ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

IML Motion to be Heard on March 30 in Oakland

A hearing will be held on March 30 during which a decision is expected by a federal judge regarding whether to grant a Preliminary Injunction that would stop implementation of all or part of the International Megan’s Law (IML). Judge Phyllis Hamilton will preside over that hearing in Courtroom 3 at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m., however, three additional matters are also on the judge’s schedule that morning. A press conference will be held immediately after the hearing.

“The IML has two basic provisions — notification and identifiers — that must be stopped before the physical safety of registrants and those with whom they travel are put at significant risk,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.

The IML’s notification provision allows the federal government to notify foreign governments when a registrant plans to visit or move there. The identifiers provision requires the federal government to add a “conspicuous unique identifier” to registrants’ passports.

“Families will be torn apart if the IML is implemented,” stated Bellucci. “In addition, registrants will be financially harmed because they will be unable to conduct business overseas.”

Congress passed the IML on February 1 and the President signed the bill into law on February 8. A lawsuit challenging the IML was filed on February 9 and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed on February 19. The federal government responded to the motion on March 4 and a reply to that response was filed on March 11. Declarations used in the case have been sealed in order to protect the identities of the plaintiffs.

Related

Join the discussion

  1. David H

    I must admit after the governments response I felt a bit crushed. I saw how they basically did a dump of case law to basically hope anything would attach and to wear down its opposition because of lack of infinite resources!

    But after seeing what Janice did to the government’s March 4th; I feel back in the saddle. It’s as if she had her own unlimited resources; citation after citation she tore apart, firing back with more of her own or supporting further the one’s she used. I am so impressed and hopeful now!!

    Thank you, Janice–you’re first rate!

  2. Harry

    “The truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God”, is this what court is all about? It looks like the Government is trying to bail out lies with a strainer and even a blind person can see this. I hope the judge has some sight. Great work Janice and team.

  3. New Person

    Whoa… did the Defendants actually write this in their response?


    A preliminary injunction would also be inappropriate because Plaintiffs have failed to
    demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of hardships and public interest weigh decidedly against an injunction.


    Is this just me or does this sound like a similar reason that allowed the US government to create Japanese Internment camps on US soil?

    .
    Also, the Defendants wrote this:

    In addition, Plaintiffs’ assertion of possible physical injury is speculative.

    I really like how Janice and team retorted with John Doe #7 and that it will kill him upon landing upon a particular country. But on a local level, Frank would like to counter this “possible physical injury is speculative”.

    Great job to Janice and team. It really seemed like the US Govt is trying to scare the Plantiffs with a plethora of cases as well as not specifying empirical evidence.

    You guys are all courageous!

    • Renny

      @New Person – You are right, a hilarious statement without forethought that should be used against our former homeland….

      “….possible physical injury is speculative.”

      Isn’t the entire sex offender industry speculative? Punishing people by speculating future crime?

      In fact, is not the IML itself speculative? Assuming because a woman used to spend special time with her teen son and only her teen son, that she will suddenly want to abuse a filthy little AIDs infested Asian child? Even by the DOJ standards, that’s a major shift in M/O and a feat of speculation acrobatics.

      ‘Murica!

      • Timmr

        For various reasons I won’t get into here, most RSO’s never resorted to prostitution of any kind. The misconception that it is all about having a certain kind of sex at any means possible needs to be blown out of the water by (unbiased) research into motives of offenders if reason is ever going to be brought back into the picture.
        This nuanced approach is too much for the black and white thinking of most of the population to grasp, I’m afraid.

  4. Brubaker

    I want to be john doe #,8.
    I want to be on this.

  5. Rob

    I haven’t looked at every John doe in this case, apologies.
    I’m wondering Is there a John Doe in this lawsuit that hasn’t committed a crime against a minor? I only say that because it seems the government is construing a minor as also a child, even though a child can drive or fly a deadly weapon at age 15. Since the government is notifying countries for all sex offenders wouldn’t a john doe that subsequent crime was against an adult that forces them to register basically make a fallacy out of the governments response and the IML law?
    Also the government is notifying countries that A RSO is a danger to commit a crime, yet in some countries they are notifying there crime wasn’t even a crime in that country. For example Mexico’s age of consent varies from 12-15, there are many RSO’s who do not fall into those categories.

    I also would love to be a John Doe in this case and would fly out if so needed.

  6. David H

    I’m confused about the number of Does; when I first read this I thought there were only four Doe’s

    I was doing research yesterday and found that there is a world-wide effort to come to terms with sex-tourism; you may want to google the Protect Act. there I found a St. John’s Law Review study that compares the effectiveness of four countries efforts on this matter. The US is not only the only country, they just decided they were the one’s with the suspects to link it to, us: Japan, Germany, Australia, Sweden were the other countries being compared. And they set the age of a child globally at 13 years, Rob. And as usual good ole US of A has the harshest punishment! and unlike Australia, who uses a video link on the foreign side to take testimony by victims during trial, the US in all of its grandeur appears to have a penchant for drama by bringing victims here to testify.

    Well there are many interesting things to read I recommend doing so. And dont expect the UN or the world to be sympathetic to us if they have been convinced we are indeed a large subset of the problem! that’s another reason we need a win here. If the world begins to see us as the US does then there will be no where for us on this planet to go!

    • PK

      I would imagine that you can’t just keep adding Doe’s to a case all of the time.

      I too thought that I would be a good candidate for a Doe because with my case, there was at least a document that shows proof of “traceable injury due to past notifications”.

      The actual injury was that I could not enter into Mexico, after entering 30+ times in the past, and as a result, lost my job there.

      But I think the Doe’s she has have a very compelling traceable injury, and I put 100% of my faith and trust in Janice. Her briefs are rock solid.

  7. 4sensiblePolicies

    I am utterly shocked at how the government passes this law off as a minor burden, all justifiable because con-gress said it was a worthwhile cause (with zero evidence to support it’s assertions). I cannot see how the courts cannot view this as unlawful restraint. How can the forbidding of travel unless you report it 21 days in advance not be a restraint on freedom of movement?

    Suspected or even convicted terrorists who are u.s. citizens but on the no-fly list can travel anywhere they want in the world TODAY – as long as they don’t get on a domestic flight to do it. They can walk into Mexico or take a freighter to France. Hundreds of thousands of Americans now cannot do that. And as Janice hammers home, there is no nexus, no correlation between being a registrant and travelling to commit trafficking. How can this stand?

    There are two things going on here that are unprecedented and unequivocally unconstitutional: 1. Having to provide 21 day advance notice of your travel, and 2. having to carry the government’s message on your passport. In the end, I am hopeful but not as confident the practice of ‘sharing information’ will be found unconstitutional, but if #s 1 and 2 are considered constitutional, then the Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. At any rate, I am so proud of our cause for getting behind Janice and seeing the effort she has put forward on this. I know we are in the right, which will make it that much more painful and tragic if we do not prevail. Let’s dig deep and help keep her and her team going. This is a stellar legal team, and I am so thankful they are on the side of liberty and our Constitution.

  8. curiouser

    I pray for the day when I can write a reply as articulately as the one presented by Janice. Just reminds me that I have a loooonnng way to go 🙂

  9. Terry

    When I first read the response to Janice’s Complaint, I did a quick scan and thought “this Judge really has her head up her …”. She is throwing out random prejudicial responses that don’t make sense and don’t actually answer in any reasonable way the specific complaints. Then, when I got to the bottom, I realized it was the rebuttal from the other side! My bad! So it’s just what you’d expect their side to say. If this is their best shot, rejoice my fellow punishees! Janice is going to give them a big boy spanking! Truly their nonsense doesn’t hold any water and they’re throwing everything they can at the wall, hoping something sticks. They have been lazy and they will pay for it.
    Bottom line, the gross over generalization of the term “sex offender” as an equivalent for predator/sex trafficker/high risk child molester will be the law’s undoing. Why not just say all adult males are likely to be travelling to commit a crime so let’s put that on their passport. Or how about all Congressmen are corrupt, and they are likely travelling to solicit bribes, and thus will infect the countries they visit! Stamp their passports accordingly. Actually, that might be a good idea!
    I’m a retired guy with modest means, but I recently sent Janice a hundsky. Sorry it couldn’t be more…she deserves it! Please help her (and all of us) in this fight.

    • David H

      I too think Janice did a bang-up-job; However, every time I feel some ray of delight I’m forced back into reality, knowing the judge can choose to see an argument anyway s/he wishes. It’s going to take a courageous judge to go along for the ride with us! Thank god this isn’t State court where judges are elected!

  10. Joe Shmo

    Hopefully the liberal 9th circuit agrees with the plaintifs and the Appeals court does as well (because they will def appeal). Then the Supreme Court would have little incentive to hear further appeal unless someone else in another circuit sues and there is a circuit split.

  11. David H

    It’s here and we’ll need that marked passport:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/03/14/as-u-s-passports-for-domestic-flights-loom-irs-can-now-revoke-passports/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix#7d3c2b2c34c3

    ” Now, there is a reprieve until January 22, 2018. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has issued a statement that, until then, residents of all states can continue to use their state driver’s license for domestic air travel. But by Oct. 1, 2020, every air traveler will need a Real-ID-compliant license, or another acceptable form of federal ID for domestic travel. The Real ID Act created a national standard for state-issued IDs. Some states initially refused to comply, fearing that the federal government would make a national database of citizens. “

    • ma.concerned.citizen

      Shouldn’t this be part of the IML lawsuit argument somehow? The fact that our gov’t will basically enforce using a Passport for all domestic travel means those of us who would have “identifiers” on our passports would be harmed as well.

      • David H

        I think it should be brought up in IML to show that there are consequences to marking passports that go beyond international travel

    • PK

      “Now, there is a reprieve until January 22, 2018. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has issued a statement that, until then, residents of all states can continue to use their state driver’s license”

      What is the significance of January 22, 2018?

      I’m not sure what January 22, 2018 has to do with anything because, then you mentioned October 1, 2020

  12. T

    Man that is scary and utterly b.s its like having the mark of the beast. The govt. Has gone crazy if u dont have a passport u cant fly domesticly thats just plain wrong and enfringes on the rights of all citzens not just registered citzens something needs to be done to curb the corrupt u.s. goverment.

    • Joe Shmo

      A passport will not necessarily be required. The Fed Gov has issued new state ID requirement for them to be accepted by Fed as proof of citizenship and proof of identity. The REAL ID defines things like what states must require to get the ID, anti-fraud designs, etc. Most states have adopted the format but a few aren’t playing like Oregon, Arizona, and California because they issue ID’s to undocumented and illegal aliens without proof of citizenship or identity. Initially the rules were the be phased in starting this year but per the delay the rules won’t phase in until 2018 with final implementation by 2020. Most Americans already have a license meeting the requirements and if you don’t you will the next time you renew (unless you live in a state that hasn’t adopted the criteria).

      • Steve

        California is compliant with real Id and has been for awhile.

        • Rob

          In those states that aren’t compliant (They eventually will be) but just in case the states for some reason never become complaint, a way around using the passport would be to obtain your CDL license and Apply for T.W.I.C. It’s a valid form of ID for domestic travel, I have used it to fly. It only list your name on the I.D and expires every 5 years. If you are in a state that requires “sex offender” to be put on license this would be something to look into. The background check is extensive but it excludes many crimes that require registration. Also trucking is a great industry to go into if you need to find work as a RSO. I have my T.W.I.C card and was offered work through my friend to work in the oil fields to make quite a bit of money. While I haven’t gone into the trucking industry yet, since i’m back in college, it’s an industry that more RSO should look at I believe.

        • G

          I applied with a trucking company in Utah and they denied me and I’m tier1 off probation…? Not sure if that was because I do not have a CDL. Any suggestions on what companies that do hire would be greatly appreciated.

        • steve

          I take that back. They were granted an extension in Dec to comply. I saw a graph that made it look like they were compliant

        • Joe Shmo

          No worries. I only knew they weren’t because I was reading up on it because I was wondering what I would have to do if they decided not to comply with the REAL ID.

  13. RP

    Historically speaking it does not look good. The US Government blocked a lot of people from traveling in the 60’s and 70s for political reasons and the courts ruled in there favor most of the time. There is a lot of case law that exists that lets them control passports etc. It is amazing that you need papers in the land of the free that let you come and go.

    I am curious if there can be a legal challenge made for Post-Facto? It would be nice to see this law not applied to 800,000 people. It could be argued then that the majority of people on the registry are not effected by it and therefor a useless law.

  14. Randy

    ******* Possible Article to Help Alert *******

    “…According to the 2001 report titled ‘The sexual exploitation of children in the United States Canada and Mexico” one of the only reports of its kind and endorsed by the DOJ stated that 96% of child sexual exploitation was non commercial related and is committed by a perpetrator in a position of trust such as a teacher, priest, coach, doctor, cop, relative or friend. …” seen on: http://mimesislaw.com

    • TiredOfHiding

      I am sorry to inform you but this article contains actual facts and figures based on reality.

      It will therefore, not be read or even acknowledged as existing.

      Facts have no place in this emotionally charged topic of “saving the children” because that is not the true agenda. Manipulating the public and controlling them by feeding their fears is what it is all about.

  15. Need to Know

    Thought this might be of interests – SMART’s Feb. 2016 newsletter on IML. The way they word this, sounds like RC need for advance notification will continue to be determined by the state. Maybe that is just my wishful interpretation.

    http://ojp.gov/smart/pdfs/IML-Dispatch-2016.pdf

    • Commenter1

      That will very likely be the case since the states handle registration and not the federal government. It’s not clear how the US Attorney General will formulate this time and manner requirement for the advance notice of international travel. It’s looking like it will just be another SORNA compliance thing so if a state does not comply it may not be found to be substantially compliant and may therefore lose its Byrne funds. What’s also not clear is how the federal government will charge someone with an offense of not providing an advance notice if the registrant is in full compliance with his/her state’s registration laws.

      • JohnDoeUtah

        I doubt it. If you read it, they indicate that you must report it to your state. It is up to the state then forward the information. It is a strict liability offense, so you need to comply.

  16. Anonymous Nobody

    Thank you for carrying this suit. However, I would like to point out that the most obvious things are not necessarily the only very significant things. Even without this notice or mark on the passport, what remains of this bill is intense scrutiny of ALL registrants any time they want to travel, and intense notification of their state and their locality about their travel, when, where, etc., pretty much making it little different from wearing an ankle monitor with all your movements scrutinized. Yes, this will be done to ALL registrants, not only those for whom the notice will be sent. They are setting up a major checkpoint (and power bureaucracy) of all registrants, what they do, where they go, who they travel and associate with, etc.

    All that automatically comes with intense scrutiny of the registrant, the record in particular, looking for any excuse to nail them for anything, setting them up for harassment and embarrassment at Customs. This bill requires the Feds to notify the state and the locale where the registrant registers about the travel, and who knows what other details will go with it. And having collected that record, you can rest assured, it will be sent to the receiving country, even though that notice might not go with it.

    This bill also requires the US to seek to establish treaties around the world requiring this, and that will go a long way to trump this lawsuit if you don’t recognize that the notice and mark are not the only critical things in this law.

    That record will get you rejected just as fast as any mark on the passport! You are getting diverted from the real problem. The mark on the passport is irrelevant if the record is sent even without that mark.

    To get the mark taken off the passport and think you have accomplished something significant is naive, I;m sorry to say. You miss the point, which is exactly what the promoters of that bill;want you to miss. Yes, that notice they have been sending is far and away beyond anything in the record, even far and away beyond anything to do with fact or truth.

    But the intense scrutiny, the notice to the locale and state, the sending of the record even without a mark on the passport — these are every bit as significant as the notice being sent. Please come to realize that and stop emphasizing the fight only against the notice and mark,or we will be left with a half win that oppresses us further.

    I also note, this total package, and with them decidedly already have knowledge of the results of all registrants being rejected at borders nearly everywhere, makes for a strong argument that the intention and design is to violate the Constitution by barring travel. Knowing that doing this will prevent all travel beyond the border, as they know from them doing it for nearly three years already, and then doing this anyway means they know they are blocking all travel outside the country by registrants, and that is not allowed under the Constitution.

    • Commenter1

      The US Constitution does not grant an unaliable right for US Citizens to travel internationally. Where did you read that?

      • James

        Well, in a round about way, maybe it does;

        The UN Declaration of Human Rights, of which the United States is a signatory:

        Article 13
        1. Everyone has the right to freedom
        of movement and residence within the
        borders of each State.
        2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
        return to his country.

        ^^^^
        And while I was at it, there is this:

        Article 11

        No one shall be held guilty of any penal
        offence on account of any act or
        omission which did not constitute
        a penal offence, under national or
        international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier
        penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal
        offence was committed.

        ^^^^

        Just sayin`

        Best Wishes, James

        • Timmr

          Not just saying, saying correctly. Treaties are the law of the land, so the UN Declaration of Rights is part of our law now. The Constitution allows that.

      • MK

        It’s called Freedom of Movement, and the Supreme Court considers this a right for citizens to have.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

        Kent v. Dulles addresses the right to travel abroad as well. However, as I’m not a lawyer, I can’t say if this case establishes precedent for this sort of situation. But it sure smells similar.

  17. anonymously

    “At a Jan. 27 hearing, Smith (R-4th Dist.) said that he did not consider same-sex marriage to be a fundamental human right, as defined by the United Nations or various treaties.”

    So Chris Smith does acknowledge that UN Human Rights are important or else he wouldn’t have mentioned them here.

    • David H

      I’d love an audience to be able to pick that dude apart in a debate!!

    • Timmr

      Article 16.

      (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
      (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

      Don’t see anything that says that only those who marry the opposite sex have a right to marry and form a family. I guess Mr. Smith sees “Men and women” and reads it “man and wife.” The guy has a problem with reading things into the information that aren’t there.

  18. Cyran

    Publicly identifying RSO’s jeopardizes their and their family’s safety. All you have to do is show the comments written by the public regarding the beating of Jared Fogel in prison. The venomous hatred demonstrated in those comments for RSO’s in the public forums shows the clear jeopardy RSO’s face…

  19. anonymously

    Not a major point, but why does the government mis-state that SOR began in the late 80’s when it began in California in 1947. I wouldn’t expect them to mention the less than a decade earlier Nazi Germany registration where they got it from.

    • Frank

      That’s why the uninformed public is so freaked out about anyone on the list. They equate it to how Germany put their really bad ones on there.

      The reason the officials don’t want us to get together is they know that most of us are really good productive people. If the public realized this then the registry would be history…as it should be.

      Then how would all these lawmakers explain the huge waste of money for all of these years.

  20. CA COOL RC

    1) Figure how much money I as an RSO/RC spend on my last vacation.
    2) Knowing that the last vacation might be my last vacation outside the USA.
    3) Donate that amount of money to californiarsol to help Janice and her team fight the IML!
    4) if I don’t donate I may never travel outside USA again.

    I spend about $300 in Mexico so I will donate $300.00

    • Timmr

      That is a good idea. Or spend the money to travel to the injunction hearing. Would be good to have more than 100 show up for the media afterwords and express our condemnation of this act.

  21. Steve

    I received a change.org petition about 2 lesbian women who were arrested in Kuwait because they had a LEGAL Tabacco product. However they are still being held and it appears it’s because of their lifestyle as gay women in a Muslim country. So yes proof that having and indentifier and notification of travel to some countries will put us in danger

    “I am begging the US Government to do what it can to get my daughter and her partner out of jail and back to the States. They have clearly been targeted by the Kuwaiti government for their lifestyle, and could spend half their lives in prison for it.’

    • Timmr

      I remember that I signed that petition, but didn’t at the time connect it to possible harm due to these travel notices. I remember using the example of trouble gays could possibly have in some Africa countries in my comments on IML to the House of Representatives, but this is real life example not speculation. Good find!
      These women would never leave that country alive if they had a child related offense.

  22. Tuna

    So, for any of you that feel ok saying, who may be going to the Injunction hearing on Wednesday?

    • catch22

      I wish I could go but I still have 14 months left on my Parole and I am still wearing my “Ball and Chain ” . I continually give good donations to RSOL and have made an early donation for this important ruling . My family along with my beloved friends are having a Prayer meeting tonight for a good outcome on this .
      Godspeed everyone !

  23. David Kennerly

    Do we have a sense of how many people will be attending Wednesday’s Court Hearing in Oakland?

    Janice will be speaking to the press immediately following it, as I understand.

    We will have camera gear for recording that event and which may also be used for a documentary about IML and, I hope, we can rally as many people as possible to make a stand against it.

    No one who doesn’t want to appear on camera should worry as any footage used will only be used with their consent. You can request to have your features blurred, as well, if you choose.

    Anyone willing to be interviewed can also choose to do so anonymously.

    I would like to get a sense of how many may be considering attending. Thank you.

    • Timmr

      We’re going. Two people.

    • Rob

      I wish I could attend and be there.

      It would amazing if we could do a live event with an internet feed with a service like Ustreamtv or Livestream.

    • Friend of RSOL

      Fantastic that this will be filmed and possibly used for a documentary. I am planning to be there. I would not like to be on camera, but I might be willing to be interviewed anonymously.

      • James

        Despite my discretion in all matters concerning my RSO status, I had planned to be there, but there has been a death in the family and I will be in the Western Appalachian’s for a viewing and funeral…it has been a decade since I’ve been back, but Lee was always good to me, always defended me, even when I didn’t much deserve it…so out of respect, and to show the family what decency looks like…I will be there.

        I further note I did check out the time limits allowed to be in state before registration is triggered…I’m way good on this, and while some ignore this, (as have I mostly), I recently have chosen to not tempt the Gods…

        Actually, let me put a finer point on it…I think, though I hope I am wrong, that the earth has majorly shifted under our feet…matters really are worse for us…and I’m only coming more and more public because I need to…the wind is turning against me…and I am unhappy about this.

        Good Luck to Everyone,

        Best Wishes, James

        PS he died way too young, as often happens to good people (me, I’m going to live forever…lol)

  24. T

    Fantastic i wish i could attend but im not in calli but my heart ann payers are with u all.good luck janice ill be praying for you and a victory.

  25. Frank

    Go Janice.

    “Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you.
    Put them on the defensive and don’t ever apologize for anything.”

    Harry S. Truman

  26. David

    I can’t attend the hearing, but my thoughts and prayers are most certainly with Janice and crew! The money that I would have spent (airfare and car rental) to attend the hearing will be donated at the April 16th Los Angeles CARSOL meeting.
    Give ’em Hell, Janice!!!

  27. T

    Does anyone know if they are going to stream the hearing tomorrow

    • Tuna

      Nothing of that sort allowed in Federal court I believe

    • PK

      I doubt that they would stream a hearing for a preliminary injunction.

      I guess we will all hear about it tomorrow, at some point, on the blog.

    • Harry

      Cameras are prohibited in federal court houses.

    • Janice Bellucci

      There will be no live streaming of tomorrow’s hearing, however, the Associated Press (AP) will report on the hearing shortly after it ends. The AP story is sure to be used in media outlets throughout the nation. We will add a story to this website as soon as possible, however, there will be a delay of several hours due to press conference and other related activities after the hearing.

  28. A. Nonymous

    Am I right in thinking that a 1 count CP charge will be considered an offense against a child for the purposes of the IML, even though the offender had no actual child victim? It’s really hard to tell from the way the law is worded. Hopefully Janice can answer this.

  29. cool RC

    You will be on my mind all day tomorrow.

  30. CD

    Good luck tomorrow Janice!!! Thank you so much for your hard work. Prayers from here!

  31. HH

    Thank you Janice for your fight that no one else in this country has been willing to take on. May god give you the grace and presence to prevail . Thank you for standing up for us and our families. I pray for a powerful and successful outcome tomorrow that can help mend the hearts of each of us.

  32. Lake County

    Good luck Janice. We sure need this to be a win.

  33. MarkSF

    Here is information on how to order a transcript or audio recording of March 30 initial IML hearing in Ninth District Courtroom, Oakland, CA:

    US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Clerks Offices (San Francisco and Oakland locations)
    http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/locations

    Transcripts Procedures and Requests
    http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/transcripts

    US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Home Page
    (Cases of Interest shown on Home Page do not include IML)
    http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/home

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.