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

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments April 2014

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of April 2014. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Just when you thought the absurdity has reached its peak here is a report from our puritan brethren across the pond…

Blackburn primary school teacher on ‘feet sniffing’ sex charges

HI Joe:

It doesn’t say why he sniffed their feet, but I see nothing sexual about it.

Wow.. I had an interesting day at Hermosa Beach today… I was dropping off my sister there for something that lasted about an hour. I parked my car at the one of those public parking lots, paid for the spot and just sat near by enjoying the nice weather. No where near a park or a beach. The Hermosa Community Service Enforcer came by with those tag readers, just slowly coasting by the cars.. It coasted by mine and it stopped and reversed until it was directly behind my car.. I remember I heard those tag readers show information if the car was stolen or owed massive amounts of parking tickets, but now I think I can safely say it is linked to the sex offender database… I watched the person talked on the radio and coasted away… About 10 minutes later two police cars showed up. 4 police officers stepped out and eyeballed my car, literally cupping their hands and looking through the windows. One of the officers went back to his car ( there was a laptop mounted on the dashboard, I couldn’t tell what was on the screen cause it was angled away from my vision) He stepped out of the car and scanned the area and he noticed me, and he went back to police group and said something I couldn’t hear and they all approached me.. “Excuse me Sir, is that your vehicle?” I responded “Yes it is.”.. “We have a report of a stolen car matching that description.. Can I see your driver license?” “Yes of course officer” I handed him my driver license, he went into his car… Another officer told me to remain seated and have my hands flat on my head… The officer with my driver license went back to my car and read off the VID numbers of my vehicle dash. I couldn’t hear anything from the radio.. The officer handed my driver license back and said ” Why are you here?” I told him I’m just waiting to pick up my sister, then he ask “Are you normally here in Hermosa?” “No, I live in Long Beach, just here to drop off and pick up my sister.” The officer responded “Okay, you have a great day”… And they left… My sister saw the whole thing and she was afraid that I did something… it was embarrassing, but I don’t think I did anything illegal…

I become so incensed when I read stories like these. I become even angrier at the absolute hypocrisy of our society, the police, politicians and government as a whole.

Take a look at how the cops raise money for their fallen brother’s families (yea right).

These cops paid $100 each to watch a bikini clad girl get tased.

If they will do this on camera, imagine what they’ll do when no one is looking.

The vast majority of those individuals who have a desire to become part of system to controls the population have a vast number of reasons for doing so. If you do research you will find that most suffer from a delusional desire to “save the world” or a savior complex.

So have a perverse need to control others while some enjoy manipulating others to feel powerful. The same issue that many who join the military have.

You would be shocked at the disproportionate number of repressed homosexuals who have joined for a number of reasons including uniform fetishes, authority fetishes, sadistic fantasy fulfillment, and so many other issues associated with sexual repression.

The point is that with the code of silence that surrounds these sort of organizations, it is easy for twisted individual to act upon those deviant behaviors with some degree of certainly that they will be allowed to do so…if caught others will cover for them and often they will join right in to become part of the organization so the problem actually grows uncontrollably out of control.

Entire books have been written on the subject. Point is that most are ticking time bombs that can go off at any moment.

welcome to the future. Having your presence interrogated everywhere by the thought police.

“because you’re vehicle matches a stolen car report” at that point I would have called BS and said let’s not beat around the bush you know I have a felony because my license plate was scanned. is lying there way to get around what could be construed as harassing? This happened to me once got pulled over with my kids in the car and the cop said my registration was expired. I knew it wasn’t. Then the cap started asking my kids questions. Do they have the right to do that? Can I say, since they are minors, you cannot talk to them without my permission?

Yeah its the a “Thin” line cops walk on when dealing with us.. but community safety and I bet residence checks basically cleared the way for the police to harass us like we are second class citizens…

Well, I do think this was because the license plate came up as a registrant. However, they used the perfect cover, saying the car matched the description of one reported stolen.

They checked the ID and matched the license plate to the car VIN, confirming the license plate had not been switched, and so this was not the car reported stolen. And they let him go.

If there weren’t so much harassment of registrants at every turn, we could write this off as a legitimate stop. But its hard to do that in the larger context of constant harassment of registrants.

Geeze, all Congressmen have to do is ask for forgiveness and all is ok. They’re no longer held to a higher standard. It could be construed as sexual harassment in the workplace.

When you are “law maker” it is very easy to get away with being a “law breaker”.

@ mch, you asked me to keep you informed on my case and I have good news. The appellate court unanimously ruled in my favor to uphold my expungement. I’m not in the clear yet as the DA can still appeal that decision but now two appellate courts have ruled that an attempted 288 is not “any violation of 288”.

My biggest fear now is if my case gains notoriety that I would essentially be outted and that would make the expungement useless. I am even scared sharing this information but I want to help as many people as I can get on with their lives and stop being persecuted by law enforcement and prosecutors.

Are you talking of an expungement, or are you talking of your conviction being overturned upon your challenge? It sounds like the latter.

Mind you, in either case, the record remains, so you could be “outed” either way — although in the latter, if you could also show that you are factually innocent, you could have the record destroyed. With the record remaining, it would be available on the public court record (and so all the companies that sweep up all those records would have it to sell).

I gather what happened is that you challenged, arguing that that statute does not hold an attempt as a violation,and you prevailed. So,that might be useful to people convicted of “attempt” not not to others.

Oh, as far as being outed is concerned, don’t forget, if this a published opinion, your name is thee name of the case and will be in the published opinion, which will be in the law books and online for all to see anytime they want, pretty much forever. This is why some people try to get court permission to file as a John Doe.

@ One Day;
That’s awesome news! Would you be willing to share case numbers through Janice so I can begin my research and process since our charges are twins? Congratulations on this step, and good preparation for the next step.

@ mch, of course! It would be awesome if this site let me contact you anonymously but I will get the info to her.

I sent a message to the general inquiry of this site with the case info. Hopefully they will get it to you.

One Day;
Since the appellate ruling is “not any violation of 288”, then stands to reason that a felony reduction is in order, or should be. With that ruling you have a few options. If reduced, then you can petition for removal from the internet and it should be a slam dunk, but then I know how prosecutors are or how persecutors are. Successful challenges like yours and others make many of the registered citizens like sand in the prosecutions hands. The harder they squeeze, the more sand falls through their fingers. Things like this are slowly exposing the weaknesses in the registry. I’m in the process of filing my petition for record clearance as per PC 1203.4 Curious how the angry DA is going to respond.

I got mine lower to misdemeanor but not totally off the list. Just the name and pic

mch: so is if you have a 288(a) are you ineligible to petition for PC 1203.4?

Yes, a “violation” of 288 makes one ineligible to apply for a dismissal under PC 1203.4 (amongst a few other sections). If I understand correctly “One Day” prevailed in his contention that an “attempt” is NOT a “violation” and thusly he is not disqualified from seeking relief under PC 1203.4.

However, a dismissal under 1203.4 is completely separate from the requirement to register under PC 290 – which specifically states “a violation … or an attempt“.

I believe numerous people here have received a dismissal under 1203.4 and go on registering just the same. That is the absurdity of it all, that these people are subject to these (civil) consequences even though technically they are not convicted of a crime.

1203.4 PC used to be the standard to be able to stop registering. That ended for felonies in the mid-1980s, and for misdemeanants in the mid-1990s. And the statue that required those getting 1203.4 relief to register anyway subsequently was merged into 290. (I note, while it was a separate statute from 290, there could have been an argument that the mid-1980s and mid-1990s changes could not be applied retroactively, as only 290 was ruled able to be applied retroactively. Now that that statute has been merged into 290, that argument would be more difficult — although it could still be brought, arguing that it clearly was an penal matter affecting the reach of 1203.4 when that statute was separate from 290, and that status cannot be changed retroactively.)

Yes, 1203.4 PC says the conviction is set aside, a not guilty plea is entered and the case is dismissed. However, the courts have ruled that that in fact is not so, the conviction remains, as it must in order to do the other parts of 1203.4, which are to continue certain disabilities, such as a ban on possessing a gun. (The courts could have overturned those other disabilities as not able to be imposed once the conviction is dismissed and left the conviction dismissed, but they chose to go the opposite way.)

So, despite the language in 1203.4 speaking about dismissal, its not really dismissed. The courts say 1203.4 simply relieves you of some of the disabilities of the dismissal, not the conviction itself.

1203.4 has been getting picked apart ever since the mid 1960s, thanks to then Attorney General Stanley Mosk and an official opinion he issued that started the ball rolling. At this point, 1203.4 is not worth a lot. The main thing it is worth is that for SOME jobs, you can say you have not been convicted (you can say it, even though the courts say you are convicted). Of course, the record is still available, and it will say “convicted,” followed by a subsequent action noting 1203.4 being granted. And you can try to explain to someone who have never been convicted of anything nor maybe ever heard of 1203.4 why you said you are have not been convicted when the record says “convicted.”

Also, many people, including lawyers, seem to think 1203.4 can be applied only to a misdemeanor. Actually, it says nothing about applying only to misdemeanors, it says it applies to any case where probation was granted, and that would include any felonies, although probation is not so common for a felony.
Also, that benefit of saying you have not been convicted on employment applications does not extend to applications for “public office,” again, a term that is very unclear, some say it means only elected office and top department managers, others say it means all public employment, a very different and more far reaching matter.

Of course, many jobs even in the private realm require a license, and you must reveal the conviction when seeking the license — and try to show the licensing board that you are reformed.

I correct a typo — I misstated:

“So, despite the language in 1203.4 speaking about dismissal, its not really dismissed. The courts say 1203.4 simply relieves you of some of the disabilities of the dismissal, not the conviction itself.”

I should have said:

“So, despite the language in 1203.4 speaking about dismissal, its not really dismissed. The courts say 1203.4 simply relieves you of some of the disabilities of the conviction, not the conviction itself.”

Could you explain how the “attempted” part can result in a felony reduction? To a misdemeanor? Is 288 a wobbler? How would this get one off the internet? Thanks in advance.

Well I know that my lawyer researched the wobbler angle but unfortunately it was not. I did petition for removal last year after the trial court granted the expungement but the state said internet stings are not eligible for removal even with an expungement. It’s funny because the cop who did my registration last year said I could get off of it with the expungement. I think I should check with my lawyer again to make sure.

I to wasthe vitim of an internet sting. It seems that people with no victims are punished more them some others. WTF?????

Let me ask, did you get 1203.4 after you completed probation, or did you seek to have probation needed early and get it then? I ask — but I realize the better answer is a longshot. You see, if the latter, if you got probation ended early, the judge is supposed to make a finding of good conduct deserving of early end (and I would think even if he did not specifically write it on the record, since he cannot end probation early without that finding, then it should be implicit the finding is included). And that finding could be used to your benefit, make a difference about being removed from the Internet. Again, I doubt you got probation ended early.

664.288(a) is an attempt; classified as felony, but isn’t supposed to carry the same weight as a 288(a), but it does in the eyes of the persecutors.

@ Guest;

I was told by an attorney that a 288(a) is NOT a wobbler and is a straight felony, however, I’ve had no attorney explain whether an attempt (664) COULD be a wobbler, they either don’t know, don’t care or won’t look into it. If a person is fortunate enough to get a felony reduction, then it seems that they could file with the DOJ for removal from internet disclosure, which, at best, is a longshot. I’m not very legally adept, and there are many more on here who are far smarter than I am about these things. Time will tell for all of us stuck on the registry.

PC 288(a) is NOT a wobbler. There is no distinction between attempt or actual violation.

PC 290.46 regulates the internet disclosure. It also does not distinguish between attempts and actual violations, explicitly so.

PC 290.46 (b) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is described in, paragraph (2),

PC 290.46 (b) (2)(H) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 288, provided that the offense is a felony.

The qualifier “provided that the offense is a felony” is in there because PC 288(c) is a wobbler. I suppose.

PC 290.46 (e) (2) deals with specific offenses eligible for internet exclusion. Section (D) says that a 288 offender can be taken off the internet if the victim was a direct relative and certain offense characteristics are present. Even though the offense can only be a felony.

“… official court document that clearly demonstrates that the offender was the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.”

I am not a lawyer.

Are there any internet exclusions for those cases that were hands off and no victims?

Its that time if you never have done so… Opt out time on paid “open databases”

I do it at least every 3rd month… typing my name and city… scroll through the list and find the age that matches mine and contact them to suspend or opt out from their site..

oh I don’t recommend going on google and looking yourself up.. my theory is if it shows a search it sparks interest in your name and start it up on the search listings.. only reason I develop this theory is I searched once 10 years ago and it was mine was on the first page… now years later I try looking myself on google… and I was on the 200th page.. I’m not a web expert so I can be totally wrong…

Black Man with snake Owns Cop with blacks law quotes & Court Procedure a must watch if You want to know how to win STUDY LAW!

I have to go get a copy somewhere! I wish the audio was better so everything he said could be heard but what IS relevant is the cop WAS stumped & Had no Idea what to do or how to respond,,,,The Idea is this Folks,, They Gave us a label,,Defend Your selves with the Law Against Tyranny We Just have to Learn it like religion…Not Impossible but difficult,,,Like being Saved;-)

About a week ago ‘CONSTITUTION’ won the florida derby….that horse is the only CONSTITUTION they want winning in that state.

Okay, you knew the question would come up. Which is worse to live next to? I am guessing the answer is obvious. Watch it unfold live and in color!

My neighbor is a sex offender and murderer

I was running some numbers tonight from CASOMB Sex Offender Tracking Program.
In 1947-49 there were only 119 new sex offenders
in the 2000’s (a decade) 34,104 new sex offenders were added to the registry.
In 60 years the California Sex Offender Registry has grown from 119 to 98,219 people, an average growth of 1,637 per year, 136 per month or 4.5 per day.
In 1970’s 3,290 new offenders were added, but skyrocketed in the 1980’s to 15,349 or a 367% increase of new registrants, and its been growing steadily ever since 1946.
I’m curious why the growth spurt in the 1980’s; any ideas?

The spike in 290 registrations in California coincides with a dramatic in incarcerations US wide in the 1980s. General getting tough on crime? The war on drugs and Nancy Reagan “Just say no”?

The beginning of civilization as we know it? We shall see.

You are mixing up new registrants and total registrations. Don’t forget, until the mid-1980s, people could stop registering at the end of probation once they got 1203.4. That was the standard to stop. So, the overall numbers each year of new ones would have the old ones dropping off subtracted in order to come to total registrations. That would make the increase, the number of new registrants, seem a lot lower than it was.

Also, I find it impossible to believe the only 100,000 people are required to register in California now. Again, all those people back to 1944 who got 1203.4 relief and were able to stop now have had to start registering again because the state has dropped 1203.4 as the standard and applied it 290 retroactively to even those who had met the standard to stop registering. With that, the number of all people going back to 1944 has to be a LOT higher.

@ One Day and Moderator;

Contact information sent via contact link. Thanks so much, I’m anxious to read and study the information.

Another idea for legal attack, this regarding whether 290 is punishment, an argument that has never been presented, and I think shows how the state high court ruling that said 290 is no punishment at all was wrongly decided.:

If 290 is legally justified on the basis that (former) sex offenders remain a danger going forward, that is that they are not rehabilitated, and if it is not just punishment that comes due to the conviction and remains regardless of rehabilitation, then the standard established to be able to stop registering MUST match that, or the justification for 290, its very foundation, is bankrupt, making 290 itself illegal.

That is, if it is predicated on the notion that a (former) sex offender must register as they are not rehabilitated, as it states in its own language, then the standard to get off registration must be a showing a rehabilitation, not some higher level — for if the standard goes beyond the justification, the foundation of 290, then that standard to end registration takes 290 to being something other than based on rehabilitation.

If it is based on simply needing to know about and be aware of someone dangerous, someone who is not rehabilitated, then that is the argument for it being regulatory; but if relief from it requires not a showing a rehabilitation but an application for forgiveness, which is what an application for a pardon is about, then it is not about public safety, instead is about whether the applicant should be forgiven and thus relieved of the punishment that comes with a conviction, the duty to register and suffer all the collateral disabilities. Those different standards are different specifically on the basis of punishment. If 290 is not lifted at the determination of rehabilitation — and by law that is what probation and parole are about — then it is being applied to those who have passed the test of rehabilitation and so legally not considered to be a danger –and thus, it is not regulating public safety but applying punishment.

To state it a bit differently, if that helps: if the standard to stop registering is that you gain forgiveness, which is what seeking a pardon is about, rather than that you merely show rehabilitation, which is what probation and parole are the standard for showing, then you are not applying 290 as a matter of a public safety regulation but as a matter of punishment that requires forgiveness to end. Oh, not everyone gets probation or parole, so maybe some other method for them to show rehabilitation would be needed, but that does not undermine the argument.

So, they simply cannot have it both ways, must either choose probation and parole as the standard to get off 290, as it once was (well, I know probation was, I don’t know if parole was), or must admit it is punishment, which cannot be applied retroactively and which certainly would be subject to attack about whether it is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment or unequal punishment or whatever other punishment-oriented arguments might come up.

They have fantasized their way into having their cake and eating it too. They simply cannot have it both ways, as the one cancels out the other, an argument that has not yet been made and which, if 290 were left as-is, would have to invalidate the very foundation on which 290 now stands. When they increased the standard to get off 290, starting that increase in the mid-1980s, that is the legal misstep they made that undermines 290.

Of course, no matter the validity of this argument, as I have said many times in the past, any time the state high court has come up against an argument against 290 that it cannot overcome with logic and facts, it has simply ruled that red is blue and continued to support 290. They will do the same here, lie their way through it as they have repeatedly in the past. Such a shame to have to depend on an entire branch of government for your civil rights but that branch has been taken over up and down the ranks and across the board not by honest and truthful deciders, but by filthy liars who would make any fascist proud. This is not the court system — anywhere across the nation, at this point — that most of us grew up with.

Unfortunately your argument contains two basic flaws…those being that it is uses logic and reason AND that is totally true. None of which is ever considered with sex offender issues…and why?

Because the only thing that they ever actually hear when they read something like that is this:

“Blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN…blah blah blah…protect…blah blah blah…CHILDREN”

Our “civilisation” seems to be evolving into something more resembling a bee hive or an ant nest. People hear certain emotionally charged key words and react on instinct and reason goes by the wayside. Children in danger. Repel the intruders by any means.

Tired of Hiding, surely you must have read some of my other comments in the past — and must have appreciated them. I like it. 🙂 Thank you for reminding me — you have me laughing. 🙂

And clearly I agree with you — for look at my last paragraph.

How can this be? probation; registration every 30 days, gps, public website info and photos?
Sounds like we need a new sex offender law.
No registrant shall be allowed within 2500 feet of a known prostitution area.

Seriously, this could very well be the result of brutalizing people who need help, employment and stability instead of being placed on the dark side of life.
Still, no matter how difficult their lives may have become I can’t comprehend what they are alleged to have done to these women who were having their own problems in life.

From Yahoo Answers: I just realized I share a name with a local sex offender. What do I do?
There is a local sex offender who has the same name that I do. If you type my name and state into google, his RSO profile is one of the first results that pops up. I remember reading some story a few years ago about some guy in Jacksonville, Florida who got killed because he shared a name with a local sex offender, and now I wonder if I could get mistaken for the sex offender and become a victim of a vigilante attack. What if I start getting harrassed by neighbors because they think I’m the convicted pervert? What if a boss types my name into google, sees the sex offender profile and thinks its me? Alas, the sex offender profile says he lives in my city but says his address is transient, so it’s not even like I could tell the neighbors “See, that guy lives somewhere else. Is it possible I could get killed because someone mistakes me for the RSO, just like the guy in Jacksonville got mistaken for a sex offender?”


Proof…further proof of fact on that registry is a sham whitewash … does nothing and did nothing for those people…..proof the registry is a massive waste of taxpayers money .

Yeah, young women turning up dead or missing was barely a story until the introduction of the 290s…. why, one wonders?

Yeah, I had been out of the loop the last few days, then saw this on the news last night…completely blown away. What I’m wondering is this…since prostitution is considered a “sex crime,” are they going to consider this sex offenders killing sex offenders? My only though there is are they going to make some law saying we not only can’t live within 2000ft of schools, etc, but can’t live within 2000ft of other registrants! Wait, I shouldn’t put any thoughts in their heads, they would try it!

Don’t forget, they are alleging four murders, yet they only really know of one as all they know of the other three are missing prostitutes who had a history of moving around to different places. The only body they know of was found at a trash facility in an industrial area — you know, the only location in Anaheim where sex offenders are allowed to live, although homeless, so of course it was near where these guys were with their GPS devices.

They haven’t said a lot yet, but so far all they have indicated is that these guys’ GPS devices were somewhere near where these women were or the one body was found — the women’s locations tracked by GPS from their cell phones. That’s all. They better have a hell of a lot more, as this is about as shallow and circumstantial a case as can be. With all that is known now, you better fear like hell that these guys are being set up and framed all to hell — because they are still innocent until PROVEN guilty. I don’t know if they are guilty or not, but I haven’t heard anything that shows they are or even are likely to be.

But the LA Times is doing what it has come to do day in and day out now for the past few years: milk the story for all its worth, lurid detail after lurid detail dribbling out on the front page day after day — anything being written daily just to scream SEX OFFENDER on the front page. Tomorrow, they are telling how the one guy had a job at a body shop sweeping floors and cleaning up, and when the police showed up to bust him, he fled on a bicycle, getting about as far as across the street — so what, who cares, how does that tell us anything about guilt or just what happened? Hey, I can’t blame any registrant for running when the police come to arrest him!

All registrants are subject to false allegations and are likely to get convicted on those false allegations.

The LA Times is hyping this all to hell. The LA Times is but a shell of its once enlightened news operation, now is just another rag screaming crime and SEX OFFENDER DANGER and spouting mindless idiocy and false information and myths.

Does any one here have permission to attend their children’s school events. I’m wondering about how hard it will be to attend my son’s Graduation?
Any input will be greatly appreciated.
Thank You

I wouldn’t worry about it for a minute. Just go.

I believe that to be bad advice. Gee, you don’t even know if he has to wear an ankle monitoring device. Nonetheless, if someone knows he is a registrant, and they see him there, you better expect a complaint, and that could mean he goes to jail.

Follow the rules, or you might not only miss a school event, you might miss many a dinner at home with your children. Either contact the principal, explain some and sound very reasonable and willing to work with them, and follow any rules they set. Hey,if you have seen a shrink, ask them for a good-conduct letter or something of that sort to help with it.

Or, accept that you are not going, and get your mind straight about that and move on.

I do. My kids are in Catholic schools. I had to have meetings with the archdiocese but was given permission to attend school events with some rules. I have very supporting principals and have a great relationship with the school and parents. Some are idiots but the majority of very good to my family. We have never had any ostracizing all my kids have very close friends in fact some of my daughters friends saw my picture went to their parents and the parents talked to their kids and there was never an issue . Don’t be afraid to do what’s right for your KIDS. Be there for THEM it’s scary but you’ll find a few will be on your side.

Hi Jeff,

I feel your pain, buddy. I have a daughter in Kindergarten and every time there is some school event I have to disappoint her. It breaks her heart and mine – the feeling is like getting punched in the gut. As the end of the semester looms I dread her telling me excitedly about the Father/Daughter Dance, Father’s Day Tea, etc. I have thought of getting permission, but fear that just asking could start an S storm when the principal tells my girl’s teacher who tells a parent and so on, and so, and so on…Next thing you know my wife is getting cold looks and my little one is ostracized. Not worth it.

Your situation might be different – what grade level is your son graduating from? If it is high school, what are his plans in the fall? I say go! Get permission or just go. It’s not like you are going to be there every day. If you have a distinctive look and fear being recognized, wear a little disguise – grow that mustache and wear a hat (to protect your scalp from the sun, of course). Beards are popular these days. Just look different from your Megan’s law web pic. Change your look mid way through the ceremony by simply dressing in layers and taking off the shirt. This might confuse and throw off that nosy neighbor who thinks you look familiar. If college, then it is a no brainer: GO!

Think of all the parents who don’t care enough to attend (my mother could not be bothered with any sort of school function), or the parents deployed overseas, on the road for work, or dead. Make it up to your son as many ways as you can.

Good luck and know that you are not alone as a parent who wants to but cannot do everything he wants for his kids. Being an RSO is incidental. It’s how you deal with it that counts!

No I’m probably in about the same situation. I have two graduating this year 1 in 6th going to 7th. The other graduating High School. The last thing I’m going to do is wear a hat and a fake mustache. Might as well put on a Trench coat while I was at it.
Thank You all for the input.

Jeff two things you can do. Just go. Most people have no clue you aren’t allowed to be on school grounds. Nobody is going to recognize you. Or 2, go to the principal explain how know you are supposed to “let someone know” you are going to be on campus for your kids graduation. Don’t say you’re “here to get approval” most likely the principal doesn’t know the law either.

I’m sorry but Option #2 is bad advice…. PC 626.81.(a) reads:

“A person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, who comes into any school building or upon any school ground without lawful business thereon and written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

So anything short of a written, detailed permission slip is a “go to jail do not pass go” card. Not to mention a major potential embarrassment for your family. And I would bet my bottom dollar that every school principal is aware of this, especially once you start fishing for a verbal / let “someone know”.

Stay home, just go (with or without disguise) or ask for written permission. All not good, but better than opening a can of worms.

@Jeff – the trench coat comment made me chuckle…

A trench coat in late spring? Now your being ridiculous!

Kidding aside, I did not mean to imply you should go Mission Impossible style, only to be low key.

Good luck. I know how tough this is and wish you all the best.

Thank You

Hi Jeff,

I would email the school’s principal and request written permission. If permission is not granted, I would immediately go to the courts and ask for a preliminary injunction, to stop enforcement of the law against you. With the way in which a lot of RSO laws regarding presence restrictions have been toppling, you probably stand a pretty good chance of winning, and might even start a new movement towards determining the constitutionality of THOSE laws.

Just my two cents!

I like this approach. Make them try to explain why seeing your kids graduate makes you a danger to anyone.

Right! Apparently too many people are running scared. It’s bad enough what the registry is subjecting children of registered citizens to and now some registrants are afraid to take an active part in their child’s school activities. I find that appalling.
Forget your BS laws and permission slips and support your child.
Apparently, I have a lot more respect for the justice system than to think they’re are going to harass a mother or father for being a good parent.

If you have ANY respect for the legal system then you are sadly mistaken and wasting that respect. Do you know how many families have been broken up by the legal system? Lives distorted by cops with a savior complex who are a vendetta to save the world and/or children?

I live in a fools paradise if you think for 1 second that the legal system or anyone associated with it would not jump on the opportunity to bust any mother or father who dares to buck their system.


Wonderin, you are so wildly wrong. You try that — just going and taking your chances – and you will learn the hard way just how wrong you are.

Gee, they are looking for ANY excuse, any excuse at all, to nail registrants, for the slightest minor infraction and send them to jail, or maybe to prison. ANY minor offense. They have even made up bizarre and extreme and nonsense interpretations of the laws just to use that as an excuse to throw registrants in prison, and have done so — just read many of the appellate cases out there.

Rest assured, that law about getting permission from the principal was not put in there because they wanted to ignore it!

Rest assured, that law about getting permission from the principal was not put in there because they wanted to ignore it!

Laws are there to be used when needed and are usually understandable, even from a laymen’s point of view.
Without a law in place to prevent sex offenders from entering schools they could not be arrested and removed when needed.
One thing that disturbs me about so many comments here is the constant drone about how the system is out to get you. Talk about paranoia, geez!

Paranoia? Reality? A fine line, fine line indeed.

Campbell: Sex offender arrested for being on Del Mar High School campus

“Urena noted that deputies said Pickens had been picking up cans on the campus after hours. However, “If you’re not supposed to be there, you’re not supposed to be there,” Urena said, adding sex offenders can’t be on school grounds even if students aren’t present.””

Oh! by the way, if you’re on parole and wearing an ankle bracelet, it might not be a good idea to be hanging around schools where children sometimes play, even after hours.

Wonderin, please do not practice what you preach — because it is only going to land you in jail. That is not paranoia, that is fact. You have not been paying attention. They have zero interest is using the law as a guideline, they are using it as an excuse — and that is not paranoia, that is fact.

I am sorry to say, but your comments are dangerously naive.

Unfortunately I’ve been beat down and my spirit busted. I am innocent of the charges that stemmed from a child custody battle back in 1989. Every time I try to stand up and fight they throw me in prison. I’ve been incarcerated on this 6 times for a total of over 7 years. I was given probation initially but just kept bucking this system and it got me nowhere but prison. I am getting old and pretty much don’t want to go back to prison.Sounds weak I know but its the truth. I have a family now and anything I do will also affect them. When I was alone I had no problem going to prison every year fighting my battle but it got me nowhere.
Thank You

Sorry. It is too easy to say do this, don’t do that to someone else.
I think that listening to them, not judging them, being there for them everyday you are able, and being kind, will be valued by children more than attending a one time ceremony.

I don’t know they details of your fight, but I will say, your’s has been a very honorable fight and you are to be commended. You are not weak now, you simply have done what you can. It would nice if bringing the honorable fight would mean you win in the end, but that is not what honor is about.

The more I think about it, the more I keep thinking that the better approach is this:

1) Request written permission (make request in writing via email or postal service)
2) If permission is granted, enough said! Enjoy the graduation! If it’s not, respond back, in writing, requesting the exact reason. Explain that you have no problem getting your attorney involved, and cite People v. Nguyen and People v. Godinez. Also cite the pending lawsuits against Pomona, National City, and Tahoe. That response, guaranteed, will be forwarded to the district’s attorney who is likely to suggest that permission be granted on the grounds that he/she does not want to fight that case. Yes, the grounds are different however, they’re not THAT different!

I’m betting the the threat of a lawsuit, coupled with current case law, is probably enough to get you permission. For a school district, they have to weigh the pros and cons and spending what they might think is a ton of money to fight a possible loss in a court battle is not something that they would want to do. They’d rather spend that money on more important things, rather than prevent a father from attending his child’s graduation. At the end of the day, my money is on you getting your permission, and the school asking their security department to keep an extra eye on you.

I’d go that route…it doesn’t cost you anything to do so, and I really think you’d probably get your permission.

Paul, your general idea is good. However, the suits against Pomona, National City and Tahoe are over local ordinances, on the idea that they are preempted by state law. This bar to registrants being on school campuses without written permission of the principal is state law — so those challenges to local laws do not apply.

I don’t know Nguyen or Godinez by name so can’t comment about them.

But I also recommend not idly throwing around threats of lawsuits — such bluffs simply irritate people and these will be called. It is one thing to cite any legal rights you might have, it is another to make threats to people who have wide discretion over what you want. And frankly, they would rather take the lawsuit than the complaints from the voting public — they are deep pockets and you are not, and so they don’t care so much about time and expense of it as you will. Besides, for their defense, all they have to do is say they don’t have extra staff to keep an eye on you while you are on campus, so they are denying your request — that is all they need. In fact, it is yet to be established that they need any reason to deny, as the law does not say they do. What they do have is all the discretion they could ever want.

Jeff, my child graduated middle school last year, so I understand. Fortunately, my child knows my situation and why I couldn’t go. My church has been very supportive and there were about 6 or 7 who took time off their jobs to be there for a morning commencement. Just be a good dad, make sure your kids understand the situation, and make a point to do something special for them away from the school to show them how proud you are to be their dad. We’ve done that, and my child and I have a great relationship.

Thank You
I think I will do that

Are your graduates aware of your ‘special’ situation? Our kids graduated before Jessica’s law (2006) which included the prohibition of setting foot on school property without written permission, and, quite frankly, I do not see us (yes, it is always ‘us’, not ‘he’) having requested such, formally and with the possibility of getting shot down, as well as the potential for gossip. However, that was a long time ago (~10 years, lol, an eternity) and it was possible to fly under the radar.

It took a long time to grasp but I at some point I realized that graduations of all sort are a much bigger deal to the ‘support staff’ than the actual graduate (my grad school adviser point blank told us that we better walk at graduation because that day was all about our families who had sacrificed so we could get our degrees). Keep it in perspective. Your kids will have fun with their friends and go to grad nite whether or not you attend.

I would think that if your kids are aware I would explain it to them and make it up with a different activity. And like Tim said, there are a lot of crappy parents who are front row and center for public events like a school graduation but suck day in and day out. If you decide not to go I think you would make it up in different areas and your kids will totally understand in the short run and appreciate you in the long.

I went to my son’s Graduation I was nervous about going but I said FUCK IT if they arrest me then I proved to do my part.
When I showed up they had my last name tapped to the chair upfront as my son requested. good this proved that I was INVITED.

Hi Jeff:

My husband requested and received written permission to attend my son’s athletic events and graduation. Request a meeting with the principal, and explain what you are asking for. Give them a couple of weeks to respond as they have to submit it to the school’s attorney to give them a sample of what to write. Make it clear that you have had no other issues and want to be a supportive parent. If the principal balks at this contact the school superintendent. Or have your attorney write to them and request permission for you. We have had to do both because my son’s original principal left and was replaced with a testosterone raging idiot. Suffice it to say permission was granted to my husband every time. And as far as worrying about rumours; they are not supposed to disseminate information such as this due to privacy issues for students. Also they have to sign a code of conduct when they are employed that they will adhere to certain policies and the image of the district in regard to fair and equitable treatment for ALL students. And as far as the rumour thing goes so what? If you feed into them having something “over” you they will jump on it. Just disregard any “moral superiority” they think they have. Good Luck.

@ Jeff, Personally I would Not, due to the fact that IF You are recognized even if You have permission You may have a Very unpleasant time & Your Child will be ostracized/bullied by the other kids; I Know It happened to My son & I Never went to a school function. We just live 1/4 mile away from his school & They parade by our houses 2 times a day. So Every one Knows Who Lives Here. Just some friendly advice. Been There dealt with that,,,not nice situation.

More interesting stuff; from one of the most corrupt cities in the east, a bastion of corruption, but this seems hidden from the news.

Does anybody have a California crime that is exempt from the Megan’s law website , but now live in Florida like me.

I have a something that is exempt from being listed here in California. My issue occurred in Florida where every RSO is listed.

If you are asking if you can argue that and not be listed on the Florida RSO list forget it. You are in Florida now and you will have to “play” by their rules…which is why I Left Florida. I didn’t feel like living under a bridge for something I didn’t even do but got the bad legal “advice” to accept a plea for!

My advice is leave Florida.

I found this really interesting.
Sweden is closing its prisons. To sum it up Sweden is closing prisons due to lack of prisoners. Sweden’s goal is rehabilitation and equality for all. I think this is a good point for RSO’s for equal protection under the law and more importantly punishment and retaliation creates and maintains uncontrollable crime rates. If punishment and retaliation is supposed to deter crime, how come it doesn’t work in the USA? And it is really obvious that it doesn’t work. How come rehabilitation work so well in Sweden, Norway and other countries that use rehabilitation? I do think this is generally a thing to work towards and should persuade vigorously to our legislators for this goal.

Event he cells in their prisons are like a decent apartment, not like a dungeon as in the US. They are simply containing people and trying to rehabilitate them

I just came across this and am devastated. We work so hard to show we aren’t a danger, then this happens and the hype starts all over.

What is worse, I knew these two while I was on parole…and knew them fairly well. I knew one of them was a problem, anyone who knew him knew he was. The wasn’t like this, but ended up being influenced by the other apparently. Either way, I’m sickened by this.

Well guess what…don’t worry about it. Clearly the system is flawed and allowed 2 people out of prison who were clearly dangerous individuals. Whoever allowed them out of prison is at fault.

Those are individuals and they do not in anyway represent you or me…or any of the other fine people who use this website and have the unfortunate situation of being labeled with the same broad classification.

Cases like the only PROVE just how flawed the current sex offender laws have become!

When resources are wasted on people like us who have done the time…paid the debt…and yet are still classified like these animals…what is wrong with this picture.

I have always said that the registry takes away focus from the real dangers and gives a false sense of security. Cases like this are proof of it.

Things need to change. Those in the government who oppose this change are the ones who are allowing this sort of tragedy to occur…not RSO!!

So BEFORE these guys allegedly committed the crimes in question here – what made them clearly dangerous individuals worthy of never being let out of prison? Someone being at FAULT for letting them out?

Is it having a conviction that is registerable under PC 290 in their past? So do most people visiting this site. Possibly including you?

Or is it having a conviction that is registerable under PC 290 in their past and having served time in prison for it? And having served that sentence – paid the debt – for the offense? Again, many here have done likewise. Possibly including you?

So if THESE guys are animals and should have NEVER been let out of prison in the FIRST place, exactly what is it that makes the fine people HERE different than them?

My instinct is to post a snarky comment about the value of GPS trackers to protect society against such monsters. The reality is that there could be no better way to highlight the epic failure GPS trackers and the registry as a whole. They trackers are easy to cut, but in the case of these two creeps, why bother?
The system doesn’t tell anyone what you are doing, just where you or the device happen to be. Likewise, the registry does not tell anyone anything more than where you have convinced the cops you sleep and get your mail.

On another note, I love that the LA Times is describing the victims as “sex workers” rather that prostitutes so as not to demean them, as though no one knows what sex worker means. Why even bring their occupation into it when it has nothing to do with anything?

I fear that in that case, they will just not let sex offenders out of prison ever — this is really what the loonies out there want. The issue is GPS devices is one of you’re damned if you do and you’re damed if you don’t. The government is not going to simply drop them; they are going to do something much more draconian instead.

You’re right. No one is going to toss the GPS system over their shoulder and shrug, “well, that didn’t work.” They’ll keep paying for it at tax payer expense and implement something harder on us but just as worthless as GPS trackers.

The Los Angeles Times last week editorialized that many sex offenders should be given life without parole.

Yah, I was wondering if the failure of gps and of registration itself just plays in the hand of those who want more draconian laws. “See, nothing works but prison.” When they can think of nothing but prison as the final solution, why would they try to make anything less severe work?

Get over it quickly….it proves their forced to be on registry doesn’t work…it is a waste of taxpayers money ……….they even had ankle bracelets on.

If this case did not include 290 registrants it would be viewed as proof that the GPS and Registration systems are worthless. But alas, it does, and it won’t be.

How did the taxpayers money prove their worth on 290 registered ..??…on what proof 290 registered system worked in this case..???……my point is a crime happened and it didn’t matter who they (accused) were…whether they were 290 or not, a crime happened ……..the fact they were still on parole and 290 is a spotlight of a failed agenda.

Here is some recividisim rates 67.5% generaly in USA
35% in Sweden.

I think for the above comment is yes this is bad but it also could point to the issue that it is not only a moral issue it is a mental health issue. Were they going for treatment? Did they have a support system? Or where they just put out and fend for them selfs? The murder rate for drug related crimes far out reaches SO murder rates yet news stations only report on SO stuff. I feel bad for those women but I believe the only real preventative situation for any kind of crime is mostly stability support and resolving mental issues and really being honest. I personal attend SA groups just because I can be honest and help to prevent a real offense. It is hard to do this if someone is isolated and not able to be get help. I’m not sure about the situation of these two. But I’m doing my best that I can to help in preventative support groups. I think it is important to show the recividisim rates generaly between countries and see how rehabilitation is the way to go.

Beautiful coincidence you posted these stories next to each other. They illustrate the collateral consequences of two opposing approaches to crime. One in Sweden, one in the US. In one you get greater social security and cohesiveness, in the other you have the perpetuation of hate, retribution and death. Need I say which one is which?

what I want to know is a man who murdered his wife as a quote mercy killing was charged with 2nd degree murder but he was home with a ankle monitor but yet they refused to give me an ankle monitor, when my case involves nobody I thought I was helping someone who thought they were gay but as you all know it don’t matter what you did if they charge you with any kind of sex charge your gonna lose, but I guess murder is not as bad as a sex crime, this just amazes me.

Hunh… Amazes me too.

Hey None, I guess next thing you know they will arrest somebody for standing across from the bank and claim he was going to rob it just because where he was standing, or arrest someone who is stearing at you to long because he was going to murder you, then next thing you know they will come by and grab people from there homes like Germany and put them in prison camps, which they already have plus they also have coffins but they will deny it of course, if you think humans can’t do things like this then you better read your history books it’s happened over and over and over again but no one learns, May God Bless

Yes I would agree the USA has 5% of the population and 20% of people in prison out of the whole world. There are estimates that 1 out of 3 people in the USA has a criminal record. Interesting enough Nazi Germany started out with a sex offender registry, not going first after Jews and Gypsy’s like most people believe. Great place to read Right now being tough on crime is stupid on crime. What I did is not right and I know that. Looking at illegal pictures. I wanted help but the way the laws are now I would be going to prison anyways. It is effectively illegal to get help. Not only that, if I went to a support group because I know that I have a problem, not only would I be arrested, so would everyone in the support group would be punished, if they did not reported me. The most important thing about preventive is first allowing people to get help. Secondly don’t punish everyone just because they are helping someone with there addiction problems. Making punitive punishment, makes people only go underground. But the good thing about the real research is that people do and can get help and do live law abiding lives. We not only need to educate people, also in historical context alcoholics were punished the same way at first, then drug addicts, and now sex addicts. But not every one on the registry is an addict, there are really only a few real sex addicts in the first place. And not all sex addicts are dangerous anyways.

Not sure if this should be post in public

but this is posted in sosen some where

next time we go in and register
can we give them this notice?

I hereby invoke and refuse to waive all the following rights and privileges afforded to me by the US constitution.
I invoke and refuse to waive my 5th amendment right – my right to remain silent – do not ask me any questions.
I invoke and refuse to waive my 6th amendment right to an attorney of my choice. Do not ask me any question without my attorney present.
I invoke and refuse to waive all privileges and rights pursuant to the case Miranda vs Arizona. Do not ask me any question or make any comment to me about this decision.
I invoke and refuse to waive my 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not consent to any search or seizure of myself, my home, or of any property in my possession. Do not ask me about my ownership interests in any property. I do not consent to this contact with you.
If I am not presently under arrest or under investigatory detention, please allow me to leave.
Any statement I made or alleged consent I give in response to your questions is hereby made under protest and made under duress and is made in submission to your claim of lawful authority to force me to supply you with this information.

Wouldn’t it much simpler to just say;

“I’m not going to sign that unless my attorney says I must; and you need to run any question’s through mt attorney because I don’t want to talk to you unless my attorney says I have to, here’s my attorney’s business card.”

And if they come to your house wouldn’t it be much more fun to say

“No, I’m not consenting to any kind of search, and ditto for looking around the property. And I don’t want to talk to you either; Why? Ask my attorney, here’s a business card.”

And then you get to watch their reaction to a situation they have no idea how to deal with.

Just don’t answer the door and watch them drive off to the doughnut shop.

I think it only a matter of time before all attorney client privileges cease to exist.

“It doesn’t matter what you’re accused of– theft. treason. triple homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed for evidence.”

“Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:”

“When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded attorney-client communications.”

“In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.”

“Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.”

I would like to show up at ALL RSO FEDERAL HEARING to show my support for Janice and Frank. is there a way we can know when the hearing date is so we can make plan ?

This is the kind of attitude that get’s stuff started This Guy Believes & I Quote,” I have that right because my rights in the community are more important than his rights in the community.”???Really? & this is hitting Australia Now & I have friends There…
This Crap is goin’ world wide

& Congrat’s to Janice & Frank I support & Believe;-)We shall Over Come,,,Someday. But Janice You Are Doin’ a Great Job of Keeping Them in line & Thank You Mam.

I’m wanting to get some feedback on this and find out if any others are dealing with this. My wife recently visited the Megan’s Law website and saw it has my risk assessment at 3 and says it is based on the Static-99 assessment from 2010. Here’s the problem: I have never taken the Static-99 for the state of California, and the assessment I did was in 2009 and I was told by one of the psychologists at the parole office that their assessment showed me as “very low risk,” and that’s after a year of being forced to be homeless and out of work. Even the psychologist who was at the time in charge of all of the counseling groups at that parole office said before our entire group that I was very low risk and shouldn’t even be there! I’ve only taken the Static-99 twice, both times in 2007, and both times it had me at a 0.

Is there anyone else out there who has blatantly false risk information on their Megan’s Law profile like this?

Also, I’d like to get some input from others as to whether anyone thinks this is a viable suit against the state to get them to stop putting blatantly incorrect information on registrants’ profiles. It’s bad enough they have our photos and info on the site, but when the info is blatantly falsified to make us look worse than we really are.

Could it be because you are homeless and not living in what they might consider a stable lifestyle?

Mine is blank again… one day it was 0 and now its blank…

That could be part of it, but it doesn’t change that they blatantly are putting false information saying the risk assessment of 3 comes from a Static-99 in 2010 when I never did the Static-99 for the state, much less in 2010. My concern is the blatant false information, not just the risk value they’ve put on me.

So my annual is fast approaching.. I hope like all my past visits (10 years) that it’ll be quick, streamline, and awkward like having a doctor sticking his finger up your butt….

Great visual. Thanks for that.

Yup, it went smooth.. Appointment at 7:30am… got there at 6:40am and they took me in at 7am.. one thing I noticed over the years is the digital finger scanner/computer/camera system takes time to boot up or they have to restart a number of times.. Every so often I don’t get photos or fingerprints and they just manually handwrite the paperwork.. but it seems like this year the system turned on and hiccupped a few times and works like normal… so in and out about 30minutes. The two detectives were professional ( I am assuming they are detectives because of their photo badges saying detectives), I think LB police department assign people close to retiring to the Registration department… also they only take appointments for Thursdays ..

Can anyone help me clarify something> I have an 1987 conviction (adult victim), paroled in 94 and released from parole in ’97. Apart from annual registration, I have had no contact with LE.

While I know that I am not subject to Jessica’s Law residency restrictions, I am a little hazy in another areas:
What are the rules regarding my presence on school property and, what defines a “school?” Can I take my kid to gymnastics classes at a dedicated gymnastics (karate, ballet, etc.) and wait with the other parents?
If my church has a school on its grounds, can I attend the church?
What about a bible study in a multi-purpose building on the same property?

As hurtful as it is to both me and my kids, I have opted to not attend any of their school functions lest I be outed and my kids ostracized. I make it up to them by taking them and participating in extracurricular activities, but I want to make sure I am well in compliance.

Thanks for your help in this matter! 🙂

I’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of it. No registrant can enter the property of a public school without prior permission. That means the guy who has to register because he was drunk and nailed for indecent exposure when he was caught urinating in an alley is still not allowed on public school property. From what I understand, it does not apply to private schools, including church run schools. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of it. As far as waiting with other parents at the gymnastics class, as long as it’s not on school property, I don’t think there should be any problem.

Like you, I make it up to my child by participating in other activities since I’m not able to attend any school functions. So far, that has worked well for us.

Thank you! 🙂

626.81. (a) A person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, who comes into any school building or upon any school ground without lawful business thereon and written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

626. (a) As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(4) “School” means any public or private elementary school, junior high school, four-year high school, senior high school, adult school or any branch thereof, opportunity school, continuation high school, regional occupational center, evening high school, or technical school or any public right-of-way situated immediately adjacent to school property or any other place if a teacher and one or more pupils are required to be at that place in connection with assigned school activities.

any public right-of-way situated immediately adjacent to school property
sounds like the sidewalk or street in front of the school where students and pupils must drive or walk to get int the campus.

Maybe it is wishful thinking but am trying to rationalize that this does not apply to a private martial arts academy that does not have the word school in the title or signage, or Church that has a school on the same grounds.

Under 626.(a); I’m trying to figure the rationale of prohibiting registrants from ‘Adult School’. Certainly there must be many registrants whose crimes were committed when they were minors and became unable to complete high school due to social taboos and harassment. I think it would be in society’s best interest if they were able to at least get a GED and maybe go on to higher education. I hope there are stipulations around this peculiar policy as ‘Adult Schools’ are self explanatory. I was a minor (17yrs.) my first year of college, registrants aren’t restricted from college.

That looks like and quacks like a duck…its a duck……parole conditions have an end date usually of three years…….NOT alifetime ….injustice must be challenged that extends parole//////////punishment.

I was doing a little reminiscing tonight of these loony presence restrictions and looked up the Lake Forest Battle between Mayor Kathryn McCullough VS. Tony Rackauckas. That was when the Mayor was asking Tony to indemnify the city against a pending Federal Lawsuit. Eric Knight posted a transcript of the heated debate here back on Dec. 5, 2012. and Janice had this little premonition:
Janice Bellucci
December 5, 2012 at 5:50 pm

You are very welcome! I was proud to stand with 7 others in support of the city’s repeal of this ordinance. It is indeed a night to remember and I believe the beginning of the end of the Orange County ordinances.
Thank you very much for all you do Janice and Staff, for taking up this cause that is very important to many families throughout the state and nation. It gives us all hope for a better future. I will always smile thinking about the Mayor putting Tony in his place.