ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

General News

General Comments November 2017

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

Join the discussion

  1. AJ

    SCOTUS granted cert in a CA case that may be worth watching in support of IML and marked DL suits. The case is a compelled speech case. Of course CA is saying it’s merely regulation. Sound familiar? 🙂 I read the CATO amicus, and, surprise, surprise, they toss out Riley (factual compelled speech), Barnette (Pledge of Allegiance compelled speech), and Wooley (license plate motto compelled speech) as case law references. Though this case has to do with professional speech, if it’s ruled as subject to strict scrutiny, it’s all the better for us, as private speech is held to an even higher standard than professional.

    From the petition itself, here’s the question to SCOTUS: Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

    Hopefully SCOTUS tackles the Free Speech angle instead of the Free Exercise one. But regardless, I’m hopeful for some more compelled-speech doctrine to come out of it.

  2. ML

    Listening to the news today, there has been 15 million payed out by the US Government to cover claims much of it relating to sexual harassment. I hope that someone soon does a FOI request to shed some light on what has been going on. If the wealthy and powerful were all held accountable to the degree of those on the registry, maybe some laws would change. There would at least be more money for legal action.

  3. mike r

    Well AJ and Chris, the representative for AG for CA called me and asked me if we could reschedule our court date for Dec. 20 at 10 am. and claimed that they will be filing a motion to dismiss some of the issues. I really hate to agree with anything the opposition wants, but I agreed, since it is going to get the case in front of the judge as soon as possible. The thing I need to research is, can the AG for CA file, and it seems as though they want to severe their arguments from the federal issues, or they are trying to get a judge to dismiss it outright by claiming they are not a federal agency and therefore they have to be sued in state court before I can take it to the federal level. I am not sure if they have a nefarious intent here, and are working some kind of technicality but I am going to always assume they do and are. I know if they try to subvert justice and deny me a fair and just judicial process, I am not going to let it go, I can tell you that. I know that they have to work in good faith to remedy this case ethically without getting a procedural due process claim against them. Like I said, I have to research this more but I wanted to get your guy’s take on this.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      CA will probably try to bounce anything that’s not CA or US related. If I recall correctly, you had some references to things happening in other States–which neither the CA AG nor the US AG can address, let alone litigate. They may well try to sever anything to do with violations of the CA constitution, too. I’d argue against that, but you may end up losing the argument. Were I you, I’d go over my suit and see what items are low-hanging fruit for them to get dismissed. There will certainly be some. But, I would also be ready with Snyder (allowed to stand) and Millard (CO 8th Amendment case) as possible rebuttal. (I’m not sure how much, if at all, they apply to CA situations.)

  4. mike r

    I know that there is a “supplemental jurisdiction” rule that allows federal courts to rule on state issues and defendants.
    “Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C. § 1367”

    I imagine that the CA AG is aware of this rule which is why they are going to file a motion to dismiss some, but not all claims, in the federal court. I really don’t see any downfall for agreeing to this hearing date, so if anyone can enlighten me as to why I should not agree to this hearing please feel free to express your opinions.

  5. mike r

    This might even be a good sign since when I was in prison fighting for my halftime credits I received a letter from the warden on Christmas eve stating that I won my appeal, and my halftime credits, along with my new release date; which was about a two year difference…Maybe I will get a decision on or about the same time….Wouldn’t that be ironic…..

  6. We are the scary airline passengers??

    Seriously, they scrutinize RCs’ travel plans, but this “violent psychopath” has no trouble boarding an overseas flight?? WTF!! 😡 Good work, TSA!!

  7. AJ

    Here’s an interesting case involving Playboy TV that could well apply to marked DLs and passports: Though the specific case is about cable TV operators needing to block sexually explicit channels from minors, the constitutional issue is content-based regulation of free speech. In this case, the regulation is restrictive, but since free speech is defined as speaking (or not) and/or listening (or not), the direction of regulation matters not. As well, this case states, “[t]he distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.” (A burden/ban is compelled speech through forced silence; the complement of forced speech on a DL or in a passport.) It’s all subject to strict scrutiny, and Government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means. For DLs, that would be the existing ML websites. For IML…I’m not sure. Compelling interest is probably going to be rooted in “foreign policy,” since the US Government may have interest in protecting children overseas, but compelling? Hmmm. As for least restrictive means, the Government already sends Green Notices, and perhaps other messages, to foreign entities. Even if they don’t already have less restrictive means, they still must create and use them. So says strict scrutiny.

  8. mike r

    Thanks AJ. I will definitely be going over my brief like you said. This is kind of a tricky situation since I am not claiming any CA constitutional issues but only US constitutional issues, I severed all references to the state constitution on purpose so as to leave those arguments available if some how I don’t prevail on the fed issues. I will bring a lot of the issues pertaining to the CA constitution in the state courts, which is even more likely to succeed then the feds. State const. usually have greater protections then the fed so I want to keep that ave. open….I guess it’s just all speculation on what they are going to try to come up with, I will know more as soon as I am served their brief. I do find it semi comforting that she stated that she was going to be filing a motion to dismiss some of the claims, most important I think is the statement “some” and “not all”. That apparently means that they are having a problem with at least some of the claims I raised which they cannot just dismiss on technicalities, or other obvious reasons….I will keep you posted, What happened to Chris? I am going to need all the brilliant minds I can get once I get their brief. I will not have much time to prepare since the date is set for the 20th Dec. That is coming up very fast and I am almost at the end of my semester which is going to be hectic until about the tenth. really I have at least ten days I can just focus on rebuttals. >>>>>>>>>> Janice, ACLU, NARSOL, W.A.R., any orgs. or civil rights advocates, Derek, Will, SOSEN, someone feel free to jump in any time now….It’s getting real now and this is extremely important to many Americans, not just me…………I really cannot believe that these civil rights leaders or orgs. are going to let me go this alone, but I am ready, if that’s how it’s going to be then so be it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      @ mike r

      I would encourage you & all to be proactive and contact the following Attorneys for review and assistance on your case. As they have dealt with Plaintiffs are from all over the USA and it may be possible to add insight to your relevant Case.

      In addition I would venture to reach the conclusion that Janice & ACSOL may not have the ability to file a limitless amount of Cases.


      Greg J. Fuller – Daniel S. Brown
      FULLER LAW OFFICES Attorneys at Law
      161 Main Avenue West
      P. O. Box L
      Twin Falls, ID 83303 Telephone: (208) 734-1602 Facsimile : (208) 734-1606
      ISB #1442
      ISB #7538

      Link to PDF:



      Perhaps Professor Catherine L. Carpenter at Southwestern Law School can help with her advise on the Case. She may be able to refer Eager & Capable Attorneys to Champion the Cause to defend The Constitution Of The Citizens of the United states.

      Link to Catherine L. Carpenter YouTube video:

      Link to Students Rating of Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:

      Contact info for Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:

      B.A., cum laude, English, 1973,
      University of California, Los Angeles; J.D., cum laude, 1976,
      Southwestern Law School; Member, California State Bar
      Phone 213-738-6875
      Office BW417

      Link to 8 Research Papers written by Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:

      Elected to the American Law Institute in 2012, Professor Carpenter is nationally renowned criminal law scholar in the area of sex crimes and sex offender registration laws. Her scholarship has been cited by numerous courts and used as a guide by attorneys. In addition, Professor Carpenter is one of the foremost authorities on law school curricula and accreditation. She has served in several leadership posts within the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association (ABA). She has served as past chair of the Section’s Accreditation Committee, past Chair of the Curriculum Committee and as a member on the Standards Review Committee. As chair of the Curriculum Committee from 2002-2004 and again from 2009-2012, Professor Carpenter was principal drafter of two comprehensive national surveys: A Survey of Law School Curricula 2002-2010 and its predecessor A Survey of Law School Curriculum 1992-2002. She earned national recognition in 2013, 2014, and 2015 from the National Jurist as one of the “Top 25 Most Influential People in Legal Education.”

      Legal education, and Southwestern in particular, has been Professor Carpenter’s professional passion for more than three decades. After distinguishing herself while a law student earning several academic awards and serving as Notes and Comments editor of the Southwestern Law Review, she returned to her alma mater in 1980 as a member of the faculty and continued to add dimensions to her association with the law school—as Alumni Association President and member of the Board of Trustees, a professor and an administrator. She served as Vice Dean from 2014 to 2016. She previously spent over a decade from 1984 to 1997 as Assistant Dean/Dean of Students and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs from 1984 to 1997. She also served as an advisor to Southwestern’s Moot Court Honors Program from 2006 to 2014. In recognition of her tremendous contributions to the law school, legal education and the profession, Professor Carpenter was named Southwestern Alumna of the Year in 2013.


      I conclusion:

      I call Heaven & Earth to bear witness today to their Only Possesor Who alone formed the Light and alone created the Darkness His Dominions Alone and forever, to Be at your side, give you courage, Light the path before you, clear and rebuke all barriers (ha’ shatan) that stand in your face with ill will.

      The Father Most High in Heaven incline your ear, hear my Prayer for Relief.

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  9. mike r

    Thank you for the prayer Sons, and your input…Yes I have already contacted every person I can think of, including Miss Carpenter, along with Ira Ellman, Emily Horowitz, and all these civil rights orgs. to no prevail. Carpenter actually emailed me back stating that she was in Europe and could not assist me, and she didn’t have any legal resources other then her research that I can use. I will be attempting to contact all these people again with another request for immediate assistance, or any assistance at all. I am not holding my breath though….It is kind of ironic that I have been searching for some good advice on pro se civil litigation for some time now and last night the first search I did resulted in the following article, which I suggest should be mandatory reading for all US citizens….AJ, if you haven’t read this already, you should find this incredibly interesting…Check out the link, its up forever….It’s beautifully articulated, and is a masterpiece about the subject and just confirms everything that I have been stating and more…..

    You have to read the entire article to really appreciate what is being stated……Massive amounts of relevant, and authoritative citations….I am currently researching all the statutes and codes that show reasons for dismissals that the might try and about how I may be entitled to court appointed counsel of some sort…I only want stand by or assistance of counsel, not to give up the reigns to anyone ever again….

  10. AJ

    Sometimes ignorance of the law *is* an excuse. MN SC overturned a conviction of FTR due to the RC not having knowingly violated the law: Between this and Lambert (, it does sometimes pay to be a bit “dim” on things. Unfortunately, it’s probably a tough argument to be made that you didn’t know State X has a registry law. Also, other States may not have the “knowingly violates” clause in their laws like MN apparently does. (Anyone wanna bet the Legislature amends the Statute to get rid of that phrase?)

    • AlexO

      I’m reading this but I’m having issues actually understanding this. Does this basically mean that while we’re vacationing in another state we now don’t have to register with them since we’re not really moving there for residence purposes and really have not been directly informed of the time table, especially considering how wildly different it is state-to-state? I mean, vast majority of the RC laws that I’ve come to know all over the country is because of this website. Nearly nothing was directly dictated to me by the courts and PO’s. Almost everything I learned was from here and my 3 years in mandatory counseling (actually a positive experience from me, cost aside).

      Considering how many lawyers and law enforcement are not fully aware of all the RC laws, how are we, as a private citizens without legal education, supposed to keep things straight?

      • AJ

        It’s one big “it depends.” It depends on what a particular State’s laws and courts say. What happened in MN is that the Statute requires mens rea in order for a violation to have occurred. So to my layman’s eyes, unless and until someone specifically tells you to register when traveling to MN, ignorance currently is a valid defense if nailed for FTR. (MN doesn’t require you to register until 14 days, so it’s pretty lenient on that angle anyway. I guess sex offenses involving transients only happen after 15 days.) The Lambert case also highlights that unless one is put on notice of the requirement to register, ignorance is a valid defense. Note that Lambert was a SCOTUS case, so nationally binding.

        How this all works for each of us also depends. I believe part of the paperwork I had to sign during initial registration included a requirement to register in other States’ as required by those laws. So for me, there may be a legal requirement for me to dig up the laws to see if/when/how I need to register. Again, my layman’s opinion is that if no documentation exists showing you’ve been told of a registration burden outside your State’s boundaries, you may well have a defense under Lambert. If traveling to MN, it would seem one would have double protection if nobody can show a probability that you knew you had to register. Again, I see the Achilles’ heel to this being that the Gov’t would argue that of course there’s probability you know, since all these laws have been publicized when signed, yada, yada, yada. In short, it seems to be a plausible defense if one trips up, but I sure as heck would not intentionally rely on it. (In fact, intentionally relying on ignorance in some measure points towards not being ignorant.)

        • AlexO

          I’ll have to dig up my papers from my last reg and reread all the lines I initialed. From what I recall, it was all about California and nothing outside of it as California isn’t even SORNA compliant. Even what we sign is fairly ambiguous in parts such as definition of “new residence”. It’s not clearly defined as what moving actually is. Even reading deeper into the codes it’s still fairly unclear.

          But of course “violating” any of these things results in your ass going to prison because you broke this clearly non-punitive code that’s there to protect the public from our horns and drool.

          • AJ

            You may also want to look up the FTR law and see if it addresses “knowingly” in any manner.

        • Paul 2

          15days lol good one Shows its all about the smoke and mirrors and ego man. Im sure they did a big study and found the optimal time it takes an out of state persons gonad output to acclimated to the difference in altitude and vitamin D up take haha Wonder if they have an ice-cream truck clause like PA does? lol

  11. Bobby

    hello everyone,

    I watching the 2nd oral argument to the Michigan v Temelkoski case, and decided to ask Ms Aukerman or the Intern Tim a question, and here is the question I asked.

    Hello Tim, or Ms Aukerman
    I was watching the 2nd Oral Argument on the Temelkoski case, and at about 52 minutes in the AG or SG say’s because of the 6th circuits decision, Michigan is NO LONGER allowed to apply the 2006 and 2011 amendments to ANYBODY, but yet I still have to check in come December my profile still says I am a tier 3 and have to register for life. WHY?
      If you remember I was convicted in 1992 when there was NO REGISTRY yet because I was on parole in 1995 the legislature passes Megan’s Law nd puts me on the registry unconstitutionally, how can the legislature force some one to register, when that is up to the Judiciary, this seems like a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause/ Article 6 Paragraph 2.
        I shouldn’t of never been placed on the registry for 25 years, let alone have it changed to life, and was does the AG say everything has go  back to the 2005 amendment, well I looked there is NO 2005 amendment to be found, there is a 2004 amendment, and a 2002 amendment a 1999 amendment and 1994 amendment, so why does he  keep speaking about the 2005 amendment.? .
      So can you please tell me WHY he keeps mentioning 2005 amendment when there is not one, or WHY they are still applying the 2006 and 2011 amendments when he clearly says they are no longer allowed to apply those amendments to anyone retroactively anymore.  Thank you for your time.

    and this was her reply back to me,

    We are working on a class action that will ensure that you and others get the benefit of the 6th Circuit decision

     I am a bit confused since she really did not my question, does Class Action, mean that Michigan is refusing to do their part in replacing the registry, or Michigan is dragging there feet to slowly, I mean I have to check in ,in December and I will, but what is the point when the guy just admitted that Michigan is NO LONGER allowed to apply the 2006 and 2011 amendments. anyone have any theories on this confusing situation. Thanks in advance.

    • AJ

      Her succinct reply means that MI is dragging its feet and ACLU is going to compel them to comply with Snyder. In other words, the State can ignore a court ruling until forced, but you and I must comply promptly.
      Yeah, that’s how our government, constitution, and laws are supposed to work. They deserve to be hit with punitive damages, as it appears to be willful.

      She didn’t answer your question about 2005 vs other years, but that’s probably because it’s of no consequence.

      • Lake County


        I would not suggest doing this, but if you did not register in December, I wonder if the DA would even file charges against you? And if they charged you, would a judge be willing to find you guilty? But no matter what, you’re lucky since it looks like your time on the registry is about finished.

  12. AJ

    I stumbled across what may be a helpful SCOTUS snippet for those fighting being prohibited from religious services. Delivering the Opinion in Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association (, Justice Scalia stated in Footnote 3, “what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well.” That would seem to allow one to parlay the Packingham decision into a religious freedom claim as well. I wonder if one could also parlay it into other First Amendment rights, such as freedom of assembly (which is burdened when I cannot attend *any* event on school property).
    (BTW, the Footnotes in this case are great examples of how Scalia would pillory those Justices not agreeing with him.)

  13. AJ

    @mike r:
    Some of your “liberty interest of reputation” claims will probably get knocked by Paul v Davis ( or From the Opinion, it would seem any defamation would need to be pursued in State court.

    There’s also a notable line that may apply to Green Notices: “Imputing criminal behavior to an individual is generally considered defamatory per se, and actionable without proof of special damages.” Hmmm…actionable without proof of special damages. Nice!

    • Lake County

      Green notices: Good find AJ! But what are special damages? How specific or narrowly tailored does the crime or individual assessment need to be?

  14. AJ

    That PSP amicus mentioned something from Smith that caught my eye. SCOTUS stated: “The process is more analogous to a visit to an official archive of criminal records than it is to a scheme forcing an offender to
    appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality.” In using this contrast, SCOTUS clearly felt, “some visible badge of past criminality,” to be more than benign. This statement came from their analysis of traditional shaming using the Mendoza-Martinez Factors. Also mentioned in that analysis was that traditional shaming involved forcing one to endure, “permanent stigmas, which in effect cast the person out of the community.” Isn’t this *exactly* what’s going on with marked DLs and passports??

    • CR

      Very good catch, AJ! YES, that is exactly the effect of marked DLs and passports. Those marks are “permanent stigmas, which in effect cast the person out of the community.”

      Most of us on a registry have known this for as long as such laws have been used to single us out. But it really great to see it explicitly stated in a SCOTUS opinion.

      • Lake County

        I have several friends here in CA that do not drive and use a passport as their regular ID. One of them is a registered citizen and does not want me to keep them updated on current laws, so they will soon be shocked when their passport gets updated. I’m so glad CA does not have a mark on my DL as I need to show it regularly when I buy cigs or alcohol.

    • New Person

      AJ, nice catch on those two points:

      1. some visible badge of past criminality… ie, in-person registration, compliance checks.
      2. permanent stigmas … any state with “lifetime term” as its only term.

      Maybe it can be brought up again? Hopefully, someone isn’t going to say something to the effect of, “well, all that info has been around for ages and none of the sex offenders lawyers have contested it, so why bring this information up?” Because that would be hypocritical of someone.

    • AJ

      The thing about this quote from Smith is that we’re well beyond that.

      I don’t recall someone being able to go down to the courthouse to find out where I work and/or go to school. I don’t recall their being able to find out about scars, birthmarks, tattoos, and/or piercings I may have. I don’t recall their being able to go to a courthouse in-state to find out what I did in another state. I don’t recall their being able to find out about every single vehicle I drive. I don’t recall their being able to find out if and where I own a second home or other property, either in or out of state. I also don’t recall the Government pushing the public records to third parties in the good old courthouse days.

      This simple, quaint scheme which may have existed back with Smith, and which PSP tries to claim still does, is total rubbish.

      • CR

        All very good points. Not all state registries have all of those features, but most have some substantial portion of them. These points should be raised in every court case that challenges a registration scheme.

        If registry information were limited to only what is already available to the general public in court, arrest, and jail records, it would simply be a factual historical record, albeit one that is much more accessible than the underlying records from which the information is extracted.

        But no registry is comprised solely of such historical information. The whole point, legislators and pro-registry proponents claim, is to foster public safety and awareness by proactively warning the public about us. But they don’t simply provide a historical record. By listing current address, photo, place of employment, vehicles, tier ranking or other classifications that infer a level of danger, and so on, does the state not imply that we are likely to engage in future criminal behavior?

        While not an explicit statement of “likely criminal behavior”, as with the Green Notices, it nevertheless implies it. That seems per se defamatory to me.

        • AJ

          What other public-safety reasoning is there besides risk of future criminality? We’re not on there to encourage others in any positive or supportive manner. The laws themselves are based on the risk of future crime–specifically sex crimes–as indicated by the boilerplate “intent” language.

          • CR

            Do you agree that it is defammatory, per se, then? Or am I misunderstanding the concept you described earlier?

            • AJ

              I do believe it to be defamatory, however courts tend to disagree or simply say that’s a collateral consequence of the offense. So in the day-to-day scheme of things, there’s probably little traction available. However, when a Green Notice is sent out, that’s not simply stating facts of conviction (a major point in Smith), it’s imputing dangerousness and *likelihood* of similar future criminality. That is a baseless statement, and completely outside anything SCOTUS has said is okay. Even CT DPS relied, at least in part, on the dangerousness disclaimer the State had on the ML site. Such a disclaimer gives enough of an appearance of neutrality to satisfy the courts; Green Notices are clearly partisan and, to me, absolutely defamatory; marked DLs and passports are a bit fuzzier–I agree, they imply it.

            • David Kennerly, "Wait, do you smell gas?"

              “Defamation” requires that the information being communicated is untrue. If the U.S. says that Joe Blow is a convicted child sex offender and he is, in fact, a convicted child sex offender, then that is not defamation. If they say that Joe Blow is likely to re-offend in the absence of any supportive evidence, then that is defamatory. However, the “fix,” were they compelled to make it by the courts, would simply be to amend their notification to be strictly factual, i.e. “Joe Blow is a convicted child sex offender.” Not a great improvement. We’re still kicked to the curb.

    • Paul 2

      How about this? The fact that they tell the public this site is needed to show dangerous people, and that it has to be up in order to protect the public, is really what creates the reputation damage, not the information, its how they use the information and define it. So singling out SOs and presenting this information in that way, is harming reputation.

      • CR

        @Paul 2, I replied to AJ’s post just above based on reasoning similar to yours, before I read your comment. I agree with you.

        The registry doesn’t just tell the public what those on it did at some point in the past. It implies current danger and likely future criminality. That goes well beyond being a collateral consequence of having committed a crime. The registry is per se defamatory.

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 *