ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments September 2014

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Double standard?

“OC Judge Censured For Having Sex In Chambers”

I’ll bet if the janitor had sex with two women in the judges chambers we’d be seeing him at the CA-RSOL meetings after he got out of prison.

Judge Sentenced for Selling Kids into For-Profit Prison

I’ll bet this goes on allot more than anyone realizes.

On that orange county judge sex chamber….its the taxpayers who are paying that abuse of power…..reform the scales of justice so every word spoken by court personnel is recorded audio video tape and defendant is present along in the immediate backhall conference after prosecution witness confirms defendant’s innocence .

In that back hallway toward oc judge sex chambers they can have that immediate conference to edit fix court record and come back to instruct jury to NOT write down everything you hear….sex isn’t the only thing they do in that back hallway.

“Please answer this question to prove that you are human.”
What evidence do I need to present to the Court of Public Opinion that I am human like everyone else: he who eats, breathes, fears, hopes, loves, hates, cries, laughs, tries, fails, builds, takes down, sees and am blind, believes and denies, lives and dies?


Heres why.


“Wherever we go on the internet, we encounter CAPTCHAs, those twisted words that block or enable entries on websites. Need to post an ad on Craigslist? There’s a CAPTCHA. Want to comment on an article or blog post? There’s a CAPTCHA. So why do we have them? They were invented to block spamming machines from posting wherever they want.”

I know. I wasn’t criticizing the security measure. I meant it rhetorically. I meant that we on the registry are human beings, but I for one feel I have to continually prove it people…to get a job…to find shelter, to move about freely… to have basic human rights.

I know what you mean. Pretty 1984-ish. At least it’s not the ones you can’t read no matter how hard you try!

Yah, I’ve had to reload those sometimes two or three times. I’m all for protecting this site. It’s the only way I would have to hear and respond to what you and others have to say, like Winston had when he finally found someone who was not an agent of the “Party” to talk to. Even that freedom many would like to take away from us.

This is also the only way for me to communicate with others oppressed like I am. I don’t really mind answering the question when I post. At least here I don’t have to subject myself to those under the influence of the Ingsoc and the lies it calls truth.


I’m going to the meeting in San Diego on the 20th. I know I take the 15 s to the 5, and then head towards the coast; but what street do I get off on? Is there a Cedar ST off ramp? And equally important; where do I park?

You take 15 to 163 S towards downtown, take the I-5 N/4th Ave ramp, keep right, merge onto Date street, right onto 3rd Ave, left onto Elm St., left onto 2nd St., left onto Cedar. I rarely go downtown, so I can’t help you much with parking. Last time I parked on a bridge a block north of the campus, after driving around in a circle twice.


Can we get the guy that hacked the iCloud celebrity accounts to hack the Megan’s Law web site and irreparably eff it up? Or at least delete my name and image?

I think that would be really interesting. I’m surprised some registrant with really good hacking skills hasn’t already done this.

That is surprising, but maybe not. Two reasons. Most of us wish to live law abiding lives. For the very small minority who truly mean mischief, and for the 95% who who are not on the registry, who commit the crimes, the registry provides cover. It’s all those police resources devoted to making sure someone who views an illegal picture or urinated in public, are monitored and the public is content that notification, presence and residence restrictions are keeping the bad guys away from children. When criminal policy is a failure, real criminals use it to their advantage.

In light of the successful law suits against cities and counties, are the laws or ordinance past by some counties and cities concerning Halloween next (I hope)?

There are no more laws in the state of California which require registered citizens to place a sign on the front door of their home on Halloween due to actions taken by California RSOL. We are watching laws that prohibit a registered citizen from answering the door to trick-or-treaters, decorating, etc. and may challenge them in the future.

I believe the city of Cypress still has their Halloween Ordinance in effect. No lights on, no answering the door, no decorating.

Sec. 17-74.9. Halloween restrictions for registered sex offenders.
(a) Purpose and intent. The city council of the City of Cypress finds, determines, and declares that this section, inclusive, has been enacted upon the following facts and purposes:
(1) The events of Halloween could put children unknowingly in close proximity to registered sex offenders.
(2) Registered sex offenders pose an immediate threat around Halloween to the public health, safety and welfare because youth often will engage a disproportionate number of complete strangers when door-to-door canvassing different neighborhoods as part of the traditional Halloween activities.
(3) Halloween events, particularly the door-to-door solicitation of candy, creates the potential for many encounters between children and registered sex offenders.
(b) Time, place and manner restrictions. All registered sex offenders, between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. on October 31st of each year shall:
(1) Leave all exterior residential, decorative and ornamental lighting off during the evening hours starting at 5:00 p.m. until 11:59 p.m. on October 31st;
(2) Be prohibited from decorating his or her residence with Halloween decorations;
(3) Be prohibited from answering the door to children who are trick-or-treating.
(Ord. No. 1132, § 1, 3-12-12.)

Well, MANY people who don’t want to be bothered with kids coming to the door on Halloween do the no lights, answering the door or no decorating. My own parents did after I grew up.

The problem with these ordinances, as I understand it, was that most required an additional step that MOST people do not do and that was to post a sign that said, No Candy Here…or some such.

Since most people do not do that, and since it was part of the ordinance for RSOs, it was like have a neon sign that said, RSO Lives Here. And THAT was the problem.

Having RSOs blend in with other, “normal”, people, who just dont want to be bothered, seems to be less pormlematic under the law. And that’s fine.

I mean why would one care? As long as a scarlet letter is not attached to you, How IMPORTANT is it for you (the generic “you”) to pass out candy to kids on Halloween anyway?

And for those parents to whom it really matters (read; who just don’t want to be lazy donkeys) they are free to check the Megan’s Law site of the area their kids are goig to be T or T-ing in.
If an RSO isn’t on there, the cops may be drivng by his anyway to see if he is in compliance with the rest of the law.

I’d like to see how they came up with this one; I’d like to see their proof.

(2) Registered sex offenders pose an immediate threat around Halloween to the public health, safety and welfare because youth often will engage a disproportionate number of complete strangers when door-to-door canvassing different neighborhoods as part of the traditional Halloween activities.

Does anyone know what ordinances are in affect for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties? Will those also be pre-empted by State Law, or has this only been done in Orange County so far?

We are systematically challenging city and county laws that contain presence restrictions. Please be patient. We are monitoring both San Bernardino and Riverside counties to ensure that they repeal or revise their laws to comply with recent court decisions.

Anyone have an opinion on proposition 47? It sounds like it would deny the possibility of sentence reductions and relief for all 290 registrants.


Official summary:
“Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug and property offenses. Inapplicable to persons with prior conviction for serious or violent crime and registered sex offenders.”

“Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks when value or amount involved is $950 or less. Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses. Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder or child molestation or is a registered sex offender. Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk. Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims.”

Any more questions? NO!

so I wonder if the California RSOL would have a problem accepting a donation from this guy. Maybe he needs a begging letter sent to him. If only there was a way to get his adress… wait… wait…

South Pasadena registrant was arrested for being in a park!

He was taking pictures, was reported, but had no kids on his phone, but he was arrested for being in a park.

Has anyone managed to get a 311.11(a) expunged since AB-20 went into effect on January 1, 2014? Before AB-20…expungement was an option. Perhaps the courts haven’t caught up the changes in law yet. I took a plea deal in 2013 with the plan of getting it expunged once off probation. Then the law changed in a very bad way for me and thousands of others. I will petition for early release from probation in January 2015 (the half way mark of my 3yr probation). I’m assuming that at some point the expungement petition forms will be updated to reflect the changes that AB-20 made. Maybe hold onto an outdated copy of the form and have my lawyer send it in and pray that the courts really blow it and an expungement is accidentally granted. I suppose the worst thing they could do is kick it back and I’m out the time and the legal fees (attorney, filing, etc).

I note, under the law allowing for early release from probation, the court must find that you have been of good conduct deserving of it. Make sure you get a certified copy of the court record for this, so you have that as the court saying you are a good guy, whether explicitly or implicitly — I say implicit since it is a necessary point for the court in order for it to grant the early release. That’s not a certificate of rehabilitation, but it is something. That is, of course, if the court grants your early release — they don’t have to.

Thank you very much for the advice…much appreciated. I wish I was crazy enough to think that AB-20 could/would get repealed somehow/someday. When I took a plea deal back in early 2013 (arrested in 2012) AB-20 didn’t exist and expungement was what allowed me to have a small amount of hope of a successful future. The masses think that everybody arrested for possession of CP is a predator. Three illegal files mixed in with more than 1.5TB worth of legal pornography screams porn addict not pedophile. It’s probably going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better as far as CP arrests go. I think people will start to wake up when they discover that their sons and daughters (minors) are snapping nude selfies and sending them to each other with their smart phones. Parents…you might want to see what pictures your kids have stored on their phones. Or on second thought maybe you don’t. Ignorance is bliss…until the police come a knock’n

The irony is getting thick out there…

My neighbor will no longer talk to me, even though I basically helped to raise her two daughters over 8 years. On the list to pickup at school, took to tutoring, on road trips with my family, and even slept over when there was a fight at their house (usual out of control teen).

The irony is that her oldest, around 13/14 at the time (middle school in fact – not highschool yet) took a selfie and sent it to her boyfriend – who forwarded onto his friends, and so on. The police came down and called everyone in where they did their best to erase the image from all devices. No one was charged. I want to say this was around 5/6 years ago – where I didn’t even know about ‘all of this’ yet…

However I’ve now read that it is either in force in some states or soon will be – that my neighbor’s daughter could have been charged with distribution of CP while of course recipients could be charged with possession. All of which are also under the age of 18 as well.

Moreover, with the recent (last fall) server breech at SNAPCHAT, over 100,000 photos and videos were leaked to the public – where it was disclosed that a great majority of content was classified as ‘CP’ – as well as indicating that half of all users of this app are between the ages of 13 and 17. Apparently are ‘children’ are having too much fun – and it must be stopped dammit!

In addition, I honestly smirked at the somewhat recent article about possibly charging Olympic Gold Medalist McKayla Maroney with possession and/or distribution of ‘CP’ for similar. Our Puritan legal system and those that run it must be absolutely horrified with how someone so special could actually be – like everyoen else?

So we all know what’s been going on. So are we going to charge/jail/label 50-80% of our youth as out of control sex addicts, freaks of society? The mainland US will serve as the future leper colony where the few remaining saints can then live isolated in Hawaii once the new world order is fully in place.

All kidding aside (out of frustration), this has to come to a head and then hopefully necessitate some change.

MS, please provide an update if at all possible…I am right behind you by 1 year with the exact same circumstances; 311.11(a) misdemeanor.

Another a$$hole = Assembly Member Marie Waldron (R-Escondido); being tough on crime and getting their name in the paper for votes.


LOOK – SOMEONE GOT 311.11 EXPUNGED IN THE LAST WEEK!–violation-reduced-t-2007703.html

Very much looking for anyone to weigh in.



I got a felony. DA had no interest (according to my attorney) in changing the charge to a misdemeanor despite no previous criminal record, 3 files total, and a psych eval that said I was no danger to others. I’m hoping that I will be released from therapy in the next 3 months. They call it a 52-week program but nobody that goes to the place I go gets out in less than 15 months. It’s in their financial interest to keep you in there as long as possible so they drag it out. Plop down $46 every Monday.

My plan at this point:
Finish up counseling and then pay off the remainder of my court fees and fines. I think I owe about $3,200…about 1/2 of the original amount. Then sign up with to pursue early termination of probation, reduction, and expungement. makes it sound like they might be able to get expungement for 311.11 cases where plea deals were taken before 1/1/14. Check out their site.

I wish I had some idea what the success rate is for doing all this for this specific crime. I don’t want to waste a bunch of money I don’t have and get laughed out of court. I had no previous record. Total of 3 files. Haven’t violated and passed a polygraph about a month ago proving that I haven’t violated any of my probation requirements. Have a wife, two young kids, and several family members that depend on me financially.

Will post updates as I have them.

We’ve hit the ONE YEAR MARK since oral arguments were heard by the 9th Circuit Court with regard to the Prop 35 EID challenge.

If you recall, when the arguments were made, the judges were extremely skeptical of the state’s arguments, including references to Edward Snowden (remember him?) and the “chilling effect” registration of addresses have on individuals.

Yes, I understand that we have a stay of enforcement, so for that it’s **GOOD**. I got that. And I understand that one of the judges had a family emergency for a couple of weeks at one point.

But this decision SHOULD have been rendered months ago, compared to other similar level arguments. Heck, the US Supreme Court only took 7 months to decide Smith v. Doe!

Unfortunately, I still contend that the justices’ initial horrid reaction to the original arguments have morphed into a potential way to wordsmith this decision in favor of the state. The judges realize that a decision in our favor would have serious ramifications on a good portion of the United States, particularly in looking at other jurisdictions with email address laws.

Once more, yes, I DO understand that the current stay of enforcement is GOOD for registrants. That is hereby stipulated and uncontested. But it’s the overall pace and demeanor of the delayed decision that is stirring up the cynicism in me, and probably most of us as well.

Maybe the Federal Supreme Court should have taken more time and done some more fact finding and analysis. Look what we have now because of their precedent setting decision.

This Article Pretty Much Sums it Up If They Don’t have enough,,,, “THEY MAKE CRIMINALS”?WTH?

And this is what happens with draconian laws on the books. It makes the public insanely hysterical.

been doin’ research & found This,:Can any judgment be appealed?

The short answer is no, there is no absolute right to an appeal. Each state has laws which outline the types of cases which appellate courts may review. There must be an error of law for an appellate court to review a case. The fact that the losing party did not like the verdict is not enough to sustain an appeal.

That being said, even in administrative courts or lower level courts, if anyone’s constitutional rights have been infringed upon, they may sue to enforce their rights and/or to revisit the original case.

For those Interested,,,


That being said, even in administrative courts or lower level courts, if anyone’s constitutional rights have been infringed upon, they may sue to enforce their rights and/or to revisit the original case. OK,,I wanna Sue!

Recently I began digging into the history of legislation aimed at classifying, prosecuting, and expanding what constitutes a sex offense under United States law. My research will continue for quite a while because there is so much more to the story than most people think. Already one disturbing trend has emerged; many of the incidents that are cited as catalysts for the Adam Walsh act and have sections named after them within the law involved murder.

Too often people focus on the fact that many of these acts were perpetrated by those who previously had sex offense convictions. While abducting, assaulting, molesting, raping, and torturing people is deplorable; murdering them is worse. So here’s the question of the week: who really wrote the Adam Walsh act and what is their agenda? I know a republican introduced it to the house in December 2005 and I believe a republican senator introduced a version in the Senate shortly thereafter. Though these two probably didn’t write the entire legislation. In fact neither may be responsible for directly adding any language to the proposals for each respective chamber of congress. Which begs the question: what factual basis outside of already existing laws was used to justify all the expansions sorna has brought and who provided that factual foundation in the first place?

For a law targeting sex crimes there are far too many peoples murders paved the road to drafting this law and many predecessor laws and that should concern anyone who cares about making a meaningful difference in the world.

Whenever a new situation calls for changes to the law, it inevitably applies retroactively, and the registrants are accused of somehow conspiring to commit virtually any type of crime under this very large umbrella and widely cast net.
The ex post facto protections were designed to prevent such chaos but it is falling on deaf ears as though somehow it really isn’t punishment.


Texas high court rules that First Amendment bars laws based on “intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the defendant.”:

This is an important point to this Website, as various of the sex offenses laws in California state they are based on this very point. If this ruling were to carry over to California or national, it seems to me any number of laws — and thus convictions already obtained under them — here in California could be overturned.

The case was about photos taken in public, and the Texas law bars such where the “intent” is to “arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the defendant.” (That is, the conduct isn’t the problem, it is your thoughts that are the problem.)

The court ruled, “Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of ‘paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind’ that the 1st Amendment was designed to guard against,” Keller wrote. “We also keep in mind the Supreme Court’s admonition that the forms of speech that are exempt from 1st Amendment protection are limited, and we should not be quick to recognize new categories of unprotected expression.”

Would someone be kind enough to offer a recommendation for a attorney who is a specialist in sex offender issues please?

Someone who knows BOTH federal and state laws since they often contradict each other.

Please DO NOT be a smart ass and say “google it”. I have and called a dozen (google is becoming more useless each day).

I want a name of a real person who someone has actually worked with.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Chance Oberstein

CA RSOL Board Member and Attorney at Law

(a quick google search will explain the low rating on Avvo. I would imagine you would view this as a plus).

Keeping it in the fambly!

Thank you for the recommendation Joe.

I will call him on Monday to see if he can shed some light on this mysterious grey area that we all in California find ourselves in since our state is NOT one of the who have adopted the entire Adam Walsh act AND YET we seem to have certain aspects of it being imposed on us (Federal trumps State) but it also seems that they pick and choose which of these aspects to use on us almost at random and certainly when it benefits them and not us!

If the rules were known we could comply with them and at the same time fight them…BUT…keeping us in the dark is rather u unsporting if you ask me!

At least make it a “fair” fight…I mean that’s the American way right? 🙂

Please keep in mind that many of the attorneys that are recommended here are outstanding legal minds and very experienced. They are however, attorneys…that’s their livelihood, and they charge accordingly. I have talked to one highly recommended attorney and realized that I could not afford his services. Most all of us cannot afford any legal representation after our sentences are fulfilled as we seek post sentencing remedies. I did get a wonderful public defender who has been a big help. If we can’t afford professional services, then it’s up to us to do our homework and find a way; it’s difficult but enlightening. This website has been a huge help in my journey to freedom.

Indeed…that is obvious.

Let’s also not forget that most lawyers are driven totally by greed and not a love of the law or justice or more would do pro bono work to right the endless injustices that we all are talking about here and are forced to try to live through each and every day (until we die thanks to these inhuman and excessive purdens placed on often innocent people who were caught in a system designed to destroy lives and nothing more)!

Can anyone explain what these conditions of supervised release actually mean?

1. The defendant’s employment shall be approved by the probation officer, and any changes in employment must be pre-approved by the probation officer. The defendant shall submit the name and address of the proposed employer to the probation officer at least 10 days prior to any scheduled change.

2. As directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant’s criminal record or personal history or characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to conform the defendant’s compliance with such notification requirement.

The first condition says the employment shall be approved, and any changes must be pre-approved. It explicitly does not say initial employment has to be pre-approved only that changes must be. However then it says the name and address of a proposed employer must be submitted at least ten days prior to any changes. I am wondering if going from being unemployed to employed classifies as a change?

For the second condition I am wondering how exactly proof of third party notification plays out. What level of proof is legally required and does it require contact between a probation officer and a third party?

I think so.
Find a job and get hired. Call your PO. and receive their permission to continue employment. If they direct you to notify anyone connected with your job of your history – do so, or allow them to. If you find a better job notify your P.O. of your plan to change within 10 days prior to making a change. Good luck.

Has anyone transferred their case to a new jurisdiction? I pled in Orange County and immediately moved to Northern California. Pursuant to 1203.9, the entire case including probation was transferred to the new jurisdiction. I was granted early termination of probation and had my charges dropped to misdemeanors and expunged. I did this in Pro Per.

Today I went to court to ask for relief from registration under the Hofsheier motion. The DA stated:

“The Hofsheier Court acknowledges mandatory registration and distinguishes discretionary registration by allowing the trial judge the option of refusing to order registration.”

She emphasized “trial judge” stating that only the original trial judge in Orange County can make that decision. I countered with 1203.9(b) stating that “the court of the receiving county shall accept the ENTIRE jurisdiction over the case.” The judge seemed to be puzzled of her role in making a decision and apparently was not aware of this penal code. She did not make a ruling today. Instead, she continued the case to next month. I know this judge will grant me relief, but she’s hesitant to do so unless she knows she has complete jurisdiction to do so.

My concern is the “trial judge” issue. These are my questions:

Can a judge in the new jurisdiction make a Hofsheier decision on a transferred case or must it be the original trial judge in OC? OC no longer has my case as documented on their webpage. Hofsheier was 2004 and 1203.9(b) and (c) went into effect June 1, 2010.

Today I have been doing a lot of research on this matter, and so far I’m coming up short on the subject of case transfers. Has anyone or do you know of anyone who has been through a similar situation? Any information will be greatly appreciated.


Hofsheier Petitions are a Writ of Mandate which must be heard in the same county of conviction. See People v. Picklesimer, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 (Cal. App. 2008). COR’s are current county of residence. Hofsheier, btw was 2006.

A lawyer should be able to confirm.

Yes, I did just get some advice from a lawyer. However, what he advised is completely different than what you’re telling me. I will copy and paste what he told me however I have redacted reference to my current residence. Perhaps this info can be helpful to others in a similar situation:


Regardless if Hofsheier is 2006, 1203.9 supersedes with a later date of 2010


Post-conviction relief is a small sub section and some areas are as yet “unsettled” law, so it may be fine for you. Are you aware that Hofsheier is currently under Cal Supreme Court review and may be limited and possibly overruled? The case is Johnson v DOJ S209167.

Picklesimer is cited to allow a case to be re-opened for a writ. Correct, it will not affect your jurisdictional question.

Good luck. I hope you’re successful.

Hofsheier is already limited to those charged with 288a(b)(1) and 289h. These are wobblers.

The problem is registrants convicted of either 288a(b)(2), 289i, and/or 289j (all of which are straight felonies) have been trying to claim equal protection under Hofsheier. Most of them fail.

My guess is the Supreme Court will say no, yet maintain the current equal protection for those with wobbler charges and probably adding language to limit those convicted of straight felonies.

Another issue the Supreme Court has to consider is the CASOMB report about there being too many registrants and the need for an overhaul. Is it really in the interest of justice to add more to an already bloated list?


The universe of Hofsheier type cases are what maybe only 5000. Many can’t afford the attorney fees to file. You are very likely the only person in the state with this specific circumstance.

The point is unless you’re in an LA area or Bay area county, you may be the only Hofsheier motion in your jurisdiction and the DA and Judges are going to be uncertain as well. You only need a good attorney to argue your standing.

You should file, the worst that can happen is it gets kick out for lack of standing. If it succeeds, DOJ will recognize it. Not sure if you can cite a case under Supreme court review, but Johnson could/should have an decision in the ~spring.

I have already filed in pro per. The judge was undecided on whether or not she had the jurisdiction to grant relief. I told her she does under 1209(b). She needed to read the law again and continued the case.

My next court date is October 30, and yes I am in the Bay Area.

And yes I am the ONLY Hofsheier motion in the entire 9 county Bay Area who is a transfer case.


Glad to hear you’re proceeding. Bay Area could be tough. The DA will likely oppose — and talk with OC. You should try to get a read on the DA before your next court date. I have two attorneys. One is a top rated, expensive lawyer with Hofsheier experience for my 20 year old, reduced, dismissed in Alameda county. The judge refuses to hear any Hofsheier cases. Doesn’t agree. (Yes, appeal is the option.)

My attorney said quote; “If this was Marin county or Contra Costa, it would be a slam dunk for you.” So, if that fits…

Still don’t see how you can cite a case under Supreme court review.

Have you considered getting a COR first? You may be able to get relief this way and the standard is much lower then a Hofsheier. You have standing. And it’s a different court calendar. (see DM v DOJ 2012)

Of course, hope it works out for you, however you can do it. Hofsheier’s are equal protection, plain and simple. Good luck.

I’d have to wait until 2020 before I can file the COR.

Right now, as it stands, I’m considered “very low risk” with less than 1% chance of reoffending. I’ve been facing the same judge and DA since July. July was my early termination of probation. August was my 17b and 1203.4. And it’s these same two who I will see next month. I’m also factually innocent, yet legally criminal of the crimes (which makes no sense, but it was OC) and the lie detector confirmed this.


Don’t know if this applies, but from the possible sound of it, your case has to be adjudicated prior to 2006 to qualify for a Hofsheier motion. Also, keep in mind, you only get one chance at a Hofsheier decision.

Of the 75+ citable cases mentioning Hofsheier, I only recall one case where the Judge was sympathetic and sided with the defendant wishing he could and would grant relief. That was people v. Tuck.

This is after all, California. Liberty and “registry for life” for all.

If I listened to everything people say on this site about judges never granting favorable outcomes, I wouldn’t have ever bothered to file 1203.3, 17b and 1203.4. But I refused to be told that I can’t do something simply because many people on this site, such as yourself, say it cannot be done. I will say right now, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I have it documented that I was denied Hofsheier in my original case in OC, but the judge ruled WITHOUT prejudice that I can resubmit a writ following successful completion of probation and sex offender therapy. I’ve done that. And I am well within my right per my plea agreement to submit that writ. Now I am just waiting for my day in court.

In my research, I have found cases that were successfully granted a relief with adjudication AFTER 2006, and I am armed with those cases.

Just because YOU say it cannot be done because YOU only found ONE case out of the myriad cases published online doesn’t make YOUR OPINION the correct one. Nor should anyone have to be discouraged from trying. I’m seeing a lot discouragement on this site than I do encouragement.

So far, in only four years after being convicted, I have been successful in terminating, reducing to misdemeanors and expungement. And this was after reading so many comments on here about the impossibility of doing so. I’m really fed up with the negativity.

I come here because I would rather encourage and let people know that YES it CAN be done.

Nps, I been reading this thread and I only see mch and jbcal wishing you good luck, giving an opinion and “hoping your successful.” Yeah maybe they have questions or dont know your case, but am I missing something? I think everyone here is curious on your case and hope that at least someone might get off of the registry, not negative.

Anyway for what it’s worth, I think it’s great you’re doing all this on your own. (please don’t take this the wrong way and get angry, but good luck also).

SAB: My last reply was never directed at MCH. What I am getting tired of is seeing every reply about possible roadblocks which have NOTHING to do with my case or charges.

That last one about People v. Tuck really got my blood boiling. You’re going to refer me to Tuck? Seriously? There is a big difference between 288a and 288(a); the latter for which Tuck was convicted. Of course he wouldn’t get relief but not on the grounds for which I am seeking relief. I know I haven’t disclosed my charges, but come on. I won a 17b! Reduction to misdemeanors. These other cases mentioned are straight felonies and that is why they failed.

All I asked was if there are cases where someone was granted relief after transferring their entire case to a new jurisdiction. Apparently my case may be the first. Yet I receive comments about cases that are irrelevant or they just weren’t pay attention.

What I DO know now…1209.3(b) is about a new jurisdiction receiving the ENTIRE case and can therefore make the decision. This was confirmed by attorney who specializes in sex crimes and I posted that comment so that others could benefit from that information. All other comments and references to other cases are irrelevant, and frankly does not help those who are considering filing a writ.

My entire life is hanging in the balance on this 1209.3(b) to get this judge to rule in my favor.

@NPS – you started this subject on a public forum and people are entitled to respond as they see fit. Asking a paid source in private would certainly eliminate the ‘noise’. What you see as negativity I see as a helpful discussion with someone who may have experience with this best case, but worst case brings up issues in a devil’s advocate sort of way. I would consider it a helpful exercise in preparing to shoot down the DA’s arguments come hearing time. That the arguments not necessarily apply to your case shouldn’t give you the impression that that will stop the DA from bringing them up in front of a judge who has never done this before and is looking for a, any reason to deny your motion.

I also had some questions and comments but now am afraid to raise them. You seem to have your stuff together and one can only hope that the Hofsheier motion goes as smoothly as the reduction and dismissal.

Best of luck to you and keep us posted.

SAB & Joe: I agree. I am have a pending Hofsheier motion in the Bay Area for a 288a(b)(1) with a 17b reduction and a 1203.4 dismissal and 20 years perfect record since. I also have two attorney’s working on my case with one who only does CORs and Hofsheier’s and has never lost. I am fortunate to have these resources and such a similar case to NPS and only give my opinion to someone doing this pro per out of respect and hope.

Registry relief is the MOST difficult post conviction area of law in the country. Any info, insight or opinion that ANYONE can offer me I’ll gladly accept. If it’s garbage I’ll dismiss it quietly, but I’ll save my hostility for the DA, the Judges and DOJ who are the enemy here and treat every registrant as a life long repeat offender.

Pick your battles. This site is FOR believers in relief. We want you to have your deserved freedom NPS.

Regarding Picklesimer, it does not apply to my case because I am a TRANSFER case. Picklesimer was trying to file a Hofsheier motion in the jurisdiction that originally tried his case, which sent him to STATE prison. Completely different than a probation with a suspended sentence.


Best of luck to you and seems as if you’ve gone to battle prepared. Your experience can help a lot of registrants.

When they don’t honor a fair trial ..anything everything that follows is a sham……………when a record is tampered with becomes corrupted .


You appear to be fairly well versed in sex offender legal issues, or at least those that pertain to your case. I do have a question, more a curiosity that is related to my issue. I ask because you’ve shown a good understanding. Last month I had my record cleared per 1203.4, which is a big step. Next step is to reduce charge(s) to misdemeanors. both are attempts; 664.288 (a) and 664.288.2b. I know the 2b is a wobbler, so no problem there, but everyone thus far tells me that I’m SOL on the (a). Now, according to People v Lewis,2006, the appellate court said that an attempt is a separate and distinct from the completed crime, and that had the legislature wanted it to be the same, then they would have included the “attempt” or 664 in the law. So, based on Lewis, an attempted 288(a) IS totally different than a completed 288 (a). So, in your opinion do I have a snowball’s chance of reducing a 664.288(a)? Has anybody ever even tried, failed and appealed? Searching for answers.


Interesting. You had your record expunged before filing the 17b? Usually it’s the 17b first then 1203.4; the latter being the biggest victory. Your record is clean and so granted because of People v. Lewis (2006). Why pursue the reduction?

Regardless, Lewis will not apply to 17b. Only 1203.4. The way the code is written for 288 (a), it is a straight felony and will not be reduced to a misdemeanor. Though your case is an attempt, it is still an attempt on a felony. Based on the language alone and the way the codes are written, you will not get a reduction here.

I am not a lawyer. I only have a background in linguistics and know how to research, analyze and interpret very well. It’s that background that has helped me to win my probation termination, 17b and 1203.4 without an attorney. What it really boils down to, though, is the judge. If you can give a convincing argument with facts to strengthen your argument to an open minded judge, ultimately you can prevail. But with your charge, I just don’t see that happening until another case comes up or the law changes.

However, you did win a very big victory and that is, you have a clean record.

Now, while I would never wish the SOR on anyone this here is an outrage:

What is the point of mandatory registration, all in the name of protecting the public, when the prosecutor has the power to modify the charges? How many here come to this site everyday for ‘groping’ someone???

This is The Best Article/Post I have Read Yet My Hat IS Off To The Woman Who Wrote this. If Only More family Members would post articles Like This…The Media WOULD HAVE a BATTLE! & WE WOULD EVENTUALLY PREVAIL…

Wow.. Not even sure if I got good news or bad news…
I actually had a consulting meeting with a lawyer.. for free.. did review some brief things and said “Since your case was UCMJ, its not a felony or anything really. But it allows the local states to interpret the crimes to fit in their classifications of if it is a felony or misdemeanor and what penal code it falls under….

Another sign that the apocalypse is upon us…. foot rubbing? monster? Meanwhile, brown children all over the world are torn to shreds by US Hellfire Missiles dropped by Predator Drones… collateral damage.


A few of the performing arts centers in my area are on high school or middle school grounds. The performances are at night, when school is out, yet technically a registrant has to obtain permission from the school administrator. If I do this, are they going to post guards at the door, thinking I’m going to say to my wife at intermission, “excuse me dear, I have to go and abduct one of the few children that attend performances of Les Miserable. I’ll be back shortly.” The scope of these laws is truly idiotic. Has anyone gone and asked permission to see a play or an Irish band, etc. at a local school? Oh, that’s right, I’m too embarassed to ask for permission to spend an innocuous night out with my wife of 30 years. Your right, 10 years after I got off probation, I have to ask the principal/surveillance officer for permission. Negative? No, angry.


I havent had one of these yet. I’m not saying I’m doing ANYTHING WRONG, but just having a bit of anxiety about the whole concept.

Can anyone share with me when, how often, how long, and what exactly they ask during these sessions?

Specifically I’ve been to a park to walk my dog – but it was the baseball diamond and not the jungle gym area. I’ve been to movie theatres – to watch mature/mainstream movies – not PIXAR – and always with friends. I’ve also been around children – briefly (I very much try to avoid) when I stop by to visit my friends house (who knows everything and wrote an actual character letter).

So again just a little weirded out about everything – okay, a lot.

Hello Lee, It is more 25 years since I had a poly and it was in Oregon and thing may have changed. However, I am hearing some ‘red flags’ you need to be very careful. 1) Taking the dog to a baseball park is a no, no. Kids do show up at BB parks. 2) If, you have friends that have kids, be careful. I have friends with kids and they know about my situation and they tend to overly lax with their kids around me. You need to limit your association with them or better yet avoid them for the season of poly,