ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly MtgsJuly 14 – Phone (AUDIO),
August 11 – San Diego, September 15 – Berkeley, October 6 – West Sacramento, October 20 – Los Angeles [details]

Conference Videos Online

.Action ItemsACSOLCaliforniaGeneral NewsJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Three Opportunities in Thirty Days

We have three opportunities during the next 30 days to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up.

Our first opportunity is in Sacramento on April 24 when the Senate Public Safety Committee will consider Senate Bill 1143. If passed, that bill would require registrants convicted of an offense involving a minor to disclose their status as a registrant to potential landlords as well as to home sellers if the property is within one-quarter mile of a school or a park. The penalty for not making such a disclosure is that the landlord could break a lease or the home seller could break a home sales contract.

Registrants, family members and supporters are encouraged to join ACSOL on April 24 no later than 8:45 a.m. at the Starbucks restaurant, 1123 12th Street, across from the State Capitol. Or you can meet us outside Room 3191 in the Capitol where the hearing is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m.

Our second opportunity is in Torrance on May 8 when four defendants who brutally murdered a registrant will face a preliminary hearing. That hearing is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 4 of the Torrance Courthouse, 825 Maple Avenue. We will conduct a press conference immediately after the preliminary hearing in order to highlight the District Attorney’s refusal to properly charge the defendants as well as the dangers posed by the California Megan’s Law website.

Our third opportunity is in Sacramento on May 9 when the Assembly Elections Committee will
consider Assembly Bill 2839 that would disenfranchise hundreds of patients at Coalinga State Hospital. This bill was introduced after patients at that hospital successfully defeated a sales tax increase.

Registrants, family members and supporters are encouraged to join ACSOL on May 9 no later than 8:30 a.m. at the Starbucks restaurant, 1123 12th Street, across from the State Capitol. Or you can meet us outside Room 444 in the Capitol where the hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.

The time is NOW for you to actively participate in this worthy cause. We need YOU to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up because together we can break free of the punishment being experienced by more than 105,000 registrants and their families in the state of California.

by Janice Bellucci

Read all Janice’s Journals

Join the discussion

  1. Eric Knight

    I haven’t seen any news on the coverage of the registrant murder victim or any of his murderers since January, when the news stated that the murderers could face the death penalty. What charges are now being considered? Anything less than first degree murder, in my opinion, is considered prosecutor-based abuse, let alone cowardice, in my opinion.

    • Janice Bellucci

      You are correct. There has been very little news about the brutal murder of this registrant after the defendants were arraigned in January. I predict that will change dramatically after their preliminary hearing on May 8. So far, all four defendants are charged with murder, conspiracy, burglary and robbery. They are not charged, however, with PC 290.46 which would add 5 years to their sentence. To make matters worse, the DA’s office is describing what happened as a “home invasion”.

      • AO (AlexO)

        The DAs are cowards who don’t want to seem like they’re defending RC’s, even when it’s something this vile and brutal. I can’t think of any other reason why they wouldn’t otherwise levy such a clear charge.

  2. totally against public registry

    This should be considered as a “hate crime” besides murder in the first degree.

  3. Harry

    I am too far north to come to LA. Is there any opportunity to sent letters to the DA?

    • Gwen

      These addresses were posted within the SB1143 article under California

      Introduced by Senator Vidak.
      Capitol Office
      State Capitol, Room 3082
      Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
      Phone: (916) 651-4014
      Fax: (916) 651-4914

      Fresno Office
      2550 Mariposa Mall, Suite 2016
      Fresno, CA 93721
      Phone: (559) 264-3070

      Bakersfield Office
      1201 E. California Avenue, Suite A
      Bakersfield, CA 93307
      Phone: (661) 395-2620

      Hanford Office
      113 Court Street, Suite 205
      Hanford, CA 93230
      Phone: (559) 585-7161

  4. USA

    Very intriguing. I would love to meet the people proposing these laws? I can’t even comprehend the housing proposal. Very thoughtless and immature. Shocking. Then, I read about the voting law? I suppose you can no longer vote if your convicted? Shouldn’t we also lose citizenship and be deported as well? I can’t imagine contacting a realtor and informing them of this? Neither of these will pass. It’s disturbing to see mature politicians propose these things when we have a multitude of bigger issues here in Ca. Very, very sad. It’s borderline sickening. How do they even think of this? Best regards

    • We're Trapped

      Deportation might not be so bad, considering that the United States seems to be turning (rather quickly) into a shithole country.

      A sick part of being on the registry is that we are banned from many countries — so that limits many options should we choose to expatriate. It’s almost as if the government doesn’t want to protect our rights; yet at the same time, they are keeping us trapped in this rather disgusting country. “The Wall” being built might be intended to keep Mexicans from crossing the border; but in a few years, that very same wall might be keeping Americans from crossing into Mexico.

      The United States, in many regards, is truly a vile country. The fact that the U.S. holds 4.4 percent of the world’s population, yet houses around 22 percent of the world’s prisoners is another telling statistic. I also read that about 10 percent of Americans are labeled as “felons.”

      At the same time, our country continues to be the “Land of the Free?”

      What a joke.

      • Jonathon Merritt

        Mrs Bellucci

        A question of concern was raised to me by a fellow RSO of why Longo has never been subpoenaid to refute his article that has been the jump rope chant of those claiming that the recidivism rates of offenders are “Frightening and high” and is there any clear idea as to when Smith VS Doe will be revisited?

      • Jonathon Merritt

        There are still places that we can go to.
        Belize,Guatemala,Martinique,St Vincent,Europe,Malaysia,HongKong.
        I look on the bright side. I can’t do anything about where I can’t go.
        I am wondering about Cuba.

  5. dph

    Maybe we should have signs for outside the court asking County DA “Why NOT 290.46” ?
    Media can grab and research and make the public media aware that this was MORE Than> a ‘home invasion’…

  6. July

    I would like to know if there is someone we can contact in regards to this to comment and validate the fact that being on the registry does result in people taking unlawful actions.

  7. USA

    Well stated. I’m 21-22 years registered/expunged battery/non child/summary probation and I’m still required to register. I’m no better than anyone else, but come on! This is getting gross. I would love to travel to other countries (I know there are select places I can visit), but I was unable to visit my mother n law who later died (foreign country) and that was hurtful. Best of luck to everyone. Please stay confident!!

  8. JM

    Meet at “STARBUCKS”! I wouldn’t go to Starbucks if my life depended on it!
    No, I am not black, brown, or any other ethnic color. On October 22nd, my son, a registrant, whose offense was 15 years ago, and his son age 21, were in Starbucks working on a computer. They had purchased coffee. Without warning, they were approached by three sheriff deputies and told to leave! And never return! Our grandson even works at Starbucks, although not this one.
    When you’re a registrant, you don’t ask questions. Why is this okay? But if you happen to be black, the whole country is outraged! Well, I am outraged, but no one cares! Our son then received a letter saying that if he entered ANY Starbucks that he would be subject to arrest!

    • mk

      Arrested for what? Assuming he’s not on any supervision and he was a paying customer of the coffee shop what could they arrest him for?
      Im sorry that happened. Not right.

      • JM

        mk,
        The letter states ” Regrettably, we can no longer permit you you to visit any of our Starbuck stores effective immediately and indefinitely”. “Understand that if you return to one of our locations, you will be considered a trespasser, and we will elect to call the police to protect our stores.” This Starbucks is located in a small town in N. California. He and his family had been going to that Starbucks for 5 years. There were never any issues. In the letter they accuse him of “staring at employees”. Which is ridiculous! To be honest we are not sure if they knew his status or not, but by their actions it sure seems like it. I guess we need to know if they have the right to banish registrants from their stores.
        The problem lies in filing a complaint, when you really don’t know what your rights are as far as being a registered citizen and whether they can banish you because of your status.

        • mk

          I can see that (trespass? really?) I guess they can refuse service to anyone they wish, but hopefully there are better coffee houses to go to. I’d agree, someone may know his status (as they have nothing better to do than look at the ML website) Again, Im sorry this happened. Not right.

    • CR

      How did Starbuck’s know your son was an RC? Do they screen customers somehow (e.g., facial recognition)? Did someone there recognize him and tell the manager or a worker? Did he have previous history with Starbuck’s or with someone who worked there?

      What would he have been arrested for? Trespassing? Why would he be excluded forever from any Starbuck’s?

      • JM

        CR,
        We are not certain that they knew of his status. However, this happened after he and his fiance (of 8 years) were ending their relationship and were going to be in a custody disbute over their daughter in which she was using his status against him. They have a 5 yr. old daughter together.
        And yes, at one time a few years ago, she worked at that Starbucks. As previously stated in my above post, he had never had any issues there, and the staff were always friendly towards him.
        But, how do you respond to these injustices when you are on “the registry”?
        When this happened, he was with his son and didn’t want to cause embarrassment for his son, or draw attention to himself. They were not asked to leave by staff, there was no warning. Just three officers approached and told them they had to leave. There is no letterhead on the letter he recieved, just a website listed, (which we contacted and were never able to reach anyone) and it is not signed. At the conclusion of the letter it is just typed “Starbucks Coffee Company”
        The letter, in no way, looks formal, or like any thing professional.

        • CR

          Thanks for the response, JM.

          If it were me, I’d contact an attorney. Since three sheriff’s deputies were involved, there will be a record of who contacted them, and what the complaint was. It may not be public info that your son could get directly, but a lawyer might know what to do.

          Also, the letter seems suspicious. Starbuck’s could be contacted to determine whether it came from them and if it is legitimate. If it is not, then whoever produced it could have done something illegal, or Starbuck’s may want to go after them in civil court for falsely representing themselves.

          In your son’s situation with the custody issue, I don’t think he should do anything directly himself, as there is no way of knowing how that might come back on him. Like I said, if it were me, I’d go talk to a lawyer to see about getting to the bottom of it.

  9. mike r

    Has this bill bern discussed on here before? This is the first o have heard of it. So what the h##^^ the locals are supposed to be preempted by state law from creating residency restrictions so now they are going to do like facebook and use private parties to basically do the same thing??? And how the he#$/ do you fight this when all they have to say it is just requiring us to inform them “but” they cannot use it to deny housing or some crap when we all know for a fact that is exactly what is going to happen.

    Senate Bill 1143. If passed, that bill would require registrants convicted of an offense involving a minor to disclose their status as a registrant to potential landlords as well as to home sellers if the property is within one-quarter mile of a school or a park. The penalty for not making such a disclosure is that the landlord could break a lease or the home seller could break a home sales contract

  10. mike r

    And what the hel#$/ is the ethics committee for? Legislation I believe is supposed to be rational and the court has already ststed thrre is no rational basis to residency restrictions so how can there be a rational basis for this law? Exactly what is the stated purpose of the law? Something other than courts has to be able to put these people in check when it comes to crap like this. I guess once again it is going to take a laymen to find out how to fight this without using the courts

  11. mike r

    After glancing at the bill this is worse than I thought. I thought Meagan’s Law specifically states that they cannot use the information to determine eligibility or to refuse housing based on the information on Megan’s Law.

    This bill would authorize a seller to refuse to sell to a person based on that disclosure, or, if the disclosure is not made or is made after entry into a sales contract, to rescind the sales contract without penalty. The bill would also authorize a landlord to refuse to rent to a person based on that disclosure, or, if the disclosure is not made or is made after entry into a housing rental agreement, to cause the person to be evicted.

  12. mike r

    This bill would authorize a seller to refuse to sell to a person based on that disclosure, or, if the disclosure is not made or is made after entry into a sales contract, to rescind the sales contract without penalty. The bill would also authorize a landlord to refuse to rent to a person based on that disclosure, or, if the disclosure is not made or is made after entry into a housing rental agreement, to cause the person to be evicted.

    Screw it, hopefully this passes and enacted soon as then the court will have subject matter jurisdiction over residency restrictions in my case….We knew this would be coming and what did I tell everyone??? That RE Taylor did not address whether there was a rational basis to apply residency restrictions to non-parolees and these scumbags are jumping on the opportunity to exploit that as they do everything…..Hate to tell them but this is a state law by proxy prohibiting sex offenders from living withing a 1/4 mile of a school or park or whatever….

  13. Joe

    Some thoughts re SB 1143 (the disclosure requirement to prospective sellers / landlords)…

    1. this requirement to personally and actively publicize this information is just as compelled speech as a front door sign on Halloween is compelled speech. Hello, First Amendment!

    2. it is the explicit goal of community notification to allow “members of the public can better protect themselves and their families.” Though not stated in the actual statute, the ML web site (operated by the CA AG) states:

    California Megan’s Law Website – State of California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General: Welcome to the California Department of Justice Megan’s Law Website where California is embracing technology to enhance community safety. This website provides information on registered sex offenders pursuant to California Penal Code § 290.46 so that members of the public can better protect themselves and their families.

    It is NOT intended to allow individuals to dictate the residents of a certain residential area.

    Requiring this notification to a seller who will vacate the property and may move across the street, or across town, or to a different city, county, state or country, does NOT allow individual members of the public to “better protect themselves and their families”. For that they have the ML web site in their new location (blah).

    Requiring this notification to a landlord who may be personally residing across the street, or across town, or a in a different city, county, state or country, OR a landlord who is a corporate / legal entity does NOT allow individual members of the public to “better protect themselves and their families”. For that they have the ML web site in their current location (blah). I know, corporations are people, too.

    For members of the public to “better protect themselves and their families” every RE purchase contract / lease agreement alerts the involved parties to consult the ML web site.

    I cannot wait for the first RE agent to lose a sale / commission because a seller backed out for some reason (a better deal from a different agent!?!?!), using this loophole.

    3. this proposed change to the CA Civil Code directly invalidates / conflicts with a section of the CA Penal Code without amending said section – leaving a legal professional to scour every single section of every last one of the 29 CA Codes (Penal, Civil, Education, etc). That is simply not practical.

  14. USA

    Well, this is pretty sad. 1st, this bill will never pass! The sad part is that we have some many other issues here in Ca (ie: homelessness). Very sad. I suggest we either vote for politicians or they grow up! I think it’s a terrible idea!

  15. mike r

    Never pass USA???? How many laws on sex offenders have not passed??? NONE…..That is how many…..

  16. mike r

    A couple of them may have been shot down by the courts but they all pass except that I believe that a residency bill was actually defeated if I remember right. Regardless this is a whole different animal in that it uses landlords or property sellers to do the dirty deed thereby bypassing the courts and making it “extremely” difficult to challenge……A civil suit against whatever landlord or seller is the only way I see to challenge this law since like I stated the CA AG’s minions are not the ones enforcing it so you cannot sue the state really because the state has immunity if there is no direct connection to enforcement or any connection at all for that matter….This is bad really bad if it passes…I haven’t researched the issue but I cannot think of how or who you would sue and I am getting pretty adept at this crap… I cannot believe this hasn’t got more attention JOE considering how important it is and how many thousands of people it will affect. Each and everyone of us that lives in the 1/4 zone will have to immediately notify the landlords and sellers and what do you think is going to happen???? One little post about it and then including it with these other lame bills isn’t doing justice to how big this issue is and will be if passed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do not live in a prohibition zone but I am sure tens of thousands across the state do….And someday I wish to get out of this ghetto apt and into a house and this seriously hinders that and I cannot even bring it in court since it is landlords home sellers that according to the bill “may” use it against us. That “may” and the fact that there is no statutory penalty makes this law almost untouchable as far as my educated guess takes me…
    AJ, Chris, New Person, any read or take on the issue????

  17. bill

    We appear to be getting closer to NAZI Germany. I could have driven down the street drunk and killed someone with my car. I would have gone to state prison and released and no would be the wiser. I look at child porn on the internet and I am a convict for life. No way out I never shared any pictures never purchased any websites. At some point this is going to come to a very ugly head.

  18. USA

    Well, I’m glad to hear you guys are so positive! I suppose no one remembers the beach or park bans? Or, the recent passage of SB 3844? I might recommend contributing to this site and coming up with ideas/or plans to overcome this, rather than spread negativity! I’ve never heard of anyone getting anywhere or becoming successful living with negativity. So, I might recommend donating, emailing and offering to volunteer or even looking for ways or giving suggestions! Stay focused! Your doing exactly what they want! Don’t surrender!!

    • AJ

      @USA:
      I’ve never heard of anyone getting anywhere or becoming successful living with negativity.
      —–
      J. J. Thomson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson) did…he discovered the electron (i.e negativity inside the atom). 😀

      • mike r

        :)….How the heck did you get the smiley face AJ ??? Must of copied and pasted or something…Details man, details, you are the best at details..Anyways great point as well….

        • AJ

          @mike r:
          The smileys I know how to use on here are : with either ) ( 🙂 ), ( ( 🙁 ), or D ( 😀 ) (I used D for the one above). Others have had other emoticons I’d like to use, and some people have even been able to post stylized text. Now *that’s* what I want to learn!

  19. mike r @ Never Quit

    Look at this AJ, this statement blows there whole efficacy claim out the window. If it is not a significant deterrent then what the hel*&^^& is it good for?? They admit it does not have “sufficiently strong deterrent effect” I hope the lawyers jump on that statement….Damn and that is a registry imposing weekly reporting requirements and residency restrictions but yet t does not have a significant deterrent effect. WOW….So a less restrictive registry without those impositions must have absolutely no deterrent effect so it is therefore arbitrary..OH bet your as*&&*^ I am jumping on that in my case….Like I said I hope the lawyers are sharp enough to make that connection because I did not until just now reading the brief in the CO case….That is a big and highly relevant statement right there….They are admitting it is useless in preventing re offenses exactly what the registry was founded on. What idiots….I need to look at the ninth see if I can find a statement like that….

    “that a registry imposing weekly reporting requirements
    and a residency restriction did not have a “sufficiently strong deterrent effect to render the Oklahoma statute punitive.” Shaw, 823 F.3d at 571.”

  20. mike r @ Never Quit

    Why the ^^ hasn’t anyone jumped on this??? Maybe it is just because no one made the connection like I said or idk… but i sure as *&*^ will…Look at what smith stated:

    “As for deterrence, the Smith Court found that even though Alaska conceded that the statute “might deter future crimes,” that was no enough to find that the statute was punitive. Smith, 528 U.S. at 102.”

    Just a quick draft of my argument >>
    Can a law be based on a rational basis just because it “MAY” deter future crimes. I think not. The efficacy of the registry is the basis for the registry along with the supposedly to help LE. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that the state does not even know if the law achieves the stated legislative objective. Where was the legislative fact findings surely they show more than a “may” have the desired stated purpose to some measurable degree.

    I am running hard with this…

    • mike r @ Never Quit

      IDK maybe I am reading to much into that statement but it sure seems that the statute needs to do more than “may” deter since that is the main element of the statute….

  21. mike r

    It seems to me that the word “may” means that they do not know…..

  22. mike r

    I like the statement out of the CO brief. That brief states that it “does not” have a “sufficiently strong deterrent effect to render the Oklahoma statute punitive.” Shaw, 823 F.3d at 571.

    • CR

      The states don’t want to admit that their sex offender registration laws have any (or much) deterrent effect because that would help establish the laws as punitive. It’s the fourth factor in the Mendoza-Martinez factors. Whenever one of their registration laws, or the scheme overall, is judged to be punitive based on those factors, it violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws in the constitution and is deemed unconstitutional. So of course, they deny or minimize the deterrent effect.

      The states claim that deterrence is neither the objective nor the effect of their registration laws. They say that public safety and awareness, a clearly non-punitive rationale, is the reason for the laws.

      In my opinion, a lot of laws don’t do much to deter people from violating them, mostly due to human nature. I think most people aren’t fully aware of the consequences of violating a great many laws, and if t hey are violating them, they usually convince themselves that they’re not going to get caught. So they tend to discount the consequences when seeking to justify behavior that they know is wrong or illegal. I’m not saying everyone does that, but people who behave criminally often do.

      With sex offender laws, I think that lack of awareness and discounting of consequences may be changing. There are so many very harsh laws, there is so much publicity about them, so much opprobrium connected to the status of being a “sex offender”, and a high general awareness of the horrible consequences of being so labeled, that I suspect the deterrent effect of those laws is growing. The public itself demands these harsh laws, and legislators seek to satisfy them in order to curry favor with voters. The public sees the registration laws and presence and residence restrictions as fitting punishment!!! for “sex offenders” (whom they mostly think of as pedophiles, child molesters, and rapists), no matter how much the legislatures try to characterize them as non-punitive administrative public safety laws. That perception of and demand for punishment by the public makes it harder and harder for the state’s to claim that the sex offender laws don’t have a deterrent effect.

      I know you know all that, but I guess you were getting hung up on the “may deter” comment. From your other comments above, it seems like you got it sorted out now.

  23. mike r

    I like your premise USA on people should stay positive and get off their a&*&^ and do something but your condemnation of others does nothing to further our agenda. If you are attempting to shame people into fighting back and suggesting that people should just point out positive comments and not face the facts is wring though. Pointing out the negative effects and positing the obvious is not necessarily being negative my friend. Spreading the facts on this site may very well get people of their a^&^ if they see and understand exactly how bad a certain law or action bad the enemy is. Other than that I for once agree with you that no one should even give in or up and stay positive but also know the facts so you know where and when to apply the most pressure or act in the best way possible to ensure maximum results….
    As far as that deterrent factor, well I slept on it and although not a dispositive factor it is nonetheless a factor concerning the efficacy of the registry. Prevention is the main element of the registry and deterrence is very relevant to that efficacy. The registry has three major elements (1) provide the public with a means to protect themselves and family members, (2) provide LE with a tool to help investigate and solve sexual crimes, (3) and deterrence: all three of those elements carry equal weight to them and are part of the puzzle in an attempt to prevent recidivism. I simply have not thought about the third element until I read the CO brief where they state there is not a significant deterrent effect. I completely debunked the first two elements and this pretty much debunks the third which I never really direct stated or addressed….So lets see: The registry is useless to the public since over 90% of sexual offenses occur with someone close to the victim and stranger danger is a myth and recidivism is already, for all practical purposes, non-existent at 1% after just three years after release and decreases dramatically as time goes by; the registry is useless to LE because it is over inclusive and contains tens of thousands of individuals that pose no more of a threat to the public than a non registrant; and according to the state, the registry does not have a significant deterrent effect for first time sexual assaults or for sexual assault recidivism. That is just the final nail in the coffin is what I am suggesting.

    Hope I made sense this time around, if not please tell me I am wrong …

  24. mike r

    Okay try this and tell me how this sounds…We have to use whatever we can to debunk their assertions and what better way then by using their own words against them which is my motto and partially my main MO….

    The deterrent factor, although not a dispositive factor, is nonetheless a strong factor concerning the efficacy of the registry. Prevention is the main element of the registry and deterrence is very relevant to that efficacy. The registry has three major elements (1) provide the public with a means to protect themselves and family members, (2) provide LE with a tool to help investigate and solve sexual crimes, and (3) deterrence: all three of these elements carry equal weight and are all pieces of the puzzle in an attempt to prevent recidivism. As already demonstrated through Plaintiff’s Complaint the registry is useless to the public since over 90% of sexual offenses occur with someone close to the victim and stranger danger is a myth and recidivism is already, for all practical purposes, non-existent at 1% after just three years after release and decreases dramatically as time goes by; as already demonstrated, and even law enforcement and sex offender management boards across the country agree, the registry is useless to law enforcement because it is over inclusive and contains tens of thousands of individuals that pose no more of a threat to the public than a non-registrant; and according to the state, the registry, once again for all practical purposes, “does not have a significant deterrent effect” for first time sexual assaults, or for sexual assault recidivism. See United States v. W.B.H., 664 F.3d 848, 858 (11th Cir.2011) (concluding that a sex offender’s reporting requirements lack a sufficiently strong deterrent effect); Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1005-06 (6th Cir.2007) (stating that although the sex-offender reporting requirements had some deterrent effect, the strength of the effect was not enough to make the statute punitive); Shaw v. Patton, 823 F.3d at 571(10th Cir. 2016) (“does not have a sufficiently strong deterrent effect.”)

  25. mike r

    It only goes to reason that if the registry laws do not have a significantly strong deterrent effect for punitive purposes than it must not have a significantly strong deterrent effect for efficacy purposes. It either does deter or does not deter, you can not have it both ways…

  26. mike r

    One more and I am done on this subject….
    Furthermore, in Smith the court states that the statute “might deter future crimes,” Smith, 528 U.S. at 102. Surely, if the deterrent effect is a major element of the sex offender registration schemes, then that effect must be shown to have more than a “might deter future crimes.” This statement can only mean one thing, the states or courts have no clue if it does or does not have any deterrent effect whatsoever.

    • TS

      @mike r

      Thanks for the running dialogue on your comments here in “efficacy of deterrence”. Highly educationally enlightening and something the Millard team, IMO, needs to know.

  27. USA

    Mike, I honestly think you need counseling. I never asked what you do? You seem or come across as very defensive. Best of luck to you!

  28. mike r

    Thanks TS, I will just ignore USA he is always trying to pick an argument. The sad thing is he tries to act like he is not the one doing but the obvious insinuations are plain to see. You notice just like the politicians he has nothing to answer my question with of what exactly has he ever done for our cause. Anyways, enough useless dialog there. Check this out. This doc is another very powerful one they need to use…And that is one thing USA is right, I am very confident, not condescending or thinking I am above anybody I just do a lot of damn research and with the help of the few we have made the best dam briefs around. I have a status conference on May 16 so that doc is for discovery obviously if you read it. Lol…
    https://ufile.io/vbuxv

  29. USA

    Boy, Mike R. You sound narcistic and clearly have a control issue! Your very paranoid and clearly have difficulty with other people’s opinions! I simply noted my opinion and you seem/and are out of control! I feel for you. I guess we should all avoid making comments and just allow Mike R (aka paranoid narcistic) control everything! I’ll avoid my opinion. Your way smarter than us! Your the supreme commander Mike! No one give your opinion and no one is allowed to disagree with Mike. If you disagree, your arguing and your a bad bad person! It’s Mike’s way or no way!

  30. Roger

    AN ALTERNATIVE TO BICKERING: @USA and @mike r, are you trying to give our enemies cause to site back and laugh as they read your comments, knowing you are unknowingly doing their evil work for them, dividing us and conquering us?

    I recommend everyone STOP THE PERSONAL COMMENTS and agree to disagree on specific issues.

    Divided we fail. United We Stand.

    To strength our unity, I also recommend all of us make every effort to attend the ACSOL Conference in June, even if it is a major sacrifice (I have to take time off from my business, but it will be worth it!). Attending will give you hope in these ways:

    * To lift up our heads from the individual battle trenches we are fighting in and see the Big Picture of what registrants and their support are accomplishing.

    * To gain tons of info on specific issues we are most concerned about.

    * To network with others we have important things in common with

    * And, maybe most importantly, to not feel alone in the fight for justice.

    Sign up today by clicking at the top of this page. There are limited seats available. Yes, I know every event seems to say that, but we really ARE limited on the seating capacity, so don’t assume tickets will be available at the last minute. You won’t regret it! Bring a big notebook for all the good stuff you’ll learn!

  31. mike r

    I hear ya I will just ignore the dude and his attempts at character assassination, once again.

  32. mike r

    Regardless people all I try to do is pass along my research and get feedback so that I may win a suit which can help all of us. If I vome off as USA suggest I apologize but I feel I have to maintain that confidence level when I am fighting the most powerful gov. in the world.

  33. mike r

    And no USA I am not what you say. Your post is the perfect example of your character assassination attempt you do it often whether you realize it or not. Now I am done with that topic please move on and try to be positive and productive as you yourself have stated numerous times that you wish others to be…

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 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 *