ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

General News

General Comments March 2018

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

Join the discussion

  1. mike r

    civil commitment isn’t considered punitive, disbarment maybe??? I don’t know man. What I have to prove the law isn’t civil in nature???? No way, the Colorado case was an individual, Millard was an individual, Packingham was an individual. There we go now I am getting somewhere right??? That might be the right approach.

  2. mike r

    Look at this.. This has to be bad law or else those other cases where it has been found punitive would of never prevailed.. In an 8-1 opinion even. HMMMM

    In an 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court held that because the Washington Community Protection Act of 1990 had been found to be civil, it could not be deemed punitive as applied to Young for the purposes of double jeopardy and ex post facto challenges. Justice O’Connor wrote for the majority that an “as-applied” analysis would be “unworkable” because it would “never conclusively resolve whether a particular scheme is punitive and would thereby prevent a final determination of the scheme’s validity under the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses.” Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

  3. mike r

    I think I am on the right track with the following..

    Leave to Amend
    Plaintiff objects the MFR assertion page 18 at 25-26 that Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 267 (2001) and Smith somehow forecloses any as applied challenges to other state SORAs because Smith has established that Alaska’s ASORA was civil in nature and non-punitive. California’s SORA is distinguishable from Alaska’s “and” California’s SORA have not been deemed civil in nature by the United States Supreme Court, so Seling v. Young does not foreclose an as-applied challenge of California’s SORNA including, California Family Code § 3030, et seq., Complaint pp 5-6 ¶¶ 17-18, see also Opposition pp 11-12 at 9-7, California’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) Penal Code § 290 et seq., Complaint pp 11 ¶ 42, and the Megan’s Law Internet Website (Megan’s Law) Penal Code § 290.46 et seq., Complaint pp 21 ¶ 85. These laws alone distinguish this case from Smith.
    SORA also imposes other affirmative disabilities or restraints that are greater than those
    deemed “minor and indirect” by the Supreme Court in Smith. There, the Court expressly noted
    that the law under consideration did not have an in-person reporting requirement, and further
    stated that the record contained “no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or
    housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred.” Smith,
    538 U.S. at 100.
    Here, Plaintiff is subject to: (1) Documented vigilante attacks on Plaintiff’s wife, his stepson, and Plaintiff (Opposition at EXHIBIT A-E) (along with large amounts of evidence showing an incredible amount of violent incidents around the country); (2) the mental and physical impacts on both Plaintiff’s wife and Plaintiff’s health (she has chronic heart issues so these episodes could kill her); (3) CA onerous in-person reporting (14 times in the last three years (add three more times from changing vehicles)); (4) IML (International Megan’s Law) and all its reporting requirements (complete itinerary, 21 day advance notice); (5) all the other states reporting requirements; (6) CA’s 7 year background check limit law (Ca. Civil Code § 1786.18), also Plaintiff’s present address and photo are not public records, and background checks, if done, are not easily obtained public records, one can’t just walk in and get a background check on someone. One has to pay and give rigorous detailed personal info; (7) all the presence and residency restrictions (which also directly interferes in Plaintiff’s: (a) field of employment; (b) freedom association; (c) religion; (d) right to protest; (e) right to gain knowledge, i.e. libraries, places of higher education; (f) associate with family and friends, and associates.); (8) CA law stating Plaintiff (or his wife) can’t cohabit or have unsupervised visits with their own kids or grandkids, or other minor age family members; (9) unchecked surveillance monitoring, and compliance checks; (10) CA registration is applied for a lifetime indiscriminately.
    This is a very different situation than in Smith. Plaintiff’s criminal record or personal information is not subject to criminal background checks in California since California’s seven-year background limit law prohibits background checks for convictions older than seven years. Plaintiff’s conviction occurred over 12 years ago.
    Although Plaintiff sees no reason to amend if the court takes judicial notice of EXHIBITS A-E and of the government’s own Static 99R risk assessment tool, along with the government reports, Complaint pp 43 -44 ¶¶ 174-176 as well as pp 24-25 ¶¶ 100-102, pp 4 ¶ 12; or at minimum enter those documents into the record for appeal.

  4. mike r

    If the following statement by the Magistrate was true then any and all courts considering any laws that resemble any SCOTUS decisions would be foreclosed, end of discussion. No I really think she is grasping at straws. That logic would be absolutely insane. I know insane is common in this country but I don’t think that would even fly with the constitutionalist in this country and every other suit against Sex offender laws would just be one statement, foreclosed, see Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 267 (2001) end of argument.

    “In this case, granting leave to amend would be futile because plaintiff’s claims six through
    nine cannot be saved by the allegation of additional facts. Because the challenged statutes are not
    punitive as a matter of law, and do not impose involuntary servitude, the claims cannot be cured
    by amendment. The court has considered whether the complaint could state a claim if it included
    allegations of fact consistent with the affidavits that plaintiff submitted in opposition to dismissal.
    These affidavits, ECF No.16 at 26-45, Ex. A-E, describe acts of harassment experienced by
    plaintiff and those close to him. Plaintiff argues that these experiences demonstrate the reality of
    vigilantism to which he is subjected by SORA and Meghan’s Law, and which thus demonstrate
    the punitive effect of those laws. However, statutes found to be civil in nature cannot be deemed
    punitive “as applied” to a single individual. Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 267 (2001).
    Accordingly, plaintiff’s proffer of facts about the consequences of registration to him do not
    affect the analysis. For the reasons already explained, California’s regulatory scheme is not
    punitive in its “necessary operation.” See Smith, 538 U.S. 97. This conclusion follows from the
    language, history and context of the statutes. Because amendment therefore would be futile,
    dismissal of plaintiff’s claims six through nine should be without leave to amend.”

    • E

      @mike r. Don’t quite get all the language about claims 6 through 9. Does that mean claims 1 through 5 continue even if this motion to dismiss is granted? Chops your suit in half? Or would this dismiss your whole suit??

    • New Person

      @Mike R,

      You can refute that SCOTUS has made wrong decisions before such as japanese internment camps, “separate, but equal” laws. I think the japanese internment camp was Korematsu case. I forget the other case. But I’m sure there should be more cases where the SCOTUS had to correct itself.

      Also of note, the SCOTUS based a large part of the claim on a “frightening and high” recidivism rate of 80%. That runs contrary to the actual CASOMB research of under 1% recidivism rates.

      —————-
      Involuntary servitude bit has not been disproven for this case. There are no comparables between the registry singled out for only those convicted of sex crimes compared to military duty applied to all, tax reporting applied to all, jury duty applied to all, and road work applied to all. The registry isn’t “applied to all”, but only a small group of convicts.

      The registry enforces compulsory work under penalty of law upon a free person and that compulsory work has no compensation in California. Again, this is only “applied to those convicted of sex crimes”. For involuntary servitude, we must look at four classical components:
      1) Contract
      2) Compensation
      3) Term
      4) Domineered

      —- Responses to four classical components of involutary servitude —
      1) The registry was put upon a registrant due to a conviction of a sex crime. That is when the contract is born. You have to be convicted of a crime.

      2) There is no compensation for all the compulsory work levied upon a free person.

      3) The compulsory work, which includes abiding by all sex offender laws, restrictions, as well as in-person reporting at a college’s PD, is set for a lifetime term upon a free person. A lifetime term upon a free person that a person cannot walk away from.

      4) Domineered. If a registrant wanted to quit registering, then the registrant will be punished for not doing the said compulsory work required of the registry under penalty of law. The state is punishing a free person for not doing compulsory work for the state as a part of their continued custody after concluding punishment custody.

      The State of CA is believing that involuntary servitude cannot exist in today’s era despite the four classical factors identifies this is a involuntary servitude because the registry was born out of a conviction.

      Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

      Convicts lose rights and are not free, but are subjected to involuntary servitude. Whether one is in maximum state prison, county jail, or on parole/probation, they are subjected to the rules, restrictions, and validation of your presence. Once free of custody, they no longer need to abide by any rules, restrictions, or validation of presence, except if you are a registrant. You must still continue to abide by any rules, restrictions, or validation of presence AFTER completing your custody to the state from your conviction.

      Should the people have not brought up an argument about Plessy v Ferguson since SCOTUS deemed it constitutional, stating separate, but equal was constitutional?

      Here, Mike R is addressing similar thoughts about the SCOTUS decision and that being under custody after completing punishment custody is complusory work upon a free person that he or she cannot quit the registry. The registry isn’t “applied to all”, it’s only “applied to convicts of sex crimes” and of no compensation for the term of a life.

      • TS

        SCOTUS did not overturn Korematsu though…

        Why Korematsu Is Not a Precedent
        https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/why-korematsu-is-not-a-precedent.html

        A Discredited Supreme Court Ruling That Still, Technically, Stands
        https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/us/time-for-supreme-court-to-overrule-korematsu-verdict.html

        Is Korematsu Really Still Good Law?
        http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2016/11/is-korematsu-really-still-good-law.html

        • New Person

          Then don’t use Korematsu. LoL

          Plessy v Ferguson is ideal. Just need one example as proof the SCOTUS can be faulty.

        • AJ

          @New Person:
          Then don’t use Korematsu. LoL

          Plessy v Ferguson is ideal. Just need one example as proof the SCOTUS can be faulty.
          —–
          This is right along the lines of thoughts I suggested to @mike r, but for understandable reasons he preferred to omit them:
          *****
          Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537 (1896)) was settled law, until it wasn’t. “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place.” Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Bowers v. Hardwick (478 U.S. 186 (1986)) was settled law, until it wasn’t. “Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
          *****
          One could add in a Buck v. Bell / Skinner v. OK contrast, too, even though Skinner did not explicitly overturn Buck v. Bell. A better addition would be Loving v. VA / Pace v. AL, where SCOTUS did overturn Pace.

        • AJ

          It just occurred to me that perhaps the best (only?) way to overturn Smith is through a State Court of Last Resort ruling that relies upon it. Of the cases I cited above, only Brown v. Bd of Educ (overturning Plessy v. Ferguson) came through the Federal courts. Buck v. Bell was overturned by Skinner, a case from the OK SC. Pace v. AL was overturned by Loving, a case from the VA SC. Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence, a case from the TX SC.

          I wonder if SCOTUS would’ve taken Muniz had PA SC ruled the other way…. The battle may indeed need to be fought in every state, and State Supreme Court, to get Smith struck. Or, with luck a Federal decision contrary to Snyder slips through a Circuit Court of Appeals.

  5. mike r

    Claims 1-5 will continue. This is a hell of a coincidence that the court clerk sent me a letter for a pro se help day at McGeorge School of Law, someone I have tried for years to get help from, right around the time when I can use them the most. My new date for status conference is scheduled for May 16 and I have an appointment with McGeorge on April 20. Interesting….

    • Brian

      @Mike r
      Just wanted to say this, if they want to claim that these laws are civil then they have to take out what’s not civil which is the punishment part, If you don’t fallow the requirements then you go to jail end of story, it’s not civil because of the punishment eliment with is JAIL, not only that but tar and featherd, public shaming, the list goes on, there are still punitive elements in HB 631, I don’t know the laws for other states but I have learned a lot for Pennsylvania’s laws now. Once this bs gets challenged it will be knocked down, the. The good old general assembly with have to go back to work lying to the public about public safety…

      • CR

        Brian, you said “If you don’t fallow the requirements then you go to jail end of story, it’s not civil because of the punishment eliment with is JAIL …”

        Sorry, but that’s not how it works. Countless civil laws and regulations have criminal penalties for violation. It’s very common. The fact that violation of a civil law results in criminal penalties is not what makes the law punitive.

        • Brian

          CR
          Thank you for the correction, makes sense I suppose, I guess if someone robs a bank they got i jail end of story, I see what you mean, I think I was reaching for something to call punitive about the bill.

  6. David

    Wow, mike r! So, I guess the Magistrate believes the cops can beat us with batons if they wish, because “California’s regulatory scheme is not punitive in its “necessary operation.””
    No, it’s just punitive in the daily reality of all of us subjected to it! 😡

    • New Person

      Should any state official be claiming Plessy v Ferguson was ruled constitutional and still should be constitutional?

      That would be my retort. Then I would ask the courts to substantiate the 80%, frightening and high recidivism rate utilized in the SCOTUS decision, which also permitted to treat sex offenders as one class; not individualized cases.

  7. mike r

    What’s up New Person, finish it up. LOL.. add the case law because I will use it like it is. Whenever you just write and go straight to the point like that you do good man. That’s the type of comments I can use my friend..Here’s what i have with your work as well. It sounds good.

    Finally, Plaintiff objects MFR assertion, page 17 at 3-4, that Megan’s Law’s et seq. “compelled actions is not “service.”” Plaintiff contends the compelled actions are “service” and that “service” is synonymous with duty; “jury duty” is synonymous with “jury service” and as outlined on the Megan’s Law Website, it is a “duty to register.”
    Also of note, the SCOTUS based a large part of the claim on a “frightening and high” recidivism rate of 80%. That runs contrary to the actual CASOMB research of under 1% recidivism rates.

    —————-
    Involuntary servitude bit has not been disproven for this case. There are no comparables between the registry singled out for only those convicted of sex crimes compared to military duty applied to all, tax reporting applied to all, jury duty applied to all, and road work applied to all. The registry isn’t “applied to all”, but only a small group of convicts.

    The registry enforces compulsory work under penalty of law upon a free person and that compulsory work has no compensation in California. Again, this is only “applied to those convicted of sex crimes”. For involuntary servitude, we must look at four classical components:
    1) Contract
    2) Compensation
    3) Term
    4) Domineered

    —- Responses to four classical components of involutary servitude —
    1) The registry was put upon a registrant due to a conviction of a sex crime. That is when the contract is born. You have to be convicted of a crime.

    2) There is no compensation for all the compulsory work levied upon a free person.

    3) The compulsory work, which includes abiding by all sex offender laws, restrictions, as well as in-person reporting at a college’s PD, is set for a lifetime term upon a free person. A lifetime term upon a free person that a person cannot walk away from.

    4) Domineered. If a registrant wanted to quit registering, then the registrant will be punished for not doing the said compulsory work required of the registry under penalty of law. The state is punishing a free person for not doing compulsory work for the state as a part of their continued custody after concluding punishment custody.

    The State of CA is believing that involuntary servitude cannot exist in today’s era despite the four classical factors identifies this is a involuntary servitude because the registry was born out of a conviction.

    Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

    Convicts lose rights and are not free, but are subjected to involuntary servitude. Whether one is in maximum state prison, county jail, or on parole/probation, they are subjected to the rules, restrictions, and validation of your presence. Once free of custody, they no longer need to abide by any rules, restrictions, or validation of presence, except if you are a registrant. You must still continue to abide by any rules, restrictions, or validation of presence AFTER completing your custody to the state from your conviction.

  8. mike r

    Actually I’ll probably use it for appeal. We made a good argument in the Complaint so I am keeping it short and sweet as possible in this objection. I have to refute that Individual comment but I think I know what’s going on there. Correct me if I am wrong.

    “However, statutes found to be civil in nature cannot be deemed
    punitive “as applied” to a single individual. Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 267 (2001).”

    The way I am reading that case: I am still working this out.

    Plaintiff objects the MFR assertion page 18 at 25-26 that Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 forecloses any as-applied claims. In Seling the court noted that “Respondent contends that the Ninth Circuit’s “as-applied” analysis comports with this Court’s precedents. He points out that this Court has considered conditions of confinement in evaluating the validity of confinement schemes in the past. Brief for Respondent 11-16, 29 (citing Hendricks, supra, at 363; Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 301-302 (1993); United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 747-748 (1987); Allen v. Illinois, supra, at 373-374; Schall v. Martin, 467 U. S. 253, 269273 (1984)). All of those cases, however, presented the question whether the Act at issue was punitive. Permitting respondent’s as-applied challenge would invite an end run around the Washington Supreme Court’s decision that the Act is civil in circumstances where a direct attack on that decision is not before this Court.” Id.

    If the MFR insists that Smith, Hatton, or Elk Shoulder is controlling in this case, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is directly attacking those decision as applied to him if necessary. Smith was concerning an Alaska ASORA and both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Alaska Supreme Court have come to contrary conclusions as Smith whereas the Washington civil commitment statute at issue in Seling was adjudicated and found “civil in nature” by the Washington Supreme Court, and affirmed in the Ninth Circuit; and the United States Supreme Court had already decided it was similar enough in multiple previous cases: see Hendricks, supra, at 363; Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 301-302 (1993); United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 747-748 (1987); Allen v. Illinois, supra, at 373-374; Schall v. Martin, 467 U. S. 253, 269273 (1984)) that the Court had already reviewed several times and found “civil in nature” to foreclose any attempt, either in federal or state courts, to any future as-applied challenge.

    SORA also imposes other affirmative disabilities or restraints that are greater than those
    deemed “minor and indirect” by the Supreme Court in Smith. There, the Court expressly noted
    that the law under consideration did not have an in-person reporting requirement, and further
    stated that the record contained “no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or
    housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred.” [Through a routine background checks] Smith, 538 U.S. at 100.

    Plaintiff is subject to: (1) Documented vigilante attacks on Plaintiff’s wife, his stepson, and Plaintiff (Opposition at EXHIBIT A-E) (along with large amounts of evidence showing an incredible amount of violent incidents around the country); (2) CA onerous in-person reporting (14 times in the last three years (add three more times from changing vehicles)); (3) CA law stating Plaintiff (or his wife) cannot cohabit or have unsupervised visits with their own kids or grandkids, or other minor age family members; (4) unchecked surveillance monitoring, and in home compliance checks; (5) CA registration is applied for a lifetime indiscriminately with no possibility for relief.

    This case is also a very different situation than in Smith, Hatton, Elk Shoulder because Plaintiff’s criminal record or personal information is not subject to criminal background checks in California since California’s seven-year background limit law prohibits background checks for convictions older than seven years. Plaintiff’s conviction occurred over 12 years ago.

    Plaintiff sees no reason to amend if the court rejects Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and takes judicial notice of EXHIBITS A-E and of the government’s own Static 99R risk assessment tool and the government reports, Complaint pp 43 -44 ¶¶ 174-176 as well as pp 24-25 ¶¶ 100-102, pp 4 ¶ 12; or at minimum enter those documents into the record for appeal.

    • JoeBlo

      No conf call pat Cali time, lines down…past?
      Change phone # think we better donate to keep the call line up, prob OVERLOODED IML

  9. mike r

    I am really pissed that the Magistrate tried to pull her little out of her a**(&^ tech trick. It’s wrong and very deceitful.

    Plaintiff further objects that the MFR assertion that Seling precludes any further analysis to determine the punitive nature of a declared civil in nature statute. It is well known settled law what the requirements are when dealing with an as-applied to the civil intent-effect of any statute. See, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963). Using any technicality such as Seling to dismiss this cause of action is dubious at best and downright duplicitous at worst and does not provide Plaintiff with a fair and just adjudication of his claims

  10. mike r

    No your not supposed to attack the other side like that so scratch that. Man I have to file this by Friday just to play it safe. Damn..This sounds better.

    Plaintiff further objects that the MFR assertion that Seling precludes any further analysis to determine the punitive nature of a legislatively declared “civil in nature” statute. It is well known settled law what the requirements are when dealing with an as-applied challenge to the intent-effect of any civil statute. See, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963). Using any technicality such as Seling to attempt to dismiss this cause of action does not provide Plaintiff with a fair and just adjudication of his claims. Plaintiff should not be expected to digest and analyze such complex issues of law that are not relevant to his case.

    • James

      I Don’t like the last sentence…either cut it or, maybe…

      Plaintiff and this Court can only deal with issues that are Reverent. The the MFR is trying to deflect this Court from its proper role, the adjudication of real and just claims. Which in this instance have been adequately, more than adequately, demonstrated. The MFR’s position is false and should be rejected.

      Good, Luck

      James

    • mike r

      Nah I have 21 days to object according to the court order…

  11. mike r

    Yeah I got rid of all that part..I went with the following instead..Thanks though it is nice to get feedback.

    It is well settled law what the requirements are when dealing with an as-applied challenge in constitutional claims such as in this case, it is the intent-effect analysis in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Plaintiff contends and reiterates California’s: (1) SORA (Penal Code 290, et seq.); (2) Megan’s Law Internet Website (Penal Code 290.46); (3) California Family Code section 3030 et seq.; (4) and all the collateral-probative “effects” outlined in his Complaint are punitive as applied when analyzed under the Mendoza-Martinez factors.

    • New Person

      @ Mike R,

      Don’t forget a very important punitive aspect: In CA, whether you’re a tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3, each one is classified as a lifetime registrant. So to HUD, you’re classified as the worst kind of sex offender and are disqualified for housing assistance.

  12. New Person

    @ Mike R,

    Let me get this straight. First, the AG states the registry a legal form of involuntary servitude to the likes of Jury Duty, Military Service, Tax Reporting, and Road Work. But your rebuttal was that the registry isn’t applied to all free California Citizens like jury duty, military service, tax reporting, or road work; also the registry is only born out of conviction.

    Now, the AG is stating it is not involuntary servitude, compelled service, compulsory work? But you caught the AG very sharply in identifying Jury Duty is a service and Megan’s Law states it is a “duty to register”. Also, it is your duty to turn in your passport to force to pay for a new passport which “compels you to identify you’ve been convicted of a sex crime with a minor”.

    Either way, you just caught the AG flip-flopping. Does the AG know the law or not?

    ————————————————————–
    Here’s a link to the Kozminski case:
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/931/case.html

    Here is a quote between US 492 and US 493

    Page 487 US 492 and 493
    +++
    While the general spirit of the phrase “involuntary servitude” is easily comprehended, the exact range of conditions it prohibits is harder to define. The express exception of involuntary servitude imposed as a punishment for crime provides some guidance. The fact that the drafters felt it necessary to exclude this situation indicates that they thought involuntary servitude includes at least situations in which the victim is compelled to work by law.
    +++

    If you are under custody of the state due to a conviction, then you are compelled to whatever the State says you need to comply with. For example, if your Probation term lists you spend some of your service at County Jail for a few months, then you abide. You are required to serve the state with in-person reporting once a month or the consequences are more punishment.

    Involuntary servitude or compulsory service is constitutional to punish a crime. That is the only exception. When a person successfully completes custody, then they no longer need to serve the state in any capacity as a free person. Yes, once out of custody, you must continue to do in-person reporting service to the state at a minimum of once a year. You are required to do in-person reporting at any college or university you attend, and that reporting varies per school. You are required to report any changes in your living arrangement, acquisition of a vehicle, volunteer, or gain employment. Reporting is a service, is a duty, as specifically emphasized and defined on Megan’s Law.

    ————
    In Bailey vs Alabama, the Court went on to hold that “involuntary servitude” existed whenever there was “compulsory service.”

    ———–
    The four classical factors come from this link, page 2024:
    http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=facpubs

    The citation says “See infra Part III.B.” I have no idea what that means.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Conclusion

    Registry is born out of conviction, but all registrant must maintain their duty as a registrant everyday by adhering to all the rules, regulations, restriction, and reporting after punishment custody has ended.

    13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    The only exception to involuntary servitude is punishment. A conviction induces punishment. The registry is deemed not punishment by 2003 Smith v Doe. Every registrant in California has a duty to register as well as abide by all rules, regulations, restrictions, and reporting everyday – essentially still serving the State of California as if still under custody. Thus any compulsory service that is not punishment is unconstitutional.

    If you do not report, then you are threatened by law with punishment. This goes for one’s annual reporting, school reporting, new housing reporting, new residency reporting, new vehicle reporting, new volunteering reporting, or new employment reporting.

    If you were convicted of a sex crime with a minor, it is your duty to report you working with minors to the Police Department and who you work for.

    Also, if you were convicted of a sex crime with a minor, the State of California is complicit in enhancing the contract of the registry to now force a registrant to surrender their passport and pay for a new passport with a demarcation the compels a registrant admit a) they have a sex conviction, b) the conviction was against a minor, and c) they are a plausible threat travelling. The State of California is the entity that provides such information to the federal IML.

    The 13th amendment specifically states when custody ends, which is to punish a crime. Once that punishment is completed, then so does any form of custodial service to the state. All convicts no longer under custody do not have continued service to the state, just registrants. The registry isn’t applied to all California citizens nor all California convicts. The registry applies only to sex crime convicts. As a free person no longer under custody, why am I compelled to service the state as it is written in law, Megan’s Law, “it is a duty to registry.”

    Words have meaning. So to do the words of the 13th amendment. “Involuntary Servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.” The registry isn’t punishment, but all registrants are threatened under punishment of law to follow rules, regulations, restrictions, and reporting that no other California free citizen or California convict not convicted of a sex crime is subjected to that are no longer under custody.

    • lovewillprevail

      The registry is deemed not punishment by 2003 Smith v Doe. That is what you stated above. You need to not say that as that could possibly be used against you in your arguements that the registry is punishment.

    • AJ

      @New Person:
      The citation says “See infra Part III.B.” I have no idea what that means.
      —–
      It means “See Part III.B., later in the document.” supra = above; infra = below. I never took Latin, but I’m sure learning a number of words and phrases!

  13. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Westminster child abuse accuser ‘Nick’ is charged with paedophile offences”

    “In 2014, Nick told Scotland Yard that a VIP paedophile ring, operating in Dolphin Square in Westminster, had raped, abused and even murdered young boys.” “He claimed the group included; the late former Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath; the former head of the Army, Field Marshall Lord Bramall; the former Home Secretary, Lord Brittan and the former Tory politician, Harvey Proctor.”

    And he was believed, despite all signs that he was a serial fantasist.

    “The Metropolitan Police described his sensational claims as “credible and true”, and launched its disastrous Operation Midland investigation, which cost £2.5 million and traduced the reputations of a number of high profile figures.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/06/westminster-child-abuse-accuser-nick-charged-paedophile-offences/

    • CR

      An accusation of child sexual abuse against anyone is almost always believed to be true by law enforcement, prosecutors, and the public. It doesn’t matter who you are. In fact, the more prominent you are, the more likely it is that such an accusation will be believed.

  14. mike r

    I think I will just keep it short and sweet for my objections and just leave it for appeal if they want to dismiss. After all we made a good argument in the Complaint and in the Opposition. Here is all I am including on these subjects in the objection. If we can add short to the point references then I will add them otherwise whatever you write I will save for appeal. Here is what I have.

    Bill of Attainder
    Plaintiff objects to MFR assertion, page 16 at 14-15, that the Bill of Attainder challenge fails simply because the court has found the laws to be non-punitive. As explained throughout the Complaint and the Opposition the Plaintiff has shown very persuasive evidence of punitive intent and effects and has presented a colorful argument that he is subject to an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, Plaintiff’s claims must survive a Motion to Dismiss.
    Separation of Powers
    Plaintiff objects to MFR not addressing the Separation of Powers issue at all. Plaintiff contends that it is beyond the authority of the legislative branch to impose mandatory punishment beyond the statutory sentence allowed by law. Plaintiff served his maximum sentence allowed by law. Plaintiff is being tried, convicted, and sentenced through the legislative branch for the erroneous and illusionary “high risk of recidivism.” Plaintiff further contends that the feared characteristic that the legislature is attempting to prevent “recidivism” is the key element of the punitive sex offender statute so therefore that element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and the Plaintiff must retain full rights to object, present evidence, and to the appeals process.
    Involuntary Servitude
    Finally, Plaintiff objects MFR assertion, page 17 at 3-4, that Megan’s Law’s et seq. “compelled actions is not “service.”” Plaintiff contends the compelled actions are “service” and that “service” is synonymous with duty; “jury duty” is synonymous with “jury service” and as outlined on the Megan’s Law Website, it is a “duty to register.” Plaintiff has once again made a colorful argument of involuntary servitude in his Compliant and Opposition and the claim must survive a Motion to Dismiss.

    • New Person

      @ Mike R

      I would still present as evidence that the AG first denoted that the registry was legal involuntary servitude like jury duty, military service, tax reporting, and road work. Please note that there is jury “duty” and military “service”. Both verbiage exists in the AG’s claim for legal involuntary servitude. (But you beat that back by revealing the registry is born only out of conviction, specifically a sex crime conviction only.)

      Now, the AG is stating that the registry isn’t involuntary servitude by trying to be colorful with words. As I denoted above, the AG’s claim of legal involuntary servitude includes jury “duty” and military “service”. Apparently, “duty” fits the AG’s claim of legal involuntary servitude. The AG cannot have it both ways.

      And as stated in Bailey vs Alabama, the Court went on to hold that “involuntary servitude” existed whenever there was “compulsory service.” As listed in on Megan’s Law, it is a registrant’s “duty to register”. If a registrant does not abide by his or her duty to not only register, but abide by all “extra” rules, restrictions, and extra reporting (outside the annual reporting such as updating residency, vehicle, volunteering, or employment; school reporting; volunteer/work if conviction was with a minor, etc…), then he or she will be penalized under threat of law. It is a duty to carry your registration card at all times. You are required to give your fingerprints at every annual reporting. A free person no longer under custody is subjected to compulsory service under penalty of law that is not punishment.

      ————————-
      Off Topic…
      Did the AG really say that “compelled actions is not service”? That makes absolutely no sense. These compelled actions are enabled for what reasoning? The service of public safety as we are still continuing to serve the State of California under penalty of law.

      I would as the Judge to have the AG explain “compelled action is not service”. Then ask who do all these registrants serve in registering? There has to be a master. Is it the state of California? Where are in-person reporting serviced at? A California Police Department. Where is the IML getting their information from? The State of California. Who created all the rules, restrictions, and in-person reporting locations as well as scheduling to follow or be penalized under penalty of law? The state of California.

      Look at your registration card. At the very top, it identifies “State of California”. It tells you the name of your Registration Agency as well as your date of annual update. If I do not serve, or rather perform these duties (in-person reporting and all rules/restrictions), then the State of California will track me down, put me into jail, punish me, and then return back to the registry service once I am out of jail.

      An action is a duty. A simple google search of “serve” gives the definition of “perform duties or services for a person or organization”. I truly want to hear the AG’s explanation of “compelled action”. Is the AG so devious in word play that the AG is focusing on the word “service… serve”? There’s another word for “compelled action” that doesn’t involve the word “service”… it’s called Slavery. Which, under the 13th amendment, is also prohibited.

      The AG’s comment of “compelled action” really irks me! Trying to debase my intelligence.

      … Also, the state of Ca is prohibiting me from leaving the state permanently for a minimum of 10 years to apply for the CoR to attempt to get off the registry. This isn’t punishment, but I am compelled to wait for a minimum of 10 years to attempt to remove myself from this service to the state. At the CoR, they will judge my “service” to the state and deem if I am worthy to stop serving the state.

      Should I move to another state without being removed from the state registry, then the California registry will be the prevailing law in the other state that will dictate my service in that new state.

      We don’t even venture about the IML… hmmm…

      Compelled action… turn in your passport. There are no consequences such as jail time if you do not turn in your passport.

      compelled service… duty to register or you will be punished under penalty of law. Which does fit the classical four factors of involuntary servitude involving dominance by coercion of force or by threat of law.

      Sorry for the long rant… that AG comment really got to me.

      • AG & Mil Svc

        The AG has it wrong when it come to military service being involuntary. It is an all volunteer service and has been for over 40 years. Registering for Selective Service at 18 for 8 years (until 26) should a draft ever be needed is required of all US male citizens. You could lose benefits if you don’t but they don’t chase you if you don’t register. You apply for the military and then do the jobs assigned as you are under contract for the term you signed up for if accepted. The USA is not a country of compulsory (involuntary) military service like others around the world.

        • AJ

          The AG never called military service, road work, jury duty or taxation involuntary service. They were held up as items courts have previously declared *not* to be involuntary service. They are all civic duties. However, to me the AG’s argument still appears to be trying to equate registration with civic duty. No court–nor the AG himself–has ever referred to registration as civic duty; it’s always referred to as a regulatory scheme. Also, RC registration is the only regulatory scheme I can think of that one cannot enter and exit at will, and is the only regulatory scheme that keeps you in longer if you violate the terms.

  15. AlexO

    Every time I ready about tiered registries in other states (usually SORNA states), the tiers are always refereed to as “higher tiers are more likely to re-offend”. When it comes to CA new tiered registry, is that how they’re selling it as well? If so, I would think that would be ripe for thousands of law suites under the 14th Amendment since it’s 100% based of the offense code and not any actual evaluation. They can’t possibly state that someone convicted of X code is inherently more likely to re-offend than someone else. I mean, someone with a history of lifelong criminal record could easily be tier 1 while someone who’s never done anything wrong prior to their offense or since be tier 3.

  16. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    More spectral evidence from Salem, the home of the witch hunt:

    “The lowest level of convicted sex offenders would be required to register with local police and face increased scrutiny under plans to expand the state’s registry.”

    http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/sex-offender-registry-changes-sought/article_e5b740d4-0090-5746-8bbe-34d5ffa7facd.html

  17. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    I was browsing TMZ (don’t judge) — and saw that American’s Most Wanted’s John Walsh wants a registry for “mentally ill people looking to buy guns.”

    http://www.tmz.com/2018/03/11/john-walsh-americas-most-wanted-host-mental-illness-registry-florida-gun-law-parkland-shooting/

    • Don't forget about me

      I am still relevant!!!

      Hugs and kisses,

      John Walsh

    • Facts should matter

      Just looking at him pisses me off! His son is also a fear parasite that will inherit the family business and the “crusade” against us.

  18. ML

    I listened to the NARSOL call on the IML last night. They talked about sometimes it was better to wait to file legal action because if you got an adverse ruling, the effects could last for years and used the Smith case and the “frightening and high” description as an example. I understand all of that. That was 15 years ago. Since that time, there has been a mountain of evidence published that the basis for the need for the registry, the very high recidivism rate, has been factually debunked. Couple that with the super registration scheme with regard to the debate over whether or not the registry is punishment and there should be enough to satisfy the the Mendoza test to illustrate that now the registry is punishment. Why wait? will recidivism go any lower?

    • HOOKSCAR

      I agree!!!! Been saying the same thing for a while now. I think now is a time for a major class action suit. The courts cannot mute a hundred thousand + voices. If not now, when?

  19. mike r

    Man Floridah is sure experiencing a lot of tragedies. I wonder how much of that is caused by the collective karma theory and argument I made. Check out this intent argument against Smith. This is just intent and nothing else yet. Comments welcome…

    Punitive Intent
    In Hendrix, a civil commitment statute, the court stated, “an imposition of restrictive measures on sex offenders adjudged to be dangerous is “a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective and has been historically so regarded.” 521 U. S., at 363 (emphasis added). Plaintiff has not been “adjudged to be dangerous” by any due process in any separate proceedings in court such as was the case in Hendrix. The entire case in Hendrix was predicated on the fact that the individual was afforded due process in separate hearings and proceedings so any comparison other to show the necessity of further due process is not cognizable. Hendrix just strengthens Plaintiff’s position.

    The Smith court reasoned “The legislature found that “sex offenders pose a high risk of reoffending,” and identified “protecting the public from sex offenders” as the “primary governmental interest” of the law. 1994 Alaska Sess. Laws ch. 41, § 1. Id. at 98.” The Defendant’s claims that recidivism rates and the effectiveness of the registry are not relevant is erroneous. The reports relied upon by the legislature were and are antiquated academic studies from 1994 and 1997 that were unreliable and reasonably questionable even at that the time. Plaintiff has provided extensive recent empirical governmental and academic research that strongly suggest that there is universal consensus that the rate of re-offense for sex offenders is at or below 5% at release and drops to under 1% after as little as two years after release. The reports demonstrate that at least 90% of the re-offenses occurred within the first three years of release from incarceration. And the leading governmental and academic studies further show that over 90% of sexual assaults on children occur not by strangers but by people close to the victim.

    The Smith court goes on “The legislature further determined that “release of certain information about sex offenders to public agencies and the general public will assist in protecting the public safety.” Ibid. Plaintiff has provided extensive academic and governmental research that at the very minimum is very persuasive (if not definitive) that sex offender registration is counterproductive and certainly does not have any positive impact on public safety.

    The fact the legislature was very aware as far back as 1994, according to Defendant’s own assertion, and have been repeatably informed by their own appointed government entities (especially in California as demonstrated in Plaintiff’s reports) that the risk of recidivism is exponentially lower than what was stated in the legislative text and language in the legislative findings should be very disturbing. The usually defers to the legislature but Plaintiff has provided an enormous amount of evidence and has cognizable arguments strongly suggestion there may have been punitive intent there.

    Also, in Smith the court made comparison to gun laws. When articulated correctly there can be no cognizable comparison to gun laws since gun laws only require an individual not to own or possess firearms. The simple act (albeit a major constitutionally questionable infringement) of forfeiture of firearms to individuals convicted of certain crimes goes no further. Plaintiff is subject to extensive obligation, regulation, and prohibition. In United States v. 89 Firearms the court noted that the goal was “plainly more remedial than punitive,.” 465 U. S., at 364. There has been extensive empirical research that has universal consensus that firearms in the hands of criminals is a widespread public safety issue and restricting second amendment rights creates a substantial benefit on public safety. There are no such studies or consensus that sex offenders pose a significant risk to the public, nor does the research suggest that sex offender registration and Internet publication increases public safety. There is however a large body of scientific governmental research and evidence concluding sex offender re-offense rates are in the low single digits and there is growing empirical evidence that strongly suggest registration and Internet dissemination very well may be counterproductive. This analysis suggest strongly that the goal is not “plainly” more remedial than punitive.

    As the court noted in Smith “Other formal attributes of a legislative enactment, such as the manner of its codification or the enforcement procedures it establishes, are probative of the legislature’s intent.” Smith id. at 94. “In this case these factors are open to debate.” Ibid. Although statutory labels and provisions do not by themselves transform a civil remedy into a punitive law, the fact that California’s sex offender statutes are found exclusively in the penal codes is probative of legislative intent when combined with the other factors.

    The legislature repeatably state in the text of the statute (and practically every law aimed at this class of offenders) that it is not meant to be punitive, so the only logical conclusion is that the legislature was at least aware of the punitive nature of these laws when enacting them. Also, there are disclaimers on the website outlining penalties for misuse of the information, which do absolutely nothing to protect a registrant as claimed, is further evidence that the legislature was aware of the punitive effects the laws would have. That leads Plaintiff to infer and contend that the legislature may have envisioned the Act to be civil but was very aware of the punitive implications. Once again, this factor alone is not dispositive, but it is certainly persuasive of punitive intent when combined with the other factors in this case.

    The statute’s language of repeated declarations that the laws are not punitive, and warnings and penalties for misuse of the information, when combined with the stated legislative findings of the erroneous “frightening and high” recidivism rates, and that the legislature was knowledgeable of the low re-offense rates but stated in legislative findings to the contrary is also very concerning and points to something more than public safety.

    The fact that there is a growing body of consensus that the laws are ineffective but the legislature and locals, even armed with that knowledge, keep piling on more and more onerous laws is strongly suggestive of punitive intent. There was also some very suggestive legislative language on the floor such as “we need to paint the streets red in front of their homes” and “if we make the laws so onerous then they will want to leave the state,” that should be concerning as well. Plaintiff has provided all these studies and reports, including citations to the legislative floor statements, in his Complaint; see infra. Although none of these elements standing alone would be sufficient to prove legislative punitive intent “by the clearest proof”, when combined, Plaintiff makes a colorful argument that there is real evidence of punitive intent.

    The Justices in Smith who were clear that they were on the fence on the legislative intent issue would have surely been more strongly persuaded under these conditions of punitive intent.

    • TS

      @mike r

      Wasn’t there something in Packingham (I think, but could be wrong) or another RC brought forth case to SCOTUS last year where Kennedy made opposing arguments about the “frightening and high” content? It gave the inclination, in my impression, Kennedy wanted to debate that content?? Is that something you can use here? It is from the Justice who was the tipping point on that phrase. Maybe one of the other readers here could help…

      The rest is well written.

      • AJ

        @TS:
        Are you talking about during oral arguments, or in an Opinion? If you’re thinking about an Opinion, it was in U.S. v. Kebodeaux: “There is also conflicting evidence on the point.” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-418/opinion3.html). Justice Breyer delivered the Opinion, not Kennedy.

        • TS

          @AJ

          That’s not it, but does work for Mike.

          This is what I am thinking of: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/21/justice-alitos-misleading-claim-about-sex-offender-rearrests/?utm_term=.bf7f229204fa

          Had to remember Justice Alito to trigger the thought.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          Had to remember Justice Alito to trigger the thought.
          —–
          I get it. He triggers me, too. 😉

        • TS

          @AJ

          I understand. 🙂

          WAPO updated the article too after the initial publishing with more data links and a clarification from SMART/DOJ with this:

          [Update: After this fact check published, the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking at the Department of Justice sent information that clarify Alito’s claim. The office noted that sex offenders have markedly different recidivism rates depending on the type of sex offender. Alito’s point was that child molesters have higher rates of recidivism than certain other types of sex offenders, the office noted.

          In addition, studies other than the 1997 report cited in the Alito opinion have found sexual assault recidivism rates increase with study length, the office said. We uploaded the additional citations here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q3M0m_0hhySzmC4pqw0j2y0432O7mK780iNxclHdU3o/edit), so that readers can view all the data.]

          “This clarification is in response to this Fact Checker column, published June 21, 2017. The response is from Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) in the Department of Justice. The SMART Office provides policy guidance to states, tribes and territories on implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

          With regard to the author’s conclusion that Justice Alito’s comparison of rearrest rates of sex offenders to non-sex offenders was misleading, by definition, rearrest or recidivism can only be considered among offenders (and not the general public). Thus, the recidivism of sex offenders can be compared internally or with other non-sex offenders.

          The author asserted that Justice Alito’s statement on rearrest rates was a “misconception of sex offender recidivism.” The data actually show that his statement is true, and more recent data on sex offender recidivism confirms higher rates of recidivism for certain types of sex offenders. Further, Justice Alito’s assertion, “Repeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children,” is valid for two reasons: 1) sex offenders who target boys and girls have higher rates of recidivism than other sex offenders and 2) we as a society have a particular responsibility to protect children from sexual assault. I’ve included points of clarification below.

          1. Different types of sexual assault offenders have markedly different recidivism rates.
          In the second paragraph in The Facts section of the article, the author states, without citation, “Sex offenders have a relatively low rate of committing the same crime after being released from prison.” However, sex offender recidivism varies depending on the type of sex offender. Specifically to Justice Alito’s point, child molesters who target unrelated boys have markedly higher rates of recidivism than those who molest unrelated girls, who have higher recidivism rates than those who commit incest (note that incest is reported less than other types of sex offenses). (For background, Lester Packingham was convicted of a crime against a 14-year-old.) Specifically for rapists, a study by Harris and Hanson in 2004 found that sexual recidivism (based on new charges or convictions) was 14 percent at 5 years, 21 percent at 10 years and 24 percent at 15 years. For more on this, see Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative, Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism, Recidivism Rates: Different Types of Sex Offenders[smart.gov].

          2. Sexual assault recidivism rates increase with study length.
          In the analysis, the author referred to the 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994.” This study tracked 9,691 male sex offenders released from prison in 1994 in 15 states for three years and found that 5.3 percent of the released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime within the three years.

          However, other studies have had consistently higher findings of recidivism. A study by Sample and Bray in 2003 examined the recidivism rates of 146,918 offenders arrested in Illinois in 1990. At one, three and five years, the rearrest rates for sex crimes were 2.2, 4.8 and 6.5 percent, respectively.

          In a meta-analysis of 10 studies, Harris and Hanson in 2004 found that sex offenders’ recidivism rates for sex crimes at 5, 10 and 15 years after arrest were 14, 20 and 24 percent, respectively. This analysis also found that the 15-year sexual recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders was nearly twice that of first-time sex offenders (37 vs. 19 percent). For more on this, see Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative, Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism, Recidivism Research Findings[smart.gov]. (Also, the shorter research briefs for SOMAPI are here[smart.gov]; they are more digestible than the chapters themselves.)

        • AlexO

          @TS, so how do the recidivism rates actually increase with time when the Static-99 states that for every 5 years of being offense free the risk score actually halves?

        • TS

          @AlexO

          That info is straight from SMART/DOJ, not me. I did not write any of it, but copied and pasted it directly from the Google Docs link they posted.

          Your question is a good one but until they expose the background calculus, it is odd to state such data.

          Recommend you read Chapter 5 of their website.

        • Apples and Oranges

          Your comment is awaiting moderation.
          “@TS, so how do the recidivism rates actually increase with time when the Static-99 states that for every 5 years of being offense free the risk score actually halves?”

          Risk of recidivism at a given time is not the same thing as recidivism rate over many years. After 5 years, risk is halved. Risk goes down over time offense-free. Recidivism rates measuring recidivism over many years can only increase when the time measured increases. The point is that even though the recidivism rates increase over time as expected, the rate which these recidivism rates increase slow down as time increases.

          Risk at 17 years is the same as that of someone in the general public. Recidivism rate would be like 20- something percent according to the first study here. Yet as seen in that study as well as later studies, that recidivism would be highly skewed towards the beginning few years after release from custody. The trends in the studies do not conflict with each other. After 17 years, risk is at that of a non-offender. This stat has been accepted in cases I have seen thus far. It didn’t come from a vacuum. The controlling mechanism of this accepted stat is the lessening of risk over time, where the reduction of risk score over time is such that after 5 years, risk score is halved.

          If someone has a risk score of 10, then after 5 years, risk score is 5, after 10 years risk score is 2.5, after 15 years , it’s a 1.25. Then, after 2 more years, its reduced to somewhere around 1 if interpolation is done in accordance with the “halving risk every 5 year” rule so that after 2 more years from year 15 to year 17, risk is down to that of someone in general population.

    • AJ

      I suspect little of this is news to CA RCs, particularly @mike r, @NPS, and @New Person, but just in case…

      The 2016 document “CASOMB Letter Regarding Residence Restrictions (AB 201)” (http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB_LetterRegarding%20AB201_1-7-16.pdf) from CASOMB’s website sheds some interesting, and perhaps helpful, light on what the Legislature and AG know. Also, page 2, paragraph 3, of the document “CASOMB Letter Regarding Chelsea’s Law (AB 1844)” (http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB%20Letter%20to%20Assemblyman%20Fletcher.pdf) shows they were aware in 2010 that, “[n]ot all sex offenders pose the same risk over their lifetimes,” yet they continued to impose lifetime registration to all. While a civil law must not be a “perfect fit”, actively and knowingly being overinclusive seems suspicious.

      The 2008 document, “An Assessment of Current Management Practices of Adult Sex Offenders in California” (http://casomb.org/docs/SOMBReport1.pdf) makes an interesting statement. From page 53:
      *****
      Knowing that approximately 90% of sex offenses are committed by individuals who had not previously been identified by the criminal justice system as “sex offenders” makes it clear that a focus on California’s registered sex offenders is tremendously important but is not, of itself, sufficient to assure increased community safety from sexual violence.
      *****
      That is quite a telling statement. Beyond the fact that registration only catches 10% of those sexually offending, the method the State is using “is not, of itself, sufficient to assure increased community safety.” If it doesn’t increase the stated legislative goal, how can there be a rational basis for it?

      On page 56, they mention a loophole for anyone not wanting to be in the ML database:
      *****
      There are 2,879 sex offenders registered as transient (homeless), and therefore are not listed on any Megan’s Law website because they do not have a residence address. (Since sex offenders are placed on the Megan’s Law website with the street address being the controlling variable, not having an address eliminates them from the database.)
      *****
      You have to register more frequently, but for some the trade-off may be worthwhile as long as there’s no GPS involved.

      Page 181 presents what, to me, appears to be a losing proposition for the State:
      *****
      “Active” Notification
      Megan’s Law also authorizes specified law enforcement entities to notify their communities about the presence of any person required to register as a sex offender “by whatever means the entity deems appropriate, when necessary to ensure the public safety based upon information available to the entity concerning that specific [offender].” (Pen. Code, § 290.45, subd. (a)(1).) Active notification may be done only if the local law enforcement agency has determined that the registrant poses a current risk to the public.
      *****
      CA allows for active notification–something specifically mentioned in Smith as a part of its punitive considerations–if the RC is deemed a current public safety risk. But this somewhat flies in the face of the legislature finding RCs in general and as a class to be a public safety risk. You can’t have it both ways. Though absence of active notification does not, by rule, mean the RC is not a risk, it does point to three possibilities: 1) LE has not (yet) determined the RC is a current risk to the public (the RC could be, but has yet to be “found out”), 2) LE has determined the RC is not a current risk, or 3) LE is exposing the public to a determined current risk, but is failing to advise/warn the public. Page 163 says, “[t]he law contemplates that, as of January 1, 2013, each person required to register as a sex offender in California will have been assessed for his or her risk of reoffending. (Pen. Code, § 290.06.) This information will be available to probation offices, courts, correctional facilities, and law enforcement.” So if they’ve completed the risk assessments as expected–or even a few years late–this pretty much removes possibility 1) above, leaving only 2) and 3) as possible outcomes. Neither is favorable to the State.

      • AlexO

        @AJ, so even though a person has a home and stays and sleeps their every night they can choose to register transient? That doesn’t seem right. I was under the impression that if you spent 5+ consecutive nights someplace, that was your address. Though I can’t begin to tell you where that might be written and might have just been my PO.

        Though I did register as such for nearly 3 months when I was living in a hotel due to losing my apartment explicitly because of my registration, my pic was still up but with no address.

        • CR

          I didn’t interpret what AJ said that way. I took it that you’d have to actually be transient (homeless) in order to register that way. Some registrants may prefer that over having a permanent address in order to stay off the registry.

          I wonder if you had an RV and moved it from one spot to another every few days if you could register as transient? Get a Post Office box to have all your mail sent to. It might even be possible to have a permanent job and live that way…

        • AlexO

          @CR, That would probably work. The three months I was in a hotel room I was stationary in that one location and had a PO Box for my mail. But both my PO as well as the local PD when registering kept me as transient. Maybe the logic is that a permanent address is one where you can receive mail? I have no idea if you can actually receive mail to a hotel room. I used one of those extended stay hotels where you could pay by the month.

          There’s still the matter of me having been on the public website for that period just without the address. And the new tiered registry will be listing tiers 2 with just the postal and no address. So I’m not sure about AJ’s comment on transients being completely off the public site. Current evidence suggests otherwise.

        • AJ

          It would be a lot of work to accomplish. From People v. Brown (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59145dd2add7b049341fea76)
          *****
          Section 290.011, subdivision (g), enacted after McCleod, provides that “‘Residence’ means one or more addresses at which a person regularly resides, regardless of the number of days or nights spent there, such as a shelter or structure that can be located by a street address, including, but not limited to, houses, apartment buildings, motels, hotels, homeless shelters, and recreational and other vehicles.”
          *****
          So the key element is that the place–be it house, tent, RV, or whatever–is able to be located by a street address. A sufficiently driven person could accomplish it, I believe, but had better be on his/her toes. The Crooks in Blue would be waiting to pounce on any slip up.

          @AlexO: From this reading, you were in technical violation during your stint.

        • AlexO

          @AJ, I’m not surprised. As I said, both my PO and local PD knew this. My PO had my address at the hotel and I explicitly told the PD the situation. Both said transient was how I had to do it.

          It wouldn’t have been the first time LE made a mistake that would’ve cost me, not them. At one point they had me flagged as failure to register because someone couldn’t properly math my incarceration time.

        • Lake County

          Well if an address is an issue, there’s a solution they could use. It’s a newer thing called a 3 word address. Every location on earth already has a 3 word address. It is being used in some countries where people live in shacks without addresses. It’s starting to be used by mail/package delivery companies to get deliveries to those people. It’s also starting to be used for rescue situations because it pinpoints a persons exact location within 2-3 feet instead of a street address that can be a very large area. It’s a very interesting concept. If any of you are homeless and your P.O. insists that you provide an address, it would be very easy to use a 3 word address. You can learn more at: http://what3words.com/

  20. mike r

    Man that is some righteous data you guys are throwing around. We need complete list of citations and actual absolute recidivism rates from back in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. I need an entire list with citation connected to the data. If I could compile a list of 100 studies all showing the same thing there is no way that they could refute the results. I think I already have it covered but the bigger the list from before and after implementation would be solid. I am definitely putting every cited report in a single doc and saving it to go through. Good work guys…

  21. mike r

    Hey this is a major equal protection issue AJ, I never even contemplated it before, nice…..That is a solid argument…Hell Janice should be jumping on that. There isn’t even any real way to fix it either. I am racking my brain and there is NO way to fix it. Either figure out how you are going to put them people on there with a frigging address or take me off. It is that simple. Slam dunk and easy pickings for Janice et al. There are so many arguments and violations going it is almost inconceivable. Damn it AJ here is my equal protection argument that I have been searching for…..nice…I don’t know how I can bring that in to play since it isn’t in my complaint unless I amend which at this point isn’t practicable really. I don’t know I will have to wait and see how the district court rules on the partial motion to dismiss. I have to fully digest this I am sure I can get it in there. I might be able to do it somehow with the following I will have to think about that.

    Fed. R. Civ.72. (b)(3) states that “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” (emphasize added). Plaintiff thus submits these detailed objections to preserve matters for this Court’s review as well as for subsequent review. Plaintiff further request the District Court Judge “receive further evidence” from Plaintiff’s Opposition EXHIBITS A-E and EXHIBITS F-M of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for this Court’s review as well as for subsequent review.

    “There are 2,879 sex offenders registered as transient (homeless), and therefore are not listed on any Megan’s Law website because they do not have a residence address. (Since sex offenders are placed on the Megan’s Law website with the street address being the controlling variable, not having an address eliminates them from the database.)”

  22. mike r

    Yeah, that is way out how something called a loophole is actually a major equal protection issue. Who would of thought.
    It is as simple as >>

    While all laws require that they are applied equally that is not the case with sex offender registration at all.

    An Assessment of Current Management Practices of Adult Sex Offenders in California (CASOMB)
    “There are 2,879 sex offenders registered as transient (homeless), and therefore are not listed on any Megan’s Law website because they do not have a residence address. (Since sex offenders are placed on the Megan’s Law website with the street address being the controlling variable, not having an address eliminates them from the database.)” , “” (http://casomb.org/docs/SOMBReport1.pdf) page 53.

    Plaintiff suffers all the disabilities of sex offender registration including most importantly the fact that his private current photo and address being on the Megan’s Law Internet Website simply because Plaintiff maintains a residence with an address while other similarly situated individuals that maintain homelessness avoid all the disabilities of having their personal private information on the Internet website. This is a major flaw in the systems that has no no way of being rectified besides removing everyone from the Internet site. You can not severe any part of the Internet provisions from the statutes and you cannot force the homeless to provide an address they do not have and have no ability to acquire. This has been called a loophole for these homeless offenders when in actuality it is a deep flaw in the unconstitutional regime. Sooner or later an unconstitutional statute will not survive and this very well maybe a historic turning point. There is NO solution to this issue short of removing every registered person from the online Megan’s Law Website period or to provide every homeless sex offender with a residence and reportable address.

    This has really piqued my interest now.

    • CR

      Removing everyone from the list is not the only way the state has to address an equal protection issue, if the courts find that it is one. They can just change the “controlling variable” so that it is no longer a residence address.

      All the state has to do is list transient offenders with an approximate address. For example, the registering authority could simply list them as “Transient, last registered in San Jose”.

      I believe this is the practice in a number of other states. Wouldn’t that be a more likely solution for CA than removing everyone from the list?

  23. mike r

    I know there has to be a loophole in the rules where a Plaintiff can add evidence that was not known to him at the time of filing. It just makes sense and the rules seem to be pretty sensible at least those that I have encountered. I shouldn’t have to amend my entire complaint in situations like that.

    • New Person

      Didn’t the AG change the thought behind the registry being “legal involuntary servitude” to now contesting if it is involuntary servitude?

      That’s worse than adding new evidence b/c the AG challenge to dismiss just changed completely, 180 degrees. The AG wants it both ways. Maybe you should call it out and stick to the “legal involuntary servitude” bit b/c it’s easily shot down due to the registry initiated by a specific conviction.

  24. mike r

    still an equal protection issue. A lot of the damage is being done simply because our current address is online. Even if they posted transient status with last known address, zip, city what have you it still does not negate the fact that I am suffering at the hands of neighbors and face ridicule, shame and even violence when my family I leave my apartment whereas being homeless you can avoid all that. Even if they posted them it would be like a separate list and IDK it just seems like a serious equal protection issue to me somehow since I would be rewarded and receive major relief if I give up residence and go homeless. If I wasn’t married I would of already done it. I would definitely rather live in the back of my truck or in a camper and avoid publication. I really do not see any way of balancing this out. Maybe I am wrong but I do not think so. I really believe this might be a major issue.

  25. mike r

    That’s excellent thinking New Person. Throw it out there in a legal argument as best you can and I may use it. I am hammering this out night and day since this has to be filed this coming week. Anything anyone can come up with would be great.

    • New Person

      @ Mike R,

      You wrote this:
      ==========
      Finally, Plaintiff objects MFR assertion, page 17 at 3-4, that Megan’s Law’s et seq. “compelled actions is not “service.”” Plaintiff contends the compelled actions are “service” and that “service” is synonymous with duty; “jury duty” is synonymous with “jury service” and as outlined on the Megan’s Law Website, it is a “duty to register.” Plaintiff has once again made a colorful argument of involuntary servitude in his Compliant and Opposition and the claim must survive a Motion to Dismiss.
      ==========
      (then maybe add this)

      Please note that the initial Motion to Dismiss the involuntary servitude claim, the DA stated that the registry was legal involuntary servitude akin to Jury Duty, Military Service, Tax Reporting, and Road Work. May the court acknowledge the DA’s Motion to Dismiss the involuntary servitude claim was to state the registry was legal involuntary servitude. Now, in this Motion to Dismiss involuntary servitude claim, the DA is stating the registry is not involuntary servitude at all.

      Which claim is the plaintiff supposed to refute when the DA has stated two opposite extremes? Or does the plaintiff accept both Motion to Dismiss responses that contradict each other, thereby negating the Motion to Dismiss and proceed forward with the involuntary servitude claim. The registry cannot be both legal involuntary servitude and not involuntary servitude at all, especially if the plaintiff is to respond accordingly.

      —–
      Mike R, I’m sorry if this isn’t good enough. I think AJ or Chris might be better with adding cases and such to support this. I’m a big idea guy that’s lacking the small details to make the big idea a checkmate thing. I wish I knew how to look for case laws pertinent to all the issues, but google does not like me.

      All I know is that you’re a layman just like me and the Judge is protecting like one, when the Judge got angry with the DA for filing two Motions to Dismiss in order to scare you off since you’re a single, puny entity. Here, you actually responded to a stance against your involuntary servitude claim, but you didn’t denote that it was a “different stance” against your involuntary servitude claim.

      I’m not sure if there’s any legal precedence for completely changing the stance between the Motions to Dismiss, but you should identify that the DA legally called the involuntary servitude claim as “legal involuntary servitude” initially.

      Since you’re working pro per, I find changing the stance on the Motion to Dismiss and having limited time to respond is the DA employing a tactic to run you thin on time to find necessary resources. Again, notice how you did not identify the DA changed the stance initially.

      So I’d like you to make sure the Judge does see this egregious flip-flop that you were lead to believe the AG’s stance was that the registry IS legal involuntary servitude. But you obviously beat that stance. Why? Because now the Motion to Dismiss has become the registry is not really servitude, and thus not involuntary servitude even though it is compelled.

      But it’s funny to me b/c a “compelled action” is you doing something you don’t want to do. But who’s making you do it?

      See, there are cases where you are compelled to do things by the court, but it’s part of your punishment to the state. Here, you are compelled to do things by the court (remember, your registration card says you are owned by the State of California), but it’s not punishment. And as you already denoted, Megan’s Law states “it’s your duty to register” and Jury Duty are both use “duty”. Also, the DA stated in the first Motion to Dismiss that the registry is a “legal form of involuntary servitude such as jury duty”.

      • AJ

        @New Person:
        Where in the CA AG’s Motion to Dismiss do you see the phrase “legal involuntary servitude”? I only see reference to civic duty, which is a wholly different concept.

        IMO, the fatal flaw of the AG’s argument is comparing RC laws to civic duty. Nowhere has any court–nor the AG himself–ever called RC laws civic duties.

        • New Person

          Was that what it was? Civic Duty? The AG alluding that the registry is akin to Jury Duty, military service, tax reporting, and road work was civic duty?

          I thought the AG implied there are situations of involuntary servitude that was legal such as civic duties. (I don’t have Mike’s webpage bookmarked – I should have).

          So the AG did state that the Registry is civic duty in the first MTD. Now the AG is questioning the validity of servitude. But the AG already stated it’s civic duty.

          Either way, the AG established the registry was service in the first MTD.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Can “civic duties” ever be borne entirely by one narrowly-defined class of citizens? I can think of no other instance of that. Can “civic duties” work to the very great disadvantage of that class relative to all other citizens? In this case, “civic duties” entails that those so-burdened must work against their own self-interest to the benefit of other citizens who carry no such burden. So, in our case, “civic duties” means our forced participation in the undermining of our own status as citizens. That’s like no “civic duty” I’ve ever heard of. All others are understood to accrue to the shared benefits of citizenship and clearly extends the rights of citizenship to those so-obligated.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          AJ, is there not a case to be made that civic duties come with them “consideration” that benefits those who must carry them out? Legal contracts between two parties can be invalidated on the basis of “lack of consideration.” For example, a company that forces an employee to sign a non-disclosure agreement and an indemnification of the company in any employment dispute but then fires that employee the day after he signs that contract (this actually happened to me) will find that its contract is invalidated for lack of consideration, which is to say that he benefited in no way from that contract.

        • AJ

          @New Person:
          mike r’s site: http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
          The AG sidled up to the civic duties in comparison, but never outright called registration that–surprise, surprise–because it isn’t, and knows that. With civic duties, there is also a civic benefit for *all* of society, including the person carrying out the duty. Where is the benefit to the RC in this duty, especially since RCs are banned from using the product resulting from said duty? A RC cannot check his/her own information to ensure it’s correct or complete.

          Let’s take a look at each of those civic duties one by one:
          1. Jury duty. This is an essential element in order to accomplish the rights granted in Article III, Section 2, Clause 3; and Amendments VI and VII.
          2. Military Service. This is a Congressional power granted by Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 & 13.
          3. Tax Reporting. This is a duty arising from citizens’ compliance with Congressional power established by Amendment XVI.
          4. Road Work. This is a civic duty almost as old as humanity itself, going back to the Romans. In truth, it’s simply a manner of assessment, requiring sweat instead of coin–though in the example cited by the AG, one could provide coin or someone else’s sweat–to avoid providing one’s sweat.
          *****
          @David Kennerly:
          Re: civic duties. Sure. Only those registered to vote or with Driver Licenses (depending on how one’s State finds jurors) may serve on a jury. Only males were forced into military service. Only property owners were required to do roadwork. Only those with income, versus assets, must comply with tax reporting.

          My problem with all these versus registration is that every single one is escapable in some manner or at some point. Jury? Don’t vote or drive. Military? Eventually they let you out. Road work? Don’t own property, instead relying on renting. Taxes? Assets over income, or maintain income below the reporting threshold.

          Re: consideration. I have no idea on that one!

  26. AJ

    Can someone explain to me why CASOMB’s legal framework resides within the Penal Code? Specifically, it is in PART 3. OF IMPRISONMENT AND THE DEATH PENALTY [2000 – 10007] | TITLE 9. PUNISHMENT OPTIONS [8000 – 9003] | CHAPTER 3. Sex Offender Management Board [9000 – 9003]

    Why would it be placed in “Punishment Options” if regulatory? Also, take a look at the definitions of “Management” and “Supervision” in Section 9000.

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=9.&part=3.&chapter=3.&article

    • Joe

      Same reason that (regulatory) PC 290 (CHAPTER 5.5. Sex Offenders [290 – 294]) can be found in

      PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 – 680] –

      TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS [261 – 368.5] ?

      Not sure. Also not quite sure how, more specific to your question, “Management” and “Supervision” [900(d),(e)] by law enforcement is anything but indicative of parole or probation, i.e. punishment.

      If reality did not teach us different, there is no way that, by their own language, they could get away with this “regulatory” BS.

      • AJ

        @Joe:
        PC 290, et seq., has a “dual purpose” of both civil and criminal statutes, so the courts, including SCOTUS, are fine with it residing in the Penal Code. CASOMB, on the other hand, has no business whatsoever being associated with Penal Code, unless….

        My comment to take a look at those two definitions was to draw attention what they say. Sure do sound like parole/probation!

        • Joe

          PC 290 having any kind of criminal purpose is news to me. Clearly you know more than I do – especially if SCOTUS said so.

    • New Person

      AJ,

      Good find.

      =====
      (d) “Management” means a comprehensive and collaborative team approach to regulating, controlling, monitoring, and otherwise influencing the current and, insofar as is possible, the future behavior of sex offenders who are living in the community and are directly under the authority of the criminal justice system or of another governmental agency performing similar functions. The overriding purpose of management of sex offenders is to enhance community safety by preventing future sexual victimization. Management includes supervision and specialized treatment as well as a variety of other interventions.
      =====

      This reads that all registrants are still under custody with respect to “or of another governmental agency performing similar functions,” after completing their punishment custody.

      What I find contrarian is the following sentence, “The overriding purpose of management of sex offenders is to enhance community safety by preventing future sexual victimization.”

      CASOMB has recorded recidivism rates below 1%. I do not think the State is complying with this statute. If under 1% re-offend, then why are the over 99% being subjected to being kept under custody still?

      But being under custody means you’re still “serving the state”. Except, you’re doing it involuntarily under penalty of law as a free citizen.

    • My Thoughts Regarding CASOMB

      Regarding CASOMB: My personal opinion is that CASOMB is an absolute fraud.

      1. The person in charge of CASOMB, DA Nancy O’Malley, took $10,000 from the Fremont Police Officer’s Union before clearing Fremont police officers in killing a pregnant teenager.

      2. Tom Tobin, who co-chairs CASOMB, is in conflict-of-interest because he is *also* CEO of Sharper Future.

      3. The remainder of CASOMB’s 17 seats (five of which are unfilled) are filled with government bureaucrats employed by CDCR, probation, police, and a “judge” who served as chief of staff of CDCR. The CASOMB seat representing criminal defense attorneys is currently vacant.

      4. Nancy O’Malley, CASOMB’s head, is absolutely disgusting. It takes a special type of person to use one’s position of power to profit from death and cover-up for police:

      https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/03/16/da-omalley-took-10k-from-fremont-police-union-before-clearing-fremont-cops-in-killing-of-pregnant-teen

      Here is what people have to say on Twitter regarding CASOMB had and DA Nancy O’Malley:

      https://twitter.com/davidminpdx/status/975758668774785025

    • Vivian

      I wouldn’t trust Casomb either. But it will be interesting to see how they will (and trust me, will) skew statistics. Would there be any way for other researchers to do a public records act request to verify figures? As for the Static 99R: How are we to trust Static validation figures when there are clear conflicts of interest between Tom Tobin, Tobin as Sharper Future CEO, and Tobin as Casomb vice chair?

      All the studies validating the Static are written by Karl Hanson or his developers, which is another clear conflict of interest. Again, are we supposed to let these clear conflicts of interests go unchecked and unchallenged?

      I just listened into the telephone conference from last week. The attorney did not seem to know much of the Static, the wide (and obvious) limitations to the Static, and the insidious dangers to having a “risk” based registry.

      “Risk” based, as many have already said, is Minority Report… no doubt. I do hope that the attorneys do more work into understanding that the Static is quite limited and extraordinarily flawed.

  27. mike r

    Very powerful AJ. Here is what I whipped up…

    The Smith panel admitted the argument of in-person reporting requirements were not in the Alaska Statute and yet the Court still held significant weight and showed concern when comparing the requirements of the ASORA to probation. Plaintiff contends the Court may place much more weight on this issue since there is onerous in-person reporting requirements, and for all the other reasons stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opposition, as well as supra and infra. The Smith Court noted “The Court of Appeals held that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release in terms of the restraint imposed. 259 F. 3d, at 987. This argument has some force, but, after due consideration, we reject it. Probation and supervised release entail a series of mandatory conditions and allow the supervising officer to seek the revocation of probation or release in case of infraction. See generally Johnson v. United States, 529 U. S. 694 (2000).” (emphasis added) Id. at 101.
    Plaintiff suffers and is obligated to an extreme “series of mandatory conditions” and “law enforcement” are the “officers who seek the revocation” of Plaintiff’s liberty and imprison him for even innocuous and innocent unintended registration (“infractions”) violations with “Significant Prison Terms” that are longer than what Plaintiff served for his triggering offense, and which are definitely much longer than from any infraction Plaintiff may have endured from probation or even from parole.
    Furthermore, the “management’ and supervision” roles are codified in the Penal Code Part 3. of Imprisonment and the Death Penalty [2000-10007], Title 9. Punishment Options [8000-9003], Chapter 3. Section 9000 et seq., besides the probative value of where this section is codified, the relevant section is 9000 (e) which states ““Supervision” means a specialized approach to the process of overseeing, insofar as authority to do so is granted to the supervising agency, all significant aspects of the lives of sex offenders who are being managed, as described in subdivision.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff remains under the direct “supervision” of the state in “all significant aspects” of Plaintiff’s life. This “supervision” along with all the onerous in-person reporting requirements, the interference in Plaintiff’s child custodial rights, the prohibitions from residing in certain areas and banned from even being present in a vast array of locations, the at home compliance checks, having to give notice every time Plaintiff visits another county or state, including 21 day advance notice if he plans to leave the country, the list goes on and on and it very well is “every significant aspect “ of Plaintiff’s life. This is undoubtedly synonymous with probation or parole and even “more” sever in many aspects.

  28. mch

    I’m curious if anybody (RSO) in California has had their felony reduced to a misdemeanor, and, if so, which county showed you the love? Would you be willing to share the process, possibly the charge? I think that the felony charge should have a corresponding misdemeanor, so please correct me, inform me and educate me.
    Thanks

    • AlexO

      @MCH, It depends on several factors. The code for a reduction filing is 17b. The qualifiers are that you must not have been sent to prison but rather granted probation (time in county jail is fine, as long as you were given probation). And the code itself has to be allowed to be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor. The codes themselves don’t specify either or, but will instead specifically say misdemeanor (this can’t be charged as a felony), felony (this can’t be charged as a misdemeanor), or not specify either (this is what you’re looking for to be a “wobbler” and what can be reduced in most cases).

      If you think you qualify, go down to your local court house and speak with the records clerk to get the paperwork for 17b. Fill out the form and set up a court date. Any information that the form requires, such as your other records, you can get these from the same clerk.

      • mch

        AlexO,
        Thanks for the feedback. I did receive only probation, no prison time, I have gotten clearance via 1203.4 and at least one charge is a wobbler, if not both. Hint, internet related, not cp, but a typical sting.

    • cool CA RC

      I had a 288c which is a “Wobbler” (is a crime that can either be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. )
      After a year after I finish my probation I was able to get it down to misdemeanor.

      • Mr. D

        @cool CA RC – I would encourage you to file for an expungement 1203.4 I was able to get mine completely dismissed and it’s made things much easier for me

        • cool CA RC

          okay thanks

        • cool CA RC

          with a 288(c) ?

        • RC CA cool

          Mr D.
          Actually, It doesn’t look like it
          (b) Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) …

  29. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven LIfe

    AJ, I’m not so sure. As a practical matter, only those registered to vote or licensed to drive are considered for jury duty but that’s because those are the easiest ways to gather the names and addresses for the jury pool. I don’t think that it says anywhere that only drivers or voters are eligible for jury duty.

    Sure, there’s the draft but then, like so many other gender-based social role-playing, it is in flux and were we to go back to actually drafting people and not just registering them for the draft, it would almost certainly have to include women. It could be no other way such is the level of gender equality expectations today.

    As for road-building, I’ve never actually been called upon to build a road despite being a homeowner. So, I assume that that is antiquated.

    I disagree on the income tax thresholds as all people are subjected to those same rules and can move up-or-down as a function of income and financial circumstances.

    But yes, I get it; there are historical examples of “civic duty” that fall selectively upon the citizenry. However, in none of those cases are those duties to be borne as a condition of debased or degraded citizenship. I think that that must be a salient distinction.

    As for “consideration” I feel sure that this must be considered within the context of civic duties as part of a social contract. As a term of legal art: “a vital element in the law of contracts, consideration is a benefit which must be bargained for between the parties, and is the essential reason for a party entering into a contract. … In a contract, one consideration (thing given) is exchanged for another consideration.” In our case, there is no consideration extended to us at all.

    • Tim Moore

      I am sure there are several instances of duties imposed on degraded citizenship status. Those citizens with German or Japanese ancestry were required to register and so be put in camps during WWII. Native Americans, who were not even given citizen status, were early on marked with restrictions and told they had to move from their lands (Cherokee trail of tears) restricted from drinking alcohol or marrying whites. I am sure there are many more examples. The common thread is that the government picks a small sample of a group who have demonstrated themselves to actually be dangerous and projects those traits onto the whole group. One can find 5% of almost any group sharing one trait and find criminal activity in that 5%. Essentially, there are 5% of registrants who repeat their crimes, but because the trait that unites them is past conviction and not skin color, nationality, gender or ethnicity, they can be treated as a degraded class. This pattern is nothing new in America. I am surprised it is has been so hard to argue against the registry. Maybe we need more ethicists and civil historians on our side, not just lawyers.

    • New Person

      ============
      But yes, I get it; there are historical examples of “civic duty” that fall selectively upon the citizenry. However, in none of those cases are those duties to be borne as a condition of debased or degraded citizenship. I think that that must be a salient distinction.
      ============

      You mean to say none of those cases are born due to a conviction. You can compel a convicted person under custody to service the state, which is constitutional, but you you cannot compel someone no longer under custody. That’s prohibited.

  30. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven LIfe

    Well, it sounds like the Austin bomber was at least correct about the sex offender registry:

    “Why we might want to consider doing away with Sex Offender Registration.

    In theory, these registries are list of every sex offender in the state, with the his house location and other pertinent facts to help people avoid exposing themselves to such people. Megan’s Lawrequires sex offenders to register and update law enforcement every time they change location.

    This is not the result. You have to really hate the guy to make him suffer for the rest of his life, even when his prison time is up. This sounds perfect for a serial rapist or pedophile, but its not such a great idea if something as trivial as public indecency or streaking can put you on the registry right alongside them.

    So you have a guy who committed a crime. Will putting him on a list make it better? wouldn’t this only make people shun him, keep him from getting a job, and making friends? Just for a crime that he may have committed over 15 years ago as a adolescent? On a side note, one fifthof all rapes are committed by a juvenile.

    And how effective is it? Even if you know about a registered sex offender in the neighborhood, what’s to stop him from doing it again? And that’s not taking into consideration that 95 percent of all cases are from someone the victim had already knew? And if he was really going to do it again, would the fact that he is on a list really going to stop him?”

    https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/mark-anthony-conditt-social-media-blog-facebook-instagram/

  31. mike r

    Look I think the following alone is enough to get past Smith here in California.

    Plaintiff’s case is “meaningfully distinguishable” as presented here, and throughout his Complaint because Plaintiff suffers, among others, statutory loss of parental and grandparental rights, plaintiff is statutorily barred from federal housing as well as barred from vast swaths of residential communities, Plaintiff is statutorily barred from employment as well as barred from vast swaths of communities which barres Plaintiff from myriad employment, Plaintiff suffers vigilante attacks (Plaintiff’s family as well) Plaintiff’s background information is statutorily barred from beyond a seven-year limit. all the negative probative effects of registration described herein and all the other violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and protected liberty interest outlined in the Compliant claims 1-9.

    • Chris F (@ Mike R and @AJ)

      Mike R, I don’t think you are getting my emails from Tuesday, so I’ll bring it up here.

      I think in your motion you are arguing the wrong direction with the retribution and deterrence section of the Martinez Mendoza factors. You should be arguing that those do occur, but you are saying that it isn’t a deterrence. If you still aren’t getting my emails, since I am getting yours, please send me another way to contact you. I want to make sure you get this before filing on Friday.

      AJ, please see if you can contact Mike R and relay this and look at that MM factor too.

      • AJ

        @Chris F:
        Done, and I’ve had no problems reaching him–must be a TX thing. 😉 I haven’t read through that portion, but will…hopefully before he sends it on its way in the next 24 hours!

        • Chris F (@ Mike R and @AJ)

          Thanks AJ!

          As it may benefit more people on here, I would like to discuss the part of Mike R’s motion that deals with the level of Scrutiny it will get, and how it should not just be Rational Basis.

          I suggest he replaces what he has with this, and place it at the end in conclusions:

          Plaintiff’s claims on the unconstitutional nature of these laws should receive an elevated level of scrutiny, and not just rational basis, since these laws apply only to a politically
          powerless and hated group defined as sex offenders, and not the general public. It is not a requirement for a group to be one of the protected classes to receive
          extra scrutiny, as that requirement only applies to laws that equally target all citizens. It is not
          possible to change these targeted laws through the traditional legislative process, such as would be the case if they applied to all citizens, and only the
          courts can force them being struck down. Though these laws should not pass even a rational basis review, Plaintiff contends that strict or at least intermediate scrutiny is warranted. In addition, the fact that many fundamental rights are affected should also require the application of strict scrutiny.

        • AJ

          @Chris F (aka “Short Timer”):
          I have yet to dive into his doc, but what you have does sound good. At minimum, one should be able to argue for the (unofficial) concept of rational basis “with bite.” Romer v. Evans is the most recent example of this, but there are a few more–scant few, sadly.

          I think your text could be helped by somehow mentioning it’s impossible for most of those affected to take care of it through the ballot box because, as felons, they cannot vote. Talk about disfavored and powerless!

        • Lake County

          AJ,
          Felons can vote in CA.

        • AJ

          @Lake County:
          Oops! Thanks for that correction. I should have looked, instead of assuming.

        • Lake County

          AJ,
          Actually most people in CA think felons can’t vote. I imagine because of this false belief, many felons don’t vote. The only felons that cannot vote in CA are those currently in prison. Those in Jail can vote also.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          And, of course, infamously, those civilly detained at Coalinga State Hospital can (at least for now) vote, too.

        • Tim Moore

          Lake County, don’t say that too loud. If they can’t take away the votes of the citizens of Coalinga Hospital, they will write a state initiative to take away the vote of all felons. I’m sure it will pass, especially in Republican districts, once people know felons can vote.

  32. mike r

    Wow that is way out on that bomber diary or what ever it was. That is all I can say is woow. He must have known somebody on the list otherwise why would a kid that age know so much about it.

  33. mike r

    Look at this people, this should be applicable to nearly anyone in CA. So if I survive thousands of people will be able to get relief. I really believe just these issues as stated are enough to break the camels back or were screwed because it will mean the state can do anything short of locking us all up or killing us. A case does not getting much stronger than what I have. I need case law on those last two issues. >>>??????????

    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.”
    Presence prohibitions also directly interferes in Plaintiff’s custodial and visitation rights by barring him from being present in many locations, i.e. schools, libraries, parks, beaches, places of worship, anywhere where “children congregate.” In addition, Plaintiff contends this phrase is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
    See also, Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (“the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”); Cameron v. Tomes, 783 F. Supp. 1511, 1525 (D. Mass. 1992) (holding that prohibiting visitation with grandchildren restricts one’s liberty).
    EEOC (US Equal Opportunity Commission) web site specifically lists government registries like the Sex Offender Registry as valid research tools to deny employment, even though the lengths of time on the registry far exceeds the time other criminal convictions can be used to deny employment. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#sdendnote24sym [visited March 20, 2018].
    Cal. Pen. Code § 290.45(a)(8). The “person at risk” exception protects employers (e.g., construction and general contracting (Plaintiff’s field of employment), and any position where Plaintiff may come in contact with the public, hospitals, senior centers, and the like) from liability if they use the Registry to evaluate the fitness of their employees or prospective employees. Additionally, the phrase “person at risk” is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
    Presence prohibitions also directly interfere in Plaintiff’s field of employment, see infra.
    See also Humphries v. Cnty. of L.A., 554 F.3d 1170, 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that government’s inclusion of Humphries on CACI altered their rights in several ways), rev’d on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 447 (2010). “holding that loss of future employment was sufficient to satisfy stigma-plus test.” id. at 1170, 1191; Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976) (clarifying that procedural due process protections apply when individual suffers stigma from state instituted reputational harm that results in loss of certain rights); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-71 (1972). See also Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 1001 (2d Cir. 1994) (stating that Valmonte’s inclusion on New York Registry statutorily barred her from working in certain professions). Plaintiff is statutorily barred from working in certain professions and he is effectively barred from his own profession.
    Plaintiff is also statutorily prohibited from Federal Housing. “The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that all Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) establish lifetime bans on the admission to the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (Tenant-Based Section 8) programs for: Sex offenders subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program.” 24 CFR 960.204; 24 CFR 982.553. 42 U.S.C. § 13663 explicitly purports to deny housing to “dangerous sex offenders,” but in fact requires Public Housing Authorities to deny eligibility to anyone listed on a state sex offender registry, many of whom cannot be considered dangerous, but are guilty of offenses that were non-violent or consensual. See, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976) (recognizing entitlement to government benefits as important private interest).
    Plaintiff is also subject to documented vigilante attacks on Plaintiff’s wife, his stepson, and Plaintiff as well (Opposition at EXHIBIT A-E). Plaintiff has fundamental privacy rights as well as a right to protect himself and his family from harm which Plaintiff cannot do because he is not only statutorily barred from owning any weapons, including even mace or other non-lethal weapons, Plaintiff’s non-disclosable current address and current photo are on a government hit list.
    See Reporting Requirements, California Penal Code 290 et seq.
    California’s seven-year background limit law prohibits background checks for convictions older than seven years. See, Civil Code § 1786.18.

    • New Person

      @Mike R,

      You see those extra restrictions you denoted for registrants must abide by? Those must be adhered to everyday or you will be punished for failing to follow those restrictions that only apply to registrants. Failure to serve the state’s restriction results in punishment to you on a daily basis. You’re compelled to follow these restrictions given to you by the State of Ca or be punished. No other set of free citizens would be punished for the same actions.

      • JesusH

        I don’t understand how anyone thinks that is ok.

        My neighbor can go to his kid’s school for Parent Conference Night and be fine. I do the same thing and it’s a crime.

        My daughter is killing it in 8th grade and there’s an Honor Roll recognition ceremony coming up in May. What am I going to do? How can I possibly attend her graduation ceremony?

        She’ll continue on to high school next year and how am I going to participate in any events then.

        I keep thinking that the registry is one of those “if it saves one kid” things. But that one kid is a theoretical thing… the kids of any RC are not theoretical at all and are definitely being hurt.

        • AlexO

          You can attend with the permission of the principle. Call the school and speak with them. We had a fair amount of guys in our group that did this and were able to do all the regular school stuff with their kids.

  34. mike r

    I am on it Chris, sorry if I haven’t got back to you but I am taking everything you state and including them. You are right on the issues you stated. I am including some of your markups ups here.

    Will the sanction’s operation promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence?

    The Smith Court noted that the State conceded that the statute might deter future crimes. Id. at 102. For the reasons stated herein California’s SORA advances all the traditional aims of punishment, incapacitation, retribution, and specific and general deterrence. Its very goal is incapacitation insofar as it seeks to keep sex offenders away from opportunities to reoffend. It is retributive in that it looks back at the offense (and nothing else) in imposing its restrictions, and it marks registrants as ones who cannot be fully admitted into the community. Further, as discussed herein, it does so in ways that relate only tenuously to legitimate, non-punitive purposes. Finally, its professed purpose is to deter recidivism (though, as discussed herein, it does not in fact appear to do so). This factor has little weight but nonetheless does support the conclusion that SORA serves the purpose of general deterrence.

    Elevated scrutiny
    Plaintiff’s claims on the unconstitutional nature of these laws should receive an elevated level of scrutiny, and not just rational basis, since these laws apply only to a politically powerless and hated group defined as sex offenders, and not the general public. It is not a requirement for a group to be one of the protected classes to receive extra scrutiny, as that requirement only applies to laws that equally target all citizens. It is not possible to change these targeted laws through the traditional legislative process, such as would be the case if they applied to all citizens, and only the courts can force them being struck down. Though these laws should not pass even a rational basis review, Plaintiff contends that strict, or at least intermediate scrutiny is warranted.

    Is the behavior to which the sanction applies already a crime?
    Plaintiff will rely on the language and deduction of Alaska’s Supreme Court in Doe v. Alaska for this factor since in this aspect of California’s Megan’s Law is identical, “As the state concedes, ASORA applies only to those “convicted” of specified offenses.122  Defendants charged with sex offenses but who plead out to non-sex offenses such as coercion or simple assault do not have to register even though they may have engaged in the same conduct as individuals who do have to register.123  Likewise, even convicted defendants whose convictions are overturned for reasons other than insufficiency of evidence of guilt do not have to register despite having engaged in the same conduct.124  An adult who commits sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree by engaging in sexual penetration with a person under thirteen years of age,125 but whose conviction is overturned due to an illegal search, does not have to register.   Finally, ASORA does not require registration for those charged with sex offenses but acquitted, even though they may have engaged in the same conduct as convicted sex offenders and might even be found civilly liable under a lesser standard of proof.” Ibid.
    “In other words, ASORA fundamentally and invariably requires a judgment of guilt based on either a plea or proof under the criminal standard.   It is therefore the determination of guilt of a sex offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or per a knowing plea), not merely the fact of the conduct and potential for recidivism, that triggers the registration requirement.   Because it is the criminal conviction, and only the criminal conviction, that triggers obligations under ASORA, we conclude that this factor supports the conclusion that ASORA is punitive in effect.” Ibid.
    As was the case in Alaska, California’s SORA applies only to those not acquitted. Any finding or plea of guilt, at any phase of a trial, triggers SORA requirements. Even an individual found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (“NGRI”) is subject to SORA. A NGRI individual essentially has incarceration “held in abeyance” until either completing a commitment term equal to the maximum length of time possible in criminal sentencing, or until found sane, at which point s/he is transferred to California Department of Corrections and “rehabilitation.”(CDCR) for incarceration for the remainder of that term. This factor supports the conclusion that California’s SORA is punitive in effect.

  35. mike r

    Last day before filing and I think the Judge is going to have a hard time dismissing. I guess we’ll see.

  36. mike r

    Man I think I should have an intro or background statement. I watched that video with my Magistrate judge stating that she hates receiving briefs that don’t give any background details since the court is probably either not familiar with the case r has so many that they cannot possibly remember every case that went before them.

  37. mike r

    I guess I can just throw in something like the following.

    Background
    Now before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations (MFR) and herein Plaintiff’s Objection to the MFR. Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on September 5, 2017 and is directly challenging the constitutionality of California’s Sex Offender Registration (SORA) statutes. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and after Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss had been fully briefed with all parties present in the hearing in front of the Magistrate Judge on February 14, 2018 Plaintiff timely filed his objections herein to the MFR assertions.

  38. mike r

    Also the AG stipulation only extends time until April 25 for parties to hold the meet and confer conference so I guess the AG thinks the district judge will rule that quickly on the Motion to Dismiss. Hm, sure seems fast.

  39. AJ

    I’m not sure if this has been posted before or elsewhere, but here’s a link to the Oral Arguments for People v. Pepitone before the IL SC. This case is about IL law that prohibits RCs with offenses against minors from ever being in a park, for any reason (i.e. punishing innocent conduct). The audio runs just over 50 minutes. Neither attorney sounds that sharp to me, and I got zero feel for how the court may rule.

    http://multimedia.illinois.gov/court/SupremeCourt/Audio/2018/010918_122034.mp3

  40. Tim Moore

    In 1980, the SCOTUS agreed that the Black hills had been taken illegally. They offered $102 million to the Oceti Sakowin to relinquish their claim to the land. That amount would not even cover the gold that was taken out of there let alone address the murder of the Indians’ very existence as a culture defined by its sacred spaces. What is more representation of free speech than is ones relationship with the land that holds your culture and ancestors? Would we sell Arlington to Saudi Arabia or Japan for the bright price? Good luck Oklahoma first peoples. The US has a long history of buying the original people off cheaply, or if that doesn’t work, simply making a law that allows the theft.

  41. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven LIfe

    (FRANCE) Mother convicted for killing her five newborns over six years by drowning them. She has been sentenced to eight years in prison having gotten it lowered from twelve years essentially because she shows remorse.

    I provide this to give a perspective of European v. American criminal sentencing.

    https://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/justice-proces/quintuple-infanticide-en-gironde-la-mere-condamnee-a-8-ans-de-prison_2670870.html (Linked article in French)

    • Tim Moore

      It also points out that males aren’t the only purveyors of horrific violence against children. This country has its share of women drowning their kids or leaving the bodies in dumpsters. Wonder if there are any “preventative ” laws like registries, that mark a class of people for “dangerousness”, to address this? Or is it is because it is their own children we don’t need to know? By the way, I am not wishing anymore “preventive policing”, like registries, on anyone.

    • C

      Jesus. They should have water-boarded her four times and really drowned her once.

  42. Intentionally Left-Blank

    NEWSFLASH !!

    Our lame us government is at it again !!

    CRAIGSLIST has SHUT DOWN their personals section because of : HR 1865, “FOSTA”, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.

    Although it is probably meant for sex trafficking, but making a website liable for what users post is WRONG, you cant hold a gun maker liable for shootings in FL, you cant have a double standard and be hypocritical….

    If i talk to joe blow in a conversation and say something to him, he isnt responsible for what I say… its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH !

    Our LAME US GOVERNMENT is slowly taking away things… and also the blood on its hands cause of the registry and the RSO that got killed….

    Im waiting 100% for the CIVIL WAR against our government, when it happens im all in….

    Making LAME laws, the people are getting tired of it and we are only going to put up with so much !

    here in CA I dont know if they got all of the signatures yet (I think they are close) to REPEAL the GAS TAX and registration on your car tax increase….

    people are getting tired of this SH!T… just waiting for the revolt ! 🙂
    just like the 290 that got killed in CA cause of the registry, GOVT dont wanna admit it as they have blood on their hands and if they admit it registry could go away…. its only a matter of time ! I hope I see it to be here and fight against the govt and topple them !!!! If I could leave this country I would but the passport lame crap…. I threw mine in the TRASH… right where the GOVT Belongs !!

    • Tim Moore

      I agree with you, businesses should be responsible but not liable for what they can’t always know. And, there is really no alternative means to privately held, so called public squares, at least on the Internet. The communication platforms are all held in private hands. They have to serve that need, because the only real public spaces to speak are on road easements, public parks and city halls. You have to really shout to ask for a date with someone clear across the city standing on the street corner.

    • Robin

      So let us turn this around for a minute on the govt. Would not this same concept make whom ever runs the registries liable for a RO that is attacked or killed.
      I know they would claim the attacker could have gotten the information elsewhere, but really it ultimately had to come from a registry.

    • Robin

      I still don’t see how the lawmakers and lump, let’s call them ladies of the night, those that do this because they want to, to make a buck, into trafficing. I think they should only hold trafficing when it is forced, on one to be envolved. But no they want to be able to charge the “john” with trafficing also, is there even such a thing as soliciting anymore?

      Were all those secret service guys ever charged with trafficing, with the hookers they charged to expenses, at that hotel?

  43. mike r

    Jesus I wish you would have stated that before I filed my Objections because I would have definitely included your statement in it. That is exactly right, thousands of actual children are being hurt because of these laws because of the regurgitation of the same Ol’ ” illusionary threat of harm” and to “save one illusionary child.” Oh well I think I have filed the best damn brief ever against the sex offender laws as of yet. I see a couple typos but other than that, A1. I simply cannot see how any judge whether reasonable or flat corrupt could deny my Objections. Their are to many statutorily barred fundamental rights alone to pass muster let alone all the other issues I brought forth. Check it out people it is on m my site, just click on Objections and take a look. If this gets shot down nothing will pass muster short of being murdered or actual imprisonment.
    http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
    I am extremely impressed with it !!!!
    Thank you all that helped contribute and special thanks to AJ, Chris, and New Person, you guys have been indispensable. In their court “pun intended” now, lets see how they want to play the game now. I bet the AG is going to shi***&^ her pants when she reads this.

  44. CR

    I may have to visit Kentucky later this year. After reading the Kentucky registration law, I believe that I either have 5 days to register, or no obligation to register, so long as I am not intending to move to the state permanently. This is based on my understanding of the Kentucky registration law, http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=46774

    I do not have a conviction. I have a deferred adjudication in Texas. I have a duty to register in Texas, but I don’t believe that meets the criteria of the Kentucky registration law, because I don’t have a conviction.

    Here is the subsection that I think is pertinent to me:

    (6) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, any person who
    has been convicted in a court of any state or territory, a court of the
    United States, or a similar conviction from a court of competent
    jurisdiction in any other country, or a court martial of the United States
    Armed Forces of a sex crime or criminal offense against a victim who is a
    minor and who has been notified of the duty to register by that state,
    territory, or court, or who has been committed as a sexually violent
    predator under the laws of another state, laws of a territory, or federal
    laws, or has a similar conviction from a court of competent jurisdiction in
    any other country, shall comply with the registration requirement of this
    section, including the requirements of subsection (4) of this section, and
    shall register with the appropriate local probation and parole office in the
    county of residence within five (5) working days of relocation. No
    additional notice of the duty to register shall be required of any official
    charged with a duty of enforcing the laws of this Commonwealth.

    The state of Texas has notified me of a duty to register, and I’ve done so since 1997. But I don’t have a conviction. My deferred adjudication is not a conviction, and it was in 1992.

    So I think I can visit Kentucky for as long as I like, so long as I’m not intending to reside there…

    In any case, I’ll be there for less than 5 days.

    Do any of you know anything about Kentucky registration laws, especially as they pertain to visiting registrants from other states, convicted or not?

    • someone who cares

      CR ~ If you do a search on this site for “50 States”, you will find information on all 50 state registration requirements, including visitors to that State. The information is from 2014, so I am not sure if there is a newer version. However, I see that Kentucky states that visitors have to register within 5 days, but it also adds “if the person intends to stay 14 days or 30 days per year”. It is poorly written, so maybe someone else can confirm this. Under 5 days, you should definitely be ok either way.

      • CR

        Thank you, someone. I’ll try that, but if it hasn’t been updated since 2014, it might not be reliable. As we all know, the laws that affect us change nearly every legislative session in most states.

    • AJ

      @CR:
      Have you checked KY’s SORA site? (http://kspsor.state.ky.us/Home/FAQ) Under the fourth item, “Does everyone ever convicted of a sex crime have to register in Kentucky?”, the fourth bullet says, “Required to register in another jurisdiction” compels registration in KY. Unfortunately, they don’t provide information on what statute supports the statement.

      With KRS 17.500 defining: “‘Residence’ means any place where a person sleeps. For the purposes of this
      statute, a registrant may have more than one (1) residence. A registrant is required to register each residence address”, I’m suspect anywhere you lay your head in the State of KY is a residence, even if for an hour. In this case, I think KRS 17.510 (7)(a) applies to you: required to register in another state, and changing residence.

      • CR

        AJ, yes I did find that also. Just going from that, it sounds like I would have to register. From that fourth FAQ item:

        “Required to register in another jurisdiction (state, territory, federal) or has committed an offense under the laws of another state or territory that would require registration if committed in Kentucky;”

        The actual statue says (from 17.510)

        (7) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, if a person is
        required to register under federal law or the laws of another state or
        territory, or if the person has been convicted of an offense under the laws
        of another state or territory that would require registration if committed in
        this Commonwealth, that person upon changing residence from the other
        state or territory of the United States to the Commonwealth or upon
        entering the Commonwealth for employment, to carry on a vocation, or as
        a student shall comply with the registration requirement of this section,

        It doesn’t seem like I’m changing residence if I’m just visiting the state. I still reside in Texas.

        I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like you have to be one to understand some of these laws.

        • AJ

          @CR:
          But KY defines “residence” as anywhere you sleep. So unless you plan to stay awake the entire time you’re there, you will establish a residence as far as KY’s SORA is concerned. So even someone traveling thorough on an overnight would “reside” in KY, but being under 5 days, would be exempt.

          Also, that “if committed in KY” phrase makes me wonder if a deferred adjudication in KY requires registration.

          The big question isn’t so much do you have to register, but can you de-register?

        • CR

          @AJ, if you have to register, then it is very important to know if de-registering is possible. It would affect my plans. I would not want to be stuck on some other state’s registry forever because I once “resided” in the state for a couple of days. I’m not sure how you find out such things, except by anecdote. It’s usually not mentioned in the statutes.

          If I go, I’ll be there for less than 5 days. That said, I’m not so sure that a person to whom the registration law applies is considered to be exempt from the requirement to register when they reside in the state for less than the period of time allowed for registration, unless the statute states that. I think the statute in some states do state that. Others don’t.

        • AJ

          @CR:
          One anecdotal, though fairly effective, means could be to scan through KYs roster to see if there are people there who are dead or out of state. I say dead because if a state is willing to keep them, they’re most certainly willing to keep alive-but-out-of-state people. Or, call KY and ask them…I’d opt for an administrative office over a LEA, and using a phone other than one that’s yours would be prudent, too.

  45. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “College-bound sex offenders tend to land at community college” That’s because universities often block the admission of Registrants.

    Yes, our expectations are to be downgraded in all spheres of life.

    https://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/college-bound-sex-offenders-tend-land-community-college/i4O6u4IBgh6GyUhAG8dxiK/

  46. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Sex offender says Ohio’s registry ‘destroys lives,’ should be abolished”

    Derek Logue speaks very powerfully in this video.

    https://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/sex-offender-says-ohio-registry-destroys-lives-should-abolished/ANVp5LPEWrptbGOIgR5XDJ/

  47. Robin

    In thinking about the recidivism reports that are out there, We know they are false and misleading. Just how misleading are they?

    What most of us do know is the re arrest rates are usually not sex based, but some other form of arrest/conviction.
    Are they including summary arrests/conviction in there numbers? Is not a speeding ticket, failure to stop, or any traffic offense in fact an arrest, that you are not taken into custody for. Then if you plea guilty, are found guilty pay your fine and costs it then is entered into the system as a conviction of summary offense.
    We all know they need to be more specific on a break down on the reports/studies, but it never ever should include any summary charges/convictions, right?

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      “Is not a speeding ticket, failure to stop, or any traffic offense in fact an arrest, that you are not taken into custody for.” No, those are brief detentions for the purpose of writing you a ticket for a traffic violation. It is not an arrest and it is not a criminal conviction.

      • Robin

        @ David Kennerly

        Title 46.2 VA is motor vehicle code Note it says “of this title”

        46.2-113. Violations of this title; penalties.

        It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any of the provisions of this title, or any regulation adopted pursuant to this title, or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the authority granted in § 46.2-1300. Unless otherwise stated, these violations shall constitute traffic infractions punishable by a fine of not more than that provided for a Class 4 misdemeanor under § 18.2-11.

      • Robin

        I’ve looked into it further and found summary offenses while may carry the fines of M4 are not placed in criminal records.

  48. Robin

    This was only a one year report but…it does break it down on re arrest for like crime.

    Recidivism by Offense Type of New Arrest
    Offense types of new arrests are categorize
    d differently than offense types of original charges
    , to allow us to analyze in more detail .11
    Overall, public order offenses are the most common type of
    new arrests, with 11.5% of those released to Philadelphia from PA DOC and PDP in 2015 re -arrested at least once for public order offenses. The next most common arrest type was drugs, with 8.6% of the returning citizens having such an arrest, followed by 6.5% for property offenses.
    Five percent of the group had a new arrest for a violent crime, and 1.3% were
    arrested for a sex offense within one year of release (Figure 14). Weapons arrests were the least common, with 1% incurring a charge of this type. In comparing releases from PDP and DOC, there are some differences between the two populations . The most ma
    rked differences are for public order and property offenses, where re-arrest rates for people released from local incarceration at PDP are nearly twice those for people released from state incarceration at PA DOC.

    https://beta.phila.gov/media/20180313092612/Calculating-a-Unified-Recidivism-Rate-for-Philadelphia-Final-March-2018_1.pdf

    • R M

      What’s interesting is this: even with re-arrest for another sex crime being between 0.9 and 1.4%, they also include failure to register as a sex crime. See figure 14 of the report.

      Sex Offenses:
      indecent assault, false imprisonment, rape, luring a child into an automobile, incest, failure to register as a sex offender, sexual assault, incest, indecent exposure, obscene materials, sexual abuse of children, prostitution, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory rape.

      Is failure to register considered a sex crime? Not in my book. I wonder if other technical violations are included also?
      .

      • Robin

        chart 13 total 40%…recidivisim,,but re arrests/new arrests?
        So are they saying new arrests are someone that has never been charged for a specific catagory before?
        And re-arrests are being arrested for a different crime other than your original?

      • Robin

        I think I may have it figured out. 13 is original offense type..and shows the percentage of a particular group that is arrested again for what ever. Including failure to register I bet.

        Then the breakdown of the re=arrests like if they were re arrested for a sex crime.

        SO with that in mind The one thing we see take a huge jump is the public order…hmmm Public Order Offenses:
        DUI, contempt of court, criminal contempt, failure to
        appear,
        disorderly conduct, drunkenness, false report, loitering, obstruction of justice,
        possession of firearms, sale of weapons, possessing instruments of crime
        .

      • Mr. D

        @ Cool RC – 280 8C is considered a wobbler so it can be either a felony or a misdemeanor. And you are correct that it is not normally considered eligible for expungement I believe. That being said my attorney filed for the dismissal/expungement the DA did not oppose it and the judge granted it. Sometimes it does not hurt to look outside the box a little bit. I’m not certain that our lawn enforcement agency’s or our judicial system knows what’s right or wrong as it relates to sex offender laws.

      • Robin

        @ RM

        That is exactly how they manipulate data to achieve the outcome “they want”.

    • Robin

      Here is the 2005 DOJ 5 year study. This is the one the courts/legislature are saying 60% etc. But the chart does break it down.
      They really need a new one.

      https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510_st.pdf

      Seems they don’t care if a SO doesn’t continue on that path but rather if they are arrested again for anything, mostly public order. I would bet money many are vagrant charges.

  49. ⛦⛦ NOW is the Time! ⛦⛦

    Many of us want to leave comments on news media’s websites when they carry articles or editorial/opinion pieces about Registrants. But we can’t – many media sites only have a Facebook platform to leave comments and many of us do not have Facebook accounts. So now is the time for you to write to the editors and publishers of those newspapers simply saying “I am very uncomfortable with using Facebook. Could you please provide another platform, such as Disqus, for me to leave comments on your news articles and op-ed opinion pieces??”
    No need to explain anything more – just ask them to provide a new platform so that we can begin leaving OUR responses to articles about sex offenders. (Now is the time because – with the Cambridge Analytics fiasco – Facebook is already receiving a huge amount of negative publicity for invasion of people’s privacy and lack of security.)
    It is important for us to respond to negative news articles with facts and information arguing against the Registries.

    • TS

      Try this instead:

      Will you please provide an alternate or additional platform(s), such as Disqus, for my family and me to leave comments on your news articles and op-ed pieces? I am/We are very uncomfortable using Facebook due to the privacy issues they are currently having and the selling of personal data. As someone who values their privacy and the privacy of my/our family, Facebook is no longer an appropriate method, in our opinion, for my family and me to be used for leaving comments.

      Additionally, it could appear you are condoning Facebook’s invading personal privacy and selling of data by continuing to make them the sole ability of leaving comments on your website. I don’t believe that is your intent, but it would certainly appear that way, which could impact your subscriber and advertising bases if others see and believe the same.

      Thank you for your time in addressing my concerns.

      Sincerely,

      John and Suzie Q. Public

      –Tell them why it bothers you and then hit them in the potential bank account. Send it to the Editorial Board, Editor, Publisher, and Owner to ensure maximum reading, including those who read the letters to the editors. You can’t guarantee attention will be gotten, but I’d imagine you will grab someone’s attention. Being only tied to Facebook won’t bode well for the online/newsprint media.

      Use the voice, e.g. singular or family, that best suits you also.

      • Mr. D

        @Cool – Yes with a 288c. Had it reduces to a misdemeanor after 3 years, and then dismissed two years later. The DA did not oppose and the judge approved it.

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 *