ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments July 2013

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

To whoever is going through my posts and clicking thumbs down on every one of them regardless of what I say…THANK YOU! You have motivated me to post more and not just on this site. Thanks to your vile view of me, and possibly even this site and what it stands for, I’m more bold in declaring my opinions and standing up for what’s right when it comes to RSOs. If you wanted me to continue being more bold, more outspoken, and more supportive of the rights of RSOs, keep it up, it’s working!

Wishing all a HAPPY 4th of July holiday. Let us hope that someday soon the freedoms and privileges that all Americans are supposed to have as guaranteed by the Constitution will once again be given to ROS who have completed and paid their “debt” to society.

May we be given that second chance that all other Americans seem to be given without a second thought. I hope some day to be able to move around freely and pursue my right of happiness without the indignity and “legal” life long obligation of spending my birthday not celebrating but standing in a police station to register my information yet another year!

What a happy Freedom Day that will be for us all!

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich raising hell over release of sex offender from Santa Clara County, bringing matter before the LA Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 9. Antonovich is yelling that they guy should have life without parole.

This appears to be a SO who had been in the post-prison psychiatric program for years, as he was released by a judge, not by the parole board. Being that that program is set up to make it nearly impossible for anyone to ever be released from it, the one or so who gets out every few years anyway has to be better than god to accomplish that. That would be who this guy is. And my god, you should see the draconian and oppressive conditions on his release, from having a regular escort with him, to wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet, to severe restrictions on where he can go, etc., etc. And all the SOR restrictions, of course.

But Antonovich clearly believes this guy from another county is a good one to exploit to boost himself by scaring the public all to hell. Watch for another law to be going through the Legislature after this hoopla.

I would like to know how the judge reached his decision to release this violent sex offender into society?
Personally, I see no merit in his release.

The judge had to be persuaded that he was not releasing a violent offender into society.

You don’t seem to understand what this situation is. He wasn’t let out of prison by the judge! He got out of prison years ago. He was let out of the mental health program that was set up to continue to confine prisoners after they serve their prison term, that is set up with impossible standards designed not to let anyone out — yet he was so far and away fully rehabilitated that there wasn’t anything they could do to keep him in. There just was nothing bad about him that could be argued honestly, and so the judge had nothing legitimate he could cite to hold this guy any longer.

This really points up the entire underlying issue wrapped up with many, most, maybe all sex offenders, and a lot of other “criminals” too: Their offense often (maybe even always) isn’t a crime, it is a mental health issue, a matter for the medical field, not the criminal courts and prisons. They sent this guy to prison multiple times, and it accomplished nothing. They now finally do what they should have done the very first time and send him to mental health facility — although they do it for all the wrong reasons and organize it in deceit — and guess what, the issues are finally addressed and he shows so strongly that he really is rehabilitated that not the prosecutors, not the court can honestly block him from being released.

Too many people are branded for life and punished as criminals when really what they did is simply a symptom, a tragic symptom sometimes, but a symptom nonetheless of a medical problem. And for having a medical problem, they are sent to be punished, often very severely so.

What most of these SVP’s don’t understand about being released back into society is their every move is being watched and scrutinized to the extreme. Worse than registrants on parole if you can believe that. I followed a story a few years ago about one who was released out in the middle of nowhere, south of the arctic circle.

“The guy lives in an isolated trailer, installed by the state, where he is being monitored by GPS on a 16-acre property. Private guards hired by the state escort him to regular therapy sessions, an expensive proposition given that the nearest city is 55 miles away.”

He was busted a few months after release for hitting on an undercover S.A.F.E. team member. I mean she wasn’t under his covers but… oh well you know what I mean.

Appellate Court rejects Los Angeles County’s bid to bar release of sex offender from post-prison psychiatric program to Los Angeles County:,0,3513713.story

The court declined to even hear the county’s bid. Los Angeles County was arguing he should be released to Santa Clara County instead. He had served his prison term for offenses in Santa Clara County, but had been released on parole and was living in his home county of Los Angeles when he was readmitted to prison for parole violations. After prison, he was committed to the psychiatric program.

I can’t figure out why they wait until a persons prison sentence is over to start treating them in the civil commitment “Program”. It’s a drain on tax resources for one. I would think the proper way to handle the situation would be to evaluate the person asap and if necessary transfer custody over to a state institution right away to begin treatment. If someone commits a sex crime and serves 10 years in prison, How can they expect to treat the individual for what he was going through or feeling 10+ years previous. He won’t be capable of remembering his emotional situation and will be inclined to make up stories to appease the clinicians. I must say that for the person in your example above; I can’t imagine after being institutionalized most of his life, how he’ll fend without a strong support group. With his restrictions he’ll probably have to live like a recluse.

What you are saying goes right along with what I have said. (See my July 9 comment above.) What this program effectively acknowledges is that there was no crime in the first place, there was simply a symptom of a medical problem. Oh, like I said, maybe a tragic symptom, but a symptom nonetheless.

Why are we punishing people for having a medical problem rather than getting them treatment? Why are we seeking revenge against someone for having a medical problem? Why is there so much hate directed at someone for having a medical problem? Why are we branding peopleeas criminanls and seeing that they are treated as cuh forevermore when the issue is that they have a medical problem?

The standard of not guilty by reason of insanity is a standard that was set when the only mental illness known was insanity! And the courts use a definition of insanity as not have any idea what you are doing or any connection to reality. We have not updated out criminal justice system since before the time of Freud! We call mental illness, whether mild or major, simply a fake to avoid criminal responsibility!

Mind you, dangerous psychiatric patients, including all those in this program, are in locked facilities, so you can’t even say they need to be in prison for reasons of public safety.

And, MIke, that is the entire reason for this program — to keep these people locked up beyond the full length of their prison sentence, hopefully forever. That is why the program is set up to make it nearly impossible for anyone to ever get out. That is why this guy is one of the very rare ones to make it out, and why that means he has to be safer than most other people you will come across outside of prison. Having overcome the extreme standard and all the program’s procedures and catch 22s to keep him in means this guy is probably safer than god. Yet, look at the uproar about him, even with those extreme conditions he will be under.

You are right. He should have been handled as a medical problem from the get go. But the public, in its mass psychotic frenzy, prefers to impose hate and cruelty instead.

As tough as the police are in Florida over RSO’s. They just discovered that the Lakeland, Fl Police Dept is a sexual cesspool. With officers sexually assaulting 1 women repeatedly. They say they cannot prosecute but that is hog wash. They should be put through the ringer just like anyone else for what they did.

Convicted sex offender jailed under $500,000 bail for failure to register his vehicles. I guess he must be a serious flight risk? Or was his victim a relative of the judge? I’m beginning to think our government has lost its grip on reality. Taking a man’s daughter, because he had a bullet in his truck? 22 yrs. for failure to register? Insanity! I’m afraid to ask “What next?”.,0,4475551.story

Just so people who don’t follow the link know, he wasn’t imprisoned for not keeping his cars up to date on their registration with the DMV, he was imprisoned for not listing them/revealing them on his SOR form as required.

While the issue here is actually that he withheld information that could identify him in an investigation, actually they already have the vehicles’ registration at the DMV so whether it is listed it on his SOR form or not doesn’t help or hurt anything in identifying him in an investigation.

These requirements for SOR forms are fake excuses to throw people in prison. Unfortunately, the courts say they must defer to the legislative branch on whether or not such information needs to be collected. Still, the court has neglected its duty in the size of this bail for this offense — because the court would be neglecting its duty to protect justice if it allowed anyone to suffer a criminal conviction for this, no matter what any law says, since the information so clearly provides the state nothing. The court has an overriding responsibility to assure justice and fairness prevails, not to mindlessly follow a statutes that undermine basic and fundamental justice.

But of course, it is the courts that have said SOR and all the collateral horrors attached to it is no big deal.

Nobody: Thanks for clarifying my ambiguous registration reference.

I just came across another article about this guy and it appears there’s more to the story. He’s facing new molestation charges. I would be inclined to think he was being investigated when they originally arrested him for failing to disclose his vehicle information on his SO registration form. They probably sought the high bail amount in order to hold him till they could do more investigation and file formal charges for the new case.

Actually, it seems the original bail might very well have been simply for the registration violation. Putting these two stories together, it still is not clear what’s what. But he was arrested July 10, and the first story, in the July 11, newspaper, said his bail was $500,000 for the registration violation. This second story is from the following Saturday, July 13, and it says he is up on charges of child molestation and the registration violation, and that his bail is $3 million.

It sounds like he was originally booked on the registration violation only, and bail for that set at $500,000. Probably at arraignment two days later, they added the new child molestation charge, and his bail was increased to $3 million.

I note, this is in Pennsylvania. I don’t know what they might have there for a three-strikes type of law. But if he were in California, then you have to consider that even a mere minor registration violation would be a felony, and as at least a second strike he would be facing 15-to-life, but more likely it was a third strike, which would get him 25-to-life, for a minor registration violation — unless the strike(s) were waived. But until it is waived, bail must consider the flight risk, and when facing possible life in prison, flight risk is a lot higher.

Still, I have seen too many people up on even murder charges who have gotten a lot lower bail! This guy is simply accused of molesting a young girl. While that is not at all acceptable, I do think murder is a LOT worse. Clearly, outright violence is OK in this society, it is sex we must fear over and above all else.

And in reference to another comment I made above, note what happened when they treated the first offense as a criminal matter rather than as the symptom of a medical issue. Had they treated the first offense as a medical issue, and put him in treatment, then all that time wasted in prison would not have had to bee,and by now he very likely would really be rehabilitated, not simply punished but not rehabilitated. Pedophelia (I hate that term) is a psychological problem, a medical problem, not a criminal one. Again, it is a symptom, even often (or if you want to say always) a tragic symptom, but a symptom of a medical problem nonetheless.

Back to looking for a job…. 4 jobs and the year is still new… I wonder if I can apply for disability for being a sex offender.. apparently it is stopping me from holding a stable job… a bit depressed tonight, no eligible for unemployment…

If you were let go or fired for some reason other than malfeasance, you should be eligible for unemployment. At any rate, if you apply, and your former employer doesn’t bother to challenge it (they often don’t, its too much trouble and could end up costing them as much as paying for it), you can collect anyway. If they do challenge, you counter that it was not for any malfeasance. Of course, if you lied on your job application about being an SOR (and I recommend that, as you won’t likely get the job otherwise), that would be malfeasance. Still, if they don’t want to bother fighting your application, you would collect.

If you were let go for any reason other than a firing for malfeasance, then it was simply a layoff. But you can just say on your application that it was a layoff, and they can decide whether to challenge.

Of course, that won’t solve your longer term issues. Welcome to the club.

Still waiting for unemployment to respond back… slow wheels of the system. Been looking, did a few cash jobs, but not enough for anything

Shawnee County, Kansas
July 16, 2013

“District Judge Larry Hendricks concluded the Kansas Offender Registration Act “is effectively punitive” and “is excessive in relation to its alleged purpose of protecting public safety. These provisions have become oppressive to the point of punishment. Therefore, the KORA’s retroactive application assigns a new punitive measure to a crime already consummated in violation of the ex post facto clause.”

SCOTUS has ruled that SOR laws don’t violate the ex post facto provisions of the Constituion, but how have they addressed the cruel and unusual punishment provision?

Huh? Under the ex post facto decisions, they declared it is not punishment of any sort. So where do you get the idea that it can then be not only punishment but rise to the level of being so cruel and unusual that it is unconstitutional? Oh, I agree that it is cruel and unusual punishment, but your question is about where the court stands on that issue.

Nice. But its strictly a trial court judge, not an appellate ruling. I note, he decided this on his interpretation of the federal Constitution, not Kansas standards. Still, even SCOTUS has already ruled on the SOR and punishment, saying SOR is not punitive and can be applied retroactively. Of course, without finding and reading this opinion itself, perhaps there is something in the Kansas SOR laws that this judge decided was punitive that SCOTUS has not considered.

II wouldn’t get too elated about this, as the state will probably appeal it.

I’m happy to see both this ruling and the Oklahoma ruling as it helps educate the public. I wish more media outlets would run these articles focusing on the judges opinion in terms they can understand. I don’t think common citizens are exposed to the real controversy behind the sex post facto laws. I think the decision is important since it’s Written from a neutral viewpoint. It’s not an article from an advocacy or journalist viewpoint. Registrants can yell unfair till they’re blue in the face and no one will listen. But, if a judge declares that we’re being treated unfairly it might get more people’s attention; In the least I hope it will cause more people to reason the facts behind the case. We need people to realize that it’s okay to treat registrants like human beings.

URL link in FAQ section. Was reading through the FAQ section and clicked on a link wanting to view the Megan’s Law exclusion form. Slightly horrified to realize I was being directed to the Megan’s Law site….a no no for RSOs. Is the PDF available somewhere else on the internet…somewhere other than the Megan’s Law site? If it is…maybe modify the link to take people that want to view or download the form to a site other than Megan’s Law.

Just to let you guys know, when registering, you may be expected to sign a new document. It is for the Sex Offender Tracking Program. I recently updated my registration and there was a detective who came out and talked to me and had me sign the new document. There is nothing new on it, but it did cause me to be nervous for a bit, after all, who of us ever feels comfortable when a detective comes to talk to us out of the blue!

Has anyone read about San Diego’s Mayor? This is the guy living in a city with some of the most stringent Sex Offender Ordinances? Very interesting.

Wonder if he is going to have to register….. sure…

What an interesting case. In 2005, George Pataki was the Governor of New York and wanted to commit sex offenders to mental hospitals after completion of their prison sentence. The state legislature would not pass the Governor’s initiative, but Governor Pataki was unimpressed with something as insignificant as legislative authority. He committed 127 sex offenders to a mental hospital following their sentence without any kind of court hearing or any kind of legislative authority.

Soon, the New York courts agreed that Pataki’s actions were illegal and released all of the sex offenders from the mental hospital. Some of the inmates ultimately sued Pataki and others in his administration for the violation of their civil rights.

Today a federal court found one of the defendants liable for the illegal incarceration, and determined that the damages to the sex offenders was $1.

Freedom is like sunshine. It falls equally on the rich and the poor, the young and the old, the good and the bad. I don’t really know how to put a value on freedom, but the jury in New York does. In New York, freedom is worth one dollar. The government can take you and put you in a mental institution and the courts may ultimately order your release, but your stolen freedom (in New York) will only be worth a dollar.

I guess freedom isn’t very important in New York.

Thank you for reminding me why I never moved to New York years ago when I was considering it! Maybe someone should ask whoever made the decision that damages would only be $1 what they would pay to avoid being locked up wrongfully for the same amount of time.

Still….remains fact patacky…doesn’t matter spelling……administration
violated Constitutional Due Process as judge already ruled…….
patacky regime could have called it Stalin’s law….but someone
already took it……………..patacky program violated due process
rights that led to freedom to those held………good…..the failure
of the patacky regime will be their failure of public oath to defend
and support the Constitution for all ……….the New York legislature
understood that.

Tell our troops freedom is a “technicality “………..tell them to
inform the people in the country where battles of war exist that
freedom is ” technicality “………..tell that to the families of service
troop personnel when they come home either in person or
under draped colors of flag…….freedom is a “technicality “.
….go ahead former public employee sharon carpinello….tell them.

aloha all..i initially addressed this to Nick, but now to all the Cali community as well:
Aloha, Nick..

I have come across OAUF on line and today was catching up with Ca. RSOL. Reading your post about the implications of SB448, now that it has passed, let me be the first to welcome you to Hawaii. Specifically, Maui.

I am very serious, Nick.

Of all the states, HI is the only state as a registered citizen I can tolerate. From my reading and understanding there isn’t another state i would even consider moving to. No physical restrictions, no public notice. I have never been visited by cops on Maui, though others I know on Oahu have.

I am currently in civil litigation against the Maui Public Defender’s Office and Catholic Charities of Oahu, the organization responsible for the torture inflicted in the guise of “treatment.”

My attorney and I successfully overturned a corrupt judiciary’s revocation of probation. I was a model probationer. Everything current and in compliance. My problem was being intelligent. My offense? Placing my hand on the bare chest of my ex-girlfriend’s 11 y.o. daughter. My crime? being a black master social worker for over 30 years who had avoided the clutches of the penal gulag of america.

State v. Durham, 254 P.3d 425 (Haw. 2011)

Unable to find meaningful work, I am committed to opening a chapter of RSOL for Hawaii. You sound internet-based and self-sufficient. I tried, but yet to find a niche. I edit on line, provide conversational english to Russians, but nothing sustainable. My lawyer, my biggest supporter, like myself, is also an energetic healer. I have edited a book he has written on the Erchonia laser and the medical establishment’s refusal to accept the science and use the laser. Why? Pure economics and ignorance. as is the registry and so-called treatment.

My wife lives in Sweden. Money prevents us from being together year round. iSORNA is trying to take what little time we have together from us. We have been together only 3 months out of the last 20. Yet we survive through Skype.

We need community and a sense of place and self where change can occur.

Consider it. Consider Maui. At least come for a visit.

a hui hou (see you soon)


BTW, on a related issue, I have come to realize we also have another major issue of housing for registrants. Condos!

Condo associations get to check a buyer’s background and nix the sale. No condo association is ever going to OK the sale to anyone with a sex offense on the record, whether they are posted online or not!

This dramatically limits where we can live and whether we can ever be able to buy our own place! We need a law to protect us – we need a law that drastically restricts condo associations exercising such authority over sales. They should not be able to nix a purchase for any reason other than credit history suggesting the buyer would not manage to pay the condo dues.

This issue also extends to rentals. What landlord is going to run a background check (most are doing so now) and rent to a registrant?!

So, even getting rid of these laws, housing will still be very hard to find for registrants, even without any formal residency restrictions. We could find ourselves needing $800,000 to buy a tiny house (that’s what is it around me!), or be homeless because we can’t get into any condo or apartment. Condos are all that many people will ever be able to afford.

Anonymous Nobody asks:
This issue also extends to rentals. What landlord is going to run a background check (most are doing so now) and rent to a registrant?!

My apartment community, which is in an affluent area, ran a background check and I passed. In fact, I was gleefully welcomed by the manager.
The report looks only for potential terrorists (at least that’s what my copy stated). It’s also unlawful NOT to rent to sex offender based only on that factor. This is clearly stated on all rental agreements.