ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

General Comments July 2014

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

Join the discussion

  1. Eric Knight

    And here were are on MONTH 11 following the hearing by the 9th Circuit about Proposition 35 emails…remember that? Yes, it’s been 296 days…almost 300 days since the hearing on September 9. What is going on?? All three justices have given opinions on several other cases that were heard after this case. In some, those cases were heard as late as May of this year! So what is taking them so long??

    Yes, I fear the worst. The case was a classic open-shut case, especially with the eviscerating questioning by the judges themselves that should have been clear in how they would rule. So pardon my cynicism, I sense a huge wordsmithing operation afoot to justify the registration scheme.

    • NPS

      The Bay Area newspapers have been flooded with all these articles about federal seizures of Redbook (an online resource for sex workers), the pimp/john shaming website and Operation Cross Country. It’s almost like orchestrated propaganda to justify prop 35. It seems like the term “prostitution” is now replaced with “trafficking”.

      • Tim

        It would make more sense to legalize adult prostitution, regulate it and tax it, instead of turning back the clock to the sixteenth century. They like to create more Hester Prynnes so that the facist politicians and their flocks have someone to feel moraly superior to.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Actually,t eh “trafficking” angle is not going after prostitution; it is going after the pimps. Prostitution can continue unchanged; the pimps will be locked up for unconscionable prison terms as “human traffickers” rather than simply as pimps.

        • Eric Knight

          Don’t forget the unsuspecting customers who usually are not looking for children, and may not even know the prostitute is underage unless there is a bust. Lawrence Taylor, former NY Giant was caught with a 16 year old prostitute, which didn’t keep him from getting a felony and lifetime registration on the Florida registry. Ironically, he didn’t have to register in NY where the offense was committed.

    • Joe

      The length of time the Prop 35 case takes is truly puzzling… every time I look at this bill I am aghast as to the piss poor writing of this law.

      “Each person to whom this subdivision applies at the time this subdivision becomes effective shall immediately provide the information required by this subdivision.” – So if, worst case, the judges rule against plaintiffs, the second this opinion is published, the injunction is lifted and the required information must be submitted to authorities. In a nano second. No, nano second takes too long. It says “immediately” – “without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once” (dictionary.com). Physically impossible. In other words, this law will make repeat criminals out of 100,000 people in one fell swoop.

      As for the rest… “(b) If any person who is required to register pursuant to the Act adds or changes his or her account with an Internet service provider or adds or changes an Internet identifier, the person shall send written notice of the addition or change to the law enforcement agency or agencies with which he or she is currently registered within 24 hours.”

      How would you submit this information in the required time frame? Is there a web site set up for on-line submittal? There better not be, since they do not seem to have the funds to fix the existing one (the dates of conviction and release for all having to be added (by law) by Summer 2010. In person? Fax? Letter? Certified? Registered? 24 hours – the post office? I think not.

      This thought process, or lack thereof – affecting thousands of lives – is shocking. Just shocking.

      • cool rso guy

        Joe

        Guess who profit from this? Just follow the money…

        Who’s Funding Prop 35, the Human Trafficking Initiative?

        CHRIS M. KELLY CHRIS M. KELLY INVESTOR $2,360,000.00

        He put in $2,360,000.00 behind this..

        Who is CHRIS M. KELLY?
        March 16, 2010, he was the Chief Privacy Officer of Facebook

        his wife Jennifer Carrico, an entrepreneur and former prosecutor,

        Chris Kelly, Facebook’s chief privacy officer,… using the national sex offender registry to kick out RSO off facebook.

        Now since he have the 1) MONEY 2) tech know how 3) movatation is to create a system online so that RSO can report ALL email, ip address on the internet.
        Again, Guess who profit from this?

        Sources
        http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/database-whos-funding-prop-35-human-trafficking-initiative.html

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kelly_%28entrepreneur%29

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566406/Facebook-takes-steps-to-tackle-paedophiles.html

        • Eric Knight

          Throw in 4) Political shenanigans awareness merit badge. Notice how Proposition 35 was trumpeted as a “human trafficking” issue, when California already has severe penalties on the books for such actions, including several PC 290 statutes against using children in sexual situations, as well as coercing adults in the first place. The ONLY provision of Prop 35 that was not already on the books was the Internet identifier provision. I cynically believe that Kelly has absolutely NO INTEREST in real child abuse via human trafficking, but is using it to make himself a billionaire.

          I have looked at some of his post-Facebook business associations (including Family Watchdog), and have no doubt that he is trying to create a comprehensive registrant database system that he will peddle world-wide, and he needs a huge start to this database. What better way than to start with the largest sex offender registry in the world: The California registry? Keep in mind that email registrations around the country is sporadic at best in their technical usage.

          Yes, call me a cynic, but when the Captain meets Obvious, there can only be one rational conclusion. I don’t doubt for one second that Kelly is trying to influence the three judges’ decision through his proxies interacting with, and perhaps influencing, the judges’ research departments.

        • Tim

          Eric, thank you for making that connection. I was thinking he (Kelly) was hiring himself out to the NSA. Any, I believe money is at the root of all these sex offender laws, and the billionaires, victim groups and prison corporations are making a killing off of them. That’s why I signed a petition and will send some money to the effort to overturn the Citizens United decision through a constitutional amendment. Correction officers’ unions, victim groups and the like are considered people under the Citizens United decision, and they have the green light to throw billions to candidates and initiatives that support their agendas.

        • Tim

          “he is trying to create a comprehensive registrant database system that he will peddle world-wide,” so when someone gives an email to book a hotel in another country, they can deny you right then. Saves them having to reimburse you later after you’ve been turned back at the airport (cruise terminal?).

        • Eric Knight

          Ironically, that would be a step in the right direction. Right now, one has to fly to the country before being denied, and by then it’s usually too late to get reimbursements for anything, as hotels usually have to be prepaid in foreign countries.

          But the domestic repercussions are more insidious in my opinion.

    • cool rso guy

      is this the record on the book for judge to take SOOO long to make a ruling?

  2. Ron

    Parts of my County are having evacuations due to fires. What is a Registered Citizen supposed to do when the emergency services (like shelter and Red Cross) are only available at the local school?

    • Tired of hiding

      You are on your own I am afraid that your country has forsaken you and gives you no value. We are in exile in our own country…worse still they are making it impossible for us to leave!

      This is not only cruel and unusual punishment it is outright torture of American citizens on American soil!

    • Tim

      If we have no access to a safe place in time of danger, our right to life has been denied. In fact people fear us more than fire. They will put their expensive homes right next to a tinderbox that will certainly burn every few years, but living next to an ex sex offender, who is a human being who has a right to live, who after 17 years is as likely to attack your children as any other neighbor –well we can’t have that. When people start living the historic principles of our country, equality and justice for all, then I will celebrate the birth of this country.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      This was raised previous on CA RSOL. It appears that you could not go to the evacuation center at the school unless you get permission from the principal — according to the letter of the law.

      In fact, since 290 et al also limits how many registrants can be housed in the same home or location, maybe you still would not be allowed even with the principal’s OK, if other registrants got their first.

      As for whether that means death, well, we now have a LOT of registrants who are homeless because they are not allowed to live anywhere under residency restrictions. In your emergency, you might have to join them.

      • Tim

        I am defining life as more than just the absense of death. Family, friends, someone who cares, We are social creatures by biology not choice. Social acceptance is arguably a need for a healthy existence. Without it the excluded are more in danger of harming themselves or others. That’s why these sex offender laws are so insidious. They break the connections between us and the few people who still accept us, by shaming them also. Yah, and in a few cases the law has led directly,as with vigilantes finding people on the list, or indirectly,as with no access to health care or shelter, to death of the registrant.

  3. Q

    It’s July and in two days millions of Americans will be celebrating their freedom; but not us, because they have taken away our freedom.

    These people will be rejoicing over their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but not us, and this includes our families and millions of little children that have had their innocence stolen and their lives turned into a living hell because a family member is forced to wear the scarlet label.

    In two days millions of Americans will be celebrating with friends and neighbors; but not us, because we have been turned into much hated and reviled social outcasts by the celebrants.

    In two days millions of Americans will be going to fireworks displays; but I seriously doubt many of us would dare attend such an event with our children because “their” children will be present.

    So many of us will stay at home (if we have one) with our families (if we still have or are allowed to have one) and make do with the semblance of freedom we have and try to give our children as much of a good time as possible with what we are allowed.

    This doesn’t feel like America; at least not the America I was born into. I don’t feel like I have anything to celebrate. I feel like I live in a land of mad men, where my very life is in danger. The best I can do is to pray that change will come soon. It’s all I can do because I am a prisoner and can’t escape.

  4. Stanley K.

    I also have noticed the many fear-mongering reports of online sex offenses, thus calling for the necessity to implement online monitoring of registered citizens.

    • Q

      Stanley K.

      I’ve seen the articles too; what we are witnessing is those with a vested interest manufacturing consent.

      (and if you follow the trail I’m sure it will lead back to some person or organization /victims rights/ prison guards union/ with $omething to gain)

  5. Brubaker

    Right at stanleyk ::you mean the reports saying that new ‘sex’ offense will be at a 95% or higher from people NOT on a registered list ..??…reports saying that ..??……best to report every citizen or non-citizen will be “monitored”…….freedom of speech prevails.

    • Brubaker

      They cannot put people back into parole condions after they have ended parole….parole has an end date….cannot subject people to lifetime parole thereafter………and of course, violates freedom of speech….that’s the spirit of ’76.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        The court has ruled they can do this to sex offenders because the court say is it is not like parole — I guess because is registration and the collateral “burdens,” as they call it instead of punishment, are worse than the conditions of parole.

        Actually, with my “guess,” I was just pointing out how this is even worse than parole, but that is not the court’s point. The court says parole is a form of custody so a loss of freedom. Somehow, the court sees the exact same thing and even worse and says that is not like parole because registration is not a form of custody.

        That is, the court says all the difference is made by abstract ideas, not by the reality on the ground. It refuses to address and admit the reality on the ground — because if it did, it could not lie its way into continuing this. And lie is what it has done consistently with the issue of registration.

      • cool rso guy

        they can not? they ARE doing that right now!!

      • Brubaker

        Again you fail to see what california has ruled to restrictions …are we clear..?..again…restrictions were not argued in the early 2000’s …..restrictions were not ruled back when…up to speed..?…restrictions to citizens who are free are getting a Constitutional awakening.

        • Tim

          The worst of these laws are only a few years old. They are being made more frequently, and more careless of consequenses. The Constitution takes a while to catch up in people’s minds, but when it does it comes down hard. That’s why people have been able to earn their freedoms for hundreds of years.

  6. Tim

    This law took all of five minutes to write by the looks of it. Just write in something about sex and offending and it’s an automatic pass. Since when do people who have never commited an online offense have to supply government with internet identifiers? And do it “immediately” no less. I wasn’t even denied use of the Internet during my probation and didn’t abuse that privilege. Now its my right. I have done nothing since to earn this violation of my free speech. No one who has finished their court ordered sentence deserves this restriction.

  7. Anonymous Nobody

    Some thoughts for legal attack:

    Is it legal for the US to send SO registration info to foreign countries, even after a conviction has been expunged, and so they are not sending info about someone whose conviction stands in the eyes of the state that is deciding whether that person has to register? That is, can they send info about people who do not have a conviction? I don’t know of non-conviction info ever being sent to other countries before.

    In fact, in an early case challenging registration as punishment due to a conviction, the California high court ruled that registration does not apply only to people who have been convicted but also to people who have not ever been convicted, such as those found not guilty by reason of insanity. That is, it applies to the conduct, regardless of a conviction, and a conviction is simply one way to show the conduct. Thus, the court said registration was regulatory.

    Can this kind of info be sent to other countries simply because you are a registrant, or does it require a conviction to be sent? Not all registrants have a conviction, and not all registrants continue to even have a conviction if it was expunged. (I know expungements are not quite as clear as they should be in California, but in various other states they are very clear.)

    Can the US on the one hand yield to the states when the US enforces how long a registrant must register and who must register, yet on the other hand hold that it does not recognize California expungements, as it does not for at least immigration matters so maybe for registration purposes too? How can the US say the states control the issue, but that they do not control the issue – which is what that seems to say? This is completely illogical, inconsistent and certainly unequal. If California were to revert to allowing one to stop registering after an expungement, would the US continue to send the conviction and previous registration info because of the conduct, or would it stop, showing that sending that info was not due to the conduct, but to the conviction that brought about the expungement.

    If due to the conviction, then the US should not be able to send the info once you get an expungement, even if California continues to require you to register, because registration is not the point, conviction is. If due to the conduct, then the US should be sending info about all kinds of people even if they do not have to register in their state, because neither conviction or registration would be the point, conduct would be.

    How can they be sending info about someone who wags his weenie in California but not about someone who wags his weenie in New Jersey, where that is not a registrable offense? If that isn’t unequal treatment under federal law, a violation of the Constitution, then I don’t know what is.

    • j

      Essentially, we are re-sentenced anytime a clause is added and enforced after your sentence was complete. There is no other way around it. The sentencing and punitive actions are to be based on the initial crimes statute at the that time. The registration statute is being used as a proxy to add punitive measures. This is clearly double jeopardy so they are banking on misinformation and moving punitive measures into the registration clause because they would be caught red handed if they tried to make punitive actions related to the statute of the crime requiring registration. One of the biggest acts of miscarriage of justice and breaches of constitutional protections in the history of the country. It is all possible by fear mongering, distortion and the ensuing panic in the voting populace.

      Repeating: We are being re-sentenced – in violation of ex post facto protections – anytime any subsequent changes are made to the law.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Imagine if EVERYONE were subjected to these “regulatory” burdens on the basis that everyone is a potential terrorist hiding in the shadows.

        Methinks only if that were done would people change their minds about registration and all the collateral punishing things that go with it. Their brains do not work — until it directly imposed on them. Its good to do it to someone else, but not to them.

  8. Anonymous Nobody

    Another thought for legal attack:

    Can the US send info to foreign countries about registrants provided by California, or does California have to be the one to decide whether that info can be sent?

    Or, if the US does send the info regardless, can California legally send that info to the US, since California law limits the distribution of that information to a demonstrated danger to the community and also limits distribution of criminal records? If the US isn’t going to honor that, can California send that info to the US? If the state and police cannot even tell community members, then how can California provide the info to anyone, including the US, who plans to make just such a distribution outside the California limits?

    • j

      It would seem unconstitutional for the US to aid and abet any foreign country against a US citizen.

      • Tim

        Yes the US Dept. Of Justice is sending your Registration information to other country when you advise them you are leaving the USA as required under the Adam Walsh Act. If your state is not a AWA state the US Dept of Justice will still notify another country if they become aware of your travel. Country’s so notified have the right to refuse to let you into their country. This can include not letting you get off the plane as people exit the plan or putting you on the next plane back the USA.

        Also if you check Calif. Law you will find that they can share SO information with other Law Enforcement agency’s that would include other country’s Law Enforcement agency witch is done though Interpol.

        • Tim

          Good comment, but this @Tim didn’t write it. Moderator check the email. I’ve used the same email for @Tim continuously. If my email is attached to the above Tim’s comments, we have a problem. If it is another Tim, no problem, it’s a good name just designate us as Tim1, Tim2 or something.

        • Moderator

          We made a conscious decision not to require user registration / unique names for commenting. One big factor for that is the lesser workload setting up and managing user signups, but also the pending Proposition 35 case, which contends that it is pointless to submit internet identifiers because of commenting sites like CA RSOL (there are many others out there not requiring unique user names).

          You may want to consider adopting a more unique identifier than “Tim”. ***Moderator***

        • MA Citizen

          I’m a bit fuzzy regarding how all this works, so please correct me I’m wrong, and I apologize for repeating what has already been said.

          If I read this correctly, the US Dept. Of Justice consistently notifies the other country ONLY if the state the individual lives in is subject to the AWA? But, if the US Dept. Of Justice “becomes aware” of the individual’s travel plans, even if they are not subject to the AWA, they will also notify the other country. How would the the US Dept. Of Justice “become aware” of said travel plans?

          I am a MA resident, and as such, I am not currently subject to the AWA. Would I have a better chance of gaining access to these countries?

          Also, just as an aside, and only partly related, does anyone know the current status of Jamaica allowing registrants in?

          Thanks!

        • JBCal

          MA Citizen:

          It appears Intl travel notices are sent on all registrants regardless of their state’s ADA compliance status. This is based on an entry into the DOJ NCIC database and/or the NSOR. Over the past year it does appear to be universally applied to all RSO’s as reported on this site.

          If you have ever been sent to “secondary” customs screening in the past then you are on these national lists.

          I have not heard any information of entry refusal to Jamaica, but if you do travel there, please let us know what happens. Expect to explain your offense details. Either way, good luck with your travel plans.

      • Tired of hiding

        Indeed, you see our own government has decided to give foreign countries negative information about us indicating that we are threat and should not be allowed to cross into their country.

        Our government is waging war against us treating us this way. They are “allowing us” to book a trip…pay for said trip…and then have it all taken away due to the negative information they provide.

        This is unfair and while I fully understand that life is not fair, we at least have some basic human rights left (I say left because they are doing their best to strip them away one by one)! The right to free travel is one of them.

        The USA doesn’t own the world. The laws that they make are not always right and should therefore not always be respected or followed.

        If I am denied entry into a country and returned against my will back to the USA I am going to SUE the government.

        I swear on my mother’s life that I will follow through with that and I will not stop until I have exhausted ALL of the resources available to me.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      See Hofsheier.

    • Joe

      How so? Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor is a voluntary relationship with a perfectly willing 16 / 17 year old minor – a person old enough to drive, hold a job and be charged and prosecuted as an adult for a variety of crimes. As well as be old enough to consent to sexual relations in half of the US States and most of the civilized world. For that to be a crime is absurd, but apparently many parents feel their ‘precious princess’ can only be a ‘victim’ in a case like that.

      It has never been subject to mandatory registration. While mandatory registration in and by itself is wrong, if anything should not be mandatory, this is the one. It became the basis of the Hofsheier decision which now makes voluntary oral and digital relations with the same age group also not mandatory, righting that wrong. Of course, a judge can impose registration for any offense if a sexual component is present. Apparently in this case, based on the facts and circumstances, the judge did not feel like he had to make use of that discretion.

  9. Joe

    I do not recall how or why but I just ran across this…

    Apparently in Illinois Community Notification is covered under the “Illinois Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law”.

    http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Sheriff/How/Sexual%20Offender/Pages/Sex-Offender-and-Child-Murderer-Community-Notification-Law.aspx

    In other words… have a 15/16 year old girlfriend, download some inappropriate pictures – get covered under the “Sex Offender AND Child MURDERER Law”.

    OMG. Lord help us all…

  10. Anonymous Nobody

    Interesting proposal by opposite ends of the political spectrum in the Senate to do a comprehensive overhaul of the criminal justice system — including adding a route to expungement for adult criminal offenses for non-violent offenses.

    There are not much of any details in this story, so it can’t be seen whether they are proposing to include or exclude sex offenses in the enpungement possibilities. It also can’t be determined what would have to be done to obtain the expungement, and that could be draconian. But I doubt they would be talking about expunging a sex offense any earlier than the federal laws require registration for that offense — although I don’t think there are any non-violent sex offenses, such as indecent exposure, for which the feds require registration. And again, many, even most offenses for which California requires registration, the federal government does not require registration, so it is unlikely that federal registration requirements would interfere with this.

    Who knows what the impact would be on state registration if you got the matter expunged under federal law. In fact, would a federal expungement override and be better than the state’s 1203.4 PC “expungement,” and so allow those people to stop state registration? If nothing else, it could add pressure on the state. And it certainly would address the new problem of blocking international travel by any registrant by sending warnings to the destination country to be used to reject you at the border when you arrive, or probably even applying for federal jobs.

    This is in the formative stage — now is prime time to lobby for it and for the details we need. And to consider, why are we asking for and accepting less at the sate level.

  11. Bruce

    I appreciate Everything Janice & Frank & Every one that stays compliant is doin’. I Also think “WE RSO’S” Need a better network & communication so “WE” CAN” Do More for each Other as a community because that is what “WE” Are” all be it a Growing one? Yet “Most Hated”! So,,no pun intended,,I believe “We” need to have a “Members Only” section on this site that is “NOT” Public”,,,That way “We” Could exchange confidential info as how to hold meetings & Also “We” well some of us “Have No Friends”& Well it get’s Just down to What do I do sometimes..& Then there is the Option of a “Mens Home”,for $,,WHAT? I’m Off parole, No! I See it like this if “We” Don’t Help network to keep each other as a LAW ABIDING community,,We Will Fail! The More people We can Keep from re-offending or “Bein’ Outta Compliance”..The More WE WIN Via stats alone! Call it Um,,Uh, Communism,,kinda,,,lol Hey Were goin through the Facist stage Now Hahahahah….Giggle

  12. Bruce

    I wish I could Build a site fer that but I’m unable to access the info to Validate each Member,, That takes another person that uses a separate computer that is not a felon.. There We are with that? Otherwise I would Build the site! But that “Could Make Me” a Very Responsible Person…Somethin’ Goes Wrong I would Be Responsible!!! There We Go Again??? IDK??

  13. Bruce

    I do Know that the Mens Colonies or ” RSO Living Places”? Like the other states split up were not having any civil or criminal issues it was the States or Counties in Those states that Made them Close & split up! “Causin’ What” Uh,Huh,,,Registration bottlenecks! Hello!! IT IS ALL A GAME & WE ARE IT!

  14. Bruce

    THIS IS THE Proper Approach in My Hum,,NO NOT So Humble,, But It’s My Opinion Anyway!!
    http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/sex-offender-registry-not-the-answer-20140708

  15. Bruce

    I was at the Burrito truck gettin’ dinner & there was a few people around.. Anyway there was this lady in My peripheral vision & her daughter & the Mom looked @ me & “You Know” When “That Look” & She whispered in her daughters ear & She turned & looked horrified @ Me..Well that says it all ..My turn came to Order & the Mexican Guy I Usually Make My order in Spanish,,But This Time I made an exception! I said ” Loud Enough””I’ll have an Order of Getoverit with a side of I did!” & The Look of Shock,AHAhahahaha,OMG Out of the reflection on the side of the truck,”like a mirror” ,Hahhahaaa..Too Cool! Then I made My order in Spanish!;-)…lol

  16. Bruce

    Even the Kid started laughin’ …It was classic!;-)

  17. George

    Well, another registration excellent adventure. For 3 years I’ve been trying to get the BPD to list the last registrable offense (20 years ago) and no subsequent felonies since — pursuant to 290.46. They say that is not how they do it even though I printed out the penal code section and took it down there. I even took it down there 2 months ago, sort of an advanced notice thing. She said she already has the penal code.

    So I was prepared this time and went in early because I wasn’t going to sign anything until they got it right. So when it came time to sign, I said I was going to have to think about it. She threatened to have me arrested for non-compliance if I didn’t sign. LOL I left, walked to the end of the block and turned around to go back. An officer was out front looking for me. I explained what I was trying to do and showed him section 290.46. He took me back in to try to straighten it out.

    Long story short, the officer kept telling me to just do what she says or he would arrest me. I said, go for it and put my hands up. So he asked her if I was non-compliant and she at last said no. I still had days left. So I left without signing.

    Why should I have to pay for a LiveScan when it is their duty to furnish that information? (She tried to say I wouldn’t have to pay for a LiveScan.) Which raises the question. Am I wrong? Is the local agency responsible for determining the conviction date? Or does only the DOJ do that? I’ve looked over the shoulder of someone visiting the Megan’s Law site and most jurisdictions have the last conviction date. Why?

    • George

      As an aside, I forgot to mention she had me take a DNA swab. It didn’t seem she was going to do that until I questioned her. So I think they probably don’t check DNA over and over and possibly only run it through the database when a sample is taken. She is probably hoping there will be some horrendous match. They can run me through whatever databases they want. Nothing there that they don’t already know about.

    • Joe

      You are correct in that the dates of last conviction and release as well as subsequent felony conviction are to be added to the web site. As of 4 years ago. It is the law. See below.

      The web site is run by the DOJ. Why you, as an individual, should have to get the information from said DOJ and then furnish it to the aforementioned DOJ so they, the DOJ, can become compliant with the law is absurd.

      You are incorrect in stating that most profiles appear to have that information displayed. It is still absent in the vast majority of profiles.

      I have always wondered if a lawsuit about this issue would force them to take the web site off-line until it is in compliance with PC 290.

      http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/290.46.html

      290.46.(a)(2) (A) On or before July 1, 2010, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public, via an Internet Web site as specified
      in this section, as to any person described in subdivision (b), (c),
      or (d), the following information:
      (i) The year of conviction of his or her most recent offense
      requiring registration pursuant to Section 290.
      (ii) The year he or she was released from incarceration for that
      offense.
      (iii) Whether he or she was subsequently incarcerated for any
      other felony, if that fact is reported to the department. If the
      department has no information about a subsequent incarceration for
      any felony, that fact shall be noted on the Internet Web site.
      However, no year of conviction shall be made available to the
      public unless the department also is able to make available the
      corresponding year of release of incarceration for that offense, and
      the required notation regarding any subsequent felony.

    • cool rso guy

      what do you mean ” if I didn’t sign.” you mean ? the form or the other paper?

      • George

        I filled out and signed the form but wouldn’t sign the papers after fingerprinting. I sent an email to the Megan’s law site asking who is supposed to complete the conviction date information. After a response I’ll go register and go the livescan route if necessary. It really pisses me off though that the executive branch tries to paint everyone as dangerous possible by refusing to acknowledge most offenses are decades old.

    • George

      The saga continues. Today I went and registered and while there the DOJ email reply came in. It seems to me to mean the locals were out of compliance and the DOJ gave up. Here is the bottom line quoting from the DOJ:

      “In your e-mail, you request that the DOJ update the Megan’s Law Internet site to reflect your conviction date.

      “Please be advised, the DOJ is currently working with alternate agencies to obtain conviction and release information for publishing on the Megan’s Law Internet site. Unfortunately, the “Year of Last Conviction” and “Year of Last Release” cannot be updated on an offender’s profile until this information has been received and verified by the DOJ.”

      I’m sure the locals avoid dates since 1947 to make everyone as dangerous as yesterday.

      • wonderin

        Unfortunately, the “Year of Last Conviction” and “Year of Last Release” cannot be updated on an offender’s profile until this information has been received and verified by the DOJ.”

        If the DOJ has the resources to verify than why in the Sam hill do they need other agencies to send them anything.
        Clearly, a typical government runaround?

        • George

          Yeah, no kidding. How ’bout that “alternate agencies” doublespeak? Anyone know what an alternate agency is? Somewhere in an alternate universe far, far away, like the Twilight Zone?

  18. George

    Joe,

    The LiveScan is for proof of identity. The DOJ claims it cannot discuss a criminal record for privacy reasons unless it is to someone authorized, like the person it pertains to. That no longer makes sense since the registry information is public now. Privacy? Really? The real reason is the DOJ gets to keep at least some of the fee for a LiveScan. Janice sent me LiveSacn form but I waited to try this first.

    You may be right about jurisdictions not providing this information. I know some jurisdictions do though. It is important for obvious reasons but also for the sake of reliable statistics. Since we know from statistics the majority of registrants have been on the list for years without a new offense, that would be one certain method for the public to know how distant the last offense was, which goes to current dangerousness. I suspect PDs try to avoid factual dates to keep everyone currently dangerous. Kind of a 1984 black hole: “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”

    • Anonymous Nobody

      From my reading of that statute, the local jurisdiction where you register is not the one to deal with that information. That statute says it is state Department of Justice that must do that. It does not make that part of the registration process, only part of the Website posting.

      As for whether they have that information, all that information is required to be reported to the state Justice Department when it happens, and some of it required to be kept by the local district attorney, so they should have it. If not, then their records are incomplete and I would think they not only must get the info and comply with this statute but also would be LIABLE for not having already complied. I think registrants can file a class action, or better, a large number of individual lawsuits, over all the posts on the Internet that do not include this info and make some money off of it — because of the defamation the lack of that information has caused them. Well, the one exception might be for those registering for out of state convictions where that info might not be available to California.

      • George

        You may be right, Anon (nickname 🙂 But it may be helpful to point out that the DOJ requires information from the local authorities via the forms they require the local authorities to fill out. IOW, the DOJ may think it fulfills its obligation by having that space in the forms. There doesn’t appear to be a place on the current form for the local authorities to enter the conviction date. But that refers to the form I had to fill out. Who knows what else the DOJ requires.

        One thing for sure. There used to be a space on the forms for the locals to fill in that conviction date data and it wasn’t done then either.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          I’d have to look at what you are talking about. But meanwhile, I think you are misunderstanding how it all comes together and who does what. For one, the local authority doesn’t have to know or even find out when you were convicted. All they have to do is take your registration information, do what they want with it but also send it to the state. The local authorities are not obligated to now dig into and find all the background information about your conviction, although they could if they want to as its readily available to them.

          It is the state that posts all online, not the locals. And the state has and is required to keep all the background information about your case, in connection with the local district attorney where you were prosecuted. I believe the state keeps it until you turn 100 years old, and the local district attorney is required to keep it for 75 years.

          That statute you were referring to about the conviction date required to be included with your posting online — having a form with the information someplace else does not fulfill that requirement: online means online, not someplace else.

          The one out the statute gives the Department of Justice is if it does not know when you were released from custody. I don’t know just how long and who keeps that information or whether the Department of Corrections automatically send that info to the Department of Justice. But I also would think that out applies only to posting date of release from custody, not absolve the Department of Justice of the need to post the rest of the information. And, I would still have to think that release info is readily available to the Department of Justice simply by asking for it, and that they are obligated to ask in a timely manner if they need to.

          I expect the state is simply being slow about complying, probably intentionally so, and its defense would be inability to get it all together because of budget cuts in recent years. Oh, that is a lie, of course, but that would be their defense. Now, with an out of state conviction, they might actually have some trouble getting all the info, but not likely unless it were a fairly old conviction.

          If you want to press this issue — and I think it is a good one to press and hold them accountable — you should do so with the state, not the local registering agency.

        • George

          Anon, all that information is in your rap sheet and the locals have access to it. Or is supposed to be. That is the reason for the LiveScan, to get the rap sheet and be able to point out the error or missing data like conviction date. You can get a copy of your rap sheet and check it for errors if you do a LiveScan fingerprinting first.

          PENAL CODE
          SECTION 11120-11127

          11120. As used in this article, “record” with respect to any person
          means the state summary criminal history information as defined in
          subdivision (a) of Section 11105, maintained under such person’s name
          by the Department of Justice. (This means more than the rap sheet, and should include disposition forms the rap sheet is derived from. But no.)

          11121. It is the function and intent of this article to afford
          persons concerning whom a record is maintained in the files of the
          bureau an opportunity to obtain a copy of the record compiled from
          such files, and to refute any erroneous or inaccurate information
          contained therein.

          11122. Any person desiring a copy of the record relating to himself
          shall obtain an application form furnished by the department which
          shall require his fingerprints in addition to such other information
          as the department shall specify. Applications may be obtained from
          police departments, sheriff departments, or the Department of
          Justice. The fingerprinting agency may fix a reasonable fee for
          affixing the applicant’s fingerprints to the form, and shall retain
          such fee.

          11123. The applicant shall submit the completed application
          directly to the department. The application shall be accompanied by a
          fee not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25) that the department
          determines equals the costs of processing the application and
          providing a copy of the record to the applicant. All fees received by
          the department under this section are hereby appropriated without
          regard to fiscal years for the support of the Department of Justice
          in addition to such other funds as may be appropriated therefor by
          the Legislature. Any request for waiver of fee shall accompany the
          original request for the record and shall include a claim and proof
          of indigency.

          11124. When an application is received by the department, the
          department shall determine whether a record pertaining to the
          applicant is maintained. If such record is maintained, the department
          shall furnish a copy of the record to the applicant or to an
          individual designated by the applicant. If no such record is
          maintained, the department shall so notify the applicant or an
          individual designated by the applicant. Delivery of the copy of the
          record, or notice of no record, may be by mail or other appropriate
          means agreed to by the applicant and the department.

          11125. No person or agency shall require or request another person
          to furnish a copy of a record or notification that a record exists or
          does not exist, as provided in Section 11124. A violation of this
          section is a misdemeanor.

          11126. (a) If the applicant desires to question the accuracy or
          completeness of any material matter contained in the record, he or
          she may submit a written request to the department in a form
          established by it. The request shall include a statement of the
          alleged inaccuracy or incompleteness in the record, and its
          materiality, and shall specify any proof or corroboration available.
          Upon receipt of the request, the department shall review the record
          to determine if the information correctly reflects the source
          document, and if it does not, the department shall make the necessary
          corrections and shall provide the applicant with a corrected copy of
          the record. If the accuracy of the source document is questioned,
          the department shall forward it to the person or agency which
          furnished the questioned information. This person or agency shall,
          within 30 days of receipt of the written request for clarification,
          review its information and forward to the department the results of
          the review.
          (b) If the agency concurs in the allegations of inaccuracy or
          incompleteness in the record, and finds that the error is material,
          it shall correct its record and shall so inform the department, which
          shall correct the record accordingly. The department shall inform
          the applicant of its correction of the record under this subdivision
          within 30 days. The department and the agency shall notify all
          persons and agencies to which they have disseminated the incorrect
          record in the past 90 days of the correction of the record, and the
          applicant shall be informed that the notification has been given. The
          department and the agency shall also notify those persons or
          agencies to which the incorrect record has been disseminated which
          have been specifically requested by the applicant to receive
          notification of the correction of the record, and the applicant shall
          be informed that the notification has been given.
          (c) If the department or the agency denies the allegations of
          inaccuracy or incompleteness in the record, the matter shall be
          referred for administrative adjudication in accordance with Chapter 5
          (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of
          the Government Code for a determination of whether material
          inaccuracy or incompleteness exists in the record. The department
          shall be the respondent in the hearing. If a material inaccuracy or
          incompleteness is found in any record, the department and the agency
          in charge of that record shall be directed to correct it accordingly.
          The department and the agency shall notify all persons and agencies
          to which they have disseminated the incorrect record in the past 90
          days of the correction of the record, and the applicant shall be
          informed that the notification has been given. The department and the
          agency shall also notify those persons or agencies to which the
          incorrect record has been disseminated which have been specifically
          requested by the applicant to receive notification of the correction
          of the record, and the applicant shall be informed that the
          notification has been given. Judicial review of the decision shall be
          governed by Section 11523 of the Government Code. The applicant
          shall be informed of the decision within 30 days of its issuance in
          accordance with Section 11518 of the Government Code.

          11127. The department shall adopt all regulations necessary to
          carry out the provisions of this article.

  19. Bruce

    Well,,No One Here in Kern or Bakersfield I checked with to have a Mtg ,,Says We are all Booked Up !!!,,, So I guess That Means NO Bakersfield Mtg. fer Now….This is 1 mean lil County!!! Total ,,Isolation Talk about a COLD day in the summer !!!!!!!

  20. Bruce

    & It’s 105Hot here! but it feels like the South Pole When Askin’ ANYTHING RELATED TO ,,,US!

  21. Derek

    I’m bringing my wife and new baby girl from the hospital tomorrow (July 10). Problem is the hospital social worker somehow found out I’m registered and called me into the county Child Protective Services. Supposedly, I’m going to get a call within 10 days and a home visit.

    I’m not on probation or parole and have had my charge (311.11a) reduced and expunged, for what it’s worth. My question is do I have to meet with the CPS and/or let them into my home without some probable cause, court order, warrant, etc.?

    • steve

      No you don’t. I would not let them in. Or tell them to get a court order. Those people are horrible.

    • Margaret Moon

      I’m so sorry, Derek, that you and your family are being subjected to this nonsense! Congrats on the new daughter!!

    • j

      This is exactly what is wrong with this law. Congratulations and the best wishes to you and your family.

      I’d strongly consider a lawsuit against the hospital and the nurse.

    • C

      Congratulations on your little one!

      Regarding the hospital do-gooder: Wow, that’s total BS. I noticed that the nurses on the maternity floor were a little cool toward me when my daughter was born. Three years later when my boy came along I did not sense it as much, but there seemed to be some kind of security guard posted outside the door of one of the rooms so, being the self-centered guy that I am, I worried that it was about me. I made a casual comment to a nurse, “You must have some kind of dignitary here,” but she was oblivious. I was just happy to get out of there a few days later and I have since come to the realization that I have a heightened state of awareness (aka paranoia) and that 99% of medical staff are aloof and detached. It’s not me. It’s them. Indeed, I regularly complain that the staff behind reception desk at the doctor’s office should be just as happy to see me as the barista at Starbucks or the people behind the sneeze guard at Chipotle, if not more so.

      At my annual registration the cop always asks me the same thing, “Is everything the same?” “Yep,” I say. If I bought a new vehicle I let them know, but I especially do not tell them I have kids. Am I required to? I do not want them to show up for some kind of home inspection, legal or not.

      But enough about me…

      Again, congrats to your and your wife on the new addition. I am praying for your health and happiness with minimal grief from The Man.

    • A Wife

      I have no advice other to express my congratulations to you and your wife on this happiest of occasions. I cannot even imagine having to deal with this cr@p when I came home from the hospital decades ago with a colicky and jaundiced baby that took days to get the hang of eating / nursing…

      Best wishes especially to the new mother. She REALLY should NOT have to deal with this sort of thing during this wonderful and stressful time!

      • Derek

        Hi everybody, thanks for your input, this is big relief. I was worried there was some restriction in the Sec 290 that forbade me from being in the newborn section of the hospital. If I get a CPS meeting I’m going to have legal representation with me all the same.

    • Tim

      I’m so sorry Derek. What an invasion of your right to a private family moment. It’s like when the Berlin wall fell, the Stazi, like exposed cockroaches, scurried away to find a new dark place and found a place and purpose here in America, spying on the RSO.

    • j

      If your case has been expunged, there should be absolutely no probable cause.

      These laws bully registrants implicitly according to their design and allow bullying by society at large.

  22. George

    Anyone know the connection between the DMV and 290?

    I renewed my DL over the phone. It didn’t come. So I called. They told me I had to go in. So I went in and had to fill out the form. Twice the clerk had to have her supervisor come to the window, the first time it looked like to enter a password. The second time the supervisor said something about registration then went back to her desk. I asked what that was about since I wasn’t doing car registration. Got the brush off.

    Anyway, another long story short, the form claims to be for a DL, but I googled and found this right off:

    V C Section 13372 Denial Suspension or Revocation of Ambulance Driver Certificate

    13372. (a) The department shall refuse to issue or renew, or shall suspend or revoke an ambulance driver certificate if any of the following apply to the applicant or certificate holder:

    (1) Is required to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code for any offense involving force, violence, threat, or intimidation.

    Could the DMV be collecting data just in case? In other words, could that be their excuse? Is there any notice on the driver’s license? Or is a connection made when an officer does a DL check with the DMV? Some more google might turn up more connections with the DMV. Who knows what they sneak in.

    • C

      Need more information here. You had to go in and fill out a form? Which form? What were your Google search terms to come up with “V C Section 13372 Denial Suspension or Revocation of Ambulance Driver Certificate?”

      • George

        C,

        The form was a standard driver’s license renewal form. Same as everyone fills out. For the Google search the terms were

        California DMV 290

        though adding “penal code” would probably bring up more relevant hits. “Section 290” is used in the Vehicle Code Section 13372 above.

  23. Anonymous Nobody

    From my reading of that statute, the local jurisdiction where you register is not the one to deal with that information. That statute says it is state Department of Justice that must do that. It does not make that part of the registration process, only part of the Website posting.

    As for whether they have that information, all that information is required to be reported to the state Justice Department when it happens, and some of it required to be kept by the local district attorney, so they should have it. If not, then their records are incomplete and I would think they not only must get the info and comply with this statute but also would be LIABLE for not having already complied. I think registrants can file a class action, or better, a large number of individual lawsuits, over all the posts on the Internet that do not include this info and make some money off of it — because of the defamation the lack of that information has caused them. Well, the one exception might be for those registering for out of state convictions where that info might not be available to California.

  24. cool rso guy

    fundraising idea

    Can CRSOL sell t shirt that said

    http://www.californiarsol.org

    front and back
    that way when we go in to reg
    we are promoting CRSOL

    hopefully get it on the mugshot.

  25. mike

    PARODY…for now. Enjoy 🙂

    Channel 13 Action News: News you can trust!
    Anchorman: And finally tonight, some good news about what our officials are doing to protect our children.
    Law enforcement across the country today made sweeping arrests netting thousands of sex offenders manufacturing pornography of the smallest babies you can imagine. Computers and manufacturing equipment were seized and investigators are combing through the records to find the recipients. “Fetal Porn” as it’s being called, has hit epidemic proportions across the civilized world, and something needed to be done to protect these children from being victims for life before they’re even born. At one ultrasound clinic in Iowa, arrows are even pointing at the anatomy clearly stating ‘penis.’ In other images, the captions read, “It’s a girl.”
    These new measures are being implemented as part of the bill recently passed by Congress: “Save The Underage People In Danger—Legislation Against Wicked Sexuality (STUPID LAWS). During the debate, lawmakers heard from parents of children who had been victimized in the distant past, who agreed that this program could save one or more child, and children should have more rights than sex offenders. The only point of contention was which child to name it after. Legislators also heard testimony from people who found out that there were sex offenders living in their zip code, and since they’ve been informed that the re-offense rate for all sex offenders is over 100%, they felt that any new law was better than no new law at all.
    Still, some officials had misgivings about rushing the approval of the bill. Democratic senator Butch McNanny said she was afraid that any kind of acknowledgement that a fetus could be victimized might be a slippery slope that could prevent a woman from getting an abortion. “We all know that having a sexual relationship with a 20-year old man is just another word for rape. Imagine, being 15, telling your parents you’re staying at a friend’s house, but really going to a party in a college dorm and hooking up with some drunk guy.This is the kind of traumatic experience that ruins your entire life. Everyone knows that there’s no difference between that male and the male who kidnaps a toddler to rape and murder it—it’s all a part of this ‘rape culture’ that we are fighting. But the answer is not to tell that 15 year old that if she gets pregnant, she can’t get the non-traumatic, non-memorable medical procedure she needs to resume her life.”
    Still, others on the Republican side took issue with the legislation for other reasons. Rob Draco, a Republican senator, said, “The problem with STUPID LAWS is that it’s not enough! I agree with my colleagues that everyone should be labelled a predatory pedophile for life, but I don’t think this legislation makes them suffer enough.” He’d also like to see the public registry expanded to include any woman who’s had an abortion since 1973, listing them as a child murderer. Some amended proposals included banning them from being within 1,000 feet of places where children might be, having custody of children, and prohibiting them from thinking about children; the process would require quarterly check-ins and polygraphs. He eventually withdrew his proposals so the bill could be passed unanimously without further delay. “At the end of the day, you’ve got to do it for that 1 child. Hopefully, next session, we can build upon what we accomplished here. We live in a post-9/11 world, and even though we can’t stop giving support to organizations that will someday turn their weapons on us through terrorism, we can definitely do something about these citizens who have terrorized society here at home.”
    Other provisions of the bill included funding for safety camps, where those already on the list would be required to live. Law enforcement officials are calling this a valuable tool for the monitoring of Sex offenders. Richard Moosetash, spokesman for Law Agents Zealous for Youth Protection—Investigative Group Services (LAZY PIGS) commented that, “There was just nowhere they were allowed to live, so we set these camps up where we know they’re not going anywhere prohibited, there will be no computers for them to stalk children with, and nobody is going to miss them anyway.”
    The ACLU is outraged however, and they intend to fight it in court with the case of John Doe, 59, a serial violent sex predator. “The state had ample opportunities,” they say, “To incarcerate Mr. Doe for a longer period of time on any of his 8 prior convictions. This is an infringement upon the rights of him and the one million other sex offenders who have live among us.”
    Still, other attorneys see it differently. The Roosevelt Club issued this statement, “The framers of the Constitution never intended to protect people that the masses despised. This is a public safety issue, so there should be no reason to strike it down or question whether it’s an effective way to go about doing it. Just look at how successful the internment of Japanese Americans was in WWII! Since Japan didn’t win the war, we know that this was a big part of it, and I bet it saved at least one child too!”
    Path2Hades, LLC., a technology company, is ready to move on a multi-billion dollar contract to install tracking chips in each of the million sex offenders in America. They are also building a network to put a ‘bubble’ around all ‘safe-zones’ and places where children can be. The company spokesman, Niccolo Faustus, spoke with great enthusiasm about the roll-out, “This is only phase-one! After we have chipped the untouchable caste and completed the infrastructure, we’ll be ready to chip all the children. We will never have another unsolved kidnapping again! If a sex offender comes within 50 feet of a child, law enforcement will be notified immediately and parents who really care will be able to upgrade from the government provided base package to a premium subscription where they can be alerted by text and email instantly as well. This bill is a win-win for everyone involved!”
    Experts predict that this bill will be good for the economy across the board. “You’re going to see home values rise as these offenders are rounded up and removed from neighborhoods, jobs will be created to build the camps, more guards will be employed, sex offenders’ jobs will be filled by law-abiding citizens, stocks will rise from the 2 Trillion dollars that we’re borrowing from the rest of the world to fund it. The list of benefits of this legislation is endless!”
    Anchorman: Well, there you have it. I think we’ll all sleep easier knowing that our lawmakers fixed this problem.
    Anchorwoman: And isn’t it refreshing to see them drop the partisanship and work together?
    Anchorman: It sure is.(chuckles) And this really is a cause that brings out the best in all of us. So, from all of us to all of you, Goodnight, and don’t forget to tune in tomorrow for our special report on something that nearly everyone does without knowing how dangerous it really is.

  26. mch

    Today was a good day, a day that has given me a glimmer of hope for the future. My arrest records were cleared by the judge in Santa Clara County. I had a PD file the PC1203.4 Record Clearance Application and clearance was granted! While not earth shaking news because the clearance is mandatory in my case, it’s a first step. I do have a plan of attack:
    1. Record Clearance
    2. Reduce 664.288.2(B) to a misdemeanor, it’s a wobbler; try to reduce 664.288(a)
    3. Request that the information on me contained in Megan’s list be updated to show record cleared (it’s worth a try)
    4. File for removal from internet disclosure
    5. File a COR

    Please leave any suggestions and yes, I know points 2-5 are longshots, but worth trying.

  27. NPS

    I know this is off topic, but it’s definitely relevant to the tide finally changing away from draconian rule of law. The decision was ruled based on a violation of the Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment. I’d like to see the abolition of the registry on the same grounds.

    http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Federal-judge-rules-California-s-death-penalty-5625926.php

  28. Michael

    I’m confused over what is going on with Jessica’s law.
    When i ask at the orange PD about , the detective doing the 290 registration said it didn’t apply to me.

    So is there a narrow field to who it applies? Is it only for people on parole or under the CDCR for felonies or is it still tied up in the courts? What’s the current deal?

  29. Joe

    I thought this here was interesting.

    Veteran Visited by CHP After Tweeting That a Controversial Cop Should be “Executed”

    http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/07/22/veteran-visited-by-chp-after-tweeting-that-a-controversial-cop-should-be-executed

    Looks like Law Enforcement is cracking down on those who make comments that are equivalent to inciting violence on fellow citizens. Wonderful news! Wondering if they will track down and visit every author of every comment involving a rope in a public square, a .22 cent bullet to the back of the head or those ever popular rusty hedge clippers on news articles about those charged and or convicted of a certain type of crime.

    Please consider this (from the CHP response): “threatening to harm the officer involved” and “Such threats would normally be investigated.”

    I really do not see how they can do anything less. After all, their motto is “To serve and protect” and not “To serve and protect fellow Law Enforcement Officers”. Or is it?

    But instead of getting my hopes up maybe I should get ready for a visit from my neighborhood peace keepers in response to this comment?

    • Tim

      If they get your identifiers that will make it all the easier for them. Which brings up a point about prop. 35. If those judges want to see what it is like when one bans anonymous speech, they can come down and research the local paper in my little faux rural suburb. They don’t allow you to submit opinions anonymously. You have to give your name and address to the paper. As an excuse for this, they give an answer that those who don’t give their names are too cowardly to warrant an opinion. Yes, sounds like something an elementary school bully would say, not a newspaper editor. Oh well. The result is if one just uses this paper as an indicator, looks like 99% of the people living here belong to the Tea Party, which is far from true. Anyway, the chilling affect is real. I refrain from commenting in the local paper. I made it off the internet, I don’t want to be on someone’s hate list for giving an opinion. As for trusting our present government with your personal information, well Glen Greenwald and others have put a hole in that belief. Our local paper and the Sheriff’s department work closely together.

  30. Bruce

    Hi Everyone,,I don’t know where else to post this but it has allot to do with Us You Can Bet This Article is a Must Read for RSO’S Because We Are Already Labeled.
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

  31. mike

    There was some good news from Florida earlier this week. Palm Beach County scaled back it’s residency restrictions to comply with the state law after being faced with a lawsuit. I hope the Florida Action Committee will find volunteers to follow this example to put an end to these rogue local laws that have forced citizens to move into swamps, under bridges, or abandoned warehouses near train tracks (Leper Colonies). Ideally these registrants should be compensated for these misdeeds if in fact they had a state compliant residence they have been illegally denied to live in.

    —————————
    “It’s one of those (laws) that should be statewide anyway. The next step is to get the cities to conform as well because there’s all sorts of different footages here,”

    Unless a local government has a superseding rule, the Florida law setting the restricted distance at 1,000 feet applies statewide.
    ————————————————-

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/setting-of-tax-rate-1-of-5-big-items-on-todays-pbc/ngkF8/

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-sex-offender-rules-20140722,0,1293558.story

    • j

      Scotus has in recent history generally yielded to states’ rights. This should imply that any county or municipality should yield as well. It may be likely that the recent Appellate Court’s decision is aligned with this methodology.

      If for example, 500 victims of the registry were to descend upon the fair city of Hysteria, would their local LE be able to summon with effectiveness, the county sheriff or CHP to help incarcerate these individuals? Unless an unlawful assembly statute was employed at the county level, it would likely be contingent on the city to manage the problems they created and attempt to incarcerate and prosecute all 500 victims all at once using only city LE and resources. This hypothetical seems to underscore the inefficacy of their law as put into practical terms.

      • Eric Knight

        While SCOTUS can certainly yield to the state when it comes to local laws that aren’t enumerated in the Constitution, one thing that SCOTUS MUST do it to enforce the amendment rights that registrants DO have. THIS IS KEY.

        The BOTTOM LINE of the US Constitution:

        Individual rights enumerated in the Constitution through Amendments…

        TRUMP States rights, including the ability to make laws that dictate safety between individuals whom are not incarcerated nor under the jurisdiction of the court, which in turn…

        TRUMP All federal laws

        Idiots like the Hesperia City council, and any government entity as a whole, conveniently forget about individual rights of non-incarcerated and not under the jurisdiction of the court.

        Please keep the above under advisement.

        • j

          The key to this distortion is the introduction of punitive language into the 290 body in addition to any punishment rendered according to the initial crime. So as I see it, if 290 is regulatory, it should be just to show up and register in accordance with the state of 290 at the exact date of sentencing for the initial registerable offense. That should imply that anyone sentenced prior to approximately 1996, should only have to register each time they move and should not be held accountable to any additions to the law since then.

          Just this small example is but a fraction of the unraveling of the constitution that this law underscores.

  32. Michael

    Is there an Ornage County office for CARSOL one can volunteer at?

  33. Bluewall

    Is it me or is HomeFacts keep appearing on the top bracket of Google every time someone looks up their name?

    • j

      Insidious is the word that best describes the antics of the big G. Nothing should surprise anyone at this point.

Leave a Reply

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

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.