ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


UPDATE: Prop 35 / TRO against collection of internet identifiers & providers

Registrants are not required to disclose their online identities to law enforcement for an extended period of time, according to a decision made by federal district court judge Thelton Henderson on November 14. As a result of this decision, law enforcement is blocked from requiring this information until at least January 11, 2013. Additional details regarding the judge’s decision can be found on the  Court Order. The judge will conduct a hearing in San Francisco on December 17 on a different issue. California RSOL is a plaintiff and an active participant in this lawsuit.

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Each step forward in buying time is a step in the right direction, slow it may be … but, it’s forward, for now.

If this is NOT successful with this injunction is it possible for other RSO to challenge it OR is this a one time thing? If we could do it individually on 1st amendment grounds it could be in court forever. Just wondering…

California RSOL is an active participant in this lawsuit. There is no reason to file another. As MM stated above, it has to be done one step at a time. Please be patient as we wait for the judge to make a series of important decisions. In the meantime, do not provide law enforcement with information regarding your online identities. They have no legal right to it and if you give it to them, you can’t take it back, however, you can estalbish new online identities

Thank you again for all your efforts!

In a society apparently gone mad with schadenfreude it is nice to know there are some who still fight for human rights

I AGREE MM any step forward is a positive step. Even the ones we lose are positive because we are being heard. If we are loud enough they will start to listen and see that this is not right. Stay positive and keep praying. Thank you Janice and everyone who is supportive of this cause without you we wouldn’t have any voice…God Bless

I try to positive but if you THINK about it for a moment, while it might SEEM like progress you have to remember the basic strategy of negotiation which is this: deliberately ask for MORE (money, information, whatever) than you know you will get only to make the compromise SEEM like a victory to the other party involved.

This is a possible example: The ruling comes back that instead of throwing the new “law” out completely, it is modified to only collect one new type of data…say, email addresses. Now, perhaps this was the intent all of the time! So it appears that we have won something (not having to have our entire internet usage monitored) but in fact they have won and gotten what they originally intended to get all along (1 more additional bit of information)!

I truly find PROP 35 to be very disturbing. I just wish people would begin to do more research on these new laws prior to voting. I can only wonder. How on earth does the government have the right to monitor anyone’s emails/know their personal information and how can anyone be required to provide such information? It’s astonishing. People need to wake up. We now (not for long) have laws forbidding people from visiting libraries, beaches, parks and even living near Schools or bus stops? I’m dumbfounded. Its truly surreal. I’m still hoping to wake up and realize this is a bad dream. Whats next? Malls? How about movie theaters? I even read that some sex offenders must contact their local law enforcement if they are going on vacation (those not even on probation/parole)? Why don’t they require Sex Offenders to have computer chips surgically implanted? Its very, very disturbing. VERY. Why don’t we outlaw Sex Offenders from riding their bikes on bike paths? Children are present? Or, why can’t we outlaw sex offenders from riding on transit buses? Children are present? Lets make them walk? See how truly disturbing this is? How about the Halloween Laws (what a joke)? YOu must post signs, turn your lights off and YOUR NOT ALLOWED YOU PARTICIPATE IN THIS HOLIDAY? Whoaaaahhh! Nazi Germany? The sad part is that people or council members in cities like SImi Valley don’t realize this is how Adolf Hitler began his reign of terror? Look what happened to him? Hatred gets you NO Where. We all must admit that there are some Sex Offenders doing some bad things out there, but arresting a guy in the park for playing tennis is going toooo far (Recent Arrest in OC). Its time to wake up and look at whats happening. This is the time for California to Put Into Place a Tiered System. Please email me Janice. I have a question. This is truly appalling.

I agree with you fully and could not state it better myself! We have been abused and controlled so long that many RSO offender’s wills are broken. This is a war against us and we are a minority group that it is perfectly legal to put down, threaten, abuse, make fun of, legislate unseasonable laws and restrictions against deny housing, employment, basic human rights, and even murdered!

Registered sex offenders are treated exactly like blacks were treated in the USA! It will continue and only get worse until we take action and have the help of those in power and with access to the legal system to fight for us!

It can not continue and these “little victories” are just that little. We NEED big victories. I would like to have some rights restored in MY lifetime. This insanity must stop!

@Tired of hiding – I also agree with you fully in that BIG victories are needed. I am looking forward to your plan to achieve these big victories. Please publicize it somewhere (perhaps on this site) and I will be the first to support it.

Until then I would hope that you (continue to) support those that are on the front lines, sticking out their necks, trying to eke out the little victories. If you would like to see rights restored in your lifetime or after or ever. There are many ways of support.

Wow wow wow! Thank you Janice, Frank and everyone on the RSOL team!!!

I was convicted in 1973, spent most of my life at A.S.H., then 12 years on Con-Rep, and now I am free and clear, or am I?
I’m married, work full time and have been out of the legal system for several years and crime free. I register yearly and long for the day that I can be fully free to come and go as I please.
Prop 35 is scary! Why am I being lumped in with the offenders that are still active? I have paid for my crimes, and am doing what I am supposed to do, as a citizen. My civil rights have been violated!!!
People don’t like sex offenders. SO WHAT!
I like dogs and cats better than people! They act and are better than people.

Once you are a sex offender you will be on probation for life. You do
not ever get off of probation, it is just probation in a slightly
different form as you are still monitored and must be accounted for 24 hours a
day…there are also laws to limit where you can go…limits on where you can
live…you must tell law enforcement if you move so you will never have the
freedom of movement either, BUT remember that you are not on probation..humm,
that sounds like probation to me! You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still
a pig.

This is prop 35 is one more condition to our life long probation and nothing

they will find a way to keep the law. if they can publish your home address and pucture so can they do this.

your duty is to figure out how to make them think you complied when you haven’t.

This fight is good and necessary. I am not too hopeful about your arguments, though, as it seems to me those points have already been decided in other cases regarding SOR.

However, I note, one thing I find disturbing about the overall fight against SOR is that CalifRSOL is accepting that idea that mere misdemeanants should be subject to SOR, or at least that they should be once they complete probation. I don’t care whether the courts say that it is legal to impose it on misdemeanants, it is an abomination nonetheless. A misdemeanor by definition is just a minor offense. But your legislative push as been to accept a minimum of 10 years of SOR for misdemeanants! That is unconscionable! And you are effectively giving your seal of approval.

I also note, California requires SOR for any number of offenses the federal government is not requiring it for — such as the typical misdemeanor indecent exposure. Gee, you shouldn’t be accepting any SOR for any offenses not required by the feds!

Also, in that legislative push, even after the 10 years, the person has to apply to be released! Nix that! It should just be automatic, simply by date, no application needed. The state’s computers can be set to automatically end SOR after the legislative time arrives, no application and staff time required — and troubles for the SOR to deal with, and certainly at some point more and more money to be paid in fees to have it done. All this bit of “tiers” is a pile of s—. Getting involved in a huge assortment of details is a nightmare and obstacle course — it must be kept simple and straight forward. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Keep it simple — no SOR for misdemeanants, or at least end it for them at end of probation, as it used to be done — after all, probation is supposed to determine that you have reformed. No SOR for any offenses not required by the feds. For all others, when the time frame comes to end it, just end it, no application required. Hey, when you are sentenced to 5 years in prison, you get out at the end of the five years without needing to apply, it just happens — an application to get out is solely for early release (parole). SOR should be the same, at the end of the time, you simply are out from under it, no need to apply. You only need to apply if you want to get out from under it earlier, such as via a certificate of rehabilitation or a pardon. But 10 years for a mere misdemeanor is an abomination.

I have to agree 100% on this post. CA RSOL, you say you’re pushing for some sort of new Bill next year. The last one, AB_625, had the provision of a 20 year registry for misdemeanor PC 647.6 put into it. Myself, and countless Californian’s have that conviction on our records, as its a very easily attainable conviction for prosecutors.

If last years Bill had been enacted, I would be facing another 13 years added to my time on the registry, through no fault of my own. Instead, I will be eligible in 2015 to come off it under current CA law. I also have my wife to think about. A lot of people, SO’s and in the reform movement wouldn’t have supported it as it was written, essentially it was seen as bringing AWA to California.

I’d ask you to be more communicative and transparent in your plans for CA RSOL, a lot of us cannot attend the monthly meetings, so it’s unclear what was brought up and discussed. I’d ask you to also think, as you go forward, keep ALL of us in mind. CA RSOL exists, or should, to reform (or end) the registry in CA for ALL registrants. If a person is truly dangerous to the public, they should be in prison, with a way of evaluations to determine their present risk Adding even longer punishments to an already illegal and unconstitutional set of laws is’t progress in reform, it’s a step backwards. You’re running the risk of throwing some of us under the bus, and sacrificing our lives for a perceived gain. It;s akin to asking an intruder, ‘If you’re going to rape my 85 year old grandmother, could you please wear a condom?’ No, the abuse needs to be stopped, period, and the sooner the better.

Are we still allowed to celebrate Thanksgiving and eat some Surkey and Stuffing? Or are they making us “EAT CROW” ?

Yes, but you have to put a sign on the door "No pumpkin pie at this
since we all know how pies such as pumpkin are so often used to
lure unsuspecting children!

I think I need an attorney to straighten this whole thing out!!
What A mess!

The latest CA 290 registration form already asks for email and other online identities. Can I legally refuse? These forms get longer and collect more info beyond just address information that the statutes require. Thoughts?

I think one thing that might be helpful here is continuing notices of the status of the case. i.e. Originally a hearing was scheduled for November 18 in the Federal court in San Francisco 550 Golden Gate. I see that it seems to have been pushed out to December. Is this correct information.

Other suggestions I have for resistance is to register as many on-line IDs as you can so as to flood the registration system with their submission. Think of them as e-sabots, as in throwing sabots into the gears of the system to jam them. Look up the definition of sabotage. It’s instructive

I would refuse to give out my email and bring a copy of the TRO
here the link if you want to print it out and bring it when you register
here is the link

I find it an outrage that they have been asking for that information on their forms even before the law was passed I don’t understand how they could ask for that info when they had no legal right and because it is on the form I thought I had no choice but to give it to them seems like everyone that gave them that info should be able to sue them for over reaching their authority to obtain that info.

I read there was a Court Date on December 17 to decide the outcome of this?
Does any one know what happened in court yesterday?

The arguments were heard in court yesterday. The judge said he would “rule as soon as possible.”

Clearly ex post facto…just as that jessic law was ruled years ago…
could not factor in free Americans who are not on parole/probation…
Ex post facto ……..clearly increased punishment …presented to
to voters…its in massive conflict with the Constitution.

In a free society and we are free Americans not on parole/parole…
the un-Constitutional ’35’ portion puts free Americans back in
conditions of parole/probation and is soooooooooo far out
overreach to world communications .

California communication information over phone lines…
what state web site offers only within state web….?????
…..’35’…broad and vague …world wide web communications
information over phone lines are also now human rights
violations……..they overreached state lines and the world.

Agreed, accessing website based outside of the USA is a right and the ability to do so without government spying is a right that all free people should have.

Being monitored and spied on…and let’s not be around the bush, what they propose is SPYING on certain American citizens without their consent and for no legitimate reason!

We’re right, so we gripe.

The Sex Offender Registry is a tank where they put people that are O.K. to HATE.

We’re not dealing with rationality here; we’re victims of a machine that was designed to let frightened people have an outlet for their turmoil. We’re part of a social experiment.

Here are a couple of heavy quotes : (1) “It’s not whether-or-not you’re in ‘compliance’; the question is ‘how out-of-compliance’ are you?” and (2) Your duty is to figure out how to make them think you complied when you haven’t.

Civil disobedience is a valid methodology. So you simple refuse. What happens?
Unless you absolutely have to be at work the next day, you go to jail. The intake worker advises you that you are going to be exposes to tuberculosis.
you wait in the “tank” until the bail bondsman shows-up. The (female)cop (abused as a child and on a crusade) says you are charged with multiple felonies, but the boss turnkey sees it differently and you get released on bond.
ou go to court and get a Public Defender. The case is declared di-minimus, not like really the crime of the century..or decade…or this week.
The judge fines you $500 with three months to pay. The DA screams “SEX OFFENDER” and the cop has to watch her step because the next time she pulls this bullshit she’s going to get fired.
You file a lawsuit against the City who hired the cop…the cop and her boss, for harassment under the color of authority. (Use your public defender..he’ loves this!)

They NEVER bug you again.

Don’t forget the legislature felt this same proposal as un-Constitutional …
… this ’35’ part is also un-Constitutional …the taking of private communication
information forced against their will …goes against 4th Amendment…search and
seizure …also 1,5,8,13,14….voters cannot and do not have the power to authorize
search and seizure …the 4th Amendment is clear.

If you wish to stay updated with Prop 35’s status, follow the judge’s calendar….

Calendar for: Judge Thelton E. Henderson
Courtroom #12, 19th Floor
Courtroom Deputy: Tana Ingle

Last Updated: Jan 1 2013 4:02PM

It show that it will be picked up again on
Monday, Feb 11 2013


3:12-cv-05038-TEH – Vega v. United States of America et al
Motion Hearing

3:12-cv-00229-TEH – Yordy v. Plimus, Inc et al
Case Mgmt Conference Further

3:12-cv-02678-TEH – Tucker v. Gill et al
Case Mgmt Conference Further

3:12-cv-05202-TEH – Huston v. Affinity Medical Solutions, Inc et al
Initial Case Mgmt Conference

Prop 35 3:12-cv-05713-TEH – Doe et al v. Harris et al
Case Management Conference

3:12-cv-05731-TEH – Crosthwaite et al v. Keith J. Gale General Engineering, Inc. et al
Initial Case Mgmt Conference

You may also go to the below web site to confirm this:

Hope this help all that are concerned.
God bless you all and happy New Years.

any update on the proposition 35 a decision cuz you said it’s going back to court on February 11th but the
stay it’s only until January 11th

Steve …. This is copied from Megan’s Law website. Says until further notice. I think this means just that …. No?

ATTENTION: November 9, 2012 Federal Court orders temporary stay of law enforcement collection of registered sex offenders e-mail(s), screen name(s), and internet service provider(s) pursuant to Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation (CASE) Act. Until further notice, the DOJ and local law enforcement will not require registrants to submit this specific information.

it now April 30 2013 any follow up on this ?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x