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

CaliforniaGeneral CommentsGeneral News

General Comments June 2014

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A “no-knock” warrant was served by a SWAT team in Atlanta last week on a suspected drug house. Rather than identify themselves, the SWAT team threw a flash-bang grenade into the home which landed in a baby’s crib as the child was sleeping, burning the baby terribly. There was no comment as to whether drugs were found.
Once again, police out of control injuring an innocent child. This is happening all too frequently these days. I guess this time an officer didn’t sexually assault the child…

These Gestapo members should be held directly accountable for criminal negligence and punished to the full extent of the law, as well as publicly shamed just as they do to others.

The militarization of our civilian police has got to stop.

They burned this poor child and, in all likelihood, will never get so much as a slap on the wrist. Had this child been caught peeing in public, he would be subject to a lifetime of public shame on the registry.

This is why all military ordinance needs to be taken away from the police nationwide. They have proven themselves not responsible enough to use military ordinance, and besides; why in the HELL does our government think it’s alright to use this stuff on us in the first place?!?!? They need to lose their war on this, war on that mentality Too.

I think you mean ordnance. 🙂

Flash bang grenades have a useful purpose when used responsibly which was clearly not the case in this unfortunate event.

Tomorrow is Election Day. For those voters in Orange County it might be of interest that the OC District Attorney position is up for grabs. After several years of running unopposed T-Rack actually has a challenger!

While I am not necessarily endorsing this candidate I would vote for Bozo the Clown if he ran against the current OCDA. T-Rack, and his hench(wo)man are the ones who pushed the now unconstitutional – thank heavens and CA RSOL – parks ban all over the County.

A retrospective:

It seems fairly obvious that the sex offender hysteria is the star to which the current OCDA has hitched his wagon.

It is also sad that they seem unawares that SO Registration is regulatory and as such not part of the sentence, but here is a statement from their PR department:

“A 57-year-old man was sentenced today to three years in state prison and mandatory lifetime sex offender registration for engaging in illegal sexual conduct”

Orange County, represent! Make your voices heard. If you do not, don’t be complaining.

Any citation or sentenced issued under these unconstitutional ordinances should be fully expunged and compensatory damages awarded accordingly and automatically.

I am not in OC but would vote for Greg Diamond if on my ballot. Nothing would make me happier than seeing that one trick pony Tony Recockulous voted out of office.

Thousands of prisoners apply for Obama’s drug clemency program

Cant wait to see how many registrants get a break.

Some might find this bit of history interesting.

Dr. J. Paul de River was largely responsible for crafting California’s sex offender registration law back in the ’40s.

Of perhaps more interest is that he took his child bride to Mexico to marry her. She was 17 at the time and he was 35. No word on if the baby that popped out the next year was certainly conceived before or after the marriage.

If interested in the good doctor, Google “The Strange Case of Dr. de River.” Fascinating read.

Thank you for that, George. I was just wondering today how the registration law came about, and the rational for it at the time. In addition, 67 years is long enough to have seen whether the non-public registry was doing any good.

Tim, there were too many murders of women and children around that time, including the Black Dahlia and two little girls, and there was panic. I think Gov. Warren, later Chief Justice of SCOTUS, even called an emergency session of the state legislature. Dr. de River happened to be the expert of the day.

In the fifties there was another panic concerning sexual psychopaths, that was later quelled by expert testmony, according to Loic Wacquant, author of Punishing the Poor. It seems to be a cyclical event. Today the panic has become institutionalized, even a cultural phenomenon. Apps to find offenders, residency and presence laws, treatment centers, technological monitoring, imprisonment of minors–it all looks like moral exercise in and of itself, rather than a response to crime (which from what I know hasn’t changed much in 60 years.)

Thanks, Tim. I’ll look into Punishing the Poor. The book that got me interested in the history is Moral Panic by Philip Jenkins. He goes into some detail on the the ebb and flow of panics over time and and does an excellent job of explaining it.

The origins of this law suggest a close link to McCarthyism and the same type of fear mongering and hyperbole.

Apply that infamous question used in those Congressional witch hunts and substitute a few words. “Are you now or have you ever been a sex offender?” It pretty much sums up our existence today. Nothing has changed.

Here we go…another month, and yet no decision on Prop 35. I really, really want to know what is going on. It is almost 9 months since the case. This is not good. Can anyone come up with the reason it’s taking so long? I’m really beyond hazarding reasons for this delay. I cannot believe that a decision is taking so long.

As I said before the way the justices were seemingly very one-sided in their conduct of the case, particularly with questioning and comments highly critical of the state’s argument, should have made this case a no-brainer. But what I fear is happening is that the justices have looked at the totality of their decision, the states that will be affected, and similar cases across the country, and they KNOW a decision in our favor will send SHOCKWAVES across the country. That fear is making me think they have backtracked from their original inclination to give us a proper, constitutionally-favorable ruling, and instead are trying to wordsmith the decision that essentially allows the state to force registrants to register their emails and user names.

I can NOT think of any other reason. I realize one of the judges had personal issues in December and, maybe, early January, but there should be no reason for any more delay. Please, someone get answers. I’ve done what I could from the Internet and calling the EFF, but am no closer to an answer.

If You have an Email account “”Like Gmail” You can get daily alerts & IF you Type Sex Offender in Your Daily alerts You’ll see why & what the Media is doing & There Are people messin’ up too,,,It is hard to watch every day what comes through but It is News from around the world ! Draw from that and You will filter Your own answer in about a week! I used it when I was a Minute Man For RSOL.It became overwhelming after a while..& Negative every day I had to get out of it besides I Was being Hacked & actually was crashed several times & had to reboot from disk ” Re Format” Then they got My Platform info & just Fried the Machine $500 Desktop Dead, I bought a new Motherboard & rebooted fine,, Did everything correctly was up & the only place I went was to battle People and their Venom,,With sanity & Yea some venom Back & Bam again ! Fried It that’s when I consulted a Pro & He said Blah, Blah, Blah, Platform Easy ! I said Oh! & He said Yea stop doin’ that People Will Wreck Yer stuff! He Knew about Me & bein’ Yah Know! So It’s a Mean World & I’m Here to tell You People are lookin’ at Us side ways all the time even after all these Years of bein’ off parole Really Is Messed up the way they bounce stats & we all fall into different ones yet We are all lumped together & then there’s Hookers,,,I have to almost laugh about the whole mess if it wasn’t so freakin’ Tragic I say It’s all gone totally, kitty Bonkers ! It was all part of a bigger plan to begin with any time You start Registering People For Anything,, You Just became the first victim of a bigger agenda. All in the Name of ? It is a big World & We Have it on Our Shoulders ,,Hold On Mates It’s A Heavy load so have broad shoulders & Stand strong Be Smart,Help Others & Don’t Mess up is all I can say to do & Pray for the Best and if You sail the ethers of the Net Spoutin’ off expect to be boarded & Sunk,,There Be Pirates out Thar …Savvy?

I mentioned before with relation to 35, it is an election year, and probably better not to have judges or other officials sweating any liability or soft on crime labeling until next year (IMHO…)

p.s. Spaeaking of 35, does anyone know of any trojan horse clauses in any of the propositions up in November?

There is no risk of election ramifications for the judges on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court. So that’s not the reason, per se.

I am not discounting, though, that they are trying to craft a decision supporting email / id registration by looking at decisions and ordinances from around the country.

However, let me expand on my own theory, which is based upon general analysis of human nature. The plain fact is that the justices most probably didn’t research such laws before the case in Sep. 2013. So when they heard the arguments, they weren’t hearing them from the standpoint of “evil sex offenders’ rights being violated,” but from the context of “Big Brother (NSA) is Watching You.” Remember, the case was heard at the time of the Snowden / NSA admissions of recording every phone call and email made in the US.

In short, the case was a brutal affair worthy of an early career Mike Tyson-esque knockout. The questioning by the judges toward that of the state were not based upon the devil’s advocate method of questioning in order to bring out the attorney’s insightful arguments to display clarity, but were clearly reactive questions to the barely-disguised horror of the state’s arguments themselves. (The judges did ask the EFF/ACLU attorney pointed questions as well, but they were expertly and competently responded to, which is not only to be expected but welcomed.)

Having since heard the case, they were probably expected to wrap it up before Thanksgiving, certainly before Christmas. But when their research staff were compiling citations, they probably came across how the majority of other states have this law on the books. As they did more and more research, they found that their decision would have far-reaching effects based on how they constructed the opinion in favor of the state.

To be blunt: A decision in our favor would have ramifications in every US territory in the Pacific, every US state that touches the Pacific, every US state that touches one of THOSE states, and Montana. Many if not most of those jurisdictions have email address registration laws in place, so they would have to be rescinded as well. Finally, the 9th circuit would be in conflict with at least two other circuit courts and provide a relative fast-track candidate for cert by the US Supreme Court.

So every day that goes by is another day in which I build a little more fear and cynicism with regard to the ultimate verdict. My guess is it will be a 2-1 decision (most probably coordinated) for the state, with a HUGE job of total BS written into the concurrence and an appropriately scathing dissent.

And So to Fight Back without gettin’ sunk? I said self what to do? Well Hunter S. T. said” When the Goin’ gets Weird The Weird Go Pro,,, & set up My Lin Profile,,Hahahahahaha! & I’m sure I’m hated in some Circles there too I was infiltrated twice By some one in a network trying to talk Crap about Me & I deleted 1/2 of My network I Really did not Know or I felt was Not beneficial Or Positive. I have a contact That is in Mental health,A+ High Contact If I wanted,, I can talk to her about what ever I need to She is in a sex offender Group of Pro’s and is fighting for us on some fronts in that field,,I Know I’m Watched My Stats There tell Me Who and Where allot are such as fallows:21 people in info & Tech.,5 people from Washington DC,5 from LA,6 from London, 16 viewers from NYC 8 Authors 7 recruiters 7 EOH,, 7 founder CEO’s 6-7 writing and editing ind.8 author Publishers,19 business owners, 5 oil & Energy etc. etc. I have had H.S., lawyers, Every Body has seen My Profile & IT IS FUNNY & True,,,fer the Most part some I just add libbed their suggestions on skills and that Made it Even Funnier;-)Maybe someday a Leprechaun will help Me over the rainbow from the Dark Side of The Moon & I May find a Pot of Gold Who Knows? & You never will Unless You Try It. As long as it’s legal I’m In, the minute I see it gettin’ funky I’m Gone I do NOT NEED any MORE Problems,, So That’s how I handled It & believe it or not I have met some really Cool People & other Members of RSOL We Could even Start a Group There IDK??? There is only 1 I can join that is not locked & I think You Can Lock The Group’s IF You have the Premium Account & IT IS Monitored & watched,,Probably by that Group of Shrinks I was talkin’ about,HAhAHAHAHA…Definitely By LE of some kind I’m Sure.

I am just wondering…is there a section here that is specific to female registrants? After reading most of the posts, the overall tone suggest most of the posters are male.

I am a discretionary registrant, not on any public registry nor have I ever been subjected to any of the treatment others have received from probation or any law enforcement officer. So when I started speaking to my therapist about the recent news of board’s decision on the registry overhaul, she informed me that the low-risk assessment tools are about the men who take the static-99. Women don’t even take them. So I’m wondering, if there is a decision to relieve low-risk registrants based on this assessment tool that only men take, where does that leave women?

That is an EXCELLENT question, NPS! This is a direct violation of the constitution if a tool that can be favorably applied to one group is not allowed (or in this case, not possible) to be applied to another group.

To have to take the static-99 or any other action other than those required at the time of sentencing is unconstitutional. Anything a registrant is required to do, other than to show up to register, is punishment after the fact. Any misuse of the information or inference as to implied guilt or risk, is another violation of civil rights. There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

That leaves women SOL. A test designed for males cannot or should not be given to female offenders/registrants. Seems to me that all this crap is arbitrary and discretionary anyhow; those who give the Static-99R and those who score it can (and some do) put one into any category they so choose. We all know that a 10 question assessment isn’t reliable nor valid.
I think that female registrants ought to sue on equal protection grounds. Just my opinions.

Hmm. I really don’t believe that we women are SOL. According to my therapist, and she reads and supports CARSOL, there is a general consensus that women don’t reoffend and at least in her professional experience she has not ever had a female client reoffend. But she encourages women who are required to register to look more into this matter and their rights both as Americans and as mothers. She mentioned someone by the name of Charlene (?) who is a contributor here. Is there anyone here that has written specifically about women registrants? Are there any posts that are relative to female registrants?

This is probably a reason why I have never had any contact with my probation officer or any officer in relation to compliance. In fact, I was told to live my life because they are not worried about women.

To believe women offenders never re-offend is completely naive. ..prostitution is labelled as a sex crime, and you could not convince me that no woman convicted for prostitution ever goes back to it. While on parole, there was a woman there for that very reason…within a couple of months of her release from prison, she was at it again, and found herself heading back to prison. The reason they aren’t worried about them is because they are fewer in number, and they aren’t seen as predators, stalkers, and molestors in the same way. If a teenage boy sleeps with an older woman, he’s seen as a stud, a lucky guy. If a teenage girl sleeps with an older man, she’s seen as a rape victim. It’s because law enforcement doesn’t see the crime as the same.

Prostitution is the only example you could come up with? That is a a victimless “crime” with both parties involved. That is not even close to the same issue.


Has your therapist heard of Mary Kay Letourneau, who was convicted of rape of a 13 year student of hers, had the child in prison, and while out on parole met with the child again? The result of her parole violation seems to have resulted in a second child from him, which she had in prison, after being sent back to serve her full term. Maybe she is a rare case, but looking at the recidivism rate for men, that’s rare also, and chances are we are not going to re-offend. This story is often spinned as a love story, but I have never heard of a similar case of a sexual relation of a middle aged man and a 13 year old girl ever looked at as a love story in today’s world, a horror story most certainly. Of course, the man we now call Johnny Appleseed was said to have lived in a hallow tree and there married a 13 year old girl, somehow that was overlooked and he became a hero. Not saying it was right, but I find it interesting how the same event can be viewed differently based on time period or gender.

Yes, my therapy has. In fact, we even discussed her case. Is she a classic definition of a sexual deviant? No she isn’t. She also only had just the one victim (whom she eventually married). She isn’t a predator in that she continued to abuse other children. She went back to prison because she violated the terms of her parole which was to stay away from her victim not because she committed new crimes. Oh wait, there was that issue with an unpaid traffic ticket. Authorities will try to use any case to show that this woman is a criminal which she isn’t. Clearly the woman is sick; possibly suffering from severe depression with poor self image and esteem. I highly doubt she received any kind of mental health service while in prison.

As for the male adult/13 year old female marriage considered a love story…Jerry Lee Lewis with his 13 year old bride. Hollywood even created a movie characterizing it as a romance. Not saying I agree with it. In fact, I find it disgusting. Just giving you a case that pretty much the whole world has heard of (and he was never charged nor even labeled a pedophile).

Well, you know, many men have had only one victim or no victims. And many, such as myself have had mental health issued. And yet they come to my door to do a compliance check, and apparently they don’t to yours. In fact, they never come to some men’s doors for some reason. Why?


Funding; that’s why.

Maybe. Or maybe it is a decision made by some board, like our SAFE board here in San Diego County that’s charged with monitoring former offenders and there is no state wide standards.

You can throw John and Reve Walsh into this category of adult/minor relationship. Walsh even admitted that if Reve’s dad knew what they were doing, he (Reve’s dad) would have killed him (Walsh). Was it a joke? Dunno…but I DO know John would be a Level 2 in virtually every state if Pops had decided to go to the sheriff.

Who else? How about Ted Nugent, hyper-militia ex drug-freaked rocker in Texas. Had a 14 year old girl LIVE with him for awhile! Now he suggests shooting rapists before they get out of prison. Turn your rifle around, Nuge…

I’m sure we have a lot of others that we can come up with. Mark Lunsford? What’s that kiddie porn doing on your computer? And you weren’t such a good dad to Jessica’s brother, who got nailed for being with a 14 year old. (In fairness, that was an R&J in my opinion, but also in fairness, most 18 year olds doing what he did are now level 2 or even Level 3. So there.)

Others come to mind…

now that CA ROL “membership” are growing.
Would it be possible to start a
protest like the arrest of Rosa Parks which ended with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that segregation on public buses is unconstitutional.

or the Nashville sit-ins where over 150 students were eventually arrested.

What “little spark” do we need?

we may need RSO people willing to be arrested to make a point…

just an idea and let’s get this ball rolling..

We need RSOs that are sympathetic public characters in popular media. I can’t believe Rosa Parks and others would have been as successful in their fight for civil rights were it not for the likes of Jackie Robinson and myriad MoTown performers. The laws changed as the cultural color barriers came down. The same is happening now for LGBT citizens. Perhaps RSOs are the last frontier of tolerance.

I am 48 and have been living with this BS since 1994, but it was much easier before Megan’s Law and our kids came along. I am not sure I can handle it much longer. Something’s gotta give.

As illegal Mexicans stream unopposed across our borders in anticipation of amnesty laws, I am considering sneaking into Mexico myself, then returning the next day with a new name: Jose Jimenez.

I was planning a trip with an employee to Seattle in August. I called King County Sheriff and told them I would be there for 5-6 nights and I was told that was an okay amount without having to check in with the King County department. I see on the PDF from this site it is only 3 days? I am confused.

Has anyone been successful getting a Certificate of Rehabilitation with a 288(a) conviction? Maybe I am in the wrong place. Seems like everyone here has had no victim, been innocent or had a misdemeanor. My lawyer did mention trying for an expungement after ten years. It is now 14 years. That lawyer was very expensive. I just recently paid off the debts this has caused.

Hello Waiting for the End

It’s possible that you may have missed the boat on expunging your 288a conviction. Keep in mind I’m not an attorney…just basing my .02 on what I have read on the internet. I believe that expungement normally becomes an option right after completing probation. Once off probation…you can petition the court for an expungement. Thanks to AB20 (a California Assembly Bill) that went into effect on Jan 1, 2014…many (if not all) sex offenses involving minors are no longer eligible for expungement. Check out the CR-180 form online…I believe this is the form a lawyer would be submitting to the court. I’m guessing at some point the form will be updated to reflect the changes in the 1203.4 expungement rules/restrictions that went into effect in January thanks to AB20.

I believe there are some places that don’t charge a fortune to do reductions, expungements, etc. Do some google searches to find a place that offers flat rates.


From section 17 of the penal code: ” (3) When the court grants probation to a defendant without
imposition of sentence and at the time of granting probation, or on
application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the
court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor.” My sentence was suspended and I received and completed probation. Any thoughts on what this means?

No. You’re wrong. This is only for crimes related to 311.2

In fact, the bill specifically states:
the Governor shall have the right to pardon a person convicted
of a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288,
subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, or subdivision (j) of
Section 289, if there are extraordinary circumstances.

Thank you for setting that straight. I thought I saw where PC 311.xx was added to the list of offenses not eligible for dismissal under PC 1203.4. The full text now reads (new additions – presumably by AB 20 – in bold):

…does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.

That pretty much covers all CP offenses and, given that dismissal under 1203.4 is the first required step towards a Certificate of Rehabilitation, ensures that these people will have no avenue for ever getting off the list other than the Gov Pardon (good luck).

For some context, first degree murder, etc is not not on the exclusion list and apparently can be expunged under this statute.

Can some please remotely explain the rationale for not allowing someone who is caught with a topless teenage girl on their phone or hard drive to find some kind of relief – for the rest of their life???

Since I’m not a lawyer I decided to look for something online that explains/analyzes AB20. Should have done it before my first post. Sounds like the bill targets CP convictions if/when it involves government computers, networks, etc. So perhaps there still is some relief for most CP cases (ones that didn’t involve government equipment.

I am not an attorney either, I usually point this out but this time I did not, but the way I read AB20 is that it has 2 parts… one prescribes a fine for those CP convicts using government computers. Ok, really no problem with that one. This amends PC 311 and its subsections.

The other part modifies PC 1203.4 (dealing with expungements) where expungements are no longer an option for people convicted of possession etc of CP. The current language for PC 1203.4 has no provision for the use of government computers. Keep in mind that a dismissal under 1203.4 is the first required step on the road to getting a Certificate of Rehabilitation, the only realistic way off this registry.

Big problem with Part 2. Where did AB20 come from? Was it on anyone’s radar?

But it is not like it is affecting thousands and thousands of people…. oh wait, it is!

I feel like the lit match that I had set my sights on a year ago, the light I was going to use to mentally make it through a very dark tunnel, has just been blown out. Very hard to remain hopeful.


It wasn’t on anyone’s radar. I was in my attorneys office discussing relief; we were looking at the law and unpleasantly surprised to see the bold type you mentioned that has effectively closed the door. Its absurd that the rest of my life should be ruined with no hope for anything when there wasn’t even another human being involved, for what was essentially a thought crime.

First, I am not a lawyer.

As the statue stood before this past November 2013, 288(a) was specifically denied a certificate of rehabilitation. This case cleared the way:

My understanding is that is the aspects of the law that denied us relief were held to be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the California constitution.

As a result I am attempting the process.

In the mean time a bill (AB1438) has been introduced to “correct” the flaw in the law and deny relief to everyone. It seems to be on a fast track and if I read the information here correctly, has moved from the Assembly to the Senate:

So I seem to be involved in a race to complete expungement and a grant of a certificate of rehabilitation before the bill takes effect.

Hey Waiting…

Check Poeple v. Tirey and Poeple V Marinelli; both 288.a cases but Marinelli is a 664.288.a which is an attempt. Tirey says that a 288.a is eligible to file for a COR but I do not know if the new laws nullify Tirey. I’m not a legal mind. so you should look into those cases to see if they apply. If income for filing is an issue, you might qualify for public defender services in your county. Good luck and keep fighting, keep supporting CARSOL.

I’ll have to talk to a lawyer. This is really confusing. I’m 288(a). The parentheses around the a make a big difference.

Oh, and thank you. It’s great people here wish to help others without prejudice. In a better world, you guys would be valued for who you are.

It is not really confusing… yes the parens make all the difference.

288(a) is “Lewd & Lascivious Acts with a Child under 14” – the lewd act being from a touch over clothing on up. PC 288, subsection (a)

288a is Oral Copulation – with minors as well as with force. i.e. PC 288a(b)(1) – OC with a minor under 18. PC 288a, subsection (b)(1).

288(a) (L&L with a child under 14) is indeed excluded from seeking a dismissal / expungement under 1203.4). HOWEVER, MCH is correct, that is in limbo right now due to the aforementioned Tiery case, as well as Marinelli (for attempts).

Tierey in a nutshell – fairly recently (with Chelsea’s Law – 2010?) 288.7 was introduced which covers intercourse with a child under 10. The geniuses that our legislators are, it was not added to the excluded list for dismissal. Tiery prevailed with an Equal Protection argument since it makes no sense to treat someone who kisses a 13 year old harsher than someone who has actual sex with a 9 year old. However, I believe there is legislation pending that ‘fixes’ this – adding 288.7 to those offenses excluded from relief just like 288(a).

I was under the impression that there was a mad dash for 288(a) -s to get an expungement under 1203.4.

Marinelli has to do with ATTEMPTED 288(a). He says that the PC refers to a violation of the statute, and not an attempt (many times legal language will say ‘violation or attempt thereof’. Not in this case. Apparently he prevailed in that game of semantics and is not excluded from relief (for the time being).

288a has one subsection that is excluded from getting an expungement – 288a(c), which is OC with a person under 14 years of age (kind of the same thing as 288(a).

So if you are a 288(a) – L&L under 14, you can seek an expungement while Tiery stands. However, getting an expungement / dismissal has no bearing on your requirement to register. Plus, there is nothing that says it won’t be reversed with future legislation as it would not be ex post facto – remember, none of this is punishment 🙂

PC 1203.4:
“…does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.”

(see – no 288.7 which is ‘worse’ than all other excluded sections)

My poor typing and blatant laziness did leave of the () around the a. Yes, should have been 288.(a). Had coffee so I’m not so lazy now…

… lose the period and we’re good. 288(a), no dot.

At the risk of being a pain in the *ss, this does matter.

I know someone who held off on getting a COR for years and years because of this confusion.

There are law firms out there who specialize in post conviction relief / expungements and many have a quick qualifier on their web site. The question “were you convicted of any of those offenses in 1203.4 (above)” is right at the beginning and then kicks you out if affirmative. When asked if it was for 288(a) it sounded good when it should have been 288a(…).

Yah. I remember going on those sites that offer expungement/cor relief. I wasn’t aware of the parenthetical “a” at the time and thought I was kicked out, but maybe not.

Now here’s an interesting story for your input, which actually did happen. While I was away in the mini-bar hotel in 2005, the youth pastor at the church I had attended had some kind of sexual contact with one of the 16 yr old girls. He was 30+, married, kids, etc. No complaints were ever filed…nada, pretty much just fired the guy and sent him packing. Here’s where it gets interesting; the police chief and another retired cop served on the church board. Aren’t they under obligation, along with the Pastor to report such conduct? Not judging, not accusing, not throwing stones, just curious.

In the State of California Mandated Reporters are fairly well defined. – What is a mandated reporter?

Church Board members are not on the list. Active police officers, yes. Retired, no. Perhaps all of the above would be required to rat out their brethren too much? Not sure.

Now judging… while inappropriate, to have a willing and voluntary relationship with a 16/17 year old – a person that would be prosecuted as an ADULT for any kind of crime – in any setting ruin someone’s ENTIRE life is a premise I am not willing to accept. Hence my involvement here. But that is me. End judging.

Back in 95’here in California when I was at my “misdemeanor” hearing, I struck a deal with the DA and the Judge. I told my lawyer that if I agreed to the DA’s penalties, that I would not have to go on the “New” sex offender registry. My lawyer talked to the Judge and the Judge said it would be no problem that he would handle it. At then end of my summary probation and completion of my penalties, there was no registration required of me. A few years later, I had to remove my sister-law from our home with a Sherriff’s Eviction Notice. She was so angry that she went to the Local Police department and told them I was a Sex Offender. The Detective did some investigations and found my case. He then told me that I had to register as a sex offender. I had no choice but to register or go to jail according to the detective. I have been registering for the last twenty freaking years. I am angry. My case has been expunged and I have no criminal record. I wonder, should I hire a lawyer and have my case examined to see about getting off?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record…. you have Certificate of Rehabilitation written all over you.

No one (or everyone with a criminal record, any criminal record) should have to deal with this crap until their last breath and certainly not someone with a misdemeanor 20 years ago.

Talk to your lawyer. If you do not have one, I would suggest CA RSOL board member Chance Oberstien for a place to start.

ps. the sex offender registry was hardly new in 1995. It has been around since 1947. According to a recent report by the CASOMB there are currently over 900 people on it who committed their last sexual offense over 50 (fifty!) years ago. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Yes, you can apply for a COR. All reports are that they are rare to be given to any registrant, but some do get them. However, consider before you leap: the investigation it entails could be more ruinous to you than continuing to register. They are likely to talk with your neighbors, current and past employers, come search your home. And your name will end up on the public legislative record as seeking a pardon, something all the news people look over (although unless you are a celebrity or something, I don’t think they would find a misdemeanant to be newsworthy). And on that record, your name will remain public forever. So, while as a misdemeanant you are not on the internet, your neighbors certainly will know now, and so will your employer, and you can say goodbye to any good reference from past employers.

Sorry to sound negative, I’m not trying to. Just pointing out all the considerations. You might do well going forward and trying, maybe you will be one of the rare exceptions who get the COR.

Meanwhile, our state high court just this past year, in Doe v. Harris, ruled that yes, you do have to register. The high court ruled that the state of the law when you enter a plea bargain is not binding, can be changed going forward — and that is the very trap you got caught up in. When you pled out, the state of the law allowed misdemeanants to stop registering once they got 1203.4 relief at the end of probation. Right after your conviction, that was changed, and now such misdemeanants do have to register, and they apply that retroactively, even though it is something you actively worked for and rose to the standard to meet and were granted.

Too bad the neighbor complained and you are thus notified to register. If you were never notified, you will have had no knowledge of it, and that is a defense against being convicted for failure to register.

A.N., What investigation are you takling about? Is that a county by county thing? I applied for a COR in Orange conuty in 2012 and there was no investigation that I know of. Not even a phone call prior to my hearing.

Well, generally it is by the county, yes. Specifically which agency, I’m not certain, but I presume the sheriff’s, certainly under the direction of the prosecutors, but maybe the local police if you are in a city with its own police department. Mind you, more than one county might be involved — both where you live and where your offense happened.

What they choose to do for an investigation is up to them, so yes, county by county. They will have done some level of investigation of you, even if they did not come around and search and did not come around talking with your neighbors.

You were lucky. But mind you, a COR is not simply to show you have had no further convictions; it is an application for a pardon, and so your entire lifestyle and character is considered, not just whether you have reoffended. That’s the justification for them normally doing a big investigation.


Thanks for your input/opinion. I do understand why that church “problem” was taken care of in-house. What bothered me most was that the mandated reporter did nothing while I was away, enjoying bologna sandwiches at the expense of county taxpayers. Still a tad bit bitter.

A huge Thank You to all those who contribute so willingly on here. I’ve gotten so much benefit from other’s wisdom and experience and beyond that, even hope for the future. Looks like this may be a good year for a bunch of registered citizens.

Precedent set by federal appeals court in New Hampshire: Even though I’m pretty sure it’s legal to film the police here, this can still be a helpful tool if the police try to prevent filming by any means. It’s still somewhat weak (audio), but it helps.

I hope this can be used in California and someone picks up on this. I think the implication for registrants is that this can be a powerful tool during compliance checks or any other time a registrant is confronted by police

Input requested please!
I’m wanting some wise counsel for an upcoming hearing on July 14th. Here’s the deal; I filed a record clearance application and will have a hearing in court with probation and a judge. My charges are identical to those in Marinelli, 664.288(a) and 664. 288.2(b), the classic sting charges. I’m represented by a public defender in that county and they recommended I be there to give personal testimony in court. I’ve been a very good boy before and since my arrest and plea, no violations, no brushes with the law, no problems at all. I help others. volunteer my time, share what little resources I have and contribute as best I can to society. One private attorney told me that record clearance is MANDATORY in my case but I can’t afford him.
So, any suggestions on what to say, how to present myself, etc. I’d like to use this to help others similarly situated.

What do you mean by “record clearance.” The only actual “clearance” you can get under the law is if you prove “factual innocence.” That is a higher standard than simply beating the case.

We can’t really comment for you unless we know what statue you are filing under. I can’t tell if you are challenging the conviction on the basis of something about the sting, or if you are seeking some kind of post-conviction relief, and if so, what relief, under what statute. I’m gathering this is felony level, and you did not get probation.

Even an “expungement” in this state does not eliminate, or clear, the record of the conviction, it merely adds lines to the record that the conviction on the lines above has been set aside pursuant to 1203.4 PC. (But the courts now rule that 1203.4 PC does NOT actually expunge the conviction, that the conviction remains and 1203.4 merely gives relief from certain disabilities, such as allowing to to answer on private employment applications that you have not been convicted.) But there record is still distributed showing that you had been convicted, and everyone who gets the record sees that (unlike in various other states where an expunged record is sealed and sometimes even destroyed).

Does PC 288 relate only to offenses against minors? The victim in my was 22 (older than me) yet 288 is the first thing listed on any list of convictions including the Megan’s Law site. I do not believe it would make a difference in my requirement to register so I did not pursue getting it removed. but now, given my druthers, I’d rather not have it than have it.
Any input, as well as recommendations for an effective attorney is appreciated.


The Record Clearance Application is filed “pursuant to Section 1203.4 PC” as stated on the application. This will clear the record, but not the punishment of the registry. That part is phase II of my plan. So, according to the county Record Clearance Application, it states the clearance is MANDATORY, if certain conditions are met:
a. placed on formal probation and fulfilled all probation conditions
b. convicted of a crime but not placed on probation or state prison, one year has passed, completed the sentence, and have obeyed the law.
c. Paid all restitution and fees.

A big yes to a & c, b doesn’t apply to me. If granted this record clearance “sets aside” a verdict of guilty.
There is a list of PC 290 sections that are not eligible for record clearance, however, the 664 preceding a 288(a) makes that eligible according to People V Marinelli.

Hope this gives enough information.

mch, yes, I am very familiar with all that. I note, despite the choice of the application designer to add in the word “clearance,” a word that is not in the law, nothing is cleared, a line is simply added, as I noted above.

I also note, that line b) you list is actually a neighboring related statute in the Penal Code. As it happens, if you got relief via that statute, you would not have to register, because 290 only says that if you got 1203.4 relief, you still have to register — it does not say that about the b) relief you mention. Almost no one gets the b) relief, because almost no one doesn’t get at least probation.

I note, even the form for the court order you get will specifically say that you have been convicted, and it will go on to say the 1203.4 language that the conviction is set aside (although the courts in more recent years now rule that in fact, the conviction remains, 1203.4 merely gives you relief from some disabilities). So, any time you might want to show it, you will be showing a document that says yes, you were convicted, and thus that yes, you did do that conduct.

But since you now point out that this is a post-probation matter, 1203.4, that makes things much clearer.

These are normally fairly routine — because of the “mandatory” nature of the relief. One thing to note, the courts have ruled that anyone who successfully completes probation is “entitled” to the 1203.4 relief, it cannot be denied — yes, as the language you saw, it is mandatory. The only basis to deny would be showing that probation was not successfully completed or that you have subsequent convictions or there are pending charges. Any other argument the prosecutor might raise is not germaine to the matter and your attorney should object. And I would not think it wise for you to raise any other issues, and that would include anything you personally might say. As such, you should not make ANY statement there, as nothing you would say would be germaine. Do not go talking as that will only give the prosecutor fuel. If you get up there, that prosecutor will try to twist you around up and down and get you to say something ill considered that amounts to confessing to some irrelevant little thing, like that you jaywalked 8 months ago, and use that as now a subsequent pending case to deny you 1203.4 relief. This is not a review of how good a person you are — it is restricted to only whether you successfully completed probation and otherwise have no charges pending or subsequent convictions. Do not start talking about anything else.

This is why public defenders are not always the best to have. Your’s doesn’t seem to understand what I just wrote, is wanting you to go defend your character in order to get 1203.4 relief. That has nothing to do with a 1203.4 petition. The only thing germaine is whether you completed probation successfully and have no further convictions or pending cases. Any further character consideration is irrelevant. I think most lawyers would tell their client that they do not need to attend, and hope they would not attend.

Now, if you have other complications you are doing, such as if your case was a felony and you are seeking to get it reduced to a misdemeanor, then that might very well be a bigger thing in court, and might call for you to testify. (I note, for some reason, most lawyers seem to think a felony must be reduced to a misdemeanor in order to qualify for relief under 1203.4. Actually, 1203.4 says nothing to restrict it to misdemeanors only; it says ANYONE who had probation can have the relief, and that means even felons who got probation. So even if a felony were not granted a reduction to misdemeanor, it should still be entitled to 1203.4 relief.)

Ummm…let’s see. Registrants arrested for a new crime is at 5. something % and Recidivism Of drug offense Prisoners Released In 30 States From 2005 To 2010 Within 5 years of release is 76.9% rearrested, and now that guy from Kenya wants to let dangerous druggies out of prisons to corrupt the youth of this land while as many avenues of relief for registrants are being closed as quickly as as possible. It’s getting more stupid each day. 🙁

Another Obama administration reform plan: Shorter sentences for 20,000 drug inmates
Just a few months after announcing sweeping clemency program.

BJS statistics

So I wonder what’s really going on.

Does anyone know if public defenders can be sued for mal-practice? And a pvt attorney that would take it on contingency or pro bono?
I’m going for my COR thur a PDs office, and I don’t think the PD assigned to my case is doing anymore that filling ot the form and submitting it. Something that i could have done myself.
This seems doomend to fail from the start.

OK here’s another one. The Sex Offender Management Board says that the registry is overcrowded and needs to be thinned out. I wonder if that thought process or information works its way down to the courts and influences them re their granting Certs. of Rehab?

Then there is the logic that if you are not on the Megans Law web site, you are deemd, by operation of law, to be such a low or no risk to the public that they have no right or need to know about you as a registrant.
On top of which you have had your case dismissed under 1203.4 another indication that it was a minor offense (no pun intended) in the frist place.
So my question would be, what’s the reason that they are so hard bottomed on granting the COR for THOSE?

“In the context of political speech, it is important that a writer be permitted to be anonymous to prevent others from prejudging the writer’s message based on personal dislike, the majority said.”

If I’m reading into this correctly, I think that this is an excellent sign of the eventual outcome of the lawsuit pending against Prop 35, which essentially makes the same case that the majority concluded here.

I’m moving to Garden Grove from Westminster in 3 weeks. Does anybody know what the registration experiences is like in Garden Grove??

California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter announces his retirement. He will step down next January. A short list of names already has been bandied about who might be his replacement — but unfortunately, I do not see Janice Belucci on that list. Dang! If I were governor, I would l name Janice.

Baxter was appointed inn 1990 by right wing Republican George Deukmejian. He has been considered more moderate than Deukmejian although still conservative – but on the single issue readers here are interested in, he voted against us every time.

Brown’s first appointment to the high court, Goodwin Liu, even while considered to be a real liberal has proved to be a big disappointment for us (I note in particular his concurrence in Doe v. Harris). Brown now gets two more appointments to the court, between Baxter and Joyce Kennard, who announced her retirement in April. Unfortunately, since both will leave as Brown’s re-election campaign moves into full gear, I doubt he will take any risk, such as another Rose Bird. If these came after his reelection, he would have nothing to lose, that second term will be the end of his career in elected office. Perhaps that is why two conservative justices who wanted to retire did so now.

So I was just reading through South Carolina’s registry requirements for a vacation I am planning in the late summer and stumbled upon this gem:

(F) If an offender receives a pardon for the offense for which he was required to register, the offender must reregister as provided by Section 23-3-460 and may not be removed from the registry except:

Correct me if I am reading this wrong, but even if you receive a pardon in SC, you may STILL have to register? WTF?!?!

South Carolina is what’s wrong – it’s still the deep south essentially…

This is interesting – Trying to ban questions about convictions on employment applicaitons:

This was in today’s Chronicle regarding juvenile sex offenders and punishment. It seems like the pendulum is finally swinging toward a more logical and common sense approach.

Things that make you go…hhhhmmmh. What is wrong with people? The woman is claiming he is making provocative moves? The comments are clearly in favor of him, and many want him back. BUT, this is how it starts. Have one person be offended and others will catch on. This is another good example to show how differently people are being offended. How will they feel if this old man ends up on the Sex Offender Registry for doing what he (and obviously many others) enjoy?

How ridiculous;

“As a parent and seeing all the parents that were covering their kids’ eyes and turning their heads away”

I suppose it’s only OK on TV with allot less clothing and way heavy on the sexual overtones. Or on the Disney channel.

Coming to a neighborhood near you! Just an FYI and more stellar police work.

Actually I think this supports our cause. All these tough sentences for committing sex crimes, and a lifetime on the registry to look forward to and still this many people are still “lured” into attempting it. Sounds to me like the punishment detergent is not working. I believe it has the opposite effect. The danger involved increases the libido and makes it harder to control sexual desire. The broad spectrum of people also suggest this is a more “generic” problem in human sexuality, not something you can pin on a certain type of “weird” person, and most certainly not something that registrants do, except very rarely.

275 alleged child predators arrested in California, as read on From what I read on this story, they baited people to show up at parks. This sure can’t help our cause in the media when they do this.

Unfortunately, sensationalism is at the root of many aspects of this legislation rather than pragmatic application. Keeping the public in the dark about the actual statistics and effectiveness also seems to be a key strategy of implementation.

Any downstream exploitation based on this is a bonus for media, le, propagandists, vote grabbers and fear mongers alike.

Yay yay…RonLake…you know this incident could really help this political prisoner listing (their sexo list) when the news report says >95% of new ‘sex’ crime arrests are from people NOT on registered list ….news report that..?…so more likely than not those new ‘sex’ “predators” are NOT from registry…news report that ..?…news reporting the waste of taxpayers money on a listing when new crimes are NOT from registry ..?

So I just stumbled across this…. an initiative that just made it on to the November ballot, reducing certain non-violent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Things like shoplifting or forgery. Due to the prisons busting at the seams, a huge percentage of budget being spent on corrections and an ever increasing felon population that is virtually unemployable becoming a drain on society.

Sound good? Sure, except for the fact that the proposed law ensures that all those required to register under PC 290 are excluded from this new provision and will continue to be charged with and prosecuted for felonies. Woo hoo.

Oh, the exclusion seems to apply to those convicted of murder as well. Which seems fair as everyone knows kissing a 15 year old girl or owning a photo of a topless teenager is about the same as murdering another person.

It is getting to the point where not only normal conduct is a crime for certain people, solely based on a prior conviction for which the criminal sentence has been served in full, now also actual criminal offenses are treated differently for those people.

Maybe this is good news. At some point that camel’s back has got to break. I mean – really!

Is there an update on Proposition 35? It’s been so long and so quiet.

More police news…So police are failing to report to the state 67 deadly shootings? Oh, the paperwork is too extensive and so confusing. If they can’t keep track of 67 fatal shootings, how in God’s name can they possibly keep track of the registered citizens and the mess that’s been created by a very extensive and confusing registry? I’m smelling “cover-up”

This just came out in today’s SFGate. Oakland is getting ridiculous. “Innocent until proven guilty” is out the window. On the bright side, an overwhelming majority of the readership is against this.

They did this in San Diego sometime in the nineties. I remember a coworker who visited a policewoman posing as a prostitue and got his name and picture in the newspaper.


Having lived in Oakland in the past and now have family there, this kind of police “work” is about all Oakland cops can do. There’s constant gunfire in town, to which police don’t respond so anything that will put Oakland cops in harm’s way is a no response situation. This is becoming typical of law enforcement in big cities; public shaming above public protection, guilt is assumed, shoot now and ask questions later. Oakland has one corrupt police department that’s staffed largely with lazy cowards that selectively enforce the law when it doesn’t interfere with donut breaks.