ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments December 2015

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I am reposting this to bring it to light.
I resently came across this article about how in the UK now the presumption of innosence is no longer going to be applied by the police/prosecution/court on an Administrative level. Yes while not law, Yet. None the less under color of law men will have to prove their innocence in rape cases. They will have to prove consent occurred. How can one do that? This is extremely disturbing as 800 plus years of legal tradition are being abandoned by the country that gave us the Magna Carta and thus the adversarial court system. The crown can now treat the accused as guilty procedurally and stack the deck against someone trying to defend themselves. The recipe for abuse and False Accusations is now staggering, and while they can fight it this Will make it all but impossible for non-rich defendants. While this is in the UK,for now. Legal practices tend to transplant between the U.S. and the U.K. It is only a matter of time before it comes here.
Title:”Men will have to prove a woman said ‘yes’ in tough new rules for police investigating date rape”

I was unable to find any actual changes in the UK law. This is not a newspaper that is known for journalistic accuracy. In fact it had won the “Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation”. This paper has also lost many libel lawsuits. I would no more believe anything this paper prints than I would believe anything printed by the National Enquirer. Just like US prosecutors try to do, this is just another prosecutor who is trying to change laws to increase their conviction rates and to earn political points with victims rights groups and female voters (women are the majority readers of this tabloid newspaper).

If anyone else can find an actual law that was changed or added that supports this article, please post it.

I also found this link titled:
How the DPP did not change the law on consent.

@ Lake County
I was not trying to imply that change in satutary law had been made, I was explicitly stating that regulatory proceedings had changed. And I don’t trust the link you provided in that I don’t trust even when things are put down like that that people in the system do not play “fast and lose” with the rules in order to get a conviction. We have ALL had our run-ins with the law. We know the lengths they will go. This just makes it easier.
On a side note this trend scares me to my core because it was pushed by third-wave feminists. Because you know 1in4 women will be raped. Because rapeists are just waiting behind trees ready to pounce out on helpless women. So we need to procecute first ask questions later.

No where in the civil codes am I finding a provision authorizing the state to disclose personal info especially current addresses and current photos of individuals. In fact every code I have read from the vehicle codes to civil codes of procedures along with the following civil codes explicitly states that NO ENTITY can disclose that info without the permission of the individual except under very specific circumstances; Sex offender registration or public safety not being one of them…… I am going to continue researching this but here is what I have found so far..

SECTION 1798.24-1798.24b

1798.24. An agency shall not disclose any personal information in a
manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual
to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed, as follows:
(a) To the individual to whom the information pertains.
(b) With the prior written voluntary consent of the individual to
whom the record pertains, but only if that consent has been obtained
not more than 30 days before the disclosure, or in the time limit
agreed to by the individual in the written consent.
(c) To the duly appointed guardian or conservator of the
individual or a person representing the individual if it can be
proven with reasonable certainty through the possession of agency
forms, documents or correspondence that this person is the authorized
representative of the individual to whom the information pertains.
(d) To those officers, employees, attorneys, agents, or volunteers
of the agency that has custody of the information if the disclosure
is relevant and necessary in the ordinary course of the performance
of their official duties and is related to the purpose for which the
information was acquired.
(e) To a person, or to another agency where the transfer is
necessary for the transferee agency to perform its constitutional or
statutory duties, and the use is compatible with a purpose for which
the information was collected and the use or transfer is accounted
for in accordance with Section 1798.25. With respect to information
transferred from a law enforcement or regulatory agency, or
information transferred to another law enforcement or regulatory
agency, a use is compatible if the use of the information requested
is needed in an investigation of unlawful activity under the
jurisdiction of the requesting agency or for licensing,
certification, or regulatory purposes by that agency.
(f) To a governmental entity when required by state or federal
(g) Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5
(commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code).
(h) To a person who has provided the agency with advance, adequate
written assurance that the information will be used solely for
statistical research or reporting purposes, but only if the
information to be disclosed is in a form that will not identify any
(i) Pursuant to a determination by the agency that maintains
information that compelling circumstances exist that affect the
health or safety of an individual, if upon the disclosure
notification is transmitted to the individual to whom the information
pertains at his or her last known address. Disclosure shall not be
made if it is in conflict with other state or federal laws.
(j) To the State Archives as a record that has sufficient
historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by
the California state government, or for evaluation by the Director of
General Services or his or her designee to determine whether the
record has further administrative, legal, or fiscal value.
(k) To any person pursuant to a subpoena, court order, or other
compulsory legal process if, before the disclosure, the agency
reasonably attempts to notify the individual to whom the record
pertains, and if the notification is not prohibited by law.
(l) To any person pursuant to a search warrant.
(m) Pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 1800) of
Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Vehicle Code.
(n) For the sole purpose of verifying and paying government health
care service claims made pursuant to Division 9 (commencing with
Section 10000) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(o) To a law enforcement or regulatory agency when required for an
investigation of unlawful activity or for licensing, certification,
or regulatory purposes, unless the disclosure is otherwise prohibited
by law.
(p) To another person or governmental organization to the extent
necessary to obtain information from the person or governmental
organization as necessary for an investigation by the agency of a
failure to comply with a specific state law that the agency is
responsible for enforcing.
(q) To an adopted person and is limited to general background
information pertaining to the adopted person’s natural parents,
provided that the information does not include or reveal the identity
of the natural parents.
(r) To a child or a grandchild of an adopted person and disclosure
is limited to medically necessary information pertaining to the
adopted person’s natural parents. However, the information, or the
process for obtaining the information, shall not include or reveal
the identity of the natural parents. The State Department of Social
Services shall adopt regulations governing the release of information
pursuant to this subdivision by July 1, 1985. The regulations shall
require licensed adoption agencies to provide the same services
provided by the department as established by this subdivision.
(s) To a committee of the Legislature or to a Member of the
Legislature, or his or her staff when authorized in writing by the
member, where the member has permission to obtain the information
from the individual to whom it pertains or where the member provides
reasonable assurance that he or she is acting on behalf of the
(t) (1) To the University of California, a nonprofit educational
institution, or, in the case of education-related data, another
nonprofit entity, conducting scientific research, provided the
request for information is approved by the Committee for the
Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS) for the California Health and
Human Services Agency (CHHSA) or an institutional review board, as
authorized in paragraphs (4) and (5). The approval required under
this subdivision shall include a review and determination that all
the following criteria have been satisfied:
(A) The researcher has provided a plan sufficient to protect
personal information from improper use and disclosures, including
sufficient administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to
protect personal information from reasonable anticipated threats to
the security or confidentiality of the information.
(B) The researcher has provided a sufficient plan to destroy or
return all personal information as soon as it is no longer needed for
the research project, unless the researcher has demonstrated an
ongoing need for the personal information for the research project
and has provided a long-term plan sufficient to protect the
confidentiality of that information.
(C) The researcher has provided sufficient written assurances that
the personal information will not be reused or disclosed to any
other person or entity, or used in any manner, not approved in the
research protocol, except as required by law or for authorized
oversight of the research project.
(2) The CPHS or institutional review board shall, at a minimum,
accomplish all of the following as part of its review and approval of
the research project for the purpose of protecting personal
information held in agency databases:
(A) Determine whether the requested personal information is needed
to conduct the research.
(B) Permit access to personal information only if it is needed for
the research project.
(C) Permit access only to the minimum necessary personal
information needed for the research project.
(D) Require the assignment of unique subject codes that are not
derived from personal information in lieu of social security numbers
if the research can still be conducted without social security
(E) If feasible, and if cost, time, and technical expertise
permit, require the agency to conduct a portion of the data
processing for the researcher to minimize the release of personal
(3) Reasonable costs to the agency associated with the agency’s
process of protecting personal information under the conditions of
CPHS approval may be billed to the researcher, including, but not
limited to, the agency’s costs for conducting a portion of the data
processing for the researcher, removing personal information,
encrypting or otherwise securing personal information, or assigning
subject codes.
(4) The CPHS may enter into written agreements to enable other
institutional review boards to provide the data security approvals
required by this subdivision, provided the data security requirements
set forth in this subdivision are satisfied.
(5) Pursuant to paragraph (4), the CPHS shall enter into a written
agreement with the institutional review board established pursuant
to Section 49079.5 of the Education Code. The agreement shall
authorize, commencing July 1, 2010, or the date upon which the
written agreement is executed, whichever is later, that board to
provide the data security approvals required by this subdivision,
provided the data security requirements set forth in this subdivision
and the act specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
49079.5 are satisfied.
(u) To an insurer if authorized by Chapter 5 (commencing with
Section 10900) of Division 4 of the Vehicle Code.
(v) Pursuant to Section 450, 452, 8009, or 18396 of the Financial
This article shall not be construed to require the disclosure of
personal information to the individual to whom the information
pertains when that information may otherwise be withheld as set forth
in Section 1798.40.

1798.24a. Notwithstanding Section 1798.24, information may be
disclosed to any city, county, city and county, or district, or any
officer or official thereof, if a written request is made to a local
law enforcement agency and the information is needed to assist in the
screening of a prospective concessionaire, and any affiliate or
associate thereof, as these terms are defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 432.7 of the Labor Code for purposes of consenting to, or
approving of, the prospective concessionaire’s application for, or
acquisition of, any beneficial interest in a concession, lease, or
other property interest. However, any summary criminal history
information that may be disclosed pursuant to this section shall be
limited to information pertaining to criminal convictions.

1798.24b. (a) Notwithstanding Section 1798.24, except subdivision
(v) thereof, information shall be disclosed to the protection and
advocacy agency designated by the Governor in this state pursuant to
federal law to protect and advocate for the rights of people with
disabilities, as described in Division 4.7 (commencing with Section
4900) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(b) Information that shall be disclosed pursuant to this section
includes all of the following information:
(1) Name.
(2) Address.
(3) Telephone number.
(4) Any other information necessary to identify that person whose
consent is necessary for either of the following purposes:
(A) To enable the protection and advocacy agency to exercise its
authority and investigate incidents of abuse or neglect of people
with disabilities.
(B) To obtain access to records pursuant to Section 4903 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code.


California Vehicle Code 1808 and the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6253 et seq.) provide that information collected by the Department is generally considered public information and is subject to inspection by the public. Exceptions to this public disclosure obligation include: Personal Information and Confidential Information.

Personal Information

Personal information is defined as information that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, his or her name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. An “individual” is defined as a “natural person.”

Release of personal information must be in accordance with the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civil Code Section 1798 et seq.) and the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) (Title 18 United States Code Section 2721-2725).

Confidential Information

Confidential information includes, but may not be limited to, an individual’s home address (California Vehicle Code Section 1808.21), home telephone number (Government Code Section 6254.3), physical/mental information (California Vehicle Code Section 1808.5), social security number (California Vehicle Code Section 1653.5), and photograph (California Vehicle Code Sections 12800.5 and 13005.5).

I’m not sure what your point is when it’s a Penal Code requirement that allows this information to be posted.

Maybe he is hoping there is an argument that because the information is protected under civil codes it should be protected under penal codes too. Unfortunately targeting any state penal codes will not do any good since federal statues are what ultimately must be challenged. Invalidating various sections and sub sections of federal statues and getting all the relevant language removed from United States codes is more difficult than passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The reason being a constitutional challenge must be made to the United States supreme court and they then have to seem it worthy of review. Very rarely does the highest court not split into 4/5 or 5/4 and if someone thinks gun control, abortion, or gay marriage are divisive issues those have nothing on sex offender registration, tracking, monitoring, civil commitment, and treatment. When the United States Supreme Court agrees to review a constitutional challenge regarding sex offenses its going to be an absolutely air tight and complex argument that MIGHT come simultaneously from all 50 states, the district of Columbia, all United States territories, and directly from some as of yet unimaginged unconstitutional angle at the federal level.

No what I’m getting at is civil court and civil law can have a complete set of rules and procedures so even though the penal codes may allow for this disclosure of info there may be civil codes or contract codes that could hold the state liable for damages from their unlawful coercion and demand we sign a contract under duress. I’m not suggesting that it would have any effect whatsoever on the obligation to registar or on any constitutional issues. That’s just it. I believe that some how all you have to do is prove the state is causing you harm by forcing you into a contract and then the subsequent disclosure on a publicly acessable website your private info ie current photo and address that is not available through any public records and is in fact protected info under certain civil codes. Proving liability in civil court is very different than challenging the constitutional issues.

This is true, because everyone (government/judges) keep saying SOR is administrative. You may a point. Mike.

Disclosing the information under the registration acts is part of the action of the State against the person found guilty of committing the crime and it stems from the crime and nothing else. It is therefore penal, the Supreme Court and its gobbledygook reasoning notwithstanding. If registration was a civil action, then I don’t see why mike r’s reasoning wouldn’t apply.

Notice where it states in the following not allowed to disclose private facts about a individual. Are current address and current photo are just two facts that are not subject to public disclosure. Our criminal record including mugshots and addresses we had when convicted are public record not our current info. This is exactly what I am getting at the state is unlawfully disclosing info that is not public record and that info is causing so many of us irreparable harm and even death in some cases.. I know there are much more experienced people in the area of civil law but sometimes those people don’t see the obvious and even if they do they are reluctant to go forward with that issue but if people never try things outside the box then we would ark have slavery and concetration camps and prohibition and ap on:..

… United States

Main article: Privacy laws of the United States

The right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The idea of a right to privacy was first addressed within a legal context in the United States. Louis Brandeis (later a Supreme Court justice) and another young lawyer, Samuel D. Warren, published an article called “The Right to Privacy” in the Harvard Law Review in 1890 arguing that the U.S. Constitution and common law allowed for the deduction of a general “right to privacy”. [12]

Their project was never entirely successful, and the renowned tort expert Dean Prosser argued that “privacy” was composed of four separate torts, the only unifying element of which was a (vague) “right to be left alone”. [13]

The four torts were:

Appropriating the plaintiff’s identity for the defendant’s benefit

Placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye

Publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff

Unreasonably intruding upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff

You might find this interesting…
“Drone Footage Leads To Pair’s Lewdness Arrest”
Is there privacy issues in play here? What about a private residence in a hotub?

You see there are numerous codes protecting rights that can be addressed through civil suit for liabilty without any other issue being brought up.. the following is just one of numerous codes protecting the rights for the housing issue…

42 U.S. Code § 3617 -Interference, coercion, or intimidation

US Code Notes Authorities (CFR)

prev | next

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603,3604,3605,or 3606 of this title.

The law said we have 5 (FIVE) working days within our birthday to register which would be 10 days.
but actually Tulare County
Registration is on Tuesdays and Thursdays by appointment only

So this would make it only 4 days.

Are they breaking the law by limiting our time to register?

It’s kinda the same schedule for me where I live in cali: Tues and Thurs

These may be California federal court records:

1. Janice Bellucci is the first attorney in California history to have submitted active, substantiated cases (as opposed to frivelous) in all four of the federal circuit courts in the state. She has won, or has settled with terms favorable to her case, in three of the four circuits. She has yet to lose a case.

2. In addition, Janice probably holds the record for most ACTIVE cases at any one time in the Federal Circuit by any single attorney or firm.

3. Frank Lindsay, as the plaintiff in nearly all the cases, is arguably the most successful litigant in California federal court history. He certainly has been in more cases than anyone else.

While these records are certainly monumental, it is more important to note that they emphasize the outrageously unconstitutional foundation the registry is based upon, as well as all the laws that emanate from them. Usually, one or two jurisdictions may push the constitutional envelope, but when someone like presidential candidate Ted Cruz doesn’t want to see Americans on registries,* you know that even the Tea Party republicans think this is a bridge too far.

Congratulations, Janice, Frank, Chance, and the rest of the team!

*Cruz was specifically quoted as saying: “I’m not a fan of government tracking American citizens”; Link:

Trump spouts foolishness about banning Muslims and everyone on the right, left, and center raise concerns about the American Constitution. But no one says the slightest thing when unconstitutional laws are directed at Registered Citizens. Not one.

What Trump want to do with the Muslims is the same thing that the Our government be doing against RC for 20-30 years with little or no benefits. This Trump thing could be a silver lining in a dark cloud as being a springboard or attention getter for greater RC causes.

My thoughts exactly. That’s why I emailed CNN and asked them what exactly is the problem, the government already registers it’s citizens, and it is ruled constitutional.
I hope more people will follow suit. The more voices, the louder the message.

Just as Nazi germany conditioned themselves to apply unfair and harsh measures to their citizens based on race, religion, ethnicity, political bent that started with persecution of sex offenders/deviators, now the US, as displayed through the media, has regressed by serious consideration of expanding this sadistic nightmare of registration to peoples based on criteria of race, religion, etc. No one could truly believe registration is nothing more than an ignorable membership to a now-defunct Price Club. I don’t know if the unwarranted threat to previously long term law abiding citizens of harsh, unfair, and unconstitutional registration and inevitable add-ons is enough to push someone already teetering on the edge over the edge,but propagated voices in the media should consider that as well as the unfairness of collective punishment to entire classes of people based on rare acts of murder committed by a few in that group, as being a bad thing for the media to advocate for. There is probably at least one horrific murderer in any given grouping of people. Many in the media that are wondering aloud what were the motivations of the 2 killers in San Bernardino are ignoring the chronology. Trump calls for registration. Previously long term law abiding citizens who would have to register shoot up a bunch of people.

Ted Cruz does seem to be an unlikely ally. He appears to come off as unpleasant. I often mistake his voice for that of Sean Hannity. I know he is a smart guy to get to where he is now. So I think he couldn’t have ignored that when he says he doesn’t like registration of Americans, he means all Americans. I see Cruz using his defense of the 2nd Amendment when he fought for gun rights before the Supreme Court as material for some of his campaign commercials, but not his defense of Texas sex offender laws. I consider that to be a good sign, for the time being. Also, I wonder if there is a connection to Cruz doing well in Iowa right after making the anti-registry statement and Iowa being the first state to rescind registry residency restrictions and the first state to realize the counter-productiveness, being the reason for Cruz’ surge in the polling there.

A real sexual predator !

Every A-hole that throws the word “predator” around should be indited for rabble rousing, inciting the public or something like that. A sexual predator is not someone that had consensual sex with someone, went pee behind Taco Bell or looked at a few pictures. The subject of this article is a REAL sexual predator. I think every reporter and their editors, aspiring public official and everyone else needs to read this before they throw the word “predator” around in the irresponsible manner in which they do.

Wow, what a BS headline. “White Cop.” The guy is half Asian. Why not call him an Asian Cop, or more perhaps more accurately, Psychopathic Cop.

Typical Daily Beast crap: the White Man is EVIL.

In this season, I hope for all of us peace in our hearts. It has been very hard, no employment, will probably lose apt., and no family or friends to be with. I wish all out there, friend and foe, a safe holiday.

I have said for the past 5 years that police sexual misconduct is rampant and that rogue law enforcement officers with the above-the-law-protection-by-the-brotherhood mentality is a major problem in the U.S. Here’s one for you all:
Law enforcement as a group is far more dangerous than registered citizens. Beware and tell your children to beware, especially those daughters who drive. The chances of them being molested/raped are greater when stopped by a policeman than by some “dangerous predator”. Teach them wisdom and caution.

He was found guilty today…thank God! Police officers are you REAL predators and I don’t mean just sexual assault but any kind of assault against a citizen.

LE should be held to a higher standard and crimes committed under color of authority should carry a significantly heavier penalty than a civilian would face. Instead, the inverse seems to be more common.

If truly guilty, I hope he’s nailed to a cross.

All very offensive stuff indeed, but I still think that Trump’s statement to have a registry for US citizens who are Muslim is more offensive than not allowing muslims from other countries who are not US citizens to immigrate to the US. The media are pretending Trump never said that once Ted Cruz responded that he is not a fan of registries for American citizens, which would have to include registrants of so-called “Sex” crimes, who are the people most in the US would associate with registries in general anyways. The pro-registry media shut down that discussion pretty quick.

I was at a church group discussion last night when Muslim registries came up in discussion and one person remarked that “Registries are wrong – we should have learned from the Japanese internment during WWII.” Most people seem oblivious to – or accepting of – S.O. Registries. Sad and frustrating.

It would have been interesting to ask the collective, “What do you think about S.O. Registries?” They probably would have grabbed the pitchforks and lit the torches….

I just an still amazed at how no one is willing to help me stand up and prove my rights are being violated. Every attorney I speak to either doesn’t do this type of law or is just unwilling to help despite our ability to pay. So this January my wife and I are being stripped of our parental rights, simply because I have to register. Nothing has ever happened to our daughter, she wasent abused or neglected. I am losing my rights because I have to register, and my wife is losing hers because she didn’t divorce me. I thought it was a constitutional right to be able to have and raise a family. I guess California didn’t get that memmo, either that or they just don’t care because they know they can trample our constitutional rights and no one will champion us to prove it. We have done everything we can in family court, what we need is to challenge the law and how it violates our rights. Either that or we become yet another silent victim of the monstrous machine that is our “Justice” system. Merry Christmas All

How is this possible. I never lost my family or kids taken away. I had a child’s court lawyer and only had about a 2 week time where I had limited visitation.

Yes, Jon, I am curious about this also…and in general where do you live?

Jon ,

Why are you not contacting Janice ? She is a civil rights attorney. Do you need her Info ? It’s on the website here. Maybe she can assist you.

I already did, and she said that she can’t help me… Of course I think she thought that I wanted her to argue in family court instead of starting up a civil rights case. Either way, she said that the group that backs her is very specific on the cases they go after, and one like mine just doesn’t make the grade.

Good news for Massachusett – its Supreme Court has ruled that things have changed so strongly since earlier decisions that the legal presumption that restrictions on RCs are non-punitive is no longer tenable. At Doug Berman’s legal blog see the following:
Let’s hope this major court decision ripples all the way to California, and soon.

I read in the Orange County Register the day that former Santa Ana city councilman Carlos Bustamante pleaded guilty to various sexual offenses against women while he was in office as a Santa Ana city councilman. As a result he was not register for life as a sex offender.

Ironic as Bustamante, if I recall correctly, when he was a Santa Ana city councilman, was one of those that push the hardest for Santa Ana version of the ordinance restricting sex offenders from public parks.

The NCMEC has issued its latest map of the registered citizen population, and I can’t help but think they are playing fast and loose with the numbers compared with the previous map, which was issued in June. The overall population numbers have hardly budged; indeed the population per 100,000 people has gone down. And yet the numbers have gone up for every state I look at. Can any one with mathematical ability see what’s going on?

Here’s the new map:

The June map is here:

My personal opinion is that NCMEC is terrified of having to acknowledge that the population number is closing in on one million because that will be news, and it will be news that will further expose the registry for the sham that it is.

I’ve added up all the red numbers and they do indeed add up to the total reported in red above the map. The new map uses data from the 2014 and 2010 Census whereas the June map only uses the 2010 Census. Assuming a population increase over the last 5 years the number of registered citizens per 100K should only slightly decrease which is indeed the case on the new NCMEC map (general population increases, registered population remains relatively the same). Thus, I see no misrepresentation of the data reported by NCMEM.

Since we are now 15 to 20 years after the institution of registration for sexual offenses, states with tiered systems will begin to have a sharp drop in registered citizens for those that were classified in the lowest tiers. That is why the total number of registrants only slightly increased between June and December. I would assume that from here on out the population of registered citizens will not expand quite as rapidly as it had in the past because of this “release” of low level offenders.

Thank you, Kevin, for looking into that. I didn’t see the census data change notation at the bottom of the page, but I figured that somehow the decrease in the population ratio number had something to do with a general population increase. And I agree with your assessment that people should begin dropping off the state registries, thus slowing down increases. Looking further, it seems like the decreases are in the northeast (Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland), so it may also be that some people are moving out of those states for better job opportunities elsewhere. California, for example, shows a substantial increase of over 10,000. It still looks like the increased numbers almost everywhere should overwhelm the decreased numbers in a few states, but I guess not. Thanks again.

California once again leads the nation. ?

Just to follow up: Mary Devoy’s excellent blog has an interesting discussion about NCMEC RC population figures vs reality. Here is the link:

The Devil’s Holiday Letter: 2015
Ignorance, My Poor Dear Americans, Will Not Save You

“If ignorance were treasure, the American political class must be declared wealthier than Midas, for its ignorance and hubris have reached a pinnacle I can truly admire. Ensnared by their lust for power, blinded by their greed for fame and perquisites, they look no further than the next election cycle, dooming their nation to division, disharmony and the desolation of permanent conflict over the dwindling productive assets of this once-great nation.”

“The spiritual rot is now so deep and pervasive that the people no longer even recognize the decay–they have been lulled into a false belief that this culture of fraud, embezzlement, manipulations, propaganda and parasitic financial Elites has always held sway. This is precisely how a people act when they have lost their way, spiritually and morally: they elevate sins to virtues, and forget the lessons of their past.”

“Ignorance, my poor dear Americans, will not save you, nor will your endless parade of excuses, justifications and rationalizations. Indeed, they are my weapons which you drive deeper into your nation’s heart with every lie, every excuse, every frantic justification for your own entitlement.”

An end of the year question: when does something and/or someone become sexual?

I am not seeking a dictionary definition or anything backed by research, just each person’s own opinion on when (in time, as a result of circumstance, via contextual framing, or other factors) does something become (is perceived as) having sexual qualities.

How does each person know their understanding and classification of something and/or someone as sexual is correct?

Could there be as much or more harm in not allowing alternative perspectives to be valid as there is when a valid perspective is ignored? For example someone says they were raped and it is ignored. Then another person is labeled a rape victim and is not permitted to admit in court that they were not raped (say legally someone couldn’t consent despite the fact that in reality they did). Would preventing a false claim from being corrected be as bad or worse than ignoring a legitimate claim?

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to all. Every day is hard for us, especially the holidays. But keep the faith that with Janice and many others around the country helping to reverse all these draconian laws against us, we do have hope that someday we will be free to be respected and contributing members of society again. Keep your hope alive.

Luke 2 :8-14, Harry’s paraphrased. Now there were in the same country registered citizens (shepherds were despised people) living out in the fields, because they were homeless and keeping watch over their families by night. And behold,[b] an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people (RCs too). For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” including Registered Citizens and their families and friends. God loves You and Merry Christmas to All

California Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced on Christmas Eve that he has granted 91 pardons. The majority of the cases involved drug-related convictions. Other crimes for which pardons were granted included burglary, robbery, driving under the influence causing injury, grand theft, manslaughter, vandalism, arson, kidnapping, receiving stolen property, conspiracy, carjacking, possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, carrying a concealed weapon, being an accessory after the fact, writing insufficient funds checks, forgery, vehicle theft, having a fraudulent ID, assault with a deadly weapon, bribery, perjury, attempted voluntary manslaughter, possession or manufacturing a dangerous weapon, making fraudulent insurance claims and violation of securities law.

As always, no Registered Citizens were pardoned.

And they never will be.

I was on phone conference and one of the participants volunteered that he had been black listed in the P.I., but had overcome it. I would like to speak with him but didn’t get his name. Has anyone exsperienced this, and how many other countries allow us to “Petition” at some point.

I received a picture in email from my dear family overseas. They are so beautiful. Knowing you’re loved and not being able to be with them is the most pain I can imagine. More than my battle injuries. How do you cope with this. Please tell me. I’m so alone and scared.

I just came across a post in another forum that had me a little concerned. Without reading the entire encyclopedia of 290 rules for California, does anyone know if you have to report a job change with the local LE if you are NOT on probation? That would make no sense and a little overkill, but I just wanted to check here. Thanks.

I don’t think so…but it would be better and Wise (!) to simply call your local jurisdiction to be certain.


You absolutely DO NOT have to report ANY changes, job, vehicle changes, or ANYTHING EXCEPT residence changes until your annual update. ONLY during the ANNUAL do you need to report any “new” items. 290 is VERY CLEAR on this. Those items you have to initial outline CLEARLY all the requirements. Those guys and girls that do MORE than required are only hurting us all by allowing cops to make their own rules. In LA they ask to take a photo of your car when you register, and they imply that it is REQUIRED, but IT IS NOT! DO NOT let them do more than allowed – we must comply to the LETTER OF THE LAW, and they MUST do the same. I have denied this request EVERY YEAR and just left. There is nothing they can do, it’s not in the law.

Do you carry the 290 section in a binder?
so if you are challenged we can just point and tell them “it there in black and white”

I was under the impression that you don’t need to even report where you work unless you worked around minors or at a school (such as a college) or if you are considered a SVP (violent predator).

Correct me if I’m wrong with where to find that stature.

Curious if anyone else has to do this:

When registering, the detective requires all registrants to hand write the following statement at the bottom of each page: “I understand and will abide by these restrictions”

This statement must be initialed and dated.

Seems to me that if this statement were mandated, it would a) be included in the law and, b) be included on the form as a printed statement.

Does anyone else have this requirement?


No. And I would not write that myself.

122 murders in the last 15 years as a result of government forcing people to sign legal documents against their will in violation of the first, fifth, and thirteenth amendments which it in turn uses against them and proceeds to violate the incite doctrine.

Just to make it clear, this is about a bill in Virginia to remove RC’s work addresses from the internet. Please vote yes on this web site link in agreement to support this bill.

I have been reading the comments people have made about the actor arrested. I now fully understand every perverse law passed. It’s because we are “monsters, freaks, and don’t care.” The politicians just live off the hesteria. So does the media. This just assured the new bill of passing.

Comments on any CP arrest are always some of the most brutal. Kinder comments can be found on articles written about people arrested for murder. I feel sorry the guy because I know what he must be going through…mentally, emotionally, professionally, and socially. Over the next few weeks he will discover who his real friends are.

I will never forget the friends that stuck by me. My friends didn’t ask to see a copy of a polygraph exam I took showing that the police fabricated several statements on the police report. Each one of the four fabrications established I “knowingly” possessed the 3 illegal files they found in my 1.7TB collection of adult porn courtesy of P2P file sharing. My friends didn’t need a copy of a signed two page letter from my attorney that discredited numerous nuggets of fiction conjured up by the local media.

My advice to the actor and the thousands of others that will be arrested for CP over the next few years: Appreciate the friends and family that stick by you…the ones that have shown love and not hate. If pornography addiction is what led to your arrest (I think this is often the case) then talk openly about it and try to help others avoid the same fate.

I just want to wish everyone a happy New year. Here’s to 2016 being a year that we take back a bunch of our rights!

Has anyone travel to or lived in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

ok i am in need of some advice im gunna be going to a reunion in july 2016 in orlando and what do i need to do to make this happen my crime was in 1989 and is pc 288a

DO NOT GO TO FLORIDA! Seriously, I made that mistake back in November 2008, and I’m STILL paying for it! A 5 day vacation with my wife, and I’m STILL on their website (despite having always being exempt here in CA). In their own words, “Florida is scorched earth for sex offenders”. That’s verbatim.


Actually I have had to research this a little bit…but be CERTAIN to do your own research…but if your stay in Florida is less than 48 hours, I think you can attend this reunion.

Everything in regards to Florida requires caution…but if the reunion is an absolute necessity, for whatever reasons…this could be your solution.

Best Wishes, James

When I downloaded the file I was arrested for, all the pics were coded,meaning you would not know what you has until it was opened. No preview or description. They said that is why I got possession and not distribution. They just don’t care about the circumstances, just the notch on their gun for an arrest. I had put them in the trash file, doesn’t that show some kind of effort to eris yourself, but no, now I’m a “criminal”. Wow, what a system we have.

Possession is pretty much a slam dunk for law enforcement…no matter the circumstances.

In my case…the file that I downloaded (during my many months of bulk P2P downloading) was a file that I never even had a chance to open. The hash value of the file that brought them pounding on my door was on the CP list they reference when hunting for it online. Hash value is the files digital signature.

I had searched for and bulk downloaded hundreds of supposed **** files which is a legal subscription based website. During the bulk downloading of files I wouldn’t have a chance to go through them all. I explained this and there was evidence that would support this but no mention of this was made on the police report. Not even the fact that that 1/2 of the words in the file name and been renamed so that this file would show up in the results of somebody (including me) looking for content from that site. It had been renamed to look like it was video #66 from that paid adult site. Even had an “actress” name that corresponded to their site which was another word I had bulk searched and downloaded.

Anything that would/could support my statements was conveniently left out of the report and statement fabrications put in their place. Hard to say you didn’t know they were there when the person writing the police report states that you said: I have masturbated to CP, that I have downloaded thousands of CP files, and two other clever statement fabrications. My word against theirs….even with a polygraph backing up what I said and didn’t say. Put the nail on my coffin. Hello plea deal.

Thousands out there in the same boat as you. Life ruined for a sight crime. Now you’re tagged an “undetected child molester” and will be witch hunted to hospice.

These militant, radical extremist child safety advocates need to be silenced.

Before any new proposals ..california should first adhere to and honor the Constitutional right of a fair open trial..
Above board..Not the behind the curtain kind..Not the back hallway kind..,Not the crooked kind..
Investigate orange county justice First before any other new proposals.