California Reform Sex Offender Laws (CA RSOL) and two registrants today will file a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court requesting immediate changes to, or in the alternative, the ending of, the state’s Megan’s Law website. The request is based upon the failure of the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) to comply with a state law that required the agency to add conviction and release dates to individuals’ profiles on that website by 2010.

“The California Department of Justice continues to act illegally and in violation of state law,” stated CA RSOL president and attorney Janice Bellucci. “The agency has failed to meet a legislative mandate to correct the Megan’s Law website and that failure has resulted in several deaths as well as homelessness and unemployment for thousands of California residents.”

Roy Matagora, a plaintiff in the case, is one person who has suffered and continues to suffer due to the agency’s failure to comply with state law. Matagora is a recent victim of vigilante violence who was shot twice on September 21 by a neighbor who told police that he shot Matagora because he is a “sex offender”. The Megan’s Law website profile of Matagora lacks both the date of his conviction and the date of his release.

“The combination of an individual’s current photo and home address as well a lack of information regarding when he was convicted can be lethal,” stated attorney Chance Oberstein. “Unfortunately, the public often jumps to the conclusion that the conviction took place recently even though it may have occurred decades ago.”

About 92 percent of the profiles on the Megan’s Law website lack the year of conviction and year of release, according to the lawsuit. In fact, the older the conviction is, the less likely it is that the date of conviction appears on an individual’s profile.

“California DOJ is acting unlawfully and irresponsibly,” stated Bellucci. “They have put, and continue to put, at risk of significant harm, the lives of more than 50,000 individuals. The lack of this information disguises the fact that these individuals are unlikely to commit a subsequent offense. According to the Outcome Evaluation Report released by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in July 2015, the rate of re-offense is less than one percent.”[1]

And according to Dr. Karl Hanson, a renowned international expert regarding the re-offense rate of registrants, a registrant who has not committed a subsequent offense in 17 years is no more likely to commit an offense than an individual who has never done so.[2]

[1] See CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report, page 30.
[2] See California Sex Offender Management Board report, “A Better Path to Community Safety”, dated April 2014, page 16.


Video from KRON4 TV (article & video)

National News articles (mostly from the AP)

… and across the globe


Related posts

Notify of
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hay Janice what about the illegal use of the information on sites like Homefacts and others?

Hallelujah! It is about freaking time for this! Thank you to all involved.

Actually, one can stop reading after the first paragraph. According to PC 290.46(a)(2):

(2) (A) On or before July 1, 2010, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public, via an Internet Web site as specified in this section, as to any person described in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), the following information:
(i) The year of conviction of his or her most recent offense requiring registration pursuant to Section 290.
(ii) The year he or she was released from incarceration for that offense.
(iii) Whether he or she was subsequently incarcerated for any other felony, if that fact is reported to the department.

Sure seems like violating PC 290 is a strict liability crime, and that should be for all involved. I have never understood how the State is able to violate this law for a full 5 years without consequence whatsoever, a law that, when violated, by definition is directly endangering the public.

Godspeed and thank you.

Open letter to all registrants:

Thank you Janice and Chance for litigating this important matter. I am so pleased to finally see the “less than one percent” recidivism statistic being used in a public forum. This got me to thinking about the relative risk to the public by two categories of citizens, registrants and police.

I have been keenly observing the police brutality phenomenon for several years, the militarization of the police, protective nature of the police unions, favorable treatment of the police by grand juries, the seemingly rampant nature of deaths of unarmed citizens by the police, etc. Anyone not living under a rock can plainly see that police misconduct is a front-burner issue.

I am gratified that the public at large is finally seeing and recognizing overt police misconduct post-Ferguson as the true menace that it is.

I have performed a preliminary analysis of the statistics regarding police misconduct in this country and believe it is more likely that a member of the public will be the victim of police violence than a victim of a sex offense by anyone on the registry.

More statistical analysis needs to be done to validate my preliminary findings, but this revelation could become the genesis for a new and effective marketing campaign, to wit: Cops Are More Dangerous Than Sex Offenders.

I value your collective wisdom. Please respond with your thoughts on this topic.

Would the DOJ employ RCs to perform all of the conviction & release data entry required ?

Fantastic..!!… Outstanding..!!
By omission of information they are liable in putting people’s lives and well being at risk even by listed name.
People listed now for over fifteen years should be off this state registry now .
The state is liable for any injury or harm and damages as well as the person who acted.

Jeez the guy was SHOT because he was listed on the website. Isn’t that enough to bring this down as our LIVES are in jeopardy?

I think they need to do away with our birth date to, no body needs my birth date as well as my address and my full name. If they want to know how old I am just put 35 or 50 what ever ,not the birth date makes no sense to me. Maybe Janice can see about this as well

It’s great that RSOL is Fighting back, Now what will the rest of you do to help ?
Or Are you Waiting for the Town to plant a sign in your front yard ?

What about dismissed convictions per PC 1203.4? I suppose that glaring piece of profound due process would never be included on my web page listing, let alone dismissed over a decade ago.

No convictions for ANYTHING on my background check yet DOJ has the dismissed charges published on the internet like no formal dismissal order ever happened…

Stick it to ’em Janice and Chance!!!

Once a registered citizen receives record clearance via PC1203.4, that should also be included on the website, and it is not.

Just sent a chunk of money, everyone, please, do likewise now.

This is a great first start but I really wish someone would go after the core issues of the registry such as the following.

This court has jurisdiction because ________________________________________________________________

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 Megan’s law (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) as applied to me.

I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
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 cognizable 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.


(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel

(3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel

(4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel


(1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.

These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).

Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.

The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation 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, harassment 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. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only 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.
These laws 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 also 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 Megan’s 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 harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces 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 Megan’s law website. My family and I have had our vehicles vandalized and our life’s threatened because I am subject to these registration and public notification laws. These laws cause me severe psychosocial stresses that cause major mental disorders such as major depression and anxiety disorders which can and do affect my ability to perform job duties or perform normal daily activities and to reintegrate into society. 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 reintegrate back into society because of all the collateral consequences caused by the registration and public notification laws.These collateral consequences will continue to cause me irreparable damage to my liberty interest as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.

The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.

The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.

I am asking this court to apply the actual facts 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 0.8% (page 30)

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.

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: 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:

These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.

All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.

These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from 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 registering 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 life’s 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 discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

The full report is available 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 re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense 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 ineffectiveness 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 available online at.

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 conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing 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. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually 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 inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. 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 violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-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 known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. 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 investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/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 who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense.


(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.

(2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.

(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.

(4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.

Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate 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 even further. 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. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
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 (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) .

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

Matagora, as well as many others have been shot simply because of this web site. Most haven’t been as fortunate as Matagora and didn’t survive being murdered because someone decided to look on the site to find someone to murder. Isn’t this enough proof that Megan’s Law is a bad law, and the site should be taken down because it directly causes people to not only get murdered and assaulted, but also causes unemployment and homelessness, as well as many other things; none of them good?

Isn’t the fact that Megan’s law has been empirically proven to do nothing to protect anyone or to prevent anything enough proof to get this site taken down? I often wonder what is wrong with these people that can’t see these truths. Could it be because there is no truth in them?

Thank you Janice and Chance for suing the Dept of no justice.

A thing to add to that lawsuit is to eliminate the restriction of a sex offender viewing Megan’s list to see that the information about them is correct. I would love to see the gobblygook they come up with to deny that.

I think this is a wonderful article. I truly believe it’s time for California to wake up. We have the Prisons stating there is a less than 1 percent recidivism rate! Furthermore, we have a established governors safety board stating its time to instill a tiered system? Yet, we continue to deal with brash city leaders and politicians who are on the lookout to pass new and crazier laws that do nothing to instill safety amongst the public. Lastly, we have a website that publishes the names and home addresses of many individuals that have paid their debt so long ago. This in turn has resulted in job losses, inhibited employment opportunities, provoked neighbor vigilantes (cars parked with signs) and even murder on several occasions. I can only conclude with the fact that I’m so very proud of Janice and I pray and hope for the best. This was an amazing idea

I want to point out the first news coverage of this:

More are surely to follow now that it is on the newswires.

There are so many organizations with their hand in this cookie jar that its going to create chaos if the rug was pulled out from under them. All those orgs depend on the money and myths to fill they pockets and justify their jobs. This issue is a major keystone issue for the future of society in every country. Whoever overturns the registry when they do because it will happen are going to be forever remembered as the most influencial civil rights attorneys in history. I hope its Janice she will have earned it and deserves it for what she does

I wish Janice Bellucci knew of an attorney in TN that would be willing to do what she is doing so that we can start challenging the statutes applicable in my home state.

So far, thanks be to God, neither I nor my family have been targets of vigilante violence to any degree and I pray that status holds. The legal document drawn up by on of the commenters addresses every issue that needs to be confronted head-on.

The impetus behind these laws is NOT…I repeat IS NOT public safety. It is a carte blanche that gives the state license under color of law enforcement to harass offenders and their families. To me, the fact I have to be subject to these laws in and of itself is harassment in my eyes. I have to be honest here. I have been fortunate to have two very level-headed, fair reasonable parole officers. (I’m on community supervision for the rest of my life.) However, there is an occasion every year where my officer has no choice but to infringe on my most basic right; my freedom of religion. Every Halloween season sex offenders in TN have a 6 pm to 6 am curfew that runs from about 22 or 23 October until 2 or 3 November. During that time, I have to miss evening worship services. I am a Christian and have faithfully attended church all during my incarceration and ever since I was released in 2012. I shouldn’t have to miss a single church service due to any sex offender restriction. Any law that abridges religious freedom should be stricken from the books.

Well, I couldn’t agree more with this lawsuit. The court should order the website go offline while the matter is adjudicated, appeals are heard, corrections are made and so forth. By the time they fix the web site to comply with state law—–if indeed they ever do—it should be obvious even to the most foolish, that the web site is of no practical value, and should remain offline permanently.

GREAT NEWS, go Janice,Chance,,, MY questions is my case was filed in 1987, . no contest plea in 1989 given probation, which I violated in 1992, ,,sent to state prison in 1993, which date would be applied to me 1989 or 1993? for the megans website

Perfect examples of why we are ALL in danger. Janice, you should compile all these comments as evidence?

From Sacramento Bee

Charles Davis
“If you commit lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 you deserve to be attacked with a sledge hammer. I couldn’t care less if it happened 20 years ago”.

Andrew Frisch
“Honestly who cares if child rapists are victimized. They should be thankful they aren’t put down.”

IMO what people need to do is stop being so bitter towards each other, most are here for a reason, to stop these insane laws that are being placed on hundreds of thousands of citizens of this country. We are in a war, a war against continued punishment, banishment, poverty, homelessness and the endless attack on our families. I have never complained much about my initial punishment for breaking the law, but I refuse to allow the public and the lawmakers to keep adding more on to me after I served my sentence, we have to push back hard, dig deep and file lawsuit after lawsuit, there has to be a cost for the states, counties and cities that keep enacting more restrictions. It has never been clearer to me that this is the only way to do, file and sue. Give what you can my friends, keep fighting until you die.

Hey rs did I hear you correctly that you had your 664/288 set aside since it was an attempt? I was unaware that you could do that since i have the same charge. Was it difficult, expensive and is there any real world benefit that you have witnessed in your personal experience.

Very interesting. As such, I’m very disturbed to learn that the information posted on the web site for all to see isn’t updated? I’ve actually called the number via the site to ask questions and it sounded like the woman was asleep. Lets be real. Posting the names and addresses of individuals is very disturbing. Yet, people want to pass harsher and crazier laws? SOmething must be done. Its out of control. Good luck Janet

I say END IT !!!