ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Mar 30 – San Diego [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Mar 23, Apr 27  [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

Save the Date: ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

General News

General Comments April 2018

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of April 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. Joe

    And here I never thought I would quote the Orange Clown. But he has a point…. perhaps not the one that needs to be made.

    “Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown pardoned 5 criminal illegal aliens whose crimes include (1) Kidnapping and Robbery (2) Badly beating wife and threatening a crime with intent to terrorize (3) Dealing drugs. Is this really what the great people of California want?”

    Pardons to date, by ANY California Governor, of people required to register pursuant to PC 290: 0 (Zero).

    Really! Is this really what the great people of California want? Apparently so.

    • Joe123

      This is clearly because anything remotely ‘sexual’, including sexual thoughts, are FAR worse than violence, murder, robbery. Great to know the United States, ‘greatest country on earth’, leads with this logical thinking. Bright future ahead for all. Let’s see where these laws lead us, or how many new felons this country will manufacture.

  2. Lake County

    Someone threw marbles at my house this evening and broke 2 of my windows. Previously my car windshield was broken, my lawn (dead grass) was set on fire and a flaming newspaper was thrown on my porch. Got to love that vigilante list we’re on. Definitely not punishment.

    • C

      Sorry to hear that. Do you have cameras?
      I put up a Ring door bell and Ring flood lights and will put up more to cover blind spots.

      Good luck!

    • Anonymous

      You’re not alone Lake County, you’re not alone. I moved far from where I was convicted so nobody around here knew. My wife & our children were living a good life. Kids in school, wife & I both working. And then.. crushed, destroyed because of Megan’s law. I can’t live like this any longer. My family is getting screamed at, ridiculed. Fight at grocery store etc & worse. NY is not the place to live. We will be moving one last time.

      • Lake County

        Thanks Anonymous. I would have thought you could get lost in NY.

      • Sam

        @Anonymous hopefully you’re not a level 2 or above in NY. If you move away you’ll have to register in two states. I don’t even live in the country anymore and they have me register.

        NYC is better than the country side areas for sure though as you’re just another face in a crowd there. The little towns are the dangerous ones

        Update on that though. They completely ignored the request for removal from my lawyer it seems. Which would mean the only course of action remaining would be to sue them from another country 😂

        • Anonymous

          >Sam, that’s how they do it in NY. If you take it any further, they might retaliate against you and/or whomever is closely associated or lives at your residence. NYJudges seem to be very much on board. It is brutal!! Brutal!!

        • Sam

          @Anonymous I honestly feel sorry for the cops in the Registry division in NYC. All the ones I met there that handled my paperwork were pretty nice people. Sucks they have to handle all the paper files for 6000+ people. And the computers they have to input stuff look like the kind I used when I was in middle school to play Everquest.

          Have you met the head state prosecutor? He is a real piece of work. Making people out to be monsters and whores. I got to meet him because I didn’t agree with getting classified as a level 2. He kept trying to push for level 3 even though it’s the only thing on my record. Still messes me up a bit that you get so many points if you were under 21 when it happened. It’s been 11 years now and I haven’t had another thing on my record. But that doesn’t matter to them.

        • Sam

          @Anonymous. If New York wants me so bad they can fly to me. I don’t live in the damned country anymore or have any real ties except the registry. If they plan on getting me back on US soil I’d rather take a bullet in the head.

        • Robin

          @ Sam

          From what I have seen on the forums, Living in NYC is difficult to even find somewhre to live because of all the school zones and other places that effect where an RC can live.

        • Sam

          @Robin NYC had no residency restrictions when I was living there, because they found that it didn’t matter how far someone lived from a school if they were going to commit a crime. The only restrictions that I know of were if you were still on paper.

          Not sure about now with that whole thing with the governor. Many places the residency restrictions were struck down NY before that.

          They also had some law saying that work places couldn’t discriminate because you had a criminal record but you couldn’t be a school bus driver or ice cream truck driver if you were on the registry.

    • Robin

      We’ve had cars vandalized, and shots fired infront of our house.
      I have a security cam, with additional IR lighting, but still can not identify the perps good enough. Cops are a joke, they take a report look at the footage and really do nothing.

      • Lake County

        Cameras have limited use at night even with IR. And cops don’t care, especially with very small departments.

        • Robin

          What makes it worse is how the cops treat you, the victim, like you’re the criminal. Granted in our position it’s a given, but they do this with everyone and that is just wrong.

          Full name, DOB, SSN. What the heck do they need that for, all they need is Resident @ such and such reports blah blah. Now with car I can understand, if it is going to be reported to insurance.

          In answer to my own question “what do they need that for”, it’s so they can run a check on you, and so data gets stored for crime reports.

  3. Lake County

    Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. on Friday announced that he has granted 56 pardons and 14 commutations.

    No sex offenses again.

  4. Andrew

    I was wondering if Janice or anyone else could comment a little about what happens to elderly registrants if they are in the hospital on their registration date or otherwise disabled, bed-ridden or in a care facility and they can no longer physically show up to register. surely this is the case with some people. How do they handle it and how do the authorities handle it. If you are in a hospital, confined to bed or otherwise incapacitated, how long before they come for you? And are family members who can’t find a way to transport you also criminally liable for harboring a failure to register person.

    • JM


      I saw your post and had to comment. In June of last year our son got into an argument with his girlfriend of 8 years. They have a 5 yr. old daughter together. She kept threatening that if he didn’t do what she wanted that she would take their daughter and he would never see her again since he is on the registry. During the argument, (she had spent all their money on a photo shoot and outfits for herself) he smacked her on the behind. For this, he is being charged with “felony spousal abuse”
      and has been in jail since Halloween. Since he is a registered sex offender the DA is asking for 10 years!! However, he will offer 3 years, if our son pleads guilty. They have also attached a 10 year restraining order of no contact. His girlfriend sold everything he owned which he owned prior to meeting her and valued at over 40,000.00. His attorney says that because the DA will bring up his past to the jury, he needs to accept the deal.
      And yet, I read the article regarding Governor Brown’s pardons in which one man was convicted of inflicting corporal injury and threatening a crime with intent to terrorize, and he was convicted of only misdemeanors. So, because your on the registry any offense will be charged as a felony, but anyone else gets charge as misdemeanor? This happened in Placer County.
      Our son’s charge for the sex offense was in 2003. He plead not guilty because he was not guilty.
      At that time he was offered 6 months jail time, but he would not accept a plea, and plead not guilty. So it went to trial. They then trumped up the charges and he was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to three years prison. I HATE OUR GOVERNMENT!!! THERE IS NO JUSTICE!!
      WARNING, If you are a registrant, do not even j-walk, since our government will use anything to lock you up!

      • Trish

        Yes ! You got it right ! No justice only retaliation and injustice for registered….So sorry you and your families pain ! My family and Millions more suffering many bad things just last week my husband was made to sit at city hall in a small hick town for an 1 1/2 just to get a tag light bulb ticket dismissed and this is not the first of many tickets and harassment, his car was wrecked and they ran his plate and give him a hard time …because simply put…they can abuse power all they want…..! Last year he was escorted home being late with a friend who parted ways, outside as mall security saw him and asked why and what he was doing at mall when closing, he simply said, I was in restroom did not know doors were locked so I had to go out this door, they held him until local cops came and once they saw his license…they immediately had him call me and put him in police car and carried him home while I pursued….alllllllll this shiiiiiiiit and many many many more BS things are always happening, but we have comfort ! WE HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO SUE……NEIGHBORS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT, SCHOOLS, BUSINESSES AND EVERYONE YOU CAN THINK OF ! GREAT ANSWER ! IF WE SURVIVE AND A ACTUALLY HAVE ANY REAL LIFE AS A RESULT OF ANY AND ALLLLLL DAMAGES ! PLEASE KNOW OTHERS CARE AND THE MADNESS WILL END ONE DAY !

    • Lake County

      I asked that question during registration several years ago. I was told that there was no allowance for being in a nursing home and was told it was not likely that a registrant could even find a nursing home to care for them. So basically we will be forced to live under a bridge unable to care for ourselves. Not a pretty thought. I often worry about what will happen to me as I get older.

  5. Robin

    The best way to attack the entire structure of the registry in all states.

    1. Get it ruled out by SCOTUS

    2. Attack the funding, by somehow getting the US debt, and Spending out there to show the public how they way over spend on things such as the registry, that are a complete waste of tax payers money.

    US debt over 20 trillion now.
    DOJ budget just on grants to states for a list of items including SMART 3.9 billiion

    I do fully fatham the huge amount between 3.9b and 20t but it would sure help, and then maybe they would look at other spending as well to see if that spending is really needed.

    • TS


      As @Brian says below, they will only pass the buck, literally, onto those who have an infraction much like they do for everyone else who has an infraction or court action. The people won’t care about the budget or the debt because of the thinking behind the need as they see for it. As long as foreign entities (and US citizens) are willing to buy the US debt for sale, the cesspool cycle will continue.

      When the people cannot pay, then the question becomes do they get tossed into a debtor’s prison which is illegal though seems to operate in this country in places or do they look at the system as a whole?

  6. Matt

    I’m wondering how IML will apply to me. I was a RSO in California, but I moved out of the USA in early 2016 before IML was fully implemented. I am now a permanent resident in another country. California had no reporting requirement at the time so my passport is still valid and since I am no longer a RSO, the way I read the law my passport will not be cancelled. I am just wondering how it will work if I ever decide to visit the U. S. in the future. I think I would have to register as a transient if I were in California for example for 5 days. So what if I left California or any other jurisdiction before the time period to register? And how about the 21 day notification that I am leaving for a foreign country? What if I am only visiting for 2 weeks? How can I give 21 days notice, plus I am not a resident of the US anyway? Does any one have experience on that type of situation?

    • Robin

      @ Matt

      I don’t have knowledge on this.
      Several questions do come to mind that other may need to know to answer you.
      You are still a US citizen correct?
      Does CA have inactive registry? (you could still be on the registry as inactive).
      Does inactive registry information from any state get shared with the Federal registry. (if so you’re passport could be revoked)

      All of this is assumptions and not necessarily fact but items to consider/question.

  7. John

    Can someone provide me with an update on the lawsuit against IML? Thanks.

  8. Brian

    Keep telling them about how much money they’re wasting on the registry and they should abolish it because of money and they will start making us pay for it, probably start at 2 to 500 a day, week, month or whatever, that’s what I think would be the outcome, why not make the pervererts pay for it, I know messed up but it could happen, I know other states make registratents pay for this bs.

    • Robin

      @ Brian

      Good point.
      The thing is remember the entire system is interlinked with the Feds. If the feds shut down it would effect the states ability to be connected together.

      The funding they would have to replace would be huge, and if they did charge us to replace that amount, it would end up in court, being that it would be too excessive. I don’t think they would last long without the funding they do get, as they wouldn’t be able to afford to run it without, and I don’t think any state will put out that kind of funding.

      • Bobb

        The only way to fight these laws is by civilly suing government agents in the federal district courts.
        It costs around $10,000-15,000 to bring a federal suit. If somehow you have this much, you should consider bringing a lawsuit based on previous wins in other circuit courts (if they apply to you).

        • Robin


          Unfortunately I will have have to scrape, and settle for just going to circuit court.
          That is if it comes to that point, though I think it may even if they remove me and just say I’m no longer required to register.
          I don’t know if you know my situation, but to make it brief, I was put on it unlawfully to begin with. By that I mean my crime was removed from the requirement by law about 10 days before I was put on. I’ve been on it now for 4 years, and I don’t think I need to tell you all that comes with that. Though some never get harassed or the like, We’ve had car windows smashed out, one of them was my sons 2 month old vehicle, have had shots fired in front of the house all on video surveillance, but too dark to identify the people.
          So with that my suit will be aimed at, court order to fully remove me from registry with a letter from PSP to the registry where I live stating they put me on in error, and any compensation the court will allow for damages.

      • Brian

        Would be great to get iml shut down, if that were to happen then each of the rest of the states can knock there’s out, then we could all come together and knock it completely down. What I think is we need someone not on the registry so they can’t be tracked and ridiculed or harassed, that can go from state to state and stay in a motel or campsite or wherever for however long because they’re not on the shitlist.

  9. FRegistryTerrorists

    F all people who support the Registries. They are not Americans. They are not our fellow citizens. Do everything legal, every single day, to make them pay. Do not miss one day.

    Happy Easter! But not to the Registry Terrorists, F them.

  10. kari

    Hello Group,

    Just wanted to announce that a Federal Lawsuit has been filed in Texas challenging the Registry. There are 7 John Doe’s in this lawsuit. All had probation or prison of some sort, two of the John Doe’s go back to the 70’s and were added to the registry years later. This has been filed two weeks ago. Here is the Case number 3:18-cv-00629-G. Lets hope and pray that this makes it through the first round. We know Texas will do everything in its power to have it dismissed …. but with Colorado, Michigan and Pennsylvania and some previous case law we know we have a good shot. I am one of the John Doe’s… Please pray, if we can get a win out of federal court and we know Texas will appeal to the 5th. Lets knock this out of the ball park.
    You want to contact me directly you may. I will check back later this afternoon going for a Easter lunch.

    • Robin

      @ Kari

      Good luck to you all, I hope it goes the way we would all like to see it go.

      What are the grounds of the suit, eg. ex post facto, punitive issues?

    • JohnDoe


      Is the team of lawyers aware of all the recent preceding wins and arguments? I’m just making sure the team of lawyers is fully competent and presents the right arguments. One fact forgotten could mean the difference between losing and winning. Are the lawyers going after the law from the angle that the original “high and frightening” facts substantiating the registry were wrong? Please explain in more details if you could. Are the other plaintiffs visiting this forum/website? Would be great if they did.

    • JohnDoe


      Please forward this to the lawyer team, it was posted in another post just recently:

    • ml

      Kari please contact me at There are several that are very interested in your suit.

    • E

      Anybody have a Pacer subscription? Can’t we find this free somewhere?

      • AJ

        I’ve downloaded (but have not yet read) it, and if/when I find a way to anonymously post it, I will. In the alternative, anyone can sign up for PACER for free, and this document shouldn’t put you over the $15.00/quarter cost. You’re allowed $15.00 of usage per quarter before incurring charges. There’s also a cap of 30(?) chargeable pages per doc (so a 100 page doc would get charged as 30 pages). Be sure to use the case number (3:18-cv-00629) for the search.

      • AJ

        In case you missed it, mike r was kind enough to upload and post the TX case for me.
        The thread has moved to:

    • lovewillprevail

      Good luck and I wish success from another Texan on the registry who had no victim…

      I imagine it will be an uphill battle trying to getting the most conservative appeals court in the country to come to the conclusion that constitutional rights are being violated based upon ruling that court has made in the past.


      Kari, is there anymore room to add plaintiff? I was sentenced for 5 yrs in 1992. Finished my prison sentence in 1997. Was supposed to register for 10 yrs. New law (2005 amendment) in TX enhances my registration to life time. Please let me know. Thanks!

    • TS

      So, is Kari really Teri (Terence) Estes-Hightower in disguise? Is she/he really working to help or a Trojan horse looking to squash all good efforts for RCs by throwing grenades in the works to ruin it? Given what I read at FAC, probably the latter and is preying on emotions to get money.

      This Texas case needs to be stopped most likely and dismissed without prejudice.

      • Robin


        I hope the people in Fl do contact TX Bar and file complaint. That could stop it dead in it’s tracks.
        That kind of complaint, if investigated, could possibly be conduct unbecoming and cause the Bar to strip them of their license.

        • TS


          Well, the folks at FAC would need to press that issue hard with all of their people in hopes to make a difference.

    • S N

      Hello Kari

      Is there any way to add me as a plaintiff? Can i contact you somehow?

  11. Counting the days

    Can anyone provide recommendations or guidance in regards to answering ads for roommate wanted.
    I have apartment, but is the absolute worst part of west San Jose. 90% of the block is on welfare or housing assistance. Druggies, illegal gang members, unemployed drunks. A real dump!
    I want to move to a nicer area, but obviously bay area rentals are sooo expensive, and trying to save as much as I can to move overseas within 2-3 yrs.
    I am stressed about the prospect of “exposing” my past, or worse, having the goon squad show up for a residency check. I have been off probation for a few months and am having reduction processed, but that does little to quell the daily anxiety I feel.
    If anyone has experience in this area, such as how to deal with the questions and such, please let me know. I am so depressed from waking up every day and not knowing if my life will ever get better. 3 yrs seems like forever when you’re alone and hated.

    • stephen

      You can probably forget getting a room mate, your better off looking for Government Money to help with the rent, also some churches help with rent. Get on the Computer and look. I find living in places where the people have no interest in learning to read English is best. We all get Depressed, look for simple joys to get threw the day. You can also get mad and start dogging the Legislators on all their issues, and not just the registry. Makes me feel better to do it.

    • Lake County

      I always though West SJ was a good area. Must have got worse in the last 20 years. My advise is to stay where you are if you have no issues from your neighbors because of your status. Housing is the worst issue we have. I’d stay there until neighbors or landlord want you out. Finding a new plave is always hard, especially with those landlords that want background checks. Also consider what your location will be when cops show up for a compliance check. Having your entrance out-of-view of other renters could be a good thing.

    • Eric

      Welcome to the registry. Just be sure you register the new address so that everyone can see that you just moved into the house, or you will be in violation.

  12. kari

    This is grounds of the suit.

    Count I: Violation of The Due Process Clause (Stigma Plus)
    Count II: Violation of The Due Process Clause (Right to Travel)
    Count III: Violation of The Due Process Clause (Work)
    Count IV: Violation of The First Amendment
    Count V: Violation of The Due Process Clause
    (Vagueness, Impossibility and Strict Liability)
    Count VI: Violation of The Equal Protection Clause
    Count VII: Violation of The Ex Post Facto Clause
    Count VIII: Violation of the Eighth Amendment
    Count IX: Violation of Double Jeopardy
    Count X: Violation of the U.S. Constitution Contracts Clause
    Lack of Legal Remedy

    • TS

      Are these substantive due process clause issues? Substantive due process is the one that needs to be pressed with the courts.

      • lovewillprevail

        I agree and I know that others will also agree that what TS says should be in the case.

    • JohnDoe

      This sounds great so far, I hope your team has plenty of legal and emperical evidence ammunition. This is David going against Goliath. We pray that you will be successful!

    • steve @Kari

      Make sure they include arguments about the “Frightening and High” recidivism myth by Justice Kennedy. That is the basis for ALL of these SO laws. To date, none of the current cases have launched a war against Kennedy’s remarks.

    • Robin

      @ Keri

      I would also make sure they have the latest DOJ report on recidivism, as you can bet the state will bring up DOJ report, but it won’t be the latest report.

    • Eric

      Are all the vigilante assaults and murders from people gleaning names from the Meghan’s law website covered?

    • Chris F (@Kari about Texas)

      Kari, this is great news, however, we need to discuss this.

      With so many cases like this failing on various factors, is there a web site or phone call where updates and discussions take place on this case with the lawyers involved?

      For instance, if the Due Process is only challenging Procedural Due Process, instead of Substantive, then it will fail with a reference to the Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 SCOTUS case.

      The case also needs to include recent SCOTUS notes from Packingham that point to a concern by SCOTUS over any restriction that extends past the judicially decided length of government supervision.

      As others mentioned, it needs to point out how Smith V Doe 2003, which most Texas decisions point to, was both incorrect for relying on false recidivism rates to make their decision, as well as how the current Sex Offender scheme is nothing like the 2003 scheme from Alaska.

    • T

      @ kari, can you also include human rights violation too?, if not that’s alright!

  13. Matt

    There is no inactive registry. If I look up my name in the national registry, it does not appear. Passports are revoked after you give notification that you are travelling internationally and Homeland Security notifies the State Dept. that you are RSO that is about to travel. You have to be currently registered in order for your passport to be revoked.

    • Robin

      @ Matt

      I would say you are correct on the registering as a transient. Any other state you would have to look at their laws on how much time you would have, or if your crime would require you to register in that state. Since you say CA doesn’t have an inactive list on their data base, and you don’t show up on the National registry you should be good to travel back in.
      What would be good is if you could find someone that was on CA registry move to another state to call the registry and ask what their status is. That would tell you for sure if they have that inactive data base or not. Inactive data bases in other states are not published to that public but are still available to them and other law enforcement agencies.

      I am just throwing that information out there for you to ponder, I don’t know for fact on some of it, but I do know my original state as well as a couple other states have inactive lists , that do not show up if you search.
      So hopefully someone can chime in that really has the knowledge on this. Or you need to really look into it, maybe even contact an attorney.

    • Steveo

      Is this true? When you notify that you’re traveling internationally you get your passport revoked? I am planning on buying my tickets for a try to Europe sometime in the next few weeks. Do you have to wait till they revoke it? I have been off of probation for years, and sometimes it feels like I am on it for life.

      • Matt

        I should explain my comment about passport revocation. If you have a sex offense involving a minor, and if you have given 21 days notice of international travel, and if you are currently a RSO, and you don’t already have a passport with the unique identifier, then a determination will be made on whether to notify the State Department and the country you intend to travel to. The identifier goes on the last page of your passport. I have read many comments already about people who were denied boarding because their passport was revoked, or denied entry to a country because the passport was revoked. This is not false information.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      “Passports are revoked after you give notification that you are travelling internationally and Homeland Security notifies the State Dept. that you are RSO that is about to travel. ”

      How have you come by this information?

      • Matt

        Department of State website. You can Google passport revocation for sex offenders and find the information.

        • TS

          Let’s not be spreading false information and raising heart rates. There have been many discussions here already about the possible revocation of passports for those who may get the stamp due to meeting the law’s requirements. There is the difference. Those who don’t meet the law’s requirements should be alright in not being worried about passport revocation but many are still wary at this point.

          Here’s your search result:

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          @Matt: Well, my question is about the timing as well as the impetus of revocations. You state that it occurs after the Registrant gives their notice of intended travel suggesting that it is this act that triggers the revocation. That may well be but I’m not finding it. We have had some reports about revocations and I’m wondering if Registrants are being notified of the revocation of their passports as a matter of simply having a current passport and being registered, i.e. unprompted and without having notified the government of intended travel or if, as you say, it is triggered only when they intend to travel.

        • Sam

          I don’t live in the country anymore and I’m still paranoid they will revoke mine because I’m stuck on a registry.

          I quit reading so much on here as a lot of what’s being talked about is pretty depressing.

          More depressing is that even having a lawyer contact the registry petitioning for removal seems futile and just goes ignored. Short of a landmark lawsuit against the registry the world is getting grimmer.

    • Relief

      @Matt- You raise interesting questions but since your situation is so unique, no one would likely know. But there is somewhat of an “inactive registry” for California as the NCIC/NSOR never removes information, they just annotate it. For example all California entries have “NONEXP” meaning there is no expiration time for the registry duration. If a person moves out of country, the NSOR entry is updated to “MOVED OUT OF COUNTRY” and the last jurisdiction must update / renew that information each year in lieu of the annual update info.

      Below is the link to the NCIC Manual on updating NSOR entries. The section on the NSOR records is pg 546 – 615. The conviction remains within NCIC with modifiers. It also gives examples of the large amount of information displayed on an NCIC NSOR query.

      Hope this helps.

      • Robin

        Thank for this link, good information.

        Good to see the ERD can actually be off completly if the state one is in hits the correct button. Lets me know I will have to make sure that happens, when the time comes.

      • Joe

        They claim that IML does not prohibit anyone from traveling.

        But because there is no emergency / short term exception in the language (like some states have), IML ABSOLUTELY prohibits somewhat spontaneous travel (if you call anything less than 3 weeks planned in minutiae spontaneous), AS WELL as flexible travel (changes after submission of notice), AS WELL as a US visit by a US Citizen / covered person, currently residing abroad, of less than 21 days.

        Again – there is NO wiggle room regarding A SECOND LESS than a 21 day notice – for ANY reason. Any law enforcement official who advises a registrant to come in whenever possible inside the 21 days is clearly overstepping their bounds by advising the registrant to commit a felony.

  14. Dave

    I always found this to be interesting because once you have left the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, then where you go and where you stay and what you eat is really not legal information you actually have to provide. They do this to call wherever you are going to alert the police as to your hotel and crap so the abuse can further continue from harassment.

    • Sam

      Unless you’re from NY. Then it’s still required because they apparently have a universal jurisdiction that transcends the very fabric of time and space 😑

  15. AJ

    Anyone who’d like to decrease the data their ISP gets on them should check out, a new DNS server that went public yesterday. They purge records every 24 hours, and have even enlisted Price Waterhouse Cooper to audit them to ensure they’re purging things. By changing your default DNS servers to these new ones ( and, you can slow some data mining of your searches and visits.

    I changed my router’s DNS servers to it Sunday afternoon, and have had zero issues. Can’t even tell there’s a difference.

    See also:

    • CR

      Cloudfare supports neo-nazis and white supremacists.

      I run my own DNS servers.

      • AJ

        Cloudfare supports neo-nazis and white supremacists.
        So do the ACLU and SCOTUS.
        I’ll still take their free, privacy-increasing DNS servers over my ISP’s or Google’s any day. But I’d be willing to use yours, if you supply them….

        • CR

          Sorry AJ, but my DNS servers are accessible only from my own LAN.

          It takes a little study and work, but it’s not rocket science to set up a DNS server on your local home network. You just need a small, lightweight Linux system running BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain), aka “named”, which is the name of the BIND daemon. That’s what I use, but Dnsmasq is even easier to set up, and gives you everything you need for privacy and security.

    • Lake County

      Thanks AJ for the server info.

  16. mike r

    AJ asked me to pass along this Texas case so here it is.
    Kind of weak but at least it touches on some good issues. Kind of amazing how all these other cases are coming about now that I have filed mine, I know it is just coincidence and just happens to be occurring at the same time but no one else has challenged all the violations at once as-applied as I have. I really dislike these class action attempts, there is to broad a heterogeneous class of individuals to attack these laws as class actions. Class actions are for facial challenges and there is no way that these laws are going to be shot down on facial challenges since a facial challenge requires that there is no circumstances where the law in question would be constitutional. Very high bar and about the only thing that can get shot down on a facial is for over-broad of vagueness. Other than that, good luck and it just creates bad precedents.

    • lovewillprevail@tutanota

      Mike, thank you for the link about the case filed in Texas.

      It appears to me the attorney just stated certain things violate the constitution. So the legislature says the certain things do not violate the constitution (as they adopted the laws) and the attorney for the dependents says certain things violate the constitution. He said/she said…

      I guess I was expecting to at least read some legal arguements or at least references to studies or references to other cases (not even a mention of Packingham when raising Internet issues) to support the claims of violations of the constitution.

      I guess the legal arguements and references to studies and other cases to support the claims come in writing later?

    • Tim Moore

      To play devil’s advocate, and don’t know how this precedent thing really works, wouldn’t it be worse to have a case with solid arguments and have those arguments shot down, than to have a poorly argued case that is not quoted ever again, because everyone knows it is a POS?

  17. mike r

    Actually after reading that case a little more it is not half bad but I just cringe at the “and similarly situated individuals,” but it does focus on these 7 individuals so hey it might work.

    • Chris F

      I don’t see that it specifies Substantive Due Process, but just says Due Process.

      I hope they don’t go the Procedural Due Process route and just get it shot down like the Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 SCOTUS case.

      This case could be good, but I’m not sure it goes far enough to describe the negative aspects of the registry or goes into enough detail on the lack of judicial involvement or control. I hope they cite Packingham in some brief about restrictions that occur after the determined length of government supervision is over. I also don’t see that they include how Texas supplies the email addresses to Facebook, and other web sites, in order to help Facebook kick out sex offenders.

      They could also add recent additions to Texas Chapter 62, such as having to report to the administration of any school just for being on property to drop off their kid.

      • TS

        Let’s hope there have been some lessons learned from this forum that can be applied to this case now instead of not being applied as should have been.

    • CR

      To mike r, or anyone else with knowledge, has a class action ever been certified for a sex offender lawsuit in Texas? Do SO class action challenges ever win?

      There are some things about this lawsuit that I question. For one, it repeatedly refers to tier classifications, such as Tier III, but Texas doesn’t use that terminology. Instead, Texas assigns a risk level of low, medium, or high, and it is that risk level that is listed on the state public registry site. I don’t know if such differences are really important, but it would seem better to stick with the terminology that the state itself uses when referring to any significant aspect of the statutory scheme.

      Also, not every person on the registry in Texas has an assigned risk level. For many, including me, the risk level is shown as “NOT REPORTED”. I think that is because the risk assessment tool didn’t exist when I was made to register for the first time. I suppose it’s use was not imposed retroactively. However, I see some of the John Doe plaintiffs with offense or conviction or adjudication dates older than mine who are said to have an assigned tier and/or risk level, according to the suit.

      The suit mentions in the case of one “high risk” John Doe that he has to inform his local registry officials if he wants to vacation with his family or travel to another state to see relatives. I don’t believe Texas has any such requirement for vacation travel. If so, I can’t find it in Chapter 62 of the Penal Code, nor have I ever been told of such a requirement.

      I haven’t read the entire case yet, but some of the claims seem surprising to me.

      • ml

        I was assessed with a score of 0 on the risk assessment almost 15 years ago. Now it says not reported when it was on the sight for years, and now it says Not Reported. They just lost the score. Also I have been told by my reporting officer that they now require a prior notification for out of state travel from TX. That is not in Ch 62.

        • CR

          Then where is it, if not in 62?

          I was told at the beginning of the year that I had to notify the state of Texas if I intended to move to another state (change residence). I asked if that only applied to relocating to another state, such as a permanent move, and that was affirmed.

          So I do not believe there is any requirement to notify the registering authority of normal travel outside the state.

        • CR

          They did not lose the score in my case. I was never assessed. I suspect the risk scoring tool was never applied to people who’s offense date or conviction or adjudication date was before the effective date of the change in the law that added the tool.

          I could be wrong, my memory isn’t what it used to be, but I vaguely recall being told that the risk scoring didn’t apply to me for that reason.

        • Chris F

          I’ve seen nothing about reporting travel outside Texas other than the usual in state for 7 days or more, or three 48 hour stays in the same place within 30 days within Texas. If you leave Texas, you have to notify Texas if you are moving away and follow the rules of the receiving state to register there. States vary from 2 days to 2 weeks where you can be there and not register.

          I think the officer that did your registration is mis-interpreting the IML stuff of something about notifying of international travel.

          You’ll have to ask him for more information about where that law is written and what the specifics are. If you make a day trip to Oklahoma, does that trigger it too? How much notice, and is it a call, written, or in person?

      • lovewillprevail

        The more I read this Texas case, the more and the more I think about it and it appears that I am not the only person here thinking this case is weak and could possibly result in a bad precedent for this part of the country. There is so much missing starting with the focus on due process vs sub. due process, everything you all mentioned here and no legal arguements, no references to cases that have benefited the plaintiffs, no mention of any studies that support the plaintiffs.

        As I am in Texas, I am afraid this case will really set a bad precedent.

        • Chris F

          Yes, I am VERY concerned.

          They are acting like they represent all of us, and if they fail they could shut the door on the entire district for years on doing a proper challenge.

          How did this go this far without them even contacting Texas Voices and getting some valuable information on what works and what doesn’t? Without some really well written “Friends of the court” briefs from groups like Narsol, they are losing out on some valuable resources that have possibly turned the tide on other cases.

          I can’t find any news articles on this either.


    So, I was making my coffee this morning and was thinking, dangerous proposition for me in the morning, and here is my thought.
    Of all the laws that have been passed, what is the percentage of SO laws that have been passed in relation to other crimes? If justice is to be equal, why is the law not equal?
    I know that this issue was and has been addressed, but looking at it from another angle, I hope you see where I am going.
    A lawmaker/politician creating an exorbitant amount of laws against a class of individuals shows, and numbers never lie, how politicians have used us as a class in a “gerrymandering “ way. It’s not republican or democrat or a party gerrymandering per se. But a gerrymandering of legal and law making means.
    I have read and followed this group for a few years and I am very grateful for everyone. I do not know where I would be without it. I know I am a stronger person. I have not seen or read a challenge to the registry that includes an argument of this manner. If there is, I would be the first to say”my bad”. Lol.
    Anyway, good morning.

    • Chris F

      Interesting topic.

      Actually, there are laws scattered across the country that are similar, but not getting much attention since their application is only affecting a small amount of people, unlike the national registry.

      There are similar laws creating registries for child abuse by baby sitters, murder, animal abusers and others. They stand because the laws against sex offenders stand. A win for one of those could be used as a win for us too. Practically speaking though, lawmakers know if they come up with too many similar registries that they are risking the golden goose, so it doesn’t happen too often.

      Any registry should fail a Substantive Due Process challenge, as they are out of judge’s control, have an arbitrary duration not related to facts or statistics, are not tailored to the individual, infer a level of dangerousness not established during the sentencing, continue after court established duration of needed government supervision, and target only a politically unpopular group that cannot change its status or affect change in the normal legislative processes.

    • Tim Moore

      I see what you are saying. They are drawing some legal boundaries that bind us, but they also have effects of economic and social segregation into our own virtual and geographic (registrant trailer parks and homeless camps) “districts.”

  19. Chris F

    I can’t believe this.

    This Texas federal lawsuit talked about above is much worse than I thought.

    Look here at all the comments from Texas Voices, Texas attorney Richard Gladden, Janice, and others:

    This lawyer that is filing the big Texas class action is the same one that was flooding Florida residents telling them to give her firm in Texas money to get off the Florida registry.

    I don’t have time right now to paste all the crazy stuff from here. Please go read all the comments and let me know what you thing. I’ll try to be back on here in a few hours if I can. I’ve never seen something that could be this bad in a long long time. This lawyer is NOT working well with ANYONE outside of herself.

    • CR

      I too have a bad feeling about this lawsuit. It contains numerous assertions, but no arguments. There is nothing to suggest that it targets substantive due process. As we all know, procedural due process is a non-starter. It fails to mention recent court decisions in our favor. It fails to cite DOJ recidivism studies. It is a class action, which is inherently more difficult to win than an as-applied challenge. And the list goes on.

      I don’t see that there’s much we can do about it, though.

    • lovewillprevail

      Two times I requested to that attorney to take me off her unsolicited mailing list to get me off the registry. I do not qualify to get off the registry. This attorney continued to ignore my requests and continued to solicit business with me.

      And this case never mentions the Mendoza factors. Nothing but a he said she said case. I think we are doomed for years in Texas with this case.

  20. mike r

    I knew the case was completely weak and a he said she said conclusory and anecdotal gibberish but was trying to stay positive. On further review I totally agree this so called attorney is praying on SO’s and has filed a brief that could set back and totally end any future chances of litigation in the Texas districts. I would not be surprised if this women is not receiving funds from both registrants and the gov in some way to thwart our attempts at relief. Class actions will not ever win, on top of that if the attorney thought there was a chance in hell of winning she would be doing it pro bono and demanding attorney fees from the state as Janice does in her suits. The lady provides no empirical evidence, no facts and attempts to cover all “similarly situated” individuals. There is no way it can prevail. This is basically a facial challenge and will never survive. I really hope W.A.R. is rethinking their plans to file a class action as well….

  21. mike r

    Well people, here is what I sent that so called attorney. I know it will not make a difference but what the helllll…

    I am writing you from CA and am very concerned on your class action (along with “many” others) with your conclusory and anecdotal over-broad class action. You provide no empirical evidence, no documented facts or instances, and absolutely no case law backing your claims. You are doing a great disservice to registrants and their families which will have lasting negative effects on any future litigation for years to come. This is one of the most disgraceful and weak brief I have ever seen in my life and you should be ashamed of yourself for not doing your due diligence before ever filing such a incompetent suit. I am not an attorney but I have extensive experience and hundreds if not thousands of hours researching and studying this subject as I am a registrant in CA and have filed my own suit in federal court and suggest you take note of how it is done. Your case has a zero chance of prevailing and I am sure you are either aware of this fact or you are disingenuous and down right duplicitous or incompetent. If you have any scruples at all you will pull this class action and do your research and collaborate with others and take note on how the attorneys in the Snyder case used empirical evidence and facts by doing their homework before filing an as-applied challenge, which is the only way to win on these cases. Here is one of my Pro Se filings that makes yours pale in comparison. You should feel ashamed that a Pro Se litigant can supersede your filing by an order of magnitude.
    Thank you for your time.

  22. mike r

    Than I linked her to my Objections which like I stated smashes hers by an order of magnitude….

  23. mike r

    Look at this people, how is this vague??? There is absolutely nothing vague about the requirements stated.

    210. The parts of TSORP 2017 that are void for vagueness, that are impossible to comply with, or that wrongly impose strict liability include but are not limited to:
    • the requirement to report changes in personal data within seven days;88
    • The requirement to maintain a driver’s license or state personal identification card with the current address;89 and
    • The requirement to report the temporary address of any location in which an individual visits three times a month for more than 48 hours.9

  24. mike r

    Am I missing something??? How is the following and equal protection issue????

    The state of Texas is treating John Doe #3 similarly to other sex offenders on its sex offender registry by allowing his information to be publicly disseminated over the Internet.


  25. mike r

    She never even made a punishment argument but states…

    Count VII: Violation of The Ex Post Facto Clause
    217. The retroactive application of TSORP 2017 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution91 because it makes more burdensome the punishment imposed for offenses committed before the enactment of TSORP as well as applies it retroactively.
    Count VIII: Violation of the Eighth Amendment
    218. The punishment imposed by TSORP 2017 is quite excessive and arbitrary because of the acts committed by the public against the plaintiffs and other TSORP 2017 registrants.
    Count IX: Violation of Double Jeopardy
    219. TSORP 2017 also violates Double Jeopardy by imposing additional punishment on a registrant even after they have completed their sentencing requirements.

  26. mike r

    She does appear to make an effort but falls short by not including case law or empirical or factual evidence. It doesn’t really look like she is being dishonest but it appears she is just incompetent and inexperienced and does not care if she hurts future litigation. IDK, she almost makes good arguments but than falls short in not providing enough facts. I may be wrong since I am not an attorney but Snyder sure as hell used all kinds of empirical evidence, case law, and facts.

  27. mike r

    AJ, Chris, or anyone, can you provide a link to the actual briefs filed by Doe’s ?? I would truly like to read them….

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      I went onto PACER to see what documents are available, and it was few—three, actually. There’s the Complaint, a blank Consent Decree to appear before a Magistrate Judge, and a recusal letter from Senior Judge A. Joe Fish to the Clerk of Court. PACER names the replacement as Judge Jane J. Boyle (a “W” appointee).

  28. mike r

    So I sent that lawyer another email.

    If you truly wish to help registrants than you will dismiss your class action and file an as-applied challenge using Snyder as a boilerplate and include an extensive record of empirical and acedemic evidence such as was provided in Snyder….I can provide you with extensive evidence in general but you will have to research Texas applications. I apologize for the scathing email I sent you but I am very concerned when it comes to bad precedents.

  29. TS

    What to Teach Kids Instead of ‘Stranger Danger’

    “First, emphasizing stranger danger overlooks a more pressing problem. While viscerally disturbing, child abduction by strangers is exceedingly rare. What’s true is that 90% percent of the harm done to children is by people they already know.

    “Telling kids not to talk to strangers fails to protect children at the most basic level,” writes early childhood expert Heather Shumaker in The Daily Beast. “Children are most often harmed by friends and family. This unsettling statistic is one we wish would go away. It’s far more convenient to blame the faceless stranger than to confront domestic violence, incest, and other abuse.”

    Well, well, there is the 90% stat again of people the child will already know… Looking inward is uncomfortable so people find blame elsewhere.

  30. mike r

    @AJ. That’s what I want to read, the original complaint. I want to know how powerful it is and how thorough. I might if already read it but I would like to read it.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      The Original Complaint is what you posted for me the other day. Nothing more to be found or offered.

  31. mike r

    AJ, you might like this site if you have not already seen it. It is the complete filings for the class action internet identifier case. I am still reading because I really think I need to file for a TRO on one issue out of my case that is causing irreparable and immediate harm that cannot continue and can not be denied. I do not want to discuss it on here. Anyways here is this site.

  32. Tim Moore

    What we are up against is group think. No matter what we do, it’s wrong. What we need to find are other groups present or past, that have faced the wall of group think and found out how to exploit the cracks in it not having the power to blow it up all at once. There are a lot of chinks in the fortifications but we tend to attack the biggest and most solidly obvious bulwarks first — it’s human nature — like going to the top dog in the enemy’s camp, Jerry Brown, and asking for mercy, or having one big successful case that blows it all up. We are a lot of Don Quixotes born out of desparation.

  33. mike r

    I think this will shed light on my issue.
    CA Family Code § 3030 et seq. prohibits registrants, and those with whom the registrant cohabits, from having physical or legal custody of, or even unsupervised visitation with, a minor child, even if the minor is the registrant’s child, grandchild.
    (3) The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk.”
    Moore v. City of East Cleveland
    “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 414 U. S. 639-640 (1974). A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 262 U. S. 399-401 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 268 U. S. 534-535 (1925), have consistently acknowledged a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 321 U. S. 166 (1944). See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 410 U. S. 152-153 (1973); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 406 U. S. 231-233 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 405 U. S. 651 (1972); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 390 U. S. 639 (1968); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); id. at 381 U. S. 495-496 (Goldberg, J., concurring); id. at 381 U. S. 502-503 (WHITE, J., concurring); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 542-544, 367 U. S. 549-553 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting); cf. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 388 U. S. 12 (1967); May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 345 U. S. 533 (1953); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). Of course, the family is not beyond regulation. See Prince v. Massachusetts, supra at 321 U. S. 166. But when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation. See Poe v. Ullman, supra at 367 U. S. 554 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
    Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition. [Footnote 14] Over the years, millions

    Page 431 U. S. 505

    of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it. Even if conditions of modern society have brought about a decline in extended family households, they have not erased the accumulated wisdom of civilization, gained over the centuries and honored throughout our history, that supports a larger conception of the family. Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. Decisions concerning childrearing, which Yoder, Meyer, Pierce and other cases have recognized as entitled to constitutional protection, long have been shared with grandparents or other relatives who occupy the same household — indeed who may take on major responsibility for the rearing of the children. [Footnote 15] Especially in times of adversity, such as the death of a spouse or economic need, the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life. This is apparently what happened here. [Footnote 16].

    Janice and team should jump on this issue. It cannot continue….

    • mike r

      I implore, pray, and even beg Janice to look into this issue and I will gladly be a plaintiff……….

  34. mike r

    Somebody needs to file a TRO or I guess I am going to have to do it in state court. This is a much more major issue than the Internet identifier issue but has received no attention. WHY ??????????????????

  35. mike r

    Yeah AJ, I found where they cite the Hanson study in that link I provided…..Excellent….

  36. mike r

    Man that is crazy that all that recidivism evidence was not even mentioned in either of the court orders but it sure gives me my citations that I was looking for to the Hanson declaration.

  37. mike r

    Man that case has many good citations and quotes that can apply to RSO’s.

    Euclid held that land use regulations violate the Due Process Clause if they are “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” 272 U.S. at 272 U. S. 395. See Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U. S. 183, 277 U. S. 188 (1928). Later cases have emphasized that the general welfare is not to be narrowly understood; it embraces a broad range of governmental purposes. See Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954). But our cases have not departed from the requirement that the government’s chosen means must rationally further some legitimate state purpose.

    Also this is where the following statement came from that I used in my complaint.

    “. . . [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .

    Although I left out the following because I did not know where this came from until now.

    …and which also recognizes what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.”

    Check out this quote which states that the courts must refer to and respect what history and the evolution of our country has taught throughout its history, i.e. slavery, women’s suffrage, Japanese internment camps, going all the way back to the beginning of CA history with the foreign tax on the non-whites during the gold rush. At least that is how I am reading that…

    “Understanding those reasons requires careful attention to this Court’s function under the Due Process Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan described it eloquently:
    “Due process has not been reduced to any formula; its content cannot be determined by reference to any code. The best that can be said is that through the course of this Court’s decisions it has represented the balance which our Nation, built upon postulates of respect for the liberty of the individual, has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society. If the supplying of content to this Constitutional concept has of necessity been a rational process, it certainly has not been one where judges have felt free to roam where unguided speculation might take them. The balance of which I speak is the balance struck by this country, having regard to what history teaches are the traditions from which it developed, as well as the traditions from which it broke. That tradition is a living thing. A decision of this Court which radically departs from it could not long survive, while a decision which builds on what has survived is likely to be sound. [Footnote 8] No formula could serve as a substitute, in this area, for judgment and restraint. ” Page 431 U. S. 502

    This is exactly what is happening here and the justice was exactly right, any decision that parts from what history has already taught us will not survive if our constitution still has any meaning at all….Very powerful case…….

  38. mike r

    Oh here is the link for anyone interested..

  39. steve

    i don’t understand this. I had three minor children and the only issue I ever had was with DCFS and Family Court at time of arrest. I gained all my parental rights back with in 6 months of my arrest. Even AFTER felony conviction my parental rights were never an issue.

  40. mike r

    Yes, but just because LE or anyone else is not smart enough or knowledgeable enough of their own codes, so therefore may or may not enforce it, does not make it inconsequential or irrelevant. It “is” the law in CA……….

  41. kari

    Hi Group,

    I was placed in the lawsuit in Texas and sorry I see lot of reviews. I just got this in from another attorney. This is not the attorney who filed the lawsuit another one.. maybe some help here reading this.

    I am aware of the legal theory that applying retroactive registration laws to plea-bargain cases constitutes a breach of the plea contract. I am not aware, however, of much success with the claim. Indeed, courts often refuse to address it altogether. In Cooper v. Thaler, 2011 WL 1230278 (S.D. Tex., March 30, 2011), for example, Cooper sought habeas corpus relief on the basis that his guilty plea was breached because retroactive statutes were later applied to him. The Southern District of Texas explained that “although Cooper attempts to cast his primary claim as a breach of his 1982 plea agreement, his central argument is that the State of Texas retroactively imposed restrictive conditions of supervised release for sex offenders in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.” And as to that argument, I’m afraid it’s fairly well-settled that sex offender registration programs like Chapter 62 may be applied retroactively to sex offenders. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 93, 105-06, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (upholding Alaska’s retroactive application of sex offender registration requirements); Reynolds v. State, 423 S.W.3d 377, 382 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(“The plain meaning of [the 2005 amendments] is simply that the amendments to the law apply to those with a reportable conviction [or adjudication] that occurred on or after September 1, 1970[.]” The savings clause language present in the earlier statutes was deleted by the Legislature.); Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (rejecting ex post facto challenges to the SORP statute, and upholding the constitutionality of the 1997 amendments to sex-offender registration statute because they were civil and remedial in nature, and not so punitive as to categorize them as penal in nature).

    • Chris F (@Kari)


      Texas is also one of only 9 states where the state Constitution forbids retro-active civil laws, not just ex-post facto against criminal laws.

      Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution. Adopted February 15, 1876: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.

      There is a good explanation of what that “retroactive law” means here:

      They even recently put more “retroactive legislation” right into the Texas Chapter 62 that contains laws against sex offenders. They added retroactively that sex offenders can’t go on any school property, even just to drop off kids in the parking lot, without going to the school office first to get permission or be escorted. I really hope someone challenges that someday too. Clearly, that is a law contingent on only a “past act” and the Texas constitution has that as forbidden for legislature to do.

      • lovewillprevail

        I have been told by a prominent attorney in Texas that the reason we do not see expo-facto cases is because the Texas courts have already ruled that it is constitutional to adopt expo-facto sex offender laws (even though the state constitution clearly makes no exceptions to adopting expo-facto laws). And in any new cases challenging this issue, the state elected judge will just point to already ruled precedent and dismiss the case. A_hole judges who are sworn to follow the constitution could give a rat’s _ss about the constitution and only care about getting re-elected…

  42. mike r

    Familial relationships is a well rooted fundamental right (I provided all the case law) that is being abridged by interfering in my custodial or visitation of my grandchild that is happening at this very moment. This is causing tremendous irreparable harm to my grandson, my wife, and myself. I cannot take my grandson to the movies, a park, or even have him at my house without constant supervision other than someone who lives with me. This is causing a great divide and is emotionally devastating to both my wife and myself and my grandson by preventing me or my wife from bonding with and having a familial relationship with him. This is undoubtedly a blatant violation and encroachment into my family affairs. I do not believe family court would be the place to handle this……………

  43. mike r

    Here is the actual language of the statute…….

    California Family Code § 3030(a): “(1) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person is required to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code where the victim was a minor, or if the person has been convicted under Section 273a, 273d, or 647.6 of the Penal Code, (2) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if anyone residing in the person’s household is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, (3) The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk.”

    I guess to get help (if even then) it might take getting my grandson ripped away from his grandmother and grandfather at some point by the cops and placed into a receiving home until their parents pick them up, I guess that is how it would work as they did this to my son when he was about 8 because my ex was doing doing something, I cannot even remember what it was about but it took me two days to get my kid back from them after an extensive confrontation that I created until the cops were called because I was not leaving without my son and having him standing on the other side of the door screaming he wants to go home with his dad. This could be devastating for my grandson and very traumatic at his age as well as the impact it would have on my wife or my son and his GF.

    • mike r

      How can this possibly be constitutional without a hearing to prove I am a danger to my own grandchild??? It is also Ex Post Facto in my case……….

  44. mike r

    Just because it hasn’t happened or someone says it wont doesn’t mean anything to me. The law is what the law is….

  45. mike r

    In a different issue, I cannot seem to find any examples of how to answer or format an answer to the status conference order, if the court grants the motion to dismiss and refuses to accept my evidence on recidivism and other gov docs then I have to figure out how to introduce it correctly at the status conference since it appears I can I just have to do it another way. I am sure the AG will object so we will not be able to do a joint report since we will not agree. I am not even sure how it works in that sutuation.
    Any help with actual examples would be great.

  46. mike r

    Thanks AJ I guess I should’ve looked at it closer.

  47. mike r

    AJ or anyone I need help finding this case. Sounds to good to be true. If they cannot apply registration to someone on parole for a conviction older than fifteen years then I really do not see how it can hold water for people not on paper. If this is solid case law and has not been overturned this could be incredibly important.
    And what is this crap about tiers in 2011?
    United States v. Moore, 449 Fed. Appx.
    677 (9th Cir. 2011) (probation condition requiring registration for a tier I offender more than 15 years after the conviction was invalid)

  48. someone who cares

    I need help interpreting this new bill. Just briefly did I hear about it on ABC7 News for Los Angeles. Is this only for federal cases, and does it include sex offenses? They were mentioning that some people might be eligible to get an automatic expungement rather than paying a ton of money to get it through an attorney. I have to get to work and can’t really research today. This is the Bill H.R.3578 – Expungement Act of 2017.

    • New Person

      Brief synopsis:

      Link to bill:

      This “expungement” bill has only been introduced, as it was introduced 7/28/2017. It was referred to the subcommittee on 9/6/2017. That’s it on movement.

      **Purpose**: To permit the expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses

      The offenses can be a misdemeanor or felony, but must be non-violent.

      Their definition of non-violent:
      Definition Of Nonviolent Offense.—In this subchapter, the term ‘nonviolent offense’ means a misdemeanor or felony offense against the United States that does not have as an element of the offense the use of a weapon or violence and which did not actually involve violence in its commission.

      Expungement requirements (4 factors)
      1. never been convicted of a violent offense
      2. fulfilled all requirements of sentencing
      3. remained alcohol/drug free for a year as well as been rehabilitated
      4. obtained a high school diploma or completed a high school equivalency program

      Two Step Process for Expungment:
      1. Petition. (A maximum of 60 days after receiving receipt to get ball to step 2 – )
      2. Court-Ordered Expungement.


      Oddly enough, the text of this bill’s general immunity is eerily similar to CA’s section 1203.4 expungement program. (Well, the original intent, anyhow.)

      There’s nothing in this bill that states it exempts Sex Offenders. I’m curious to see if those who received state expungement can petition for Federal Expungement and do away with the registry.

      Here’s the general effect of the Federal Expungement:
      In General.—An order granting expungement under this subchapter shall restore the individual concerned, in the contemplation of the law, to the status such individual occupied before the arrest or institution of criminal proceedings for the crime that was the subject of the expungement.

      Here’s CA 1203.4 expungement:
      the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted,

      But in CA, you still have to register b/c PC 290.007 “disregards” the immunity earned. So maybe a Federal Expungement can finally do what CA 1203.4 is supposed to do – return a person to their status before the conviction as stated from “released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense”.

      • mike r

        New Person you forgot to include that you can of never of had any other offense at all in your past which could mean anything from a traffic ticket to jay walking or drunk in public or DUI or ??????? I know a lot of people have nothing but this one offense on their record and nothing else at all in their record but even then it seems to only be in regards to federal cases even if it does pass. That “has been convicted of not more than one nonviolent offense” leaves a huge window open. Hate to be pessimistic but I don’t think anyone should be getting any hopes up just to be shot down, I always say hope for the best and expect the worse that way you will not be so disappointing if it falls thru….

        Ҥ 3632. Requirements for expungement
        “No individual shall be eligible for expungement under this subchapter unless, before filing a petition under this subchapter, such individual—
        “(1) has never been convicted of a violent offense (including an offense under State law that would be a violent offense if it were Federal) and has been convicted of not more than one nonviolent offense other than the one for which expungement is sought;
        “(2) has fulfilled all requirements of the sentence of the court in which conviction was obtained, including completion of any term of imprisonment or period of probation, meeting all conditions of a supervised release;
        “(3) has remained free from dependency on or abuse of alcohol or a controlled substance a minimum of 1 year and has been rehabilitated, to the satisfaction of the court referred to in section 3633(b), if so required by the terms of a supervised release; and
        “(4) has obtained a high school diploma or completed a high school equivalency program.

      • Political Prisoner

        But does this only apply to federal crimes, or can people with a state crime apply for it?

  49. 290 air

    I think we should start wearing green triangles in our registration photos like the Nazi’s made all the criminals wear. it would be a good protest if we could unify. It would have to be up around your collar area so it was visible in the photos.

    • Tim Moore

      I like green and triangles. I think that is a great idea.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      Perhaps a custom button, such as a political button with securing safety-pin-like attachment. Those are certainly easy and cheap enough. I would be happy to wear this and especially for registration mug shot.

        • HOOKSCAR

          Only 1.50 per. Just a plain green button. That’s it. Wearing one next photo op. This is going to be awesome. A silent protest that we can show we are united no matter how the politicians want to keep us separate. A silent show of solidarity can be just the type of awareness this issue needs.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        Our “Scarlet Letter” has evolved over several days. For one thing, it is now ‘scarlet.’ All the symbolism is there: Nazi depersonalization (the triangular symbol worn as self-denunciation), the barbed wire of the death camps and of our own carceral state, the red, white and blue (and stars) of the American Flag as well as “The Scarlet Letter.” The “R” could stand for: Registrant, Resist or Resistance, Reform, Repeal or Restore. This could be worn as: a tee-shirt, a black armband, a button/badge or printed on conference graphics or publications, and placed on this or other websites. It would be especially striking to see numerous registration mugshots of Registrants wearing this symbol. Please take a look.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Even better. A nice, 3D effect:

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          A tattoo, anyone?

        • HOOKSCAR

          What would be the sum of all the amendments of the constitution that the registry violates?

        • Facts should matter

          All that’s left is to run up barb wire and gun towers and call it what it is – an internment camp on American soil. We’re basically free-range expendable humans set up to be easily culled.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      I went a bit further and have designed a green triangle button with a bit of barbed wire.

      Take a look:

      • Tim Moore

        How about the barbed wire going around the triangle? I guess then it would have to be round. I like the idea of getting the six pointed star reference in there, two overlapping triangles one green one black or something. I like the buttons, they are more visible, cheaper and versatile than embroidery. Maybe we can get some made for the conference this summer?

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Unless the individual were Jewish (and I’m speaking now about the historical use of these symbols in Nazi-controlled countries) then they would not be wearing the Magen David, the star of David, but the downward-pointing triangle by itself. There were other colors but the pink was used, not just for gays, but for any sexual “deviant” including “sex offenders.” Jews who were also “deviates” had a yellow triangle with a pink triangle flipped around and on top of it, replicating the star. I once knew a holocaust survivor who had worn just such a symbol.

          I’m thinking that the barbed-wire needs to stay within the triangle since, as you say, the button may also be triangle-shaped.

      • HOOKSCAR

        Maybe we can incorporate the barbs in the triangle corners and in the middle, add up the constitutional amendments that the registry violates. Ie: the 14th 13th etc…. This would show all amendments violated in one number. Just a thought.

        • Tim Moore

          Let’s get some samples posted here. This is one time where the like/dislike feature can come in handy, to choose a design. I don’t really care how it is chosen, as long as the symbol isn’t silly, but getting something we can all wear to our next audition.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Try this iteration:

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Another variation:

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          The problem with references to the Constitution is that this is a button, or badge, that wants to be immediately symbolic rather than expository. In the examples I provided, below, I have tried to adhere to the style of the symbols mandated by the Nazis with the addition of the barbed wire to provide context to the power of the state to punish. The letter I chose, “R” is in reference to the Registry, much like passports for Jews included the letter “J” placed on the Star of David. I wanted this to be as visually powerful as possible with the hope that this symbol could become emblematic of a larger movement. I like the idea of the star being green rather than pink so as to avoid confusion with the modern adoption of the symbol by the gay community even though pink was used by the Nazis to denote all “sexual deviants.”

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Correction: “Triangle,” not “star.”

        • RMJ

          I love the idea of a registrant symbol/badge. I don’t have time to really think about this right now and look all of them over, but the green triangle with the barb wire and R looks just fine. Perhaps there are other great designs but that one would surely do. So let’s get something going where it is recognized.

          One other thing though is that I think it would be great to have something similar for any American who is opposed to big government registries. I would hope that there are millions of people who would wear a “I oppose big government useless registries” symbol/badge but definitely would not want to wear a “I’m registered” symbol/badge. In fact, even though I am registered, I think I would more often wear an “I’m opposed” symbol/badge, shirt, etc.

          For an “I oppose” symbol/badge, I think it would be good to take the “I’m registered” badge and just put the classic red circle around it and the red line across it. Another thing I might consider adding to that might be an American flag above it (so a rectangle above a circle). Or perhaps the Nazi symbol below it with the same red circle and line? Meaning that the person is opposed to registries, Nazis, and all of it together.

          I definitely like the symbolism of combining the registries with the Nazis and condemning all of it. I would wear that proudly. For a shirt, could put on top – “Shrink out-of-control big government” – and then put the combo registries/nazis symbol (with red circles) below it. I love that.

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - 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 or other website issues 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 *

Michael Dickson Womens Jersey