ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online - All Call Posts
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT Jan 25 - Parole / Probation

Monthly Meetings Q1 2017

Jan 28 in Sacramento, Feb 11 in San Diego, Mar 18 (date change) in Los Angeles [details]

Lobbying in Sacramento

January 30/31 in Sacramento [details]

Recent Comments

  • Janice Bellucci January 24, 2017 at 9:45 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThe focus of the CASOMB video was not about the tiered registry bill. Instead, it was meant to be a generic education of the public regarding myths and truths about registrants. That type of education is sorely lacking and it is significant when the information in the video comes from the state's policy experts on this topic.
  • RFS January 24, 2017 at 9:15 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThis is an great point that I brought up before and does need to be addressed or everybody is wasting their time and money. This is one example of such site and there are many... http://www.offenderradar.com/
  • New Person January 24, 2017 at 8:36 am on CT: Legislator wants “johns” to face felony charge, register as sex offendersSo here's analogy... The individualized drug purchaser gets penalized more than the drug dealer. Drug dealer just gets a misdemeanor. Is that where this is going? Crazy thought.
  • USA January 24, 2017 at 8:28 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardMolly, I believe your comment summed everything up! Change doesn't occur over night! We could be dealing with a Klass Registry? After reviewing other states Regustries, I've noted almost all of them have instituted a tiered system and only repeat offenders remain on for life. So, something must and has to change. I personally filed my own 17 (B) wobbler/reduced to misdemeanor and expungement PC 1203.4 expungement. I was even detained by error after released on bail /never charged and later filed a PC 851.8 Seal Arrest Records! All where granted! I did this on my own! I had to re-file the 17 B twice/initially declined. I went online and everything is downloadable and a clerk will walk you through it! Filing a COR was different. I filed it, but the DA was a monster! I imagine California will do the right thing! I believe removing yourself from the Internet after 10 years and the registry will be more straightforward. Work hard!
  • Matt January 24, 2017 at 7:01 am on CT: Legislator wants “johns” to face felony charge, register as sex offendersGood. Do it. The more people on the list the better.
  • One only can wish they got prosecuted January 24, 2017 at 7:00 am on VA: Lawmakers say judges being too lenient on people possessing child pornYou'd hope the Feds who ran the site would get prosecuted, but doing something illegal to entrap people seems to not bother the legal system when other's safety seems to be concerned. Ask for forgiveness, not for permission is their motto, no matter how despicable it is unfortunately.
  • USA January 24, 2017 at 6:56 am on CT: Legislator wants “johns” to face felony charge, register as sex offendersWell, let me recommend this! Prostitition would disappear if you required pristitutes to register. I've came across sites like Eros-la, cityvibe and bsckpage. I was shocked by the filthy photos they post online? It's terrible. Yet, they continue to operate day after day? If the punishment would be to register, this would disappear!
  • Sean t. January 24, 2017 at 12:15 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardSpeaking for myself and a few other registrants I occasionally speak to (met them at the CARSOL/ACSOL meetings), all of us feel unhappy about both the way this tiered registry was written as well as the way it has been sold to us thusfar. We would appreciate a more straightforward bill. The CASOMB video speaks noting about petitioning, the static 99, or how we would need to complete one of Tom Tobin's CASOMB certified "treatment" courses to get off the damn registry. So while we generally support ACSOL and Janice's hard work, I suspect there will be a few of us calling and writing to politicians to let them know how and why we disagree with this tiered registry.
  • Sean t. January 23, 2017 at 11:58 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardAre you kidding Timmr? This tiered registry has terrible long-term consequences. Firstly, it will take many many years for court challenges to make its way through trial/appellate/supreme courts at state and federal levels. By then, CASOMB and our legislature will simply move the goalposts further away. And during those many years of challenges making their way through the courts, everyone had to continue registering. So in essence, all CASOMB and the government did by enacting this tiered registry was buy more time in continuing to make people register. Anyway, after reading it, I feel that this tiered registry is complicated and unfair.
  • Tired Of Hiding January 23, 2017 at 10:56 pm on General Comments January 2017You crazy! You think that the various sex offender reform chapters have any sort of desire to be that organized as to rally all the RSO in every state together and to do something that you don't even have to leave your house to do...log on and sign a petition? Nope...not sure why...only reason I can think of is that they make money just like the "save the children fund" doing a job that will never end and they really don't want it to. I think we need someone commanding the ship. Someone who thinks outside the box because seems all of us are inside the box!
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 10:34 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardBy that I mean, I support you but you'll have to get a lawyer yourselves, if you know what I'm saying.
  • i can't wait to die January 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm on Former House speaker sentenced to more than a year in prisonIs Dennis Hastert being protected? after reading this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/dennis-hastert-prison-sentence-224676 i wanted to write a letter to Dennis Hastert but searched the BOP Inmate locator and received zero results; i even went to the prisons website in MN. where it is reported that he is being held to search for this criminal and still zero results. not sure if i’m doing something wrong or is he being protected
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 7:09 pm on VA: Lawmakers say judges being too lenient on people possessing child pornDo as I say, not as I do. That was my stepfathers reply to my questions about hypocrisy. It seems to be the marching orders of both political sides these days!
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 5:00 pm on General Comments January 2017Keep us updated Bobby! I'm really looking forward to that case. I only see one way that it can turn possibly bad. If scrotus takes it and smacks it down l, other than that, it's a win. Maybe I'm missing some other potential problem I don't know.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 4:54 pm on General Comments January 2017Don't know but bringing his past into the spotlight before he can probably encourage trump to go after us might be beneficial. I doubt he's going there to play golf.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm on CT: Legislator wants “johns” to face felony charge, register as sex offendersHere's another clue that love for government is misplaced. Anytime, ANYTIME you see a government official clammering on about the new buzzword, be afraid.... I wouldn't be so trusting of these organizations that push these buzzwords either. Soros and elites like him, support or found some of these groups to push other agendas. Research.
  • Nicholas Maietta January 23, 2017 at 4:32 pm on CT: Legislator wants “johns” to face felony charge, register as sex offendersSo if those "Johns" become sex offenders under the law in CT, what happens when they move to a state like Nevada where prostitution is legal? Do they still have to register as sex offenders?
  • NPS January 23, 2017 at 4:30 pm on CT: Legislator wants “johns” to face felony charge, register as sex offendersBecause there are not nearly enough people on the registry??? Sure, go ahead because many of these "Johns" are those who are in public office at the local, state, and federal levels.
  • Bobby January 23, 2017 at 4:20 pm on General Comments January 2017Hi everyone, Ispoke to Ms Aukerman today from Michigan's ACLU, and I asked her what was going on with either the Telemoski case,or Does n Snyder. she e-mailed me back, saying No update. Weare filing our opposition cert. petition in the Supreme Court in a couple of weeks. I asked her what that means exactly,and she replied, That is actually pretty quick. We will know whether they will take the case sometime this spring. If they take the case it will be another year. So does any one have any thoughts on what she has said about the case(s)
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 3:47 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardBy all means, try it. But you people will have to do it yourselves most likely.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardYou proved my point. The words are different and mean different things in the legal system. That's all. Obviously they are morally wrong to do it but it doesn't stop them.
  • Nicholas Maietta January 23, 2017 at 3:16 pm on WA: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’ (Editorial)Does anyone know if anyone has ever successfully gained any traction in restoration of rights by arguing with the "equal protection" clause when relating to unequal application of laws?
  • HOOKSCAR January 23, 2017 at 2:47 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board@newperson I'll third your motion.
  • Stephen January 23, 2017 at 2:07 pm on VA: Lawmakers say judges being too lenient on people possessing child pornThe Feds Operated a Kiddie porn site for a week or two and put 10s of thousands of pictures and Videos on the web, will they also be prosecuted.
  • Congress turning a blind eye? January 23, 2017 at 1:53 pm on General Comments January 2017I just wonder if the Congress that was not happy with Trump's alleged women issues will actually do something where he is signing the bill in the end. Turning a blind eye perhaps??
  • New Person January 23, 2017 at 1:17 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board" "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: YOU CAN NOT SURRENDER, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights. Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. YOU CAN SURRENDER, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. " Note: Morrison v State is in the state of Missouri. Registration was an attached penalty that convicts were forced to surrender, not that a person wishes to surrender. There is no consent here as it was attached as a penalty or disability - disabling my right to privacy. I'll come back to "disabling portion" at my conclusion. I reiterate... is life and liberty a gift from the Creator? Yet it exists in both unalienable and inalienable. The California Constitution states: " SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. " The 'All people are by nature' implies a gift from the Creator. These gifts are to be free, independent and have inalienable rights. What specifically are these items? i) enjoying and defending life and liberty ii) acquiring, possessing, and protecting property iii) pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Are you telling me the state can negate my right to pursue and obtain happiness? So if I go to jail, then I lose the right to pursue to be happy or obtain happiness? Nay. Once I am out of jail and custody, can the state tell me I cannot pursue happiness? Now, as for privacy, in custody, it is suspended, not surrendered. Out of custody, once punishment is over, my privacy is re-enabled as per Article 1, Section 1. Thus the verb "obtain" is included. Since registration is not punishment, then it actually is violating my right to privacy as it has no jurisdiction of suspending my right to privacy. In fact, registration negates privacy and shares it to enact other regulations imposed due to my privacy. Thus, if life and liberty cannot be transferred or taken away, then neither can the right to privacy and obtain it as the right to privacy shares the same weight as life and liberty as stated within Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution. Therein lies the context and is binding. Now, let us agree that the state has, in fact, disabled my right to privacy. It was disabled due to a conviction of a certain offense. 1203.4 specifically states that all penalties and disabilities will be released from offense of conviction. We're right back to where I stated that State is violating a law. Check mate. i) Inalienable right to privacy and obtain it (negation of privacy law broken here as per California Constitution) ii) Released from all penalties and disabilities from offense (negation of a disabled right as per 1203.4) I want to emphasize that "right to privacy" is an inalienable right. It was never consented to be surrendered. Yet let's assume it was suspended, then that "right" was disabled - thus making it a disability. By Constitutional law, I have a right to obtain privacy (crazy how that right seems impossible to remove as a free person) and 1203.4 specifically states I be released from all penalties and disabilities - to which my "right to privacy" was disabled. So the state screwed up with Registration with rights that cannot be surrended as given by the Creator or it's screwing up in removal from Registration via 1203.4 as my privacy is a right denoted in the Constitution. Maybe someone should discover what inalienable rights mean in the California Constitution. And while you're at it, ask was the right to privacy disabled if the State believes it has to power to take it away.
  • New Person January 23, 2017 at 12:37 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThere exists a problem here. Natural rights such as "rights of liberty". You've denoted this in both inalienable and unalienable. a) Cannot be commerced (such as public property). b) Property that cannot be commerced. Yet the natural right to life and liberty exist in both. Which means they are one of the same. " SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. " Here, within the Constitution, it states what is a "NATURAL RIGHT": i. life and liberty, ii. acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, iii. pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. From this website, you have the following info: http://nationalmyth.org/how-the-declaration-of-independence-was-hijacked/ " According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856), the meaning of inalienable began much the same as unalienable; but it changed over time starting with the 1910 definition. Inalienable has evolved to mean rights that can be transferred with the consent of the person having them. If someone consents to transfer their rights, those rights can no long be considered un-alienable, impossible to transfer, inherent human rights. They become rights “in commerce.” " Double BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is supports what I said about CONTEXT before the website I quoted. Inalienable means not be alienated. This is applied to all three parts of the California Constitution. If your right to life and liberty cannot be consented to be transferred, then similarly it must apply to every other item within the same listing. Hence, my right to privacy was never available for commercial use! Nor was my right to obtain my privacy - how can I sell something that which I do not have, but wish to attain? You can't. That "right to obtain privacy" actually solidifies an inherent right that cannot be transferred due to the fact that "obtain" is a verb, not a noun, which signifies the potentiality to be property; thus ever solidifying the right to privacy cannot be sold, taken away. Easy question, why is life and liberty in both unalienable and inalienable? Why was the California Constitution distinct in identifying "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights." Meaning here are the natural rights, to which the subsequent sentence lists those natural rights. Notice, it says people, not property within the natural rights. Again, CONTEXT.
  • Timmr January 23, 2017 at 12:12 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardPosition is important. The right to privacy is in Article 1, Section 1 and that section is the first in the Declaration of Rights in the California Constitution. That has got to be significant.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 12:06 pm on General Comments January 2017A well timed whitehouse.gov petition making him aware of Walsh's confessed but hypocritically uncharged sex offender status might get a few eyes on. Just saying...
  • William Bush January 23, 2017 at 11:38 am on MI: New sex offender rules stalledThe U.S. Supreme Court has denied the emergency stay request of Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. The 2006 and 2011 amendments to the Michigan Sex Offender Act can no longer be enforced. The State of Michigan's will be heard on it's appeal, but must comply with the lower courts rulings for now.
  • Timmr January 23, 2017 at 11:08 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardI think if you have not been scored you won't be. On the other hand that sounds like unequal protection to me. Someone gets on tier 3 because their offense happened after the scoring became law, while another gets the potential to end registration, because he was not required to be scored, but just based on the offense. How is all this based on actual, verifiable risk? Many of the offenses on tier 2 have less recidivism than others. But, maybe the DA will score you when it comes that your 'tier of duty' is up for termination. It looks like that requirement is in the draft bill, along with using other actuaries beside Static __. Then you may be screwed. Better to screw you later than never, I guess is the message. And the public cheers. I think this law passing even in its present mutation is not such a bad thing in the long run. It is going to spawn a bunch of legal questions about fairness, unfunded mandates and due process, as well whether this version of the registry is any less useless than the present form. The lawsuits that follow will really let the poisons in the mud hatch out. The key is to be ready when that happens and not do anything as an organization that will limit your ability to strike when needed.
  • American Detained in America January 23, 2017 at 10:53 am on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles Lawsuitso true
  • Timmr January 23, 2017 at 10:40 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThe CASOMB is an advisory board, not a lobbyist.
  • mike r iscensored January 23, 2017 at 10:26 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registrydon't forget here in cali arsonist and drug offenders also register, 5years for drug offense one time registration unless you move but I've never heard of it being enforced either...
  • Nicholas Maietta January 23, 2017 at 10:21 am on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitI operate an LLC in California. The base franchise fee is $800 per year. I believe that is the highest anywhere. I would not hesitate paying that to safely collect a far larger sum.
  • LM January 23, 2017 at 10:20 am on General Comments January 2017To make matters worse, John Walsh will most likely visit Trump soon (probably February) in the White House to brainwash and reprogram him even further.
  • i can't wait to die January 23, 2017 at 10:18 am on General Comments January 2017Is Dennis Hastert being protected? after reading this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/dennis-hastert-prison-sentence-224676 i wanted to write a letter to Dennis Hastert but searched the BOP Inmate locator and received zero results; i even went to the prisons website in MN. where it is reported that he is being held to search for this criminal and still zero results. not sure if i'm doing something wrong or is he being protected
  • Edward Villegas January 23, 2017 at 9:52 am on WI: Appeals court upholds provisional release of sex offenderIf the tiered law is passed when will it go in effect??
  • NPS January 23, 2017 at 9:37 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryYour count is a 288(a). BIG difference from 288a (which would be a Tier I). 288(a) is Tier II
  • lovewillprevail January 23, 2017 at 6:52 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLReply to Chris F It does not matter if you are on deferred adjudication in Texas. If you read the federal SORNA law, a deferred adjudication is considered a conviction. I also read somewhere a federal judge ruled the same. And since you are considered convicted under federal law, then if your crime involved a minor, then your passport will have a mark. I have researched all this because I was on deferred adjudication in Texas and successfully completed the deferred adjudication. You must be registered at least as long as SORNA. As far as early release of Texas registration, read the last part of Texas Code of Criminal Procedures Chapter 62. This explains who is eligible. You can also go to the Council on Sex Offender Treatment (Texas) website and they also explain. To get off, you first must meet the criteria which is very narrow. Then you have to pay a $50 fee to this agency and send all the requested documents. They will then let you know if you are eligible. Then you have to pay @$2,500 for an evaluation. If after the evaluation you are still deemed eligible, then you have to hire an attorney and petition your original court. I have been told it usually costs $10-20k for the whole process. And to top it off, the judge can refuse to even accept to hear your petition, or hear your petition and deny. Since most judges in Texas are elected, how do you think they rule? And in reality, I have heard only about 50 people out of 80,000 have been successful at this process. And the R vs D does not matter because judges from both parties from what I have heard are denying to hear petitions. They want to appear tough on crime so they can get re-elected. Sorry to burst your bubble. But, Texas Voices of Reason and Justice is doing what they can now and in the future to lobby to make it easier for de-registration. Support this group. That is your best bet.
  • ReadyToFight January 23, 2017 at 6:51 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board@New Person, Count me in on that!
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 3:07 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardUnalienable used during that time: http://www.constitution.org/afp/borden04.htm http://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/madison/james-madison-religion-must-be-left-to-the-conscience-of-every-man-and-this-right-is-an-unalienable-right And Jeffersons own words. "A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 2:49 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardBouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 edition. UNALIENABLE . The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable. INALIENABLE. This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech. You'll notice that inalienable is defined differently.... Cannot be lawfully transfered from one person to another vs incapable of being. ( period and boom) The inalienable definition difference is just enough worming room for a weasel lawyer. If you need an older definition I'm sure I could find it. Adams surely changed it for a reason.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 23, 2017 at 1:28 am on General Comments January 2017Not surprising coming from any president, presidential candidate or any politician in general.
  • New Person January 23, 2017 at 12:28 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardUmmm... I'm sorry to correct you about the difference in unalienable and inalienable. You're utilizing Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition. That was created in 1910. Guess when the Declaration of independence was created? Late 1770s. Thomas Jefferson used "inalienable", a latin terminology of the use of "in" as a negative prefix. John Adams was part of the committee in charge of printing it, used "unalienable", which is of English for of the negative prefix. Thus, utilizing context and the interchangability in the 1770s, inalienable and unalienable meant the same thing. The prefix "in" and "un" both meant to negate a word, differences was preference in Latin or English. There's no difference between cancelled and cacnceled, except one is an American term and the other a British term. It was only until later did Black sought to re-define was what already defined, in a very, very obscure text. The California Constitution was first created in 1877. The second constitution was created in 1878-79. Pretty sure that the Article 1, Section 1 wasn't amended and probably had remained the same. With that said, I've set context to the word inalienable has the same meaning of unalienable b/c Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, was not produced until 1910. Thus, inalienable retains all traits as unalienable within proper context. Hence, the state cannot take the right of privacy away nor take away the possibility of obtaining privacy. Boom. Now can we start a class action suit against California?
  • Trump's statement on sex crimes January 22, 2017 at 11:40 pm on General Comments January 2017Posted By Lake County Will he lump all of us in the same category? It would make him look good to to pass laws against all registered citizens in the first 100 days of office. Trump's Twitter statement dated Oct. 8, 2012: "Got to do something about these missing chidlren grabbed by the perverts. Too many incidents--fast trial, death penalty." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj-7sLZ3tfRAhWEZiYKHdz2AQUQFgg_MAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Frealdonaldtrump%2Fstatus%2F255294883680632833%3Flang%3Den&usg=AFQjCNFAxPwh6QhP18lCsG2FHKVH_kjfxQ&sig2=ODkc9yWHOMj6oxpzFQ3nqA
  • M. January 22, 2017 at 10:51 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardIt's so ridiculous that the 10 questions of the Static 99R scam can be used to determine LIFETIME registration under this tiered registry. Like I wrote below (and as it's been said by many other people before me), the Static "developers" say it should only be used up to 10 years after release. And Casomb and the AG's carefully manipulated *unpublished* study only reviews the Static for a period of 5 years. Yet Casomb is recommending that this scam be used to determine LIFETIME registration! How the hell is this bogus "instrument," using its 10 questions, going to be used to determine our futures? Look at the 10 questions. It's a simplified joke: http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf
  • M. January 22, 2017 at 10:35 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardYes, the Static 99R does "supersede" the tiered chart. You can otherwise fall into Tier I; but if you score a "6" or higher on the Static 99R scam, you're out of luck and are placed into Tier III (without even being the benefit of the doubt and being placed into Tier II). What's crazy about the Static 99R part is that the so-called "test"/"instrument"/"tool" is only supposed to be used up to 10 years following release into the community. Even worse: Casomb and the Ca Attorney General's *unpublished* (i.e. not published) "studies" only validate the Static 99R scam for its so-called accuracy for a period of only 5 years. Further, Casomb and the AG's most recent *unpublished* "study" only selected a sample of 114 "high-risk" sex offenders (HRSO), when there are at least a few thousand HRSO's. Even more troubling, here we see Casomb giving us the figure that there are 6,368 sex offender parolees. Yet this very same unpublished study only reviews a sample of 1,198 sex offenders (both parolees and probationers). So not accounting for the probably several thousand sex offenders on probation, Casomb's bogus study -- courtesy of pseudo psychologist Karl Hanson -- conveniently omits at least 5,170 parolee sex offenders from its "study." This makes me wonder whether Casomb, the CA AG, and Karl Hanson carefully selected who to include in their "study" in order to "validate" the Static 99R's so called accuracy so that it is in accord with Casomb and Saratso's political agenda. Casomb and the AG certainly have the Static data to include all CURRENT parolees and probationers in its sample. Why only choose to include 114 "high risk" offenders (with a total of only 1,198 parolees AND probationers)? In case you are wondering where I got the figures, look at the chart on page 12 of the following "study" to see how Casomb and the AG, along with the help of Karl Hanson, manipulated statistics: http://all4consolaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Recidivism-Report-June-2016.pdf
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 22, 2017 at 9:25 pm on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitIt gives the authorities a little much deserved target they can laugh at knowing said offender won't get their money for a year? It's just another benefit for the RC from their price club membership. Enjoy it! Side question: Can I cancel my membership please? It has been great belonging to the most, for me, reclusive and intrusive clubs on the planet and the benefits...let me tellya... No other club comes close BUT I just can't afford it anymore! 14.2 years and counting. December I'll be done I hope. Of course I just had a "wellness check" done on me while sitting in the parking lot of a grocery store minding my own business. I knew it was a matter of time before they got around to making an excuse to stop. They've been visible as in driving near me for the last few months every time I come to town. Anyway, we'll see if I make it off by then lol
  • Robert Curtis January 22, 2017 at 9:17 pm on ACSOL to Lead Lobbying Effort on Jan. 30 and 31This Bill (SB-26) is only (I hope) political posturing for their constituents with local school boards. School boards and legislative members like to be seen as pro-active towards child safety whether they are founded by facts or not. The bill might be pushed anyway with the understanding of it's inability to pass committee. There's a great deal of space for legal challenge due to fundamental violations of parental rights.
  • Steve January 22, 2017 at 9:13 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardSo you go through a court procedure to get off the list. Spend a lot of money to be removed only to have some whacko starting a new website who thinks they are saving the world by posting public information. It' happened in washington st. What do we add in this legislation to keep that from happening. If there is nothing to stop anybody then what is the point?
  • wb January 22, 2017 at 8:13 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registryquestion I have been registering for approx. 29 years ., single count 288a ,,me 18 ,,victim 13, LL act under 14 , no force , no violence, no sex..,, crime date of conviction 1989 no other convictions,,RIV county ,, what tier am I ???? no stactic 99 test ever done etc
  • Renny January 22, 2017 at 7:01 pm on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitSex offenders play the lottery because the odds of winning are greater than the odds of being considered humans by their former countrymen or establishing a good career.
  • ONE DAY AT A TIME January 22, 2017 at 6:57 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardNo one has those answers yet. First, the bill needs to be finalized and submitted to Sacramento. Then it must get passed by the relevant committees, which is where most bills stop and die. Then it has to be voted on by our state legislators. Often the bill will have had some changes made to it by this point. If it is one of the few Laws that make it this far, then the Governor must sign it. No matter how this bill is written, it's still a "soft-on-crime" long shot that will not likely pass just like the last one that died in committee. If it does pass, we still will have few real answers about the interpretation of this law. It will likely be contested in court for several years after passing while they figure out the details of how they will interpret this law. I would imagine that ACSOL will also file a suit involving this law. In summery: 1) not likely to pass, 2) if it does pass, we won't have details of how this will be interpreted for several more years.
  • C January 22, 2017 at 5:09 pm on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitYea, no opportunism there. I love that the winner bought a bigger trailer across the street from his existing trailer. Reminds me of that scene in The Jerk when Steve Martin's character uses his wealth to buy his poor black family, who lives in a dilapidated shack, an even bigger dilapidated shack.
  • jd January 22, 2017 at 4:29 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardI have some questions about the Static-99 as it relates to this bill. First, if the crime one has committed determines the tier (according to the bill), how does the Static-99 even factor into the tier classification? Obviously, in many cases, the initial classification would be contradicted by the classification determined by the Static-99. Someone please clarify. Second, how can one tell to which tier a person would be designated based on his Static-99 score? I saw a comment on another post on this site that a score of 5 would designate someone as a Tier 1, but a 6 would be a Tier 3. So what is a Tier 2? And where in the bill are these classifications by Static-99 score outlined? Perhaps I overlooked that section. Finally, when is someone given the Static-99 assessment? My husband has no recollection of ever being asked those questions, and he certainly never received any paperwork regarding his assessment.
  • NPS January 22, 2017 at 4:21 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThat is incorrect. 288(a) is among the list of offenses classified as a "violent felony offense" under 667.5(c) It is also a straight felony (not a wobbler), so the misdemeanor part of what you quoted is irrelevant. It therefore does not meet the criteria for Tier I. 288(a) is a Tier II, and if there is a second charge (as a re-offense), the RC would be moved up to Tier III.
  • Molly January 22, 2017 at 4:11 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThe presentation at the CASOMB was not just on ACSOL's concerns about the tiered registry bill. Janice also talked about our success in Sacramento over the last two years – our successful lawsuits and that ACSOL killed all but one bill directed at registrants and their families. There was a time (not long ago) the board actually told Janice they didn't want her (or us) to lobby against legislation and that "we really, really mean it." When Janice was done with her presentation the board had a new respect for her and her ability to bring people together and they understood the importance of ACSOL and real effect we have had in Sacramento. For the first time, they actually saw Janice (and by extension all of us) as an asset and not a liability. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS VICTORY. The tiered registry bill will be heard before both houses and will probably go though many changes along the way. You can choose to work hard on shaping the bill into something better by making phone calls, writing letters and attending hearings in Sacramento, you can choose to work on passing the bill as it is currently written, you can choose to work on killing it all together, you can choose to support ACSOL’s efforts on behalf of all registrants with your donations or you can choose to not participate at all. Whatever you choose to do, please recognize how far we have already come and how much further Janice has taken ACSOL in the eyes of the CASOMB just this last week. Understand that while we do have a long way to go, together we will get there and then my friends, choose wisely.
  • j January 22, 2017 at 2:31 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Boardfrom what i see tier 1 is for 10 years for misdemeanor charge described in subdivision (c) which 288 (a) is mentioned "or" for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) which 288 (a) is mentioned that was not a serious or violent offense as described in subdivision (c), tier 3 must register for life if there is another conviction or put in a mental hospital or a 187 with the intent to commit another conviction, this is a draft which is set to hide and disguise and make it difficult to retire from registration with all,,,, mentioned offenses described in subdivision (whatever code it may be) but except this code "or" that code but yet described in this section, tier 2 mentions a person convicted in subdivision (c) will register for 20 year, but check out the draft and try to put the puzzle together, good luck.
  • Confused January 22, 2017 at 12:34 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardOne day at a time, Is everyone tiered based on that listing? What about the static 99? Does that supercede the tiered chart? If so, what if you're unaware of ever having a static 99 and it's been more than 10 years since conviction, can they still give you one? Lastly, based on the levels chart, if you fall in tier 1, does that mean you won't be listed on the website? I'm concerned because I currently have never been listed and don't want to be listed now. I'm unclear as to who would be listed if this bill passes. Thanks.
  • Michael January 22, 2017 at 10:18 am on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitI know right? I always find it queer when people come into a lot of money, and suddenly someone is interested in restitution for past crimes. If it's not a part of a sentence or plea agreement, then it sucks to be an alleged victim.
  • Michael January 22, 2017 at 10:07 am on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitWhat if the sex offender has no victims? Americans need to take away the broad brushes from legislators. One size doesn't always fit all.
  • Michael January 22, 2017 at 10:02 am on Best Buy Geek Squad Informant Use Has FBI on Defense in Child-Porn Case [updated]Trust the FBI about as far as you can sling a piano. They'll lie, cheat, steal, plant evidence and toss their mama's under the bus in order to get a conviction.
  • Form an LLC is a good idea... January 22, 2017 at 9:25 am on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitForming an LLC would be a prudent move for anyone who thinks ahead when they know they have won. Talking w/an atty who is knowledgeable about it would be a good idea. To open an LLC and keep it maintain is very inexpensive annually. Just talk with a small business office with the county or city. If you open civil suits like this to one class of people, you better open it to all (and contribute to our nation's lawsuit happy culture) to avoid discrimination where a statute of limitation is limitless. Frankly, 20 years later is a bit much and something that should have been dismissed. The parents should have done something then about it and should be sued since they did not.
  • DavidH January 22, 2017 at 9:24 am on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitAnyone know of ant laws in California barring SO's from collecting lottery winnings?
  • ML January 22, 2017 at 7:51 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLWell I am at the last step. I have spent $7500 to date and if we have a hearing, it will cost a lot more. I am not optimistic but it is the only chance that I have.
  • Eric Knight January 22, 2017 at 7:43 am on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitThat should be the way that ALL winners of jackpots should handle their winnings, in my opinion, for significant tax relief or deferment in most cases. If you win more than a million dollars, consider creating an LLC prior to collection.
  • Janice Bellucci January 21, 2017 at 9:53 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardACSOL does not have a final position on the tiered registry bill because the bill has not yet been introduced. If the bill hasn't been introduced when we lobby on Jan. 30 and 31, we will discuss our support for the concept of a tiered registry as well as our significant concerns about the draft bill that has been distributed by CASOMB. In addition, ACSOL will lobby in opposition to Senate Bill 26 because that bill has already been introduced.
  • Chris F January 21, 2017 at 9:25 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardI love it. Make it so. 🙂
  • Chris F January 21, 2017 at 9:17 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLAs far as I can tell, and I am in Texas with deferred adjudication, it looks like if you have deferred and you get off the registry then you don't get the passport mark and don't have to notify anyone of travel since it says it only applies to those "convicted". I am curious how you'll get off the registry early though in Texas. They require you to be registered at least as long as the federal guidelines which are sometimes longer than Texas requirements and then you have to get a blessing from your treatment provider and sex offender board and then get a judge to approve it. I don't think even 1/3 make it through that last step of those that apply with all blessings in hand.
  • Chris F January 21, 2017 at 9:07 pm on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitI wouldn't want to keep money from going to victims, but there should be some fair percentage cap and max ceiling within reason. Otherwise, future winners will just form some type of corporation and have it win the prize and then pay themselves out of it, or have some relative claim the prize and make sure they get to enjoy it too. If the guy got financial advise first before collecting, he probably wouldn't be in this situation. As usual, the sex offender knows judges and juries will continue punishing him in any way they can for the rest of his life, constitutional or not...
  • Jon January 21, 2017 at 6:32 pm on Best Buy Geek Squad Informant Use Has FBI on Defense in Child-Porn Case [updated]Who is to say that the tech I planted the image because he wanted the extra cash. He would have the equipment and skill to do this and hide when it happened... that's and easy $500 for them, and what do they care they ruined that man's life, they don't know them...
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 21, 2017 at 6:20 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardFor drunks sake. I meant John Adams. I had a beer in my hand, while I wrote that lol! A little too free with my associations, I guess!
  • Very convenient timing January 21, 2017 at 5:27 pm on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitVery convenient they sued after he won a jackpot but not before. Must not be a statute of limitations on that (it was 20 years later...)
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 21, 2017 at 5:09 pm on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitThey couldnt stop him from spending his money because they had no legal authority so they fixed that "loophole" lol. Nope, nothing unequal or punishing about that in the slightest. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fla-sex-offender-spend-3-million-lotto-winnings-judge-article-1.2115246
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 21, 2017 at 4:40 pm on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles Lawsuit"After Poole's jackpot, some Florida legislators unsuccessfully attempted to pass a law that would have required any sex offenders' lottery winnings to be placed in an escrow account for a year, giving victims an opportunity to make a claim." Nothing unequal or punishing, about that, whatsoever... Man would that kind of money make filing a lawsuit a breeze or what.
  • ONE DAY AT A TIME January 21, 2017 at 3:42 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardHere's the link to the tiers: http://all4consolaws.org/2016/11/janices-journal-acsol-board-faced-with-sophies-choice/
  • ONE DAY AT A TIME January 21, 2017 at 3:26 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardDon't forget that We the People can also draft new laws. All we have to do is get enough fellow citizens to agree with us and sign a petition. Then get it on the ballet for a vote of the people.
  • Nicholas Maietta January 21, 2017 at 2:29 pm on FL: Sex Predator Who Won Lottery Settles LawsuitWhat about the victims of a hardened gang member thug Jeremy Meeks who became famous for his "hot" mugshot? He's now rolling in money yet where are victims able to go after money from this guy? This only seems to apply to sex offenders.
  • wb January 21, 2017 at 2:07 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardHELLO IM REALLY CONFUSED WITH ALL THIS TIERIED REGISTRY STUFF. MY QUUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS, I PLEAD TO A 288A IN 1989 , I WAS 18 VICTIM WAS 13 NO SEX NO FORCE ETC, LL WITH A CHILD UNDER 14 , WERE DO STAND AS OF NOW IF TIRERD PASSES LEVEL??? NO ARREST OR CONVICTIONS OF ANY SORT SINCE THIS 1989 RIV COUNTY CONVITION.....
  • New Person January 21, 2017 at 12:49 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardCASOMB reminds me of my probation office. When filing for my 1203.4, they wrote in their paperwork that I had successfully completed my probation. At the end of the paperwork, which was turned into the judge, the probation office recommended that I not be granted 1203.4. The DA for my case also recommended to the judge that I not be granted the 1203.4. Now, here's what I don't understand - according to law, if one successfully completes probation, then they are automatically given 1203.4. If this is so, then why are both the DA and probation offices sending in their recommendations to NOT award me with 1203.4 when they have no say whatsoever? The stigma of being a sex offender supersedes all logic as demonstrated in my 1203.4 hearing. I believe I kept the paperwork of what probation wrote to the judge to have as an actual artifact of the hypocrisy and bias to my situation. How can one successfully complete probation and NOT receive a positive recommendation? How can the DA, a person who should know the law, furiously fight to negate my 1203.4 after successfully completing probation? This implies the probation office had become the mouth piece for the DA in my case. Anyhow, my experience has me cringing at the fact that judges and the DA will have a say after 10 years worth of being offense free. If they were willing to not award me my 1203.4 after successfully completing a 3 year probation term, then what makes you think that mentality has changed at all for this new tiered proposal? Thank God the law was in place so that the judges and DA's had no say. I'm living proof that such an incident occurred. If it has happened at least once, then for sure the probability will recur. The fact that the DAs and judges want a say after 10 years is definitive proof that such a possibility will occur. Which is why I look back into California law: "inalienable right to privacy... and obtain it." 1. My privacy was taken away when it shouldn't have been. (inalienable right to privacy) 2. My right to privacy was disabled. 3. My privacy was kept away after earning my 1203.4. (inalienable right to obtain privacy) (... be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense convicted of) 4. My privacy was STILL kept away after earning my 1203.4. (inalienable right to obtain privacy) 1203.4 states what are exceptions to those penalties and disabilities with these five specific words, ", and except as noted below..." There are no added statutes that states a registrant needs to continue to register below within 1203.4. If the California Constitution law in Article 1, Section 1, "inalienable right to privacy... and obtain it," is as strong and concrete as it is written, then why are we registrants allowing the state to neglect such a statute? If my lawyer for 1203.4 hadn't contacted an appellate lawyer and the appellate lawyer told him to reaffirm that 1203.4 is automatic as well as it can be appealed if the courts rejected, then the courts would have rejected my 1203.4 and I would have ended my attempts to acquire 1203.4 due to my ignorance of the law existing for my benefit. We withdrew the first attempt b/c my lawyer asked what the judge was going to lay verdict and the judge said he would deny it. The second time around, my lawyer made distinct emphasis that it is law that I be awarded 1203.4. The judge told the DA in court that the law is the law and he must award it to me. How strong and concrete is the law of "inalienable right to privacy... and obtain it" is? I want to use a law that no judge nor DA can deny. Maybe this is a law that's often neglected and we're run roughshod b/c we aren't emphasizing it enough. I'm really interested about restoring my "inalienable right to privacy and obtain it" DISABILITY awarded from 1203.4. Is taking away my "right to privacy and obtain it" a disability? If so, then all those with 1203.4 have a claim that needs taking up, especially when the "letter of the law" in 1203.4 doesn't not say one needs to continue to register within said statue.
  • DavidH January 21, 2017 at 11:46 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardWell I can only imagine that without those not in office types behind this the in office types wouldn't have the backbone or rationale to send this through
  • DavidH January 21, 2017 at 11:43 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardChris-- excellent point!
  • Renny January 21, 2017 at 11:27 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardI am very torn on this... My gratitude for the work and taking the fight to our enemy to improve the station for our people is hard to express or quantify however; I do not trust our enemy, the people of the United States, in particular the future legislators of the main enemy, the State of California. I am afraid I will live to see the day where the changes sought and achieved will be considered dangerous loopholes that need to be closed for good and that in 2025 our enemy will place us under far more post-punishment punishments than we endured up to 2017. All it takes is one offender, even a first time offender, to do something horrible, truly shocking, and the newly elected enemies in the legislature seeking to continue their sucking off the California teat via votes, will see an opportunity. The motto for our legislative enemies has always been "Never let any tragedy go unexploited." I trust those people like Janice who are fighting for us. I do not trust anyone else in the United States. No one....
  • New Person January 21, 2017 at 11:08 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardRegistration may be a civil penalty, but its M.O. and results are to negate one's privacy. They are collecting your private information, doesn't matter if they're displaying it or not, the state is requiring of your whereabouts as well as that information being shared to potential employers and housing communities. California Constitution specifically states that the right to privacy and obtain it is an "inalienable right". It is a right that cannot be taken away nor can it be prevented from attaining it. I don't know how registration came to be in California, but last time I checked, the California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 did not amend itself to omit "inalienable right to... privacy... and obtain it." Maybe somebody should query just how strong the California Constitution is in court b/c registration is the process of taking away your privacy... for life.
  • DavidH January 21, 2017 at 11:05 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardWhile I'm not completely sure about how to calculate correctly the static 99, I too believe it would make me into a tier III. I have no major issues in life--just an old fart now living out his life. However, a couple ridiculous incidences from my past I believe would result in a high scoring of me; for christ-sake, if anything that damn static 99 is only good for someone young in their life, if anything at all. What really irks me is that I believe everyone here believed static 99 to be the problem--WHY WASN'T THAT MENTIONED! I've never had a notification, in one of the 4 cities I've lived in while registering only one has paid me a home verification visit and that was when I first moved here and many years ago. I hardly think I'm someone they worry about. It really sounds like with just a little effort and commonsense this thing could be some what useful maybe, as we all know there are at risk people out there, I dont know if that number is 8,000 as they suggest or what, but if they are snaring people like me and those of you not on the website currently then that suggests the number is going to be higher, as well as unfair and nonsensical. Another assessment tool is needed! furthermore--while we (the State and us) clean up the SO database--how about the public defender's office being staffed and charged with assisting people with this process--who can afford the certain high cost to roll the dice, but certainly we'll all try!
  • New Person January 21, 2017 at 10:54 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThanks, ACSOL!!! Beat them down with facts!
  • New Person January 21, 2017 at 10:53 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardAlso, by inserting themselves (judges and DA) into this specific equation, they are adding cost to registrant to be removed from the registry. This is a second judgement???????????????????? At the extra cost on behalf of the registrant???? Isn't this akin to saying every registrant need to take a polygraph and one of those people who wrote the law is part owner of a polygraph production company, thereby standing to make profit from it? Crony capitalism? Also, if this isn't punishment, then why have a second hearing as if we were in jail seeking to get out of jail? Isn't that a form of punishment practice? hmmm... a second judgement without an actual crime to where a restriction can be extended, thereby enhancing the penalty. am i missing something here?
  • Sell outs! January 21, 2017 at 10:24 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardRight on! In other words, "I won't get reelected if I don't have these people's support, endorsements and money when I need it most!" If what they said is not the most "sell out" comment I have ever heard, it is close to it! All they have done is politically sold themselves for ego, etc and made the red neon arrow point right at them. Isn't this type of lobbying nature what gets those in WDC in trouble so much? Just asking....
  • Michael January 21, 2017 at 9:37 am on Janice’s Journal: Sex Offender in Chief?That's the moral hypocrisy of the Right. They pass legislation that bans same sex marriage, then tap their toes in airport men's rooms looking for gay sex. They are a party that purports to have family values, while stepping out on their wives or molesting their sisters. They claim to be protecting kids, after having had sexual relationships with high school boys. It is said that about 1% of the population suffers from Narcissistic personality disorder. I'm am convinced that 100% of them are Rightists. ....
  • David Kennerly January 21, 2017 at 7:39 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThe dust jacket illustration would have to be from a very low angle looking up at scary-looking Supreme Court Justices towering, and glowering, over us. "Frightening and High"
  • David Kennerly January 21, 2017 at 7:35 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardLegislators are free to draft bills based upon advice from outside of the legislature. We are able to lobby them as individuals, non-profit organizations, corporations or as any other kind of group who might appeal to them in an effort to influence policy. We can write model legislation and offer it to the lawmakers for their consideration, bring pressure to bear upon them and speak to them as citizens in public hearings with the goal of getting laws passed or defeated. That is completely fundamental to a democracy. The powers of law makers to rely upon interested parties to craft laws is beyond question. Stepping back, how would we disallow it? Tell them that they have to make a certain number of changes to any proposed law offered by outside groups in order for it not to be identical?
  • BAM January 21, 2017 at 5:01 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThank you for helping us!
  • ab January 21, 2017 at 3:37 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Boardbecause the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them. The above quote is a major problem, not just with this bill but all legislation drafted by those outside of government at every level. District attorneys, law enforcement, lobbyists, CEOS and other executives, and anyone outside of a legislative body should have zero influence on the exact language for any proposal that could become law. A person or group is free to propose an idea with whatever details they might want, however no person(s) in a legislative body at any level of government in the United States of America should allow anyone outside that body to write potential law. The coalition here is not serving the people of California, they are only serving themselves by pretending to assert their authority and expertise in one area they directly oversee.
  • David Kennerly January 21, 2017 at 1:46 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardRegarding: " In its presentation, ACSOL notified CASOMB that it would lobby on both the tiered registry bill and Senate Bill 26." By "lobby on" do you mean "lobby on BEHALF of" the tiered registry bill and, as we already know, not on behalf of Bill 26?
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 21, 2017 at 12:57 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardYes, there is a possibility that they'll revamp it and try to reapply but I don't know how it could be worse, since they're offering worse now. There is a small chance that it might not make it through unscathed. Now for the part I don't think you get. We do NOT have the resources to attack from all directions which is why I and others, among other things, call for a direct core attack. There will be no workaround for hundreds of thousands of us that have had decades added to our time under the guise of regulatory high and frightening lie. Randomness: There's a good book title for ya David Kennerly or anyone else that's a good writer! .20 cent royalty on any item sold from this idea. 🙂 The High and Frightening Lie. Written by:?
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 21, 2017 at 12:41 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.” — Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
  • M. January 20, 2017 at 11:21 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardUntil the Courts correct registration as a criminal penalty (i.e. punishment) -- and not promulgate it under the auspices of a "civil penalty" -- our Legislature will continue to throw false prophets like this tiered registry bill. I feel that this is an issue best fought in the Court system. And I think that this tiered registry bill is a terrible idea that will evolve to be something a lot worse than what it currently is. Open your eyes and look at the big picture. Casomb, the DAs, and law enforcement are agreeing to release about 10,000 pre-1987 offenders in exchange for being able to impose a more complex set of rules on a greater amount of us (without any Ex Post Facto prohibition). It's pretty much a hostage situation. And it's clear that Casomb is using people who are labeled "sex offenders" as political pawns to further the Casomb board member's for-profit business or political interests. As others have wisely said: Casomb is no friend of ours.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 20, 2017 at 11:17 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThere's a difference between inalienable vs unalienable. In the final signed Declaration of Independence, Adams changed inalienable to unalienable. I often see people use the incorrect word thinking they mean the same thing. Inalienable: “Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.” Unalienable: “Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.” One can be contracted away by you and one cannot by anyone, including you. Politicians and lawyers love the first definition that gets you to believe that you've given up your rights. I haven't read the California constitution but I'd recheck if I were you... If it says inalienable, you have your answer as to why you've lost your rights. They've given themselves the legal authority to screw ya. Edit: Yep, says "inalienable".
  • M. January 20, 2017 at 11:07 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardMy offense is not disclosed under current law (290.006). First-time, non-contact, happened about seven years ago. Never in trouble with the law before or after that one conviction. No parole violations. The thing that screws me is a "high risk" Static 99R score. I score a number 6... which is right at the borderline between me being Tier I and Tier III under this ridiculous tiered registry bill. Funny thing is that every other "instrument" used to evaluate me showed me at low risk. It's only the Static 99 scam that shows me "high risk." And to clarify: I will never recidivate, regardless of whatever Casomb's "tools" claim. The Static 99 tests are complete garbage. (Plus, I doubt there would only be 8,000 people subject to Tier III under this bill. I don't trust Casomb's "estimates" -- as Casomb's recommendations and findings have not aligned with empirical findings that they only seemingly pretend to uphold.)
  • Timmr January 20, 2017 at 9:42 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLI found it. Yes that is what is on the green notices. "Depressive"? They give a notice for that. I'm sometimes feeling quite down. They going to detain me and give me Zoloft?
  • Timmr January 20, 2017 at 9:28 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardIf a court strikes down a lifetime registry because it lacks 'a way to petition for relief', they will simply allow the state to go back and hammer out some half ass way to provide some relief for some, so they can save SORA and say they are saving that one child somewhere. Hasn't that happened all too often? The remedy would probably be worse than this proposal, certainly less thought out and ad hoc, and the judge may say it is good enough. Then it would be court precedent, which is stronger than legislative precedent and harder to undo, and you would have to go through the legislatures to do it anyway. I am not saying this because I think the draft bill and tiered registries are good, far from it, but that the process has be to attack from all directions if you really want to succeed.
  • Timmr January 20, 2017 at 8:54 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardOn reading this,, I am wondering if registration can be legally abolished in California as being unconstitutional or would federal law require the state to have a registry anyway?
  • Timmr January 20, 2017 at 8:29 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardYes, so what? The CASOMB is an advisory board, not a political party. They are there to advise on what is best for public safety, not to be a mouthpiece for the district attorneys. They are a public advisory board not the police union.
  • Timmr January 20, 2017 at 8:20 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLMy question, too. The link is to a red notice form. Do you have one to a green notice?
  • Timmr January 20, 2017 at 6:28 pm on WA: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’ (Editorial)What is more damaging is the phrase 'known sex offender'. I see it being used more and more by those who want to put more restrictions on registrants. The phrase seems to be a calculated dismissal to fact that nine out of ten new offenses are created by those not on the registry.
  • Timmr January 20, 2017 at 6:19 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardI thank you ASCOL for being active. Although I may not agree with every position you take, that is immaterial to the fact you are providing a physical presence for us before the boards of power and is much appreciated. Our greatest danger is to remain invisible and voiceless. When that happens, those who should know better will fill in the void in their perceptions with monster myths and lies provided by the background culture.
  • David January 20, 2017 at 5:46 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board"....provided they had registered for at least 10 years.” That certainly sounds like punishment to me!!
  • Nicholas Maietta January 20, 2017 at 5:45 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThank you for being my voice and my pillar of support. I am proud of the team.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 20, 2017 at 5:01 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board"advocating for realistic positions that help the maximum number of registrants is a better strategy than advocating positions that will be ignored by the government and therefore help no one." Depends on who you're advocating to. If you spend time and resources going the route of legislation, you're almost guaranteed to always get the short stick. If however, you're spending those same resources on direct challenges through the courts, you're odds are much higher of winning something substantial. By going through the legislators, you're helping them work out ways to keep the scheme going. A lifetime suit should've been filed against 290 but now it can't be, like it could've been, if any tiered bill gets through. They'll always be able to point to "they have a way to petition for relief" as a defense, even when the effect of their bill, all but guarantees you're staying right where they want you. It's the same tactic used in Texas and for restoration of gun rights, now with COR in California. You're getting screwed and some of you are asking for it.
  • New Person January 20, 2017 at 2:43 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThat lifetime term of negation of privacy runs contrary to the inalienable right to privacy AND obtain it as specifically stated in California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. This continued propagation of lifetime negation of privacy is a violation of the law. Thus, with this new bill, they are stating exactly that tier 3's cannot regain their privacy whereas tier 1 and 2's have the so-called opportunity to "obtain privacy". Also, with this new bill, they are admitting there were no direct pathway to obtain privacy for this group of convicts until this bill was introduced with their own way of doing so after a minimum of a decade with the power to negate privacy further at their discretion as opposed to meeting set criteria. Again, that is NOT a direct path to obtain privacy as discretion is far too powerfully vague. Are we not allowed to use our California Constitution to combat the negation of privacy, which is what registration is? I'm giving my privacy away every year for the rest of my life without a direct pathway off of registery, to which California states in law that 'privacy is an inalienable right as well as obtaining it'. Apparently, 1203.4 isn't a direct pathway to "obtain the inalienable right to privacy". If that doesn't do it, then there truly isn't a direct path to obtain it outside the whim of discretion. Inalienable - unable to be taken away from or given away Inalienable right - right that is unable to be taken away from or given away. Why exactly are we not using Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution to do away with any form of registration outside of being in custody? We, Californians, have something written specifically for Californians that other states do not have - "the inalienable right to privacy". Registration is taking away my privacy and giving it away (this includes giving it away to the IML). That's all registration is... all about my private information. ::: sighs ::: I wish I could generate enough money to file a suit against the state for violating my California Constitutional's "inalienable right to privacy and obtain it". Was my right disabled for my crime (meaning did I lose it)? If I lost it, then how is that possible considering the terminology of "inalienable right"? And if I did lose that right (disabled my right to privacy), then why wasn't that disability restored when I earned my 1203.4 as stated specifically within its statute and nothing "below" within that same statute says I need to continue to register after earning my 1203.4? I really don't know how the courts can work around "inalienable right to privacy AND obtain it"? According to our California Constitution, any form of taking away my privacy is a violation of the law. That means this registration scheme is a violation of the law as it is. Tack on the "lifetime" term of negation is a second violation as it's also "an inalienable right to obtain privacy". Who cares about categorical punishment when you have this LAW telling you the state cannot take privacy away! Let alone not give it back to you! We aren't part of a national registration program, so this is only a state program. And this program should be deemed unconstitutional as it violates it's first section!
  • USA January 20, 2017 at 2:33 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardI can agree with everyone's comments! Can a judge just deny your removal from the website for no reason? Or, is it your compliant/no further arrests and it's straightforward? The removal from the registry altogether is also questionable? Is this just a straightforward request (compliant etc)? Or, is this going to be like a COR? I hope guidelines can be instituted? I'm presently not online after 20 years with an expunged offense? Will this change? I feel for you. This could drive the courts crazy! Just remember, stay positive and nothing has been signed into legislation!
  • USA January 20, 2017 at 2:28 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billWow! I never knew this existed! People are banned from certain jobs, prohibited from living in certain areas and now released after paying their debt to society and required to pay for registration? What if they are homeless or jobless? What about the gang members, drug dealers, prostititutes, wife beaters, drunk drivers, drug users, released murderers or thousands of paroles? If this isn't continued punishment, I don't know what is? I can maybe see someone required to pay retribution etc, but this requires a lawsuit!
  • Someone who cares January 20, 2017 at 1:49 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardM - I am confused as to how it is possible to become a Tier III from not being on the public site now? It has been mentioned here before but i just don't understand it. Did you have to file for an exclusion or was your offense just automatically not disclosed. Without going into your type of offense if you don't want to say, can you somewhat explain how you think you would be a Tier III?
  • FRegistryTerrorists January 20, 2017 at 1:28 pm on WA: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’ (Editorial)I did not see a way to comment on the editorial. I wrote a letter to the editors however and sent it to letters@heraldnet.com and CCed newstips@heraldnet.com. The letter was far too long for them to consider publishing. I also did not include my name or anything else they require. Perhaps I could/should pare this down so it would be considered? Meh, not today. This is the letter: Editors: I read your 1/17/17 editorial titled, "Editorial: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’". You are correct to agree with that retirement. However, your explanation regarding the continued use of the term “registered s*xual offender” was quite wrong. It is true that if the term is codified is law, it would be difficult, and even inaccurate in many cases, to not use the term. But your other reasoning regarding its use is bizarre and couldn't be more wrong. The worse part of your reasoning was when you said, "Overuse of the term “offender” in a general sense could weaken its impact where we need it to identify sexual offenders." There is not ever any case "where we need it". It hard to comprehend that you even said that given the rest of the editorial. You seem to be saying that "offender" is a problem for everyone except it's an acceptable problem for anyone convicted of a crime that involved s*x. You also seem to be perpetuating the complete lie and propaganda that s*x crimes are somehow worse than just about any other crime. Obviously, there are many, many categories of s*x crimes that are not nearly as dangerous, for certain, nor as impactful, as so many other crimes that do not involve s*x. The intelligent people in the U.S. need to stop placating everyone else and ignoring those facts and reality. I mean really, is looking at the wrong pictures in your home actually more dangerous than shooting someone with a gun? There is no one with a brain who agrees with that. All that aside, there does need to be a term that can be used to refer to people who are listed on a Nanny Big Government (NBG) S*x Offender Registry (SOR). "registered s*xual offender" is technically correct but it should not be used in common usage because people in the U.S. have taken that as a label for who/what a person is. And that clearly is wrong and un-American. The term "s*x offender" is clearly inaccurate, lazy, un-American, and likely hateful. Any person who uses that term can freely be called any name that reflects any behavior that they have done in the past. Likely anyone of those people could just as accurately be called "liar" for the rest of their lives. Whatever names fit them at any time, they can be called all of them for the rest of their lives. I know many people like to use the term "Registered Citizen". That is good but it is too generic if a person needs to describe exactly which NBG Registry that a citizen is listed on. I have used the term "Person Registered for Harassment, Restrictions, and Punishment". I like that term because it does capture the true raison d'etre and reality of the SORs. Its acronym is also a palindrome. But that term is also generic. So what would be the best term? I expect "Person who is listed on a S*x Offender Registry" is likely the best. A bit unwieldy though. Someone should coin something better. Lastly, there are no legitimate excuses that the U.S. has SORs and does not Register hundreds of other categories of crimes in exactly the same way, along with all the same useless, un-American BS that goes with it. We know that the SORs are not really for "public safety", "protecting children", or any of those other lies. Which is why that, even though the SORs are already quite naturally counterproductive, as all experts said they would be, everyone should do anything possible to ensure that they are even more counterproductive. Not just worthless, but worse-than-worthless. Further, everyone that is negatively affected by the SORs should be retaliating for their mere existence every single day. Since the people who support the SORs love to label people and call them names, I have names for those people. Two of them are "Un-Americans" and "Registry Terrorists". Those people are not my fellow U.S. citizens and I need not have any concern for them. God divide the U.S.A. Amen.
  • ML January 20, 2017 at 1:14 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLSo if in TX and you have deferred Adjudication and successfully go through the deregistration process, IML does not apply?
  • Neil January 20, 2017 at 12:52 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardKudos to ACSOL for their efforts to improve this bill. In case anyone missed it, an invitation to make formal presentations to policymakers is not easy to secure, yet Janice and her team were invited to the table because they have credibility and make well-reasoned contributions. Also, building influence requires recognizing the political realities involved with this bill, which is the product of negotiation between many powerful players in state government. I think Janice and the rest of the ACSOL board are smart to advocate for changes that have a realistic chance of being implemented. There will be problems with almost any bill, but advocating for realistic positions that help the maximum number of registrants is a better strategy than advocating positions that will be ignored by the government and therefore help no one.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom January 20, 2017 at 12:26 pm on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardThe concerns that Janice brought fourth truly serve "In The Interest of Justice" and the imperical data To Date at hand proves her case "Without a Shadow of Doubt". Yet we are informed that : "others stated the board would not agree to those changes because the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them." We can Correctly Infer by their stated positions that the DA's & LE officials desire to serve their Political Motivations and in effect have made Political Prisoners of 104,145 persons. We are now lead to see the Ugly Truth, that the reality that their policy's keep the public safe is a Falsehood they have perpetuated for far to long. They offer society solutions that Malfunction at the most base level and in practice have caused Evil (Want) for the parties involved. The Justice they produce is equal to False Coin as contrasted with True Coin, the Fruit of their tree is a "Counterfeit Justice" a "Coliseum Justice" for the masses to consume. In the same spirit as Moses came to Pharaoh and called out to him to repent and return from the wicked path he traveled upon, I too say the same message from The Most High Father in Heaven who formed light and created darkness: Set His Children Free, as Heaven and Earth is witness against you before the Court of the Only Eternal One. As Yehovah Lives, I speak Truth
  • Rarely?! Since when?! January 20, 2017 at 11:58 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryRarely? When and where do murderers, kidnappers and gang members have to register? Child abusers, drunk drivers and animal abusers do have to register (an online search will show that), but these fine folks? Please show the data they have to do the same as a registered citizen.
  • Chris F January 20, 2017 at 11:06 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLThis is confusing. The International travel notifications appear to be required by ANYONE that should be registered based on SORNA guidelines and convicted. The term convicted does not appear to include deferred adjudication based on section 111 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911). However, it doesn't look like it matters that your state doesn't require you to register, you still notify? So, if you meet the criteria to be registered under SORNA, even if you aren't registered in your state, you still have to do this? Later, it shows that those getting the passport mark do have to currently be registered somewhere. I can't find that requirement in the top section for those that have to notify of international travel though. Can someone re-read this as I must be missing something. Also, I know that most states I've looked into do require registration even if you are deferred adjudication so I am surprised IML doesn't as well for notification. Confusing...
  • Ralph L. January 20, 2017 at 10:51 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardCasomb = corrupt. A lot of us will end up in worse shape with this bogus "tiered" registry. What a joke!!
  • M. January 20, 2017 at 10:36 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardWell, I will be one of those who will be placed from not even being on the website into Tier III. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me. This tiered registry is a complete scam.
  • j January 20, 2017 at 10:29 am on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billthe implication of this proposed law is that no law enforcement resources used in the apprehension of murderers, car-jackers and those who have made millions of dollars in their crime sprees is worth recovery through such a process. As long as there are great thinkers like the idiot that proposed this law, there will be no chance that sanity will play a part in the legislative process, just raw emotion baby! A politicians dream and a human rights disaster packaged into one neat little bill.
  • Brad Lincoln January 20, 2017 at 10:24 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryNever take the first offer, Janice. The proposed 3 tier registry is barely better than the current scheme and leaves far too many to endure the Life Sentence of registration. I agree with you that the Lifetime requirement should be dropped. Any tiered registry should include at least 5 Tiers, and 90% of convictions should be classified under the first three tiers. Tier 1---- Register for 1 year after conviction Tier 2--- 3 years after conviction Tier 3--- 5 years after conviction Tier 4 --- 10 years after conviction Tier 5--- 12 years after conviction Thanks to the internet, this punishment will be widely disseminated, and will be MORE than harsh enough for anyone.
  • Political Prisoner January 20, 2017 at 10:15 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardI still strongly disagree with the fact that a person would have to file a petition to be granted from registry relief. Unless that said person has committed another crime it SHOULD be automatic removal. It is just another burden put on registered citizens by big brother government.
  • Brad Lincoln January 20, 2017 at 10:10 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryNever take the first offer, Janice. The proposed 3 tier registry is barely better than the current scheme and leaves far too many to endure the Life Sentence of registration. I agree with you that the Lifetime requirement should be dropped. Murderers, Kidnappers, and Gang Members rarely have to register, so why should anyone who ever peed in public?
  • Joe123 January 20, 2017 at 10:08 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardSo CASOMB puts out a video showing that offenders are all very different and have a risk greatly lower than other offenses. They're also in a state that showed a 4.8% average re-offense rate, being the lowest or all crimes, yet they STILL are moving forward with their plans? Does anyone use their brains anymore? Is it really that difficult to pay attention to empirical evidence rather than baseless emotions? You have to have a Backbone to stand up for the truth, which it seems many people especially in authority lack.
  • USA January 20, 2017 at 10:06 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardGreat work! Janice, please advise. How would those with expunged offenses be affected? I have a PC 243.4 (a) expunged years ago with Summary Probation. I've never taken a Static 99 Test and 18-19 years has passed since my plea/crime free? Does expungement have an affect on tiering? I never noted anything via the proposal. Thank you
  • NPS January 20, 2017 at 9:45 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board"While some CASOMB members agreed with those concerns, others stated the board would not agree to those changes because the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them." So what? They're not the ones in office. Nor are they ones who can vote yay or nay. Why is CASOMB trying to appease a group that clearly has zero power in the legislative chambers?
  • j January 20, 2017 at 9:42 am on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billand the beauty of this is that it is all regulatory, no civil rights are being violated. that makes me feel so much better already.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom January 20, 2017 at 9:24 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLA little less know Notice by INTERPOL is the: Diffusions Notices. "Countries can also use Interpol systems to circulate ‘Diffusions Notices,’ which are described as ‘less formal’ than Red Notices and are also used to request the arrest or location of an individual." Another US Government Dept. which must be better understood is the : "National Central Bureau" "Each Interpol member country has a National Central Bureau (NCB) who provide information for an Interpol wanted alert. “The Commission will always have to rely on the willingness of the NCB’s to co-operate, because according to the principle of national sovereignty, the national bureau’s remain owners of that data,” she told Al Jazeera." The Eternal Father in Heaven be with us.
  • Chris F January 20, 2017 at 7:25 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLI'm not a lawyer, but you probably won't get any response from a lawyer on here. They normally only talk to you in person and don't risk posting legal advise for free. Unfortunately, with Smith V Doe (2003) SCOTUS agreed with the state that Sex Offender registration is regulatory and not punitive. Therefore, any registration requirements won't be able to challenge their constitutionality for things like Double Jeopardy, ex-post-facto, cruel and unusual punishment or many other protections that should be viable challenges. There are some wins recently though, like in the 6th circuit, where all of the restrictions added since 2003 have pushed registration way into punitive land. Unfortunately, few elected judges would rule in our favor when that would cost them their next election and all they have to do is site the Smith V Doe ruling and be done with it.
  • Chris F January 20, 2017 at 7:08 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardOn this part: "In addition to individuals eligible to petition for removal, the California Department of Justice would automatically terminate the requirement to register for about 11,000 individuals convicted of an offense prior to 1987 provided they had registered for at least 10 years." Someone is going to have to explain to me how that isn't a state violation of the Equal Protection clause. Anyone with the same circumstances must get the same treatment, and the date of something occurring that is supposed to be "regulatory" and not punishment would have to regulate regardless of date. Otherwise, it's punishment and you can't change the terms of agreed to punishment or it's ex-post facto. I guess it's best to let the law take effect and then file a case to get everyone off that has registered for 10 years. How will the judge explain that it's ok to set an arbitrary date like 1987?
  • ML January 20, 2017 at 6:45 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLAre you saying that the Green notices contain language with statements like, "This person is liable to commit sexual offences involving minors This person is liable to use pictures of minors for pornographic purposes for his own gain"? This is actually what the Green notices contain?
  • Someone who cares January 20, 2017 at 6:17 am on ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management BoardWell, this was to be expected. I just don't know why the major concern of those opposing this bill was not brought up. All the comments on this site mentioned the worry of those not currently on the public site would now be in a higher tier and therefore on the public site. This is just not fair and shows how ridiculous the registry really is. How will it be explained to the public that for years they did not know about all these "dangerousl" people who now appear on the Megan's law site? That seems like the ultimate deceipt to me. But this was not even mentioned when addressing concerns about this bill.
  • David Kennerly January 20, 2017 at 2:17 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLINTERPOL has its own program insofar as it has the support from its member nations to practice it. The U.S. fully supports it as do many others. Indeed, the U.S. controls the dissemination of its own citizen's criminal records and provides them to INTERPOL for just such a purpose. Just like with the much-in-the-news Red Notices being sent out at the request of Russia, for instance, in order to intercept its criminal or dissident citizens at borders, the U.S. is doing the same to us using INTERPOL. The additional capabilities being deployed by the U.S. of direct messaging to foreign destination countries on receipt of Registrant travel plans are being sent on to those specific countries that the Registrant intends to visit on a 'per-trip' basis so that could be seen as the "advance travel alert." In contrast, the INTERPOL alert happens right at the destination port of entry as a result of the Immigration Officer sliding your passport through the reader and getting a match off of the INTERPOL database; a 'continuously available record' given to any (qualifying) country. Its beauty is that they don't even have to have had any advance notice at all in order to realize, as soon as you arrive, that you are a sex offender; they just have to scan your passport. So this is very much a fully-redundant system that more greatly ensures a successful "intercept." To recap, there is: An explicit one-time alert system which requires Washington to specifically alert a foreign destination of your intended travel as well as a 'continuously available' database system using INTERPOL's computer network. I'm less clear if that takes the form of a "Green Notice" (it would seem to be the appropriate type of notice based upon INTERPOL's explanations of the different Notices) or if it may be a 'diffusion', instead. Still, that system is probably best seen as the U.S. doing it to us rather than INTERPOL, itself. INTERPOL is just passing on the information that the U.S. wants them to pass on, although INTERPOL is hardly a disinterested party in these matters. As an organization they have gone in big on anything having to do with sex and kids and they are eager to ramp this program up and drum up some enthusiasm. Just a bit more background on INTERPOL: Of the 190 member nations, each has its own INTERPOL branch staffed entirely by nationals of that country. In the U.S., those INTERPOL agents are run out of the U.S. D.O.J. but co-managed by it and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security which includes lots of agencies including Customs, Border Patrol, Immigration and ICE. So all Interpol agents are law enforcement in their own right as agents of those other agencies. Beyond providing the common database linking all of the agencies together with their foreign counterparts, INTERPOL allows them to collaborate with foreign law enforcement and to collect intelligence, conduct joint investigations, stage simultaneous raids and choreograph arrests and prosecutions, etc. When you see big multi-nation raids on child porn happening simultaneously on two or three continents, such as with the AZOV Video takeover and resultant stings that resulted in the arrests of hundreds of people in many countries, it was, most likely, INTERPOL coordinating it.
  • D January 20, 2017 at 12:03 am on VA: Lawmakers say judges being too lenient on people possessing child pornBeing a convicted receiver of CP and spending five years of my life in federal prison, which is the minimum sentence. I can't and won't be convinced that being in possession of materials not shared nor advertised is a pretense to a market demand. I had a file sharing program that made available any and all illegal materials sought. It seems as always the targeted individuals are consumers. If there was no demand then would that prevent the abuse. How can I protect my own children from accessing these same materials? If there are known hash-tags connecting the majority of illegal images, then why can't they be blocked to prevent the distribution? I was wrong for seeking out this material and am no computer wiz but why not spend the time, energy and money to identify, block and eliminate those known and identifyable images from accessing a server. Long story short. A demand is not the driving factor in production of C.P. Money is a causation but rarely the catalyst.
  • Timmr January 19, 2017 at 10:39 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLGreen notices are generic Interpol method to flag persons of concern. I don't think it is just for sex offenses. Angel Watch is a US program specifically for people with sex crime convictions. Right? Angel Watch uses the green notice system. That is obvious, because internation criminal matters are handled through Interpol. But you are saying the Interpol has its own program to send notices about traveling people with past sex criminality?
  • Timmr January 19, 2017 at 10:08 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billI would definately like to know some ways of doing that.
  • Renny January 19, 2017 at 10:05 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLHere it is..... I wrote a long post to go with this, but my post was not accepted and I lost it. I could only find one country that did not block the Green Notice Form: Nepal https://cid.nepalpolice.gov.np/images/interpol/interpol-2073-03-13.pdf One thing I would like to see discussed is the section labeled "Caution" Caution Amnesic Armed Dangerous Depressive Addicted to drugs Escape Risk Mentally Ill Infectious This person is liable to commit sexual offences involving minors This person is liable to use pictures of minors for pornographic purposes for his own gain Suicidal Under medical treatment Violent Other What exactly do they mean by mentally ill? Does PTSD qualify? What is other? Are even real Americans who are infectious having their medical records given to INTERPOL? People with depression have Green Notices filed on them?!?! Again... WTF is "other?" How many real Americans have had Green Notices on them and did not know it? How many Americans have been injured, harassed, blackmailed or killed because of information leaked by a corrupt police officer in a far away land? I bet that number is greater than 0. No wonder they refuse to release these completed forms. Every single American that thinks they might have been subject to a Green Notice should file a FOIA to see the notice. The media should be contacted. The OIG audit in 2008 revealed that 75% of all Green Notices were originated in the US. Good Lord people, our government is out of control. If just ONE real American that has PTSD, a disease, or is one of the "others" was hurt because of information leaked from a Green Notice, those people who filed the form need to be held legally and personally responsible as criminals. ~~~ Green Notice Form IDENTITY PARTICULARS Family name: Family name in the original script or Chinese Telegraphic Code: Family name at birth: Forename: Forename in the original script or Chinese Telegraphic Code: Sex: Date and place of birth Date: Town/Region: Country: Nationality Confirmed 1. 2. 3. Caution Amnesic Armed Dangerous Depressive Addicted to drugs Escape Risk Mentally Ill Infectious This person is liable to commit sexual offences involving minors This person is liable to use pictures of minors for pornographic purposes for his own gain Suicidal Under medical treatment Violent Other ALIAS Also known as Family name Forename Date of Birth Town/Region Country 1. 2. 3. Nicknames 1. 2. DETAILS Marital status: Father's family name and forenames Family name: Forename: Mother's maiden name and forenames Family name: Forename: Occupation: Languages spoken: 1. 2. Regions/Countries likely to be visited Country Town/Region 1. 2. 3. Additional information: Identity documents Nationality Type Number Date of issue Expiry date Country of issue Town of issue IDENTIFICATION MATERIAL Photographs Fingerprints DNA Dental information Blood group: Clothing: Jewellery: Other personal effects: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Height (cm): Weight (kg): Hair: Eyes: Build: Distinguishing marks and characteristics: CASE Facts of the case Date: Town: Country: Offence Code(s): Summary: Additional facts of the case: ACTION TO BE TAKEN: JUDICIAL INFORMATION CONVICTION/SENTENCE1/1 Charge(s) on which convicted Law covering the offence(s): Sentence imposed (imprisonment): Years: Months: Time limit for enforcement: Conviction/sentence Number: Date of issuance: Issuing or competent judicial authorities and place of issuance: Was the subject present in court when the judgment was rendered? Yes/No Name of signatory:
  • Timmr January 19, 2017 at 9:59 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billWhat if you can't pay for the service you don't want? Debtor's prison? These wonderful fools are insane. Still most of us lose still greater than $100 annually due to lost employment opportunities due to public registration. How much on average does a person's wealth go down after being put on the registry? Must be tens of thousands annually. These brilliant leaders turn us into commodities and then develop a politically correct public works program to pay for services. Yet in the long run they loose the taxes we would have paid that could keep their troopers in school if we had better paying work. It is no wonder the state is poverty stricken, but come to think of it, the whole country is on the way to bankrupting itself and it's human economic potential to support the police state, just like former East Germany.
  • ReadyToFight January 19, 2017 at 8:34 pm on Fullerton, Desert Hot Springs to Consider Repeal of Residency RestrictionsI think you make a good point Renny. Let them see what it's like to Live in fear. Let them feel that ache in their hearts trying to protect their families because they are Price Club endorsers.
  • LM January 19, 2017 at 8:30 pm on Asperger’s, autism, and sex offendersThank you for this info. I feel as though I'm at my wits' end and no longer feel human. Megan's Law is not ONLY punishment, it's torture and terrorism. It's an unnecessary evil that will not combat or thwart anything, much less prevent the same thing that the Kankas' went through. I'm tired of being made a spectacle out of and bad mouthed.
  • LM January 19, 2017 at 8:26 pm on WA: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’ (Editorial)They would call them "perverts" if they could. Oh, wait.. they already do behind closed doors.
  • Renny January 19, 2017 at 8:00 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLSorry - Full link here. https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/dro_policy_memos/additionofchapter19section18internationalpoliceorganizationoftheddfm05202005.pdf
  • Renny January 19, 2017 at 7:27 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLIn a memo to ICE Field Office Directors from ICE Acting Director Wesley Lee dated May 20, 2005: Subject: Addition of Chapterl9, Section 18, International Police Organization (INTERPOL) of the Detention and Deportation Officer's Field Manual (DDFM) The DDFM is updated to reflect the addition of Section 18, Chapter 19. Accordingly, the DDFM is updated as follows: II. POLICY DRO (Office of Detention and Removal Operations) personnel shall complete 'Green Notice' applications (Appendix 19-16) as the situation dictates. Green Notice applications will be completed on those cases where the subject being removed is a registered sex offender and/or a known gang member whose "gang" conducts operations outside of the United States. In fairness, this change seems to be targeting sex offenders who are entering the US, however it shows that the Green Notices existed for sex offenders worldwide via INTERPOL prior to May 20, 2005. I am looking for the DDFM Appendix 19-16. If I find it, I will try to find a way to post it. As a side note: the Appendices referenced in the memo were partially redacted, in other words they were converted to images as opposed to text like the rest of the document. Source: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/dro_policy_memos
  • Harassing Police January 19, 2017 at 7:20 pm on General Comments January 2017thanks again mike r iscensoredagain am going to speak to an attorney who knows the 290 laws.
  • Renny January 19, 2017 at 7:11 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLI wonder if the people who dig for Wikileaks might take on this challenge? I am sure these notices are sent via email and that means on a server or desktop somewhere, there is an opening where a good hacker can get in and find a copy of these and other notices. Where would this stand on the rules of Classified material? Are these notices Classified and unavailable via FOIA? I do not recall anyone mentioning trying FOIA to get a copy. If these notices are not Classified then a good OSINT guy/gal should be able to find a copy. I am a fair, but not great OSINT guy.
  • Renny January 19, 2017 at 6:58 pm on General Comments January 2017I had to do this as well. I attended college outside my residence jurisdiction. The college did not have a police force. I am not even sure their doors locked, lol. I had to register with the City of Ontario Police Department. This was not an initially easy process since I had to argue with Ontario to be "allowed" to register. Once that was covered, the first registration was humiliating. If you have ever been to the Ontario station, the holding pen has a huge window to the lobby. I was required to undress from the waist up and wait in the holding cell to be photographed while Americans were in the lobby waiting to be served and protected. The registering officer was soft, petulant, snotty, unprofessional continued to turn his back to me and was completely unaware that I could have killed him in five seconds with my bare hands. But I allowed him to live. I did not want to get killed back. LOL Each of the following annuals at Ontario was handled by cadets, whom to my perception, were too young to be handling the job, but they were more polite, professional and competent than the all the sworn officers from the City of Ontario Police Department I dealt with. Deregistering was a complete nightmare. they did not want to allow me to deregister, I had to to an extra annual, three months after I finally deregistered. I actually had to get my residence jurisdiction involved at this point and they made the call. Even then I had to prove that I actually deregistered with a copy of the form from Ontario before my local would make the call. I spent four years getting a completely useless degree because UCR told me I was not allowed to pursue an engineering degree with them (turns out the registar LIED to my VA Chapter 31 counselor, UCR did allow Former Citizen Detainees at the time!), in a city whose police force was not even partially competent at the time in sex offender requirements. I pity any Former Citizen Detainees who have to register with the City of Ontario.
  • Renny January 19, 2017 at 6:40 pm on Fullerton, Desert Hot Springs to Consider Repeal of Residency RestrictionsWe are letting the Banishers off too easily. We need to restart the website that listed the names and addresses of all those people who spoke out in favor of banishment. (It was a side page off the colony website for the bridge trolls in Florida)
  • Renny January 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billAll those bills proposed to make the badge holders into a Super Citizens, but not ONE bill filed to hold them to a higher standard in the event they commit a crime. I propose that if assaulting a badge holder is a hate crime, that makes the badge holder a Super Citizen. As a Super Citizen being paid to enforce the law, that Super Citizen should be held to the following if convicted of a felony: 1. If convicted, the offender should be made to pay back all wages, cost of benefits and perks of the position starting from the date of the commission of the crime. 2. Assets shall be seized if needed to pay these fine. Just like with sex offenders, the status of the police offender's family is irrelevant, let them starve. 3. If convicted of a felony, all police offenders shall have a mandatory minimum sentence of 3x over normal citizens. 4. One felony conviction counts as TWO strikes if the felony was committed while on duty. 5. Mandatory life sentence in solitary for a third strike committed by a police offender. 6. Police offenders shall be stripped of all awards, commendations, benefits, pensions and all record of them performing any good deeds shall be deleted from the official record. 7. Police offenders shall not be allowed to live within 2500 feet of any shooting range or store that sells guns or ammo. 8. Police offenders must register for life and be visible on a public website. Regular citizens must be allowed to protect themselves from these dangerous people who have specialized lethal tactics training, emotional manipulation training and other specialized skills that make them extremely dangerous criminals. 9. Police offenders shall not be permitted to enter into intimate or platonic relationships with ANY law enforcement officer or other sworn officer of the court, county or state. 10. If the police offender committed a violent sex crime against a minor under 13 years of age while on duty, the mandatory sentence is death. No appeals permitted. If society wishes to create Super Citizens with enhanced protections above regular citizens, then those Super Citizens must also be held to a far higher standard.
  • G4Change January 19, 2017 at 5:16 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billHow is this legal? How can someone be charged money retroactively like this? This needs to be fought.
  • USA January 19, 2017 at 4:51 pm on WA: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’ (Editorial)Good point! This could open a whole can of worms! What if you where convicted and your offense expunged? Your no longer convicted of anything per the law? So, what are you? Ie: registered ex offender? Think about it!
  • Fee v Fine January 19, 2017 at 4:28 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billJoe - spot on assessment!
  • David Kennerly January 19, 2017 at 4:18 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLThank you, Son!
  • David Kennerly January 19, 2017 at 4:07 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billAgreed! The fact that many states are exacting a registration fee should definitely be exploited in any challenge to the registry, as a whole, before the Supreme Court. It is one of many signals flashing "Punishment!" that is very difficult for government to refute. So I take some satisfaction in it while pitying those who have to pay it. The flip-side of this points to a conundrum of which we must be mindful: "reforms" that fall well-short of the repeal of the registry and the many other limits upon our lives may have the unexpectedly nasty effect of making further reform more difficult. So I think, constructively, this might mean not fighting such things as registration fees for the time being but holding them in reserve for the really big battles to come. It's really important to be thinking always of strategy and the long game.
  • FRegistryTerrorists January 19, 2017 at 3:50 pm on WA: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’ (Editorial)Wow. There is no reason to treat a person convicted of a s*x offense any differently than a person convicted of any other serious offense. We must identify people who say "s*x offender" or support the S*x Offender Registries and harm them by any means that is legal. As often as possible, in any way. Those people are not Americans. "Registered s*xual offender" is technically correct and grudgingly acceptable. "S*x offender" and "offender" are not acceptable.
  • USA January 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryGuys, the Registry isn't fair, but it's here to stay! So, you propose no longer move forward with passing a tiered system (abolishing lifetime registry) because your either a high risk or High risk per Static 99? I plead no a now expunged battery with summary probation? I'm still required to register/never re offended? I'm not happy as well, but I can now at least see the light!
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom January 19, 2017 at 2:44 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billNew Person The Freedom Dues you have correctly identified set light upon the Path of the Aliened Citizens of The Untied States. The Source of the Fountian of this Wicked and Twisted Justice is the entrenched Positioned Politician at the County, State, Federal, and Global levels to acquire further Power in their sole interest achieved by the False Pretext of protecting the innocents. The results of their Political Driven Efforts is: De Facto Political Prisoners Placing Light on a Subject reveals Truth As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • Tired Of Hiding January 19, 2017 at 2:27 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLHow is this not double jeopardy? Can someone with a law degree please explain this to me (and others) who do not have the benefit of access to a lawyer. I do not care to hear what you think is true or might be true or a friend of your friend read something somewhere. Thank you for your kindness!
  • Michael January 19, 2017 at 1:32 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billYou'd think forcing people to pay annual fines like this would violate the Thirteenth Amendment. (Amendment XIII) Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ....
  • mike r iscensored January 19, 2017 at 1:31 pm on General Comments January 2017I just wanted to throw this out there..notice the common factor in each of these statements... “There is no failure except in no longer trying.” - Chris Bradford “Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.” - Winston Churchill “I’d rather be partly great than entirely useless.” - Neal Shusterman
  • mike r iscensored January 19, 2017 at 1:26 pm on WA: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’ (Editorial)this is incredulous just more discrimination against people with an exponentially lower recidivism rate than any other group besides murderers...
  • Joe January 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billAlthough it may be terrible for those directly impacted, I am truly hoping this bill will pass. Because it will totally underscore the punitive nature of these laws. Again, real slow.... 1. A FEE is monies paid voluntarily for a benefit or permission to do something. Like a driver's license, a wedding license, a contractor's license, a building permit. Don't want to pay these fees? Elect not to operate a motor vehicle, don't get married, don't work as a contractor or don't remodel your home. 2. A FINE is monies ordered to pay as a result of a criminal conviction. Like the fine I have to pay for my speeding ticket. Failure to do so is a criminal offense. 3. Fines imposed after sentencing are EX POST FACTO punishments. 4.Ex Post Facto punishment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 'nuff said.
  • Michael January 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billLooks like MS offenders should consider moving to a state where there is no annual fine.
  • Michael January 19, 2017 at 1:04 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billSC forces a lifetime fine of $150.
  • New Person January 19, 2017 at 1:01 pm on VA: Lawmakers say judges being too lenient on people possessing child pornThere are two quotes in this article that combat this idea of leniency: 1. “The sentencing commission goes where the data takes us,” Meredith Farrar-Owens, director of the VCSC, said while testifying at the General Assembly on Monday. 2. “They’re not supposed to be subject to the whims of the legislature and their desire to be tough on crime,” [Channel 8 News legal analyst Russ] Stone said. “Well next year it could be something else [for the desire to be tough on crime], it could be theft, grand larceny, eluding the police, anything they decide.” (I put block quotes to add in the full name and context of the 2nd quote and context for his second sentence.) Combat fear mongering with facts. Nice.
  • New Person January 19, 2017 at 12:52 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billServitude: service (or work) Indentured Servitude: Historical aspect - Immigrants who traveled to America arrived as indentured servants. Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, logging, and freedom dues. In 1917, this was abolished to hold debt for transportation. Key phrase: "freedom dues". Involuntary Servitude: Compelled to service against one's will. For example, you sign up for a job. You don't like the job after a month. You decide to quit, but your employer won't let you quit. In the USA, this is prohibited unless to punish a crime. That would make such an act punitive. In Cali, we don't pay for registering. But paying for registering seems a bit off. Technically, you are working to generate said funds. Then you take your hard work's fund and pay that to the state for registration fees. Basic math principle of transitive property: if A goes to B and B goes to C, then A goes to C. Thus, you are actually working for the state - except you are not paying for your freedom as this payment is part of your crime. Well, if you're paying for your cost, then this becomes indentured servitude. Paying for restitution is considered punishment. Well, if you're no longer under custody and have paid off your restitution, but are still paying the state yearly, then you're an indentured servant to the state as payment for being placed on the registry??? By transitive property, you're working for the state. Who cares if it is $20 or $100 or $1000. This fee is not part of restitution, but to the state. It can be viewed cynically as "freedom dues". Why "freedom dues"? Because if you're in jail, you don't have to register. If you don't have to register, then you don't have to pay. If you're out of jail, then you have the freedom to pay to register. Note, I reiterate, this fee is not part of restitution. Oh my, this thought process is truly dark and nightmarish. This is indentured servitude - especially since this registration is not punishment. Registration, since it is not punishment, is the modern day version of involuntary servitude (forced to service as a free person) and indentured servitude (forced to pay for freedom). With punishment, there exists scrutiny of the levels of punishment. Because registration is considered regulatory, there exists no scrutiny of levied regulations such as having a LIFETIME regulation with no relief - despite it not being a punishment. I'm sorry, but the invention of involuntary servitude was a way around slavery. Registrants who pay the "freedom dues" seem like they are indentured servants, but indentured servants volunteer for a set term contract. Registrants are forced to do this from 10 years to life. Either way, all three are prohibited. News like this baffle me. I don't see a registration for any other group of convicts plastered everywhere to where they have to register in every state nor divulge info to another country. DUI's don't do this. News like this depress me as we're viewed not as equal citizens after we've completed our time. In cases like this for Mississippians, it's like they're slaves making money for the state. Hey, let's make them make more money for the state plantation. So you see any other convicts forced to pay outside of restitution for life? Woo whoo... anyone else see the slavery comparison where it's only from one group to exploit?
  • mike r iscensored January 19, 2017 at 12:25 pm on General Comments January 2017well stated david..update for harassing police..just did my campus registration 5 minutes in and out they recomfirmed protocol so you should be alright..
  • Curiouser January 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm on General Comments January 2017No, just with the campus police office. They handled everything. I even advised probby officer of this, and he confirmed it was just with the police entity on campus. From what I read under 290, it confirms what other posters have mentioned, that you would only need to register with the law enforcement of the city/county if the school you were attending did not have a police entity.
  • Notgivingup January 19, 2017 at 12:12 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billIf I lived there I would refuse to pay it, sit in jail for a month or so and let them spend way more than 100 dollars on my keep. This is total BS and to go along with this is the reason they keep getting away with it. Once these lawmakers have to pay a price for their actions this will all stop.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom January 19, 2017 at 12:07 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLDavid Kennerly I and those affected RC can clearly see that these attacks upon the Rights & Titles of the people of The United States are Politicly Motivated in order to further Empower Government at the National and International level with the Pretexts of protecting the innocent. The incursions upon Freedmen serve as their tools to perform experiments to destroy The Foundations of Freedom and impose Implicit Tradition of a Global Social Contract that the Sovereign Citizens of The United States of America have never Consented to be Aliened from the Gifts of The Most High Creator Possessor of Heaven and Earth. Once ones eyes are open to this realty of Political War as the true intent and motivation by those Entrenched in Position of Political Power, it can Reasonably be argued that RC are in Fact and Function become De Facto Political Prisoners. David, I repost a link you provided earlier and thank you for it. It contains insight for the readers here to consider and were to take the Sounding of a Trumped Blow. https://www.bellanaija.com/2017/01/documentary-reveals-how-states-use-interpols-red-alerts-to-persecute-political-opponents-watch/ Interpol – the world’s largest police organization – has told Al Jazeera that they have identified cases where member countries have not complied with their rules on international wanted alerts. The disclosure comes in ‘Interpol: Red Alert! – a People & Power’ documentary on Al Jazeera, which follows allegations that member states have used Interpol’s wanted notice system to target political opponents. In testimony gathered by People & Power, individuals describe how some countries have been able to pursue them across borders on apparently politically motivated charges. Each of Interpol’s 190 member states can request that Interpol circulate a ‘Red Notice’ informing countries across the world that an individual is wanted for serious offences. In 2015 Interpol issued over 11,000 Red Notices. Countries can also use Interpol systems to circulate ‘Diffusions Notices,’ which are described as ‘less formal’ than Red Notices and are also used to request the arrest or location of an individual. Member states are expected to abide by Interpol’s constitution, which states that it’s strictly forbidden for the organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. Speaking to People & Power during Interpol’s 2016 General Assembly in Bali Indonesia, Interpol Secretary General, Jürgen Stock stated that while such “non compliance” with Interpol’s rules was “the exception rather than the rule,” Interpol took every case “very seriously.” Questioned on which member states might be serial offenders when it comes to non-compliance with Interpol rules, Stock did not identify the countries concerned, saying that if Interpol identified “non compliance” the organization provided feedback to the member country. Stock also stated that he has introduced a task force to review every request for a notice “even more intensively.” Stock’s comments on Red Notices – a crucial crime fighting tool – follow pressure from critics and activists for Interpol to filter out politically motivated wanted alerts before Interpol issues the notices through their secure data bases. The UK-based NGO, Fair Trials International, has been among the voices calling for Interpol to do a tougher job at reviewing wanted alerts before they are circulated. “Interpol has been allowing itself to be used by oppressive regimes across the world to export the persecution of human rights defenders, journalists and political opponents by circulating these global wanted alerts from them,” claims Jago Russell, chief executive of the NGO Fair Trials International. “It has to get used to saying no to member countries. I think it can be done and I think Interpol has to do it to maintain its reputation.” In addition to filtering out abuse of wanted notices before they’re circulated, critics have also called on Interpol to make it easier to challenge information held by the global policing organization. If individuals believe they are the subject of a politically motivated wanted alert, they can contact an organization called the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s files (CCF). However, this body has come under fire over the length of time it takes to settle cases, and claims of a lack of transparency. At their General Assembly in November last year, member countries agreed changes to the CCF which they say will “strengthen the integrity of Interpol’s information processing mechanisms.” Nina Vajić, the CCF Chairperson, said that while this could mean a more streamlined process in gaining information held by Interpol, the policing organization still has to rely on member countries to co-operate and provide data. Each Interpol member country has a National Central Bureau (NCB) who provide information for an Interpol wanted alert. “The Commission will always have to rely on the willingness of the NCB’s to co-operate, because according to the principle of national sovereignty, the national bureau’s remain owners of that data,” she told Al Jazeera. As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • New Person January 19, 2017 at 11:48 am on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesIsn't this akin to all those small towns in Texas, believing they can supersede state law?
  • David Kennerly January 19, 2017 at 10:43 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLWell, it's a conspiracy in plain-view. It's no secret that our governments want to eliminate all privacy for their citizens in such a way as it makes their jobs easier and makes them more powerful. It will all be predicated upon the exigencies of fighting crime and terrorism and sold to the American people as a necessary tool to ensure their safety. If a majority of Americans are clamoring for it, is it a conspiracy? Strictly speaking, yes but it is one that is not hidden from view; it's there for all the world to see. Real ID, specifically, is a fantastic tool-set for them in that it greatly minimizes the gaps in their vision and unifies government at all levels through perfect data integration and consolidation. It's a means for overcoming some of the limitations of decentralized authorities by centralizing the acquisition and dissemination of data. Also, it's the perfect end-run around previous failures to introduce national i.d. cards. With Real I.D., who needs national i.d. cards? State driver's licenses and i.d. cards become, in effect, national i.d. cards but with the necessary appearance of state-level sovereignty. I can see how it could easily be applied to us, early on. Right now, there is probably not a very good, or at least, a very consistent way for one state to alert another state that we've just flown in for a visit. Registering with the authorities at the place where we visit is not currently very enforceable, from what I can tell. Real I.D. could potentially change that completely as our travel records will have Real I.D. numbers in them and that information will be passed on to federal authorities, as it currently now is for the purposes of no-fly lists and watch lists. There's really no reason why they wouldn't now also generate automatic alerts to places that are our destination. They can easily include hotels where we might be staying, especially if they were obtained through the same booking sites (something to keep in mind). And then, if we don't register within the allotted time, the registering authorities, having been alerted to our arrival immediately upon entry, might very well arrest us at the hotel where we've told them we are staying. Yes, I think state-to-state enforcement is definitely on its way. After all, the states have drawn up fairly elaborate criminal codes for determining registration-triggering events, including duration of stays. One good thing is that I think many states will ignore much of this traffic out of an inability to run down these leads. In that case, we will see even more capricious and arbitrary enforcement of laws.
  • JM of Wi. January 19, 2017 at 10:34 am on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billIn Wi. we fought & lost. We pay every year.
  • David Kennerly January 19, 2017 at 10:17 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLI'm afraid that I don't remember the cases of a non-Mexican crossing although there was one or two reported here. However, Mexico is probably a quite valid example of this. Also, there is Canada but it was part of a much earlier effort by the Five Eyes and probably doesn't rely upon INTERPOL as an intermediary but simply the Five Eyes' network.
  • David January 19, 2017 at 9:52 am on General Comments January 2017(This is unrelated to any specific topic.) I attended my City's "State of the City" Address yesterday. It was in a school auditorium and I had requested authorization to attend. After several emails back and forth this week, I had been granted permission to attend. No problems, all went fine. But the principal's final email stated, "You are free to attend the event." And my immediate thought was, "Not really. If I were free to attend, I wouldn't be required to ask your permission."
  • David January 19, 2017 at 8:58 am on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billIsn't that grand? We'll beat you down, kick you, spit on you, curse you, AND steal your wallet! 😠
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 19, 2017 at 7:35 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLSorta off topic but who knows what the future holds. I and some of my conspiracy friends want to know what you think is behind the real ID passport thing. Setting up future control points for easy revocations? Will they revoke travel for the dregs like us first? Imagine that, first international travel then state to state!
  • kat January 19, 2017 at 7:11 am on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billTalk about DISCRIMINATION! Making the last group of people that society deems it's OK to discriminate against, now, pay for state trooper training by increasing a registration fee that they shouldn't have to pay to begin with. How ridiculous and utterly disgusting. These kinds of politicians make me sick!
  • Henry O. January 19, 2017 at 5:28 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryPeople who are against this so called "tiered registry" have far more convincing arguments than those for it. I think tiered is a bad idea.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 19, 2017 at 12:56 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryLook, I really don't want to fight with people but there are some fundamental differences between our approaches so we aren't going to all come together because we simply don't agree on things. For whatever reason, whether self-interests or illogical assessments, people keep on with pro-tier statements such as yours. It's fairytale thinking to believe they'll come out with a tier that's fair to everyone firstly and here's the fundamental difference part.... No tier that usues static-99 or the like to determine your future status is OK nor is further support for any system that ignores the injustice that a regulatory scheme hiding as non-punishment does. So "we're" never going to come together to work towards what you want.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 18, 2017 at 11:18 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registry"Everyone that opposes this bill doesn’t give facts as to why we should not allow it to proceed. it would be more productive if you give your reasons as to why we should oppose this bill. If changes need to be made, then please say what changes need to be made." Obviously you haven't read any opposing comments. They've all been pretty clear on the issues and evidently ASCOL agreed in part, enough not to support it.
  • American Detained in America January 18, 2017 at 11:01 pm on General Comments January 2017If your school has "Campus Safety" officers, not true police, then yes, you have to register with the police department that has jurisdiction over the school. If the campus officers are actually police officers, then registering with them should be enough according to the way the law is written. I ran into something similar when I went to a community college while on parole. My parole agent told me I didn't have to register with the city police, just the campus. However, after a year at the school, the police at my city of residence asked to see proof I registered with the city the school was in and explained that the school doesn't have a true police presence, just "Campus Safety" officers, which were just security guards under a different name.
  • American Detained in America January 18, 2017 at 10:53 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billIt is illegal in California...for now.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 18, 2017 at 10:47 pm on General Comments January 2017Being enrolled at or employed by a California college Students and employees enrolled in or employed at any California college or university, must... in addition to the initial reporting requirements that apply to all sex offenders...fulfill the following requirements: 1. register your information with the campus police (if the college or university has one) within five working days of enrollment or employment, and 2. within five working days of leaving the institution. 16 If there is no campus police department, you are required to register with the local law enforcement agency that patrols the area in which the campus is located. Again, this is in addition to registering with the agency that is located in the area in which you live. 17 Since he technically lives at two locations, I'm guessing he'll have to make both places aware that he's attending school as well as campus police. Again, I'm no lawyer but usually when they speak of registering in your residing location concerning schools, it's about updating your already given registration. He should contact a lawyer BEFORE he gets into a mess.
  • jo January 18, 2017 at 10:37 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billunFREAKING believable! Let's up it to $200 and pay for lunches and dinners too. Maybe next session they can up it to $300, then, when they can't pay it, they go back to jail. Because it's just like Price Club...if Price Club was in hell.
  • Mr G January 18, 2017 at 9:45 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryDoes a "zero-tolerance policy toward registrants on school campuses" = higher educational campuses?
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm on General Comments January 2017If I were in the same boat, I'd check my forms...if there's a place to list the school you're attending, I'd tell them. I'd also visit all 3 departments... Primary residence, secondary residence giving them the name of the school you're attending and of course your schools campus police. That's just me. I'd rather make sure I was complying because they'd LOVE to put you back in jail. Wouldn't you hate to go to jail on some stupid technicality that was easily doable? I don't comply because I'm scared of going back to jail, I comply because I'd hate to give them the satisfaction of putting me there.
  • ONE DAY AT A TIME January 18, 2017 at 8:49 pm on General Comments January 2017Follow the law and only register at your residence(s) and school. Be prepared for a small fight though. Even a public defender could win your case. But also call Janice if they try to prosecute you for not registering.
  • No way, No how January 18, 2017 at 8:39 pm on General Comments January 2017I'm speaking of California only.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 18, 2017 at 8:13 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryOK, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm on General Comments January 2017Did you register that you're going to school at your residential department? That's what it means. If you start school, you have to register with the campus police first. Second, you have to go to your residential police department and register that you're going to so and so school. If your residence department form has a place for school, that's what they mean by "register". Ive lived in a few states and two of them required updating your information about the school you'll be attending. The form had a special place for that information and you were required to update your registration just as if you would when you changed address, cars, changed your diet...etc. 🙂
  • Harassing Police January 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm on General Comments January 2017thanks mike thats all am going to do
  • commenter1 January 18, 2017 at 7:29 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLYou can read it for yourself here: https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ119/PLAW-114publ119.pdf
  • MG January 18, 2017 at 7:09 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryIts called a draft for reason, its not final. most of you seem to want to shoot it down. it almost feels like its that phrase "misery loves company". Everyone that opposes this bill doesn't give facts as to why we should not allow it to proceed. it would be more productive if you give your reasons as to why we should oppose this bill. If changes need to be made, then please say what changes need to be made. Even i know some changes need to be made. I don't like the fact that the DA needs to be included. it should be almost automatic that we get off the registry, unless there is sex offense case against us at the time off asking to get off the registry, we should just get off with no problems. It should just be a simple form to fill out, and we are done. Yes the Static-99 is a joke, because i was young when i had my offence, and it really seems unfair that i get an extra point for that. we cant just call each other names because some of us support it and some of us don't support it. we need to work together and make this bill fair for everyone.
  • Does the $ really go to registry and assoc admin costs? January 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billIf anyone can prove the fees they pay when they register actually goes to the registry and administrative costs related it, I would like to see it, e.g. a law directing registry fees usage. I say this because once money goes to the registry office, unless the law says what they have to use the money for, I don’t believe they have a set course to use it beyond what the registering office feels is appropriate. I know we all believe what it is supposed to be used for, e.g. registry and associated admin costs related to it, based upon what has been said previously. You could ask for the annual financial report of the legal entity as a matter of public record and see what it says without getting into personnel details.
  • mike r iscensored January 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm on General Comments January 2017I m enrolled in college for my Fifth semester and all I've had to do is register with campus police 5 before or after I start attending classes...the campus police are supposed to forward that information to the agency having jurisdiction over you...the college didn't forward my info last semester so when I went to do my annual I asked them about and since the college didnt forward my info I had to go back to campus police and made sure they did their job and forwarded my info....thats my experience..check with your registration agency but mine here in Sacramento told me that is the protocol...
  • JohnDoeUtah January 18, 2017 at 5:19 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billIf the fees are being used to cover registration, some courts have found it to be a fee, and thus not punishment. However, if the fee is used for other means, such as revenue, as is the case here - it is seen as a fine. It could also been seen as a tax, a disproportionate tax, but courts cases in that realm have never been successful. Fines after the fact are punishment and expost facto.
  • C January 18, 2017 at 5:05 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billWow, just wow. What a complete ass this Gipson. I know I'm not the first to say this, but it really is just like billing the family of the executed man for the bullet. Talk about insult to injury. Why doesn't this hayseed just enslave registered citizens and force them to build the new trooper school? Missippipi's education (I wonder if he can spell his state's name?) system ranks toward the bottom at 46. Perhaps this guy's efforts would be better applied elsewhere.
  • PK January 18, 2017 at 4:46 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLI haven't read too many instances of RSO's being denied entry over land, except for Mexico of course. Perhaps if you could share the link for that, I would really appreciate it.
  • ab January 18, 2017 at 4:23 pm on VA: Lawmakers say judges being too lenient on people possessing child pornToo lenient, really? For an article about leniency not one mention of a sentence received is provided. Instead some random stats regarding what images or videos supposedly depict in cases are listed as reasons for maintaining harsher sentences. I am not going to defend materials featuring those under 12 being penetrated, however I am also not going to assume that each person under 12 is still prepubescent. Not that an 11 year old or younger who has started puberty should be engaging in any sexual activity, but it has happened. The one thing that matters is if someone under 12 is pubescent then certain aspects of a possession charge, particularly some enhancements must be approached differently. Despite what many might believe age in addition to puberty can mean a lot of difference between one sentence range and another sentence range. Prosecuting someone for possessing anything that can meet the minimum requirements for classification as child pornography does not protect children (anyone under eighteen according to federal law), does not hinder production, does not prevent trafficking or slavery, and has no impact on preventing another person from coming across the same or similar content for the first time in the future.
  • Harassing Police January 18, 2017 at 3:55 pm on General Comments January 2017Thanks for the reply Curiouser Do you recall if you just registered with the campus police in the third city? or did you also register with the local police department having jurisdiction over the junior college you attended? Thanks
  • Tired Of Hiding January 18, 2017 at 3:11 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLNo, you would not be allowed to enter the country. Just because the plane you are on lands doesn't mean you are "in" the country. You are in the airport and nothing more until you are cleared by immigration of that country. You are stopped at immigration who will not allow you in. Since you are not formally allowed into the country (you are simply held until you can be placed on the next flight returning you to the USA). I have been met by immigration immediately after getting off the plane in Panama and this was just a layover from Argentina to the USA. I was also not allowed in Argentina when I attempted to return there from the USA in 2013 even though I have lived there for 6 years and left and reentered a number of times prior to 2013 when the whole mess seems to have been implemented. This latest (thanks Obama for signing that last year into law of the land) International Megan's Law just sort of makes it "official" and brings it out of the shadows what has been going on since 2013.
  • Harassing Police January 18, 2017 at 3:10 pm on General Comments January 2017abolishtheregistry.com I register my primary residence, am only home on the weekends 110 miles from the college. I stay at my parent’s home during the week because my job is only 20 miles away from their place, versus driving 220 miles every day to get home. I have registered their address; their home is 32 miles to the college campus. I have registered with the college’s campus police and the Sargent that does my registration belongs to the same police department as the nasty women that took nearly two hours before my registration was complete. I don’t owe them anymore than what is written on the form. Have I registered with campus police? YES Have I registered all the addresses in which I reside? YES
  • David Kennerly January 18, 2017 at 2:54 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLYes. We're screwed simultaneously by two separate systems. I think that we are sure that INTERPOL is independently notifying countries of "sex offenders." As I had written a while back, they had announced before they started that program that they would be doing so. Later, that press release disappeared. Nevertheless, and right on schedule, people started being refused entry. It seems to be a case of redundancy of efforts. INTERPOL notifies countries as an automatic alert as a result of the passport being scanned in whatever country and matching against a database and DHS/et al receive notifications from Registrants or the airline booking system and matches that user information provided, which includes a passport number, against their database and then disseminates alerts to countries. This was my suspicion early on, and which nobody believed, and has now been proven to be true. This would explain how Registrants are being refused entry when traveling over land to cross borders without having booked a ticket or notified the U.S.
  • Curiouser January 18, 2017 at 2:51 pm on General Comments January 2017I register at two residences in two different jurisdictions and for a time I also registered at a junior college in yet a third city. All I had to do was make an appointment and sit down for about 30 minutes total with one of their officers, who filled out the usual paperwork, took only thumbprints for the forms, and snapped a digital photo. He said I did not have to come back and renew my registration within five days of my birthday, but only had to let them know when i was no longer enrolled. Upon completing my program, I called the same security department. They said, "thanks! we'll notify DOJ." That was it, nothing more. I wish I could give you more info, but I think as a lot of folks have discovered, local law enforcement likes to interpret these laws in their own ways.
  • B.Wat January 18, 2017 at 2:29 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billWOW, I'm glad I don't live in Mississippi ! Just when I thought I've heard every thing, here they go again,trying to pass, an even more outrageous bill than the last one! I wonder if Rep. Gipson realizes how ignorant his "solution" sounds, he has clearly lost touch with reality! Seems like all the legislators, especially in the southern states, think they can pass any BS law they want as long as it's against one of us! Talk about kicking someone when their down! This A-hole probably hasn't drafted, let alone passed a bill in his whole career, so he's trying to pass this law on the backs of registered citizens! You're a true American hero Rep Gipson!
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 18, 2017 at 1:58 pm on General Comments January 2017Looks like you are required to register with the police department in the jurisdiction the campus resides in ONLY if your school doesn't have campus police. So as I read it you have to with the campus police and the police department in your residential area only. Of course there can be overlapping rules that give these aholes the power to just have you come in. Better talk to an attorney cause I ain't one. Personally I've spent 14 plus years not rocking the boat unless I was prepared for the cold water. Just saying.... 🙂
  • ab January 18, 2017 at 1:34 pm on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billI thought paying a fee for this type of registration was illegal.
  • PK January 18, 2017 at 1:10 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLSo basically even if an RSO is somehow able to enter into a Country without a specific travel notice being sent, they could still be disallowed entry based upon the existence of their name coming up when the "traveler’s border-crossings “ping” the system and interrogate a database". I guess nobody can be sure.
  • David Kennerly January 18, 2017 at 1:05 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryWell, I think we need to make a distinction between legislative and judicial remedies. It is in the courts that we can hope for abolition of the Registy or, at least, major constraints placed upon its powers. In the case of amending the Registry to making it tier-based, then we are dealing with the California Legislature. Here, my hopes are considerably less extravagant. Still, we should fight for our position tooth-and-nail. That was part of my point.
  • USA January 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryAgain, no one seems to want to address tier questions. Are you tiered simply based upon your conviction/plea? Is it affected by either being a Felony or Misdemeanor? What if it's expunged? Then, how does Static 99 Apply if it's been 10 years or more? Does your probation affect your tiering? Parole? Formal probation? Summary probation?
  • NotLikingCA January 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm on Save the Date for ACSOL’s 1st Annual Conference – We Are All in This Together (June 16/17)Any chance there will be video? Not a chance in hell I'd feel safe at an event like this.
  • Harassing Police January 18, 2017 at 12:25 pm on General Comments January 2017Hi everyone, Well I just had the worst and most harassing registration update in the past eighteen years. It was my understanding, that if I am enrolled a college that it is my duty to register with the campus police, per PC290. I have done so in the past, with no issues. As a matter of fact, the campus police officer in charge of campus safety where I am attending, had asked why I don’t pursue a certificate of rehabilitation, for the four picture files of a sixteen-year-old that where found on my computer. He is a really cool guy. But not this semester I was contacted by the police department having jurisdiction over the college I am attending, that I would need to register with them as well. I figured no big deal, was I ever wrong. The women that performed the registration had me taking my photos front on, left side, right side, look up look down, etc. She wanted new electronic finger prints (never done this in the past just the old black ink finger prints) she wanted, thumbs, index, middle, ring, pinky, whole hand, palm, sides of palms, top of hands at this point I have been in this room for thirty eight minutes. After wrapping things up in the booking room, I was then told to wait in the lobby until she received an update that my records were accepted. I waited in the lobby for 52 minutes before calling back to see why it is taking so long, she said you are just going to have to wait. I asked her if anything major has changed in the registration process, that would required me to be here anymore than an hour? Her response was “you can leave if you want, but you are not going to get the update the law requires”. I told her I can’t leave because you have my driver license. In the end the regeistrtion update took one hour and fifty one minutes. And to top it all off, my color is still wrong LOL. This is crazy, considering that I do not have to register with the police department having jurisdiction over the campus I am attending!!!! Am I wrong here? Below is line 14 from the registration form here in California. 14. If I am enrolled or employed (with or without compensation) at an institution of higher learning, I must register in person, within five (5) working days of commencement of the term of enrollment or employment, with the campus police department or, if no campus police department exists, with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over that campus. I must also register in person with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over my place of residence or transient location. When I cease being enrolled or employed at that institution, I must notify in person the registering agency for the campus within five (5) working days. (PC § 290.009, 290.01) I don’t think I need to put myself through that again do I? There is a “campus police department” on campus, as a matter of fact, the officer that did my update on campus belongs to the same police department as the nasty women that took my info down at the booking office. Your response is much appreciated
  • David Kennerly January 18, 2017 at 11:29 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLI'm also curious as to how the appeal is coming along. Perhaps Janice can weigh in. As for Green Notices vs. Angel Watch, here's my take (with some limited deductive evidence): INTERPOL has been sending out these notices as a separate matter and for several years. They say that control of information about "offenders" is entirely within the discretion of, in our case, the U.S. or with whatever nation the traveling "offender" has citizenship. They say that member states determine entirely what information can be passed on to other member states and seem to say also that they can determine WHICH states receive particular notices. Clearly, they've been given the green light to send out green notices by the U.S. and have been doing so. This notice does not appear to be prompted by an alert of travel from the U.S. Government but is automatic as a traveler's border-crossings "ping" the system and interrogate a database which contains sex offender conviction records. It also appears that countries have to specifically subscribe to INTERPOL's system for receiving automatic alerts and there was a news item a month or so back that The Netherlands and The EU, as a whole, were looking for funding to implement these alerts. I'm surprised if they don't already have them but, ominously, this may be why a number of Registrant travelers haven't been turned around at EU airports in which case we may see that apparent laxity end at some point. This is just speculation on my part. The INTERPOL system is apart from the U.S. specifically notifying other countries (again, based upon bits of deduction) which is based upon a) notifications sent to them by the Registrant traveler and, more reliably, by b) alerts generated by travel industry bookings. I wrote a much lengthier and more detailed description here a while back and will try to find it.
  • David January 18, 2017 at 10:45 am on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesI'll do it! "Uniquely identify" my passport. I'll gladly be the plaintiff in a lawsuit against these fascist bastards! Let's "Make America great again" by honoring the words and intent of our United States Constitution!
  • FRegistryTerrorists January 18, 2017 at 10:03 am on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billWe know that the SORs are not for "public safety", "protecting children", or those other lies. They are for harassment. No American supports them. Because of that, if anyone who is listed on an SOR has to pay any amount of money for it, that person should do anything legally possible to ensure that he/she costs the criminal regime that collected the money an amount that is much higher. Personally, I like to use a factor of 12, meaning that for any amount that a criminal regime costs me, I cost them 12X (2X to cover the actual cost and 10X for punishment). So if a criminal regime costs me $100, I cost them $1,200 in exchange. I've been doing it for decades and there are ways to do it legally and well. SORs - Neutralize them. Do anything legal to retaliate for them. www.hrw.org
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 18, 2017 at 9:53 am on General Comments January 2017I suspect if someone were able to get a notice or two you'd have an interesting read and possibly a bit of evidence for a certain IML case.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 18, 2017 at 9:43 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registry'it is true that compromises are the only near-term statutory improvements we can hope to enjoy' All very well written as usual David, but I disagree with the above part. I believe a big win, without compromise, is waiting for someone to file. It's simply takes the desire and resources for such a person or group to do so.
  • steve January 18, 2017 at 9:15 am on MS: Sex offenders could pay for trooper school under new billJeez maybe we should be buying them lunch and putting gas in their cars as swell. I could definitely see our legislature charging us to register to cover their unfunded tiered mandate.
  • JM of Wi. January 18, 2017 at 8:08 am on Fullerton, Desert Hot Springs to Consider Repeal of Residency RestrictionsGreat to see the progress in california. Wish there was some real progress in my state. We have contributed thousands to our cause through california. Hope the progress see's holistic change in education, attitudes & subsequently, law.
  • PK January 18, 2017 at 7:57 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLI wish we had some kind of insight as to what's going on with the IML Appeal. Also, after nearly 1 year, I'm still not clear as to what the differences are between the Green Notices and the Angel Watch Notices. Are both Notices sent simultaneously? Are Green Notices sent to some countries and not others? I know that the Angel Watch Notices are sent by Homeland Security, and the Green Notices are sent by Interpool, but has anyone determined how and when they are being sent? Like I said, I've been on this site for 1 year, and there's been a lot of discussion about the challenge to IML and the Angel Watch Notices, but I've read very little about these Green Notices.
  • David Kennerly January 18, 2017 at 6:02 am on General Comments January 2017"Documentary Reveals How States Use Interpol’s ‘Red Alerts’ to Persecute Political Opponents" This is the same agency that is disseminating information about traveling Registrants. Interesting that others are also finding it virtually impossible to obtain the content of Red Notices or Diffusions. https://www.bellanaija.com/2017/01/documentary-reveals-how-states-use-interpols-red-alerts-to-persecute-political-opponents-watch/
  • David Kennerly January 18, 2017 at 1:21 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryI score rather low on the Static99 and would clearly be a Level 2 according to it. To answer your question, I have only one conviction. Considering that I have been dutifully registering for nearly twenty-five years now and haven't been charged with any further crimes, let alone sexual ones, it seems that, if one is to believe this proposed tier bill, that I would immediately benefit although I'll believe that when I see it. More likely, in my opinion, is that the D.A. would oppose my relief from registration. I'm opposed to the Static99 because it is a very bad instrument and completely unscientific. Worse, it is a bad and unscientific instrument in aid of injustice. I'm opposed to the Registry because it is fundamentally unjust and always unconstitutional, regardless of who it applies to. I would remind you that a SCOTUS up-or-down vote on "constitutionality" is not infallible, especially when it applies to such a social hot-button as sex offenders and the concomitant cognitive derangement that necessarily accompanies it. This is why the Supremes can find sodomy statutes perfectly reasonable in one decade and unconstitutional several more later. "Humans" are the weak link in the mediation of individual liberty and often it is what is popularly accepted as "common sense" that must be overcome to achieve it. Karl Hanson can only look scientifically credible (and "moderate") when contrasted with the outright obsessives and hysterics in the sexual abuse treatment industry who were the rule for several decades and who still likely predominate. His test instrument is unquestionably pseudo-science but then, one is hard-pressed to name any thoroughgoing science being conducted in this realm, that most embarrassing wing of psychology as viewed by serious researchers: sex offender "forensics" and treatment. We would be wise not to lend it any further credibility. A very cynical way to view the tiers bill is that it will lend their proponents an air of respectability that is conferred upon the ostensibly "moderate voices" but will, in reality, serve both to cleave our nascent movement in two and give the California Registry a new lease-on-life that will keep it going another decade or two without further amelioration. Having said that, it is true that compromises are the only near-term statutory improvements we can hope to enjoy but we would do well not to enthuse excessively over whatever scrap is on offer and to demand something more, something more just. We are not well-served by a posture of abject servility any more than we are by letting the "least offensive" among us create a hierarchy of virtue that salves their conscience, boosts their egos but divides our ranks. I hope that helps.
  • G4Change January 18, 2017 at 1:03 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registry"Also if passed, the bill would prevent registrants from worshipping at churches..." On this alone, please tell me that this will be fought tooth-and-nail in court if it's passed. This is sick!
  • Kevin Scott January 17, 2017 at 10:30 pm on Save the Date for ACSOL’s 1st Annual Conference – We Are All in This Together (June 16/17)This is fantastic! Thank you!!
  • Tobin's Tools 2.0 January 17, 2017 at 10:24 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryThe tiered registry integrates, by giving more credibility to, “the static risk assessment instrument forsex [sic] offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.” See Cal. Penal Code 290(d)(3) of the draft bill. Note how CASOMB expertly phrased the above excerpt by specifically avoiding the phrase “Static-99R.” The draft bill gives CASOMB and SARATSO — the latter of which which includes representatives from CDCR and the California Attorney General’s Office — wide discretion in selecting a replacement for the Static-99R when it is eventually discredited. Maybe in 10 years, Karl Hanson will come out with the Static-100. By then, how many rights have been violated by the Static-99R? In sum, this tiered bill would permit SARATSO to come out and use any type of future "static" test, without legislative approval. By demanding a registry predicated on “empirical evidence,” I propose that ACSOL oppose any integration of an actuarial instrument — such as the Static-99R — that lumps all types of offenders (violent/non-violent and first-time/recidivist) together. If ACSOL allows the Static-99R to be used, it is -- indirectly -- advocating, though covertly, for a registry that would still lump all types of "sex" offenders together. Even for violent offenders, the Virginia legislature has discredited the Static-99R (not even accounting for its use on non-contact offenders -- which CASOMB intends to do): http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/20d0de7a436ff22c85257863004afe71/$FILE/HD5.pdf In a *published* medical journal, professors from USC and Duke Medical School have discredited the Static-99R: – http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf In a published opinion, the New York Courts have discredited the Static-99R: – http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_29290.htm Yet CASOMB and SARATSO still peddles the Static-99R scam, often referencing to Karl Hanson’s very own work to “validate” his very own “accuracy" (Do you see what's wrong with this?). It should be pretty obvious to anyone (at least anyone with some basic common sense) that 10 questions can’t predict human behavior… especially more than five-years into the future. Life is not "static." And very few things are definitively "set in stone."
  • No way, No how January 17, 2017 at 10:03 pm on General Comments January 2017If it's really on a high school campus, then no. Not without school administrations permission.
  • NPS January 17, 2017 at 9:32 pm on General Comments January 2017Not quite. In the state of California, you are required to report your email and other online identifiers only if the internet was used in the commission of the crime and it's only for convictions after January 1, 2017.
  • Timmr January 17, 2017 at 9:25 pm on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesI think the thousands made homeless and conseqently many probation and parole officers, not to mention the CASOMB coming out against the residency restriction has much to do with the success of these lawsuits. The case against IML will be boosted if a comparable societal disruption is shown, and some in authority itself document that adverse consequenses. Unfortunately, almost no decision maker cares if we lose out on a vacation or business oportunity due to travel regulations. There might be a few who hopefully have sons or daughters, parents or close friends affected by IML and see things differently.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 17, 2017 at 9:14 pm on General Comments January 2017What do your states restrictions say? If it states you're not allowed to be on school grounds then I wouldn't do it. Here as far as I know, there aren't restrictions. Depends solely on your state.
  • Timmr January 17, 2017 at 9:07 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryThanks. It helps me process all this.
  • T January 17, 2017 at 9:05 pm on FIRE DESTROYS SQUAW VALLEY TRAILER WHERE A SEXUAL PREDATOR HAD CONTRACTED TO LIVEVigilantes that engage in violence and harassment on registrants are no less evil than a registrant who was convicted of a crime related to "sex offence" no matter what it was and how serious it is.
  • Robin Banks January 17, 2017 at 8:18 pm on General Comments January 2017Can anyone answer this question? - The closest branch of my county's public library is on a high school campus - just a two minute drive from my home. Is it unlawful for me to visit this library after regular school hours are over? The next closest library is a 35 minute drive from my home.
  • Eric Knight January 17, 2017 at 7:59 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLWhat would be INCREDIBLE help is if you can get a notarized copy of the letter you saw on screen from the Costa Rican government that the US sent to them warning about you. I would go so far as to hire a local CR attorney to acquire the notarized copy for you.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 17, 2017 at 6:56 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryHere's another link you might find interesting. http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/10/static-99r-risk-estimates-wildly.html?m=1 A few more reasons and a concession by the developers as to its faulty assessment ability. No rational and logical person would back something that had such serious consequences as good without strict long term analysis/peer reviewing/full disclosure of methodology etc... This crap is being used BECAUSE of its overestimation of risk most likely from oversampling, among other things. Now we have ALL of the advocacy groups including W.A.R. quoting Hanson. It's troubling to say the least.
  • j January 17, 2017 at 4:51 pm on Fullerton, Desert Hot Springs to Consider Repeal of Residency RestrictionsThank you Janice, again and again, from the bottom of my heart for the relentless effort for civil rights not only for registrants and their families but in principle for all affected by social injustice. It is by no means anything short of a miracle that through your pursuit of justice, you represent hope for a repressed and beleaguered community that are given a chance against the tyranny of the majority.
  • Ralph Lackey January 17, 2017 at 4:42 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryOK GREAT STEVE. But then if what you say is true (limit of 10 years use for the static scam), why are the geniuses at casomb proposing to use the static 99 scam to make the ultimate decision to put someone into the lifetime tier? Doesn't make sense!! The draft is not consistent with casomb's evidence and "science." Lol
  • Nicholas Maietta January 17, 2017 at 3:36 pm on Save the Date for ACSOL’s 1st Annual Conference – We Are All in This Together (June 16/17)If all goes as planned, my custom RV will be finished up by then and I'll have my podcasting studio wrapped up by then as well. Count me in for this event. Unfortunately, I will not be able to bring anyone else with me.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 17, 2017 at 3:04 pm on General Comments January 2017Please keep in mind, anyone required to update online accounts, would have to report even temporary accounts and report them when their done being used.
  • mike r iscensored January 17, 2017 at 2:11 pm on Fullerton, Desert Hot Springs to Consider Repeal of Residency Restrictionsthere are about 50 additional cities that continue to enforce residency restrictions. is there a list available so that we are aware of these cities???
  • USA January 17, 2017 at 1:46 pm on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesFirst, who on earth lives in Adelanto? This is in the middle of the desert? Yet, we have people just wanting to live a peaceful life!
  • Chris F January 17, 2017 at 12:29 pm on General Comments January 2017Wow, that is VERY scary. Especially this part: "Pryor referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade as an “abomination,” and authored an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of a Texas anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas." Definitely someone that values his own personal opinion and agenda over the US Constitution.
  • Chris F January 17, 2017 at 12:23 pm on Save the Date for ACSOL’s 1st Annual Conference – We Are All in This Together (June 16/17)Wow, what a coincidence, I just finished reading that book 2 weeks ago. Got it from Amazon. She did a great job, and it was very well researched. I can't wait to see her current data, and wish I could attend but just can't afford the trip from Texas. If she ever speaks here near Dallas, I'll find a way to attend!
  • mike r iscensored January 17, 2017 at 11:57 am on General Comments January 2017oh wow I just looked at the link you provided Chris.....that's one of the best contributions to the cause I've seen yet...exactly what I needed.....I still want to find exactly what counties or ordinances are still enforcing residency and presence restrictions....
  • mike r iscensored January 17, 2017 at 11:52 am on General Comments January 2017beautifully worded Chris I will definitely integrate that into my equal protection claim....man the things we could accomplish if all of us worked together like this....and im going to be challenging both the state and federal agencies in this suit and will file it in federal court...I can't wait to get ahold of the data from this 20 year study of ineffectiveness discussed in the new thread....I need that evidence. it will improve my motion exponentially..I am still looking for that link to all the different exclusion zones here in cali....keep it coming Chris and anyone else who might believe we can prevail and even those that don't I would love to hear from you and pick my arguments apart and tell me why you think that particular argument is flawed in any way...
  • James January 17, 2017 at 11:24 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLNo, I respect your circumspection in these matters. Being smart is always a good thing. I thought about this possible concern when I posed my question...let me finish this way, I am really pleased when any of us have a good life, doing things they should be able to in all events... So, Kudos to you. Be Good and be Happy Best Wishes, James
  • NPS January 17, 2017 at 10:53 am on General Comments January 2017I just generated this email from a throwaway site: gaclukepid@housat.com This only lasts for 48 hours. Send me a message with your email, and I will reply with my real one.
  • Someone who cares January 17, 2017 at 10:28 am on General Comments January 2017Thanks moderator. I completely understand. Nps- you can email me at sphyllis66@yahoo.com.
  • Ron January 17, 2017 at 10:14 am on Survey – International Travel after IMLWhile I would like to share as much information as possible with the members of this site, I am also a bit paranoid. The laws, rules and regulations surrounding a sex offender are so complicated that I do no understand them all. I am not a lawyer. These laws have set us up to fail. So, I think I will plead the 5th amendment as not to reveal the details of my trip. I honestly do not know if I did everything according to the letter of the law. But, it was my intent to be in full compliance with the law.
  • Potential SCOTUS nominee meeting January 17, 2017 at 9:40 am on General Comments January 2017This ought to scare registrants……if nominated, get out the letters and telephones to send in opposition Trump meets with a leading SCOTUS contender http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/15/trump-meets-with-a-leading-supreme-court-contender/
  • Marie January 17, 2017 at 9:29 am on Living with 290: Traveling to Cabo San LucasThank you. For some reason I thought some comments leaned towards only those required to register (providing advance notice of travel) as what triggered the alerts. So if I'm under no obligation to report travel is the warning attached to my passport ?
  • maria January 17, 2017 at 9:12 am on Philippine Bureau of Immigration bans alien sex offenders in the countryso many site i go and read forum but still confuse. If only all people who affected the law against convicted sex offender share experience in all aspect that can help other it may b a big help. Like on my situation I dont know what the different of removing name from registry and not. Is it can give a ex regisrty to live normal again and restore some civil rights. i really cant find straight answer even i read a lot of article. Me many times i seek information bout immigration law if theres different situation if somene off name from registry is he can petition a family or same not
  • Chris F January 17, 2017 at 9:09 am on General Comments January 2017Mike R, I have some other random thoughts I want to throw out there that could be included somewhere in your lawsuit in order to show the absurdity of current policy. The first bunch may be more federal related than state related, so I am not sure how that could be included in your state filing other than the state's "label" affecting your ability to travel. The Sex Offender label is a federally mandated label that includes discrimination by the federal government against this created class in the form of IML, federal housing programs denial, and EEOC guidelines defining being on the Sex Offender list as grounds for employment denial. While this should only be possible if applied equally to all people in the same circumstances, it is most definitely not. Each state controls what crimes qualify to be on the Sex Offender list as well as the arbitrary duration, and to what extent juveniles are included. There is no individual due process to assess potential dangerousness or duration appropriate to the specific action, individual, and circumstances in order to justify denial of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after the debt to society has been paid and parole/probation has been completed. In addition, the mere traveling between or moving to other states can result in being added or taken off of this Sex Offender List though there was no change to the original circumstances. Even irregardless of ever actually being on the Sex Offender registry at some time, anyone that has received "deferred adjudication" and has no conviction or a has a conviction of any crime could be in violation of another state's laws and/or required to register in that state due to each state being able to set the prior criteria for inclusion on the national Sex Offender Registry. Based on the thousands of city, state, and federal laws against anyone labeled "sex offender", you would have to research every city along any route of travel or could be in violation of residency restrictions, locations you may enter at all, violating a 2000 foot perimeter restriction, restriction to type of building you may enter, restriction to what web sites you may go to while passing through, and restrictions from who you may associate with. This could put you at risk even in emergencies when seeking medical assistance or a hurricane shelter.
  • steve January 17, 2017 at 8:51 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryThanks Ralph that's all I was asking.
  • steve January 17, 2017 at 8:50 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryConspiracy theorist gone wild. Simple question to try and understand how its possible.
  • American Detained in America January 17, 2017 at 8:13 am on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesUnfortunately, not many, if any, are anxious to be the sacrificial lambs on this one.
  • Moderator January 17, 2017 at 7:35 am on General Comments January 2017We do not have the resources to connect individuals. If you (understandably) do not wish to leave your contact info here, we suggest creating a throw-away email (easily googled) and posting that. Thanks for understanding. ***Moderator***
  • Jack January 17, 2017 at 7:10 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistrySteve, yes federal law in all circumstances trumps the state constitution.
  • someone who cares January 17, 2017 at 6:31 am on General Comments January 2017NPS ~ how to I contact the moderator to get your e-mail address? I printed the CR180 form for dismissal but wanted to find out what other points you can give us before attempting this. Also, I think I have that PDF about all the city ordinances that I could e-mai to you. It is not up to date, I am sure, but at least it shows what cities never adopted any residency or presence restrictions. Thanks!
  • Disillusioned January 17, 2017 at 4:18 am on State Department Replies to IML PetitionI will play around with C# or Android Studio today and see if I can write a quick and dirty app for everyone. Using the information you provided.
  • Disillusioned January 17, 2017 at 3:53 am on New bill in Congress affecting sex offendersI agree. I have said it all along. I do not agree with anyone that becomes a domestic terrorist but I do understand. When frustration, hopelessness and anger collide due to an oppressive government, violence happens. This country is headed for a civil or revolutionary war that will make the first civil war look like a ping pong match. The civil war will not be two sides as before. We are a fractured society that is building many teams of oppressed people that when pushed too far will rise up. One of those teams will be our society of SOs. I only hope I am dead and gone when it happens. I continue fighting in the courts against a foreign government that has taken over America, that being D.C. I continue hoping and praying that intelligent, calm legal pressure will eventually win the battle. God bless this country. We REALLY need his help!
  • ReadyToFight January 17, 2017 at 2:04 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registry@New Person You're an effing rock star. I haven't been able to articulate what you posted here so well. But good job! It speaks to what I've been dwelling on for months. Thanks!
  • New Person January 16, 2017 at 11:24 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryThe fact that more limits on who can apply for 1203.4 is a sign of an increase in penalty. But hey, if you're out of custody and earned a 1203.4, then why are you compelled to continue to serve the state? By state and federal law, involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. Thus, any forced serviced after custody is prohibited. In layman's terms, involuntary servitude means "forced service". The description of involuntary service is any consequence above losing pay or losing the job that pays you for your service. Well, we're not paid and if we refuse to do said service (job), then we will be punished and probably be put into jail. Whereas any other company will simply just fire you and you go on your way to find another job. So the consequence dictates registration has a consequence higher than loss of pay or loss of job from the paying employer. Then there's four classical points that must be considered involving involuntary servitude (forced service). Recall, involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. 1. Was the contract done in full freedom? No. It was attached to a criminal offense. 2. What is the compensation? There is no compensation for a lifetime of forced service. NONE. 3. What is the term length. LIFETIME. That alone should draw ire to involuntary servitude. 4. Are you domineered? Yes, by law, in fact. If I refuse to do said service, then I will be hunted down, put into jail, punished, and still returned to service of registering. Remember, registration was attached to the criminal offense, but it is not considered punishment. If it is not punishment, then why am I forced to serve the state out of custody and have earned the 1203.4? Again, this is another form of contradiction from the California Constitution as well as the federal Constitution. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. layman's translation: It is against the law to force service unless it is part of a punishment for a crime. Hence, if it's not punishment, then any forced service, regardless if it's regulatory or something else, is illegal. So... if registration isn't a punishment, then it's breaking a law within California and US Constitutions. One simple, elegant sentence: Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.
  • New Person January 16, 2017 at 10:48 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryCalifornia isn't a part of SORNA. The Maryland lawyer was able to make it work for her state b/c there was something in their state constitution that prevented newer registrations to be retroactive. Here in California, we surprisingly have a strong privacy law - so strong it's called an inalienable right within its constitution. All registration is is the negation of all privacy. Since it's lifetime registration or no registration, then it's a blanket negation of privacy for your whole existence if you have to register - a clear contradiction to the inalienable right to privacy or obtain it.. It inherently means you have no way of obtaining your privacy again with that term that has no direct plausible path for removal built into the said regulation. That's automatically unconstitutional within the state when taken within the context of a layman. Lifetime negation of privacy vs Inalienable right to privacy or obtain it - two extremes on the same yardstick and contradictions to one another. There are gradients of registrants, which is why some can apply and receive 1203.4. Yet receiving the 1203.4, you still share the same lack of privacy as someone who cannot apply for the 1203.4. That doesn't make any sense at all and puts everyone into one category. Well, why not look into Bill of Attainder if we're all mistreated as one big group? We're all limited on where we can live, work, or volunteer after we have served our time. No other group of convicts share all these restrictions. Anyhow, I want to topple registration. Registration is the negation of privacy. The state of California calls privacy an inalienable right as well as obtaining it. The fact registration is only given out as a lifetime term should scream obvious contradiction as the state is negating an inalienable right to privacy as well as obtain it. It is apparent to lose rights when under custody, but you should be able to regain those rights, especially the inalienable ones!
  • New Guy January 16, 2017 at 9:08 pm on Certificate of RehabilitationI've read the thread a few hundred times about the importance of letters - but I've never been able to find any good examples (either through the dead link in this thread or anywhere else online). Does anyone have any letters (written either by the person asking for the COR or as testimonials from friends/colleagues) that they could share?
  • i can't wait to die January 16, 2017 at 8:40 pm on General Comments January 2017I'm in florida and read this board and florida's board everyday well use to read Floridas until i post a correction of their false post and it was censored i will never donate to them any longer
  • Ralph Lackey January 16, 2017 at 8:21 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryThere is no guarantees to this bill, except if you were convicted before 1987 it seems. Which is one of the reasons it is much smarter to oppose it in my opinion. I will call and write to whoever to oppose a tier. Even though I respect this organization, it doesn't mean I have to blindly support it in everything it does. A clear reading of the draft will show any layman that it is worse policy than what we have now. Equally worse is what a tiered registry may become in the future!
  • Ralph Lackey January 16, 2017 at 8:12 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistrySteve the static 99 is a joke. You don't need to be a recidivist to score high. Even a 1st offender can score high. The static 99 "test" (if one can even call it that) is harsh against one who is young, never lived wih a lover for at least 2 years and had a unrelated/stranger victim. Even if non contact and 1st offense. BAM... enough to alone put anyone into Tier III. Pretty stupid in my opinion. Don't believe me? You can look at the static 99 SCAM coding form for yourself: http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 16, 2017 at 7:58 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryOne more point... If all of that above was done, then they could use static 99 as a gauge to whether or not someone on probation needed to be watched closely.... But as a tool introduced in the court system to help decide whether you spend and extra 15 years to life on probation...from a test that has an accuracy curve from 59 to 95%? Bullshit! I even question the High end... As with Australia, they based one if their assessments it looks like from a sample of 6 violent offenders... Come on.... Yeah, lets test one oerson, then we can get a 100% accuracy score! To their credit they go on to explain the issues with even large group samplings. It should NEVER even come up from an advocacy group. With it's low accuracy, it's like they're arguing to bring back lie detectors as evidence. Is that great or what?
  • mike r iscensored January 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm on General Comments January 2017you know that right to reputation argument was already successful in Hawaii vs bani and the Hawaiian legislators amended their laws to include individual assessment hearings in order to comply but the laws have been ratcheted up even further so now I don't believe even assessment hearings are enough to negate all the the laws as a whole..the right to reputation issue is the solid settled argument that their is a violation of a fundamental constitutional right in order to trigger the intermediate scrutiny at worst or strict scrutiny which is key in this motion...and the cruel and unusual punishment claim is something that has never really been tried in the way that I am presenting it,,im arguing that it's excessive and I believe have portrayed and proving that it is also a fundamental right to trigger those higher standards of review...there's still work to be done and like I've said I want to file by fall of this year so I have time...I will not file until I believe it's completely rock solid and have had it reviewed by law library clerks and I am going to try and get others to comment...every comment helps and is taking seriously and into account..
  • mike r iscensored January 16, 2017 at 6:36 pm on General Comments January 2017Chris you have suggested exactly what I am planning to do...I mean exactly..how ironic...I'm definitely going to create a bill of attainder violation and tie it all in with the rest of the arguments..as far as the exclusion zones I want to include any cities or municipalities or even HOA's codes ordinances mainly focused hear in cali that's exactly why I need to know where they are still enforcing those in cali and then I'll shorten the Tennessee example but include codes from florida and some of the strictest states or counties on those exclusion zones...excellent feedback...very positive and productive...thanks and keep em coming....
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 16, 2017 at 6:18 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryYou're obviously asking that question so you can do what a certain other person did... Separate yourself from the people who are "inferior". I don't like it because it's faulty much like polls are. It seeks to hem people up based on 8000 other situations, so compared to actual recidivism rates, it would lock up thousands upon thousands on the "possibility" of reoffense unjustly. Solely on the tests predictions. It's a wholesale price club approach. If they want to make it constitutional, they'll call it punishment, add it as part of direct probation/parole, give individual personal evaluations from a doctor, designate their term and cancel it out automatically upon completion of their sentence. They don't want to do that though, because they'll have to justify each term limit and they've grown accustom to their powerful conveyer belt justice system. They'll need to be made to do it by cutting their legs out from under them, not helping them grease the conveyer wheels so the machine can run a little longer.
  • Tuna January 16, 2017 at 6:04 pm on State Department Replies to IML PetitionBill Arthur made a good comment here back in October, that the State Dept didnt seem to have much enthusiasm in implementing IML, and the lack of further action to date seems to bear this out. We are almost a year on from passage of the law, and the State Dept has yet to implement the law. I monitor the Federal Register daily, and have seen no further movement on identifiers or any other IML activity. Anyone else?
  • B.Wat January 16, 2017 at 5:54 pm on General Comments January 2017Thanks, NPS.
  • j January 16, 2017 at 5:14 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistrySo what will the duration (time frame) be after one petitions for relief? will one be granted from registering?
  • Steve January 16, 2017 at 4:58 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryI have a question for those who are against the static 99. For those who have a single non contact offense and are saying they score in the high risk zone is it because you had a previous conviction or post conviction for something else other than a sex offense?
  • Steve January 16, 2017 at 4:55 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryNP, Good question. Just wondering though would federal law trump the states constitution?
  • Steve January 16, 2017 at 4:50 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryStatic 99 will not apply to those who have never taken it and it's been longer than 10 years since conviction. It says it in the bill "to those who it applies to"
  • ML January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLIs there a link to the exact info in the IML? My question is if a person is not now required to register do will the notices be sent and are they required to give notice? What if the person has deferred adjudication so that it is not in the state database or the FBI database? Any opinion?
  • James January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLDear Ron: I am seriously glad that this went well for you....but out of an abundance of caution and some curiosity, I would like to ask: Did you give and file your 21 day advance notice of International Travel as required by the Federal IML? Also, I don't see you doing any outbound international flights...which could make a considerable difference. Was there an outbound flight? In any case, congratulations on a good vacation. And thanks for reporting back on your experience. Best Wishes, James
  • NPS January 16, 2017 at 3:27 pm on General Comments January 2017There used to a PDF file regarding all the residency restrictions for each California county, but since the In re: Taylor decision, I haven't seen it. Regardless, none of the 9 Bay Area Counties had residency or presence restrictions prior to this case nor do they have any now. As far as how RCs are treated, I've heard that Santa Clara County is the worst and Sonoma County is a close second. Livermore is Alameda County, and I've not heard anything negative there. I've lived in 3 of the Bay Area counties (SF, San Mateo and now Contra Costa) and never had any issues. Of course, I'm not on the public registry, so this could be why I've been okay. But law enforcement definitely leaves me alone.
  • American Detained in America January 16, 2017 at 3:25 pm on FIRE DESTROYS SQUAW VALLEY TRAILER WHERE A SEXUAL PREDATOR HAD CONTRACTED TO LIVESeriously??? First, the article talks about how remote the trailer was and how it took so long for firefighters to get there, then many children lived in the neighborhood. Either it was remote or it wasn't. How about some honesty in the media for a change? How about just saying it's obvious the place was torched by some vigilante who was hoping to block Snyder's release, after all, it's pretty obvious to everyone. While I understand the disgust after reading his rap sheet, he served the time imposed on him by law and then 12 additional years, and it's time to let him out.
  • Ron January 16, 2017 at 3:12 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLI promised to give an update after I returned home. This is it. I took a cruise from Miami to Cozumel and then the Bahamas. Afterwards, I returned to my home here in another country. When I flew into Miami I had absolutely no problems. I was not even stopped by customs for a search. My previous 2 trips I was. Cozumel, also, was problem free. I was able to enter and exit Mexico without issue. The same with the Bahamas. No problems at all. When we returned to the USA, I was waived right through. No search or questions. When I flew home, I just showed my residency card along with my passport as usual. Again no problems. I am not sure what will happen when we get the "scarlet letter". I am not even sure if I will get one as adjudication was withheld (non-adjudicated) in my case. In all, not a single issue. I felt half human again. No harassment, no embarrassment, no headaches.
  • Chris F January 16, 2017 at 1:59 pm on General Comments January 2017Mike R, Great work on your lawsuit, and I've got some suggestions/observations. I still need to read the entire thing, but only have a few minutes so I'll toss these thoughts out there. First off, many items in your list of constitutional violations may get immediately shot down by existing precedents unless you can distinguish what is different now VS then, or between you and those precedents. It may take a simple few lines to counter Smith V Doe and Conn Dept of Transportation SCOTUS cases so they don't try to write you off right away. Use some specific examples of the vagueness of other state laws for visitors. The resource on this very site lists some that don't even say what timeframe you have to do anything if you aren't "moving" to that state: http://all4consolaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Summary-of-State-Registration-Laws-Concerning-Short.pdf I noticed you don't go after a violation of "Bill of Attainder" and that may be the new ground you need to cover. If you start with that as your main challenge and then list all the other constitutional violations, it allows a judge to take the easy way and grant you relief on Bill of Attainder and not have to go through all the rest. All of the rest, even if they can pick apart and not grant individual violations, as a whole will show how it adds up to Bill of Attainder. If you lead with Bill of Attainder, I would go to OnceFallen's web site and take the examples of what those who introduced Sex Offender restrictions laws said that shows their intent to punish and not have any legitimate regulatory purpose. There are lots of those quotes from Senators to victims parents that had laws named after their kids. I would also find a place to mention the stuff that won the case in the 6th Circuit. I'll have to go back to it, but I believe they had tons of officials questioned and they couldn't answer questions about sex offender laws they were in charge of carrying out. It proves the laws are vague and that they actually don't serve a purpose other than to make life hell. You can also show that none of the information collected at "registration" is actually used for anything and just created as a nuisance. The info collected is already in their system and easily found through standard means without having to report to a police station. Since you are Pro Se, perhaps you can use the data from the 6th circuit suit as funding your own research in your own district isn't practical. I'll post more when I can to chat with you about all this. Great job!
  • USA January 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryGreat views! Those attacking others views are comments are clearly immature and probably repeat offenders. I read the comment regarding PC 1203.4! I had my offense expunged pursuant to PC 1203.4 after a 17B. I believe there are now limits on who can now do this. I'm just wondering how those with an expunged offense and no longer eligible for Static 99 Testing (10 or more years have passed crime free) will be tiered! Keep up the great work Janice!
  • mike r iscensored January 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm on General Comments January 2017so if anyone reads my motion I would like to hear some productive feedback...thanks..isn't there a list somewhere that outlines what cities or municipalities that still have the exclusion zones here in cali? if so please post...
  • True when you say it that way..... January 16, 2017 at 11:12 am on General Comments January 2017Yes, I concur with those sentiments, we are not all on the same team. Finding out the percentages of who is where within the topic is not required to be known either. Would rather see the registry abolished altogether and the ten questions shredded forever from use while still rooting Mike R on in his effort to make changes through his methodology. If we can see through the acerbic wording at times from commenters, then we can see the message for what it is really intended most times.
  • New Person January 16, 2017 at 10:38 am on General Comments January 2017ha ha ha ha I didn't scroll down all the way before posting my comment on linking your entire work. great job on doing that!
  • New Person January 16, 2017 at 10:36 am on General Comments January 2017Or... You can put your entire motion somewhere else, but have a link to it on here. That way it doesn't take up 3/4 ths of the page and lets those who are interested to view the entirety. They can comment on it here still, under your linked post. It's a win-win situation.
  • New Person January 16, 2017 at 10:31 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registryoh my! love the satire!
  • New Person January 16, 2017 at 10:26 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistrySince registration is considered regulatory, then it doesn't have to abide by punishment laws such as ending punishment once out of custody. But what's the difference between compliance checks before and after parole? See, there shouldn't be any compliance checks as that's a trait attached to punishment. So we need to start listing things done under punishment and things that continue once out of custody. If there are similar things still being done after out of custody, then we can hopefully use this information to show there isn't a difference. I just don't know when we'll utilize this information, though. = (
  • New Person January 16, 2017 at 10:22 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryToppling lifetime registration... Isn't not in fact inherent that a lifetime exclusion of privacy is contrary to Article 1, Section 1 that states citizens of California have an inalienable right to and obtain privacy? This inalienable right supersedes all different types of nomenclature, whether be it punishment, regulatory, or other. The fact there is no direct path to obtain privacy is a problem. This is why knowing the success rate of CoR to registrants matters. If there is a low success rate, then the state truly is suppressing the right to privacy as well as obtain it. Yet, as things stands right now, there is no direct path to obtain privacy excluding a CoR and pardon. Negation of privacy, under California Constitution, is a disability (at the very least - but could very well be punishment as it is an inalienable right), in the opinion of a layman as it is specifically stated that privacy is an inalienable right as well as the right to obtain it. That right is 'disabled' when you become a registrant due to the attachment of a crime. It is apparent that the CoR isn't a direct pathway as its certainty of success is moot. The only built-in statute that could have direct relief from divulging all privacy is the 1203.4 which states, " the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted " It is not specifically stated within 1203.4 that one needs to continue to register as 1203.4 has specific language to denote 'and except as noted below'. But the courts of California state the ML does supersede 1203.4 statute. Seems to me there is a conflict in the binding contract in 1203.4 that has specific language 'and except as noted below' constitutes that if there are any exceptions to removal of all penalties and disabilities, then it will be noted below the first paragraph were all of the other amendments lay, all within 1203.4. Anyhow, b/c the courts 'believe' ML supersedes 1203.4, the courts have now shown its bias in negating the right to obtain privacy despite the 1203.4 statute stating '... released from all penalties and disabilities from the offense...' So, in essence, can lifetime registration be toppled due to the fact that, not only inherently negates privacy for your entire existence, but there exists no high success rate of obtaining privacy as well as have one plausible path to obtaining privacy (without any DA or judge be a part of the process - 1203.4) negated when California Constitution dictates privacy and obtaining privacy are inalienable rights. Note, though, 1203.4 qualifies for a certain segment of registrants, not all registrants. Can we sue the state of California BEFORE it tries to change away from lifetime registration? It seems quite contrary to have both in statutes: 1) an inalienable right to privacy as well as obtain it (California Constitution Article 1, Section 1) 2) lifetime registration - the negation of privacy for life as the only set term (ML) Now, there are many different categories to registrants, but all share the same disability - no privacy for the rest of your life. Oddly enough, the many different categories of registrants don't all share the same punishment levied. (Could this grouping and it's collateral damages reflect Bill of Attainder? Ex. If a person is a Commie, then they're all Commies. We need to punish all Commies the same way b/c they're no different from one another!) Anyhow, as a layman, it is impossible to have an inalienable right to privacy (and obtain it) and a lifetime term of no privacy co-existing upon the same book of laws. That is unless one of those laws is not being upheld. I would like to re-emphasize the California Constitution's inalienable right to privacy as well as obtain it so that we can file a suit against 'lifetime registration'. The California Constitution is binding and hasn't been amended within its section to allow 'lifetime registration' as an exception to the right to privacy or obtain it. I'm pretty sure inalienable right to privacy supersedes any regulatory scheme to negate privacy. I'm quite sure the inalienable right to privacy and obtain it supersedes any lifetime regulatory scheme to negate privacy for a life's existence. See, it's the lifetime term that should be an automatic trigger that violates the right to obtain privacy in California. Note, I said IN CALIFORNIA as California has specific language within its constitution that values privacy as an inalienable right. You figure the inclusion of "and obtain it (privacy)" was probably written within the Constitution for convicts to regain privacy after completing their punishment term. It is apparent that a convict does lose liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and privacy when under custody. A free person doesn't have to worry about obtaining privacy as their right to privacy was never taken away. Thus, the inalienable right to obtain privacy was designed for convicts such that they may be able to start their lives all over again without molestation, at least in the eyes of this layman. This all comes down to specific language in the statutes: 1. California Constitution Article 1, section 1: inalienable right to privacy and obtain it 2. 1203.4, paragraph 1: released from all penalties and disabilities, and except as noted below (assuming part 1 holds that negation of privacy is a disability - disabled privacy) If the courts are adamant on using the law that registration is a regulatory scheme, then let's use California law to help undermine to undermine said regulatory scheme. The courts cannot say the laws we use in defense/suit are wrong. We didn't create this binding contract, we're merely re-emphasizing what that contract says and means to a layman, especially when upholding specific language in a contract: The inalienable right to privacy or obtain it were disabled and nowhere within the California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 or 1203.4 identifies lifetime registration should continue to exist. (BTW, the Maryland lawyer who helped many registrants get off the system is who motivates me to keep looking within our written laws to help relieve registrants from registering. She said to look into existing law to combat it. She couldn't prove registration was punishment, but she founded verbiage within her constitution to help registrants from registering in her state. It's obvious the western states all presume registration isn't punishment in recent rulings: Ca, Ari, and NM. So this is why I'm always trying to find laws that work around the punishment title. I'm hoping one of these ideas makes sense to Janice and her team. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. We've all been trying to get registration to be called punitive and it's always been thwarted for several years in the California Courts. So maybe it's time we look outside the box by looking deeper inside the books.)
  • B.Wat January 16, 2017 at 9:55 am on General Comments January 2017Does anyone know anything about residency rules, or any other restrictions in Livermore? My wife and I are thinking about moving over there, to help my son and daughter-in-law, who are expecting twins, in April. We already have a two year old grandson, and she is going to need some help! In general. How does LE treat registered citizens? Any information would be appreciated.
  • J January 16, 2017 at 9:09 am on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesYou know how perfect people think. They make their own rules and Fk the Constitution.( Not anymore folks, meet the ACSOL and have a crappy day!)
  • Eric Knight January 16, 2017 at 9:03 am on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesA couple of years ago I had prepared a list of all the cities that Janice had sued for a PowerPoint presentation, but have since lost track myself. I think it would be an excellent resource myself. Imagine every case that CA RSOL / ACSOL had been involved with, including all court PDF's, posted on this site. It would be an inspiration and template for lawyers and other legal professionals for how to handle such lawsuits all over the country! It should also be noted that CA RSOL / ACSOL has the unique designation of having cases in all four California Circuit federal courts at the same time. The only case that has been lost so far is the IML case where the passport scarlet letter code was designated to be included for all registrants, but that was a preemptive strike that is much harder to prevent than a situation with actual damages. Now it will take individuals whom were actually harmed by the scarlet letter that will render a future challenge easier to win, a sad but unavoidable consequence.
  • Cj January 16, 2017 at 8:45 am on Asperger’s, autism, and sex offendersDear Tired of This, I and the 2 dozen other US family members of AS registrants feel for you. We are grouping together via ARC sub committee and would like to lobby in Jan in California and in DC in March about the injustice of disabled AS registrants. Please see Brian's blog posted below or reply back here. Are you in California ? We don't have any AS registrants as of yet from California and hope to hear their voices.
  • Cj January 16, 2017 at 8:39 am on Asperger’s, autism, and sex offendersI have a 25 yr old AS daughter and a registrant son (not AS) and live in California. I'm seeking AS registrants in California to add to our national sub-committee. I understand your desire for privacy due to both AS and the registry. If you would consider contacting Brian Kelmer of ARC, he can provide my contact. They are working hard for all the AS men in the US. I plan to attend the lobbying training in Sacranento this month and I would like to be the voice for AS men in California. Thank you
  • PK January 16, 2017 at 8:18 am on Living with 290: Traveling to Cabo San LucasThat is NOT the consensus, and I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. If you were ever convicted of a sex offense involving a minor, irregardless if you have to register, you are "not ok" and travel notices will be sent to other countries informing them of your intention to enter into their country.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 16, 2017 at 8:14 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registry+1
  • Son of Liberty Child of Feedom January 16, 2017 at 8:13 am on General Comments January 2017New Person I concur and add a further Truth, a Ugly Truth! You stated: "then sue the state for not giving a direct pathway to obtain Privacy" "The Supreme Court of The United States ruled 7–2 that a right to PRIVACY under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's "decision" [Desire] to have an abortion" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade Making "Murder of a Child" & "Conspiring to Murder a Child" by their parents & family Legitimate & Permissible without any "Collateral Consequences" The Desire of a Enslaved Citizen of The United States of America to be Reconciled with their Resurrected Privacy is truly a "Sincerely Innocent Endeavor" when contrasted with the Evil Efforts of 1973. "The Ugly Truth" is that children under the Wicked Servants care, with the Consent of most of the People who are their very own parents, Championed by the Legislative Branch, Executed by The Office of the President, & with the "Final Seal of Approval" by the Jeduciary Branch aka The United States Supreme Court. Furthermore to add insult to injury, Not a single "Officer of the Peace" on the face of the land has lifted a finger to defend the lives of the Children Murdered!!! No less then 55 million children have been Murdered!!! by their very own family. All of these innocent & defenseless children have been Executed without Due Proccess & Representation to demonstrate they pose a danger to the "Life Style" of their so called parents. In addition once Capital Punishment has been Executed upon the children via the technique of tearing and slicing their delicate bodies into Cuts and Pieces, the children are "Made a Merchandise Of" by the sale of their body parts by a "Medical Professional Butcher Shop", mind you! - This is nothing New Under the Sun: 3500 years ago the Canaanite Religions practiced the same Evil, the priest to Baal aka Cohen Baals who are Cannibals, before the arrival of The Freed Children of Israel out of the Sinai Desert carrying The Torah giving to Moshe by the Strong Arm of Yehovah, which by the way (Path) the same Torah in 1776 further Freed human kind. Ladies & Gentlemen we can not deny the Truth, The Creator of the Cosmos & Spiritual Worlds, The Most High Possessor of Heaven and Earth the Elohim (God) of Abraham, Issac, & Jacob. Revealed to Moses & to all nations what is correct & what is incorrect aka The 10 Commandments, that is: Objective Morals. The Global Governmental Bureaucrats have denied the existence of The Most High of Heaven because they Covet & Desire to place themselves in His rightful Position. The fruit of their tree is Murder & Accusation of others to cover over the evil (Want) they produce. In the same Spirit of Jona I repeat what The Most High of Heaven can not bear to look upon, I.E. Hates. And because of these acts I call Heaven & Earth to bear witness of the Rivers of Blood that cry out & Stain the Land. Proverbs chapter 6 16 There are six things which Yehovah hateth, Yea, seven which are an abomination unto Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 A heart that deviseth wicked thoughts, Feet that are swift in running to evil; 19 A false witness that breatheth out lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. 20 My son, keep the commandment of thy Father, As Yehovah lives, I speak truth
  • Marie January 16, 2017 at 5:53 am on International Travel – MexicoIf your in a state that tiers the registry and you're no longer on it.... If you haven't used your passport since 2008.... You think flying to Mexico is ok?
  • Brubaker January 16, 2017 at 1:10 am on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesExcellent. Hello everybody.! And all registered should be enjoined in lawsuit as the exclusion pretty much effects a majority registered. City council take the time to read the Constitution at your lunch break. Amazing.
  • mike r iscensored January 15, 2017 at 10:10 pm on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulescan you please post a link to the brief??? thanks
  • Timmr January 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryMoses said, "let my people go!" "Can't do," replied the Pharaoh, "who's going to build the pyramid industrial complex without slaves? Can't do it. It is here to stay. Who's going to pay the overseers if there is noone left to oversee? Jobs are in short supply. Can't just put any more in finance. We have a good thing going here. Public works, it's called. Good for private business, too. Lots of spin offs. People love it! Yeah, people do get hurt. People always get hurt and some deserve it. Besides, the people would actually kill me if I got rid of it. I see your point, but no deal. "Hmmm," said Moses. "Looks like I'll have to call a plague of lawyers upon you. Sorry. Have no choice. Got these instructions from on high." "Wrong," spat out Pharaoh. "Wrong! Got that covered. You lose. I have the most amazing judges on my side. Sorry, loser. Everything is legit. But look, i am a resonable fellow. We got too many slaves already. I admit. Some too old, been at it too long, basically worthless. Some homeless, hiding in the reeds. Can't watch them all." To which Moses replied, "Yeah, I have been telling you that, you got too many. You can't watch all who needs to be watched. Hey man, can you get by with just the Hittites? Let us go." "Yeah, like, I am a reasonable fellow, I have a board looking into this, Fabulous people. Top notch. Professionals. They told me we don't need so many. There is a test they give, separates the grain from the chaff. Great image. They are so intelligent, they blow me away! So, I am making a deal. The deal, set in stone. Let's get rid of the older ones. See how that works. Let some off now. Retirement, if you like. Let them get back a life. Some now, more later. I'l choose, just in case. I have the final say. I'll be generous and fair. I promise. Always new ones to take their place, always new ones. We have the laws for that. It's a perfectly amazing plan." Moses thought for awhile, then said, "OK, but you don't get to chose who gets off. That has to be based on science." "Well Moses, how did it go", said God, casting his eyes away northward to a promising piece a real estate.' "Did you free my people, so they can move to the better place?" "I made a good start", Moses mumbled in his beard. "Eh?" Said God. "I said, 'let some of my people go.' " "Oh."
  • Carol January 15, 2017 at 7:24 pm on Asperger’s, autism, and sex offendersI am a member of the above said subcommittee fighting the injustices to our children with IDD, Autism and Aspergers. My son has IDD and is completely reliant on his father and I to care for him and yet he is a registered sex offender. I also thought I was all alone. That something like this could never happen to any other family. Unfortunately, there many of us. Please join us and share your story so we can grow strong and make a change.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 15, 2017 at 7:06 pm on General Comments January 2017When it concerns the registry, life, liberty and rights, I'm at the lowest notch already. 🙂 I commend ascol for actually asking everyone their opinion on the current bill (that should've and should be the goto action on every bill and overall agenda), it was a good move. Now I suggest putting up a poll for tiered registry vs legal action to directly remove it. I'm pretty confident it would be no registry almost overwhelmingly. So why no action from any of these groups.? Answer me that.
  • Marie January 15, 2017 at 6:58 pm on Living with 290: Traveling to Cabo San LucasSo the concensus is .... If you're off the registry you're ok? Even if your offense was involved a minor?
  • DPH January 15, 2017 at 5:57 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryGood Point USA, the general public forgets about the bad one's
  • DPH January 15, 2017 at 5:56 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryGood Point America
  • Tobin's Tools 2.0 January 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryI, as well, share the belief that a tiered registry is an extremely bad idea. It is often mentioned that California is one of only three (or four?) states that still require lifetime registration for all sex offenders. But the tiered states hardly seem any better. For example, Nevada has recently experienced increasing problems with greater restriction imposed on people in Tier 1. Just recently, Nevada reclassified about 2,700 previous Tier 1 registrants into Tier 3: http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/sex-crimes/ruling-allows-nevada-sex-offender-registration-requirement-changes-take-effect Further, the "conspiracy theories" with regard to a tiered registry evolving to AWA is not unfounded. Again, it's happened with our neighboring state (Nevada) -- when it passed AB 579 a few months ago: http://www.jeffjaeger.com/law-blog/2016/07/nevada-enacts-new-sex-offender-tiers/ And of course, as others have mentioned, New York is currently pushing to expand Tier 1 reporting requirements from an automatic 20 year removal... to a 30 year minimum (with a "clear and convincing" standard) that would also require a petitioning process, much like the CASOMB bill being introduced by Lara: http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/public-safety/2016/08/17/sex-offender-watch-officials-push-extend-registration-terms/88903014/ I have spoken to many registrants from other tiered registration states through my recovery organization's convention. Not even one of the registrants that currently live in a tiered state say anything good about a tiered registry. Most claim that their state's tiered registry is worse than the previous legislation that their state had had. This should be troubling in itself.
  • Timmr January 15, 2017 at 5:37 pm on General Comments January 2017It was my understanding, but I am not sure if it is required in the law. Notification on changing residence? yes. Telling them when you get a new vehicle? Don't know.
  • David Kennerly's Noxious Fumes January 15, 2017 at 5:16 pm on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesI agree!
  • David Kennerly's Second Great Awakening January 15, 2017 at 5:12 pm on General Comments January 2017Let's all just turn it down a notch, shall we? The truth is that some like the tiered system but most of us don't. Let's accept that we have differing opinions and MOVE THE HELL ON. ACSOL has not endorsed the tiered system and has responded to our comments saying that they do not either, at least in its present form. That may not even be what this particular thread is about. It may be about Mike's lawsuit; I've lost track. Well, more power to Mike. I do hope that he is successful with that. However, I do think that he should also dial back some of the grumbling and recriminations. And posting very long drafts probably should be placed somewhere else. Perhaps he can link to them here so that those of us who would like to can read them. Likewise, others should not be so quick to bait him antagonistically. Learn to accept that other people have different ideas. OK?
  • David Kennerly's Second Great Awakening January 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm on PA: Child Porn Charges Reinstated Against Sexting TeenThat's a very old comment from Margaret you're responding to, btw; nearly three years old. This work on adolescent brain development is not without controversy and much research remains to be done. Also, we have to be very careful about basing policy on science that is still very much in flux and being actively debated among scientists. Further, we must be very careful that we don't infantilize adolescents any further than they already have been (which is an extraordinary amount) vis-a-vis their own individual liberties. That has nothing to do with the above story and a teenager's addition to the registry. I agree that it is horrible but then I think the registry is horrible for everyone. It's not rational, serves no demonstrable purpose and its real purpose is punishment.
  • Timmr January 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryLet's put the guy who frequents massage parlors on tier 3. They have a higher reoffense rate than murderers. (Hee, hee).
  • J January 15, 2017 at 4:42 pm on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesSounds like the Perfect Grounds for a Lawsuit to me.
  • someone who cares January 15, 2017 at 4:28 pm on General Comments January 2017NPS ~ thanks for the info. I saw that clause now, too, but if there is a class action lawsuit coming, arguing that exact fact that if you can honestly say you have not been convicted, how can they make you keep registering. What are you registering for if there is no conviction? I give the moderator permission to give out my e-mail address to NPS. I would really like to discuss this more.
  • Ken Holleman January 15, 2017 at 3:46 pm on Sex offenders are among the most harshly punished criminals in the state, but how often does the punishment fit the crime?The registry does not serve to protect anyone. it merely serves as a punishment perpetually keeping sex offenders at risk of vigilantism, unemployment and harassment. Furthermore it dilutes the actual intention of the registry which was to protect people from truly dangerous offenders, a small amt. Of offenders. By putting more than a half a million people on the registry, some for Lifetime for an incident that happened decades ago is absurd and counterproductive. Recidivism rates for sex offenders are among the lowest in the criminal Arena. Furthermore, public records are available to those who really want them. It would serve the public interest better to put people who are truly dangerous on the registry. The majority of most new sex offenders are committed by people who are family and friends of the victim not by S/O"s. Signed regrettably on the registry.. . Ken H.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 15, 2017 at 3:34 pm on General Comments January 2017But we aren't all on the same team. A number of us are against the registry while others fight for it as a supposed short term "fix". I find that completely shortsighted and lacking strategically. By touting Hanson's flawed 10 question minority report test as "empirical evidence", it introduces junk science as proof into the mainstream. It's assbackwards to the direction that's promoted. And I'm being nice....
  • NPS January 15, 2017 at 3:16 pm on General Comments January 2017Unfortunately, there is a PC that says exactly that about 1203.4, and the DA was quick to remind me of that. 290.007. Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person's conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.
  • Joe123 January 15, 2017 at 3:02 pm on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rulesBeautifully worded: "The ordinance's restrictions are an 'arbitrary, politically motivated act imposed by a local government in response to popular sentiments,' the lawsuit reads, 'based upon misinformation, which seeks retribution against Registrants who constitute a socially outcast minority.' " Now if only the same argument can be said about IML...
  • mike r iscensored January 15, 2017 at 2:00 pm on Adelanto sued over sex offender residency ruleshey can you or someone please supply with me with every municipality that still has these restrictions here in cali?? I really need the city's name and exact code # to include in my motion..thanks
  • Moderator January 15, 2017 at 1:38 pm on General Comments January 2017We most decidedly have better things to do than change your screen name and have never done so. ***Moderator***
  • Danielle January 15, 2017 at 1:04 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryHoping that the tiered bill will allow for anyone and everyone a way to get off the registry.when one completes parole,thats when it should end.god,help us.
  • wonderin January 15, 2017 at 1:00 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryIf this proposal is enacted into law, just imagine how effective the result of seeing thousands upon thousands of released citizens living a life of propriety and without costing the state another dime in wasted taxpayer funds and manpower. I see this as a step forward in proving that lifetime registration is a lesson in futility and every citizen removed from the shackles of these unfounded fears can be a testament to open and constructive reasoning regarding growth and rehabilitation.
  • mike r iscensored January 15, 2017 at 12:21 pm on General Comments January 2017well thank you for at least posting my website... they even changed my screen name ...talk about being biased and completely unfair...
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 15, 2017 at 11:21 am on General Comments January 2017If he or I or anyone else had that kind of power over her then she never was committed in the first place. so run back to your safe space.. In the real world there are dissenting views that grownups have learned to cope with.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 15, 2017 at 11:17 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryHow about we ban the assholes that are telling you that your acceptance of a tiered system is going to give you an ever expanding rule set.
  • Spoonful of sugar may be requried first.... January 15, 2017 at 11:13 am on General Comments January 2017Mike R - Kick butt and takes names in your effort! Rooting you on silently while watching this all unfold....others may not want me to encourage you, but in reality, if you make headway, DO IT! Everyone can be acerbic in their writings here from time to time. The in-fighting needs to chill and realize that being on the same team and working together is more productive then acting like kids in the back of the station wagon on a Griswold family vacation. Just IMHO.... Just remember, tone is sometimes hard to convey in writings when meant well and taken otherwise.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 15, 2017 at 11:12 am on General Comments January 2017It happens to all who have opposing views here I bet. Probably the only reason you were allowed to say the above was, they saw an opportunity to get free of you and get back to their echo chamber. Ya know, the 10 people who support the tiered registry vs the hundreds of thousands that don't of which she never bothered to ask.
  • alex January 15, 2017 at 10:41 am on Janice’s Journal: Silver Linings to the Dark Cloud of the International Megan’s Lawso im confused. if im not on the website and just renew my passport do i have that special mark on it or not
  • Michael January 15, 2017 at 10:28 am on PA: Child Porn Charges Reinstated Against Sexting TeenI disagree. These laws, according to legislators, are there to protect kids -- not from themselves but from adults who prey upon them. A little common sense should apply here. A person does not reach the age of maturity in PA until the age of 21. Age of maturity is the age at which a person is recognized by law to be an adult. Moreover, the prefrontal cortex is not completely developed until about the age of 25. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for abstract thinking, thought analysis, regulating behavior, mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong, and predicting the probable outcomes of actions or events. The area also governs social control, such as suppressing emotional or sexual urges. It is most strongly implicated in human qualities like consciousness, general intelligence, and personality. It also regulates both short-term and long-term decision making, allows humans to plan ahead and create strategies, adjust actions or reactions in changing situations, helps to focus thoughts, which enables people to pay attention, learn, and concentrate on goals, and allows humans to consider different related lines of thinking when learning or evaluating complex concepts or tasks. Teenagers just don't have the capacity to completely understand their actions. We should not be criminalizing their behavior. ....
  • USA January 15, 2017 at 9:32 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryThe tiered system is a wonderful idea. The ban is a terrible idea. This bill would prevent me from participating in my child's school, ban me from dropping them off, attending back to school night and picking him up if ill. What if I was a single parent with s deceased wife? Very ignorant. I can maybe see if there was a ban for someone on parole, but who poses more danger? A recently released gang member, drug dealer, prostitite, drunk driver or spousal abuser? What about a recently released murderer? Or, should we ban a guy with a summary probation offender with an expunged offense related to massage parlors 20 years ago? Wake up!
  • someone who cares January 15, 2017 at 8:45 am on General Comments January 2017NPS ~ thank you for the tips. Yes, if the moderator could provide your e-mail, address, I would really like to discuss how to go about all this without getting an attorney. Money is tight as it is. I appreciate the help. Also, I have not seen where it really says that a PC 1203.4 will NOT relief you from the duty to register. I saw many articles where it mentioned what a dismissal will NOT do, but not being able to stop registering was not mentioned as far as I could tell.
  • mike r January 15, 2017 at 12:12 am on General Comments January 2017no more I took your advice I am tired of hearing the whining and crying by the PC police on this site so here we go....anyone that is interested in viewing my motion go here... man i like how the moderator will let others bash me and discredit what I say or do but wont even let me give any kind of feed back to their comments... and Joe says my screen name is offensive...No its the truth..... http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
  • David Kennerly's Second Great Awakening January 14, 2017 at 9:43 pm on TX: Legislator aims to block sex offenders from getting pen palsOr something a bit more modest, perhaps such as a raincoat.
  • Joe January 14, 2017 at 4:39 pm on General Comments January 2017Forget money - sorry I mentioned it.... I will contribute to his victory party once he wins. Okay? I will bake him a dozen cup cakes if he ever files his 'motion'. Fair? Where do I send them? Money.... Baked goods.... whatever. As long as I do not have to listen to his incessant whining no more. Because he is going to alienate the only real advocates 100,000 individuals in the Golden State have ever had. What have you accomplished lately?
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 14, 2017 at 4:37 pm on General Comments January 2017Go back to the other company and threaten to file since you've made them aware, proved your case and they deflected. If they think you mean business, they probably won't risk it.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm on General Comments January 2017So you're going to send him money AFTER he wins. Lol
  • Biol57 January 14, 2017 at 4:16 pm on CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY JANICE M. BELLUCCI NAMED TO TOP 100 LAWYERS IN CALIFORNIAI could not agree more.
  • Janice Bellucci January 14, 2017 at 4:02 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryWhile we would prefer to lobby on both days, lobbying can be done on one day only. In order to join on the second day, I must be contacted directly so that arrangements can be made. Lobbying even on one day can be a worthwhile experience.
  • Joe January 14, 2017 at 4:01 pm on General Comments January 2017Are you talking about comments by me - "Joe"? Or "jo"? And would this attention to detail be by the person who claims he has the wherewithal to bring 290 registration to its knees? Who - correct me if I am wrong - not that long ago could not find the "General Comments" thread on this web site? A web site he continues to trash with every comment he makes? And I(!) need professional help? Ha! That is rich. You can make snide remarks about me all you want, but if it keeps you from alienating the only people who have ever accomplished anything of value, I will take it. I hope you will abide by that. And best of luck with your law suit.
  • stephen January 14, 2017 at 3:45 pm on TX: Legislator aims to block sex offenders from getting pen palsShow up dressed like Adam.
  • NPS January 14, 2017 at 3:36 pm on General Comments January 2017Well said, Joe.
  • Tired of this January 14, 2017 at 3:33 pm on General Comments January 2017You most assuredly aren't alone, my friend. I, too, am featured on his site. He is a bully, pure and simple. He has found a segment of the population that he can legally bully, with complete impunity. But I don't believe he will get away with it for much longer. I gotta say, I can't believe his site hasn't been hacked and taken down yet. There are a lot of people negatively impacted by that website (read: a lot of people quite pissed off at ol' Chuckie) and I find it hard to believe that none of us (or our friends) have the ability to do so.
  • mike r iscensored January 14, 2017 at 2:56 pm on General Comments January 2017good respectful comments one day I will definitely consider and take you opinion into account..I wish others would be so professional...
  • mike r iscensored January 14, 2017 at 2:53 pm on General Comments January 2017man the hostility coming from jo there....I think he may need to consult with some type of proffesional to address his anger issues....I believe most people on here would vehemently disagree with your statements on how I should act, what I should post, and what i should according to you...thank you all mighty one...I will definitely abide by all that you command and will obey and follow you to the ends of the world...
  • mike r iscensored January 14, 2017 at 2:46 pm on General Comments January 2017here we go there seems to always be a bad apple in the barrel. thank you so much jo for your totally enlightening and in depth analysis of my short cummings I really appreciate the positive productive conversation that is contributing so much to this conversation...it's a real honor to have someone of your character and disposition on this site to keep the degenerates such as myself in line...I really look forward to all of your intelligent contributions to any and all of the issues brought up on this site...keep em coming...lmfao...
  • David Kennerly's Second Great Awakening January 14, 2017 at 2:45 pm on TX: Legislator aims to block sex offenders from getting pen palsWe'll bring free candy and a series of lectures on Sodom and Gomorrah.
  • chris January 14, 2017 at 2:10 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryThis tiered registry can easily blow up in our faces. The current tiered registy draft is pretty bad. I hope there are many major revisions to it before it is voted to pass.
  • Janice Bellucci January 14, 2017 at 11:14 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryACSOL will meet in the office of Senator Lara on Jan. 20. After that meeting, we will have better insight regarding the most effective way(s) to be heard. We have already met and will continue meeting with other organizations in order to build a "coalition of reason" that can weigh in on both the tiered registry bill and Senate Bill 26.
  • ONE DAY AT A TIME January 14, 2017 at 10:46 am on General Comments January 2017Why don't you just post it to a free blog site or free web site and post the link here. When you place long posts here, it makes it impossible to view this site on a cell phone. Many of us only have access here through our cell phones.
  • FRANK January 14, 2017 at 10:18 am on CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY JANICE M. BELLUCCI NAMED TO TOP 100 LAWYERS IN CALIFORNIAI have told Janice for years, that she is the only Hero(ine) I have had in my 73 years on this earth!
  • ReadyToFight January 14, 2017 at 9:59 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryAbsolutely! It undermines the entire structure of the Tier idea. It's just another way to strip us of our rights and due process to show contempt for a group of ppl mashed together with violent individuals to justify what is really a death sentence.
  • NPS January 14, 2017 at 9:50 am on General Comments January 2017The attorney is correct that you can file 1203.4 any time after you end probation. As Joe said, if the PC is a wobbler, go for the 17b (reduction to misdemeanor). You don't need an attorney. Have you considered filing the motion on your own without one? I filed my 17b and 1203.4 on my own, and it was without cost. I wrote my own motion along with a personal statement to the court. I provided numerous letters of reference including one from my former probation officer and therapist. The judge granted both the 17b and 1203.4. Again, the cost was $0. Prior to this, I had also filed an early termination of probation. When granted, the judge set a new date 4 weeks later for the 17b and 1203.4. I know that doesn't apply to you since probation is over, but it gives an idea of how little time is needed between ending probation and filing 1203.4. If you decide to go this route of filing in pro per, the moderator has permission to provide my email and I can give you further advice. Good luck!
  • JohnDoeUtah January 14, 2017 at 9:35 am on General Comments January 2017Anyone know how to deal with getting their info off SORArchives.com My requirement to register has ended, yet this guy makes it clear he will not take your info down. I've gotten it off all the other private sites but this one. I even reported it to the hosting site, and they came back in their investigation saying he was saying it was a public record and authentic. I pointed them to the registries and showed I was not there. They said I'd have to go through his online request for removal, and they would not take down the pages. He states on his removal request form that any information you provide is not confidential (which means he will post whatever you put in the online form), he also threatens that any legal process upon him will be posted with your information on his website. Also, he will only accept receipt of a removal request if it comes from an attorney, again with no mention of actually deleting the information. Since the lawsuit in Arizona against this guy, he no longer tries to get payment for removal, he just won't do it.
  • Harry January 14, 2017 at 8:24 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registry"Please join us on January 30 and January 31 in Sacramento to share your views on these bills." I would like to come Sacramento, however, I can do January 31th only. Can a person come without lobbying experience and be there on the 31th?
  • Joe January 14, 2017 at 8:21 am on General Comments January 2017No one has ever criticized your efforts. It is not your output that is criticized, but your behavior, attitude and tone on this web site. What is not acceptable is your incessant whining - down to alleging they derive some sort of profit from their activism - about a bunch of volunteers, many of whom have no stake in this and for some reason feel compelled to work for free and ruin their reputations. What is puzzling that for some reason you are under the impression that this organization is required to follow your opinions and recommended course of action. For that there exist private attorneys. You should hire one. What is objectionable is the contention that you know better than California Bar and SCOTUS admitted attorneys who have actual legal experience and success in this arena. What is not appreciated is for you to continually to copy and paste vast amounts of text here - against the guidelines - making it difficult to use this site on a phone. What is ridiculous is for you to continue to expect to dump on the volunteers of a private organization on the public forum operated by the very organization. Me? I would ban you for your rude username, for starters. Go forth and file your law suit. It may just do the trick once and for all. If you are right - I have said this before - I will be the first to donate $100 to the mike r party fund. Until such time... get your own attorney or start your own web site (trying to stay polite here). Simple as that.
  • Joe January 14, 2017 at 8:05 am on General Comments January 2017I believe you are entitled to a dismissal under 1203.4, if eligible. An attorney would not offer you a money back guarantee if it were a toss-up. This is something you can easily do yourself. Many people have. Here is the form. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/cr180.pdf It is brand spanking new and seems more complicated than the previous version. This is also the form to request a felony reduction to misdemeanors, for wobblers. This can make the difference between terminating registration with a CoR or not. It is not rocket science, but there are form and time requirements that must be adhered to. For that I would retain an attorney. There are post-conviction relief specialists doing nothing but this that know exactly what to do. In the interest of messing up a formality and prolonging the procedure I would consider it money well spent. But not necessary. The Public Defender in your county may help you, or is a good place to start in any case. http://publicdef.co.riverside.ca.us/opencms/relief.html http://www.pubdef.ocgov.com/programs/new_leaf_program/default.htm Good luck!
  • someone who cares January 14, 2017 at 7:34 am on General Comments January 2017We are done with probation and would like to apply for a PC1203.4. I spoke to an expungement lawyer, and he said this can be done immediately after probation and there is no need to wait to let some time pass? I am not sure about this law firm since he also said that the judge had no say in denying the motion and the attorney would not ask for a dismissal but simply tell the judge to dismiss it since it is California Precedent? I know I read that if someone completed probation without any violations the judge HAS to grant the dismissal? Can someone who has successfully filed this motion let me know if this lawyer is full of it or telling the truth? He also has a 100% money back guarantee if he does not win the case. If we get the PC1203.4 granted, we would also be interested in any class action suit regarding the registration after the dismissal is granted. As some said, with the dismissal, you can honestly say you have never been convicted, so why the continued punishment having to register? Register for what crime if no crime exists?
  • Political Prisoner January 14, 2017 at 5:32 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryI agree if you have met the conditions of treatment and time then a judge or DA should have no say into whether a person should be allowed to stop registering. As well as they should not have to petition at all to be removed, it should be automatic.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom January 14, 2017 at 1:07 am on General Comments January 2017mike r In the face of tremendous Ha Satans (Barriers) placed before your path in life you show forth courage as did Joseph when his own brothers made a Merchandise of him, sold to the Mitzrahym (Egyptins) like a loaf of bread Joseph withstood calamity with Wisdom, a Strong Heart, and Calling out to the Elohim (God) of his forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Out of the miry clay, he was brought out of the Pit. In that same spirit of Joseph the Nazrite (separated one) I call out to the same Elohim Yehovah The Most High Possessor of Heaven and Earth The only Eternal One who formed light and created darkness: I bid Yehovah The God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob. Yehovah bless thee, and keep thee: Yehovah make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: Yehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Amen.
  • mike r iscensored January 14, 2017 at 1:02 am on General Comments January 2017that argument was just a quick draft my revised version is exponentially more solid and I really hope enough people are interested enough to voice their opinion and desire to see it in its entirety so that hopefully the moderator will go ahead and let me post the entire motion..Plus it is very inspirational and a great motivator when I get feedback from others..
  • ReadyToFight January 14, 2017 at 1:02 am on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryJanice, Are you able to give us any insight on what your team intends to address with this Tiered Bill moving forward? Also, I feel like we should be writing Mr Lara asap. I intend to voice how the Registry robbed me and my children of a stable life and point out that if America continues down this path, a Muslim Registry will come to pass and more will spring up. Any input from you would be appreciated.
  • ReadyToFight January 14, 2017 at 12:48 am on General Comments January 2017Mike R...... Give em Hell
  • mike r iscensored January 14, 2017 at 12:45 am on General Comments January 2017thank you steve..I really appreciate the positive comment..especially coming from one of my most vociferous critics...This is still just a draft on this issue that I prepared in about 8-10 hours or so..I will continue to strengthen this argument before it's completely ready but eveven at this stage I believe it is a very strong argument...the other five arguments that I have are even more rock solid all have an extreemly great chance of prevailing on each issue.....if I see a couple more people who state they really want to see the entire motion then I will go ahead and post it in its entirety...like I said it's 47 pages so I want to hear if people really want to see it...
  • pgm111 January 13, 2017 at 11:32 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistrySenate Bill 26 is a disaster for parents and family members up and own the state. I am in favor of pulling out all the stops and get very aggressive with the FACTS. Here are some facts: 1. It is far more likely that someone will be sexually assaulted by a police officer or a teacher than a registered citizen. 2. According to the Department of Education, the teaching profession contains the highest concentration of people with pedophilic interests, not some random dad who was unlucky enough to land on the SO registry. When is empirical evidence win the day??
  • Roger January 13, 2017 at 10:29 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryJanice, I'm 100% committed to stopping SB 26 and supporting a tiered registry bill with the protections you discussed. I hope there will be a far greater turnout in Sacramento than we have had before, because we RCs know a California tiered registry bill has the potential to push the momentum in our favor, even nationwide. The bill will not be perfect, but it is a key battle in our war for civil rights and humanity.
  • Steve January 13, 2017 at 9:49 pm on General Comments January 2017Very impressive. Good luck!
  • New Person January 13, 2017 at 9:36 pm on General Comments January 2017Well... I know the registration creates a disability. The right to travel unmolested is a right that is shared among free people. Thus, registration limits the right to travel. Each state carries it's own statutes on how long one can stay before they are "compelled" to register for that state, regardless if you are simply visiting and not the usual standard of practice for establishing residency. Also, the laws in other states may differ vastly than what is stated in California. Now, if one has earned a 1203.4, then it clearly states, "...he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted". The pertinent word here is "to travel unmolested" as to compare to one who his free, which is what the 1203.4 actually states.
  • HOOKSCAR January 13, 2017 at 9:32 pm on General Comments January 2017I for 1 would be very interested in looking at your work. It would be interesting to see how you present the arguments.
  • Janice Bellucci January 13, 2017 at 8:45 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryPlease contact me directly, Detained, so that we can discuss your situation. You should not have been denied access to your child's graduation.
  • Janice Bellucci January 13, 2017 at 8:44 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryLeyva's bill has been scheduled for consideration before two Senate committees -- Education and Public Safety. We don't have any dates yet, but will be sure to share them as soon as they become available.
  • NPS January 13, 2017 at 7:58 pm on General Comments January 2017I was also granted a 1203.4. I'm still registering. Thankfully I'm not, nor have I ever been on the public registry. If there's ever a class action suit for RCs granted a 1203.4, count me in, too.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 13, 2017 at 7:54 pm on General Comments January 2017I'm not going to try and give that depth of legal advice, just don't know law to that degree.. I will give an opinion on the whole after reading it. It sounds good but it seems like you're hitting on something that SCOTUS would have to take up. I'm not sure how convincing that would be to a state court. You might make it more specific to travel inside your state. I travel freely here but I know some states, like California, have county to county problems. Right? Just my two cents.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 13, 2017 at 7:42 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryYou know that's what she means.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 13, 2017 at 7:34 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryYou say you're concerned about the current bill then you say you're unconcerned in the next paragraph? What are you now unconcerned with? Is the current bill being scratched/amended through your participation?
  • Lake County January 13, 2017 at 7:30 pm on General Comments January 2017This episode gets repeated on Monday 10am in the SF Bay Area and in many other areas around the country.
  • mike r January 13, 2017 at 7:28 pm on General Comments January 2017Lets see if they will let me post the beginning of my motion....Just so you all know It is formatted in the proper format and argued on pleading paper.....I am very proud of this that I spent hundreds of hours preparing while many have said to stop crying and start doing this or that or whatever they thought I should be doing to support our cause.. Believe me when this prevails all the naysayers will be chomping at the bits to file their own motion based on mine... MICHAEL RICHARDSON __________________ __________________ __________________ PRO SE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, MICHAEL RICHARDSON vs. Defendant(s) ______________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No._________________ VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND/OR DECLARATORY RELIEF Violation of First, Fifth Amendments, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, and California’s Constitution’s Article I sect.1 and sect.7 INTRODUCTION I the plaintiff, Michael Richardson, do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief. I am not an attorney and I have no formal education in the field of law. I am filing pro se since I cannot afford legal assistance as I do not have unlimited disposable income so I am asking this court to consider the issues in this motion based on the merit of each issue without regard to court rules and procedures or technical errors. See. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgmentt."Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson.Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities. See also the California’s Constitution’s Civil Rights Amendments Article I section 3. I am also asking this court for assistance in determining exactly what rights are being violated and exactly what type of remedies the court deems applicable in my case. I am asking the Court to determine if such action by a Court can or should actually be taking to administer a fair and just Judicial process. This motion is being brought forth as an as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan's law (CA Penal Code § 290-290.024, Sex Offender Registration Act) and to SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Notification Act) 42 USC § 16913 as applied to me. Governments have an obligation to protect people and take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction to protect them from violence. One element of that duty is to take measures to deter and prevent crime. They must do so, however, within a human rights framework, which places restrictions on those measures that infringe on the human rights guaranteed to all. A person’s conviction of a crime does not extinguish his or her claim to just treatment at the hands of government. American policies regarding sex offenders mark them as a special category of criminals for whom no stigma is too crippling, no regulations are too restrictive, and no penalty is too severe. This attitude, driven by fear and outrage, is fundamentally irrational, and so are its results, which make little sense in terms of justice or public safety. Sex offender laws interfere with a panoply of protected rights: the rights to privacy, to family and home, to freedom of movement and liberty (including the right to work and to reside where one chooses ), and to physical safety and integrity (including protection from harm by private as well as public actors), while not achieving any legitimate legislative objectives. None of these rights are absolute, but laws that infringe upon them must be necessary to serve a legitimate public interest and they must be rational and evidence-based. It is important to recognize that constitutional protections must be afforded to all regardless of the public having a perception of certain classes having a pariah reputation. The government cannot allow rights to be taken away arbitrarily “based solely upon the category of the crime for which the offender is found guilty.” JURISDICTION AND VENUE This is a civil rights action seeking to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) and to SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Notification Act) 42 USC § 16913 as applied to me in violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States of America as well as California Constitution’s Article I, Section 1 and 7 on “ life, liberty, property, due process, and equal protection”. Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 2201, and 2202; as well as 5 U.S.C. section 702, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to any action for injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e), venue is proper in this Federal district because defendants are officers of agencies of the United States sued in their official capacities, and because this judicial district is where Plaintiff Michael Richardson resides, and where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims have occurred and will continue to occur. I dont know if this site will allow me to post the entire 47 page motion but if enough people state they want to see it then they might let me post it...if not oh well their lossssssssss
  • C January 13, 2017 at 7:18 pm on General Comments January 2017Each year they just ask me if I have any new vehicles and I bring in the registrations accordingly when I have something new. Even when it's the same vehicle they takes pictures of it. They even asked for my boat registration one year, an 18' runabout. Idiotic. Welp, hope they don't get mad at me next month - got a new truck in June and did not tell 'em about it yet.
  • ONE DAY AT A TIME January 13, 2017 at 6:56 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryJanice, I'm so glad you're able to give the politicians our/your opinions on this tiered registry bill. If it's going to pass, it will pass with our input on the details or without our input. I'd rather we provide our input on this bill rather than just saying no, we don't want anything to do with this tiered registry and just be stuck with their first draft. They certainly don't need our approval to pass this in any form.
  • mike r iscensored January 13, 2017 at 6:52 pm on General Comments January 2017never mind I got it....my motion is ready to file...just a cover sheet and fee waiver are my last steps....and I'm taking speech and public debating this semester so I'll be as prepared as possible....this motion is incredible if anyone wants to see it say so on here and ill post it or send it to you or Janice's team so they can forward it...thanks
  • ONE DAY AT A TIME January 13, 2017 at 6:33 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryAlthough this bill (SB26) is a paranoid step in the wrong direction, I'm not sure if it will change much for many families. Even though we have no evidence of a known registered citizen committing a sex crime on a K-12 campus in recent history, I can't imagine the average school principal taking the risk of angry parents causing them to loose their job because they allowed a registered citizen on their campus.
  • Lake County January 13, 2017 at 6:11 pm on General Comments January 2017Dr. Phil had an episode today (Jan 13, 2017) entitled: "Was Her Boyfriend Falsely Convicted of Sexual Assault? Her Parents Want Him Gone". Link: http://www.drphil.com/shows/was-her-boyfriend-falsely-convicted-of-sexual-assault-her-parents-want-him-gone/ The subject of this episode is a Tier III sex offender convicted of groping a 14yr old girl over her clothing. He was on Dr. Phil because he denies he was guilty of the crime and he is now dating a understanding woman who has a 2 year old girl. The woman's mother want's to take her granddaughter away from her daughter. Dr. Phil used a lot of fearful statistics like 70% of sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims. Well with that statistic, people will only see the number 9, not the more appropriate 1 victim for most offenders. At the very end of his show, in a low voice while everyone was clapping goodbye, he did state that the recidivism rate was a lot lower than what most people think. These charges came to light during his divorce from his ex. The registered citizen in this story showed the results of a polygraph exam he took during treatment that showed he was telling the truth when he said he did not grope the girl. Dr. Phil agreed that this was a valid polygraph exam. Dr. Phil also got the victim to agree to a polygraph after she offered to take one. Her results were posted at the end of the show and her responses were said to be deceptive. Other than showing the world that this man may likely be innocent, this story with Dr. Phil's scary statistics certainly did not help us.
  • Neil January 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryHear! Hear! Good job, Janice. Thank you for representing our interests in Sacramento.
  • abolishtheregistry.com January 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryA new bill similar to this one? http://all4consolaws.org/2013/04/tiered-registry-bill-introduced/
  • American Detained in America January 13, 2017 at 4:13 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryI'm really hopeful with the tiered registry, but I fully expect us to be unsuccessful with SB 26. As it stands now, I don't think it will matter anyway, because it is up to the school superintendent as to whether to allow the registered citizen to go on school property. I've been denied going to my kid's middle school and now high school graduation even though I am low risk and have no real victim.
  • Nicholas Maietta January 13, 2017 at 2:54 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryMy shuttle bus is a few months from being converted to my new RV. I'll be going where the fight is as soon as I can, wherever I can. If I can lobby, i'll lobby. If I can protest, I will protest. If I can donate, I will.
  • B.Wat January 13, 2017 at 2:40 pm on General Comments January 2017New Person I was granted a 1203.4, after probation in 1992, I wonder how many of us have been granted a 1203.4? Enough to file a class action suit? If so count me in!
  • Lake County January 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryYou have my support Janice. I just hope you will be able to influence them to make the needed changes.
  • ML January 13, 2017 at 2:18 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryChris, As of a few months ago, the total number of applicants to deregister successfully was 58. That was in 2016 and the law, although passed in 05, became functional in 2011. So in almost 6 years, only 58 have been successful. Most of that is due to the judge, being an elected official as well as the prosecutor oppose and that is all it takes. The judge can deny with no comment, even after the RC spends $10,000 on the process and testing. That is justice the TX way.
  • steve January 13, 2017 at 2:18 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryWill Leyva's bill be going to Public Safety first? I would like to make sure my letters go the right people. Thanks
  • Tobin's Tools 2.0 January 13, 2017 at 2:16 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryFair enough. Though I'm fairly certain that the Static-99R is *not* "empirical evidence."
  • DPH January 13, 2017 at 1:53 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryI plan to, great cause! For us all
  • Chris F January 13, 2017 at 1:36 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistryGreat work Janice and team! About this part: "Chief among those concerns is the unbridled discretion given to district attorneys to object to the removal of registrants from the state’s sex offender registry. As currently written, the bill would allow a district attorney to object if he or she believes that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”. Such an objection would result in a costly court hearing and conclude with a decision by a state judge, who is unlikely to rule in favor of registrants because he or she is subject to re-election" Like I've stated before, I agree and all you need to do is look at Texas for an example. Only around 1/3 get off the registry early even with approval of Sex Offender board regardless of any or no opposition by the DA! Judges just don't take the risk of doing it when they don't have to. Even when they can point to approval from our Sex Offender Management board they fail to get off of it. Completion of a treatment program, time free of re-offense, and not being a repeat offender should be all the criteria needed for automatic removal and restoration of "innocent until proven guilty" like everyone else. Don't fall for it California! It's a trap!
  • BAM WARD January 13, 2017 at 1:14 pm on Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime RegistrySomething has got to give in Jesus name for us all amen!!
  • mike r January 13, 2017 at 12:54 pm on General Comments January 2017man i need help with my final issue for my motion..Can anyone articulate or provide any other evidence or suggestions to this claim???????? THIRD CLAIM (Right to Travel and Association and Unconstitutionally Vague) (3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a layman of average intelligence to cite each and every statute, law, or ordinance in order to determine exactly what statute, law, or ordinance is unconstitutionally vague or that violates my right to travel and association. It isn’t any single law or ordinance but a conglomerate of these laws in all the different states, counties, and municipalities that make them unconstitutionally vague. When applying the constitutional vagueness doctrine, the Supreme Court distinguishes between statutes that “require a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard” and those that specify “no standard of conduct.” Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971). Statutes falling into the former category have, as the State terms it, a constitutional “core” in the sense that they “apply without question to certain activities,” even though their application in marginal situations may be a close question. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 755-56 (1974). Conversely, those statutes that fall into the latter category are unconstitutionally vague. The distinction between these two types of statutes, in some instances, may be somewhat difficult to decipher. Indeed, an unconstitutionally vague statute may still have some clearly constitutional applications. See Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2560-61. But where a statute specifies no standard, the fact that it has one or more clearly constitutional applications cannot save it. See id. Supreme Court precedent “squarely contradict[s] the theory that a vague provision is constitutional merely because there is some conduct that clearly falls within the provision’s grasp.” Id. That is the case here and why it is unconstitutionally vague, even though some conduct may “fall within . . . [its] grasp,” id., because it fails to “define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I cannot visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I cannot attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The laws effectively bar me from attending higher education institutions simply because there are day care centers on most college campuses therefor curtailing my ability to obtain a higher education. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of not only of my registration status through the International Megan’s Law (IML), and the Angle Watch Program but are implying implicitly that I am traveling to commit child exploitation acts in their country so therefore I am denied entry by the destination country. Unless the courts address every federal, state or local ordinance throughout the country individually then there is no remedy to rectify this situation other than to relieve me of my duties to register and barring my inclusion on the sex offender notification laws. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty.
  • New Person January 13, 2017 at 11:35 am on ACSOL Board of Directors Determines Initial Positions on Tiered Registry BillTobin, there's more than one way to skin a cat. The static-99R is "minority report" type metric. It's a barometer. A barometer forecasts weather. Using this analogy for Static-99, it's a barometer for a possible future recidivism. Forecasts aren't 100% accurate, hence, why it's called a 'forecast'. Okay. Now we've established it's about a possible future recidivism, let's discuss actual recidivism recorded data. CASOMB has recorded around 1% recidivism rates for the past four years. CASOMB has recorded under 1% recidivism rates for the past two years. The rate is going down. That recidivism rate is one of the lowest (I think murder is the lowest recidivism rate) among convicts. But CASOMB isn't the only research group. There are a plethora of studies that recorded similar conclusions: SO's are one of the lowest groups of convicts for recidivism. These other studies have 10 to 25 years worth of data. So when those other research work actually run similar productions as CASOMB and CASOMB is the state of California's own research group, then it becomes very difficult to refute empirical data unless the courts REFUSE to use said empirical data. In the Michigan court decision, they queried the state of Michigan as to why they didn't do any research if the registration system was working or any research on SO's. Surprisingly, CASOMB did just that. The only problem is the people running CASOMB are continuing to obfuscate the already low and still dropping recidivism rate to push the proper legislation. Static 99 isn't a recorded metric, it's a forecast. Forecasts are never 100%. Therefore, it isn't a fact. What is 100%? Actual recorded data of recidivism. That's fact. Why have registration when there's under 1% recidivism rate? Why have registration when SO's have the second lowest recidivism rate among convict groups? Why waste so much money when there's under 1% recidivism rate? While you're so focused on "what might be", Janice and team have been propagating "what is". Judges care about facts. You can beat demons down with facts. It may take a long while, but the facts remain. Sure, California, on the whole, is still stuck in fear mongering, but Janice and team have won with facts. Presence restrictions are gone from parks. For parolees, there isn't a housing range restriction. Yet in Michigan, they drop empirical data in their suit. ACSOL has no hand in conjuring up the tiered proposal. Janice has disliked the registration system. You can watch her on RSOL meetings from like 2013 wanting to bring registration back to the SCOTUS sooner than later, like 50 years later a la Japanese internment camps. Janice was recently approved to be a lawyer at the Supreme Court level. I don't think you give Janice and her team much credit on behalf of registrants. CARSOL, now ACSOL, was the only hope I had as a registrant and still provides hope. Granted, there's more bad news than good news, but hope, like the facts founded, remain. We're all frustrated as registrants, but at least we can try to stick to facts and not assertions. ACSOL had nothing to do with this proposal. They asked us what they thought about it. It gathered a consensus and put out the best possible answer to represent all of us. Empirical recidivism rates in California dictate what a waste registration is when compared to other groups of convicts. You can't compare Static-99 to another group of convicts b/c they have no such thing. Risked based vs actual fact recordings. Fear of vs What is. Get rid of static-99 vs Get rid of registration. In California, if you get rid of Static-99, it doesn't change your status of registering for life. Plus, I'm sure Cali will develop or adopt another form of categorizing. So why not just focus on getting rid of the whole thing?