ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Mtgs: June 15/16 Los Angeles (Conference), July 14 Phone [details]

2018 ACSOL Conference – Sign Up Now 

General News

General Comments May 2018

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

Join the discussion

  1. kari

    Hi Group,

    I am going through a deregistration study in Texas apparently Texas is interested in finding out more.
    But during the interview yesterday, the PhD student said something to me that blew my mind.

    John Walsh the very one who pushed the Adam Walsh Act 20063
    admitted he was in his 20’s and carried on a sexual relationship for a period of time.

    Here is the link

    Here is his comment in the link
    In his book Tears of Rage, Walsh openly admits being in a relationship with 16-year-old Revé when Walsh was in his early 20s and aware of the age of consent being 17 in New York.[23] Critics of Adam Walsh Act have pointed out that, had he been convicted, Walsh himself would be subject to sex offender registration under the law which he aggressively promoted.

    • Bobby

      Yes, but that is kinda old news, nothing we can do about it now, Reve, is now wife would have to bring it up to her courts that she was under age, and we know that won’t happen. She should also be brought up on child abuse or child neglect charges for leaving Adam unattended, and unsupervised at the time of his dissapperance,. If she would of did her job as a parent, Adam would be alive today. They should both be in prison.

    • Brian

      Have you contacted Lyles Arnold at Summit Counseling in Richardson Texas. He is the past chairman of the Texas S. O. Board in Texas. He might give you some insight.

    • Chris F

      Texas De-registration is a joke.

      It was just a way to make it look like there was a way off registration for those that shouldn’t be on the list, but that isn’t how it works. It’s nothing but a way for ambulance chasing lawyers to send out mass mailouts claiming that if you pay them they will help you complete the de-registration process.

      Here is the process to save 99.5% of Texas registered sex offenders from wasting money on a useless lawyer:

      You must only ever have had the one conviction.

      Then, your conviction must require longer registration under Texas than under federal guidelines. Go here and compare your conviction:

      You must have exceeded the time on the registry that the federal guidelines recommend.

      Next, you must get a sex offender treatment provider to declare that you are not a threat.

      Then you must get the Sex Offender board to agree with that.

      Then you petition your original judge to be removed, and the prosecutor will fight it. Always.

      After all that, from the statistics I have heard, only 1/3 of those that make it through all that with flying colors are actually approved by the judge to get off the registry. Most judges won’t risk their career by letting you off.

      The correct spelling of the person to contact to help through the process is Liles Arnold. Spend the money on him before a lawyer.

      • ml

        I think that you are correct Chris. So far the cost is over $25,000 and my problem is that my original judge retired. The prosecutor is fighting it. I was promised before I accepted the plea that whenever I could legally get off of the registry, they would not oppose but that is not true. I am not optimistic but since I have come this far, I will continue and and run this on out.

        • Dusty

          Ml, that is nearly the same amount I had to spend, went through all the hoops as Chris F said and in the end the JUDGE denied it, These lawyers must get together and set nearly the same fee for a hope and dream, mine was suppose to be one of the best but he dragged it out for nearly 2 years to milk me for every dime he could. Texas De-registration is a joke As Chris F said, but from what I have heard the 1/3 is still to high, I know 7 others that have tried and all were denied in the end by the Judge, the only winners were the lawyers and the Sex offender evaluation specialist who charged $2500 for his service. I also paid to have Sex offender treatment specialist testify on my behalf and tons of supporters plus 15 or so support letters from family and friends and treatment providers, scored the lowest on all test and still the Judge said NO. I hope yours turns out well but it will be just luck not some money grabbing lawyer that made it happen.

    • J

      Here is something else you may not know….Jessica Lunsford’s dad (Mark Lunsford) was found to have CP on his computer when they were investigating his older son Joshua Lunsford for a relationship with an underage girl. Just Google and You Tube it and you will find this information from major news sources. It was swept under the rug as to not tarnish the Jessica Lunsford Act. Mark Lunsford was not prosecuted for CP and his son Joshua Lunsford was never charged for his underage illegal relationship with a minor. Just saying.

    • AJ

      Here’s a link to the video with the words coming right out of the hypocrite’s own mouth:

    • Laura

      I saw an interview with John Walsh on Larry King or Bill O’Reily some years back where John admits to having a sex addiction. Sort of funny how the media doesn’t replay that over and over like they do when someone is accused or being arrested on sexual abuse/offender charges.

  2. feed up

    Does anyone know what is happening with Nevada. The Supreme Court there denied the patition against the Adam Walsh Act on April 27.

  3. David

    Of course. And I am certain Dennis Hastert voted in favor of the law as well. Filthy, lying, self-righteous hypocrites!

  4. Anonymous

    John Walsh is a sex offender. John Walsh appears stupid.

  5. David

    This reminds me of the saying “It’s not the fall that kills you – it’s the sudden stop.” Exposing himself didn’t “expose” him to prison, but failing to remind them that they had arrested him and that he had been in their custody does??

  6. Chris F (To Texans)

    To those in Texas, and I believe about 8 other states that have a similar Constitutional protection, you may find this helpful.

    Texas, in addition to ex-post facto being unconstitutional, also has any retroactive civil law as unconstitutional.

    Now, you would think that this would mean there shouldn’t be a registry enacted with retro-active penalties or retroactively placing people on the registry. Unfortunately, even the couple times someone brought this up the judges sided with the state and declared that the high rates of recidivism leaves the state no choice but to allow this retro-active civil penalty. This pretty much ignores Smith V Doe, which pretty much admitted that the registry wouldn’t be allowed if it were penal, but since its a civil remedy and the US Constitution doesn’t prevent retro civil action, it’s ok. Well, it shouldn’t be ok in Texas then since we don’t allow retro civil stuff either.

    If you, or a lawyer you know, wants to brush up on how to fight the retroactive parts of the Texas registry now that there is more ammunition to debunk the “frightening and high” lies, you will want to read this very interesting Texas Supreme court case and all the comments that lead to declaring another Texas law unconstitutional for being a retroactive civil law:


    There are tons and tons of great quotes from the judges in this one that can be used for more than just retro cases too.

    Here are a couple:

    a retroactive law is presumptively “unconstitutional without a compelling justification that does not greatly upset settled expectations”
    The judiciary thus has a superseding obligation to disapprove certain encroachments on liberty, no matter the legislative vote-count

    • AJ

      @Chris F:
      Good to see you! How’s the unburdened life treating you so far? 🙂 Congrats again and still, brother.

      • Chris F (@AJ)

        Thanks AJ!

        It is true that after a week of waiting for my local police department to process it it, I am free from the registry. I am in a different situation than most though, as my charge was not a registerable offense so they only stuck me on during the 5 years of probation.

        I’ll continue the fight against the registry and help those that I can, because I actually believe it puts kids, and my kids, in much more danger than helps.

    • Eric Knight

      Personally, I would presume that breaching a CIVIL (regulatory) law would result in CIVIL punishment options, certainly not CRIMINAL (punitive) law. This is the most obvious Constitutional breach that has been upended.

  7. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Cyber Crimes Task Force sees drastic increase in crime” Apparently Missouri has seen a spike in child porn, “enticement” (entrapment) arrests.

  8. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “‘Extremely complex’ sex offender residency restrictions are challenging to enforce” (Missouri)

    “A Columbia Missourian analysis of residency restrictions revealed sex offender laws are complicated and ever-changing, posing significant challenges for officials responsible for public safety. Experts say, however, there is no hard evidence that Missouri’s restrictions have had any effect on recidivism.”

    • Staci

      I live in Missouri and my spouse went on the registry in 2016. To make a long story short, we are going to have to move from the home we built and have lived in for nearly 20 years. I hate the registry and everything it stands for and plan to do my part to help bring it down.

  9. AJ

    FB won’t let RCs on, meanwhile they’re apparently complicit in supporting terrorism (no hyperbole):

    Good thing this article didn’t come out on April 1, or nobody would have believed it.

  10. mike r

    Well I do not know if I posted this already but here is just some of the evidence the court is going to have to deal with in my case.
    This doesn’t include witnesses, the job rejections that I now have proof of, or the fact that all the gov reports are filed as adjudicative facts the court has to take judicial notice of. Nor does it have the references to all the statutory disabilities that bar employment, housing, etc. The only reason I had to include the local and out of state ordinances and state codes were just for verification since the AG and the court seemed to need me to be specific about those ordinances and codes, so there they are…I hope someone with the dedication and knowledge about the legalese and judicial process takes these elements and files in state court because I think that the possibility of losing, if argued correctly, in the state courts is slim if at all…..
    I think the origins of the registry can be used somehow against them as well I just haven’t not really dug into it yet..

  11. Brian

    to Chris F.
    Absolutely right. The Texas deregistration double speak is crazy. Texas is not an AWA compliant state, yet, they still base the deregistration off of the federal AWA statutes. Stupid! They have no intention of letting anyone off of the registry. Sorry about misspelling Lile’s name. Ya know, he could greatly influence the process of changing this if he so desired, I believe. But, his practice is such a cash cow he probably does not want to risk losing any clients. another thing is why has no one challenged the Texas deferred adjudication statute stating that if successfully completed, like me 10yrs, it is not a conviction. thus no conviction, no registry!!!

    • Chris F (@Brian)

      It should definitely be an easier case to challenge the registry if someone received deferred and had the case dismissed and has no conviction.

      It would require all of the usual challenges that someone with a conviction would use, and perhaps some extra challenges that a good civil rights lawyer could come up with.

      Off the top of my head, Substantive Due Process, Bill of Attainder, Separation of Powers, Equal Protection (Everyone but Sex Offenders in Texas has a background check that only goes back 7 years for jobs that pay less than 75k but the registry keeps the clock running) , Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Freedom of Speech (Since SCOTUS decided Packingham and the need of Facebook and social media for sex offenders to re-integrate, and considering Texas provides Facebook with our private email addresses so they can ban us), Right to Travel (Texas feeds IML), Freedom of Association, Right to Reputation, and a few more I can’t think of right now.

    • lovewillprevail

      The Texas deferred adjudication statute…yes, you have no conviction, but TX Code of Criminal Procedures Chapter 62 is written in such a way to include those who received deferred adjudication (and no conviction) on the registry.

      But good luck fighting having to register even if no conviction as the courts defer to the legislature on just about everything…I agree it sucks, as I also have no conviction but have to register in TX.

      So now others here know that in Texas you can be on the registry even if not convicted of any crime.

    • CR

      I am another one in Texas who received deferred adjudication and no conviction on two felony charges. My court judgments are titled “ORDER OF PROBATION WITHOUT ADJUDICATION OF GUILT”. I was told when I made my plea agreement that I would be able to file to have my cases dismissed and my record expunged if I successfully completed probation. However, the option for dismissal and expungement was eliminated for people granted deferred adjudication on sex offense charges before I completed my 10 years of probation.

      We’re in a kind of limbo. We have no final adjudication of guilt, and no conviction, yet we cannot clear our record. Somewhere along the line I was told or got the impression that this limbo-like condition is equivalent to being under perpetual indictment. I don’t know if that’s legally accurate. I think it’s worse than that.

  12. LostandDevastated


    I followed your advice and got a job!

  13. mike r

    Yeah it sounds crazy everything they want you to prove in order to get off the registry down there. Sure is a complete 180 from them having to prove your guilty of a crime to you having to prove your not guilty of a future crime. Absolutely insane. That is like I heard some where that someone went to trial over something (I know incredibly vague) but after being acquitted the court still found them guilty because of the sins of others were the sins of all so therefore you can never be completely innocent, or something to that effect. I tried watching that Walsh video but it goes straight to some terror crap. I kind of wanted to see Walsh explain himself…Can not even find anything on it. What BS. The dude needs to be on the list just like everyone else. Someone needs to demand he be prosecuted. There is no longer statute of limitations in CA at least on child molestation cases so he needs to be prosecuted just as everyone else is….Course it wont happen….

  14. Concerned

    Anybody know if traveling by airplane from.california to kansas would be a problem? Will they say something when i arrive at the airport in kansas if im travelling within states?

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      You’ll be fine. There is currently no measure in place to screen domestic passengers for membership on the Registry.

    • Chris F

      I’ve never heard of domestic travel in the US being a problem for a registrant.

      You’ll just need to check the registration requirements in the state you are going to as they can be as short as 48 hours or a few weeks. Don’t forget some states, like NY and Florida will register you for life if you go there and you can’t get off it.

      • mike r

        Yeah and I imagine you would be subject to IML, and all the other restrictions or requirements around the country even if you got off in your state of residence since you would be on the registries in the other states forever as Chris states….

        • steve

          What? How would he be subject to IML traveling to Kansas? That’s wrong.

    • steve

      I have been there several times in the last few years. No issues at all.

  15. dph

    Thank you to the commentator that allows so many to voice their thoughts, opinions and responses to other’s devastating ordeals and life events.
    Thanks Janice for having this person(s) monitor the site and edit or allow vocal feelings and thoughts here !

  16. c

    Florida man tries to set motel fire to ‘barbecue all the child molesters’

  17. mike r

    Yep, more evidence for a supplemental filing….LostandDevastated good for you. Do whatever you can to pull ahead and never give up….It will not be long now before the registry either comes down or the country goes completely and irrevocably to h^^&$%….

    • LostandDevastated


      Thank you. I’ve been following your fight since last August and have been praying for both success in your case and in your studies!

  18. mike r

    I am going straight up tell the Judge, ” Your Honor the supreme court sided on the side of the registrant in the anonymous free speech rights and I am here to tell you that I would much rather have my family and I safe from verbal or physical harm than to have anonymous speech on the Internet, I would much rather have unsupervised visitation for my wife and I of our grandson, I would much rather be able for my new wife and I to have children, I would much rather be able to move where I want without the burdens imposed on me as well as without being threatened with physical violence, I would much rather be able to travel without all the burdens placed on me, I would much rather be able to work at a job and not have to worry about being fired or harassed, and I might throw a couple other I would much rather points in there. I want to make the case for the state look ridiculous and give the judge no way out without looking like some dictators Hench men that cannot think for himself….

  19. mike r

    Thank you my friend…..I am giving it my best at both LOL….I found it kind of comical that the AG was trying to set dates during finals when I am sure she knows when they are and that you cannot miss them ‘no matter what’ or you wasted the whole semester and fail your class.. Nope is not going to happen….

  20. Counting the days

    The N.Y. A.G. steps down after solid allegations of physical abuse of MULTIPLE women. The POTUS has MULTIPLE affairs. The man representing him had multiple affairs. The men who initiated horrible laws affecting over 1 million Americans( not counting families!) admitted to committing the very crimes that they fought against. Yet the vast majority of us that have been loyal to our spouses, observed the laws and ADMITTED our mistakes are the ones looked on with distain. I myself never strayed from the 3 relationships I had since the age of 21( now 55 ) and have never once come close to any level of abuse to a single living creature ( I don’t even kill spiders!). All this shows that the people who need to be judged are not people like ourselves, for we stumbled, but got back on the path. No, the people that decided that the laws don’t apply to them and continue to be immune to them. These are the scum that need to be brought to the ultimate justice.

  21. ab

    Noticed something new on the registration requirements this year in California.

    I understand if I wish to come into any school building or upon any school ground (grades K-12), I must have a lawful purpose and written permission from the school’s chief administrative officer indicating the date(s) and time(s) for which permission has been granted. (PC, 626.81)

    When did this become law and does it apply to all registrants? I don’t have kids and am years away from thinking about having any children, but for current parents and soon to be parents this requirement is likely upsetting.

    • David

      That requirement to get permission before visiting the school has been in place for quite a number of years. I know this because I have had to request permission in order to attend community meetings by the local electric utility company and various City governmet presentations. (As you might correctly guess, these type of meetings do not attract minors!) My experience so far has been that public schools have granted me permission, but a private school denied my request.

    • JesusH

      I have kids and this sucks. 626.81 even says the school must notify parents that a registrant is coming.

      How is anyone going to ask permission if it’s going to set off the notification? Can you imagine what it would do to the kid if/when word gets out that the parent is a registrant and the entire school knows?

      What is particularly galling is the asking of permission. Since when does a parent need ‘permission’ to participate in their child’s education? A child is entitled to a parent’s full support. The kid needs to be able to look to the audience and see the parent there at the school play. A child needs to see their parent talking to the teacher at the parent conference and coordinating any special help or assistance the child might need. Every child needs this, even children of registrants.

      The entire registry thing is not justice. It’s vengeance.

      • HOOKSCAR

        Well, I tried calling Janice as my son goes to a high school in the Grossmont unified school district. I know that ACSOL handled an agreement between a registrant and the district, but have no idea what it was. Hopefully Janice can interject this conversation with advice or another suit as we never signed up for this. We are parents and I would like to see my son in his plays as he is a thespian in his school. Janice, how should this be handled?

      • ab

        I double checked the forms I signed last year versus this year. The 626.81 requirement did not appear on the forms when I registered in 2017. There were 22 items to initial last year and this year there were 23. For anyone wanting to know where to look I found the new item about 626.81 on the registration forms this year listed as number 17 on the requirements first requirements page where everything has to be initialed. My first thought when catching this was why start a family if the state requires registrants to ask for written permission of the dates and times to be part of their child’s education? What a screwed up law.

        • JesusH

          Screwed up is an understatement.

          I wonder though. The communication I receive from the school about parent conferences, meetings, etc always starts with “We invite you to come for… ” Doesn’t that constitute written permission?

        • Joe


          permission must be granted by the “the chief administrative official of that school” in writing.

          The school-wide notification of presence – if so granted – to other parents must be issued for non-family members of a pupil attending the school. Does that say it may not be issued in case of family members wanting to attend, with permission? Not sure, but it is not required.

          I have pointed this out before – any other criminal, say, a person who beat a young woman black and blue (I have seen the photos) and then reoffends post-haste with a violent offense, not only needs no special permission, he is celebrated and gets to hog a primo seat courtside.

        • someone who cares

          ab ~ That’s weird. In googling that Penal Code, it says it became effective in 2014?

        • Not Really

          Douglas Kirby v. State of Indiana, 18S-CR-00079

          That case traces back to 2010, when Douglas Kirby was convicted of child solicitation and was ordered to serve 18 months on probation, which he completed.

          story continues below

          Despite his conviction, Kirby was given explicit permission to visit his son’s school to watch him participate in school activities. However, when Indiana Code section 35-42-4-1-14 went into effect in 2015, “serious sex offenders” such as Kirby who entered school property became subject to a Level 6 felony charge.

          Kirby sought post-conviction relief from the statute, which the trial court denied but the appellate court granted. Judge Cale Bradford wrote in an August opinion that the statute was an unconstitutional retroactive punishment as applied to Kirby.

          Argument in Kirby was originally scheduled for March 9 but was rescheduled for 10:30 a.m. Thursday after the state’s counsel was diagnosed with the flu, making him unable to appear in court.

      • Not Really

        Whenever I see these types of comments I think of Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson

        If I had children and was more or less banned from the school due to fear of devastating my children, I would give this a very serious look. Indeed, I have argued time and time again the mother of the child and the child should be the ones to sue.

    • JesusH

      Just noticed something, you said K-12, but 626.81 doesn’t say k-12, it just says ‘school’ (unless I missed it).

      So what’s the definition of a ‘school’? Could that possibly mean anything? Could it mean colleges and universities? If so, does that mean that I have to ask permission to visit colleges and universities with my kids when it comes time for them to consider college applications?

      My oldest is in 10th grade. This summer would be a perfect time to visit colleges and universities that he might be interested in attending. Am I (and other registrant parents) going to be discouraged from doing that as well?

      All of these restrictions are putting my kids in a huge disadvantage not just now but for life.

      A parent’s duties, responsibilities, and obligations towards their kids and their development as they grow and mature is sacrosanct. Education is a big part of that.

      The State has no right to intervene.

  22. mike r

    Shi*^* look at this people.. I think I am on the right path here. First judicial notice and now this….Hmmmm. Wonder how the AG is going to respond to this because if she doesn’t, she admits it is all true….Just a little extra surety in my case…I am pretty sure I was supposed to do this anyways and thank god I seen it today because I only had until like the 24 or 5 to do this, it states 30 days after the meet and confer on the phone and that was April 25


      I didn’t read your entire paper from your link, but this repeated sentence stood out as a error you might want to fix.

      “ [visited on April 21, 2018] Complaint p .25.
      Daniel M. Filler, Making the Case for Megan’s Law, Making the Case for Megan’s Law: A Study in Legislative”

      • mike r

        No it is supposed to be like that. One request for admitting the fact the other admitting the doc is real…That is how that works.. Thanks though….

    • lovewillprevail

      Mike, I see two typos in your linked file. #20 Line 22 …broader abduction problem1 6 Second,… And this exact same typo appears again in the second section of your proposed filing.

  23. mike r

    This is great, I am going to force her to respond….

  24. TS

    Compassion International denying donations from RCs now

  25. mike r

    well here are a couple of good quotes…
    Here, “[t]he inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which by tradition courts always have exercised: reasoned judgment…That does not mean we are free to invalidate state policy choices with which we disagree; yet neither does it permit us to shrink from the duties of our office.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 849.

    “A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

  26. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Parents should ask their baby’s permission before changing dirty nappy, sexuality expert says”

    An expert with pink hair, no less.

    • CR

      It is ironic that a sexuality expert advocates teaching children to give or withhold consent from as early an age as possible. I guess she didn’t get the memo; minors are incapable of giving consent. But what if she is right? Then there’d be no need for age of consent laws.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        Yes, the irony struck me, too. Apparently, a toddler can provide informed consent to a diaper change but nothing else. BTW, I’m getting you the citations you asked for earlier. Give me some time.

        • CR

          Thank you David. I’m in no rush, but I’m very interested in reading those studies.

    • TS

      Knock knock

      Who’s there?

      Child protective services!


      We got a call that your child’s nappy is not being changed soon enough leading to medical issues and we need to investigate to possibly refer charges of child neglect at a minimum if not outright abuse.

      Where is the pediatric community on this when a rebuttal is needed?!

      • Tim Moore

        But officer, my little guy refused to consent to the diaper change. What was I to do?

        • TS

          That’s pretty crappy of them to do that, but new nappy needing child is not able to consent since they are not of the age to do so by law or have the mental ability to do so due to lack of fully formed brain until much later on if they are female or much much much later on if they are male.

    • mike r

      Ha I just seen this on TV. What A frigging joke. Hey little joey can poppa change your little poopy diaper……Do not mean to get political because I used to be a democrat but these left wing radicals are out of their god forsaken delusional little minds……………………….

      • Tim Moore

        Go to Danielle Meitiv, the original free range kids mom, who is also a self proclaimed progressive. This attidude isn’t about political ideology , its just about being stupid.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Well, our Lenore Skenazy has to be the “original, Free-Range Mom” having preceded Danielle by some years. Danielle and her husband WERE threatened with loss of their kids though, an experience which, fortunately, Lenore did not have to endure. Politically, they are a bit different: Lenore is libertarian and Danielle pretty far left. Nevertheless, both are heroes in this nascent movement, one that needs to have a sufficiently broad political base to succeed.

        • Tim Moore

          Sorry, meant something more like authentic or well known free range mom. And we always hear about Lenore here and the message is only libertarians are against these stupid laws, so I was criticizing mike’s view that someone must be a far left loonie to have diaper changing fears. Just meant that free mom-ness or to be more inclusive free parent-ness is not owned by any political persuasion. Danielle is also a scientist and therefore it is in character she would value facts over fear like Lenore.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Tim, Sorry, I completely missed Mike’s aspersion on the left. You’re right, libertarians aren’t the only ones to speak up on behalf of our cause even if we were the first and still dominate the field 🙂 Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone could keep their respective ideologies, no matter how wrong we believe others to be and continue to work together to fight a cause upon which we can all agree is right? We should see that diversity within this effort as its source of strength and not a rent in its fabric. It’s especially important when you survey the field of our opponents and realize how broad-based they are. We need to be every bit as broad-based.

        • Tim Moore

          Yes, I think we are on the same page.

  27. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Level 3 sex offender arrested after buying child ‘love doll’ online”

    No, he didn’t buy a child a love doll (as I thought at first) but a child-love doll.

    Apparently, the company from which he bought it turned him into the police. So why sell “child love dolls” unless, of course, you’re working with the police?

    • Lake County

      It wasn’t the company that he purchased the doll from that turned him in, it was their payment provider. I do know that all these payment companies including PayPal have certain rules about what can and can’t be purchased through their payment system. This company should get a new payment system company if they’re going to sell these dolls. I don’t understand the desire for sex dolls, but they wouldn’t be making them if there wasn’t a strong enough market for them. What do you tell grandma after she accidentally opens up the wrong closet door and finds your sex doll?

      Also this guy was arrested for CP they found on his computer, not for the sex doll. He was probably still on probation and purchasing this doll would definitely raise red flags to his probation/parole officer.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        “Grandma, I’d like to introduce you to my boyfriend.”

      • Tim Moore

        What if grandma asks if she can take it to her room. That may explain a lot.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          I’ll fight her for it!

  28. AJ

    And so it “grows”: “America needs a national terrorist registry to keep us safe” (

    Once again, it’s all about keeping us safe. And it’s a tired line, as it was proposed a few years ago by a NYS Senator: This story includes this outrageous line: “It will discourage terrorists worldwide from entering New York, require those already in New York to register and be monitored,” Croci told the New York Daily News.

    Are you kidding me?!!? How many terrorists are going to bat an eye or give one bit of crap about a “terrorist registry”? That has got be one of the STUPIDEST statements a legislator has ever said.

    • New Person

      I would have to agree with that. You figure the list would eventually shrink b/c of the obvious actions a terrorist would conclude.

    • CR

      No doubt, there will be those who will be “designated” terrorists because of some criteria they met or some activity only tangentially related to terrorism, such as belonging to or donating money to certain groups. Or because they committed a criminal act that has been defined, or redefined, to be a “terrorist” act.

      Those kinds of people, most of whom are likely not truly terrorists and are probably just trying to move on with their lives, will register in order to avoid being arrested and incarcerated. So while the “terrorist registry” will actually accomplish nothing, it will be seen as a great success, and it will spawn a whole new industry to enrich the state and private interests at the “terrorist’s” expense.

      The winning formula has already been perfected with “sex offenders”, so there is no reason to think that it won’t be repeated with other classes of “monsters”.

    • The Unforgiven

      Isn’t this already in existence by another name…no fly list?

  29. Lake County

    Just in case you haven’t seen the TV ad for Eleni Kounalakis For CA Lt. Governor, Senator Kamala Harris is supporting her and saying she will “hold perpetrators of sexual misconduct accountable”. I’m not sure what she intends exactly as I cannot find any details, but we should expect she will be another politician that will want to make our lives even harder.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      If Kamala Harris is endorsing her she is sure to be bad news. Harris was a very nasty sex crimes prosecutor in S.F. and has built her reputation largely on sex offender-hating vitriole.

  30. T

    Had anyone ever read in the biblical story on what happen with Jacob’s daughter Dinah, and David’s daughter Tamar of the common denomination of being raped, and when both father’s were trying to resolve the situation wisely someone else in the family with a vigilante mentality and disagreement decided to take matters in their own hands and then attack that person who committed the crime? Jacob’s sons did this with killing almost everyone in the town called Shechem for what happened to their sister Dinah, and also David’s son Absalom had his brother Amnon killed for raping his sister Tamar.

  31. In Florida? I'm shocked! Shocked!!

    Oh, that’s right, Florida doesn’t have a child abuse registry, do they??? In fact, no State has one, do they?????

    (I only wish it had been one of the POS officers who arrested me two decades ago who was vilified on video for all the world to see!!)

    • TS

      There’s actually two in the office. See the bottom of the screen to see the second person’s head.

      Where was the school resource officer on this? Was there one?

      Have they pulled this guy off the streets and his weapons from him?

      Bet this guy will get to retire with full benefits w/in a few months at 24 years on the force.

  32. The Unforgiven

    Was just visited by two officers for the compliance check. Female who led the conversation said she was with the probation dept. (haven’t been on probation in years) and wanted me to open security door, I refused. She mentioned that this was an annual check to verify my address. I informed her that none of that is a part of 290. The male officer directed her that I was refusing to sign and they went on their merry way. Short, sweet, to the point. Quite nice if I have to be bothered by these people.

    • TS

      Did they show any ID or proof they were who they said they were?

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      You responded well. “That’s not part of 290” should be our response to these extralegal intrusions.

      • Bee

        No, these checks are not a component of PC 290. But they are part of the California Penal Code. Well, sort of.

        How do I know this? I asked. A bit ago, in the comments section on this web site was a link to this article by the Ventura County Sheriffs Department.

        As it included the contact info of a VCSD Sergeant for follow up questions (presumably for media outlets and hysterical soccer moms), this soccer mom picked up the keyboard and typed away. I have never done this, but turns out this was a stroke of luck as the good sergeant appears to be quite the expert in the field. Thanks Sgt. Clark! – should you read this.

        I asked several questions, including the cost of the operation and the legal basis for it – knowing full well it is not part of PC 290. My inquiry was answered swiftly and courteously, and pointed me to PC 13887 – 13887.4.

        and the explanation that “the legislature has expressed its intent to provide these funds in hope that these measures, along with public education, will help reduce violent sexual assaults.”.

        Oh, snap. In the very CA Penal Code. Question asked – question answered? Not so fast. I found two problems that bear further attention.

        First, the definition of those covered under PC PC 13887 – 13887.4. It applies to “habitual sexual offenders as defined in Section 667.71”

        @Unforgiven, @Jason, @Lake County – dat you?

        Second, according to PC13887.3. “The program established pursuant to this chapter ***shall*** have the following objectives: (b) To collect data to determine if the proactive law enforcement procedures adopted by the program are effective in reducing violent sexual assault offenses.” – please note the “shall” here. Same verbiage that makes it a felony to not report where one sleeps at night.

        I then went on to make a formal records request (I had no idea one could do such a thing – such fun :)) for this collected data to peruse at my leisure (per a superficial google search the VCSD has been doing these sweeps going back at least to 2010). I was informed such data was not available. Oh dear!

        Further I was informed that the operation was conducted at a cost of $4,783 (to knock on 29 doors (23 if you count the 6 registrants on parole / probation who should fall under that department) – so at a cost of ~$200 per – all in a 3.36 sq mi city – google maps says it takes about 5 minutes to drive from the west boundary to the east boundary.

        Is that the legislature’s intent? Hmmmm….

        I have a few other requests going, but not expecting any other useful info. These two issues identified above (definition of covered offender AND lack of required data collection) should, imo, be as good a basis as any for challenging these intrusions on the lives of US Citizens not on parole or probation. Should anyone be interested.

        • The Static-99R Is A Scam

          I always wondered what gave law enforcement the authority to conduct “compliance checks” when one is not under probation or parole. To my knowledge, the purpose of registration is for police surveillance and for public notification. If the police want to determine whether someone still resides in a home, they should conduct the surveillance. If they complain that they don’t have enough resources, then get more funding and see how the taxpayers feel.

          Inconvenience to police should not be at the expense of our Constitutional rights. Compliance checks are simply harassment and intimidation. The police are simply tyrants. In my opinion, cops are COWARDS who will follow any directive… no matter how unjust.

          It just makes me wonder if police were directed to send sex offenders — or even Muslims, Jews, or any other minority group — to a concentration camp, would they comply? We already see crazy things with ICE and police cooperating (whilst breaking families apart).

        • David

          @ Bee: Hmm, that Statute #13887 has been in effect since January 2003 …. 15 years. And they still have no data to determine the program’s effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness)? I will contact the California State Auditor and submit a request for information. (I know the State was conducting an audit of local Compliance Checks in 2015. I’d be curious to learn what the State’s auditors found.) Also, if all these counties are conducting complianve check of NON-habitual sexual offenders, then they are wasting taxpayer dollars and NOT following the Statute’s mandate.

        • Tim Moore

          Well, I guess since I had one offense and haven’t had another, it appears to be working perfectly. Maybe, like all these laws and in true Minority Report fashion, they simply assume you are a potential habitual offender. Now that I have been in registry land almost two decade it all makes perfect sense. I love Big Brother.

        • Lake County

          Not a habitual offender unless my 1 time crime in my entire life counts as habitual. Maybe I committed habitual crimes in a past life that I’m not aware of? I guess I’ll need to check with a psychic to find out.

        • Lake County


          (b) The proactive surveillance and arrest authorized by this chapter shall be conducted within the limits of existing statutory and constitutional law.


          Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the otherwise unlawful violation of any person’s rights under the law.

        • Bee

          @David – right you are, most likely. Please share with us here what you find out.

          For what it is worth, it was just reiterated, upon my follow up request, to me by a CA Police Department that their (publicized in the media) compliance check operation was conducted pursuant to PC 290 (which they confirmed after my inquiry and mention that I don’t see such authorization in PC 290). In all fairness, this is a small Police Department in Central CA.

          Looking forward to your findings.

          Then again, I am thinking, maybe let a sleeping dog lie. In the interest of the end game, nothing says “punishment” like a parole / probation like check – for the rest of your life – from the SWAT Team.

        • Bee

          @Lake County – yes “13887.1. (b) The proactive surveillance and arrest authorized by this chapter shall be conducted within the limits of existing statutory and constitutional law.”

          However, nothing in 13887.1. (b) or any section in the CA Penal Code authorizes such proactive surveillance of persons not considered “habitual offenders” as defined in PC 667.71.

          It is pretty easy to determine if you are a “habitual offender” under PC 667.71.

          Otherwise, this legislation authorizes “strict enforcement of registration requirements for sex offenders pursuant to Section 290”. Which is very different from “proactive surveillance and arrest of habitual sexual offenders”.

          The way I read this – if you are not a repeat offender under PC 667.71 (multiple proceedings resulting in a finding of ‘guilty’) and if there is no reasonable suspicion that you are currently not adhering to registration requirements under PC 290, you are not subject to these proactive surveillance measures.

          My opinion. YMMV.

        • TravelingMan

          @Bee. Excellent work and follow through!

    • Jason

      Visited as well today. Two probation officers… I wasn’t home, and not on probation.

      • someone who cares

        Jason ~ How did you know someone came by if you were not home? Did they leave a note, talk to the neighbors? What county are you in?

        • Jason

          I was out of the area, my roommate was home and informed me. SB County. No note, roommate said two probation officers showed up and asked if I lived there, and they’re for a compliance check.

    • Lake County

      You had the right response. I don’t allow them access either, however they still try and visit me. I’ve never had a probation officer show up since I haven’t been on probation for a very long time. It’s probably about that time of year for them to try and visit me. My car is out front, so they know I’m still here.

    • TS

      @unforgiven and Jason,

      What city or county did these happen? Physical descriptions of these people possible? Electronic record perhaps of this?

      Suspicious you two got visits such as this by those who shouldn’t be conducting such given your no longer on probation. Any details would be helpful. Safety is paramount here.

      • Tim Moore

        I got a visit by someone from the parole office. Once by a federal marshall. I was never on parole. My offense was state jurisdiction, years out of probation. It doesn’t matter. In San Diego county, they have an inter agency cooperation to do compliance checks. I believe it is called the Stazi. Same in Orange county. Maybe other counties,too. We’re all about to jump on the next kid we see, so they got to bring out the broad resources of several agencies to check if we are disobedient.

      • Jason


        My roommate was home at the time and informed me that two San Bernardino Probation Officers showed up at my door asking if I lived there, and it was a annual compliance check. Last year I was visited by a few Deputies along with Probation officers. Again, I haven’t been on Probation for years, I also live in the High Desert Area and I’m low risk.

      • David

        @ TS: The statute that Bee mentions in her comment does list of number of different agencies that can be used to comprise a County’s S.A.F.E. (compliance check) team. It includes Probation among others.

    • David

      “refusing to sign”? I only receive generic no-signature-required compliance harassment. I’ve never been asked to sign anything. (That being said, the LEOs in my area like to rattle off a long list of questions they feel I should answer. As noted: that is not a “290” requirement. Lying LEOs will make up all sorts of questions and “requirements”, if given the chance.)

    • The Unforgiven

      @ TS
      Neither officer provided ID, however, their vehicle, uniforms, and expected visit were enough. They visited me last year on the same date. I’m in high desert, San Bernardino County. I have not recorded any visit, however, been thinking of doing so.
      @ David
      Yes, the male officer said “[he is] refusing to sign”. I did not verbally state that. In my head, I was wondering how something I’m not required to sign is refusing to sign, making it sound as if it’s my fault or I’m not complying. But each visit, I’ve been asked to sign on what is just a printed copy of my Megan’s Law info, straight from the website, nothing official looking at all. Since living here, been visited twice a year. Last year was only once. So far, this year has only been once.

      To everyone else, thanks for responding. It’s nice to reach out and see everyone’s different experiences.

  33. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “LRPD officers check in on registered sex offenders”
    “But not every offender has committed the same level of crime; they’re ranked based on how severe a crime they committed.

    “Level one, two, three, four. Four being the highest, and one being the lowest,” Barnes explained, as he and his teammate drove to the homes of level three and four offenders.

    “That’s the highest level. Highest probability that there’s potential for someone to re-offend, someone we want to keep tabs on,” Barnes added.”

    So, where are they getting these “levels” from? Certainly not from the recent law which says that it’s going to take years to assign them in such a way that it benefits any Registrants by taking them off the Registry.

    • Facts should matter

      From the link:

      “It definitely makes you hold your kid tighter at night. Some days, it’s hard when you see a kid that’s the same age as your kid, that’s hurt,”

      ^So they’re actually admitting that we’re all monsters now? WTF..

  34. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    Watch Ron Book melt-down AGAIN!!!
    His interlocutor, incredibly, is part of the CBS news affiliate in Miami and does a GREAT job of taking-down the sleazy Book (sleazy Book, I like that). “You intermingle the two terms [“predators” and “offenders”], don’t you Ron?” He deserves a Pulitzer. You mean that there is actual journalism going on in local t.v. news? Wow!

    • JohnDoeNC

      Small Victories

      Well, after 18 years I am finally no longer required to register in the state of North Carolina. My petition for removal was granted two weeks ago. I am no longer under any residency or premise restrictions. I am effectively a free man. I am just waiting for my name to drop off the DPS website.


      I will ALWAYS be a registered sex offender. Why? My home state and state of conviction South Carolina has a lifetime registry. Unless the law is changed I will always be registered on the SC SOR. I left SC in 2006 and I initially moved through another state before I settled in North Carolina 10 years ago. I reported to the SC SOR and informed them I was moving out of state and where I was moving to. I then left that state and moved to NC. I had no obligation to inform SC that I subsequently moved to NC. So the information on the SC SOR is inaccurate. I have no legal obligation to notify them of my current address. They do however have access to the national registry. They were also notified of my petition for removal from the NC SOR, which is required by NC law. They most certainly have my current address in NC now if they wanted to update their registry.

      So here I am. Finally out from under the burden of the registry in NC. A judge has declared that I am no longer a danger and do not have to register. There is actually a box the judge has to check and then sign certifying I am not a danger before I can be removed.

      BUT, a state I have not lived in for 12 years still thinks I am a threat to the good citizens of SC? To what end? So the good and decent citizens of SC if they should ever travel to my neighborhood 200+ miles away can be on the lookout for a crazed, deranged, and dangerous sex offender.

      How does having me on their list living 200+ miles away keep their local communities safe? By the way the address they list me at is over 400 miles away from SC.

      I know this rant makes me look ungrateful and there are those that would love to be in my position. All I’m trying to say is it will never be over for me. Should I choose to have a Facebook account I would be denied. Should I apply for a passport I will still have the unique ID. If I want to travel internationally I will still have to give 21 days notice.

      All because a state where I no longer live will always consider me a danger, EVEN IF ANOTHER STATE DOES NOT.

      • David

        @ JohnDoeNC: “How does having me on their list living 200+ miles away keep their local communities safe?” That’s an easy one: the LEOs in SC can now cry to the legislature, “Oh help us, Lawmakers, we need more, more, more money to keep track of all these RSOs! There are tens of hundreds of thousands of them listed on our SC Registry!!” Yup, all about the money, I suspect.

      • Chicago guy

        I wonder if you can walk me through the process to get removed and the conviction u had and weather or not you were req to register for life… if thou could and answer any questions I had I’d be grateful just shoot me an email…


    • TS

      Wonder when and where the full interview will be posted. Ron is unhinged. He does not bring any facts with him to substantiate anything, like Jim does. Ron’s thinking sets the county back over 100 years if his way of thinking was acted upon.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        I think this is the full interview. I believe that which aired on-air was excerpted from this.

    • David

      @ David K: Scroll down to Bee”s comment dated May 15…..see the link to Santa Clara County Sheriff’s S.A.F.E. Program. You’ll be cynically-amused/annoyed/angered by how they co-mingle names (offender, pedophile, predator) and mix together all the stats and numbers in a way that will justify their harassment of Registrants. 😡

  35. Airport CBP Device Searches (cont.)

    The Alasaad Case moves forward. Here’s a quote and analysis: “the court was not persuaded by the government’s claim that child pornography is a form of digital contraband that justifies warrantless searches of electronic devices.”

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      Great article. Thanks! I don’t see that it anywhere exempts Registrants from such scrutiny, however. An earlier ruling holding that sex offenders are subject to such reasonable suspicion searches while others are not still stands, I believe.

      • CR

        It’s too soon for that David. The victory at this point is simply that the government’s motion to dismiss the suit has been denied. The case can move forward.

        Right now, the government maintains that reasonable suspicion is all that is required for anyone to be subjected to a search of their electronic devices. If the ultimate outcome is that reasonable suspicion is not sufficient to justify a search of a traveler’s electronic devices at the border, that will apply just as much to us as to anyone else. If CBP must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, they’ll have to obtain a warrant to conduct the search. The simple fact of being listed on a sex offender registry won’t cut it.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          CR, yes I realize that it’s not decided yet. “The simple fact of being listed on a sex offender registry won’t cut it.” I would say, not according to The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in “Cotterman.” Yes, they cited a multiplicity of elements, along with his criminal conviction as a sex offender, which they said formed the basis of “reasonable suspicion.” However, who could doubt that they would rule otherwise to say that a Registrant could avoid intrusive searches? They just got it easier with Cotterman, is all. If any other Registrant, without any of their specious aggravating elements in Cotterman, was deep-scanned and found to possess cp, you can bet that they would let his conviction stand. For that matter, how often do we see any evidence against sex offenders get thrown-out? The courts continually show that they will accomodate bad searches in the case of sex offenders. We get to eat the fruit of the poison tree for breakfast. Ours is, after all, the “crimen exceptum.” [that’s a reference to witchcraft laws, btw]
          Oh, you’re right. I see my previous comment. It was too soon.Sorry!
 Tdecided that sex

        • CR

          What I’m saying is that if the final outcome of the case is that border searches of electronic devices require probable cause and a warrant, then that will apply to us as well. It is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. In order to get a warrant, CBP would have to show a judge evidence of current, not past, criminal activity.

          How can a standard of probable cause apply to everyone but us? Unless, of course, as you suggest, ours truly is the “crimen exceptum.” And if that is true, I suppose we are hopelessly damned for the foreseeable future. Anyway, thanks for that reference. The history of the witch trials is very interesting. It fits with what we are experiencing in many ways.

        • David

          @ CR: Agreed. *Fingers crossed* that the Alasaad lawsuit will ultimately be successful.

      • CR

        Some more background, this from EFF back in January after CBP issued its latest policy update on border device searches.

      • David

        @ David Kennerly….: This was just the Court’s ruling on the government’s Motion to Dismiss. So the case will continue to move forward. If possible, could you provide additional information regarding any court ruling that states warrantless electronic device searches are allowed in the case of Registrants? (Of course, if the ACLU’s Alasaad Case is successful, CBP will have to do come out with a new policy for warrantless electronic device searches.)

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          David, I just dug up the decision. This one is the Cotterman decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Amongst other things, the opinion stated:
          “The en banc court held that the border agents had
          reasonable suspicion to conduct an initial search at the border
          (which turned up no incriminating material) and the forensic
          examination. The en banc court wrote that the defendant’s
          Treasury Enforcement Communication System alert, prior
          child-related conviction, frequent travels, crossing from a
          country known for sex tourism, and collection of electronic
          equipment, plus the parameters of the Operation Angel Watch
          program aimed at combating child sex tourism, taken
          collectively, gave rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal
          activity. ” Now, it’s true that there was more than the fact of his previous conviction which was said to rise to the level of “reasonable suspicion.” However, I think it difficult to imagine that they would have ruled any differently if there had been no other factor than the fact of his sex offense conviction. Here is an excerpt from Ars Technica, at the time: “The border agents suspected, based in part on the existence of password-protected files, that Cotterman may have been engaged in sex tourism. They interviewed him and his wife, and ultimately released them—but kept the laptops and one camera. The laptop was brought to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Tucson, Arizona, where an ICE agent performed intensive forensic search on the laptops. On one laptop, the search found 75 images of child pornography in the “unallocated space” of the hard drive, which is where deleted data resides.”

    • CR

      This case seems promising. Thank you for posting about it.

      The government claimed the plaintiffs lacked standing because the odds of being searched again in the future were small. With respect to standing, “The court emphasized plaintiffs’ allegations that all plaintiffs will continue to travel across the U.S. border with their devices; that when they do so, they will be exposed to the government’s device search policies; and that plaintiffs can only avoid this risk by foregoing their right to travel or by traveling without their devices, which is impractical.”

      That is especially true for registrants. As long as the standard is “reasonable suspicion”, there is a low chance that our devices won’t be searched. Only if the standard becomes probable cause do we stand a chance of avoiding such a search.

      Despite the fact that standing would be irrefutable in our case due to the virtual certainty of being subjected to a search of our digital devices each and every time we travel, it’s probably best that none of the plaintiffs were registrants. Many people, even some judges, seem incapable of rational reasoning where we are concerned.

    • Need to Know

      Thanks for this article! Would be great to hear an opinion from Janice or an attorney about this instead of us all speculating what this actually means. I’m surprised haven’t seen this get more attention.

  36. someone who cares

    Bee ~ Nice research. I, too, looked at these codes and pretty much interpret them the way you do. However, there is a reference to SAFE, and isn’t that the organization in San Diego? So, will PC 13887 apply to the rest of California as well? Also, according to PC 13887.4, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the otherwise unlawful violation of any person’s rights under the law”. So, doesn’t that mean if they enforce it other than when conducting checks on habitual offenders who meet the criteria as defined in PC 667.71, they are breaking the law? Please help me interpret this further. Thanks!

    • Bee

      See my comment below (to @David Kennerly).

      “13887.1. (a) The mission of this program shall be to reduce violent sexual assault offenses in the county through proactive surveillance and arrest of habitual sexual offenders, as defined in Section 667.71, and strict enforcement of registration requirements for sex offenders pursuant to Section 290.”

      It would appear to the untrained eye that these proactive surveillance operations directed at non-habitual offenders / registrants not formally suspected of criminal activity (be that an actual crime (sex or other) or a Failure to Register crime (how it pains me to type “failure to register” and “crime” in the same context) are, indeed, not legal. Just my opinion.

      • Tim Moore

        “and strict enforcement of registration requirements for sex offenders pursuant to Section 290.” With emphasis on the conjuctive “and”, which reads like anyone required to register under PC 290. Someone mentioned how the concepts of predators, sex offenders, parolees and probationers get conjoined in public official speak and in the minds of the public. This code just enforces that confabulation and makes it official.

        • Bee

          Disagree. Here, the conjunction “and” is used to connect two ***independent*** clauses. Strict enforcement of registration requirements for 290 registrants is independent of proactive surveillance for habitual offenders. To further emphasize said independence, each clause is supported by the pertinent and distinct Penal Code section.

          But I am not a linguist.

        • David

          The Penal Code for the establishment of the SAFE Teams is Chapter 9.7. It includes 13887 – 13887.4. And 13887.3 specifically states the purposes of the entire Chapter 9.7. It states: “13887.3. The program established pursuant to this chapter shall have the following objectives: (a) To identify, monitor, arrest, and assist in the prosecution of habitual sexual offenders who violate the terms and conditions of their probation or parole, who fail to comply with the registration requirements of Section 290, or who commit new sexual assault offenses.” So it seems clear to me that SAFE Teams should not be checking on any registrants other than those specifically defined by 667.71 as “habitual sex offenders”.

        • Tim Moore

          I would agree if the code did not use the word “identify” in 13887.3 (a). The circular argument they would use against any challenge is how are you going to monitor those habitual offenders if you don’t investigate the whole bunch and identify them? They are looking for new crimes and this statute gives them authority to do so, as well as monitoring those already convicted of habitual offending. If I remember my grammar rules correctly, one can read the clause such that it says, “to identify … habitual sexual offenders … who commit new sexual assault offenses” and it would read correctly.

  37. mike r

    I wonder why no attorneys use judicial notice, interrogatories, or request for admissions in any cases. They are supposed to be trained in the techniques but yet everything I read states that they are underutilized and powerful tools during pretrial litigation. Oh well I will use all.

    WOW, I just watched that video and the other one with the ACLU and this guy is insane. He provides no facts, no studies, no evidence and just regurgitates the same old under reporting and scare tactics used when enacting these laws in every case. By the way what he is doing is illegal. His wife if legislating law thru taxes to fund his so called homeless org. That is totally illegal for anyone in office to profit from decisions enacted by that office in any way. I would ask why has no one addressed this issue but it is not even worth asking because we all know why. It is sex offenders so who cares and who wants to defend their rights or accept anything but the distorted views of the world pushed by unhinged individuals like this guy…..

  38. Counting the days

    This question is for Chance or Janice.

    Has there been a legal challenge to the 1203.4 petition for those convicted of middomeanor CP?
    If not, why? EVERY other misdomeanor has the ability to be expunged, yet we can’t. Even though time and time again it has been shown that we are not repeat offenders, have no issues during probation, and strive to move forward.
    This is a legal matter that could go far in reducing homelessness, support employment, and save tax dollars. So why isn’t this a “cause”.

    • New Person

      @ Counting the days,

      There has been legal challenges to PC 290 from section 1203.4.

      1203.4 provides 3 basic immunities:
      1) The case shall be set aside.
      2) The accusations or information shall be dismissed.
      3) Released from all penalties and disabilities from the conviction thereafter.

      The charge does not matter in receiving a 1203.4. Charge only matters in terms of a few items such as reducing your felony to a misdemeanor for firearms. Or, in case of PC 290 and the CoR, a felony for a certain crime will disqualify you from de-registering.

      In 1958, Kelly v Municipal addressed what 1203.4 means to PC 290. (Link: )

      Kelly addressed two points to refute PC 290 supersedes the protections of 1203.4 with respect to registrants: (This is my opinionated breakdown. I’m not a lawyer.)
      I) Compulsory police reporting was criminal or quasi-criminal in character.
      This is the third immunity in section 1203.4 – released from all penalties and disabilities thereafter.

      II) PC 290 cannot supersede section 1203.4, but runs in conjunction with 1203.4. A probationer is only convicted during the term of probation. Thus, once a probationer is awarded 1203.4, then he or she is no longer convicted. And if he or she is no longer convicted, then they are no longer part of the PC 290 scheme.

      Because of those two points, all probationers under PC 290 are relieved from the registry once awarded 1203.4.

      The contention lies in the new laws of PC 290.5 and PC 290.007. PC 290.5 introduces a way off the registry via the CoR. PC 290.007 negates the protections of section 1203.4.

      I’m brainstorming to challenge both PC 290.5 and PC 290.007. It’s all based upon part II of Kelly v Municipal – PC 290 cannot supersede section 1203.4, but run in conjunction with 1203.4.

      1203.4 represents a legal way off the registry. PC 290.007 acknowledges 1203.4 and disregards that law. PC 290.5 impairs the contract protections of section 1203.4 by negating relief of conviction as well as relief of accusation/information against the defendant along with extending the relief from the registry from your probationary period (for some, it’s a three year period) to a minimum of 10 years. Then you go through a second set of tests to prove your rehabilitation, which is what probation was all about, but this time it is decided upon by a judge and DA. The time extension and the second hearing have no empirical, scientific evidence. After an extended probationary period, for a total of 10 years, there is yet another court assessment about the conviction? Is this double jeopardy? How did a probationer go from a standard probationary period being awarded 1203.4 (a free person) to a probationer needing a CoR to be returned to a person before the conviction? There is no scientific reasoning behind it.

      2008 CASOMB report, using CDCR prisoners released in 2003, cited 3.55% recidivism rates in three years.

      2010 CDCR report, cited 5% in three years.

      2016 CASOMB reported under 1% recidivism rates, Failure to Register (FTR) is no longer counted as a statistic for recidivism.

      2017 CASOMB reported under 1% recidivism rates.

      Again, there is no scientific reason to negate a legal path off the registry via 1203.4 that both the judge and DA agreed upon when levying a person under PC 290 to a term of punishment. If anything, it’s discrimination against those under PC 290 that have earned a 1203.4. Notice no other set of convicts requires a 1203.4 to petition for a CoR. Point to the recidivism rates to refute scare tactics.

      Anyhow, I hope this helps and sheds light for you. Kelly v Municipal hasn’t been overturned. People v Hamdon did attempt to make Kelly useless in 2014, but no one argued that PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4 as the Kelly court went at length to identify. They only stated that PC 290.5 now offered a way off the registry.

      I might be the first person to denote that PC 290.5 actually impairs the original contract of 1203.4 as well as violates the immunity of the dismissal of accusations/information as protected under 1203.4. PC 290.5 violates three California Constitutional laws: article 1, article 7b, and article 9.

      Kelly also gave me appropriate language that was accepted and used in court: “compulsory police reporting”. Since the registry isn’t punishment and People v Hamdon were pushing this to refute part of Kelly decision, then the registry violates CA Constitution, Article 1, Section 6: “Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.”

      I implore you to read Kelly v Municipal. My interpretation identifies that those convicted under 290 are protected under section 1203.4. The courts went out of their way to slap down PC 290 superseding section 1203.4 in point [4] of the case law link I provided.

      It’s just taking me a lot of time and energy compiling all this information and rearranging it. It’s emotionally draining too. = /

      We’re such a small group, 1203.4 recipients, that I doubt Janice or Chance will take us up. Our civil rights are being trampled as 1203.4 recipients as our immunities are protected by the decision in Kelly v Municipal.

      Even though the new tier law is in 2021, I’m gonna try to make a lawsuit as soon as I can get it together. I’m still in the brainstorming stages (and like five revisions). If I can prove that the state has wrongly placed a 1203.4 registry recipient (me) after my probationary period has ended on the registry still, then I can point that other states have a set compensation for being wrongly put on the registry.

      I want to be treated equally with other probationers who earn a 1203.4. That’s what Kelly v Municipal stated and decided, which makes me not part PC 290.
      [4] A word should be said concerning the state’s contention that section 290 should prevail upon the theory that it is a special and 1203.4 is a general statute. They are not in that [160 Cal. App. 2d 46] category. They do not meet the test for the rule which the state invokes, declared in In re Williamson, 43 Cal. 2d 651, 654 [276 P.2d 593], in these words: ” ‘It is the general rule that where the general statute standing alone would include the same matter as the special act, and thus conflict with it, the special act will be considered as an exception to the general statute …’ ” Section 1203.4 deals with all probationers, including those who have committed none of the offenses mentioned in section 290. In addition, section 290 applies to some convicted persons who are ineligible for probation as well as to some who are eligible. Clearly, the rule invoked does not apply.

      The parties have given considerable attention to the applicability or inapplicability of our holding in Truchon v. Toomey, 116 Cal. App. 2d 736 [254 P.2d 638, 36 A.L.R.2d 1230], interpretive of the word “conviction” as used in section 1 of article II of the Constitution, relating to loss of the elective franchise. We perceive no similarity, no conflict, and no problem. In the Truchon case we pointed out that the word “conviction” has been used in criminal statutes with varying meanings. As used in the constitutional provision there involved we held that “conviction” referred to a judgment which remained final, thereby differing from a mere plea or verdict of guilty. Here we are considering the use of the word “conviction” as it appears in two statutes. Section 290 uses it in both senses: After judgment, in respect to the convict who has served his sentence or who is released upon parole; during the suspension of imposition or execution of sentence (see Pen. Code, § 1203.1), in relation to the probationer. Section 1203.4, because it deals with the probationer, has reference to his status as a convicted person during the period of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence.
      And concludes…
      We entertain no doubt that prohibition is a proper remedy.

      Our conclusion that the reregistration provisions of section 290 are not applicable to the petitioner upon the basis of the facts here presented,…

      • alucardi

        Add me to your lawsuit if you prepare/apply for a Class Action. Your argument is logical. The next step is to verify if it can be heard (challenged).

    • David

      @ bluewall: The new Tiered Registry law does not go into effect until 2021 (as mentioned in the article).

  39. mike r

    Someone who cares, No, we have a SAFE team up here in Sacramento and it is just the enforcers of the registration laws. SAFE stands for Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement which include multiple agency, ii.e. local sheriffs, FBI, Marshals etc. and they cover anyone subject to 290. I suppose they just stated habitual offenders and the cannot violate rights quote simply for show as always with every law. Have to throw out the worst to make the others seem necessary or justified. Same old regurgitated crap as usual…

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      Thanks for that, Mike. So, these multi-agency task forces are comprised of both state (and local) and federal agents, working together, regardless of whether the Registrant is a former state or federal prisoner? Are these guys also being used to conduct compliance checks on Registrants no longer on supervision?

      I was unlucky enough to be fresh on parole just as these guys (no Feds, though) had started their “compliance checks.” AG Dan Lungren under Pete Wilson introduced it. They tore my house apart.

      • Bee

        “The S.A.F.E Team is a multi-jurisdictional task force created with grant funding from the California State Office of Emergency Services. The SAFE Task Force is comprised of members from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, the Sacramento Police Department, the Sacramento County Probation Department, the U.S. Marshals Office and receives daily support from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.” (Sacramento County)

        It appears to be a county specific effort. Every county operates one. There is funding be had, for knocking on doors of people not suspected of a crime. Duh.

        Examples: (Annual Report 2017, p.21)
        … and my favorite:
        – quotes from Santa Clara County: “The average pedophile will victimize between 50-150 children before he comes to the attention of law enforcement.” – “Serial killers and sexual sadists, both predators, love to drive. It is not unusual for them to put thousands of excessive miles per month and year on their car.” – “Predatory behavior is resistant to permanent rehabilitation: at least 50% of all convicted sexual predators will re-offend.” Yay!

        The stated goal of the San Diego SAFE Team is: “The San Diego County SAFE Task Force has been in operation since 2002 and continues to meet its goal to reduce sex crimes in San Diego County by pro-actively monitoring and tracking ***registered sex offenders***, ensuring their compliance with registration requirements.”

        Which, in my opinion, is NOT supported by PC 13887 – 13887.4 – as it refers to “habitual sex offenders” – as defined in the Penal Code.

        While PC 13887.1.(a) stipulates “strict enforcement of registration requirements for sex offenders pursuant to Section 290.” I do not read that as PRO-ACTIVE activity towards registrants who show no sign, whatsoever, of violating registration requirements – people who have been in perfect compliance for years / decades. To enforce the law, a law must be broken, or at least a reasonable suspicion to that effect exist.

        In addition, each SAFE funds recipient is ***required*** (shall) to collect data demonstrating the effectiveness of their (tax payer funded) efforts. I know that the Ventura County SD was not able to provide such data – to me, at least – in response to a formal public records request.

        Perhaps a coordinated public records request to all SAFE operations would blow the lid on this – which (again, in my opinion) is outside of the law for the reasons mentioned above.

        • alucardi

          RE: S.A.F.E. Team(s). How active are these “teams” in monitoring? Do they do their “raids” every month, every quarter or every year? I’ve lived in LA for the past 8 years and the only time I had LAPD SAFE Team was while I was on probation (twice in 5 years of probation). Am I too assume that they (SAFE Team) only go after probation/parole individuals?

        • Tim Moore

          I remember Lake County had provided some information on doing a FOIA request. Lake, do you remember that, and could you repost?

        • kind of living

          can anyone tell me how SAFE are monitoring us other than showing up on our door step ? or who ever they are that seems to be keeping such a close eye on many of us ? not just the drive by stuff that go’s on . anyone paying attention to what I am asking ? any of you been being following you ? and always seemingly to know when your out and about ? just curious about what others are seeing other than myself . also by accident I found a you tube video that opened my eyes to some things I have noticed , while the video said nothing about RC’s it did mention my county , you can find it on UFO Seekers , go to their page hit on videos and scroll down to the one about the spy planes , and yes I have seen both of them , and soon after word the people I am use to seeing doing drive by and following . sounds crazy but its the truth . so keep your eyes and ears open . I have seen the C 12 many times , and I have seen the one with the big window in the side twice and one of those times was when we went camping out in the desert . just in case anyone is interested , it gives me the creeps in a big way my friends , it may not be that big of a deal to some folks , I don’t know but if your visiting people you don’t want crazy LE types knowing about it is something to think about for the friends we may visit .

        • Tim Moore

          Kind of living, I smile when I think of all the money they are wasting sending someone to my property. If they are also doing these other things, great. They are wasting more resources they could be using to make this a stronger more prosperous nation. Like stazi East Germany, they will someday bankrupt the policing institutions if not the whole public sector and the security contractors that leech on its teets will go away. Not soon enough. We need to break down these walls.

        • kind of living

          @Tim Moore . your right of course . its only fare we know LE tactics as it pertains to RC’s . thanks for getting back to me Tim

        • Bee

          @alucardi – your assumption is incorrect. Here is a quote from the response to my request for information (VCSD):

          “To be clear, these operations are intended to be proactive contacts which are not dependent upon whether the individuals are currently on probation / parole, or whether there are any ongoing active criminal investigations.”

          Here is another one (hot off the press):

          Please note that they are checking up on dead people. Good stuff.

  40. David

    @ Bee: You noted that “The S.A.F.E Team is a multi-jurisdictional task force created with grant funding from the California State Office of Emergency Services.” That Office is where we should request statistics/data, funding amounts, etcetera because that is who should be collecting the data since they are the funding source. I will be contacting that Office today to request whatever information they can provide on its S.A.F.E. Team program (i.e., funding amounts per County, reports submitted by the Counties, etc.) (I was unable to find any State audit reports for this program, funding. But Cal OES may have that information.)

    • David

      @ Bee: regarding your post with VCSD’s direct quote, I would remind everyone that just because LEOs do or say something, does not mean that it is legal. These LEO units need to be sued for violation of 4th Amendment civil rights with plaintiff(s) seeking a permanent “cease and desist” injunction.

  41. mike r

    Bee, you , may be absolutely right. The language from a law like that is paramount when it comes to challenging such a law. I find those quotes in the last citation incredibly disturbing and unfounded by any reasonably reliable research methodologies since they are not scientifically generated statistics from Gov. sources and the lady has a huge judiciary conflict of interest since her analysis favors and may effect her funding…This should actually be illegal…
    Hazelwood and Warren, 1995.
    “In 2007, Dr. Warren began the development of a juvenile attainment model program with the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Disability Services with funding provided to UVA by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice. In 2012, the program was licensed to the University of Virginia and is currently seeking to attain status as an evidence-based juvenile justice program. The manual-based training, interactive learning tools, and case management software can be previewed at Research on the outcomes of the program is posted on the website along with a reference bibliography of legal, research, policy, and clinical articles pertaining to adjudicative competency in juvenile court and the remediation and diversion of youth determined to be incompetent to stand trial.”
    Check out the site I am not going to post everything wrong with this Lady and her methodologies….

    I am emailing that lady right now with some facts….

  42. mike r

    Here we go…This is what I just sent her….Of course with the complete enormous list of stats including all the vigilante citations…..Doubt if she will respond but it makes me feel better hitting these people back. My opinion we all need to hit back and maybe they will think twice before publishing crap like she did. I think what we need to do is bring these issues u in some kind of committee or boards or whatever or whoever has authority or influence over these academia.

    Hello miss Warren,
    This is in regards to your citations and use of your work as sources concerning sexual offending. I really hope that you are starting to choose current methodologies that use scientific analysis that refute the absurd claims about sexual offending and especially the under-reporting aspects. There is no scientific Governmental generated statics supporting your false claims and material from Academics such as yourself distorting, misleading, and is created unfounded and unsubstantiated fears that effect pubic policy. Your suppositions merely take focus away from the real issues that may help in the prevention of sexual assaults such as education, rehabilitation for both the victims and the offenders, as well as preventing people who’s family members may be committing offenses since it can reasonably be inferred that those individuals will not report only to have one of their family members (which is where over 90% of sexual assaults against children occur) because they do not want to have those members on public display through the Megan’s Law Websites. So if there is actual under-reporting (which can never be scientifically confirmed so it is pure hearsay as third party self reporting) it is due to the laws your professional academic colleagues are creating by your false assumptions and statistical manipulations in order to secure funding for one of your programs. This is unethical, and may even be illegal, but that is another aspect that others may or may not wish to review. How does that make you feel that reports from people like you are influencing laws that are counterproductive and very well may even increase the sexual offenses and creates the environment to encourage under-reporting?Let me give you some real scientific studies and reports by Governmental agencies statutorily task with tracking sexual assault as well as recidivism by ex offenders. I am also including some of the vigilante attacks that have lead to great bodily harm or even death because of these laws that you may very well have helped create.
    Thank you for your time….

  43. mike r

    Anytime I see an email source like that I send them this stuff…..I do not care who it is or what they might try and do. Hell she may even have the Safe team pay me a visit but you know what, just more fodder for my case. It makes me sick these leaches feed off of fears and manipulate the systems to enrich themselves and push agendas that they profit from. It should definitely be illegal if is is not, which I think it might be…..

  44. mike r

    Look at this. It is from the first citation I accessed. Look at what the state that most arrest warrants are for registration violations. Yeah, lets see some statistics on apprehension or prevention in sexual crimes. Man my trial is supposed to last an estimated 2-3 days according to the AG and I am going to slam them in PowerPoint presentations with all this crap. Treat it just like a college class and debate…….

    From January through October 2015, the SAFE Task Force conducted 147 investigations. Eighty-three of these investigations involved an arrest which resulted in 70 felonies and 13 misdemeanors. The majority of the non-arrest investigations were conducted as support to local agencies or compliance audits conducted throughout the county. Most investigations ended with an arrest warrant being filed with the District Attorney for PC290; out of sex registration compliance.

  45. Eric Knight

    Kansas has set the price for someone who is on the registry: $25,000 per year. That’s what a court paid a man who was mistakenly put on the registry due to faulty conviction.

    Make no mistake: Kansas has named the price for the cost of being on the registry. This is HUGE.

    For years, registered citizens have justifiably complained about the costs of being on the registry, in particular lack of employment opportunities as well as the onerous residential restrictions. The official position of society, though, was that it was no more onerous than a “Price Club Application.”

    But now the State has now given a hard monetary cost in such registration: $25,000. This is now an OFFICIAL court position, and is now OPEN for citation by ANY REGISTERED CITIZEN in any legal complaints they may pursue.

    Please take advantage of this and promote this new damning fact!

    • New Person

      Hmmmm… very, very interesting.

      So now there’s a price for being put on the registry incorrectly?

      I need to keep on working on bringing down PC 290.5 and PC 290.007 for violating the terms and agreement set forth in 1203.4. Any time after 1203.4 was awarded represents being incorrectly placed in the registry.

      remember, only a conviction gets you onto 290. without a conviction, you shouldn’t be on the registry. That’s what Kelly v Municipal decided as one of the protections of section 1203.4 – you’re only convicted during the probationary period.

    • Chris F

      Texas set it at $25,000 per year also for someone that did prison time unjustly and then was put on the sex offender registry. It seems like you could get $25k per year if falsely on it if not in prison too, otherwise it’s an issue of equal protection since there isn’t a justification for not allowing those that were on the registry but never in prison to not be compensated the same. That 25k is in addition to 80k per year in prison.

      • CR

        I’ve been on it 21 years. My offense was more than 26 years ago. If it’s ever determined that Texas’ retroactive application of the registration law was unconstitutional, I would be owed over a half million dollars. My actual monetary losses, however, are much higher due to losing my job because of being on the registry. I’ve suffered a loss of over 1 million in income from that alone.

      • mike r

        That is interesting though…I wonder how I could use this as Chris has cited the law in Texas…

  46. mike r

    absolutely no statistics or supporting anything on any of those sites, and a matter of fact no references to any convictions and only arrest have been for reg violations or a few internet crimes which have nothing to do with registration and could in no way be connected to the registry……

  47. Someone who cares

    I totally agree with what Dave said. If it is indeed S.A.F.E. who is conducting these illegal visits, we should fight this. However, there seems to be another unit in OC that is called SONAR. Not to be confused with SORNA. Can anyone help finding out what their policy (or lack thereof) is. It has to be similar I am guessing

  48. TS

    For all of the automobile traveling RCs here…

    Forget scanning license plates; cops will soon ID you via your roof rack

    • Jason

      @TS – LPR are nothing new, my former job I used it daily. Each PD in Cali but publicly display their departments policy of the equipment. I’ve never been harassed, it’s primarily used for stolen vehicles and active warrants. But if you’re ever pulled over for something stupid you can always use the departments policy back at them. You’ll see it a lot more in the future…

    • Lake County

      Cops were looking to do a compliance check on me a few years ago but they had no access to my front door. I was shocked when they noticed my car very common in a parking lot and confronted me. Then I realized I had a very noticeable antenna ball on my car. I removed it immediately and have not been confronted since. Live and learn.

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 *