ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

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

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments June 2015

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of June 2015. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I had a question for Janice or anyone else with a legal sound mind.

In California, is a Registered sex offender required to provide police with their employment information if they get a job? I understand that if they work with kids that they would have too, but assuming that isn’t the case, is there a requirement? Could one refuse to provide that info at the time of registering?


I would double check the laws as written on the paperwork you sign and initial when registering. However as far as I understand California law in terms of registration, the state currently does not follow everything in the national Adam Walsh act. Sections of that act do require notifying local law enforcement agencies of employment or changes of employment within a few days. Thankfully this is not applied in California right now.

As to your second question about providing employment information when asked at the time of registration that’s a little tricky. Technically if you don’t know certain things from memory about your place of employment you obviously can’t provide that information right away. Would someone fail to be in compliance with state law by not ever providing the information? I have no idea.

I was told I needed to inform them if it was working at a university or if it’s a job that takes me out of state.

My job or jobs don’t deal with children and its a few cities away from where I live… I just say I’m self employed, if they need to contact me here is my cellphone

As stated in 290.015, when you register, you have to provide the name and address of your employer and of the location where you work if different. If you are asking whether you have to report your new employer information to the police if that should change before your next must register, I see nothing in 290 that says you need to update that before your next required registration. Yes, some other parts of 290 require you to update certain things if they change before your next registration, but I don’t see employment listed as one of those things.

From 290.015 (I note, #4 and 5 are not being enforced pending court appeals – you do not have to provide that for now):

The registration
shall consist of all of the following:
(1) A statement in writing signed by the person, giving
information as shall be required by the Department of Justice and
giving the name and address of the person’s employer, and the address
of the person’s place of employment if that is different from the
employer’s main address.
(2) The fingerprints and a current photograph of the person taken
by the registering official.
(3) The license plate number of any vehicle owned by, regularly
driven by, or registered in the name of the person.
(4) A list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used
by the person.
(5) A list of any and all Internet service providers used by the
(6) A statement in writing, signed by the person, acknowledging
that the person is required to register and update the information in
paragraphs (4) and (5), as required by this chapter.
(7) Notice to the person that, in addition to the requirements of
the Act, he or she may have a duty to register in any other state
where he or she may relocate.
(8) Copies of adequate proof of residence, which shall be limited
to a California driver’s license, California identification card,
recent rent or utility receipt, printed personalized checks or other
recent banking documents showing that person’s name and address, or
any other information that the registering official believes is
reliable. If the person has no residence and no reasonable
expectation of obtaining a residence in the foreseeable future, the
person shall so advise the registering official and shall sign a
statement provided by the registering official stating that fact.
Upon presentation of proof of residence to the registering official
or a signed statement that the person has no residence, the person
shall be allowed to register. If the person claims that he or she has
a residence but does not have any proof of residence, he or she
shall be allowed to register but shall furnish proof of residence
within 30 days of the date he or she is allowed to register.
(b) Within three days thereafter, the registering law enforcement
agency or agencies shall forward the statement, fingerprints,
photograph, and vehicle license plate number, if any, to the
Department of Justice.

Actually, I don’t recall that you are required to give any vehicle information whatsoever to law enforcement. I do recall that it was required as a provision of probation/parole. I could be wrong though.


I have a question I was hoping someone could help answer for me.

I am a 290 Registrant who has a prospective new place to live in lined up. I live in Long Beach, CA and I’ve tried calling my old Probation department and the registration dept. with the long beach police and I can’t not find anyone who might be able to approve of this new location. I am a 290 but I am not public on the Megan’s law website from what people who can visit such things have told me. Do i still have to live within 2000ft. of a school or park? Because no where can I get a straight answer on such a thing. Is there someone who can help me? I would really like to rent this place, and it’s in a good neighborhood and is priced in my range.

I am still on probation but it’s a summary probation without a probation officer, due to realignment. Does anyone know a number in long beach i can call or a department, where i can get these things answered? I need to know as soon as possible and it seems like these things are harder to get answered than one might think.

Thank you in advance for your help.

From my understanding, if you are not a SVP and it’s not part of your sentencing terms, you can live where you want. I’d ask the person in charge of registration at your PD.

I wouldn’t ask the person in charge of registration; they’ll lie to your face. I’d ask an attorney that knows the law. Like Chance or Janice.

You might be able to live where you want, but if you plan on living in an apartment building or high rise, Long Beach enacted a law where new residents who are registered cannot live in the same building where another registered resident currently resides unless that individual is either a spouse or relative of that individual. You will have to contact Long beach P.D. for clarification or with probation department. Don’t assume anything when it comes to probation whether its formal or informal, it’s still probation. Play by the rules and you’ll be fine, don’t and you will pay the consequences. I’m guessing that you have a state case, if so don’t mess around with state/county probation they tend to have a chip on their shoulder. Good luck.

That is over broad. The state guideline is the same unit, not the general street address of an unrelated registrant. It is clearly in conflict with the state constitution based on the recent decisions.

I’m in Long Beach off of parole/probation. Long Beach at this time hasn’t enforced any sex offender living restrictions. Not unless your own parole/probation there is restrictions. I have a old number for a Sgt Eaton 562-570-7270 He is public relations/active patrol officer .. I talked to him once, the registation office transferred me to him because I asked about where can I live I’m off of probation. and he said “At this time city of Long Beach is not enforcing where a sex offender off of supervision can live” but this was like 2008.. I am not sure if he is still public relations

Thank you for all your help. I still haven’t got an answer from anyone in authority. I’ve called all over and nothing. They make it so hard to get answers. It’s like no one has anything of help, but only ways to break you down. It’s very interesting. Thank you though. I really appreciate it. If anyone has more information please feel free to post. I would like to hear other peoples experience. For instance who checks to see if your in compliance?

I know Halloween is a few months away, but I have a question regarding that holiday. I know when I was on probation I had conditions I had to abide by to stay in compliance. Now that I think about it, I don’t remember seeing anything in regards to Halloween in my packet of terms and conditions. I was terminated from probation last September. I was just wondering if I still need to stay in my house from 5pm-11pm on Halloween? Or is that only for people on probation and parole?

only if you are on probation. It is LA County Probation’s version of Parole’s Halloween program. City of Orange had some weird law on the books a bit ago that would force RC’s to keep their lights off, put up no decorations and post a sign stating “no candy here.” Subtle. That law was stricken when a certain civil rights attorney kicked that city in the unmentionables.

@curiouser … regarding Halloween restrictions on October 31st. The City of Cypress (Orange County) still has an ordinance on the books wherein you cannot decorate for Halloween or keep your lights on from 5:00 – 11:59 pm. There is no sign requirement, only no decorations and no lights. What’s crazy is that the restrictions apply only for October 31. So … if someone wanted to decorate they could from 10/1 – 10/30 and then take them down. How crazy is that???? Of course, you wouldn’t, but …

There is no state requirement related to Halloween. Some local towns tried to create local ordinances about registrants and Halloween, but CA RSOL (meaning Janice and crew) took them to task and prevailed.

I will add my own thoughts on it: Requiring you to stay in your home is house arrest, it is incarceration. That is unquestionably punishment. They cannot impose punishment, that is up to the sentencing judge. All else in 290 also is punishment in my opinion, but the courts have ruled it is not,and the courts have said that 290 is not part of the sentence, it is simply a collateral consequence.

No court in the land is going to rule that incarceration is not punishment.

Thanks for the info. This past Halloween I was invited to a costume party, but I didn’t go. Even before I caught my case I never past out candy so that wasn’t something I was worried about doing. I was just concerned about violating any law that I didn’t know about.

I just remember being told by my p.o. and counselor that I needed to stay indoors during Halloween with the lights off. I also remember seeing on the news “special task forces” visiting registrants that were on parole or probation on Halloween. I guess I had the mentality that I couldn’t ever do anything on Halloween.

I only brought this up because I was writing a friend/former cellmate about my new friends. I was telling him that my friends are half my age but ask me to hang out all the time. They are all in their early 20’s. I met them at the college. This Friday we’re having a bon fire. None of them know of my registrant status yet.

By the way, my friend who is incarcerated was my first cellmate at reception. He’s doing 49 to life. He struck out but dropped out because he incurred debt with white inmates using their cell phone. So the black inmates jumped him. That is why he went to protective custody. I still can’t believe they had cell phones in prison. He was a cool cellmate. I felt bad when I told him I only had ten months to do. He always reminds me that I’m fortunate to have my freedom.

DOE V. PORITZ. We are approaching the TWENTIETH “ANNIVERSARY” (July 25,1995 decision date), of the BEGINNING State Supreme Court case that GUTTED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION concerning registered Citizens !

As we approach that dark date, I want to do a series of snippets on that 65 page decision; maybe just some stuff every few days. Nothing too long; I’ll be quoting mostly. I know all of you are busy FIGHTING those people ……

TO START: From: “Courting Justice: The ten New Jersey cases that shook the Nation.” Book, published 2013.

Page 191: “.. Doe v Poritz…This methodology the Court used of stating it’s deference to the Legislature, but at the same time circumscribing the implementation of the law to keep it SAFELY within Constitutional boundaries, has become a model courts have used in subsequent cases to salvage an UNCERTAIN statutory scheme from invalidity.

“… Despite recent empirical research STRONGLY suggesting that Megans law is not particularly effective, the political realities are such that the system of sex offender registration begun in New Jersey is EMBEDDED in the Nation’s law enforcement and prevention structure.” Caps are mine for emphasis. More to follow

I have a random question: Anyone have any experience travelling to Catalina Island? I am trying to determine if I can book a 2-day getaway with my girlfriend for a much-deserved escape from normality… but am unsure what rules Avalon has in place, or what rules I have to abide by?
I searched their municipal code and found nothing regarding sex offenders. I’ve been off parole since 2010. Any advice is appreciated.

Santa Catalina is part of the Channel Islands of California archipelago and lies within Los Angeles County. So should be no problem since it’s part of California.

Regarding travel to other states , who is to know when you leave or come back or even where you are . You are under the radar unless somebody is ratting on you nobody is going to know you are a sex offender . Same way with going into a park you don’t have a tag on you that says I am a sex offender.

You are only under the radar — until you get caught. Anything can happen while out of the state, and some of those things could lead to you being found out. That can even include false allegations, but nonetheless, you get picked up and found out. Hey, driving accidents happen – and they are accidents. All you need is an injury accident, and you will be found out.

I know a registered citizen that was visited at his hotel room in Las Vegas by the local police doing a “Compliance check”. They wanted to know how long he planned on staying in town. He said the hotel notified the police after he had registered at the hotel and they ran a check on his drivers license. I don’t know if this is a policy in all hotels in Vegas or where ever, But keep in mind that when you’re required to show your ID for a car rental or hotel, you’re leaving a trail.

Just another thought… If local police have reason to believe you’ve been non-compliant, they may be able to obtain a warrant to investigate any credit/debit card transactions which could place you in another state. It may seem far fetched, but it’s something to consider.

Yeah, I have zero intention of trying to sneak until I get caught. My girlfriend wants me to go to Mexicali with her for a day or two, and with the article about international travel I don’t even wanna try. I realize I could probably cross, but what about coming back? What if something random happens and I get caught?

These rules are frustrating. No one seems to be on the same page. Heck, some cities flat out refuse to follow the rules they were given… Yes, I’m looking at you, Carson.

Thank you for the responses. I got ONE question answered. Hehe.

I have another one farther down on this page, regarding residency restrictions and day area. If anyone cares to scroll down that may know, or can point me to someone I could ask?

Hello, newly registered and I have a question. I plead no contest to 288.2 and was wondering if my information shows up in the publicly available Megan’s Law site?

From the reading I’ve done, it looks like I might fall into the ‘undisclosed’ category where I have to register but it doesn’t show up.

My lawyer can’t tell me (shows me that I should’ve hired one who knew this area better) and obviously I can ask someone to check if they see me but I’d like to keep this quiet.


It does not. I have the same issue. I guess our charge is the hot topic with the highly-motivated law enforcement folks who sit in dark rooms with laptops posing as vulnerable victims.

So it doesn’t show up then? That’s going to be a huge relief to my wife. She’s afraid of having people protesting outside our house and bothering my kids.

And yes, it was from an internet sting. Those should be illegal, the only victims are us and our families!

Thanks for the info.

I had a question as to visiting California. I am no longer required to register in my state any longer. I tried to find out if I needed to do anything if I visited, but it was clear as mud. I contacted a lawyer who told me the best avenue was to contact the CA DOJ. I tried calling and emailing them, but no response.
So at this point unless I hear otherwise, I am going to just assume that I would only visit under the number of days alotted to not having to register. Plus the way I read the AWA stuff is that someone would have to register if they are away from their home for 7 or more days if they were EVER convicted (i.e registration status means nothing in this case). Am I correct in this?

My question is in the “registration laws for all 50 states” on this site is states that the number of days to visit California is 5. Does that mean that someone has to register if they are there 5 or more days, or can stay 5 days, but must register if the stay is beyond that? I’m trying to figure out if I can stay 5 days, or should intentionally make it only 4. I want to enjoy life, but make completely sure I never have to register again.

Thanks for any help…

Yes they did. The rep for the DOJ said that the only thing that mattered was that I had a conviction, and that it didn’t matter what my state says in terms of being registered or not.

Redeemed1, before you chase this rabbit too far, you need to seek advice from a qualified lawyer. The personnel at DOJ and the PD are just plain, people and they will twist the law to their liken. The decent cops will tell you “they do not know”.

Harry, I did exactly that. He suggested that I talk to the DOJ. Ca seems to be one vicious circle.

I would be very interested to know where that is codified. I do know some states (hawaii being one) that want proof from your home state that you no longer need to register, and then they basically leave you alone forever. But I would like to see where under 290, or any of the other places these requirements are hidden, that says a person who no longer needs to register must continue to register.

You and me both. The interesting thing is that I was looking through some of the old posts from last year and noticed something interesting. If you look at a post by MA Citizen on this page:

you will see a letter from the DOJ that says “Currently, California Penal Code section 290 requires a registrant who is residing in one location for more than five (5) working days to register with the law enforcement agency (Police or Sheriff Department) having jurisdiction over his/her location.”

Then I get the “each jurisidiction can make up their own rules” response from the same organization. What gives?

I suppose ignorance is/was bliss for me but after reading some of the posts….

I have spent the last few years thinking/dreaming that some day I can stop registering and not have to worry about traveling within or outside of CA. My conviction was in CA 2 years ago and hope to get a COR in another 8 years. I planned on never leaving CA (travel or otherwise) for the next 8 years so I didn’t have to worry about registering in another state. Minimize the red tape and exposure to the public.

So what I’m hearing is that if I get a COR in CA (the state of my offense and the only state I have registered in) and no longer have to register in CA I will still face restrictions in states (NV, OR, AZ, etc) if I decide to travel there in vacation? If this is the case…this is really disheartening.

MS…unfortunately, you are right. I was in the exact same boat. I couldn’t wait for this nightmare to be over. I thought the once I was off the registry, that I finally had “served my time.” The only silver lining is that I am free to travel around my own state at will and not worry about it. I’d assume you’d have the same when you get off on CA. (just glad I don’t live in Rhode Island…that would

I’ve only contacted three other states (CA, Hawaii, and Michigan), hence I really don’t know what the other ones would say about the manner. My guess is that most (if not all) will require something. The only positive thing I read was someone said that they actually moved to New Hampshire (while they were still registered) and was told that they they no longer had to register anymore. This is only one person, so I obviously can’t make any conclusions. I was very happy for him though.

At this point, I am going to assume that I will have to observe the limits given by each state, and I will only take short trips to states that have reasonable limits, where I can stay under the number of days. I’m just hoping that when inquiring that most are like Hawaii and MI, who gave me EXACT answers for the entire state, not this we let each jurisdiction make up their own rules.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but unfortunately after the registry we need to make sure we still have that “yellow star” on us when going to another state.

A lot can (and will) happen in 8 years. Stop planning your funeral and start planning for your early release from probation, reduction to misdemeanors, expungement, and COR. Fight.

So, is next week when the City of Carson gets taken to school?

A hearing is scheduled in the Carson case in state court on June 11 in Los Angeles. There are two motions pending in that case. The City of Carson is asking the judge to grant a demurrer and the plaintiff is asking the judge to allow him to file an amended complaint that would add two causes of action and the potential for punitive damages. The judge is expected to make a ruling on that day and we will report on the outcome as soon as possible.

DOE V PORITZ Part 2: “A new and alien approach to American law, and the scope of government power… to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to pull the Country, and public opinion into the “correct” paths, in spite of Constitutional ” impediments”…( Sense Offences, August, 2009).

To start, typing verbatim on just the very first part to make clear what their scheme was. As I did on the previous, will CAPITALIZE their words for emphasis.

OPINION, written by Chief Justice Wilentz.
“Section 1, LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE: Addressing the problem of repetitive sex offenders.
“The essence of our decision is that the Constitution does NOT PREVENT our society from attempting to protect itself from convicted sex offenders NO MATTER WHEN CONVICTED, so long as the means of protection are REASONABLY designed for that purpose..and not designed to punish;

“that the community notification provided for in these laws gives it’s remedial purpose, rationality, and limited scope; further assured by our opinion and judicial review, is NOT Constitutionally vulnerable because of it’s inevitable impact on sex offenders’ LOSS OF ANONYMITY is NO Constititutional bar to society’s attempt at self defense.”

Hello again. I am back with another question. Soooo…. La Puente states in their municipal code that:

“Residential Exclusion Zone shall mean and includes those areas located within two thousand feet from the nearest property line of the subject property to the nearest property line of a child care center, public or private school, including but not limited to, any or all of, grades K through 12, public library and/or park, in which a sex offender is prohibited from temporarily or permanently residing.”

I recently found a house that appeared 2000ft from God and everyone else… but it seems there’s a licensed daycare at a house on the next street. With the court’s previous decision to disallow municipalities from enacting more stringent restrictions, I’m left unsure where to turn. Were daycares included in the State’s restrictions? Do I just take a chance and wait for the city to turn on me, then fight it? What to do, what to do?! 0.o

hmmm…. No answer on who I could ask to find out, or any links that would answer it? I keep googling things, but most articles regarding it are outdated considering all the challenges and changed meanings.

And most PDs I speak to simply shrug…

Unfortunately there’s no way of predicting what will happen when you move into a new neighborhood. Some neighbors are vigilant and will try one way or another to force you to move, whereas others may be passive and leave you alone. It’s a chance you have to take and it’s up to you whether you stand your ground or not. You would be perfectly legal to live there provided you’re not on probation or parole. But consider some of the parents of the daycare children may panic if they find out and want to pull their kids out of the daycare due to your proximity. The daycare provider would feel forced to react to protect their interest and livelihood. What then?

I just hired a lawyer to help me conduct the Certificate of Rehabilitation process. If granted this will stop my duty to register as a sexual offender in the state of California.

From my understanding, the lawyer I hired is very good as what he does. He has extensive experience in sex offenses. His recent primary focus, however, has been applying for certificates of rehabilitation on behalf of sex offenders who qualify.

Well beyond the ten years since my original conviction, and having proof of a solid five-years residency within the state, I thought now would be a perfect time to start the ball moving.

As such, I thought I’d offer a brief version of my story along with what I’ve been doing since my conviction. Hopefully there is some information from what I’ve experienced that may help somebody else in the future. In addition, I have some questions for the individuals who have successfully petitioned the court for the certificate or anybody who may have solid information to provide regarding moving forward following the certificate.

In 2000 I pled guilty to having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girlfriend. I was 21. There was a videotape produced when the victim was 5-months shy of her 18th birthday. Regardless of age, I broke the law.

I was convicted of a single count of 311.4, a misdemeanor sex offense that carries a lifetime registration requirement. Fortunately I am not subject for internet disclosure in this state. However, I did briefly move out of state for less than a year where I was posted online. When I moved back to California I discovered a third party independent from the state’s registry had extracted my picture and the California court case numbers from online and posted the information to their site. It has remained there for the last six years.

I convinced myself after discovering my information online that my life was utterly over, just as I’m sure many other registrants have felt as different avenues in their life. I began to feel sorry for myself and was constantly angry with how my life turned out. The idea of establishing friendships and relationships with people frightened me. The stigma of being a sex offender is just too great. As such, I am easily 50 pounds overweight and thought for sure there was no point to anything.

I learned after reestablishing residency in California 5 years ago that I could actually petition the courts in the county I lived in for a certificate of rehabilitation. This bit of news was exciting and a glimmer of hope began to materialize. I really didn’t have anything to offer the court in terms of “rehabilitation”, but I thought, what the hell, why not attend college? Certainly a bachelor’s degree would look good in the packet I file with the court.

In the five years since I made it my goal to apply for the certificate of rehabilitation, I have completed Honors’ classes at my local community college and have earned a transfer GPA of 3.6 going into the state school. I recently picked up my diploma from the community college where I finished and now have an AS degree in Social Science. I expect to complete my bachelor’s degree by Spring 2016. Hopefully this, in addition to some professional letters from professors at my school, will compel the judge to cut me loose from the 290 crazy train.

My attorney has me going through an evaluation process with a psychologist. The idea is if I can pass a screening with a psychologist that is well regarded and whose opinion is respected by the courts, then there shouldn’t be any reason for the judge to not sign off on it. One can only hope though. What I’ve been wondering for the last week or so, is if this does indeed get granted, and I no longer have to register, am I free to move anywhere in the country and not be subject for registration in those states? I would think no, but I have also read elsewhere where certain states have laws indicating otherwise. I would think that if I moved to another state that had a tiered registry and registrants were let off after a certain period of time, and I didn’t have to register in California anymore there would be no issue.

Anybody out there know anything about this? Thanks.

So tonight’s “Dateline NBC” program was “What Would Your child Do….” Was it about what would your child do if her best friend cheated on a test?”, “….if they found a wallet full of cash”, “…if the house caught fire?” No, certainly not. It was, of course, “What would your child do if the terrifying stranger in the trench coat knocked on the door?”

The implications of this could be far reaching for some; that is if this is something they choose to consider. But how to get out of here without DHS foiling anyone’s plans.

Imagine that…a country who is actually civilized and treats human beings as human beings. The USA was once that way but those days are gone. Now all we can do is bully the rest of the world and tell people to stay out of our country!

Yes, the million dollar question is how to get out of the prison the USA has become!

Wouldn’t you be able to go there and if they stop you, declare that you are seeking asylum? Not sure how that works.

It’s something I would consider.

Interesting, but not very clear. And I see nothing about travelers, as opposed to “migrants.” No where in the story does it say anything I can take to apply to mere travelers.

If it doesn’t apply to travelers, then they might be blocking entry by registrants, as the US is sending some pretty inflammatory information about any registrant who travels, and reports are that pretty much all countries are refusing entry when you get to the border because of that. I haven’t heard anything specifically about Ecuador on that point.

Does Ecuador makes sex offenders register? OH, that would be terrible, to emigrant to Ecuador only to be faced with the same crap!

Ecuador is the same country that has given political asylum to Julian Assange of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden.

I have been granted to be heard by the 9th circuit of appeal based on the fact that Megan’s law is Ex post facto and therefore unconstitutional. Is there anyone else out there that can help over throw this unjust law in California. I must return a brief before 8/3/2015. I am fighting for us all and if it is proved unconstitutional, it’s a big win for us all. I have the discrimination and the reasons for me being on Megan’s web site is unconstitutional. I just need a sounding board. The conviction was in 1987. The 1203.4 Expulsion was 1992. The COR was 2005. Do you want this to go away and see this law declared unconstitutional? I’m your best bet. We have less than 2 months to work on this. Do you want to see this law revised and at less for the present time taken off the books? Don’t just complain about your situation help me to help all of us. This is the first and best chance to get rid of a constitutional law.

What do you have in mind? Do you need letters? Do you need personal accounts how the website is ruining lives and endangering registrants? Do you need funds to pay for an attorney? How can we help?

Without knowing specifically what course of action you’ve already taken, it might be in your best interest to contact Janice or Chance directly to see if this is a case they are willing to take on. Doing this with solid legal counsel would probably be in your best interest and in the best interest of all concerned, but as far as I know (and I could be wrong) just due to ethics and other issues, even if those who can help you do read this comment, they would not be able to publicly solicit you as a client. Your best bet is reaching out to them directly rather than posting online. It’s possible that you already have and, for whatever reason, that’s not a viable avenue for you. But in the off chance–figured it was worth mentioning.

Mack, what specifically are you requesting? How can we help?

You haven’t said, do you have a lawyer for this?

I note, we all agree with you that even simple registration without any of the collateral disabilities that just keep getting piled on more and more is punishment. Gee, the California high court in the 1970s ruled simple registration alone could be more than that, could rise to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, at least for lesser offenses. (The more recent high court, under former Chief Justice George, has overturned that decision and says it is no punishment at all.) However, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the punishment issue and says it is not. What is your different argument than presented before that will get through the US Supreme Court?

And I note, the high court loves to overturn decisions by the Ninth Circuit, it is practically a sport at that high court to do so. The Ninth Circuit is known as the most liberal of the appellate courts, and SCOTUS decidedly is the opposite.

You will not prevail by merely asserting it is punishment. I expect you will have to at least present plenty of actual circumstances of things happening. But whatever those things are, how will you get SCOTUS to agree they amount to punishment? The courts have denied everything about the punishment assertion already. What do you plan to present that is different?

And when you present these circumstances, even if they agree with you, they would certainly limit the ruling to only one thing, not to registration generally. That is, only one collateral disability, such as a blanket approach to housing restrictions, but leave all other crap intact as not punishment.

Your argument is right. But you are dealing with a very unreceptive court, a court system up and down the ranks that is willing to lie through its teeth any time it is presented with an argument it can’t beat. When it can’t legitimately beat an argument, it simply uses the power of the court to change the definition of words so everything you argue and present becomes insignificant. I always explain that by saying they simply rule that red is blue. You are not going before an honest court system.

I’ll add, you REALLY need to read the past 25 years of court decisions in California and at SCOTUS — or you will stand no chance., That is a ton of reading and could take a very long time. But if you fail to do it, you stand no chance. Frankly, it has long been my opinion that no one or two attorneys together can possibly deal with all that has to be dealt with to possibly have any chance to prevail. I think it will take a larger group of attorneys, each with their own area of expertise and all meeting and coordinating together, and expect to take year(s) preparing the case. Really. There is just far too much and far too many details and avenues and approaches to prevail any other way.

And you are up against a prosecution side where the state attorneys on sex offenders law have been doing nothing but that for decades, it has been their entire career, and the state has several attorneys already doing what I said you need to do with a group of attorneys. I have long felt that lack of this approach is a big reason why case after case that absolutely should prevail keeps getting shot down.

I am not trying to discourage you, just trying to prep you to go deeper and farther into it if you want to prevail.

Mark I applaud you for doing something to try to overturn these laws and god speed to you. I am not a religious man but I beleive that good always prevails over evil. Anyway if I can assist you in anyway email me at . Here is a motion with the issues I beleive need to be brought forth hopefully you can use some of the info or bring fortb the issues in your brief. Let me know if this helps I spent a lot of time to compile this info. Good luck.

I the plaintiff_______________________ do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief. This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megans law as applied to me.


I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.

Governments have an obligation to protect people and take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction to protect them from violence. One element of that duty is to take measures to deter and prevent crime. They must do so, however, within a human rights framework, which places restrictions on those measures that infringe on the human rights guaranteed to all. A person’s conviction of a crime does not extinguish his or her claim to just treatment at the hands of government.
American policies regarding sex offenders mark them as a special category of criminals for whom no stigma is too crippling, no regulations are too restrictive, and no penalty is too severe. This attitude, driven by fear and outrage, is fundamentally irrational, and so are its results, which make little sense in terms of justice or public safety.
Sex offender laws interfere with a panoply of protected rights: the rights to privacy, to family and home, to freedom of movement and liberty (including the right to work and to reside where one chooses ), and to physical safety and integrity (including protection from harm by private as well as public actors), while not achieving any legitimate legislative objectives. None of these rights are absolute, but laws that infringe upon them must be necessary to serve a legitimate public interest and they must be rational and evidence-based. It is important to recognize that constitutional protections must be afforded to all regardless of the public having a perception of certain classes having a pariah reputation. The government cannot allow rights to be taken away arbitrarily “based solely upon the category of the crime for which the offender is found guilty.”


There are several 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 and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to life, liberty, property, my freedom of movement and my freedom of association.

2. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental privacy rights.

3. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.

4. The sex offender registration and notification laws have no rational basis when applied to me in my case.


1. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to liberty and freedom of movement and my freedom of association by severely infringing on my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. It is a violation of my fundamental right to liberty and to freely travel and associate in this country. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit regjstared sex offenders from being present. The registration and notification laws makes it impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconviences or limited collateral consequences of registration but are major violations of my fundamental rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to: The right to interstate travel. The right to intrastate travel. Any restrictions a government statute or policy places on these rights are evaluated with strict scrutiny. The Bill of Rights was specifically adopted to protect fundamental freedoms from the will of the majority.

2. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental privacy rights by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the internet from privately owned and operated websites such as That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harrasment and vandalism.These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. This is not a minor collateral consequence of registration but a major violation of my fundamental right to privacy. The Megans law website also displays my criminal record that should only be available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse. Again, these violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

3. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.

A. The fact that the courts have previously stated that registration and notification laws are minor collateral consequences of a regulatory scheme is simply unreasonable to conclude now in light of all the recent research that has been done on this subject and based on the severity of those consequences I now face because of the registration and notification laws. These laws are unreasonable and are grossly disproportionate as they severely infringe on my fundamental rights while not achieving any legitimate legislative purpose or objectives of increasing public safety, preventing recidivism or reducing sexual abuse as demostrated in the following reports from some of the leading authorities on this subject.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

Under the current system many local registaring agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lifes of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernable benefit in terms of community safety.

The full report is availible online at.

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

The full report is available online at.

The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

The full report is availible online at.

The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do.

From Justice Policy Institute.
Estimated cost to implement SORNA
Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

The court should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or the courts in previous decisions 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 fiction. The court should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% (page 38)

The full report is available online at.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.

The full report is available online at.

Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013

Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.

The full report is available online at.

Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.

A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

Link to Report:

Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

Link to Report:

Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

B. These sex offender laws in California (my state) are arbitrary since they are applied in a blanket enforcement policy that makes no distinctions between myself and those who may or may not pose any risk to the public and provides no due process to make those determinations. The registration requirement is unconstitutional in that it saddles me with an “irrefutable presumption” that I am likely to reoffend and so violates my rights to due process of law. I have no “meaningful” opportunity to challenge whether I should be subject to lifetime registration, Even if there was such an opportunity the laws would still be arbitrary as they have no rational basis in my case since I am a non-violent, first time offender from an incident that occurred over a decade ago. These laws actually destabilize my life which increases my risk for re-offense, without achieving any legislative objective of increasing public safety, preventing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism.

C. These laws are oppressive as they affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws are also oppressive because they restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megans law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harrasment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have allready endured in my present location. These laws also create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harrasment and vandalism which is oppressive as it makes me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the second incident simply because my information is on the Megans law website. We have had our vehicles vandalized and our lifes threatened because I am subject to these registration and notification laws. These laws are also oppressive as they cause me severe psychosocial stressors that cause major mental and physical disorders which can and do affect my abiity to perform job duties or perform normal daily activities and to reintegrate into society. My psychology reports by the parole department states that I was being subjected to psychosocial stressors because I am being subjected to the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law. Once again these are not hypothetical, exaggerated incidents that have happened to other people but personal experiences in my case. I cannot move forward or successively reintergrate back into society because of all the collateral consequences caused by the registration and notification laws.The official action of requiring me to registar as a sex offender and the official action which includes my inclusion on the Megans law website is the cause of this oppression. These are severe violations of my fundamental rights. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

4. The sex offender registration and notification laws are completely irrational as applied to me in my case. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase risk factors that increases my risk of re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse or increasing public safety. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to track and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abducters/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself.

The sex offender registration and notification laws or Megans law, as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, my freedom of movement and my freedom of association. These laws also violate my fundamental privacy rights and my fundamental right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws have no rational basis in my case and are actually counterproductive since these laws do in fact increase known risk factors for re-offense without achieving any legitimate legislative objectives in increasing public safety, preventing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism. It is in the publics best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintergrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety.
These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

I pray the court grant me Declaratory relief and/or Injunction relief or any other relief the court deems necessary and to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws or Megans law. Also, I’m asking the court, if the court deems it necessary, to conduct evidentiary hearings to determine if I should be granted relief from these laws and to appoint me appropriate council during these proceedings since I can not afford an attorney.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________

Met with my P.O. for first time. she said I’m in the top 10% of her load. she said she doesn’t worry about me and said that the “blanket” system unfortunately groups me. Then she went on to tell me where it’s best to avoid. The suggestions where almost absurd. The mall, Starbuck’s, the library, the ymca swimming. So I can’t shop, enjoy a latte, use a public library( I chose not to own a computer during probation to show my willingness to cooperate, so I go use the library’s) and exercise( I use adult time at pool). So my Psychologist says don’t isolate, but the system says don’t use what your taxes go to support. Can someone tell me how to loosen this rope around my throat, please.

My advice is do everything that you are legally allowed to do including all those things she listed.

Let the P.O. really get to know you a bit. Mine told me at our first meeting much the same as yours did to you. That I was low to no risk, and most of what was in the Static 99 didn’t apply to me. If what you wrote is an accurate interpretation of what was told you, the “wheres to avoid” is pretty the p.o.’s suggestions of how to minimize things that could turn into issues for you, regardless of the fact that you would do nothing wrong. I had a messy time thanks to a nosey neighbor. If there are things you just absolutely are prevented from doing (associating with known felons, if you are a felon on probation yourself), and those are things the P.O. would let you know in no uncertain terms.

That said, they are civil servants with a job to do, and a supervisor hanging over their head. There are things they must make sure you do. If you have court-ordered therapy (the 52-week program, for example), get signed up and be diligent about it. There will possibly be polygraphs. Make your payments if you have things to pay. Do anything and everything to avoid a violation. Focus on reaching the halfway mark with no glitches so you can petition the court to 1). terminate the probation early and dismiss the charge; 2.) reduce any felony to misdemeanor; 3.) expunge the resultant charge post-reduction.

Stay strong, focused, and if confused, ask for help or guidance. Best of luck and prayers to you

Thx. I paid my fines ($2000) within the first week. I have been attending all my classes for more than 9 months now, long before my 90 day “vacation”.
I worry about the home visits and how it will affect my neighbor’s view of me. I am a very sensitive person, unfortunately. this whole thing has been very traumatic for me. I wish I had never bought that damn laptop. So easy to get sucked in, but impossible to ever get over. I heard that there is no reduction or expungement for 311(a). I so hope I heard wrong. I miss my life, and am happy to be getting free of the chains of this addiction I fell into. Everyone here has been so supportive and compassionate. I hope I can pay this forward some day. I will light a candle for all of you at temple today when I go.

Hopefully you manage to get out after just 12 months. They call it a 52-week program and that’s not always the case. I did 20 months thanks to the ridiculously slow pace. Sometimes not even one assignment got presented in 90 minutes. I got lucky and only had an unheard of 5 day vacation. If it wasn’t for a DA change during my case (the orignal DA moved away) I would have done 3 months like most 311.11(a) people. Wife and I worry about the home visits as well. Last visit was by 5 Sheriff’s Deputies. At least they didn’t bring any news crews with them or talk to any neighbors (at least not that we saw). Pornography addiction is real…look at how many people are getting arrested for this. I had downloaded over 1.5TB of legal porn. Discovered porn at age 7…struggled with it for decades…arrested for it at age 43. I lost the battle. If you took a plea deal there is a chance that you might be able to get it expunged. Check out If you took a plea deal after January 1st…probably not going to happen thanks to AB20 (assembly bill) that took effect January 1st, 2014. I think a reduction might still be possible. I haven’t heard that a reduction isn’t possible but maybe I’m just ignorant about it.

Remember…you’re not alone.

I lit some sage for you.

Talking to Chance Oberstein would help you to get some very accurate, solid information about what avenues will be available to you under the current legislative environment.

While CA RSOL is primarily related to laws and sex offender issues in California, other states’ laws may have impact on California. Similarly, laws enacted in response to California laws that have been repealed by federal court should have jurisdiction in all the states of the appellate court. In this instance, the decision to reverse the Internet ban from California Propisition 35 should affect the entire jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. One of those states of jurisdiction is Montana.

However, Montana recently enacted a law earlier this year, Montana House Bill 88 (HB88), dictates that all Internet identifiers be included at regstration and when they become active. Here is a link to the PDF of the statute:


Here is the particular part of HB88 that, in my opinion, violates the 9th Circuit judgment. The specific ordinance is 46-23-504 (page 6 of the PDF document; edited for clarity):)

46-23-504“(3) The information collected from the offender at the time of registration must include (h) all of the offender’s e-mail addresses and social media screen names.”

My questions, not in any particular order:

1. Shouldn’t this law be dead in the water, based upon the unequivocal decision by the 9th Circuit panel?

2. If not, is it incumbant upon the registered citizen to pay for the challenge to the Montana court system, given that this is a federal law that is supposed to invalidate all such laws in its jurisdiction, which includes Montana?

3. What other avenues can be pursued?

I’m a bit of a layman here, but what is the scenario for Montana registrants to fight this already-rendered-unconstitutional law?

Sad but almost comical.

These tourists did something foolish for sure. Many in Malaysia blame their acts for the recent earthquake. I’m curious now how soon it will take the California wacko-prudes (ie Runners et al) to blame the registered citizens for global warming, the drought and whatever earthquakes happen next. This state/country is run by regressivists, wanting us all to return to the good old days of the Victorian era. Yes, let us put crocheted doilies on our table legs as to not arouse ourselves or others at the sight of an uncovered leg of any kind. Will reason and logic ever win over this madness?

Great…just on the news. The search is on for a flasher in a trench coat in Carson. Just what we need to stir up the crazies in Carson.

Did the Carson flasher bear any resemblance to Al Robles? 😛

MS – I can’t find any information on AB20. What exactly does it entail? We took a Plea Deal 1/8/14. We were hoping to petition or an early termination of probation and possibly expungement of a felony PC314. Any chance of that happening?

Here is the bill:

I don’t see PC314 on the list, so you might be okay. But still check with an attorney.

Hi Someone who cares-
It is not easy to find information on bills unless you know where to look. I cannot answer any questions about your particular bill but I can help you find out about the bill itself. To find the legislative information you are interested in follow these directions:

1. In your search engine (google) type in “California legislative bill analysis” and hit enter
2. Click on “Bill Analysis – California legislative action”
3. Once the new page loads, on the right side near the top you will see “quick search” and 2 boxes. The first box will already be filled in with “Bill Number”.
4. In the second box type in AB 20 and click on “go”
5. When the new page comes up just change the session year from 2015-2016 to 2013-2014 and click on search.
5. The bill you are asking about is measure AB 20, Obscene Matter: Minors.
6. Click on AB 20 and start your research by reading the tab “Today’s Law as amended”
7. It is important to also read everything under the “bill analysis” tab

This should help you start your research

Thx again for everybody’s support and suggestions. My life has been literally destroyed by my actions. No job, friends deserted me, Apt in high crime area ( only one I could afford in bay area ), Girlfriend passed 3 months ago from cancer, and family in complete denial of my circumstances. I am definitely scared about my future. I meditate, but depression is there waiting for me when I’m done. Reading your posts is my only salvation.

Look. It won’t ALWAYS be this way. Yeah, our old lives are gone. Nothing we can do about that. But you DO have a future. I know it’s big and scary out there, and you’ve got a lot against you. But THOUSANDS of us have jobs, families, lives. You can DO this.

A question. I read a lot on this forum about the possible change in the tier program. something like ten yrs for persons like myself. Does any one know the current state of that?


Its scuttlebutt.. meaning there is nothing official… meaning its not real…. meaning its one of the reasons of why we are fighting…

Patience, there are currently no tiers to California’s Registry: for those required to register as a result of their offense, the Registry is for life. However, California RSOL is advocating for a tiered registry that would allow people to be removed from the Registry after 10 or 20 years based on risk assessment and length of time being offense-free. (This is my own summary of CA RSOL’s tiered registry advocacy. I suggest you “stay tuned” to this website to learn more about it.)

I posted this a couple of days ago and it hasn’t appeared. Here goes again. The academic paper at is about how the advocates for a registry in Smith v. Doe (2003) at SCOTUS presented a tissue of fabrications which falsely painted sex offenders as very dangerous, even given the information available at the time. This legalized the registry, so it was a big deal and still is. And the falseness on which it was based is a big deal that seriously affects the lives of some 800,000 registered citizens around the US. Talk about sausage! People here need to read this one. Do I have to sell this any more?

Has there been any research done on PTSD in the registered citizen population? In the last 10 years I have begun exhibiting most of the symptoms of PTSD and the only “traumatic” event in my life has been the release of my registration info online, and at least 15 instances of harassment (both by authorities and by citizens), public shaming, false accusations, loss of work/business, and loss of friends.

In the last 5 years it has resulted in insomnia, daily recurring headaches, nightmares, severe stress, high blood pressure, and a general decline in my physical and mental health. Counseling and therapy certainly help to resolve the past, but a person can only cope with just so much recurring trauma in their life before the coping mechanism fails.

Any feedback on this issue is welcome.

I am the wife of a currently incarcerated registrant. After the swat team attack on my home (I was alone at the time) and the public arrest of my husband by approximately 20 agents where I was handcuffed, searched at the point of a shotgun, and thrown into the back of a squad car, I have been diagnosed with PTSD.

PS That was after the local news station went door to door in our neighborhood to inform all my neighbors that my husband was being investigated for CP and our pictures were on all the local news shows for a full week!

That’s terrible. My case was on the radio and it was horrifying. I know for a fact I had PTSD during and after my experience but luckily somehow came out of it. Like your case, when it gets to the media you feel like the spotlight is totally on you IN REALITY it’s not and most of the people listening and watching the news will forget about it quickly. Keep your chin up.

I have been diagnosed with PTSD, and I’m on medication for it stemming from the legal process and incarceration. I have zero trust in law enforcement and want nothing to do with the law. Even if I were to see a crime in progress, forget reporting it or calling 911; I’ll just look the other way and mind my own business.

I thought I overpaid my lawyer, because I received about the the same sentence as most of the people with similar charges in my therapy group. Now that I look back, this lawyer spent a lot of time switching court dates and rooms and somehow avoided having the media in the courtroom. One day it was very close, the media was set up in the room were I was scheduled to have a hearing. Somehow he had that switched. He might have saved my life, because I was in a deep depressing that only medication and therapy session kept from being fatal. Maybe it was just luck, but if I had experienced the level of shaming you have, I don’t know how I would have handled it. I’ve always been hyper sensitive to stressful situations. I could have easily jumped over a cliff at any time. All it takes for me is a law like Jessica’s law coming on the ballot to send me to the doctor.

NPS, Steve, Margaret Moon;

The majority of registered citizens have been through all or part of what all of you have gone through. I called that PASD, or Post Arrest Stress Disorder. The breaking in of doors, interviewing neighbors, face being posted all over the news and newspapers, friends abandon you, families turn their backs on you, aquaintances scorn you and law enforcement, prosecutors seek to ruin you. There is a feeling of helplessness, a desire to die (literally) by any means possible, there is no place to go for rest or solitude, suffering from paranoia, dreading any knock at your door for fear it may be the police. These are real, the effects of the arrest last a lifetime. I’ve learned to cope after 14 years, my circle of friends has shrunk considerably, I wake up each day grateful for the little I have. I had a stellar counselor, a man that was truly concerned about my outcome and well being. I learned a valuable lesson; because good people do foolish things, they’re not bad people. I tried to emphasize in my life the forgiveness I received from my God and my family and friends. I went door to door in my neighborhood and spoke to those who would listen, explaining what had happened and told them I’ll live openly and honestly, and that my doors are open if they have a need.
I have some friends who are in law enforcement, I am friends with the local chief of police, I’ve worked in police officers homes; what I’ve concluded for me is that I respect the men, but have little respect for their positions. I also have grown to expect nothing from anybody, but to depend solely upon God and the abilities I’m blessed with. Our losses because of a single foolish choice are unlimited; loss of income, loss of retirement, loss of property, friends, homes, jobs, loss of love, including future loves. Those pale in comparison to the loss of freedom we once had, but will never enjoy again as long as we’re on the registry. I wake up and wonder “what will I do today?” and the answer 6 days a week is “work.” Be grateful for the few small blessings you have, more shall come in time.

Will Bassler has come up with another winner at SOSEN. He has identified a case that will allow for a writ of error coram nobis that would allow Smith v. Doe to be revisited or even overturned with no need to rehear, based upon a previous case that invalidated the felony of a Japanese American who evaded internment orders during World War II. The internment of Japanese was originally upheld in the Supreme Court but used incorrect data at the time the case was heard.


In a nutshell, the Japanese American was convicted based upon the court’s finding that Japanese Americans were considered security risks that justified internment. During the man’s case, the state purposely withheld a significant amount of evidence that actually proved the opposite: Japanese Americans were NEVER a threat to the United states as a group. Obviously, there were concerns with regard to family members, though one could argue that there were many times as many whites of recent German immigration status whom still had family in Nazi Germany.

In any case, because the evidence that Japanese Americans most probably would have made a difference in the original decision that upheld the man’s conviction, the writ of error coram nobis was accepted and his conviction was overturned.

Frankly, there has never been ANY clearer case, other that perhaps any residual Jim Crow decisions in the early fifties, like that of the sex offender registry with regard to recidivism rates. Clearly, the most sitnificant reason, if not the only reason, given by the judges ruling in favor of the registry was the now-proven-false high recividism rates.

While even now it would appear to be a longshot to go this route, perhaps it can be added to a significant quiver of arrows that so far have been amassed in our struggle.

A notice to all in the SFV. Yesterday, I had my first ever “compliance” visit from the enemy. Just FYI, I have NEVER had one before and have been off parole for years. The “fuzz” as my building manager texted me, came by about 8:45am, I was not home, so they buzzed her apartment. She said they asked if I live here, she said yes, why? LUCKILY they were decent, I guess, and said “oh it’s just a compliance thing, and at that point, since I was not home, she said she escorted them out of the building. I got away with telling her it was something related to my job and sorry for the trouble. NO ONE where I live knows ANYTHING, and I would like to keep it that way. But these miserable people won’t let us just live our lives! Just FYI to those in Los Angeles, the nonsense has made it here. I only hope this is a one time occurrance. FYI I registered months ago, not recently.

Sorry a lil off topic here but some people may want to be aware of the following.

Writs of coram nobis cannot be used to address issues of law previously ruled upon by the court but only to address errors of fact that were not known by the defendant at time of trial or plea bargain, and were knowingly withheld during and after trial or plea agreement from judges and defendants by prosecutors; and which might have altered the verdict were they presented at the trial; or in the case of a plea agreement, where the defendant would not have agreed to the plea had he been made aware of the unknown fact.

An example would be a circumstance such as a defendant agrees to a plea agreement but the fact that the resulting conviction will have a direct consequence, such as lifetime registration as a sex offender, has been withheld from the defendant. Obviously, the prosecutor is aware of such a thing, and defendant’s attorney should certainly also be aware. Where this fact is withheld from the defendant, he is now prejudiced in that had he known the fact of lifetime registration he would not have pleaded guilty. The writ of coram nobis can be used to overturn such a plea agreement. If the defendant is still in custody however, he would petition for relief under habeas corpus.

I’m assuming that this comment is related to the article that I wrote for sosen first of all at one time I was a paralegal. But This is an area of law that I am not thoroughly familiar with as with all the articles that I write I try to put as much accurate information into them as I can in an attempt to begin people to think and try to find new ways to attack the situation I do know that rules 60 has done away with it the ability to file a CORAM NOBIS in civil matters , and I’m not sure to Smith versus those is civil or criminal. Considering that it dealt with, a constitutional issue relating to a law that had criminal overture’s the main reason for writing the article was to show that there is now proof that the United States Supreme Court, used false and erroneous information in making their decision

There is one other issue and that is the fact that apparently there is a difference between CORAM NOBIS and WRIT of ERROR CORAM NOBIS this is something that is going to take someone like a constitutional law professor to figure out. And I most definitely am not qualified but there really needs to be some way that we can force the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate their decision in Smith v Doe and as it states in “In short, if you plan to petition the First Circuit Court of Appeals (or any court) with a writ of error coram nobis, you better have a rock solid argument with some major allegations of collateral damage.” and I’m absolutely sure that we can prove that.

Anyone know what this means? Did the 4th District affirm its original opinion in full in an unpublished opinion or the Supreme Court’s remand?

James Johnson v. California Department of Justice; The People
Case: E055194 4th div2 District

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2015-06-17
Event Description: Opinion Available Online (Signed Unpublished).

To view opinion document for this case, go to:

Early Termination from Probation

Has anybody here tried to have their probation terminated early for a 290 offense? Success or epic fail? Details?

Should I bother trying? Waste of time and money? I’m sure an attorney would be happy to try if I hand over a few grand. Or would my money be better spent on lotto tickets?

Me: I have completed two of my 3 years of probation. No violations. Finished counseling and passed a polygraph. All my court fines are paid. Offense: possession of three underage webcam videos.

I did it in pro per (meaning without an attorney), and it cost me nothing. I was successful. What’s most important is that you have probation’s support in this matter because the court will ask them. Usually they’ll want to know on what grounds you are asking for early termination; state that the restrictions keep you from obtaining gainful employment. Prepare a personal statement about your accepting responsibility for the charges, that you have grown and become a better person. Character reference letters are a plus.

Thank you NPS!

Now that I know that there is a chance…I’m going to give it a try. I might even try to do it pro per as you did. With gainful employment (financial reasons) being the driving force behind my attempt, doing it myself might help reinforce the fact that trying to get off probation is for financial (gainful employment) reasons and not for the sake of getting off probation.

I think I might write my letter (to the court) and then send it to my PO. Ask him to read it and see if he is willing to tell me what his stance would be if I attempt (neutral, thumbs down, or thumbs up).

Next step would be to try and have it reduced (wobbler offense). I know I could try for both at the same time (hearing) but maybe that would reduce my chances for either. I also want to attempt an expungement as I took my plea deal before AB20 that went into law on Jan 1st 2014. suggests it might be possible by challenging it on constitutional grounds. I’m ready for a potentially long fight on that one.

I will post updates on my progress as they happen.

As AB 109 they cancelled my formal probation after just one year. I think you’d be successful. I am currently on a form of probation where i don’t have to do anything except not break any new laws. They have yet to check up on me after getting off formal probation a year and a half ago. No harm in trying.

Just a reminder when you go in to register..


Ask the photographer to make sure that they include the tie in the picture.

The last time I went in I was wearing a nice shirt and tie BUT they took a picture of my chin and up..

In my view, your picture is all over the net and when you wear a tie. You will be view differently.


I did the same thing. When I was photographed, the officer told the person taking the picture, “Make sure you just get his face.”

Saw your comments on the photo when registering. One time in Sunnyvale, Calif.,the Cop had me stand in front of the camera, but then asked me questions as I was standing there. As I found out, he was trying to get the WORST image of me while he was looking at his screen. And he did ! Next year I was ready to put my hand up to my face while answering the questions.. But it didn’t happen again.

that’s why you wear a tie.
Let see more ties in those mugshot!

A client of mine ( one of the few left ) proposed an interesting idea. Make a documentary of our plight. Many independent films get a lot of attention at film festivals. These are progressive minded peoplethat attend these who once exposed to the truth can help promote our cause. She suggested interviews with identities protected, statistics, even the improper dissemination of false and misleading information. She added that public officials that have broken laws after promoting them is a great point to bring home. I haven’t any experience in film, but I’m sure someone out there does or might know someone. Indy documentaries are fairly inexpensive and there’s many avenues for funding.

I hope this is something that could help our cause.


Sorry to hear your business is dwindling, presumably as a result of the Megan’s Law social media site from hell. Might I ask what kind of work you do?

I am an exercise physiologist. I work with geriatrics. Not allowed on the campuses I worked at because I’m a danger to a vulnerable population. Really? I might have to give up my profession and I don’t know what else to do. 18 yrs of experience, a stellar naval career, and for what, I have all the classic traits. Abused by parents, moved around a lot so very few friends, and the loss of a loved one. But I’m a danger. What ever.

NPS: THANK YOU for answering my question ! Only could a first person experience like yours illustrate so well that SanFrancisco is truly a city of

And while we are on the subject of “The City”, Does EVERYONE KNOW that when MARK LENO, when he was on the SanFrancisco Board of Supervisors, he introduced the Ordinance of providing equal access to the city health plan for transgender employees of SanFrancisco in 2001 ?

And of course, we all remember in JANICE BELLUCCI’S JOURNAL of 12 May, 2015 “…SB-267 Withdrawn” that Senator MARK LENO said he could NOT support SB-267 ?
Is everyone getting this ?????

Kudos and Thanks to CA Senator Mark Leno – a voice or reason, intelligence and compassion.

I don’t know if it’s just me … but, this morning while listening to President Obama talk about the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage all I could do was ‘listen’ to it as though he was talking about registrants rights. Of course, there were some parts that didn’t/wouldn’t apply … however, many of comments could so easily apply to registrants should the Supreme Court ever decide to do the right thing and realize that registration is punishment … especially the word “patchwork” – this decision hereby eliminates the ‘patchwork’ of wondering what rights a gay couple would have in one state vs another (heck, for registrants it’s city-vs-city) … sounds much like the issue registrants have today.

Not that surprising when one considers what the registry was created for in this state back in 1947

I had the same feelings. I heard that employers cannot discriminate against convictions beyond seven years. This law reaches decades past to punish and cause discrimination and societal banishment for the most part, based on myths, superstitions and of course hatred, which is what was being addressed in today’s speech. Of course if interstate pacts were established, registrants would be subject to the lowest common denominators of mistreatment – enter Flori-duh et al.

They say that on the background check paperwork, that it’ll only go back 7 years… But when I get checked thy find a DUI of narcotics from 20 years ago…

I’d heard second hand from a corporate HR attorney that discrimination in the hiring/employment process is illegal if it pertains to anything beyond seven years.

It is common knowledge however that registrants are subject to an essential lifetime of mistreatment in most employment situations. This includes disdain and implicit harassment in the workplace in a manner very similar to how registrants and their families are treated in their own neighborhoods and districts. The employer will not hire a registrant because he does not want to enforce the law against the likely subsequent vigilante and bullying treatment the staff feels entitled to administer to the employed registrant.

There can be any number of ways employers obfuscate this bias and it would be virtually impossible to prove as hiring freezes and employee cutbacks offer a convenient back-door for employers.

I had those same thoughts, too. I also kept recalling how before his election in 2008, Obama was against defining gay unions as marriage and even supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Now all of a sudden he is praising the SCOTUS decision now that he’s 6 years into his tenure. Meanwhile, Gov. Scott Walker is peeved and can forget about running for the presidency because the marriage issue is now a moot point and not a high enough platform to run against.

That’s pretty much how I see politicians with SOR. They’ll never stand up against it if means losing their elected position, though deep down, they probably do see the injustices of it. They just won’t say it.

Quint, did you feel more respected when wearing a tie?

Just keep wearing those tie.

Yes and no. The person actually taking down my info made a comment about how he’s never seen anybody dress up before and was impressed. He gave me the impression that registration is (legally) a necessary evil and it sucks for us. The person in charge of registrants couldn’t have cared less. She is very Sgt. Friday. Look, I can’t change the fact that I have to register, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to look like what people expect us to look like. I’m not going to look like a creeped out mugshot.

I’m in the general comments because I quiver with JOY over John Roberts getting STEAMROLLERED on Friday’s same sex SCOTUS decision ! Yes, John was a BIG factor in 2003 Smith v Doe that we suffer under…

So this time he got hurt. In his ANGRY dissent he even dragged in stuff like ” Kalahari bushmen, Han Chinese, Carthaginians, and of course the Aztecs.

It was a THRILL to read Johnny get legally unglued….Source of the Kalahari stuff, Friday’s NY Times.

Charlie Rose was on PBS tonight (6/26) with a well known constitutional lawyer talking about how great the SCOTUS decision was based on equal protection of the law. Lets hope our equal protection rights our coming soon.

And I really like the tie for registration photos idea, lets do it. I will this October! When I was going to court for my case, I wore a new suit. The security staff kept thinking I was an attorney. I looked more like an attorney than my own attorney. What you wear makes a big difference. They threatened 26 years prison for CP and all I ended up with is 4 months minimum security with no fences. The real punishment turned out to be the Megans Law vigilante list.

See keep wearing those Tie. Even at the registration..

Does this sound like any situation you know?:
May 20, 1996
The Supreme Court, in Romer v. Evans, strikes down a Colorado law that blocked any legislative or executive action to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

“If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest,” Kennedy writes.

As beautiful as Colorado is, they are among the worst states in the Western US for registrants. Their preamble to enacting so many oppressive statues was loaded with lies and what is even worse is that the legislature and governor actually believes them.

They let many children die due to the shambles their child protective services agency is but won’t even let registrants breathe without intrusive regulations.

I found this advise online:

Here is an easy way to figure out what jobs hire sex offenders in your area.

If you want a job then start looking at the sex offender registry (I guess get a family member to look). There are most likely sex offenders in your area who have jobs. Just start clicking through every single sex offender in your area and write down their work address. Then go into google and type the address in. This will help you figure out what the company is. You can then go apply at these places.

This would be really helpful if the site listed occupations.

They post your work address online now in CA?

This is news to me, as well. At my last up-date the PD had nothing on the form about work address.

Back in the day I always told them my employer’s name and address but that was until things started changing. I read where other states post the address so from then on, just in case they start to publish the information here in CA, I tell them I am unemployed because the Megan’s law BS makes it impossible to secure gainful employment.

“C”, I’m in CA. The CA Registry does not show very much information about me. It does not list my home address nor my work address.

Good for you!

I just did my annual registration. I asked if there was anything new that I should be aware of and was told, “No, not for you.” However, this time, they had an extra sheet for me to initial and sign. It had the case number and other information from 20 years ago. I was told this additional sheet was required because the State was auditing the program and needed it for their records. Is the State planning to “update” its Registry information? Are they reviewing the records of Registered Citizens prior to some other change? Will the information be used to support a Bill advancing a tiered registry? Who knows.

Were they asking you to verify that a past criminal record was accurate? You may be waiving your right to challenge inaccurate records. That could be what they mean by audit.

Nevada ‘ supreme Court will hear preliminary arguments this coming Tuesday to see if the injunction on posting the personal information of all tier 1 offenders, and those convicted of a crime against a child, with convictions as far back as 1956 will be listed, thereby exposing them online. Will be interesting and I’ll keep you posted on what happens and how it looks (if I am able to stream it at 1030 on 6/30.

Nevada: Thank you for the update ! Maggie M will be doing her stuff. So starts probably the conclusion of the 7 year battle to stop the Walsh onslaught on Nevada. 1956, retroactivity, juvenilles, conviction v risk, and level 1.

I’m so mentally exhausted. My court required program said they would kick me out if I don’t get on heavier medication for my anxiety. I hate drugs, and my anxiety is well founded. I can’t find work, I have almost used up my savings, and I refuse to be homeless. I so want to be back in Ratchathani, Thailand with my late girlfriend’s family and my friends. They love me. I hate my life here and hate this country. I don’t see any future, at least not one that I want to wait around and keep hoping and praying for. It won’t get better, I now see that.

Patience, try to hang in there. Check the internet for stress-reducing exercises, breathing, etc. You can get through this, you can do it. For now, just try to focus on keeping yourself safe, sane and healthy. As for employment, when I moved out here to Cali, a counselor at the local “EDD” office was able to help me find work. NOTE: she was a specialist at helping ex-felons get work (she was not just the average EDD counselor). Believe me, I was not an easy case for her because of the charges and time in prison, but I was eventually hired by a great company that never asked about my background and treated my very well (just as they treated all their employees). So what I’m saying is, please don’t give up. It can get better. It will just take time. I would suggest that you try your local California EDD (Employment Development Department) office. You could start with this phine number to try to locate your local EDD office: 800-758-0398. Chin up. You’re not alone and people do care.

How about trying Robert Curtis’ scissor sharpening? Maybe won’t make you a millionaire, but sounds kind of Zen to me and ought to focus your mind off the negative voices.
How ’bout we registrants, family and friends form a corporation and hire ourselves? A small town is Spain did just that and now they do business around the world (Mondragon). Janice said “what’s your dream”, and that one keeps popping into my mind whenever I hear of someone having trouble finding a job. Look at the talent in this group! All you need is forward thinking, and willingness to try; that’s what I have been told. Yeah, easier said, but true.

What’s the purpose of expunging? I have one misdemeanor count of a 647.6, and am not listed on the website. If I expunge the case what does it do? It seems pointless.

Nevada: EAdvocate picked up the 6/30 LV Journal article today about the hearing. Funny, the Journal had dozens of comments the last two times ; so far none this time…