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 March 2016

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of March 2016. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’ve heard this term used a number of times on conference calls and I did a bit of research of it: Schengen countries

an overview of it under entry conditions:

I found this to be of Interest for third countries [not Schengen]:

” The Schengen Information System does not contain an alert for refusal of entry concerning the traveller, and

The traveller is not considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations of any of the Schengen states.”

the list of Schengen countries:

Information in SIS is shared among institutions of the countries participating in the Schengen Agreement Application Convention (SAAC). The five original participating countries were France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Twenty additional countries have joined the system since its creation: Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Greece, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Currently, the Schengen Information System is used by 27 countries. Among the current participants, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland are not members of the European Union.

FWIW, not much….I do believe that most of Europe is open to RSO’s….but I remain nervous over this, though I did travel freely to London, Spain and France extensively in 2014 without trouble.

Maybe I am just the nervous type…but I don’t think any of us want any trouble, or, any more trouble in our lives. This new 21 day advance notice requirement is…very troublesome and problematic…for a bunch of reasons:

From a standpoint of proof, they will know absolutely when you left and when you returned…giving notice…well, they may not know that as directly as Homeland security knows your comings and goings…but they certainly can find out if you gave notice if they wanted to….it is this element of proof that has me most concerned…there is no wiggle room if they wish to come after you.

So…I called my local authority today, spoke to the detective in charge of RSO matters, (and I hate contacting these people…I suspect a common reaction among us), and I informed him of the IML and especially the Justice Department’s Smart Watch Dispatch issued in February 2016 shifting responsibility to local authorities for compliance.

He directed me back to Homeland Security and said he knew of no Restrictions on my ability travel internationally or of any need for me to give Notice.

I indicated that I thought he was wrong in this and requested that he accept mailed Notice from me, which he said he would do.

Now then, I don’t think the Justice Department itself knows what it is doing in regards to the IML…so I don’t know either and no one should rely on how I am approaching this.

But this is what I am doing…I am feeling my way forward and trying to keep people informed of my progress. Other people will have other methods I suppose…these are mine, at least for now.

Sorry I don’t have more concrete information. As I continue to work my way though this, I’ll give updates.

Best wishes, James


I’m afraid this matter extends beyond the U.S DOJ–maybe they were responsible for heightening the issue, but they are not simply the only country pressing the issue!

here’s a couple points from INTERPOL’s Resolution No. 2 AG-2014-RES-02

CONVINCED that INTERPOL can play a major role in facilitating the sharing of timely information between countries regarding travelling child sex offenders, providing notifications regarding the travel of such offenders, and promoting the transnational investigation and prosecution of offenses against children

The problem I see are the next three points ( the trouble is the US or world for that matter are making travel for us an expensive crap-shot) and not using any known standard to us and not exercising a quantity of fundamental rights the US statutorily makes people into certain categories of Sex offender along with its assessed risk levels with no due process:

RECOGNIZING that any notifications and information-sharing measures regarding travelling child sex offenders must comply with national and international standards regarding the privacy of individuals and protection of fundamental rights,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that the right of child sex offenders to travel freely should be balanced with the right of children worldwide to protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse

ENCOURAGES member countries, within the limits of their national regulatory frameworks, to develop notification-sharing and information-sharing measures regarding travelling child sex offenders to ensure better protection of children from convicted offenders;

this is not going away via an IML lawsuit!! IML can help in getting data into the case law that says sex offenders are not necessarily at high risk to commit these crimes–yes and not marking our passports will be great!! but the world will continue now to track us and any respect or dignity or information on our status with regard to country by country travel we expect to achieve will be at the UN level!!

Yes, David, I understand that this extends beyond DOJ…I have maintained that it is the Angel Watch Program, the US Marshal’s Office notifying INTERPOL, that really restricts our ability to travel.

This is why the IML seems so unnecessary, we were already being banned from much of the world through INTERPOL notifications…the wrinkle with the IML that I am worried about is not how it restricts travel, that is already occurring, that horse has long ago left the barn…

The new trouble is the vague, but still ever present, possible prosecution under the IML. Being detained and turned around and shipped back to the United States may be embarrassing, it may be expensive…but this is child’s play compared to Federal prosecution with a possible 10 year sentence looking in your face.

This is what I am trying to protect against.

(for me and everybody, I guess)

Best Wishes, James

Thanks for the information and Link, this was interesting!

AB 1912 was introduced on February 11th, 2016. This bill will require persons convicted of soliciting a minor who knew, or reasonably should have known, was a victim of human trafficking to register as a sex offender. What makes this bill interesting is that, for the first time that I know of, the period of registration is capped:
1) Registration as a sex offender for 5 years, for the first conviction.
2) 10 years for the second conviction.
3) 20 years for a third and/or subsequent conviction.
Of course, it includes the exception that persons already subject to lifetime registration, will continue their lifetime registration requirement.

Hmmm. So if you are involved economically, even in the underground economy, you are given a break. Interesting.

I think one can tell by new legislation the they are beginning to recognize the budgetary and management burdens of registering every citizen as a sex offender; even Runner’s new residency Bill recognizes the gains we have made with residency–the legislation is becoming less of an over-reach; haha that or we’ve worn them down of thinking of ways to persecute us!

Runner is at it again, reintroducing her ridiculous residency ban.

It’s essentially the same as last year’s only, this time, it’s limited to persons convicted of felonies involving victims under 18 years of age.

Well, that aggravates me! Picketing Ms. Runner’s house or office, while on public property of course, is something I could get behind. Round the clock, orderly, peaceful sign carrying…calling her out.


(btw, while I read this…would this only apply to parolee’s or all registrants? This point left me a little confused….)

Best Wishes, James

much of what the Runners do is in regards to parolees; their thing is that in Apple Valley there’s Northrup’s Skunk Works plant and all them high paying jobs that dont want to feel they have to look over their shoulder when going to the market; add to that the county of Los Angeles had decided years ago to stach Parolees, sex offenders and welfare recipients in the Lancaster/palmdale area as a low housing cost area department of HUD and you can see why all them folks earning high paid jobs are: “not in my back yard” about it!!

Does anyone know – does a 1203.4 expungement of felony offenses grant relief from the disabilities one suffers from being a felon – such as not being able to serve on a jury or own a firearm?

Re-read your post. Missed your question the first time.

Expungement does nothing for restoring gun rights. Now if your felony conviction was for a wobbler offense you could have it reduced (17b motion) and that would restore your CA gun rights. If it was a straight felony, not a wobbler, you will never be able to legally own a firearm.

I do believe you can still vote…but not while on parole.

Again…I’m not an attorney.

I kid you not, within one month of my 1203.4 expungement, I received a summons for jury duty. So yes, you can serve on a jury.

no you cannot serve as a juror. The fact that you received the summons only means that you have a California driver’s license, where they pull from for jury duty. It’s your obligation to phone the court and to inform them as to why you cannot serve. Or decide to go and once jury selection begins be prepared to answer yes have you ever been convicted of a crime–the lawyers will ask; and then go ahead and explain. I’d make the phone call and I have!!

Oh sry I didnt read further, I dont know about expungement

Dave H is correct…

This is what I found on a lawyer site:

Serving on a jury
If you have been convicted of a felony, you are disqualified from serving on a California jury, unless you have had your civil rights restored.

You can restore your California civil rights by:

applying for and being granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon, or
through a direct application for a pardon from California’s governor

Additionally, if your conviction was for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one (1) year, you are disqualified from serving on a federal grand or petit jury… unless your civil rights have been restored under federal law

Currently, the only method available to restore civil rights under federal law is a presidential pardon.

Maybe I could serve on a jury since my felony was reduced through a 17b motion? If not…I won’t shed a single tear over it.

No 290 has had their “civil rights restored” thanks to the government…felony or not, expunged or not. And they say it isn’t punishment. LMAO

I received my record clearance (not expungment) via PC 1203.4 two years ago. It has done nothing to benefit my situation. Still on the registry, no rights restored, zip, zero, nada.
Remote possibility that it may help when I file for a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

In many (but not all…depends on the crime) having your CA felony reduced to a misdemeanor will restore your CA gun rights (assuming you have no other felony convictions). Once reduced…CA no longer considers you a felon. Be aware that this is a CA state thing. As far as the federal government is concerned…you still might be a convicted felon and not worthy of owning a firearm. Let’s say you decide to rob a CA bank using a gun. You get caught (of course) and the ATF gets involved. You could be in some extra trouble because while CA recognizes you are no longer a convicted felon (in CA) the federal government still considers you one.

Now that my felony has been reduced…I might try to get a firearm permit in CA in a few years. If granted…I would still be uneasy having it. Wouldn’t want to be in possession of it on BLM land, a national park, etc or have it with me in a state other than CA. I will be doing a lot more reading before I consider having a gun. Worried that having a firearm while being a 290 could/would result in getting a lot more residency verification visits by law enforcement.

From what I understand…a felon can serve on a jury…as long as they aren’t on parole. Could be wrong…I’m not an attorney.

HEADLINE: “Releasing low-level offenders did not unleash a crime wave in California”

More actual FACTS for politicians to ignore as they continue to spread the lies of danger to manipulate the public.

The former police chief for Boston just mentioned TWICE on Fox News that sex offenders are people that need to be profiled as potential terrorists prepared to conduct operations like those in Belgium today.

Still feel like an American NOW?

renny , thanks for the info , I have been in fear of this very thing , should be of know surprise ! since they are putting stop to us being able to leave travel good call renny , Semper Fi!

Sha-Sha Runner’s SB 1021 has its hearing date before the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 19, 2016.

Was just watching the basketball game, Oregon vs. Duke. Amongst the celebrities in attendance was Rob Lowe. Whatever happened that his taped encounter with a 16 year old girl in the late 80s was not CP?

He should be a frequent visitor to this site. Why is he not?

Joe The Plumber: ‘Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights’ To Have Guns

Thanks Joe, I m borrowing this and change this to..

Your Molested Kids Don’t Trump My (R/C) Constitutional Rights

If a vigilante kills or injures a person on the registry, is the assault a hate crime? It seems like it certainly should be.

I just saw an episode of the ABC program “The Family” where the matriarch who is running for Governor in Maine, just stated that statistics show the sex offenders re offend at an exponentially high rate, even after incarceration and treatment and on this program, she advocates for tracking microchips.
This type of information is exactly why we have Supreme Court Justices and the vast majority of the country that think all on the registry are dangerous lost causes.
The Big Lie was repeated in Nazi Germany over and over until the populace was numbed to any and all things that were inflicted on the Jews.
It is so disheartening. The judge in the IML lawsuit seemed to drink from the same glass.
Sorry to vent.

Yes, I’ve been watching this series also. Since the series is about their son being kidnapped, it’s full of sex offender stereotypes. This series is definitely hurting our cause by spreading false information.

The news and visual media in general are in bed with law enforcement. They don’t show and say what the law unions want to hear, and the are cut off from their sources. Politicians as well do the same thing. We are good drama. Notice how whenever a legal challenge is mounted to a law or bill, suddenly there are sex offenders in the news. The stories are planted to inflame and scare the public, there by giving credibility to their cause. We don’t stand a chance against this type of colusion. We can only hope for an apocoliptic scenario. I call front row for the best view!

SF Bay Area has had a more than usual number of news stories in the last few days on Sex Offenders being released from prison. So yes, the media is getting back at us for raising this lawsuit.

Yes, Lake Co. I noticed that, too. In particular the so called “SVP” denied housing in Petaluma. Reading his case, this guy sounds more like he has some sort of severe mental incapacity that he probably isn’t aware of his inappropriate actions (supposedly he’s on the list for grabbing at random people). I noticed from the comments that there are quite a few rational people who see through the Megan’s FLaw lies and the stupidity of some of our state laws.

Lake County writes “SF Bay Area has had a more than usual number of news stories in the last few days on Sex Offenders being released from prison. So yes, the media is getting back at us for raising this lawsuit.”

I read an article on someone they call high risk, but from what I read it looks like this guy might have done less than drunken fratboys at frat parties stumbling around drunk accidentally patting a womans behind. And then the comments sections shows some really retarded comments saying this guy should be shot dead or they can tell from his picture he is mentally disabled. The guy was in jail, not prison and is 23, college aged and his offenses occurred at an adult college. These comments are so retarded and out of place, it seems unlikely they are being made by someone unaware of the current IML court proceedings.