ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

Living with 290

Living with 290: The real EX POST FACTO case

This is my petition to the U.S. district courts in Fresno, CA.Comes now Plaintiff MACK hereinafter referred to as “Mr. ” or “Plaintiff”) complains and alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1.    This is a civil action brought by Mr.  against the State of California for violations of his civil rights.

2.    Mr.  brings this action to remedy the deprivation of rights secured to him under the constitution of the United States of America.

3.    Mr.  alleges that defendant violated the rights reserved under the constitution of the United States of America, by passing Megan’s law which has had a huge impact on his ability to make money or secure the rights given in the constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

4.    Mr.  in September of 1992 was granted a P.C. 1203.4 that releases him from all penalties and restores all his civil rights.  It is an expungement. This means the charges were brought back up again and dismissed.

5.    Defendants are aware of the constitution of the United States and that references in the California penal code 290 (hereafter referred to as “Megan’s Law”.) violate his civil rights in that no Ex Post Facto laws be applied to a person that has had all rights restored and charges have been expunged.

6.    FACTS TO SUPPORT CLAIMS

I was convicted of 289 P.C. in July of 1987. I was released from custody on or about December of 1987.
I was granted relief under P.C 1203.4 on 9/23/1992. After this I was not required to inform a potential employer that I had a record of any kind.  My life was going well, I married, purchased a house, paid my child support and lived the American dream. That is until Megan’s web site was published in 2004.

I was an accomplished computer programmer when in 2004 the information that I had been convicted of a sexual crime was broadcast Megan’s law web site. Programmers were some of the first to investigate the site and I was forced to find a different career.

I began working as a car sales person in 2004. I had left Auto/West Mazda/Subaru for a better job with a Chevrolet dealer in Sacramento. When a background check was run, my conviction appeared, as they had used Megan’s web site to run the check. This was in 2008.  Since my charges were expunged, I sued the company that made that decision to use Megan’s web site as grounds for not hiring me and won. It is case no.? adjudicated in Superior Court of the State of California, Country of Sacramento. We settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money on or about July of 2008. Now I have two careers that are no longer valid. I have been left with no way to again bring a good salary home because of the vast exposure given to my name on Megan’s web site.

I have had my community mail boxes papered with my Megan’s web site picture in 2004 when I lived on Mono way in North Highlands, CA.

I currently moved to a senior’s community and once again I have had my picture passed around and posted from Megan’s web site. I have taken the person responsible to court in Merced County and I have been successful in stopping the posting. This of course does not remove the destruction it has done to my reputation and standing in the community. The case # is ?, 3/16/2011. My reputation here is still ruined and that we can never get back.
I have been called a child molester by neighbors and have lost my reputation. This is a direct result of the continual bombardment by Megan’s web site and now others who are also picking up the information from Megan’s web site and using it to make money on their own web sites. How much degradation must an individual take before it is acknowledged as being Ex Post Facto punishment? Along with that degradation comes loss of income, reputation, community standing, church and friends.

I have recently had my Facebook account deleted, as Facebook somehow found that I am listed on Megan’s Web site as a registered sex offender. According to the law they cannot use this information to discriminate against me. They did it anyway and I do not have the resources to fight them. They are flagrant about the violation. They have responded to my questions about how they determined I was a registered sex offender. They wrote me that is was state and federal web sites that they obtained the information from. This action causes me problems with my business as well as personal life. This again is a result of being placed on Megan’s web site. I tried to explain to them that the charges were dismissed, to no avail. If the government puts it on the internet, it must be the latest and the truth. The web site is a lie, as the charges they have displayed were dismissed in 1992, long before the site was envisioned. This is again Ex Post Facto punishment.

Canada is changing its entry requirements and is including being on Megan’s web site as criteria to not allow travel in Canada. The wife and I wish to travel there in the near future. Do I show my 1203.4(expungement) and hope that is enough? Again this is Ex Post Facto punishment.

Mexico has changed its laws concerning citizenship and land ownership, based on Megan’s web site. Once again Ex Post Facto punishment.

It seems almost every month a new restriction on my freedoms are enacted due to my information being made available on Megan’s web site.

There are penalties for the misuse of Megan’s web site information, but firms still use it, they just don’t mention it anymore. Can the legislature pass laws to stop this? I don’t believe you can. This punishment I am enduring is Ex Post Facto and everyone looking at this, knows that to be true. It has been over 22 years since my charges were expunged and it has only gotten worse for my everyday life..

In April of 2007 during my yearly registration, Roseville, Ca police told me I had to submit a DNA sample as it was now law. I did but again it was Ex Post Facto. Is everything legal to do to a registered sex offender?

In December of 2012 as we were disembarking from a ship when customs called me and my wife aside to ask if  I knew I was a registered sex offender and to let me know that they can harass me any time and any place. Again information obtained from Megan’s web site.

I was awarded a Certificate of Rehabilitation on September 26th of 2005 in Superior court of Sacramento. I applied for a Governors pardon and it was denied.

Running a background check on me today will bring up the Megan’s web site listing. Before Megan’s web site there was no record after the P.C. 1203.4 was granted in 1992.

When the State created Megan’s law California legislators must have known that it was an Ex Post Facto law in some cases, but failed to account for individuals like me. Of course my wife has also suffered and had the disrespect and abuse of pious neighbors in the communities we have lived in and also members of various churches who discovered my current picture on Megan’s web site.

PRAYER

Wherefore, Plaintiff MACK  demands a swift end to this aggressive behavior by the State of California and prays for judgment as follows:

ON THE CAUSE OF ACTION

1.    Have Megan’s law declared unconstitutional because it takes a person who has had a crime expunged and deals with it like it was brand new. It is an Ex Post Facto law and illegal in the United States and the International courts.

2.    Immediate injunction on displaying my outdated and misleading information on Megan’s web site.

- - - - - - - - -

View all user submitted stories about Living with 290. Feel free to add yours - as a registrant, family member or friend. Please submit any updates on your story via the comments section on this page. Please use the comments below ONLY for input on the story on this page. To add a new story, click here.

Join the discussion

  1. CJ

    You’re not alone on this one. PC 290 and the public website has essentially eviscerated the statutory function and sanctity of California PC1203.4.

    I’ve had a supreme court in another state whose laws mandate conviction for registration IGNORE my dismissal due to the sole fact that California registers some residents without any conviction on record.

  2. cool CA RC

    is this filed as a lawsuit in Fresno yet?

  3. Nationless

    Proof yet again that if you have been convicted of a sex offense in the United States, you are no longer considered a citizen of the United States.

    • Tired of hiding

      This is totally true. We are NOT considered citizens if the deny us the basic rights after we have paid for the “crimes” we are accused of.

      Yet, they still force us to pay taxes to support a government that abuses us. They still expect us to respect authority of the police and other governmental agencies. I DO NOT!

      This is unfair, unconstitutional, and a violation of basic human rights – Period!

  4. Joe

    I have said it before and I’ll say it again…. the CA Department of Justice has been in violation of PC 290 for almost 5 years now. It is required to:

    290.46.(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.

    Why do they get to violate PC 290 without consequence? And this is not for 50 year old offenders. Not listing this information is and continues to be standard procedures for brand new additions to the web site. Takes too much effort and resources? This web site saves lives! Children’s lives!

    I can see a successful lawsuit to shut this site down until it is in compliance with the law. And that could be a good while.

    • Gerald

      I agree Joe and I think this should be the FIRST issue of any reform movement regarding the treatment of registrants in Ca.
      It’s a win win for the public and the registered citizens of our state.

  5. nvmike

    Good luck! Your situation is exactly the kind of thing that will swing positive precedents for us as a group. Thank you for having the courage to fight Megan ‘ law as THE punishment it is

  6. USA

    This sounds very similar to me/travel ect. I plead to a battery in 1997/reduced to a misdemeanor 2000/expunged 2002-Summary a Probation. MBA, married/children ect. I was never posted on the Megan’s website. I attempted a Cert of Rehab/OC in 2008, but denied/very political ect/Judge stated it wasn’t enough? I’m in the process of filing one in LA/I heard it’s easier. This would increase my employment opportunities, allow me to travel and visit relatives now living in foreign countries that have banned sex offenders! My charges have been expunged/summary probation and I just want to be left alone!

    • CJ

      You should be “left alone” according to the strong legal language of California’s PC 1203.4 dismissal statute along with the dismissal order itself. It doesn’t go down that way though does it? You’re being punished, not administratively regulated.

      As Joe alluded to earlier in the comments the California DOJ is complicit in their outright defiance in adhering to the statutory legislation regarding what information is posted on the Megan’s Law website.

      They know what they’re doing. What would the pitchfork-wielding mob think when they bring up your listing that shows charges were dismissed many years ago? I’ll tell you what happens when I tell my circles that I own nothing more than a dismissed conviction. They ask me why the hell am I on that website??? They shake their head in disbelief.

      Its a cause for action, perhaps a federal Sec. 1983, maybe even a class action depending on how many PC 1203.4’s are posted online disguised as a current conviction.

  7. USA

    Thanks CJ. I just thank God on deemed an other./not high risk or serious. I’m not on the Megan’s website. I’m going to attempt another Certificate of Rehab. I cant see how they can deny it/20 years after/expunged/summary probation with regards to a massage parlor ! very dumb

    • CJ

      Good deal USA. Keep up the good fight.

      You are fortunately a no public disclosure unlike the author here and myself. I bet you can imagine what we’re going thru. California lists us on their website as if a dismissal never happened. A litany of problems ensue.

      The whole COR process is so arbitrary with certain courts and judges there seems to be no standard. However there are bundles of vital info about obtaining a COR on this site as you may already know. Best wishes in your efforts towards obtaining it.

  8. Kevin

    Call me cynical, but I’m not convinced you’ll be successful. The reason why is that registration is considered a collateral consequence and not punishment, thus an ex post facto argument of any kind cannot be used. I agree that since your conviction has been expunged, your public record should be wiped clean of the conviction and inclusion on the Megan’s Law website flies in the face of the expungement. However, your argument that the public’s use of that information against you has no bearing on the case as that behavior is illegal and you have been compensated through the court system for those illegal actions against you. In essence, the government is not an accomplice in the discriminatory actions against you and cannot be held liable.

    In my opinion, your best bet would be to argue that an expungement should wipe clean your public record in its entirety and the government’s inclusion of that information on the Megan’s Law website violates the equal protection clause because all other expungements are afforded COMPLETE disclosure of the conviction from the public. In addition, I think you could argue that the expungement has afforded you due process concerning your dangerousness and likelihood of committing future sex crimes. Thus, inclusion on the Megan’s Law website is counter to that due process finding since the number one rational for the existence of the website is to inform the public of individuals that are considered dangerous and likely to commit future sex crimes.

  9. USA

    Guys, I have a question. I just recently relocated and registered in a new area. I was rather shocked by the questions. I filled out the normal paper work and the girl asked 2 questions:

    1. Can you explain what happened/she wanted me to basically explain my case/19 -20 years ago/what happened?

    2. Then, she asked: Did you have sex with the victim? I plead to a battery? In essence, that is basically asking you to incriminate yourself? My response, “I don’t recall!”

    I was honestly surprised by this/case was dismissed/expunged.

    3. Do you know how to use the internet?

    When asked about the case, I was very /short and avoided any facts. Ons sentence: I supposedly ect ect. No details.

    Can they do this? She never asked for clarification ect

    • steve

      The only thing I was asked was “the age of your victim over 16 or under 14” I hadn’t been asked anything about it for 17 years. The other guy next to me they wanted details but he was on parole.

    • j

      I would have stayed silence and let them glean information only from the conviction that required registration. Plead the 5th. You’re not on trial anymore. This is essentially a kangaroo court where they are trying to set up their own punishment mechanism.

  10. mike

    I strongly agree with Kevin. Ex post facto is basically a dead horse in CA the equal protection claim is much more feasable and I beleive that it violates your liberties and privacy rights while not achieving any legislative goal and it also violates your right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary and oppressive official action. It’s unreasonable since you are deemed to be very unlikely to reoffend since your charges have been dismissed and or expunged and its arbitrary because it is being applied to you regardless of your risk to the public its simply a blanket requirement. And its oppressive as it affects employment personal relationships resindency issues and creates what is called psycho social stressors that can lead to fear isolation major depression and anxiety disorders. These are the arguements that I think will prevail in court and i hope someone brings forth but I commend you for any effort to fight for your rights ob court and good luck.

  11. Hank NewMexRSOL

    USA: Same thing happened to me, twice. There are people who will answer this better than me ( Hey people ! ) Question came up a year ago. I think it has something to do with 290 not requiring it, and state trumps local.

    Anyway it happened to me in Sunnyvale, Ca, and two years later in 2012 in Menlo Park, Ca. But BOTH PLACES had an additional twist: After filling out the form in the waiting room, when I got in for face to face, they put my form aside and VERBALLY asked me the questions and filled a new one out themselves with me signing it !! ( Hey people watusay? I think they can legally do that…..)

    And a word of warning: BE CAREFUL because one time in Mountain View, Ca. at an annual update, I got snotty with them ! Wouldn’t you know it, a week later FIVE OF THEM came out in a police van to the Mobil home park for a compliance check !

    • NPS

      Ah…Santa Clara County. The barely left of center Democratic region.

      I’m in San Mateo County which is more left leaning. The officer didn’t ask me these questions. In fact, he was very nice, yet he seemed a bit embarrassed to have to register me at all.

  12. mike

    I the plaintiff Michael …………… do hereby bring forth this motion for declaratory and injunction relief in the county of sacramento superior court for the state of California.
    This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration requirement under the state and federal levels in my personal situation.
    I’m asking the court to grant me permanent injunction relief from the requirement to register as a sex offender and to enjoin any and all local state and federal entities from enforcing any and all of the sex offender registration requirements as applied to me.
    There are a multitude of constitutional violations that I will outline in this motion and that I would like this court to consider and address.
    1. The sex offender registration requirement and notification acts violate my fundamental constitutional right to my liberty by severally infringing in my ability to in state intrastate and international travel.
    2. The sex offender registration and notification acts violate my privacy rights by making public my personal address current photo and criminal record that is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and has a need to know basis not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
    3. The sex offender registration and notification act violate my fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary and oppressive official action.
    It is unreasonable as it severally infringes on fundamental rights while not achieving any legitimate legislative purpose. Insert studies and reports. The fact that the courts have previously stated that it is minor collateral consequences of a regulatory scheme is simply unreasonable to conclude based on the severity of those consequences I endure because of the notification acts. It is also unreasonable for the court to rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators as to the need for the laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and heresy. The court should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from credible sources and experts in the fields such as the following. Insert studies and reports here…..
    These laws are arbitrary as they are applied in a blanket enforcement policy that makes no distinctions between those who may or may not pose any risk to the public and provides no due process to make those determinations.
    These laws are oppressive as they affect employment housing and personal and professional relationships in a severally negative way. They also cause severe psycho social stressors that cause major depressive disorders anxiety disorders. Insert studies or reports here. and real fears of being the victim of vigilante attackes harrasment and vandalism. Insert examples reports studies here.

    This is a rough draft and just the beginning of my motion. This was written on my cell phone and in about an hour and I will continue to work on it untill compete . Any input is welcome

  13. USA

    She asked: did you have sex with the victim? I plead to a battery/touch the person! I responded: I don’t recall! I was very much vague. I wouldn’t have signed a thing other than the paper with the laws/requirements.

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 *

.