New Bill in Congress: HR-2083 which contains a very ODD provision affecting more than sex offenders

9-29-2013 Washington DC: Continuing in our effort to review bills in Congress we find something really odd in HR-2083 `Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act’ whose alleged purpose is to screen potential employees of schools, and to re-screen actual employees of schools every five years.

Before we get into our issue which revolves around ONE definition in this bill, here is the definition:

(2) SEXUAL PREDATOR- The term `sexual predator’ means a person 18 years of age or older who has been convicted of, or pled guilty to, a sexual offense against a minor.’  Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I thought california law say’s two sex offences a person is deemed svp?

I’m not too sure on the conviction times. I’m midway through a 5 year parole with two convictions at the same sentencing hearing. I am what parole deems a “high risk” low supervision. Many things were factored into that I believe. A low score on the static 99 is one of the factors. Compliance with conditions is another. I believe I read that there is, (or was) a significant difference between having one victim or more. (multiple) However, when I was sentenced, the amount of victims wasn’t discussed, only the amount of time to serve with the plea deal.