powers that be , the fascism can be traced to close descendants of many of the people that are in our Gov’t right now and the system we live under will not be fixed , its easy to see why our Justus system drag their feet on what is plain as the nose on their many faces in the constitution , punishment is part of breaking down the people that adds the need for more laws to justify the need of more power , I hope you never leave AJ and stand with us , you have a great mind with much to offer , besides the way things are , places in the world that are better are becoming fewer by the day it seems , good luck in what ever you do Bro!

        • kind of living

          Bell v Buck 🙂

        • AJ

          @kind of living:
          Ah yes Bell v Buck. Good thing we’ve completely learned from that {insert sarcasm} and don’t propose things like castration, either chemical or physical, of people.

          Thanks for the kind words. My belief of anomie isn’t anything new; I think this country has been on an ever-increasing downward slide since sometime in the 1960s. The rate of decline seems to be increasing exponentially. If the tolerant, libertarian (small “L”), moderate, core that I believe still exists doesn’t speak up and take charge, we’re in for deep problems. Much worse than we’re seeing now. The breakdown in law enforcement is already happening. Good policing happens when citizens contribute to the process (report crimes, bear witness in court, etc). That is eroding, in pockets that continue to grow, and that erosion is harmful to all of us. With an average ratio of 3.4 cops per 1,000 people (, there simply cannot be effective law enforcement (i.e. enforced civil norms) without citizen involvement. Toss in the political side of things and the way we all seem to live in echo chambers, only listening to views that support our own, and things only get worse.

          As for countries other than here, there are many that just like to be left alone on the world stage. Some of them right in our back yard (I’ve always found the Dutch to have done a good job of colonization), others near or along the Mediterranean (especially the eastern Adriatic area). Anyway, that’s not happening for at least a few years due to various circumstances, but it’s definitely in my thoughts.

          • kind of living

            @AJ,,,, I looked around some of the area and it looks great , many places that I would love to see as well as the fam , I plan on researching more on it , very interesting “area” , looks like a killer places to check out ,Montenegro looked really nice , give me water and a boat and I am set , but I am also a big time cave fan as well and their every where around that coast under water as well as dry caves , I bet it cost more than I have made in the last 30 years to trip/ live there lol , guy like me dreams of living in places like that , fish being a great food source and restaurants must be something else , well that being said I am hungry , and the only trip I have to make now is to the kitchen ,lol

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

              Montenegro and Croatia are very lovely, indeed. I like all of the former Yugoslavia, as well as Albania.

              • kind of living

                I feel envious for lack of a better word , of anyone that gets to really go and see places like this , but happy that some do it truly must be a great experience , I can only imagine the vibe , standing and viewing history foreign to my senses , much like riding a motorcycle across the US the first time , its a high like know other , , riding under the red wood trees and feel so small and smelling the pines and mist in the morning air , so going some place like Montenegro and many of the things there , like the caves , and the fossil beds , or just out fishing on a boat drinking ice tea meeting people that truly enjoy the simple things in life , good positive vibe is in high demand for sure , I wish everyone good luck with their days to come , we only live once in this circle I think , don’t know for sure if we go on to another or not , so it just seems like we should enjoy life rather than the negative fall out of hate based agendas that are being pushed like dope to a drug addict , so travel to some where positive would be great meds for anyone in need of washing off the funky negativity that seems to stick like super glue to a persons spirt , lol

                • David Kennerly, Internal Exilee

                  There’s a big medieval fortified waterfront town in Montenegro that is terrific on Sunday afternoons and evenings when everyone is out socializing and having fun.

                  I drove my rental all over Montenegro for a couple of weeks and had a blast. I got pulled over for speeding two days in a row. They do not have any “grace” limit. One km over the limit and they flag you down. However, they didn’t speak English and I, of course, spoke no Serbo-Croat. So they just gave up trying to communicate and wearily told me to go on without giving me a ticket. Both times!

            • AJ

              @kind of living:
              As David Kennerly mentions, there are a number of great places in the former Yugoslavia. You mentioned expense, but in truth a number of these places are *very* reasonable for living. You’d be surprised. He also mentioned Albania, which I have yet to visit (but have wanted to since before it was practical). Albanians LOVE America and Americans, and they also have some incredible Roman architecture.

              • kind of living

                @ AJ ,,, well I can see I have my home work cut out for me , I love to study things like this , because it at feels like I am making plans , as well as learning about places , The would is truly beautiful , full of secrets waiting to be discovered over and over again by someone

              • Concerned Registrant

                I’ve been watching a lot of Youtube travel videos about Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. Albania may be tolerant, but the infrastructure is lacking. Public transportation (buses) are infrequent to many places there. Doesn’t appear to be much to do there longtuerm. Much better in the other countries.

                • David Kennerly, Internal Exilee

                  Albania is delightfully decrepit and just plain weird. There are still legions of small concrete domes scattered all about that were part of their extreme civil defense infrastructure during the ultra-paranoid and xenophobic Enver Hoxha period which followed the rule of the still-revered King Zog who had abolished Islamic law and opened the borders to fleeing Jewish refugees.

                  The Albanians are largely Islamic yet clearly European, with a surprising number having blonde-hair and blue eyes. Like any country in which the people were so badly mistreated by their government, there is a lovely generosity of spirit and a disarming warmth shown for strangers, despite Hoxha’s terrible rule.

              • David Kennerly, Internal Exilee

                I really enjoyed Durres, on the coast. They have a Roman amphitheater and ruins which are wonderful and a tiny, and slightly bizarre, amusement park. And the short trip from Tirana on the train was one of the most memorable of my life. A train so decrepit and run down (virtually every window was broken) that it was amazing that it was a viable means of transportation. When I bought my ticket at the ticket window, I asked the clerk just where the train was. He pointed at an old rustbucket train in the railyard surrounded by weeds which I had assumed was abandoned. On closer inspection, it was completely packed with people. However, several very polite youngsters insisted on giving me their seat and I was quickly surrounded by students wanting to practice English.

                I stayed at a very strange and very new beachside hotel (I was one of the first guests) that turned out to have been funded by drug money and was hosting a poolside awards ceremony for the Italian Carabinieri who appeared to be in cahoots with the local Albanian mafia. This was soon after the war in Kosovo and they were said to be international peacekeepers. Nevertheless, I was the sole guest of the hotel for the four days I was there. The young front desk clerk whispered to me fearfully one day that something very strange was going on there. It was just a delightfully bizarre experience. The people were terrific and, apart from the inexplicable wealth of some young tough-looking guys cruising around in new Mercedes, it was very poor.

                One of those utterly unique travel experiences.

                • kind of living

                  @ that left me extremely curious at what that was like , sounds kind of cloak and dagger , the train ride as well as the twilight zone amusement park sounds great , I can see from all of these comments that it is not only strange history , but an off beat vibe and maybe even an undercurrent of danger , seems like something in the 308 caliber range could be needed for an outing lol (Joking?) sounds like a real trip to me , I look forward to hearing more , “Concerned registrant” was talking about youyube , I wish I could afford youtube , but the videos burn to many gigs up , on my hot spot , I cant get cable internet because of where I live a “Motel kitchenette slum” with a very friendly slum lord and that’s {being nice} rent is too high with just me and wife and dog , my son and his wife live next door in a small room , we could easily afford a better place but most places that we would like to rent will not of course rent to “me”, some of my not so great fans would just cut my line here anyway ,but cable would be much cheaper than this hotspot , we have been here for off and on for 15 years , that being said , we are together and happy we have each other despite the many downfalls beyond our control as of yet , but any who ,,, I did not even mean to go into all that , it sucks not having the simple internet I need to do videos / movies / documentary’s , and my music play lists I keep hidden lol , haters some how found my channel and would go to my music vids and make comments and the uploaders of those vids would delete the videos , so I hid my list , “sucks” so if anyone knows of an alternative wifi or what ever so I could watch all the cool stuff on youtube I would appreciate hearing about it , I get 10 gigs now for 50 bucks , but if you watch videos that 10 gigs go’s really fast , I love to read , but it would be great to watch movies and documentary’s with my wife as a change of pace , “TV sucks” lol I would gladly pay little more for much better internet / much more in gigs , I was reading that there is some kind of bill up that will limit all internet , except the Gov’t / banks / law enforcement / witch hunter lapdogs I am sure 🙂

  39. mike r

    Alright you guys I am done.. I am not making any more changes unless you can see an obvious flaw..go check it out and let me know what you think…
    It’s time to bring about the change we all deserve……..

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Then it’s a good thing I only made it through Part I this past week! I’ll d/l it and pick through in the coming week-plus.

    • ReadyToFight

      @mike r,
      That’s awesome dude. Give em Hell for All of us please.

    • kind of living

      @mike r , thank you for your hard work and time , and thinking about all of us in hopes of saving us all from unjust laws that affect not just us but our familys that did nothing to have this punishment put on them even know they did no crime , good luck man

  40. mike r

    Note that I had to change where I refer to lines ??? since I added and removed some material…so disregard those disparities…..

  41. mike r

    you’re incredibly perceptive AJ. I only wish everyone had common sense and came close to understanding our country’s perils and life in general. Have faith man I’m filing this week..I don’t know exactly what procedures follow filing so if you are aware of what or how I should prepare I’m all ears…

  42. mike r

    Also a huge THANK YOU to Janice and this organization for letting us collaborate on this site and giving us this platform…THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART….

  43. David

    Really?? There’s an uproar about white supremacists’ names and information being posted on Twitter because they’re being named and shamed. Really?? What about the US government posting names and information on individuals who have done their time and paid for their crimes?? No public outcry about that, huh??

    • AJ

      Yes, that irony wasn’t lost on me, either. I do have to admit to experiencing a bit of schadenfreude ( about the whole thing. But then I saw it for what it is: one side deciding their way is the right way. The “tolerant” are being wholly intolerant of a view in polar opposition to theirs. How is this any different than in totalitarian countries where they ID people in protests and imprison them? What makes it right to name and shame someone when you disagree with them? I don’t care the topic, or how fringe the belief, it’s wrong. If and unless someone is doing something illegal, which most the protesters were not, naming and shaming is wrong. There were people who had to quit their jobs because they were named. People fearing for their lives because they were named–and I’m sure there are a bunch of the “good people” saying, “turnabout is fair play.” I recall the good old days when the expression, “two wrongs don’t make a right,” was used. Now, your wrong gives me the right to do wrong too, or so many seem to think. That only leads to escalation. We have it in politics (thus the “nuclear option” used in the Senate), we have it on the street (gangs killing more and more), we have it in religion, etc. Anymore, it seems the high road is the untraveled one and is viewed as weakness.

    • Timmr

      Hey, the public does not matter. They are pawns. The police held back as the Alt rightists trapped people in a church and engaged with anti-fascists with blows. There were no rules enforced to keep peace. When a registrant is killed by one of these white supremacists, the courts parse out the most lenient sentence possible. They stand back in tacit approval. Inaction speaks volumes about who our government supports.

  44. mike r

    makes me a little nervous knowing I’m going up against the most powerful, experienced and talented attorneys and organizations in the world…thanks for all your support everyone ….

    • Ron

      To Mike r, these are minor Type-O’s I found, you may want to fix these;

      Section 7- “( if any)” added space between parenthesis and the word if “(if any)”
      Section 25- “that an in-person” 2 spaces between words “an in” instead of 1
      Section 27- “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. missing end quote
      Section 34- “burdensome and impossible” 2 spaces between words “burdensome and” instead of 1
      Section 34- “laws;;” 2 semicolons added instead of 1
      Section 38- add freedom of religion to your panoply of protected rights (ie. churches with day care)

      Section 10- “are to extensive” should be “are too extensive”

      Section 3- “have repeatable found” should be “have repeatedly found”
      Section 3- “sex offender. missing end quote, should be “sex offender”.
      Section 9- ‘Megan’s laws’, should be quotes not apostrophe and law capitalized “Megan’s Law”
      Megan’s Law is a proper name and ‘s should not be used as it is one law, but with many rules. You may want to search and replace your many uses of “Megan’s law” with “Megan’s Law”. You have used ‘apostrophe’ many times when you should be using “quotes”. In English, it has two jobs: To show where one or more letters have been left out (as in the abbreviation (contraction) of do not to don’t). To show the possessive case (as in the cat’s whiskers).

      Section 14- “An Alaskan “avenger,” I think you are missing a second end quote
      Section 14- “flesh out” I’m unsure if this is proper use of this word, I’d use “obtain”

      Section 2- what/who is “requires PHAs to deny” was it defined earlier or is reader expected to know what PHAs is?
      2nd Section 6- “reports ( see also claim 4” added space, should be “reports (see also claim 4”
      2nd Section 9- “other felons ,(or any” should be “other felons, (or any”

      I don’t know if bringing these type-O’s to your attention is helpful, but these are easy fixes. This is very time consuming so let me know if you want me to continue. I have not started past the SECOND CLAIM yet. I will continue at another time if you want.

  45. mike r

    I’m so proud of Trump speaking up against the leftwing radicals who think they have a right to suppress other’s speech or opinions. Just like he said “whats next, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, they were slave holders so should we wipe them from our history and tear down statues?” the pc police are out of their minds..

    • The Unforgiven

      Thank you! I’m not on the Trump crazy train but yes, the list of presidents and other influential men who helped shaped this country were slave owners. In all honesty, our money should be upcycled starting with George, the very first one. If you want to talk about blatant in your face racism pretty much daily, there it is. How has the pc police not gone there yet? This is probably off topic for this site, so I apologize but certainly the state of affairs is worth thinking about.

      • The Unforgiven

        My bad. “..the list of presidents and other influential men who helped shaped this country were slave owners.” should be “there is list of presidents and other influential men who helped shaped this country who were slave owners.”

      • Timmr

        Do statues have inherent rights now? How did cold pieces of metal and stone get rights before us. Incredible.

    • steve

      David Duke is proud too…

      • steve

        This is not about freedom of speech this is about people standing up to VILE hate groups. Mike, did you happen to her them chanting “Jews will not replace us” That type of speech should be fought and challenged whenever it rears it’s ugly head. And now, the president has given his thumbs up to Nazi and KKK rallies. Why don’t you go back and see what George Sr. had to say about this same thing. Trump is a moron and there is nothing good about him.

  46. mike r

    absolutely Ron..I want this to be as perfect as possible..thanks…

    • Ron to Mike r

      Section 4- “Here are just a small portion of laws targeting where a registered person may reside, work, recreate or be physically present at and this is only at the state level, not mentioning all the different local laws and ordinances.” This sentence doesn’t flow right to me. How about “These are just a small portion of laws targeting where a registered person may reside, work, recreate or be physically present at the state level, not including all the different local laws and ordinances.”
      Section 5- “sufficient definiteness that” would a better word be “sufficient definitiveness that”?
      Section 7- “based on a past convicting” should be “past conviction”?
      Section 7- “and not actually being convicted” to perhaps “no longer having a conviction”
      Section 7- “but I bet the court” I wouldn’t use that phrase, use “but I would assume the court”
      Section 10- It this a published opinion or just your opinion? If it’s your opinion, I’d consider leaving it out as it does nothing to help you. Personal opinions do not help your case. Less words are always better.
      Section 11-15 should be totally rewritten since it is really one subject and at minimum your statements in Sections 11 & 15 are simular and should be combined.
      Section 16- “such as though that are” should be “such as those that are”
      Section 18- “people who 6 decorated” take out the number 6
      Section 19- “Public Park” not proper name, should just be “public park”
      Section 19- “I will sustain” how about replacing it with “I will abstain”
      Section 20- I would delete or add it to another section.

      I understand that some of your words, phrases or sentences are copied and pasted from other briefs or opinions, however I hope you realize that not all of their words or grammar have been used correctly. Although you belive that you’re “going up against the most powerful, experienced and talented attorneys and organizations in the world”, I’m not sure that is or will be true. Also keep in mind, some laws (that were also reviewed by attorneys) have failed just on the basis of punctuation. I would also expect since you are pro se, that the first person reviewing your petition for the court will be not be a senior lawyer. They must have at least a couple of layers of law clerks that review and submit notes and opinions before any case gets a formal consideration for review by the judges. Both State and Federal Courts get far too many petitions for the actual judges to review each case without a prior review from their staff. The job of the court’s staff will be to find ANY legal reason to deny your petition. Don’t be in a hurry to file this since you are at a disadvantage by not having a review by a competent attorney. I’m stuck at THIRD CLAIM, Section 20, for now. I’ll post more tomorrow hopefully.

      • steve

        Ron 2nd paragraph 3rd sentence “believe”..jk

      • AJ

        “Also keep in mind, some laws (that were also reviewed by attorneys) have failed just on the basis of punctuation.”
        You mean like this?

        Punctuation and spelling can make or break a thought. I recently viewed a church website, and was reading about the pastor. Whoever wrote the piece omitted a very important hyphen. The statement in the piece said, “he’s truly a God called pastor.” I think they meant to say, “a God-called pastor,” meaning a pastor called by God. Instead, they have it sounding as though he is a God who goes by the term pastor.

  47. mike r

    thanks Ron..I can use all the help and feedback I can get.I feel confident that I will prevail but a little encouragement and positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from people like you, AJ, and Chris goes along way..I haven’t heard from Chris in awhile hope everythings ok…oh and Steve I’m not going to get in a arguing match right now over Trump and his so called racism. I will say this, I don’t care what people are chanting, whether it is black lives matter or these white nationalist or muslims preaching the koram, this is America, every single citizen in this country has a right to their opinion and a right to express those opinions in a lawful, peaceful way. If they are not actually inciting violence or or creating a public panic like fire in a theater then they have a constitutional right to express themselves. I hear on all the media politicians should act on moral compasses and not on the letter of the law and Trump supports kkk or racism, NO politicians should uphold their oath of office and abide by and bow only to the constitution of the US not some moral standard some faction of the country wishes.I think its really really refreshing to see someone stand up and say enough is enough, we are a country with laws based on a constitutional republic not on a high moral democracy. I myself think they are going to far removing statues of great generals like Robert E. Lee whose spirit of American patriotism and courage should be celebrated and not tainted by some faction of the country that are offended because they don’t like what he stood for or fought for.Like Trump said “who’s next Thomas Jefferson, George Washington” hel… might as well remove every statue except Abraham Lincoln’s statue, oh wait he was a slave owner, tear it down..I hope Trump stands his ground under all this media pressure because it gives me a little hope that we maybe able to preserve our constitutional REPUBLIC and not regress into a plutocratic democracy or oligarchy.we are a nation of laws not of men…

    • Ron to Mike r

      Good luck, I’m done helping you.

      • Chris F (@Ron and Mike R)


        You sound unhappy but Mike R appreciated and used much of your feedback? Did I miss something? Your suggestions were very good and any help to clean this up will benefit everyone.

        @ Mike R:

        I’m on vacation until the 22nd and will catch back up as soon as I can and look at your latest draft. I only had 5 minutes to check here today. I hope all is going well!

        • Ron

          I just don’t agree with his political views. This really isn’t the proper place for political debate on a subject and President that the country is clearly divided on. Sometimes it is wise to tone down the rhetoric on issues involving religion or politics, especially when you are seeking support from a broad audience.

          • kind of living

            @ Ron ,, I don’t know if you know it or not but we are all part of this country’s broad audience , and I “think” its very important the people see we are just people much like them self’s , and there are not a lot of places we can talk about things in life ,, but I “think” that while someone that may come here and not like one comment or perspective it is likely that will not be the only comment they read , so it at least opens the door to us being seen as real diverse people just like so called “normal” people , and could be viewed as people that may stand behind them in things they may feel is important in an arena of political freedoms that are on the table with many issues that are a threat to freedoms they them self see and understand , think what you wish my friend its your right , myself I don’t trust any of the talking heads of our Gov’t they all sound like used car sales men/women , kicking tiers , talking about being hood “winked” lol ,granny just drove it on Sunday , NO trust me because I am out of control and rich and don’t need money and don’t pay any attention to all of the sexist and race / class based eugenic nut job things he has said , dose that make me right ? no it don’t , but its is a voice ,how ever small it may seem or unintelligent for that matter , but still a person with real feelings , unlike the closed off people that are running this game they allow us to live in a weak attempt of showing their ability to be humane , sending us off to needless wars that we don’t even have dog in ,,, talking out the side of there necks about bombing , and disrespecting leaders , and who will fight these wars ? the little people that have very little to say in the matter will fight them , dying , as well as the many incent on the other side that also have no say . you could bet that if our leaders had to fight the wars there would be none , we have prisons growing exponentially , people going hungry/ police killing people / people killing police / vets that are homeless / violence growing out of control , what are the leader doing ? pushing we need to start killing people abroad ! I am sorry we need to stop rooting for the same teams and start working on problems here at home , is that going to happen ? I really don’t know , what I do know is that the communication needs happen RC or not , no matter what we try to do as RC’s folks just turn us into something unhuman unworthy of living , so why close the door on each other ? respect go’s a long way in our different thinking and helps us out of our bubble we are forced to live in , of course that’s just what my simple mind thinks 🙂

    • steve

      I don’t disagree with you that people have a right to say whatever they want…however Nazi’s and the KKK shut not be supported, in any manner, by the President of the United States.


        Racism must not be supported in any way. There is no room for the KKK or their ignorant views in this country.

  48. mike r

    you know alot of people are disgusted by those people who they don’t agree with, kind of like the disgust they feel for us, but our people have paid with blood and treasure to protect everyone’s right to express themselves and have their own opinions, what disgust me is that all these left wing high morality radicals are attempting to make all that blood and treasure spilt was in vain..thats disgusting….remember those people had a permit even and have every right to protest against the radicals trying to suppress speech and defame great American historical figures because they are offended..this is nothing to do with racism and even if it was , here’s a news flash, even if it was, people actually do have a right to be racist if they want. that goes for blacks whites browns or whatever race it maybe.

  49. mike r

    Great observations Ron.. Fixed them all so far when you get a chance keep going….

  50. Registry Rage

    In the days following the Charlottesville incident, lawmakers nationwide have gone on record stating “hatred should be rejected in ALL forms,” yet they continue unabated to circle the wagon around Megan’s Law and the AWA!

    Hypocrisy just died.

    Community notification = weaponized hate

  51. mike r

    WOOOOW RON< really….What's your reasoning behind all of a sudden you're done helping me Ron????I mean whatever but I am just curious….

  52. mike r

    Nowhere did Trump say he supported nazism or the kkk or any hate group,, but as usual people put words in his mouth that he never uttered. He unambiguously stated he doesn’t support hate groups and is against anyone that commits violence for any reason….I agree these groups are repugnant and disgusting but, that’s a big but, they have a right to think whatever they want and to lawfully express their opinions…If they don’t then who’s next? Pro lifers, anti gay groups, black lives matter. Just out of curiosity where is your line that you think the constitution no longer applies.

  53. mike r

    after watching more of the coverage of that march I have to say and have to agree this was beyond a free speech issue that the marchers were spewing hate speech and they should have been shut down by police not protesters through violence. Black lives matters saying pigs in a blanket what do we want dead cops or any people spewing hate in a public forum should be shut down by the police. I do not consider that type of language as a lawful peaceful protest. I stand by my statement that people that were protesting taking down the Robert E. Lee statue peacefully who were not spewing hate speech had a right to do just that…

  54. mike r

    You know it’s gotten so bad that every time I hear about someone trying to suppress someones speech I automatically want to jump and say you can’t do that without even seeing or hearing what speech was being is a serious hard call to say what amounts to hate speech to the point where you shut it down but I do believe the marchers went to far and amounted to hate speech and I am a staunch believer in free speech.
    man thats hard call. where is the lline drawn and how far should it be able to go before it becomes illegal

  55. mike r

    who draws that line? I think there needs to be some codification stating where we draw that line and then it needs to be debated and scrutinized for constitutionality. It’s a slippery slope that’s for sure…

  56. mike r

    Man after watching more on that rally and march it’s a hard call man.. What do you do arrest people that are spewing “Jews will not replace us” “blood and soil” and what about black lives matter yelling “what do we want, dead cops, when do we want em, now” or “pigs in a blanket and its our streets”. What about pro-lifers yelling and carrying signs saying “baby killers’ or “murderers” or or anti-gay groups yelling “homosexuals are demons” or “gays are going to hell”..Where do we draw the line???????????

    • steve

      That’s BS i’ve seen all the footage and there were no black lives matter groups shouting what you’re saying…you…are fake news.

  57. mike r

    Glad to hear from you Chris hope your vacation is going good. look forward to hearing what you think.I should be completely done revising by then…

  58. mike r

    wow that’s your reasoning? that’s pretty petty and kinda selfish. whatever…I really don’t need anyone’s help if it’s conditional Trump says..sad!..lmao..

    • 9Robert

      Can we leave the President out of the posts?

    • steve

      The problem Mike, like Trump, you don’t understand the situation. It’s not about free speech, it’s not about arresting people for shouting vile things, it’s about the President not condemning hate groups and subetdly giving them them “ok” to continue their bs. When a president has David Duke praising them, you know there is a problem.

      • @Steve

        Quit being an agitator Steve.

        You may not like how POTUS is doing his business and stating his thoughts, but your agitating behavior is not needed here in this forum. POTUS said what he did which has been disliked by others and misframed by others, but he said what he said. Take your rhetoric elsewhere. There will always be two sides to everything which will always disliked by the opposition. Freely speak your stuff elsewhere, it is wearing thin here as seen by others saying their dislike for your thoughts where there are others things to discuss here. Now, knock it off

  59. mike r

    I’m lucky and highly appreciative that most of you guys takes this seriously, mostly AJ and Chris but all that have contributed to this… I’m not even really doing just for me man. the registry hardly effects me at the moment but others need this to happen and if I can help anyone , even you Ron, get relief then all my effort creating this over the last two years at least will have been worth it. MY help is unconditionally regardless of race, political views, or whether I even like you. this is bigger then anyone of us alone…be a patriot and a warrior Ron and put personal feelings aside man, all of us can use all the help we can get. THE more minds at work and collaboration the better…

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      I have yet to go through your final, final document 😉 , but will pick through it in the coming days, I promise! One thing you may want to look into is what sort of formatting the Courts may require. I know SCOTUS has very specific font styles and size for their documents, as well as requiring a certain amount of copies.

      On a side note, I have to admit I get a little lost with some of your postings. They all get posted as original messages, not as replies to others. If you use the “Reply” link somewhere over there ———–> at the bottom-right of a post, instead of the main window at the bottom of all posts, it will get threaded as a reply.

      • mike r

        I am just checking out here what AJ suggested with the reply button to see where it directs me and how it shows up on the site. Can everyone still see this when I use the reply?

    • @Mike R

      Stay the course on your hard work, Mike, many of us are following and reading what your effort is putting together. We may not say much, but we are reading, making notes and will speak up at the right time. This has been a long journey for you, personally, so take your time, get the doc as close to perfect, e.g. format, language, references, etc, as possible before filing. Once it is in, unless you withdraw it, there is no going back.

      • Especially citations

        Need to make sure all judicial and other references are cited properly. Not saying you won’t do that, but one less thing the reviewers have to pick on the stronger your filing is. Rather them say, “Damn, this guy did his homework and it looks good” than something less than that.

    • Chris F

      I agree Mike R, and look forward to getting home and helping early next week or at least by Wednesday.

      We should put everything else aside since most of us share one common denominator. That doesn’t mean we can’t have our opinions on other issues though, as sometimes it ends up being relevant to the big picture.

      Look, the public hates us and won’t spend their time to learn why they don’t need to. Most lawyers other than Janice and her team don’t actually research our issue enough to do more than bare bones representation that just keeps them from being scrutinized by the BAR. Most don’t actually even bother to learn how McKune V Lile, Smith V Doe, and Con DPS V Doe got us in this mess through mis-information and outright lies back in 2002-2003 to launch an appropriate challenge. The bottom line is, most lawyers and judges have family and friends that won’t like to hear about them being successful to challenge anything related to a sex offender or the registry, and therefore, they will only appear on the surface to doing their job but in reality they are laughing about us to friends/family with stories how they talked us into a bad deal or argued something they knew wouldn’t be won but could be justified in trying.

      If you don’t believe any of that, then open your eyes. I’ve seen it with my case and the case of 95% of those in SO treatment groups. It isn’t until you do your own research, like Mike, AJ, and others on here, that it finally all makes sense how we got here and can’t get out of it.

  60. Joe

    Wondering if anyone from the IE has the time and the b@lls to crash this tax payer funded, yet private party:

    Sex offender awareness training
    The City of Yucaipa Police Department will be hosting a Sex Offender Awareness Training Class on Thursday, Aug. 24, 6p.m., at City Hall Council Chambers. This class will educate the public on the laws and regulations of registered sex offenders within the City of Yucaipa.
    Due to the sensitive nature of this topic, and specific information that will be provided, ***attendees cannot be current registered sex offenders, as defined in Penal Code Section 290***. Anyone interested in attending this training must register in advance and must provide identification upon entering the class.
    RSVP to Sherrie O’Connell, at or (909) 797-2489 x 260 prior to August 11th, 2017.

    • mike r

      Hey Joe here what I just sent to that email add. Lets see if I get any kind of response. Oh I should’ve put “Is this why you don’t want any ex offenders to be present so they can’t defend themselves and provide actual facts about this issue?”

      To whom it may concern…

      I am emailing or posting this in hopes that it will be passed around so that I might bring to light facts and concerns surrounding a serious issue. There is an epidemic of bad policy coming from the government that is causing great harm to millions of people in this country and needs to be made public and which must be addressed.
      I am labeled a sex offender. I am one of those people who most people consider as monsters lurking in the bushes or stalking parks and schools searching for future victims. I was convicted for talking to an underage girl over the Internet with whom I never had any physical contact with almost 15 years ago. I am not attempting to minimize my culpability or to down play the seriousness of my offense but am simply trying to educate people about the facts surrounding this issue.
      I haven’t re-offended or ever considered re-offending. I did my time, finished extensive parole without any incidents, payed off my $15000 child support, and am in my sixth semester of college. I am a father and grandfather, an uncle and brother, engaged to be married, and all these people love me from the bottom of their hearts…Does this sound like a monster that needs to be ostracized for life or shot or locked up forever like a lot of people suggest? If anyone says yes then you have absolutely no interest in facts and have absolutely no humanity left in your cold dead hearts…
      The fact is none of these failed policies have achieved any positive results and have absolutely nothing to do with why I haven’t re-offended. If I wanted to re-offend I would care less about any of these laws and not one of them would prevent me from doing so…That’s a fact …These laws only affect those individuals who want to be law abiding citizens and have no effect on the monsters people claim they are all concerned about…Zero effect…
      I do agree with those of you that feel that people who attack and rape children or adults should be locked up for an appropriate amount of time and subjected to intensive treatment before ever having a chance to be released,(which they are already, and the worst of the worst usually never get out), and if they re-offend lock them up and throw away the key…But do you really want our limited law enforcement resources wasted on a guy like me or would you rather have that money put into monitoring the high risk offenders and into programs that actually help prevent sexual abuse before it happens?
      These laws are absolutely useless, are a waste of tax payer dollars, and are a misplaced use of valuable law enforcement and governmental agency resources.
      Please take the time to research all the real facts and evidence on this subject and all the collateral damages to individuals and thier family members that are being caused by these laws.

      Here are some facts from the leading authorities on this subject which indicate that there is no need or justification for these laws.
      California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)
      Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.
      The full report is available online at.

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

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

      The full report is available online at. ID=247350

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

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

      The full report is available online at.

      These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

      People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

      California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)
      Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)
      The full report is available online at
      Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.
      The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%
      Link to Report:

      CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“

      MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released.
      The full report is here

      Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%
      Link to Report:

      Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.
      The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%
      Link to Report:

      Once again, these are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
      Then we have those that are attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry which is another myth and misrepresentation of the facts. This type of misinformation that is based on hearsay and not on facts or evidence is also being used in order to create harsher penalties or further punishments.
      These laws only effect people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. Once again I want to emphasize that these laws only effect innocent family members and those individuals who most just want a second chance to become a respectable, productive and law abiding citizen and have absolutely zero effect on anyone who’s interested and intent on committing a crime.
      No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

      Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one study showing examples of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA, which many states refused to do. This list doesn’t include the cost to maintain the entire registration processes for the plethora of official state and federal agencies that is a product of these laws.

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

      For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.
      None of these failed policies have not achieved any positive results in the US and are in fact destroying the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent children and their families because one of their parents or family members are on such a registry.
      There has not been a single incidence in which a person was apprehended or prevented from committing a crime anywhere or anytime in this country because of any of these laws.
      Please take the time to research all the real facts and evidence on this subject and all the collateral damages to individuals and thier family members that are being caused by these laws.
      You don’t have to take my word for it, just watch what the experts say….

      Thank you for your time.

    • The Unforgiven

      I was confused as to why offenders can’t attend. Is that for our safety as the crowd might become hostile towards an offender? Is it for their safety because an offender might bring along the bush he’s hiding behind and jump out at them? They don’t want offenders to know what’s being said about them? Or they might learn how people can protect themselves and that would ruin offenders chances?

    • Press the Yucaipa Police Department now

      Why not just call in, Joe, using *67 to block your number and ask the PD on their non-emergency line if they are going to stream it live for folks to see or maybe record it for others to view online at a later time? Maybe ACSOL should look into that.

      That is brought up because the PD is a gov’t agency who cannot discriminate against people to prevent them from showing up and learning, even if they are RCs, who have a right and need to know the laws and regulations, in addition to knowing what falsehoods, defaming info, etc is being shared (even if it is the ML website). RCs pay taxes, which do go to the PD too, and, therefore, are tax paying citizens who have a legal right to know what is being shared, even to publically record it (discretely of course is recommended). Maybe ACSOL should look into that too since this is in their wheelhouse. If they can discriminate against RCs here, without any cause (certainly not the RC safety), then what and who is next for them, e.g. RC family members? (Makes me wonder since you have to register, if family members would be discouraged from attending or out right banned.) By the way, City Hall is a gov’t building open to the public paid for by tax payers. So unless there is s restraining order, as a tax payer, an RC has the legal right to attend this training.

      A quick letter to the Chief, City General Counsel, Mayor, City Council members, etc in addition to the newspapers in the surrounding area from ACSOL would be very helpful in getting this issue addressed at least. Hopefully, in the direction that is positive for RCs and puts the city in a light it does not want to be in possibly violating civil rights. A mtg cancellation or fully open invite would be the right course of action by all city gov’t entities responsible.

    • New Person

      Why can you not attend? Isn’t know the rule that important for everyone? Or are the police wanting registrants to screw up so that they can be put back into jail? Like they’re purposely making you ignorant of the ever changing laws.

      Another aspect is that they don’t want to humanize registrants. I don’t know where in 290 that states you cannot attend a training class? If this is publicly funded and you’re part of that public, then why are you banned from this?

      • Excellent points on publicly paid for training

        Excellent points! Even if privately funded, because it is held at a public facility for the public to partake in, it has to be open to the entire public, not those allowed in only because they approve of them. Again, ACSOL should be firing off some letters and asking some questions here on this.

        Remember, SCOTUS has said only LEA&Os can be ignorant of the law they are trying to enforce, not the public at large, who must know them.

      • AJ

        @New Person:
        I had this thought when this (or perhaps it was another) meeting was posted a couple weeks back. My suspicion is they will 1) be discussing “tactics” for “handling” being around a RC, and/or 2) they will be using the ML site and bring up the locals…and would prefer not to have them sitting right there in the room. (Heaven forbid they discover you’re just like them!)

        I, too, wonder about their prohibiting people from what must certainly be a public meeting, given the public is openly invited. I wonder if one could push them on it falling within Open Data Practices Act (i.e. Sunshine Law), or however it’s termed in CA, realm. Worst case, I would try to find a friend who can and will attend, and maybe they forget they have their phone on audio record…. (Though it shouldn’t be illegal to record a public meeting, it probably is.)

        • kind of living

          @AJ & New Preson ,,, it smells like training to (better report ) and spot RC’s out of compliance with info that’s on our profile shown on the registry site , OR giveing them more tools on how to better set up an RC ,,,after giving the witch hunter info that’s not on the web site , all the same no matter what spin one puts on it some one needs to be there from our side of the table to gather intel , just because some may feel paranoid don’t mean no one is out to get you ,,,also public informants to better target , all the same this kind of thing is a danger , Over 150,000 informants throughout the country of Germany reported any anti Nazi to the Gestapo ,,,,,{ BiteSize – Higher History – why the Nazis Were Able To Stay In Power} <<<Google , ,,, it gives a clear break down of the trained Nazi informants , this is fact not paranoid , many were just afraid , or jealous , haters that reported to the Gestapo {Police} , one of my fears is that info not given on the website will be given that's not legal under the code of law , 2 , how many of these meeting have there been in this state as well as others , 3 this is not good for creating trust , 4 why is ACSOL not all over this ? the given secretive nature of this is worrisome to say the least , what do you mean your having a pubic meeting that involves RC's and RC's are not welcome , this stinks to no end, thank you {Joe} I had know idea this was going on ,

          • AJ

            I think I would try to find out if it’s a public meeting (i.e. public forum or limited public forum). Based on legal definition, it almost certainly is not the third type (closed forum).

            From what I can glean picking through the CA laws about meetings and records, this class will fall under the CPRA (, meaning any citizen of the State can get information about the meeting. From what this URL says, the only cost that can be charged is actual photocopying costs–*not* staff time, which is where the costs usually come in.

            Were I a CA resident, the day after the meeting, I’d file a FOIA request to the City for all documents and materials pertaining to the class. I would specifically ask for any and all informational, educational, instructional materials used during the class, as well as any and all materials disseminated to class participants. I would also ask for a copy of the rosters of those who requested attendance, those who were approved to attend, and those who did attend.

            Someone with a little extra $$ and time on her/his hands could always file a pro se injunction against the city, asking a judge to force the city to allow all residents to attend. Both public and designated (or, limited) public fora are subject to strict scrutiny. The City would have to show and justify a compelling interest. If, however, it is deemed a closed forum, it would fall to rational basis, and would be assumed okay (this is the horrible standard used in Smith).

            P.S. Just as I was finishing this post, I got the following reply from Ms. O’Connell:

            My original email: “Dear Ms. O’Connell,

            I’m interested in the meeting/class that the police will be conducting on the 24th of this month. Is this class open to the public (other than sex offenders, of course)? Is there an age restriction, or no minors at all allowed? I guess more importantly than that, are there still openings? From what I can gather, this class is free, right?

            Sorry for having so many questions! Anything you can provide (schedule, topics, how long it will last, plans for a meal break?, Q&A time or just instruction, etc.) would be greatly appreciated.


            Her reply: “All great questions. I will take registrations up until about Monday. You’d need to be 18 or older. There is no fee associated with the class. Yes it is open to the public. If you are interested please send me your full name and date of birth and I will put you on the roster.

            Thanks for inquiring,
            Sherrie O’Connell”

            Hmmm…open to the public, held on public property, run by public officials (who will probably be doing official duties on the clock), no charge…sounds like a public meeting to me!! Under CA law, as I read it, all citizens are have a fundamental right to attend public meetings.

            Again, I hate saying, “Hey Janice!” about things, as she’s quite busy with bigger battles, but….Hey Janice! (Janice: I will gladly forward the email exchange I had with Ms. O’Connell, if you’d like to see it.)

            • kind of living

              @AJ ,,, thank you for looking into it , now I don’t feel like a complete nut , it just feels wrong , because RC’s cant go , strikes me as strange in many ways , what is it we cant see ? and why? down in that area the LEO’s are really fixed on this registry , I cant for the life of me see them smoothing things over for RC’s , its not pro RC for sure

            • Why did the paper include it then?

              Huh, she did not say it was closed to anyone in particular, so…..why did the paper say that? Did Sherrie forget or did the YPD PA officer mention it because they thought no one would question it? Interesting…..

              I like the idea of asking for any and all info from the mtg since it is a matter of public record.

            • AJ

              Based on the reply mike r got from the detective running the class, I can see their rationale for saying RCs aren’t allowed. That doesn’t mean I agree with it, I just see how they arrived at it. But, that rationale may not hold water, based on the text Lake County posted that was taken from the ML site itself. Also, “pre-banning” might seem nice, but it’s up to the RC, not the detective, to decide whether to attend, whether to risk violating the ML access rules, etc. Time is running out if someone is going to push the issue.

              I wish the lady would have given me more details about the class. I’m guessing she may not offer much/more unless I am signed up. Since I live well east of the Rockies, that ain’t happenin’! As for her not saying it was in any way restricted, in her defense I had already addressed the RC exclusion in my email to her.

  61. mike r

    Man I am so lucky to have all the support I have on this site..Truly we are blessed to have this platform..
    Now Ron you may not care or want to hear this but the reason why I post my views on this site is because discussions and debating is healthy for our intellect, keeps our minds sharp. As kind of living stated we a lot of us really don’t have a place to vent or discuss whats on our minds and this platform gives us a chance to do just that. A lot of us no longer have associates and friends that we can call on or associate with any more because of our situations and because of the sensitive nature of our conversations so we come on here and find a place with others to discuss topics that a lot of us feel are important to us. I am on this site just about every single day and find the discourse very stimulating and something we can’t find anywhere else. I think the camaraderie and the cohesion of this group of people is incredible and even after I do get off the registry I hope that we can continue discussing important topics like politics and the state of affairs in this country and around the world. If you don’t want to hear it and base you collaboration and assistance, on something that can help thousands of people, on conditions that others don’t speak their minds or because you don’t have the same opinions as mine then so be it man..Oh and Steve really?those people didn’t chant that kind of hate speech. well then this must be fake news as you put it huh? Go even further into that article and videos and you will even see Obama outright standing up for that kind of language and that group in particular. At least Trump disavowed himself of the racist groups and only defended the rights of peaceful protesters lawfully protesting the taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue. Fake news huh..There are videos all over the net showing BLM chanting racist and evil crap and no one wants to shut them down and the president actually shows direct support to that group and nobody bats a eye at it. Double standards. Like I said who draws the line and at where is that line to be drawn? Now we have lawless terrorist i would call them tearing down statues and defaming American history and are gaining support from the lawless left wing radicals that want to end our democratic republic and put all our peasant lives in the hands of the elite who they think know whats best for everyone. This lawlessness and ideology that the constitution doesn’t mean crap is destroying our country and will continue to do so as long as people in power and the elite refuse to call it out like Trump did and stand up for the vision that our founding fathers had for this country. I don’t like everything about trump but I love the fact that he isn’t bowing to the pressures coming from the political spectrum and from the powerful elite of this country.

    • steve

      That’s hilarious Mike you got that video from INFO WARS!!, that audio is not from Charlottesville (which is what www are talking about not BLM marches) it’s called editing dude I do it for a living. Man you have sunken to a BIGGER low. If you haven’t seen the complete douchebag liar that runs this show… here’s a taste of Alex Jones.

      This actually explains a lot about you…

      • Paul


        Sorry to say but the country has a problem with people respecting the values the USA was founded on plain and simple. That is the reason for all the acting up going on, it’s like when you decide to finally punish your kid for not following rules and send them to there room, they will bang on the door the first few time but soon they will except the rules. Trump is restoring the values to our country Like sending illegals back, taking people off welfare that don’t want to improve their situation and abuse the system, putting street gangs in jail, condemning the disrespectful nature that has seeped in. All the brats are mad right now so they are acting up, it will go away the majority of hard working christians have decided its enough, Alex Jones uses cometary to get people that are not so bright to look at the issues. Make sense?

  62. mike r

    You see Ron a few years ago I would not have been able to articulate my feelings and thoughts as well as I did in that last post if it wasn’t for the intellectual discourse that we have had on here. I am not an educated man and am 50 years old just starting my seventh semester of college. This site and the legal debates have really had a great impact on my education and has broadened my views because I try to see things from everyone’s perspective and not just on my situation or beliefs. Anyways enough of that. I hope that you, Ron, or anyone else for that matter, come to the table and continue to give your contribution, input, and perspective to this endeavor and show your support and put petty differences aside for the good of the whole. It’s up to you man no hard feelings either way..

  63. mike r

    And Steve we have always been polar opposites and have had many confrontations on here but I will still support you as a human being and listen to your input and opinions. Everyone on here are important and each and everyone on here maybe the key to collapsing the registry. You never know, you know the saying if a butterfly flaps it’s wings it can change the world, things happen when you just let it flow and continue to debate and collaborate.

  64. mike r

    And I am not condoning any of this but look at what the black panthers were doing and saying and nobody tried to stop them with violence or through the police..Shoot they were outfitted like the military with weapons and tactical gear even.Double standard>????????? Here’s a couple more vids that Steve called me fake news about…
    look at these signs and shirts, sure looks like hate speech just as bad or worse then what was happening.
    My I can find thousands of examples that are just as bad or worse then what took place in Charlottesville. Once again I am not condoning this type of behavior but am just saying it can’t be OK for one side and not the others.

    • Timmr

      No one tried to stop the Black Panthers? The police IN 1969 raided the Los Angeles headquarters of the panthers, ending up in a shootout, and the FBI developed COINTELPRO to use against the Panthers. COINTELPRO “aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations.” (wikipedia). The result was informants in the Panthers that brought down the organization. Who is bringing down the KKK?

  65. mike r

    So I guess all these rallies and protest should’ve been resisted with violence and had their voices suppressed. Oh wait they had guns and tactical gear who the h…is going to stop them??? I don’t agree with any of these groups but you can’t let one group say what they want and present themselves as they want and not let another group do the same thing…………

    • kind of living

      @ Mike r … this is what we should be doing , is gathering and meeting our opposition on every front we can , Gathering , Circling the wagons and being much more organized as well as TRAINING in our not just the laws that affect us , but also people in place that are heads of transportation , head of procurement of food / clothing / fuel / meds / , over all management , not easy but can be done , hate to be the chicken little here but the sky really is falling , and if not oh well! so what , its not like there is no gain in this , for RC cause / profit as well , I just the other day read about a { cannabis company buys California town {<<Google I got a kick out of it ,, but all the same its no joking matter , it don't even have to be a town , but if you go to the article you could see not just profit but a legal way to build numbers , as well as Buy Your ice cold RC Cola Here <<< 🙂 lol but a great dreamers article , 🙂

      • Timmr

        You are addressing the root of the problem of why we are where we are. If registrants are too poor, isolated and spending all their time trying to survive, there are no resources left to mount a good resistance. It then becomes a matter of simply getting by. We are blessed that we have a few people with resources, education and the willingness to fight for us. It takes a lot of time and organization and we can help it through our small donations in aggregate. It is better than nothing; nonetheless, that is a slow, slow road to reform. The first peoples were defeated by the European newcomers, because they lost their livelihood, their resources were stolen or destroyed by the invaders. Their community life went next and with that any sense of self worth, because we are social beings. The ability to have social status, self fulfillment, time and resources is why our government is run by the wealthy today. The rest are spending time competing with each to be heard. Too bad we can’t create a unified social, economic and political unit to fight this as a powerful unit. But look at us talking here, we are as divided as the native tribes were, maybe not you or me, but as most others in America are. Being a registrant isn’t a cultural identity to unify behind. Or is it? Like the diverse slaves behind Spartacus. If fact we are opposing the one thing left that unites people against a group everyone is culturally allowed, no encouraged, to despise — people convicted of sex crimes.

        • kind of living

          well I am not going to go as deep into this as I would like to , because most will not listen anyway , but I lived on a few communes and being diverse was a tool that worked to the advantage of the freedom movement ,and taking people in that had a dog in the fight , “any dog” just made the moment grow faster , adding stability ! I don’t care about the nit picking , just as long as long as everyone is moving forward helping one another as we should , our numbers increase with our familys being safe , its great we have “Janice and team” I just don’t see what the big deal is about becoming more unified as a people that are being openly suppressed ! and able to become much more active in a hands on sort of way , rather than just courts , you will get no respect for having to hide from candy a$$ witch hunters tribes that meet very little opposition , if organized we don’t have to act as if our hands are forced , no we pick and chose our place our time , we chose ! rather than playing baseball sitting on the bench with only umpires playing the game , or going into battle with only the best shooters rather than utilizing the troops with other skill sets , comfortable well fed troops that are able to train , communicate / respect the situation from all perspectives from all skill sets make for a smooth running unit , everyone cant be the sniper / general / tracker , no it takes grunts to do the many task needed to do logistics , everyone has a post to man , all looking for what ever outcome , this is all I am going to say , because I am just “one” and of course just what I “think” nothing is set in stone in my mind , its open to how we can help the people with needs and at the same time be part of discouraging oppositional behaviors being displayed by rampant people that insist on punishing RC’s and their family’s , thank you Timmr for your perspective and time my friend

          • Timmr

            I agree with you. We have to ensure in some way the economic security of a great number of registrants. Then they have a secure platform to organize and fight. If that doesn’t happen it means only a few of the heros of means will be fighting the fight. This isn’t how to create an army. The army needs provisions to keep them in the fight. Otherwise, they are going to go home. Without an army I think it doesn’t matter what we think, this country will continue to do what it is doing to us. I wish you or I knew how to build this army, but for now it is a dream deferred.

  66. mike r

    Come on Timmer I am not talking about 50 or 60 years ago man, I am talking recently like in the last five years..Whatever though this subject is getting pretty redundant now….Bottom line both sides are to blame, it’s up to the police to stop a protest not a mob..and if you are going to suppress speech you have to do it across the board not just speech that you don’t agree with……The question is were do you draw the line and who gets to decide where that line is drawn without suppressing free speech…

    • steve

      Both sides are not to blame. Bottom line is Nazi’s and the KKK have no place in their America so whoever stands up to challenge them or shuts them up..god bless them

      • Hopeful

        @steve… ur totally right bro- antifa should go after the nazis and prevent them from exercising their right to free speech! Then they should go after those damn sex offenders and… oh crap that’s us. Umm never mind. The Constitution should be followed for everyone. Even if u don’t like a certain groups beliefs behavior or speech.

        • Timmr

          It is always helpful I think, to see what motivates people. The antifa movement began in the 1930’s to oppose Nazi’s in Germany, Franco in Spain and Mussolini in Italy. They were too late at that time. I am not antifa, but from their prospective you can’t wait until the fascists get into power through violence to then oppose their ideas and stop their organizing. Then it is too late. No one will have free speech then.
          On the other hand, I believe that many who join hate groups are looking for a strong sense of purpose and a sense of community which these groups provide. To simply call them evil or flawed is probably counter productive. It will just make them feel more threatened and react more strongly against the main culture. We should have some empathy for this being despised registrants.
          Thing is a neo nazi can disavow the ideology and no one wishes him to be on a registry or despised anymore. We as registrants can be as remorseful or disavowing and lead perfectly loving, legal lives as we can, and we will always be on the registry despite that. That is where the general public fails to see the fascism in the system, right under their noses, not up there on sign.

      • AJ

        The right to free speech either applies to all or none. There is no in between. However ugly, off base, crazy or misguided someone’s speech is, they have a right to speak (within limits, as no right is absolute). It is in defense of the most disfavored speech for which the First Amendment was created. There’s no need for Freedom of Speech if all that’s ever said is wholly agreeable (favored speech). I wholeheartedly disagree with the messages and beliefs of these people and groups (I won’t even name them), but I will defend all day long their First Amendment right to say it. Violence, however, is not protected speech. I will repudiate that all day long.

        There will always be a “fringe” element…it’s impossible to cut the end off a line or continuum, you simply end up redefining what is “fringe.” Kind of like there will always be “rich” and “poor”…they are the extremes on the wealth scale. Do you get rid of poverty by giving everyone $10 million? No, because it will simply redefine the term once a loaf of bread costs $500,000, or a gallon of milk $2 million. Eventually, $10 million becomes “poor.” So even if all the groups you want removed are removed, there will still be some sort of “fringe” beyond a bell-curve middle. Always.

        In short, who’s to blame? Whoever swings the first punch, or unleashes the first can of pepper spray, or throws the first rock. To reverse an old children’s line: “words will never hurt me, but sticks and stones may break my bones.” Free speech is not harmful (even if it is hurtful), and is therefore blameless; violence is harmful, and any involved are to blame.

    • Timmr

      Man, you are drifting away from your motion big time. Are you getting cold feet? I haven’t been helping you out with that, because I am completely lost by the legal discussion, this case, that case, this study, that study…I am curious to see its follow through though.

      • mike r

        I’m definitely still working on it timmer. I have just taken a break mainly because I’m waiting for Chris to come back from vacation. Plus I needed a break, it’s really intensive work but I’m glad to hear you’re following it’s progress..

  67. ReadyToFight

    @ Y’all,
    Today I donated. If my broke ass can do it, anyone can.
    Thank you to Janice/ACSOL and everyone on the frontlines.

  68. mike r

    Here’s the response from my email. it was sent from the San Bernardino police department.At least they responded.

    Your email was forwarded to me, as I will be the instructor of this class.

    I have been working with registered Sex Offenders for over 16 years now. I am very aware of the issues you mentioned in your email, and agree with you about many of the issues you mentioned. Part of this class will be making citizens aware of many of the issues you mentioned, as well as new laws and updates that are in the works by the US Attorney General Office.

    Part of those laws are in regards to changing PC 290, and making it a tiered registration system, so people like yourself aren’t lifetime registrants, etc.

    That is the whole reason for this class, so we can make sure citizens are aware of just what registrants are, and they ALL aren’t monsters and you say in your email.

    I work closely with CASOMB and the US Attorney General’s Office, and am aware of the topics you mentioned and the research that has been done. Which is why I to, hope they change these laws soon.

    During this class we will be utilizing the Megan’s Law Website and conducting searches of Sex Offenders within the city.

    Currently, Pursuant to PC 290, it is illegal (a misdemeanor crime) for registered Sex Offenders to access searches of Megan’s Law. Therefore, if we allowed registered Sex Offenders to attend the class, they would be in violation of PC 290 as they would be part of searching Megan’s Law, and accessing information they are not allowed to access. Therefore, we would not want them to be present and committing a crime.

    Feel free to contact me, should you have any questions.

    Thank you,

    Detective Donald Patton

    • mike r

      Steve man you have some anger issues the way you verbally attack me in just about every response you make. I can take it but come on try a little civility dude. I never claimed any of those videos were from Charlottesville. They were just comparative examples of other groups that have just as much hate in their words and actions. No they were not doc’ed up as you say those were actual rallies, man if you have some kind of proof those didn’t happen feel free post it not just some link to pretty much nothing….Kinda like the way you talk to me…So whatever, the way you talk and respond you’re not even worthy of a response anymore….

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      I hope you write back and thank the Detective for his email and the information. He obviously “gets it,” at least a bit. Being kind to this officer can only help some RC out in some way, as it will reinforce the non-negative (not quite ready to say “positive”) view and opinion he has about RCs and the “system.” I’d also let him know that, though disappointing that RCs cannot attend, you understand the rationale–and again thank him for explaining. Finally, I’d kindly ask him if it’s possible to get copies of whatever materials are used, for your own peace of mind and understanding. Kindness and grace will do more here than anything else. He certainly was under no obligation to reply.

      • mike r

        Yes i will email him thanking him for his courteous reply and see if he will email the material. Good idea, even one more on our side or at least more educated about the issues can never hurt…A little kindness and civility goes along ways…

    • I don't see the accessing ML site as an issue

      I still don’t get why a CA RC accessing the ML website is illegal! It is public info paid for by public money in addition to registration fees! They cannot legally tell you to stay away from it because that is restricting public info on a government server paid for by tax payers and registrants. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! What is the specific chapter and verse that forbids RCs from accessing the website?

      Technically in this meeting, the RC is not accessing the info on the ML website, but the officer is for the entire masses where the RC happens to be sitting amongst. There is nothing in the law I am aware of that says someone else can access the info and if the RC happens to see it, they are in violation. Is that splitting hairs and winnable in court? I cannot see charging an RC with accessing the website if they happen to be in the room and it is accessed.

      I can only see the real reason beyond the aforementioned illegality is they want the masses to feel free to state their addresses to find the dots on the map without attribution or repercussion (like anyone would do that who wants to remain free).

      • Lake County

        The officer should compromise and use Homefacts to display the information instead. But it’s not the registrant who is accessing ML website anyway. He needs to be challenged on this.

        • AJ

          @Lake County:
          I had the same thought about the “accessing” idea. But since I’m not in CA and don’t know the ins and outs of what the law says and prohibits, I let it lie. Does CA prohibit a RC from *directly* accessing, or all access? If directly, then one is legally allowed to view it, whether it’s brought up by a spouse or a stranger as the RC sits there–or as a detective has it on a huge screen while everyone merely looks on. If it’s any access, then even Homefacts is off limits…which would seem to be unconstitutional under Packingham. In truth, barring direct access may be unconstitutional under Packingham, and I would love to hear what the State’s compelling interest is and how it’s been narrowly tailored. (I know what’s claimed and said, but that doesn’t hold up to strict scrutiny.)

          • Lake County

            Direct quote from ML website:

            Penalty for Registered Sex Offenders Who Enter this Website. Any person who is required to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290 who accesses the websites search functionality is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code § 290.46, subd. (k).) This penalty does not include viewing information on the Main page or within the links on that page.

            “who accesses the websites search functionality” seems very specific. There are other ways to access it without using their search engine.

            • AJ

              @Lake County:
              From that text, it would indeed seem a RC could do a “ride along” as someone else does the accessing. As you point out, the text is quite specific and seemingly limited to using the search functionality. Unless this class is going to have participants do the searches themselves, there seems no reason to exclude RCs…at least not based on this claim. The whole thing is quite silly, given there are 3rd party ways around it, as you’ve pointed out.

              On a side note, I wonder if a RC from out of state could access it as long as s/he hasn’t been in CA long enough to trigger registration. A musing, nothing more.

              • Open up the briefing to be safe

                It would appear the LEO mike r talked with is mistaken in trying to keep RCs out of the meeting because the law is not written the way he was ignorantly describing. (Remember, SCOTUS has said LEOs can be ignorant on the laws they are trying to enforce.) An RC is not accessing a search, but merely riding along on someone else’s. Prohibiting someone as he describes is illegal with all of the points previously made here.

                Again, it would probably be those who don’t want their addresses known by RCs that are asking for info and LEOs want to make them feel comfortable there to be able to speak freely. Don’t want to give any wrong ideas to anyone on the registry you know when they need to be looking inside the circle of family, et al.

                San Berdoo and YPD need to open it up to everyone to be safe and not run into civil rights violations. Damage money they don’t have to pay in a class action suit…..

            • Challenge that 290 section

              That verbiage right there is worthy of challenging in court since it is public info on a publicly paid for government system with tax payer money and is discriminatory in nature. What is the their reasoning for putting that into law? Safety? They need to tell a judge why that is in the law.

              I’d be sending the AG a letter on that one and cc: Govnuh Brown while at it.

          • City GC could answer those?

            Those are some good questions for the city general counsel to answer regarding data access of ML and CA RCs. That is a simple email and phone call to them.

            The more you question it, the more they are going to think about who the let in, etc. They need that thinking to ensure all rights are observed.

      • ML knowledge is power

        Knowledge is power. They don’t want to share the knowledge in that forum because it would level the power to an equal footing between the public, the RC and the LEOs. Making people comfortable to ask questions without retribution is something that needs to be done in private forums, not public forums using public employees in public buildings with public information (while attempting to withhold it under a guise of a CA law from particular people). This whole things stinks and reeks of class warfare, even though there are no classes of people here of course.

  69. mike r

    Let me be clear I am not endorsing any of these groups and anytime it reaches a point of hate speech it should be shut down by the police not a mob with violence regardless of the playground talk of who started it. People on the left just want to paint everyone that doesn’t believe in their utopia, open borders, no constitutional rights, especially no second amendment rights, and government control and taxation to fund their ideal, with a wide brush and anybody that doesn’t believe what they believe are racist and bigots and it simply is not true and it is dividing the country worse then any single group…

  70. mike r

    no one ever answered my question..Where does hate speech start, what line needs to be crossed before the government, not a mob, can stop or suppress it?Who decides where we draw that line, politicians? Were screwed then.

  71. AJ

    I am certainly not wanting to pick the (freshly healing) scab on here about statues and such. However, I stumbled upon an op-ed that makes an interesting and valid point ( The author’s point of view makes sense to me, and boils it down to something upon which I hope everyone can agree. How many statues to Benedict Arnold do we have? (At least one monument, actually, but his name isn’t on it…and it’s not a statue. He was a great general, but he betrayed the United States. He gets no memorializing. The same logic could easily apply to the CSA statues. Though they were upstanding, competent men, they betrayed the United States. Yet they are memorialized. Seems odd, is all I can say.

    As to the President’s warning about whether Washington and Jefferson are next, I offer this story: Death threats. To a minister. What is with our country!?

    In another vein, where is the passion about Seattle and its Lenin statues? V.I. Lenin killed a healthy ten times as many people as were killed in the Civil War. Why has he long been memorialized in this country? Where is the protest about those statues? Odd, to say the least, but at least Seattle’s mayor seems to get it:

    Mind you, statue or not, betrayal or not, nothing justifies hateful speech, intolerance, and/or violence. Nothing, not ever. To me, Charlottesville is one more example of our growing (matured, is perhaps better) intolerance for any view but ours, whatever “ours” happens to be. That saddens me, and makes me fearful for this country’s future. If we could just stop talking and yelling at, and start listening to, each other, we may find we at least understand the other’s side, even though we disagree. I try to live by the words of that giant of philosophy, Elliott Gould: “It is essential that I listen, so I can try to minimize problems that I create for myself.” (

    As a descendant of numerous American Revolution soldiers and patriots (those who supplied materiel but didn’t fight), a handful Grand Army of the Republic soldiers (i.e. the Union), and one or two Confederate soldiers, I wish we could all find a not-unhappy medium somewhere. If we can find a way to remember our history without harmfully memorializing it, I’m there.

    • Gen Lee knew was what good

      I think folks tend to forget or never knew before, Gen Lee did not want statues and memorials after the Civil War. He did not even want battlefields memorialized either. None of them was going to help the nation heal as a whole. He would be the first to tell anyone, take his down. He was a smart man even if he did fight for his beloved Virginia in the end after resigning his West Point commission. He knew, very much he knew.

      Now back to helping RCs get a better life.

      • AJ

        I’m thinking all the Founding Fathers would be aghast at there being statues and “idolization” of political and military figures. They had had enough of that type of stuff in the old country.

        • Timmr

          AJ, I am glad you mentioned that. Agree completely.

          • Precursor perhaps?

            When you put it that way, AJ, it appears in my mind to be of Roman times and their monuments…..we all know what happened to that empire.

      • Timmr

        Hear, hear, let us tear down the monument, chiseled out of fear, that reminds us always, day to day, we are indentured property of the US; that is, the Registry. I state again, we are people, created with free choice, not toxic commodities with set properties. They can never change the fact of human redemption, only carve a fantasy of predetermination and worship that idol.

    • New Person

      Sometime scars are there to remind us. The stories may be good or bad, but they remind us. The Civil war was bad. But you can turn things into a positive. That’s why Lincoln didn’t want the south to secede to become a different country. He wanted his brothers to grow… to grow into a more perfect union.

      Note, it is to grow into a more perfect union, not a perfect union. There is no perfection upon this planet amongst men. There’s this saying, “You don’t pick your parents.” Thus, we’re in several iterations since the civil war. We should be growing from it, not looking back into the past to re-live what no longer exists.

      I don’t comprehend the fascination of looking back and using that as a crutch for today. I also don’t comprehend the short-sightedness of the context. The whole world used to participate in enslaving. No one is immune to this. Warring clans and tribes would enslave the losing faction. But that was long ago. Cultures have evolved. Barack Obama became President of the USA, that includes a lot of states from the south that voted for President Obama.

      I feel as though this is just another fear tactic as opposed to using actual data. From what you hear in the media, you’d think that slavery was rampant today. It isn’t. Might shouldn’t make right. Right should make right. Right is the US Constitution. Protect all, good and bad. Registrants won a Freedom of Speech case just recently. Many see registrants as non-citizens, or worse, monsters. Yet here the gov’t protects that we should have a voice, despite no one believing we’re deserving of one.

      No one’s perfect. But we can turn negatives into positives. We can also learn from them. Why are we destroying history? So that we may repeat them once again? Did you know that Yankee is a derogatory term for an American? So what did we do? We embraced it and turned it into a positive.

      I dunno… i just remember terrorist factions burning historical items and libraries in the middle east. I recall thinking they’re doing it on purpose – destroying history. I thought it barbaric. Yet here we stand. A plethora of great wonders utilized slaves before the industrial revolution. Should the Pyramids and Sphinx also be taken down as well?

      In many other countries today, women are still considered property and without a voice. Lincoln welcomed back the south despite the brutality of the Civil war. Look at what has grown from it since then… everyone has a voice. Those with a voice inducing division and destruction fail to realize this fact.

    • Timmr

      Remember the Constitution makes no determination of punishment for any crime. That is left to the legislatures of the states and congress. The exception is treason. A unifying reason to take down statues is when they honor traitors. We do not have statues of Benedict Arnold or king George in our state houses even though they are figures in our collective history. There is a place for them in museums.

  72. mike r

    Here,hear, AJ Well said..

  73. mike r

    I don’t understand how no one can have civil discussions on any of the issues without turning out of their mind volatile and hostile. I cant even have a civil conversation on here discussing the issues without someone personally attacking me. Death threats because dude calls for a statue to come down.come on man society is out if it’s collective and individual minds. it’s just going to get worse unless some semblance of reasoning from all sides of the spectrum..

  74. Follow the $

    I am getting ready to pursue action against the CA DOJ for incorrectly publishing my information on ML Website (independently verified by spouse). In 2015 I was granted 17(b) and 1203.4 and the misdemeanor violation is not categorically called out in 290 for disclosure. Does any have a good lawyer they recommend to help draft an airtight letter to them demanding my information be removed and that they comply with the law? Would prefer someone in Sonoma county.

    • Lake County

      I’d call the President of this site (ACSOL) Chance Oberstein. You do not need a local attorney at this point, you just need good advise and perhaps an attorney to then write a letter. I’ve heard his fees are reasonable. If you truly should not be on the ML website, then a letter will likely be enough to get you off. If you need to file suit, it will be costly and no attorney would take this type of case without money up front. I have heard of many people being removed from the ML list once their error is shown to them. You can Google his phone number.

      • Follow the $

        Thanks for the tip I am going to try and wing it the first time then if I get no love from DOJ I’ll call Mr. Oberstein for help or Recordgone MS recommended.

      • Follow the $

        Finally donated. Felt good.

        • Janice Bellucci

          Thank you for your donation! Each dollar received helps us to help everyone in the registry as well as their loved ones.

    • MS

      I used Cost was $750. I don’t have a copy of the letter they drafted and sent to the DOJ but I do have a copy of the response letter from the DOJ which has an address and name on it. I’m guessing recordgone has a standard letter they send to the DOJ. Like you, my felony was reduced and should have been automagically removed from ML site. Of course this didn’t happen on it’s own. After a few months of waiting I decided to hire recordgone since I had no idea what the process was or where to send a letter to. The DOJ response letter said they would update the info within a few business days. I was removed shortly after. Once I was removed I contacted and they removed me from their site. Let me know if you would like the info (name, address, etc) from the DOJ that I have a copy of. Mail off your own letter and only hire an attorney if that doesn’t work.

      • Follow the $

        I certainly would like the info. How would you like me to get in touch with you?

        • MS

          Recordgone sent a letter to the DOJ stating that the information pertaining to me, displayed on the Megan’s Law Public Internet site, was incorrect. Response letter indicated that recordgone provided the appropriate documentation to support this contention which I’m assuming were the court documents showing I was granted a 17b. DOJ response included “We have updated our records and the change will be reflected on the Megan’s Law Public Internet site within two days from the date of this letter”

          Here is everything on the letter that I think could be of use…

          KAMALA D. HARRIS
          Attorney General
          State of California

          P.O. Box 903387
          SACRAMENTO, CA 94203-3870
          916-227-3288 PH
          916-227-4345 FAX

          Hope this info helps people that should no longer posted on the ML site (after being granted a 17b, etc) get themselves removed.

      • Follow the $

        I am very familiar with recordgone as I used them for my 17(b) and 1203.4. but I will try the letter first then reach out to either Chance or Recordgone for further assistance.


  75. Quint

    Woah, did this change on the senate bill 421? “who is a tier two offender, and with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6,”

    Does that mean all misdemeanor 647.6 convictions will be made public on the website?

  76. mike r

    that’s excellent info for a lot of people I’m sure. I really like the fact homefacts.scum removed you as well.thats good news…hey anyone know if lyft ride share in CA will hire us? their terms say they do background checks at the minimum of 7 years and talks about violent felonies which I have non-violent felony and I’ve read about their spokespeople standing their ground in New York saying they think everyone whos paid for their crimes should have a chance to earn a living and even as far as trying to fight the new law denying level 1offenders. I guess we’ll see because I’m going to apply soon as i get my student loans..

  77. Lake County - License Plate Readers

    People keep objecting to the development and use of GPS implantable tracking chips. I think a much bigger concern is the installation of license plate readers that are being installed at the entryways and throughout many cities. This technology doesn’t have any real rules or guidelines. I would imagine they will also use it to track parolees, probationers and registered citizens. So if you think you’re being followed, you are. The people in Brentwood, CA mostly gave positive comments on their use. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is old, but brings out some interesting points.

    Are automatic license plate readers a violation of privacy?

    Brentwood License Plate Reader Program Already Making Impact

    City of Clayton Installs Cameras, License Plate Readers at City Entrances

  78. j


    Just want to confirm that, in California, you don’t have to update your registration when you buy or sell a vehicle? You only have to be sure to update at your yearly… am I correct?

    I am on probation right now and I bought a new car last week. As it’s a new car there is no plate yet. I contacted my probation officer and updated her on the new car. Told her I’d let her know the plate number as soon as I got one.

    Now here’s where it gets interesting… she told me to call the local PD and let them know as well. I don’t think that’s correct but gotta do what the PO says right. I called the detective where I register to let them know. She wanted the VIN number of the car so I gave them that.

    Nothing I can do about any of this until I’m off probation right? I have to do whatever the PO says? I was actually thinking the detective was going to just say that I didn’t need to do that so surprised she asked for the VIN.


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 *