ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

General Comments June 2013

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of June 2013. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is a discussion about the true number of persons required to register under Penal Code 290 in California. I am moving it to a new place as the original one does not seem on topic. Please see here for the beginning of this thread. https://all4consolaws.org/2013/05/tiered-registry-bill-stopped-by-appropriations-committee/#comment-20178 Question – how many people are truly on the registry in California? Is the public number low? Is it high? Is it even close to being correct? There was a previous discussion about this topic. It took me a while but I found where I got the 100,000 number from. It is the one… Read more »

“How, pray tell, is this possible? Total number of registrants decreased by 32,000 in 18 months. With continued lifetime requirement and aggressive prosecutions. Did all these people die? move? get CORs / pardons? 32,000? Doubtful.”

( Breaking news: CA-RSOL discovers 32,000 California sex offenders unaccounted for!)
Where are they? Are you safe?
Visit https://all4consolaws.org for continued updates.

“I don’t believe anything anymore.”
ha ha ha

Since you decided to start this thread, I might as well move my comment from the other thread to this one. I guess I kind of sparked some interest: The number of people REQUIRED to register in California is bandied about as anywhere from about 80,000 to maybe 120,000. I cannot for one minute believe even the higher number. It just can’t be so, can’t be even close. And the fact that even the state Justice Department can’t seem to come up with a definitive number, and can’t seem to back up any number it promulgates at any time, makes… Read more »

In reading the article Reason Versus Rage posted on this site June 5th they stated: “In recent years, researchers have set out to dig past the 80,000 annual cases confirmed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and gauge the real extent of child sexual abuse in this country.” I can’t help wondering; If there are 80,000 ‘confirmed’ cases of child sexual abuse annually why the national registry hasn’t surpassed 1 million yet? If you consider that California has ten percent of the nations population, then our registry would be growing by nearly 8,000 per year. Keep in… Read more »

I would not be shocked if California’s number of RSOs is growing by that amount. Five years ago, LA County Jail had about one to two thousand in custody consistently throughout the year. Taking into consideration all that bailed out instead of being in jail awaiting trial, the number of pending sex crime cases at any time that year in LA county could have been over 2000. Expand that statewide, and I find it easy to believe California is seeing 8000 new RSOs each year.

It is nearly impossible to figure how many people register.. One, there are people who are not even on the published list because they are only require to check in with the police, but their info isn’t on line… Second, its a government runned list, to send fear to the public they can increase or decrease the number at will to spark panic. OMG we only have 1000 sex offenders on our list, there for all the rest are failing to register and we need more funds for residence checks and maintain the database and we need more laws… Or… Read more »

I agree, they finally got rid of the asinine “terrorist threat level” charts and are replacing them with the registries. We are a nation governed by fear. I don’t understand when it became “American” to be so damn afraid of everything. Or, rather, so damn afraid of things that are pose absolutely no threat.

Actually, politicians using scare tactics goes back quite a few years. Remember the “red” scare? McCarthyism? The Cold War? Claiming RSO’s are dangerous and should be feared is just the most used scare tactic of late. They realized global warming wasn’t doing it for them, so they had to find something, right?

I’m absolutely aware and you’re completely correct, the cycle always repeats when the citizenry stops being afraid of the boogeyman of the hour. The ruling class simply moves on to the next manufactured scare to convince us to keep giving up more and more of our rights for supposed “security.”

Close, but not quite on the mark. Actually, this came up after the Soviet Union disintegrated, so all the red scaring and Cold War rhetoric no longer was useful to divert attention. I knew they would change the focus to crime to scream about and to divert people’s attention, but I did not guess they would do so so decidedly against sex offenses singularly. But sex is always the most hypeable. And hype is the reason for all this crap against former sex offenders. (Yes, FORMER. None of this is being done against current sex offenders, since they are dealt… Read more »

I have an idea for a sex offender meeting activity. How about a playacting scenario where law enforcement conducts a compliance check with someone off parole? We can have members practice with other members on how to actually do it. My preference is to have the offender walk outside the door and lock it. (To this end, one should always be in the habit of carrying house keys at all times, including bathrobe). The offender should identify him/herself, but that’s it. We should defer answering other questions until the in-person registration renewal at the station. This includes any questions with… Read more »

@Eric Knight – where does it say that the registrant should identify him / herself? Do you mean should or must? Common courtesy or legal requirement? I see nothing in PC 290. I seem to remember a case where a registrant (LA / Long Beach?) won a lawsuit because he refused to present proof of residence in form of a utility bill, and lo and behold did not have to. As far as the person is concerned, a photo no older than one year and a detailed description is available to Law Enforcement. Otherwise, what is the point of all… Read more »

RE ID: That’s a good question. Compliance procedures should be codified into state law, and should be a state function, not a localized determination, with procedures set in stone. This would (ostensibly) expose the process to a constitutional measurement that is not currently apparent to either law enforcement or registrants. (Actually, the entire registration process should be codified as well.)

However, the bulk of my post should stand. In addition, Janice had mentioned that we can bring a lawyer to registration if we want, though it would probably be a bit pricey for most of us.

Wrong, compliance procedures should NOT be codified. They already are — there are none other then to go in and register. That means you don’t have to do anything more, not even greet them at your door. You do NOT have to do anything to prove your registration is factual, you simply need to give truthful information on it. Why would you want them to set a law saying you have to do more than that!? If they come to your door, either do not answer, or do answer and right in the middle of anything they are saying, simply… Read more »

Part of the problem is the fact that law enforcement can take advantage of the dubious nature of compliance in the first place. With codification there is set procedures. Without codification law enforcement makes their own rules, to the detriment of the offender. I was not totally clear on codification, in which limits on law enforcement would be specified. In other words, codification would necessitate strict procedures for law enforcement to prevent their actions from undermining the rights of registrants. In addition, codification specifying any liberty deprivation beyond the reason for compliance can then be challenged, whereas challenges to law… Read more »

@Eric Knight – I kind of fail to see your argument. If I understand correctly… You are saying LE is conducting regular home compliance checks, everyone knows this and expects this (both the public and the registrant) – so the procedure should be committed to the Penal Code and described in detail so that registrants know what to expect and have recourse in case of the procedure going over and above the described code. @anonymous Nobody is saying that there already IS a code in place. Said code (PC 290) does not include, and nowhere addresses, home compliance checks. Its… Read more »

Yes, Joe, cooperation with the checks is strictly voluntary. You do not have to cooperate. This is done because under the law, if there is no blocked entrance or a sign barring entrance, it is considered to be implied public access for ANYONE to go to the door and knock on it and ask to speak with someone — and “anyone” includes the police. But that doesn’t mean someone has to answer their door, or if they do, to identify themselves, or to tell the person at the door anything — even if the person at the door is a… Read more »

When do home compliance checks constitute harrassment? How many in a certain period of time? My husband has been off of any kind of supervision(parole) for over 20 years with no other encounter with law enforcement. This year for some unknown reason we have already received 4 or 5 “compliance” checks to our home in 6 months. This has never happened before this year. What is up with LE this year? Seriously. Does anybody have any info that could enlighten me? Thanks.

Diana,
I guess it depends on who is your local police. I have never had one in 16 years.

Anonymous Nobody – I have a question. You state that if you have a sign barring entrance – that will prevent LE from entering? Our front yard is not fenced, so if we post a No Trespassing sign at the edge of our driveway will this suffice and preclude LE from entering onto our property in regards to a compliance check? Thanks for any clarification. By the way it is Lancaster Sheriff’s who come out.

Diana, first I must state, I am not a lawyer, and thus I have no ability to actual give legal advice. I can only tell you what my understanding of the law is. Your question is a very good one. The answer also might be very tricky and/or detailed or nuanced. But generally speaking, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING that the walkway from your sidewalk to your door is considered implied public access to anyone, whether Joe Shmoe or the police or anyone else. This is the condition that allows the police, or anyone else, to come to your door, knock,… Read more »

Cutting Costs – No Jails Needed Prison is nothing but a breeding ground for gangs, terrorists,and a college for criminals. It has been shown that prisoners can even convert law abiding guards into their immoral lifestyles. That being said, we certainly cannot release these moral degenerates onto an unsuspecting society without any safeguards to their security. After all,it has been proven that criminals cannot be rehabilitated and must be closely watched. An effective solution involves a registry which allows law enforcement and the world wide web to effectively watch them and their families with addresses of residence, employment, offence, and… Read more »

You ought to put a little snark alert somewhere at the top or the bottom of your posting. It is theoretically possible that someone might take you seriously.

snark/ We need to lock up all kids!!! Contain them in government runned re-education facilities 24/7 until they are 18

Alarming news out today, not directly related to SOR, but on the other hand, it is directly related to EVERYTHING! Seems since 2007, the federal government has been very secretly spying on EVERYONE on the Web. It has been collecting up ALL your e-mails and ALL your Facebook info and postings, and everything else! I have to think it is collecting up everything even from CaliforniaRSOL Website! No probable cause needed, no warrant, no nothing, just is collecting up everything! http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040996/report-nsa-fbi-collecting-content-from-google-facebook-other-services.html Its some secret program called Prism. Of course, they “justify” it by saying it is to protect us all… Read more »

Why Queers Should Care About Sex Offenders
Huffpost article
June 8, 2013

” The same methods historically used by the government to imprison and pathologize homosexuality and gender variation are being used today to justify the extreme marginalization, lifetime institutionalization, and oppression of people who have violated sex laws. Sex offenders are the new queers. ”

More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-extein-msw/why-queers-should-care-about-sex-offenders_b_3386970.html

Moreso than you might realize. In the earlier decades of California SOR (California was the only state with SOR for many decades), gays were a prime target, as gay activity was illegal. Even consensual sodomy in your own home would get you SOR, or other gay contact or interaction. Lewd conduct was a hot one for police to go into gay bars or gay book stores and bust people (did you know that simply suggesting to someone that you two go home and have sex is illegal lewd conduct, even in a pickup bar?). When gays finally stood up for… Read more »

If certain behaviors were illegal prior to gay rights, can the people who were charged and required to register seek relief if these acts are no longer regarded illegal? It would seem like the sensible and logical thing to do.

Yes, they can. A law specifically providing for that was adopted in the 1990s. After some people in that very situation were notified they had to resume registering.

thought this might be helpful http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_5_bill_20130430_amended_asm_v97.htm This bill would enact the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, which would provide that no person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged because he or she isbegin delete homeless, has a low income, or suffers from a mental illness or physical disabilityend deletebegin insert homelessend insert.begin delete The bill would provide that every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, low income, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship, or immigration status, shall be free from specified forms of discrimination and shall be… Read more »

I just noticed the update on Ordinances for Lancaster. I am confused. They did not completely repeal the first ordinance from Sept., but amneded it in regards to the definition of “sex offender”? Can anyone clarify for me? Thanks.

Clicking on the Lancaster link on the Ordinances page gets you to the official Lancaster Muni Code. This states that there is a restriction to decorate and light up on Halloween, and only for persons with offenses against minors. The date is 3/2013. You can see the ordinance that was passed last September on the pdf document. Between 9/2012 and 3/2013 Lancaster had a 300′ presence restriction to pretty much everything. Parks, libraries, museums, schools,etc. 2000′ living restriction. It does not say if it was for all or only for those with offenses against minors, and I do not recall.… Read more »

Thanks Joe. I thought I was reading it right in regard to the Halloween ban only for registrant’s whose conviction involved a minor, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks for clarifying. And of course many thanks to Janice and CARSOL.

Thinking this weekend as I was volunteering my labor to repair a home…RSO’s for the most part seem to go beyond the norm in doing good works, living transparently, helping others, sort of overpaying our debt to society. The ironic thing is, society doesn’t accept the payment! Try as we will, we can never do enough for this “unpayable”debt!

I’ve been trying to come up with a small piece of paper that a registrant may give to the police or sheriff or US Marshal when they pull off their compliance check. I wanted to create something that would actually preclude any vocal communication. Now, I’m concentrating on those who are NOT under the court system, since parole introduces a whole slew of different levels of supervision with regard to current punitive threats. Here is what I have so far. Perhaps we can bat this around and see how it can be improved. ________________ Notice of Invocation of the 5th… Read more »

Useful idea. But I think you are elaborating far too much in your statement. In fact, you don’t even have to tell them your name if you don’t want to. You do not have to acknowledge that you are an SOR. Neither do you need to elaborate on anything else, including the court case your cite. In fact, you don’t even need to rely on the Fifth Amendment since these compliance checks we are talking about are not a criminal investigation nor done upon probable cause, are at best a fishing expedition, and as such, you have no more need… Read more »

Registry dog A little girl named Grace had a dog that bit another child. The police came and took her beloved dog away to be punished. In time the dog was returned to her whimpering and beaten down. He was required to be fenced in by a registry (Grace cried because she was often stared at and talked about while taking dog on walks). Then the neighbors saw that the bad dog had to much freedom so within the registry fence they had him chained and no longer could Grace take dog on walks (so Grace cried). She was told… Read more »

May I mention that I find your analogy somewhat lacking?

What the dog did was bite someone – commit a crime of violence. While that sort of thing – like everything else – gets punished harshly, once the sentenced is served, the debt to society is considered paid. For this sort of transgression there is no life long, escalating registry, chain and cage.

If, on the other hand, Fido had humped someone’s leg….

My dog is on a registry until this coming January … Three years and total fines of $2,500. He never bit anyone … He just happened to get out the front door, twice, within a year and the second time got into a scuffle with the neighbors dog. Nothing happened. She filed, I fought, I lost. The hoops and changes we had to make at the house were unbelievable! Just my two cents! For our dog January can’t come soon enough … Of corse, then there is the CA registry where there is no end …. Yet.

I’m seeing too many thumbs down on posts on here. It looks to me like someone is clicking thumbs down on posts just because they don’t like what this site stands for. For that reason, from now on, if I see anyone with a negative rating on a post, whether I agree with it or not, I’m going to give it a thumbs up without even bothering to read it first. I hope others of you will do the same. Let’s get show the people who come here to be negative that this isn’t the place to be like that.

@td777 … This seems so trivial as I post this …. As far as the thumbs down thing. I’ve posted on this site and never had a thumbs down … This morning I simply posted in response to Robert Curtis’ post about the dog registry. Needed to express my own situation about two registries in our lives … Our dog and my fiancé, it’s all crazy. Yes, I’m looking forward to the first relief we get in January for the dog after only three years …. I can’t imagine what it would feel like for my fiancé after almost 25!… Read more »

As many on this board certainly know, this psychotic hysteria about sex offenders is far and away overblown and over prioritized and twisted all out of proportion. This is simply because anything to do with sex is always the most hypable thing to use — yes, use, as in use to manipulate people. Consider the draconian SOR regulations on even the lowest level registrants, as compared to a murderer who is released after a prison term and not subject to anything like this, at least not once off parole! You are dealt with more harshly if you wag your weenie… Read more »

Here we go again,what new law will come from this? http://news.yahoo.com/sex-offender-charged-fla-girls-death-195335625.html

Right now, though concerned about what new law might affect us, I’m also thinking about this poor girl and her family, and why this should have never happened. This guy is obviously sick, very very sick. He has proven this by his repeated behavior. With his history, he would have never been out this soon in California after harassing a 10 year old girl and making threats such as he did just four years ago. Here, sentencing would have been increased for having strikes, for each prison prior, and he would have been subject to civil commitment. As much as… Read more »

You have to ask… What’s the point of the registry if people aren’t using it for it’s intended purpose? The only time I hear of it being used is for unintended reasons like vigilantes and neighbor haters. Unfortunately it didn’t “save the One Child’s Life” this time.

Clearly this man was a repeat offender. He was also clearly a danger to children since his very first offense was attempted kidnapping. He is the type of criminal who should have been monitored. He was a repeat offender and what did he do…repeat offend again only this time he killed someone. So what can we learn…simple. Do NOT treat ALL sex offenders the same! Easy lesson really…concentrate on the most dangerous. Clearly there are tens of thousands who are listed and yet are NOT like this sick individual. If the system worked correctly those who are little or no… Read more »

What is clear is that registry does not work…that dude was within
parole control…their taxpayer paid public personnel failed in their
job within parole…within parole…are we clear..??….there is NO degree or level or risk finding by any jury or court to
assign most dangerous ……due process would demand it…
if this is suppose to be a team….segregating or throwing
fellow teammates under the bus to your benefit says alot
your ‘team’ effort and selfishness and betrayal.

America Land of the Free I read an article today about an affluent neighborhood in California and how the city council was voting on an ordinance that would make it illegal to panhandle in their city. It got me thinking about how things are currently going in the U.S. I thought to myself what if I built a city and was allowed to pick my neighbors. Imagine it yourself if you can. What would your perfect City include? Would it include Nascar drivers? Would you surround yourself with Police Officers, F.B.I. and C.I.A agents? If you are a young single… Read more »

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fla-county-outs-sex-offenders-yard-signs-article-1.1320230

An interesting article I ran across. Wonder how soon some city in California will try this.

We should put signs in every persons yards as it fits. i.e. IRS agent lives here, Corrupt politician lives here. The list could be endless. We should also publish their names, addresses, E-mails and phone numbers online. We could call it the hate list that way every one can easily find someone they hate.

According to statistics it is safer to live next to an RSO than many other groups of people. Take for example NFL Players their arrest rate is huge percentile wise. Police officers are probably up there too. And even though they are not arrested politicians are probably the most criminally active of all groups.

Boise, Idaho June 28, 2013 Gender plays role in sentencing of Idaho female sex offender: http://www.kgw.com/news/Gender-plays-role-in-sentencing-of-Idaho-female-sex-offender-213539491.html “I think that the state believes there should be some measure of equality or parity when a judge sentences a male sex offender who violates little girls versus a female sex offender who violates young boys. There is a difference. I have a difficult time articulating precisely what that difference is. It’s difficult to try to explain what that difference is, but nevertheless I think we know there’s a difference,” (Judge) Wilper said. I believe that the prosecutor should raise a Daubert motion here.… Read more »

@ Mike.

The sentencing in the Idaho case you linked should come as no surprise, because that is the norm. Female SO’s sentences are almost always much less than their male counterparts, and on par with the sentences (if any) of law enforcement gone bad, when they’re caught. The judge in this case seems to be an idiot, differentiating between male/female and forgetting the seriousness of the crime. Had a male committed the acts he would have gotten that mandatory minimum, probably 20+ years.

I believe the judge is clearly using a bigoted rationale. I don’t like his justification while trying to distort the issue when he compares a case of “Little girls vs. Young boys”. Of course there would be a sentencing difference had this case involved a male with 8 adolescent pig tailed girls. But, I also believe the same judge would have been equally as harsh on a male defendant with 8 teenaged girls. How can they overlook the collateral damage that may have been done here? Both to her children as well as the victims by her leading them into… Read more »

57
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.