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


Internet Identifier Bill to be Heard on July 14

The Senate Public Safety Committee will hear Senate Bill 448 (SB 448) on July 14. The bill, if passed, would require all registered citizens to disclose their “internet identifiers” to law enforcement within five working days.

“The bill’s requirement would violate the 1st Amendment rights of registered citizens,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci, “because the identify of registered citizens would be revealed every time they expressed their opinions on websites such as that operated by CA RSOL.”

The author of the bill is Senator Hueso, a Democrat, who represents southern San Diego County, including National City.

“The apparent purpose of this bill is to overturn court decisions that stopped enforcement of requirements within Proposition 35 that registered citizens disclose their internet identifiers,” stated Bellucci. “California RSOL is a plaintiff in that case.”

ACLU, which filed the lawsuit challenging Proposition 35, also opposes SB 448 is expected to testify at the hearing on July 14. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 3191 of the State Capitol.

“It is time for registered citizens and those who support them to send letters to members of the Senate Public Safety requesting that they oppose SB 448,” stated CA RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein.

Below please find a sample letter to send to the members of the Public Safety Committee. Feel free to edit as you see fit.


*** Senator Loni Hancock, Chair – or – Member Senate Public Safety Committee***
Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol Building, Room ***
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Chairman Hancock – or – Senator ***:

I am writing in strong opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 448 which is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 14. The bill, if passed, would require more than 100,000 residents of California to disclose their internet identifiers to law enforcement within five working days.

Requiring an individual to reveal his or her internet identifier is a violation of that individual’s constitutional right of free speech. Specifically, it is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects a person’s right to exercise free of speech “anonymously.”

The U.S. Supreme Court recently determined:

“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 34 (1995)

If SB 448 becomes law, the anonymity of registered citizens, who are unpopular individuals in today’s intolerant society, will be suppressed. They will be unable to express their opinions on topics such as SB 448 due to fear of retaliation.

The right of anonymous speech is of great importance in the context of internet sites. The U.S. Supreme Court has strongly implied and lower appellate courts have affirmatively ruled, that when accessed from one’s home the internet constitutes a “public forum” for purposes of the First Amendment. Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563, 574 (9th Cir. 2014), quoting Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. For the reasons stated above, we request that you and all members of the Senate Public Safety Committee vote “no” on SB 448.


*** your name here***



We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sending out first thing tomorrow morning 161 letters against SB448 and 161 letters against SB54. Also contacted Senator Runner through email on her Senate site and will email Senator Hueso and the entire Senate Public Safety Committee. Each of you can go onto the Senate website and if you have the ability to email with a computer, you can get onto their page and send them an email opposing the bills. It is another way to be in contact with them on these issues. I have also made my phone calls to the committee.

Keep the letters, phone calls and emails going until the 14th.


Wow TJ!!!!! That is fantastic!!! 🙂

While we are writing letters and making phone calls, let’s plan and gird ourselves for an even greater challenge, the next voter initiative against registrants. Don’t think it won’t happen. Although we may not defeat it, I would like to see a better no campaign than what went against 35.
True, godsends like Janice and CARSOL will be there to file for injunction release when the next draconian proposition passes, even if we do nothing. Yet, there are about 80,000 of us free enough to do something, even a little, and if a lot of people do a little, it could end up big.
I know it would be nice to think they are just going to let us be (I catch myself thinking that a lot), but as many people have mentioned here, they have enjoined us with in a struggle using war like tactics, and it challenges us to defend the lives we have earned by planning for the next assault.

Joe, the proceedings were “stayed” (suspended) to see if the law passes or not, If not, there is nothing for the court to decide.

I haven’t been following this because I thought we didn’t need to be vigilant so much.


Janice, can you please explain what Joe is commenting about?

(the EFF was the main plaintiff in the Prop 35 case, along with the ACLU NorCal and CA RSOL).

No need for alarm here. The problem with tunnel-vision advocates who do not consider the rule of constitutional law is that they refuse to understand the rational, consequential arguments that render their own arguments vapid.

They are pushing to take this to the Supreme Court. Well, to be blunt, SO ARE WE. But if the CAS had done some investigation on the judges, they would have found out that two of those three judges were the MOST LIKELY to RULE AGAINST US on the court, based upon their record with regard to siding with the state or the criminal. If 2 “Lock ’em up and lose the key”-type justices render a ruling that totally goes against their wishes, what chance to they have going to the Supreme Court, where their only potential allies are Kagen, Roberts, and perhaps Scalia?

Note that the 9th Circuit’s decision was very comprehensive and very negative (toward those that favor the law). There is virtually no way to wordsmith around the law, and in fact SB 448 doesn’t allow for any workaround, it’s just a rehash of Prop 35. It was as if the bill was designed in a drunken stupor by the author in a barroom, not even caring about the constitutional aspect.

so you are saying Eric Knight, that we don’t have to worry about sept 15 2015?

Just use the Tor web browser for everything. Your ISP will not be able to see or track the sites or email accounts you visit, and no one will be able to match you with any “internet identifier” at all. It prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what sites you visit, and it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location. Go to and download the Tor browser bundle – it’s free and easy – works just like internet explorer or Firefox. It works very well I’ve been using it for years.

Here is a neat little interactive graphic that shows how Tor works – – even if law enforcement is directly monitoring your internet traffic through your ISP they will only be able to see that you’re using Tor (which is not illegal) – they can not see the sites you visit or the email accounts you use.

Let’s be clear here. TOR is a wise choice if one truly wants to cover one’s tracks to avoid unlawful surveillance, whether it be by the government or by malicious individuals. But this issue’s relevance with the proposed Internet identifier law is apples and oranges compared to the registration of Internet ID’s for RC’s. I do NOT advocate, and certainly would think the same for CA RSOL officials, that one purposely use TOR to evade the authorities for unlawful purposes.

While such a law does not exist in California, and most probably will not, understand that the credibility for such an organization as CA RSOL to remain valid, we must adhere to existing law at all times. We must ABSOLUTELY protest vigorously and frequently, which is not only our right but our duty, but always within the scope of existing law.

Joe said “There is, however, no time requirement in which to get this in, and no vehicle by which to do it (on-line, mail, in person), other than providing this user name at the time of the annual appt….”

As far as the police getting your Internet Identifiers, it doesn’t matter much when they get them, since whenever they do they will be able to link all your comments back to you, regardless of the length of the name. And by the way, the more complicated and lengthy the identifier, the more work you would to do to make sure you are reporting it correctly. So I see no benefit in making long names. Also, to make names that others also use only means that you can be mistaken for making someone elses comments which you may get retaliated on because it’s thought you may have made it. No benefit to that . Prop 35’s time requirement was 24 hours. SB 448’s is 5 days. The mechanism mentioned is the US Mail.

My opinion is that registrants, of whom there is a 98+% non-reoffense rate, do not pose even close to the danger of hackers. Mark Zuckerberg hacked into Harvards system to steal photo’s of college women/girls to use them to objectify them in the precursor to FaceBook and thus , he should be banned from the internet for life. Chris Kelly and the Beacon program. Banned for life. Or at least should be required to report their Internet Identifiers. This makes more sense than requiring Internet Identifiers from registrants whose crimes may not have involved the internet.

Robin Banks said “using Tor (which is not illegal) – they can not see the sites you visit or the email accounts you use.”

I thought you have to report all e-mail accounts.

Joe said “There is, however, no time requirement in which to get this in, and no vehicle by which to do it (on-line, mail, in person), other than providing this user name at the time of the annual appt.”

I’m not sure how making long and complex internet identifiers will hurt anyone other than ourselves in setting us up for retribution for being difficult, then being responsible to make sure these lengthy and complex internet identifiers are reported correctly and if they are not , the potential is there to be arrested for failure to register. Prop 35 had a 24 hour time requirement and SB 448 has a 5 day time requirement, by mail. So you have 5 days on this one and 1 day on the last one, but in any case, the police would be getting the information within 1 day or 5 days to be able to link all your comments on news articles to you. Prop 35/SB 448 is aimed the most at political comments on news articles and political comments in general. When it comes to political comments, with SB 448, we will either silence our internet speech or we are sitting ducks for retribution for being politically active if this Chris Kelly scheme passes.

You’re already a sitting duck because you’ve been so worried about being a sitting duck and are afraid of retribution. That kind of thinking has made it easy to walk all over us.

Their ‘further objectives’ remains un-Constitutionally the same……speech ..communication ..expression is restraint …is a crime because you didn’t give them your communications id……………….whereas every other citizen would be protected from such an intrusion to their communication and writings .
Every person is protected from such takings ..4thAmendment…
Any restraint to the freedom of that person is guaranteed Due Process…
Should you want to exercise your Constitutional Rights
you are restricted restrained restraint from doing so because you must give communications speech id……
The proposal is in direct conflict with our Constitution and a blatant deliberate indifference to civil rights.

And of course, no place in the proposed law do I see anything that says my identifier has to be unique. I’m already began using a non-unique, Arabic language identifier 8)

Your ID would stir their minds with visions of ISIL, and they would monitor you the more for it.

How about Hebrew? The point is, to make their jobs difficult while still being in compliance. The forms are handwritten, and somebody has to eventually (try and) type them into a database. At which point, they either won’t have the proper keyboard skills, or the database will reject the input.

That depends on the city (or county). My forms always come out typed. I just have to sign, take a picture, and I’m out the door. Five minutes tops.

Now in San Francisco: That is all handwritten. The wait time per person is about an hour. That’s on top of the already 20 minutes it takes to go through the registering process. They only have 2 people on staff. They shortened their hours of availability by two hours per day. Oh, and don’t forget those who have to fingerprint the general public as part of their hiring (and they always get priority over 290s). Imagine adding internet identifiers? It would be a nightmare.

Do other big cities like Los Angeles and San Diego have the above situation like SF?

No, this bill won’t pass.

They don’t CARE if the line get longer for you as long as they look good.
If it wasn’t for Janice and her team. Most of us would not have a place to live right now.

my point is they don’t care!

I don’t know about the City of San Diego, but the County hired more people and the wait was 5 minutes. I was out in 15 minutes. They register 8 to 3 Monday through Thursday. Interesting, the clerk told me they consider “business days” for the registration to include the days the office is open to register, that is the 4 days in the calendar week. The window to register is therefore two calendar weeks and two days. If this is true as a state wide policy, then those jurisdictions that only register one day a week, could mean you had 10 calendar weeks to register.

Guess what? IT PASSED!!

Not yet, and it won’t. Not in its current form. Again, I’m not worried.

You just hit on something that would cause chaos at registering offices eveywhere…

If you own your own domain, cool. You can set up unlimited number of domains and keep them busy. But what about something that has the potential to crash their systems?

I’m talking about registering an international domain name.

In my line of work, i deal with international characters sets often. I even wrote a content management system… something that has to handle these things. So recently i purchased an international domain name. They are not easy to understand even if you are familiar with the domain registration process.

Mine is short and easy to remember, but damn difficult to enter into a computer system, especially if i hand write my private email address on paper, then let them try and enter that into the computer. Once they figure out how to get that into the computer, it may become rejected simply on the fact that the Megans’ Law website and DOJ systems weren’t built to handle international characters. Their databases may not be configured to handle them either.

Even once they get all that working, you have another side benefit. If ever these lists of internet identifiers are shared with companies, even companies like Facebook may have trouble processing them.

If law enforcement incorrectly enters the wrong domain into the system, and say, Facebook gets their hands on the list and removes a legitimate companies’ profile over it, i’m sure some lawsuits will ensue. I’m sure there are many unseen benefits in our favor for doing this.

Those mugshot extortion websites may eventually find a way to get their grubby hands on a list of those identifiers through lawsuits or FOIA requests as they seem to do a lot, and funny thing is that if they parse that information, it will be tricky to both get those international domains into their databases and to correctly display on their websites.

If Internet Identifiers becomes real for us, expect my immediate adoption of International Domains for personal online email communications.

“Those mugshot extortion websites may eventually find a way to get their grubby hands on a list of those identifiers”.
Or the politicians can do what they did with the information that was available to the police only, pre-Megan’s Law, address, present physical description, etc. and claim the identifiers were now public information and the public has a right to that information with a new law.

Okay, mine, family & friends letters have been mailed!
Phone calls to Senators have been made!
One Senate staffer mentioned, “Yeah, we’ve been receiving a lot of calls about those two Bills.”
(I hope every one was in opposition!!!)

” One Senate staffer mentioned, “Yeah, we’ve been receiving a lot of calls about those two Bills.”’

I am wondering if those staffer have any IDEAS what those bills are about.

I was updating my vehicle info at reg today. They tried to send me out with no verification that I updated my info. That wasn’t happening I made them give me a copy of the updated info. Be careful guys and girls make sure you don’t let them not do their jobs. Also some of these registrents are so ignorant of what’s going on its pathetic I tried telling everyone in there about rsol and what’s going on and only one or two guys even got it. Bunch of idiots. I’m sure glad we have some smart people in here and Janice and all who are fighting this bs. Made my calls sent my letters and thank you everyone else who’s showed up stood up and spoke up.

Mike –
What do you mean “updating your vehicle”? Was this your annual registration? If it was NOT, you are NEVER EVER required to go in to register or “update” unless you MOVE or it is your annual (90 day for SVP, 30 day for transient). NO ONE ever needs to go in for ANY OTHER REASON, new car, new job, ANYTHING!! DO NOT let them tell you otherwise!

Bravo for trying to spread the word about CARSOL! To all: KNOW THE LAW and make THEM follow it to the letter. To my fellow registrants in Los Angeles City, you have NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to allow them to “photograph” your vehicle as they tell you they need to do. I have NEVER allowed it and nothing has ever happened. It’s not in the law, DON’T let them do it!

Good and wear a Tie so you look good in your mugshot!

Nationless said “I just read the II law as amended. This is not that bad really. I did not see any addition of having to provide content.”

Wrong, This is horrible.

When making political comments in the comments section on news articles, identifying the name used and the website completely links to the comments you made. There is no addition of having to provide content because the content is in the comments section of the news article available for the police and public to read. The chilling of political speech was mentioned numerous times by the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit. If Kelly gets this SB 448 passed, he may try to use it as a success to then run for Atty General again. And right in SB 448, the Atty General can give the internet identifiers to anyone they wish who signs an oath whose conditions can be broken without consequence by anonymously releasing the list of registrants and their internet identifiers to a Chuck Rodrick type website. Kelly is a billionaire four times over who is trying to game the system until he destroys the civil rights of a protected class in California. Kelly and FaceBook breaking the law in violation of PC 290 says a lot about their ability to empathize, which says they have very little. A better case could be made for Kelly and Zuckerberg to have to provide their internet identifiers to police. Zuckerberg stole the pics of undergrads from Harvard University’s computer system and used them to publicly objectify these women for his FaceMash, precursor to FaceBook. Of course, this guy doesn’t care if registrants internet identifiers are disclosed to the public. He stole the pics of women and disclosed them to the public to objectify them as ‘hot’ or ‘not’. Kelly’s beacon program was disgraceful and he should have to turn his interent identifiers over to the police. The first one Kelly is giving the internet identifiers to ,if he becomes Atty Gen of California, or if he can influence the new Attorney General, is Mark Zuckerberg, formerly of FaceMash. Now, if we can stop FaceBook from banning registrants from their service in violation of the law, then these pack of weasels led by Chris Kelly wouldn’t be clamoring for the internet identifiers of law abiding citizens with an over 98% non-re-offense rate, where the only effect of such is to silence the speech of a protected class in California and have no effect on kidnapping, or sex assault/crimes. If you don’t care to stop political speech by registrants, then why do you need to know interent identifiers from news articles? If you don’t intend to investigate the content of e-mails, then why do you need to know the internet identifiers of e-mail accounts. We must not underestimate the abilities of Chris Kelly and FashMash’s former founder Mark Zuckerberg when it comes to being devious in the cyber realm by hacking, spying, being dishonest. The Winklevoss brothers thought they hired Zuckerberg to make a social network but Zuckerberg moonlighted on them to get the jump on them for his own social network. One devious and unscrupulous guy indeed. And now he has his own police force that can get the internet identifiers if they claim its part of some bogus investigation, if SB 448 passes.

Am I to assume that if this bill passes we will not only have to provide email names but also names such as my mike r that I use on this site. Is that correct if so then how would that work we would have to state mike r used on rsol or? There’s ambiguity in the law just like the ambiguity in reporting a vehicle regulary driving what do they consider regulary driving by? I went yesterday and registared my gfs car because i will be driving it periodically even though I would not consider that regulary.

Torified said “You’re already a sitting duck because you’ve been so worried about being a sitting duck and are afraid of retribution. That kind of thinking has made it easy to walk all over us.”

So if I just closed my eyes like you claim to have done then this SB 448 wouldn’t be happening?

“I haven’t been following this because I thought we didn’t need to be vigilant so much.”


O no, not a Chris Kelly website to give us the answers. Torified, do you think banning Tor use for registrants could be next if Kelly gets this SB 448 into law?

Everyone commenting her is doing something more than nothing. I used to think bad laws were just something we had to deal with but they started taking advantage of that. Any effort against it is good.

Nationless said “Good luck and try to get it stopped while at the same time you get ready to comply. The last thing we need is a headline “4000 Sex Offenders Arrested for Refusing to provide Internet Identifiers””

“Over comply….”

What do you think about FaceBook not complying with California PC 290’s anti-discrimination section? Maybe they should comply at the very least and stop banning registrants in violation of PC 290. If FaceBook does not take California’s laws seriously, they should not have their own police force.

Does anyone know someone that has had an FB account blocked for being an RSO? I’ve been on FB since about 2007 and have not had any issues. I also have an FB fan page for my business. No problems there, either.

(Now you watch, I’ll log in to FB in 10 minutes to find my account blocked.)

I deleted my account in 2008. I did not see the point of using it. And since they placed in their terms that I am not allowed to use it, I respect their right as a business to refuse me to use their service.

In the news Iran jails Washington Post journalist for his speech writings expression ……now, what is the difference between california and iran when it comes to speech writings and expression ..again..????????

One big difference is that you will not go to jail for asking that.

from the Nebraska Federal lawsuit decision that found Internet identifiers requirements unconstitutional on October 17, 2012 note that the judge in his decision specifically noted the testimony from Prof. David Post FINDINGS OF FACT,

“Ten of the plaintiffs participating in this case testified at trial, as well as the
plaintiffs’ expert. Their testimony is summarized below.
1. Professor David Post
For the past 15 years, Professor David G. Post has taught at Temple
University’s law school, specializing in copyright, trademark, other intellectual
property law, and cyberlaw. (Tr. 66:19-67:4.) Prior to his position at Temple, Post
twice worked as a law clerk for now United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg; worked for more than six years at a large Washington, D.C., law firm in
intellectual property and “high-tech transactions” involving software developers and
systems integrators; and taught at Georgetown for three years. (Tr. 69:19-70:23.)
Post has published several law journal articles and a law school casebook concerning
the Internet and its legal ramifications. (Tr. 67:8-68:24.)
Post testified that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 and the statutory definitions for
“chat room,” “instant messaging,” and “social networking web site” in Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 29-4001.01 are ambiguous, and that these definitions either cover “almost
everything on the Net” or “might cover virtually nothing on the Internet,” depending
upon how the terms are interpreted. (Tr. 74:17-21.)
Specifically, Post testified that a “broad reading” of the definition of “chat
room” in section 29-4001.01 could include “ordinary telephone service,” cellular
telephone service, e-mail, and SMS text messages, as well as more conventional chat
rooms that fall “clearly within the bull’s-eye” of the statutory definition. (Tr.
84:7-85:25.) For example, “when I send you an e-mail—an ordinary electronic mail
with text and maybe a file attachment, I think as a perfectly reasonable reading of the
statute that we are now engaged in a chat room interaction because there’s server
space on the Internet that is designated for the instantaneous exchange of texts
amongst the two of us.” (Tr. 85:7-13.) Further, because, for example,
“has server space that is designated for the instantaneous exchange of text between
two or more computer users,” it would also qualify as a chat room under the statute.
(Tr. 86:8-17, 118:23-119:12.) Post acknowledged that a chat room allows “one-to-one
communication and one to many” amongst those who are “in the room.” (Tr. 112:21-
25 .)
Post also testified that the definition of “instant messaging” in Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 29-4001.01(10) could include only “old-fashioned telephone” service if the statutory
language “direct, dedicated, and private communication service” means “a line of a
physical piece of wire that is dedicated to our communication [which is] the way that
the telephone system actually works.” Alternatively, this language could include
“virtually all electronic communication” if interpreted to mean “communication[]
that’s not publicly accessible but is only accessible to the participants.” (Tr. 92:1-22.)
Post stated that instant messaging is “any system that allows one-to-one
communication via text,” which would include Google, Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook,
Yahoo Messenger, Wikipedia, and YouTube because these services allow the “virtual
instantaneous transfer of texts and computer file attachments.” (Tr. 93:16-94:17,
120:9-13.) Post thinks use of the word “direct” in the statutory definition of instant
messaging is confusing because “anything that’s traveling over the Internet . . . . gets
broken up into tiny pieces [and] . . . converge[s] virtually instantaneously on your
machine later.” (Tr. 123:4-25.) Post’s “guess is” that the Nebraska Legislature was
“trying to capture a sort of private one-to-one nature of conversation as opposed to
one to many or many to one.” (Tr. 124:19-25.)
Post testified that the definition of “social networking web site” in section 29-
4001.01(13) has a “threshold statutory ambiguity” caused by use of the term
“collection of web sites” because that phrase “could cover everything that is on the
World Wide Web because the World Wide Web is itself a collection of web sites.”
(Tr. 95:1-24.)
Even if you take that definition, read it a little more narrowly, you still
have things like—you type in to
your browser and it comes up with a search page, the familiar page. That
page doesn’t have profile information on it. I can’t enter my profile on
that page but I can enter a . . . searchable profile on any number of pages
that are linked to the Google web page so I can go from the
page to Blogger, to Gmail, to YouTube . . . and in one click I’m at a site
where I can have a searchable profile that viewers can access. So . . .
even though [] does not have this functionality, is it part of
a collection of web sites that has this functionality, and I think the
answer is, yeah, it is because . . . I know that they’re in the same
collection of web sites. Blogger is owned by Google so I suppose that
makes it part of the same collection. It’s one link away from Google so
it’s part of a collection. . . . [T]he site encourages you to go
to Blogger, to go to YouTube. . . . [T]o me as a user . . . when I’m at the page, . . . I’m in a collection of web sites that has this
functionality so the page is a social networking web site.
Even though it does not have this functionality, it’s part of the collection
that does.
(Tr. 96:8-97:9.)
Aside from the “collection of web sites” issue, Post stated that the
“functionality” described in this statute is the ability “to create a . . . searchable
profile. If I can create a searchable profile that others can comment on or
communicate with me, they can find my profile and send me a message of some
kind,” then it is a social networking web site within the meaning of section 29-
4001.01(13). (Tr. 95:13-17.) This definition would encompass “many commercial
sites that wouldn’t ordinarily think of themselves as social networking but they have
this functionality,” such as, L.L. Bean, Blogspot, and WordPress. (Tr.
97:16-99:8.) All of these sites have “a way for you to post your profile and talk to
other users.” (Tr. 98:22-23.)
Regarding the language in section 28-322.05(1) that prohibits sex offenders
from using a social networking web site, instant messaging, or chat room service “that
allows a person who is less than eighteen years of age to access or use” it, Post does
not know of “any instant messaging services that even purport to keep minors out.
Same for chat rooms.” (Tr. 77:19-23, 78:23-79:4.) Further, Post testified that anyone
of any age can “access” a site, if only to read the site’s terms and conditions. (Tr.
Post testified regarding the reporting requirement in section 29-4006(1)(s) of
“all blogs and Internet sites . . . to which the person has uploaded any content or
posted any messages or information.” Post testified that “cookies files” are being
invisibly uploaded to web sites people visit “hundreds of times . . . daily as you’re .
. . making your way around the Net.” These text files—which contain information
identifying when you last visited a web site and what you did there—“are being
deposited on [an Internet user’s] machine and then sent to the web sites from their
machine the next time they go visit and that could be considered the uploading of
content” within the meaning of the statute. (Tr. 108:20-109:24.)
In Post’s opinion, the combined effect of the statutes at issue (depending upon
how they are interpreted) could bar individuals from: (1) communicating via text
message since every commercially available text messaging system could plausibly
be classified as “instant messaging” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4001.01(10) and no
text messaging systems prohibit minors’ access; (2) communicating via cellular or
landline telephone with any third party; (3) reading any blogs or online newspapers
if those sites allow users to identify themselves and communicate with others via a
“comments” or “discussion” functionality; (4) joining any discussion groups, listservs,
or online communities; and (5) purchasing goods or services online from any site
allowing user “ratings” and comments. (Ex. 304, Expert Report of David G. Post at
pp. 18-19.)”

the end result was that the court found the requirement to give up Internet identifiers as unconstitutional. Part of the decision is below

3. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-322.05 and 29-4006(1)(k) and (s) (West, Operative
Jan. 1, 2010) are facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the
equivalent Nebraska constitutional provision.
4. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) is facially
unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause and the equivalent Nebraska
constitutional provision.
5. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006(1)(k) and (s), 29-4006(2), and 28-322.05
(West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) are facially unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto
Clause of the United States Constitution and the equivalent Nebraska constitutional
provision regarding (a) offenders who had served their time and were no longer under
criminal justice supervision on January 1, 2010; and (b) offenders who had been
sentenced prior to January 1, 2010, but who remained under criminal justice supervision
on or after January 1, 2010.
6. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006(1)(k) and (s) and 29-4006(2) (West, Operative
Jan. 1, 2010) are unconstitutional as applied to all those Plaintiffs listed on Court’s
Exhibit 1 who are identified therein as “presently a Plaintiff” and who must register as
a sex offender under the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§
29-4001 to 29-4014.
These are the plaintiffs (except Doe 24) 56 who counsel stipulated are required
to register under the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act because of a conviction
for one or more of the offenses enumerated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05(1)(a)-(k) .
7. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) is
unconstitutional as applied to Does 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 27, and 35.56
8. As indicated in my decision on the motions for summary judgment (Filing
354), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006(2) (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) is unconstitutional
under the Fourth Amendment as to those plaintiffs who were previously convicted of
sex crimes, but who were not on probation, parole, or court-monitored supervision on
or after January 1, 2010. Doe 24’s as-applied challenge to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006(2)
under the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent Nebraska constitutional provision is
not ripe and is therefore dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction.

Well rob maybe I wasn’t obligated to update my vehicle info idk so I would rather be safe then sorry you know. That’s what I mean about ambiguity in the law.

Hey Mike –
I was not being critical at all, and I totally understand everyone’s difficulties with the many ambiguous portions of the law, but I am speaking from experience and legal knowledge, I graduated law school a long time ago. I have never had an issue when going for my annual when I had a new vehicle or job, even it I had had either for 11 months and 20 days. My birthday is in March, I bought a new car this past May, and will tell them about it in March 2016, no sooner. That’s the law, plain and simple I too, want to NEVER have an issue with these miserable people, but as I have always said, we need to follow the law to the letter, AS DO THEY. Of course you need to do what makes you comfortable; and for that you and all others have my total respect. I was merely providing information and experience.

C said “Does anyone know someone that has had an FB account blocked for being an RSO? I’ve been on FB since about 2007 and have not had any issues. I also have an FB fan page for my business. No problems there, either.”

If you look at news articles from states other than California where Chris Kelly has inserted his cyber-fascism, where registrants are required to report internet identifiers, you will see that there is a FaceBook-to-prison pipeline. Not only do the registrants get their FB accounts shut down, but also go to prison for not reporting it. Look at all the news articles about cases where the registrant did not exhibit any immoral behavior but simply had a FaceBook account. The news media will always report on the rare occasion where the registrant did have immoral behavior. But there must not be that many of those occurrences, since the majority of stories where the registrant is arrested for failure to register for not reporting internet identifiers and then sentenced to jail time does not mention any immoral behavior.

Yes. Around 2009 or 2010, I had a facebook. One day I tried to log in, and it was shut down. I contacted Facebook and was informed I was shut down for harassment, etc. I had not posted anything offensive, and never bothered anyone; nor did I contact people who weren’t close to me in my life.

They could provide no proof, but stopped communicating with me for quite a while. When I did get a response — from someone else — they informed me I’d broken the Terms of Use, and directed me to read it. When I asked which one, they simply stated I know which one.

I asked if I could at least get my pictures from the page back, as many of them were solely on there. Never got a response again. I lost all those pictures.
I created another one with a fictitious name, but when I learned that there was a law against that as well, I removed it. It wasn’t the same anymore anyway, since I no longer trusted them to not destroy everything if I got “caught.”

Good luck everyone. If you’re making the trek to Sacramento to speak before the committee, thank you! I’m sure many of us wish we could be there with you. You’re all in my thoughts and prayers.

Good luck to Janice et al today! I hope this is D-Day (Defeat Day) for both SB448 and SB54. May all our letters, emails, faxes and phone calls have their intended impact!

At the hearing, Sen. Hueso said, “The opposition tends to exaggerate the effects of this (proposed) law.” Really??? Okay, then you, Senator Hueso, go to prison for three years for forgetting to include your Reddit identifier and then tell us it’s exaggeration!!

They can’t imaging how it is like being under Damocles’ Sword (Wiki it) — well, I should say swords, because there are now scores of them, every law is a sword held up over our heads by a thin thread, poised to cleave our life in two at any moment at the slightest mis-movement.

At the Hearing, Senator Mark Leno again noted the value of CASOMB and it’s important recommendations including a proposed tiered registry. SB448 had 3 “me too” supporters and 20+ “me too” in opposition to the Bill.
Sen. Hueso stated that he would amend SB448 to address the concerns of the Senators and the opposition and would narrow the Bill to pertain only to those whose crime involved use of the Internet. However, the Senators would not have a chance to reject it if they are dissatisfied with the amended Bill.
Does anyone know if they actually voted on SB448 yet?

As one whose “crime” was internet related(fictitious victim), I don’t think even that would be acceptable. If they persecute one of use, they persecute all. As Janice says, if the Constitution doesn’t protect some of us, it doesn’t protect any of us.

This bill, and the whole registry itself is a blanket search warrant. They can limit it to certain defined groups, and nuance it to sound reasonable and “tailored”, but the fact remains it is still applying a search warrant to a group of people, who are off probation or parole, instead of showing cause to gather information on an individual basis.

Still waiting for a vote on 448 I didn’t see 54 on the agenda. Was it pulled or?

Nationless wrote “One big difference is that you will not go to jail for asking that.”

If the cyber-fascist Chris Kelly had his way, you would go to jail for asking that anonymously, not reporting your internet identifier to the police for that comment/question. In Iran, does anyone have to report internet identifiers to the police? Could Iranians be more enlightened than Chris Kelly on the principles of the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment?

SB 54 didn’t make it on the agenda which means the earliest we will see it (if we it at all) will be Jan 2016.

Nationless said “I deleted my account in 2008. I did not see the point of using it. And since they placed in their terms that I am not allowed to use it, I respect their right as a business to refuse me to use their service.”

You’re in California now? FaceBook is in California now. California’s PC 290 statute states businesses are not to discriminate against registrants by refusing them services. I’m thinking this would be a great lawsuit against FaceBook for their criminal Terms and Conditions and to get them to stop illegally refusing service to registrants. Also, PC 290 affords a civil award of up to $25,000 per victim. 25k multipied by 100k registrants ( unfortunately, I think only California registrants could participate in this lawsuit ) is about 2.5 billion in awards FaceBook should owe California registrants.

Yes, in CA now.

I say you go for it. not a battle I am choosing to fight. Just like the II law that will pass in CA, its’ just not that hard to adjust to. I just think we need to stop expecting the same rights as Americans and act accordingly.

That sounds like giving up, which is something i will never do.

So what happened with SB 448? And SB 54?

448 moves forward with the requirement that they tailor it to people who’s crimes were internet related and are high risk according to a tiered system. I guess well have to wait and see what changes are made but as of now I just watched the committee move the bill forward. A sad day for America

That seems to imply they have a tiered system in place, which they don’t.

We don’t have a tier system.
This will be confusing

A sad and long day. The final vote on SB448 took place at 5:37 p.m. and was, sadly, 7 in favor to 0 opposed. The Bill’s author stated that it would be amended to use the tiering system recommended by CASOMB.

As you recalled they shot down the tiered system.
the tired system don’t even exist
that how little mind they are.
Saying something that DOES exisit when it actually don’t..

So SB 448 will only apply to people with INTERNET crimes only?

We are still sorting through what did and didn’t happen during today’s hearing on Senate Bill 448. We know that the bill passed. We also know that the bill’s author agreed to amend the bill in two ways. First, he agreed to limit its application to those who “used the internet” in the commission of their offense. Second, he agreed to create a tiered registry system. We will be making inquiries on Wednesday to determine the meaning of these amendments. Stay tuned!

What i cannot understand is why this bill was even allowed on the table if it is already considered unconstitutional in all 50 states, thanks to 9th district court of appeals ruling. Will Bassler in Nebraska sent you information about the Nebraska case, a federal case that ruled these Internet Identifier laws completely unconstitutional. I don’t know how the courts rule, but i trust him when he tells me that this California law as it is written is completely invalid.

I’m highly curious if you have had a chance to take a look at this.

It’s not illegal in all 50 states. In fact, it was ruled constitutional in the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Doe v. Shurtleff (2010). Which means in Utah, Colorado Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming it is legal, constitutional, and being enforced.

This is the first time i’ve heard this. I will make a note never to move to these states.

Was there even public access to this? I saw on the website where it said NO. I think had there been strong opposition, that 7-0 would have changed and they know it.

What tiered system is this bill connected to,the regular one,high risk or predatory
or one to be made up.Is SB 448 a done deal and only waits the governor’s signature now
to become law.Who oversees the amended changes,I don’t trust these dirty crooked bastards.

Judge Thelton Henderson will be coming up on 82 years of age in November, but hopefully Janice can get the EFF And the ACLU back on board to fight this if it gets past the governor’s desk (which it will) unless it can be stopped from the floor vote, or prevented in the Assembly. If the law is passed, then we need to get a stay order just like before.

Does this indicate that they are marching toward a tiered bill? Otherwise, how would a person be high risk according to a tier, if no such tiered system exists?


The politicians have no sense of rationality about sex offender issues. I’ve heard of one constant that I’ve read somewhere and it stuck in my mind, and is frankly the basis for all my arguments against the registry:

“The purpose of all sex offender legislation is to return all sex offenders, no matter the level or date of their offense, to prison for the rest of their life.”

To that end, they are NOT considering tiered registries. Instead, they are trying to wordsmith a bill that cannot stand if it breaks down registrant crimes.

So how does one find out if they are high risk or not? Sorry if this seems selfish. How can one check? Where do you check? Can you hire a lawyer to find out for you?

Maybe they have a crystal ball or a Ouija board? More likely, they are seeing their chances of being re-elected confirmed by voting in favor of this bill. That is the future event they are most concerned about.

No need for a lawyer just yet. The Committee referenced the 2014 CASOMB report’s tiered system which can be found on page 8 of the PDF attached to this link (

On page 8 is a chart for the suggested tiered system. Tier 1 seems to imply mostly misdemeanors, wobblers and some felonies. There is a list under the chart detailing which charges or collection of charges (simply do a search to find the specifics for each one) define a tier 2 and tier 3. I am no legal expert but this report seems fairly easy to follow.

But let’s now get ahead of ourselves. This still has quite a ways to go one way or another. We all need to continue to write and call the appropriate representatives and make some donations to CaRSOL if possible. And read this website regularly! I look forward to Janice’s viewpoint sometime soon!

This implies that there IS a tiered system in place, which there isn’t. My own interpretation is that the politicians are trying to throw something that sticks to the wall, whether or not they realize that the mud they are slinging will be wiped out by the high-concentrated detergent delivered by a super-powerful nozzle of water PSI by the federal lawsuit that will be delivered in San Francisco or Los Angeles federal court within hours of Brown signing the bill.

Definition of “high risk” offenses, as used by the CASOMB in the creation of its tiered proposal, is covered under 667.5 and 1192.7 of the California Penal Code.

Thank you Janice and all that participated in the attempt to get this bill stopped I am eagerly awaiting what your take is on this event.

Janice, can you please explain what happened today with SB 448 and SB 54?

Senate Bill 54 was not considered during the July 14 hearing.

Now this is a motivator for training more activist on how to make a good living while unseating those that refuse to uphold their oath of office. It’s a grass roots income generator for anyone that’s interested. Currently training others, but more the merrier. Robert Curtis (949)872-8768.

Nationless wrote “Yes, in CA now.

I say you go for it. not a battle I am choosing to fight. Just like the II law”

But you do agree that the law is on the side of registrants having FaceBook accounts in California?

As far as the internet identifiers, you say you have been reporting them for 7 years now. Judging from your tough-on-crime/tough-on-registrants comments, that 7 years has been hell and has taken its toll. How much time has been wasted doing that so Chris Kelly can obtain his goal of depriving American registrants of their 1st Amendment rights. All the time to check and recheck the accuracy. Drive down to the post office. Spend money to mail it in. All unnecessary crap no one should be forced to do. Years of not doing that shit and then you all of a sudden have to report the contents of what was your free speech to the police. And make a mistake, prison time. Chris Kelly and his cyber-nazi supporters are the unamerican ones, not registrants.

You are responding like an American who thinks he has rights. Life would be much easier for you if you acknowledge you are no longer an American and you owe no loyalty, service or admiration for the US. We lost the right to call ourselves Americans when they passed the first registration law for one class of criminals.

The casomb tiered system is fair. Based on convicted crime. It takes alot to score a 6+ on the static99 to be high risk so most dont have to worry. You can download the static99 and score yourself, its easy. Hell ill give them my internet info for 10 years to be able to finally get off the registry. If they follow casomb recommendation well be in a way better place. Also i assume if you already been registered 10,20 years already youll be immediately removed. Hopefully clock doesnt start when it goes in effect but counts your time already served as a price club member. Please any info Janice would be great.

The fact that they don’t have a tiered system in place in California on the books should be enough to doom the law when (now, unfortunately, not “if”) it passes. Right now, the only thing being monitored will be the votes by the politicians, as well as their potential opponents for the next election. Why? To hide their UNPRECEDENTED takeover of the California economy, their DISMAL record on the environment, their RUSH to ensure the voting process is forever tainted, and finally, their own disdain for the average citizen.

In short, a “no” vote will infuse instant rocket-fuel power to their opponents for the next election. Hence, get ready for another lawsuit. (Since California doesn’t have a tiered system, this law should already be dead in the water with an easy stay from a federal court challenge en route to being thoroughly trashed by a judge who takes a peek at the 9th Circuit decision last year).

You are correct it takes a lot to score a 6. It seems you would have to have multiple conviction dates to get there so first time offenders should fair well as long as they use the tiered system CASCOMB is recommending.

i watched almost the entire committee hearing waiting to see if SB54 was coming up. They sure are a boring bunch. After hearing Senators Leno and Hancock both recommended that CASOMB recommendations needed to be included in Hueso’s Bill. Perhaps Senator Hueso may become the sponsor for the recommended Tiered registry and have that put into his bill to get the internet bill passed. I am not sure if that can happen, but Senator Leno was very specific in his comments that tiering had to be included in order to get this bill through. Just a thought. Possibly Senator Hueso has been politically hoodwinked?

Thank you Janice, Chance, et al for all of your hard work and travel time to Sacramento. All of you are awesome.

The Senate Public Safety Committee passed Senate Bill 448 in a vote of 7 to 0 after the bill’s author, Senator Ben Hueso (Democrat, San Diego), promised to amend it. According to Committee Chair Loni Hancock, the amendments are to include a narrowing of those to whom the bill would apply and a tiering so that the scope of the bill would be limited to high risk offenders.

“The Senate Public Safety Committee acted recklessly in approving a bill based upon mere promises,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The author of the bill failed to provide the Committee with written amendments and now has a blank check.”

The next step for the bill is consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee which is not scheduled to meet until after the legislature’s summer recess which ends August 17.

“California RSOL will make every effort to confer with the bill’s author to ensure that both amendments are included in the bill before it is considered by the full Senate,” stated Bellucci. “It is our position that the bill should only be applied to those convicted of sex trafficking and not to every one convicted of a sex offense involving the internet.”

During the hearing, ACLU attorney Michael Risher testified that ACLU would legally challenge SB 448 if the final bill is too broad. ACLU successfully challenged Proposition 35 after its passage in November 2013. One small part of that proposition required all registered citizens to disclose all internet identifiers to law enforcement within 24 hours.

The total number of people who spoke in opposition to SB 448 during the hearing was 22 which included representatives from the ACLU, California RSOL, California Public Defenders Association, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None of Us. The total number of people who spoke in favor of the bill was 7 and included the Sacramento County District Attorney.

To Nationless:
I respect and understand your position because I felt that way. After being put on parole for the first time for a non-sex crime probation violation, my parole agent “Antelope Valley” informed me that I still have rights. I joined CA RSOL and started fighting! Three years later I returned their parole number. While on parole I was harassed put in the back seat at least once per week or more with 2 Parole violations “sneaky undercover setups” (first violation dismissed, 2nd 60days) all within my 3years of ankle bracelet “Parole Hell”. Prayer to an Invisible God and a Warrior Spirit “NATIONLESS” has allowed you and I to fight on. I am a Proud US Veteran and Citizen of these United States.

Thank you Janice and all for your effort. I can’t even begin to imagine the suffering that would be going on without your dedication to this cause.

Dagger20 and TJ: There may be some misunderstanding. I listened to the hearing yesterday and, from what I heard, Sen. Leno recommended that Sen. Hueso use the tiering system that CASOMB has developed for SB448, NOT that SB448 would support the entire tiering system to be applied to California’s Registry.
(However, getting the tiering system written into the Internet Identifier Bill may be a great “foot-in-the-door” towards getting the full CASOMB Tiering System approved and applied to the Registry.)

That’s true David. It will be interesting to see if they can reference the tiering system from what is now just a theoretical model FOR a tiered registration. In other words, what the CASOMB proposes isn’t definitive. We all may be at the mercy of Hueso and whatever motivations he may have. If he’s in Chris Kelly’s hip pocket, it will not be in our favor. Here’s hoping his motives are altruistic. (Yeah, you can all stop laughing at me now…).

This bill makes so much sense! Especially the way they crafted it. Makes sense that if someone used the internet to commit their crime they should be banned for life, ie. lifetime sentence. Also, if you used your phone in the commission of the crime, they should be banned for life from using a phone. If the crime took place in a bathroom, they should be banned for life from using the bathroom. If they looked at their victim, they should be banned from seeing for life. If they drove to the scene of the crime, they should be banned for life from using a car. Totally logical.

I appreciate your humor!

If this law passes I suggest that every RC contact their registering agency every single day with a new email address. 100,000 new email addresses every day would certainly make that system buckle.

As someone involved in ecommerce, I love the idea. I already use about 15-20 email addresses regularly. I own about 10 domain names and my own hosting business. I can create as many email addresses as I want, it would only takes me about 5 minutes to create 25+ email addresses. I also can register new domain names for only $1 per year, which means new identifiers with the domain registrar, multiple email addresses with the new domain, etc. Can you imagine the headache I could give them?

Oh, and having been set up for an internet based conviction that gave me this life sentence with no actual victim, you can imagine how I would love to do just that!

Nationless, buck up and stop being a coward and letting others deny you your rights or agree with fascists that you should have less rights.. Only a fool would decide to give up their rights that they legally have or support a cyber-fascist like Chris Kelly who wants to take away their rights. Just because 7 people couldn’t so no to Chris Kelly’s war chest of FaceBook cash doesn’t mean this is not chilling political speech and will be seen as such and unconstitutional ultimately. And by the way, FaceBook is only paying 2% taxes on all foreign profits by having a tax shelter business base set up in Ireland. How much money is California losing because of that? If the lawsuit suing FaceBook to let registrants use their site, which would mean they would stop their illegal discrimination, ever gets off the ground, I think we should donate some of the proceeds on the 2.5 billion to the female victims of Mark Zuckerberg who got their photos hacked and stolen by Mark Zuckerberg and then used to cyber-bully them for being ‘not hot’, on FaceMash, precursor to FaceBook.

So what’s next Janice?

Nstionless said “You are responding like an American who thinks he has rights. Life ”

I guess it’s your right to pretend you have no rights. But it gets offensive to other Americans when you imply that they should not expect the rights they have.

“would be much easier for you if you acknowledge you are no longer an American and you owe no loyalty, service or admiration for the US. We lost the right to call ourselves Americans when they passed the first registration law for one class of criminals.”

When you say it is ‘we’ who lost the right to call ourselves Americans, do you mean you and your homosexual brethren? You do know that in 1947, in California, long before Mervyn Dymally broke the tie vote to make sodomy legal in California, homosexuality was a crime and homosexuals were the first group, of what was then considered criminals that were the class, that was required to register. Long story short…homosexuals still considered themselves Americans and fought back to the fascism and are gaining ground from some very dark years in their history. I don’t appreciate people who want to break our spirit in the struggle to maintain our rights. If you were around in 1947, would you have also insisted homosexuals should not have expected to have any rights?

Nationless said “Based on what I read, all they need to do is define “high risk” to include everyone except 18/16 and urinators.”

Any examples of where the standard for high risk is such a low threshold?

Then, goes on to say…

“I would recommend creating your spreadsheets now. Also if you plan to minimize your online footprint, start deleting emails and accounts, if you plan to over-comply, you have time to create a lot of accounts and emails.”

If you feel no duty or service to and owe nothing to America, why would you feel the duty to over-comply with its most offensive laws like this one with its sadistic nonsense? And then you make the ridiculous comment about sunbathing around neighbors children. Your posts have to be a joke. You sound like the character Herb Sewell.

Because I do not like prison coffee tough guy. You sound like you have an issue with people invading “your” space here to express their opinion. You resort to name calling and attacks. You are clearly deserving of the title you have earned.

The problem with intent and application. Law enforcement has a way of enforcing laws by their own definition/interpretation. Slippery slimy devils as they sometimes are!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x