ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

.Action ItemsACSOL

POSTPONED: ACSOL will NOT fight bad parole conditions in L.A. 11/27

The date for the hearing in the ACLU case which was originally scheduled for Nov. 27 in Los Angeles has been delayed due to government request, so we will not be at the courthouse on Nov 27.

There is not yet a new date.

We will notify you as soon as we know what the new hearing date will be.

Join the discussion

  1. Kevin Scott

    Lost my job, I’ll be there. I got the time now. I hope a lot of people show up

    • Timothy D A Lawver

      GOOD!
      TAKE NOTE: The needs of a human are not outweighed by the needs of a data base.

      HUMAN > MACHINE

      A simple formula!

  2. Agamemnon

    Can’t wait to see how this goes.

    Not everyone’s crimes had to do with alcohol, and some parolees aren’t prohibited from drinking. Not all parolees’ crimes had to do with computers, and some aren’t barred from computers. But every registrant parolee is prohibited from social media and religious practices, even though most crimes of this nature didn’t involve social media or church?

    I only wish the travesty that is Sharper Future – and the heinous conflict of interest involved with its chairman – was included in this lawsuit.

    • Corruption In Plain View

      Sharper Future will get away with it. They’ve gotten away with everything else. Sharper Future’s CEO, Tom Tobin, is also the vice-chair of CASOMB. Even though it’s a conflict-of-interest, Tobin and his company get away with it. Scot-free. The list goes on; but the obvious is right in front of our eyes (which ought to tell us something about what happens beneath the surface).

    • Jenn

      I’m actually surprised that Tom Tobin and Mary Perry Miller have gotten away with their SHARPER FUTURE scheme. Everything they do is so questionable. First, the conflict of interest between Tobin as CEO and Tobin as CASOMB vice chair. Second, the questionable “treatment” contracts and containment model in which said ‘treatment’ is a free for all. Third, the mere fact SHARPER FUTURE is no longer hiding the fact that they use “unlicensed clinicians.” Forth, SHARPER FUTURE’S use of shaky “science” — polygraph, Abel, Static 99R. Fifth, has anyone ever looked more into the CDCR/Sharper Future contract? I’m thinking that there must be a lot of shady clauses in that thing that is geared to bring in the money for Tobin and Perry Miller. At face, it just seems so wrong that Tobin as CEO of a private company can also be second in command of a government agency that licenses that very private company. Tobin’s power in CASOMB is probably how he monopolized most of the ‘treatment’ contracts for SHARPER FUTURE.

      • truth

        In case you’re wondering, the whole “SARATSO tool” and Static-99R risk assessment propaganda being pushed by Tom Tobin is, not coincidentally, designed to create more business for Tobin. By separating the “low” scorers from the “high risk” sex offenders, Tobin can rationalize more “treatment” for the only reason of having a “high” Static score.

        So naturally, more treatment — by means of more individual and group “therapy” — means that CDCR (by way of taxpayers) will need to pay more money to fund Sharper Future’s contracts. When you simplify everything, Tobin wants to protect his business and funnel more contract money his own way. If that requires pushing fake science, influencing his fellow bureaucrats along the way, then Tobin will do it.

  3. Fight On!

    CDCR:

    C = California

    D = Department of

    C = Corruption and

    R = Retribution

    CDCR.

  4. First Amendment

    If any of you are interested, here is a good “First Amendment Audit” video of the Parole Office located in Van Nuys:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzxrqR1SVSE

    This is definitely something you can’t get away with when you’re on parole. But once the parole agent gets the sense that the photographer, Johnny Five O, is not on parole — and knows of his rights — the parole agent backs down. Kind of like a bully who comes across a kid that stands up for oneself?

    Anyway, it’s interesting to watch as the citizen flexes — or abuses? — his First Amendment by asking the parole officer: “Is your mom on parole?”

    LOL

  5. J.J.

    WOW! And this whole time I didn’t think the ACLU cared. It’s nice too see the powerful people at ACLU fight back against the crooks at CDC”R”.

    • I agree

      The other ACLU chapters often fought for registered citizens. Remember, it was the Northern California chapter that fought and won Smith v. Harris. Packingham was ACLU. So was Does v. Synder (in Michigan).

      The Southern California ACLUs have, until now, stood aside from helping any registered citizens. I understand it’s not a very popular subject. Being that we live in Hollywood probably doesn’t help — as Hollywood likes to villainize anyone labeled a “sex offender” (and what worse enemy for the ACLU to make than those in Hollywood). There are probably a slew of many other unknown reasons why the Socal ACLUs have avoided a sex offender case until now. But maybe Packingham gave the Socal ACLUs a second thought??

      • I agree

        To correct myself, I mean Doe v. Harris (not “Smith v. Harris” [as I was mistakenly also thinking about Smith v. Doe]). Doe v. Harris was argued by Michael Risher in the 9th Circuit. Surprisingly, the panel, who decided In favor of the “sex offenders,” consisted of at least one very conservative judge. If I am not mistaken, I think Janice and the then CA RSOL also played a part.

      • Harry

        The way Hollywood is going in the recent accusations and scandals there will be many joining the price club either by way the of the legal court system or by the way of the court of public opinion.

  6. It doesn’t work

    Maybe they gave the plaintif what he/she wanted to avoid “an official, on the record” outcome??

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

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

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