ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments June 2016

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of June 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 was wondering if anyone knows of any job sites that are similar to Craigslist, but would have a more professional bent? The reason I am asking is that I’ve tried writing up a short description under the resumes section, and have only gotten responses from scammers. Basically I wrote up something describing my education and experience, and then go on to state something to the tune of “over 10 years ago I made a mistake..and so on” I keep it very high level, not giving details. So I was wondering if there was something similar that I could use… Read more »

First, yes, CL is overrun with spammers and scammers. I would not post my personal info there. That aside, re revealing on there resume, I would advise against that. First, if you have gotten an expungement, you can legally say, for most jobs, that you have not been convicted. Second, it seems to me that we passed a law in California that took effect this past Jan. 1, Band the Box, which bars employers from asking on a job application whether you have been convicted of a crime. They can check after hiring you, but in this scenario, that will… Read more »

Thanks Anonymous…I live in Ohio, and we only have the “Ban the Box” for the government jobs. I don’t think it applies to anything else. Luckily, I was was under the old tier 1 before AWA, and hence automatically fell off after 10 years. So you would suggest to simply not say anything at all? I’ve considered hearing a lot of companies go back 7 or 10 years. I’ve been chewing on how to go about applying to a particular position that I am totally qualified for, but they ask for biographical info (on top of submitting a resume),… Read more »

This article is a year old, but very informative:

Static-99: A bumpy developmental path

I’m reposting this as I think it’s an additional avenue to have our voices heard. This is not to replace letter writing or phone calls to your representatives, it’s just an additional way to voice your opinion. When politicians receive these responses they get an overall percentage of people’s opinions and a breakdown of votes by districts along with the individual messages submitted by those in that representative’s district. So far only two of us have voted their opinion on these 2 upcoming bills. If you are not registered with POPVOX, please do so. Every California and Federal Bill can… Read more »

I was so disappointed to see that only one person bothered to vote on either of these bills since I posted these links. Makes me think that very few of you are willing to do anything to support fighting against these laws. POPVOX does work well when people actively participate. If you’re too lazy or afraid to speak up for yourself, don’t expect anyone else to do it for you.

I voted on both , I got 2 emails thanking me for my votes

I would, but the site just goes gray and doesn’t do anything when I click oppose using the browser on my phone.

I’ve never tried it on my phone. I do know that some mobile browsers might not work well with all sites. I always have at least two different browsers installed on my phones just in case one doesn’t work well.

Lake County-The page just went dim on me and didn’t accept my attempt.

Maybe they didn’t like me being in Nevada? Will do what I can from here.


You must be from California to vote on these bills. However you can vote on Federal Bills from any state.

I live in CA and it did the same thing to me, when I voted that is , yet I got e mails saying thank you

I tried to vote, but the screen darkens and nothing happens.

I just voted and everything went okay, however, I had to sign in, first.

The stuck screen happened to me when I opposed. I am on a laptop using Firefox browser.

I use Firefox too. I had no problems, but I was already registered. The new CA section is still in Beta Test, so maybe they have some bugs to work out. I have used this countless of times for Federal Laws though without one problem. This really is a great tool that has worked well on the Federal level and will eventually work well on the State level. We are lucky to be one of the first 2 states that can use this service. I know that politicians read our messages since I’ve had many emails from Congress thanking me… Read more »

Actually, the problem is I wasn’t logged on. Duh, Harry said so above. It let me make my comment after I logged in. Sorry Lake, I didn’t see your post until now. Website administrator, how about having a POPVOX link on this site, next time?

Great job so far everyone, now we have a few votes and messages to show. So far no one has supported these bills on POPVOX. Most likely, the supporters don’t yet know this service exists in CA. There ignorance is our gain. Now we just need comments added by some group leaders, AKA “Stakeholders” as their messages also have great influence and their messages are read more often by politicians and the public who are deciding how to vote. This is one more opportunity to educate the public.

Am I reading this LA Times story right? Is there a 290 registration exemption for GOP officials who pleaded out to a felony charge of distributing pornography to a minor when the DA reduced it to a misdemaener? Nowhere in this article is lifetime sex offender registration mentioned as part of this distinguished gentleman’s (former head of the LA County Republican Party) punishment. He was ordered to attend a 52 week “Sex Offender” counseling course, put on probation for three years, ordered to stay away from minors, and has to perform community service. But no mention of 290 registration. Methinks… Read more »

No, no exemption. The story simply didn’t mention registration one way or the other. I haven’t looked up that charge, is it even the list for registration?

The media doesn’t think registration is a big deal anyway, they believe in the Price Club myth, so it doesn’t occur to them to mention it as a real consequence of committing a sex crime. Yes, have to keep that in mind when reading these articles.

This was classified as a misdemeanor. I have actually had to have an argument with the LA Times in the past over the point that yes, misdemeanants DO need to register and are subject to the collateral disabilities that go with registration. The Times kept insisting that is not so, but finally ended by saying just about no one registers for a misdemeanor, they all proceed to committing a felony and register for that — and they attributed that to what they were told by the state Justice Department! And the Times would have nothing more to do with the… Read more »

I think both of you guys are probably reacting more sensibly than I did. I let my emotions get the better of my logic here. But I did check out the details at the LA Superior Court website and determined the following: (Caveat lector: I am not a lawyer & only hope that I read the codes correctly.) Mr. Hounsell pleaded out to PC 288.2(A)2 which is a wobbler. His sentence indicates the misdemeanor version. A felony conviction of 288.2(A)2 does require registration. A misdemeanor conviction does not. I bet that the registration issue was the #1 issue to Mr.… Read more »

For Risk Assessments, what does ‘convictions’ mean? For example, if you were convicted of a felony and 2 misdemeanors at one time and then nothing subsequently, would that be 1 conviction or 3?

I know a few states like Ohio and Maryland have found that registration is in fact punishment and thus cannot be enforced retroactively. Now that that precedent has been set, does anyone know if there are any cases in the works claiming that registration is cruel and unusual punishment? It is my assumption that that would be the next logical step in the process for the repeal of sex offender registration laws.

Individual states may have a constitution that will interpret the registry as punishment, however that has no effect on other states who’s constitutions are worded differently. The precedent may have been set in those states, but that will not have an effect on CA. Our biggest issue is that the Supreme Court had already ruled that registration is not punishment and the court’s decision will be very hard to change.

I don’t believe the SCOTUS ruling was on California registration. The details of the individual state’s requirements are part of the determination of whether it is punishment. AND, a lot has been added since the state high court and SCOTUS made those decisions. In fact, the state made its decision based on how it applied to the defendant in that case, a misdemeanant who was not even posted on the Internet.

This goes way beyond just challenging retroactive. We need to challenge SO Registration for everyone.

It is a clear violation of Substantive Due Process, and even the SCOTUS justices back in 2003 questioned if registration violates that. It’s a shame we can’t get that tested in SCOTUS, but we do need to wait for a 9th judge. If we tie, we lose as long as the lower court already says registration is constitutional…which it will if it has judges elected by the people.

Well, the retroactive affects even all the new things that they keep adding on. So if tomorrow they say you will have to live in a concentration camp and perform slave labor, they will make it retroactive and you will have to, even if you were convicted in a plea bargain and would never have agreed to it with this new horror. So retroactivity does affect everyone. Imagine how the state would be turned upside down if it could not make any of the new stuff retroactive, so had to have 10,000 different forms of registration to keep track of… Read more »

This Sotomayor decision seems very encouraging, although not sex offender related, it’s possible she will swing our way.

Yes, I found the Sotomayor Decision pretty extraordinary…there may be hope from her, but the Supreme Court needs badly a liberal replacement in the current vacancy. (hopefully, very liberal)

Best Wishes, James

I haven’t read that, but it was noted when she was nominated that she had a record of hard on crime. Whatever that case says, it might be more an aberration than an overall outlook.

Well I am on the national call with RSOL and from Janice’s comments, it looks like we are going to be stuck with this law. Furthermore, it appears in the Federal system that there seems to be little in the way of checks and balances on a prejudiced Federal judge. This is very depressing.

I apologize for harping. As I ponder Janice’s portion of the call, I feel gut punched. Any half educated person who read Janice’s motion as opposed to the government’s briefs, would be struck with how clearly that it should be an easy decision. There is absolutely no lady of justice with any scales. In this case she is just a black robed governmental employee protecting her paycheck. In her case it is as if a Federal judge should not use any common sense. To rule that one of the plaintiffs should suffer an indignity, for the case to be ripe,… Read more »

So we splurge on sending a volunteer registrant to England, where he will only be sent back, not allowed to enter, and we have a ripe case. That’s not difficult to address. We don’t have to wait for someone to do it and volunteer to be in the case; we can set it up.

Interesting article on a recent study regarding crimes committed by police officers. One notable quote: “The most common crimes were simple assault, drunken driving and aggravated assault, and significant numbers of sex crimes were also found.”

well I did my price club this morning , it sucked of course , I am zoned for the county , and even tho this is kern county , it beets going to PD because there rude and go out of there way to make you feel like crap , but the county are not that way , thay don’t like shake your hand and say they are glad to see you or anything like that lol, but they don’t act like your a leper , I guess they know you already feel sad , mad,and everything else all at… Read more »

Question for those that have been in this hell longer than I have: Since in the 2003 Smith VS Doe the SCOTUS justices made reference to how Sex Offender Registration may violate Substantive Due Process and should be challenged on that instead of just challenging Ex-Post Facto like it was, then why in 13 years has no case come close to doing just that? Or did it, and I missed it? Looking at the description and chart here: It clearly violates Substantive Due Process since it inhibits numerous rights and the state’s goals could be achieved by means that… Read more »

I agree 100% that the registry is a violation of substantive due process. I have been saying this to any person who would listen for the past ten years. It is also a violation of ex post facto because just it does not pass the duck test. Calling the registry regulatory is a name. It is the lack of PR that dooms us. The politicians and judges all have no political cover to show any intelligence with regard to the registry issue.

What really doesn’t pass is how the justices and what means they used to call registration “government interest” That has never been challenged as well. We all know the “frightening and high” comment is totally bogus and has been used by over 70 courts in the US to pass further laws.

As my husband nears the end of his probation (just seven weeks to go), a new fear has arisen: the possibility of compliance checks. After surviving the humiliation of two searches during probation and monthly home visits from P.O.s who wear badges around their necks, carry giant walkie-talkies in their hands, and sometimes sport t-shirts that say “L.A. County Probation: Relax,” I cannot fathom the horror of finally settling into a semi-normal life, only to have that life disrupted by police officers coming to our apartment door just to verify that my husband does, in fact, live here. Does anyone… Read more »

Hi iam challenging these checks. I have a lawyer. I know how you feel. If theres a way i can contact you or something. I had all my neighbors looking at my door when the cops came. It was hell. Not to mention they do it 2 times per year were i live in SoCal. I will probably be evicted soon because of this. Any ways strength in numbers.

Tee, I’ve posted on here as well regarding these so called “address verification” I believe their called compliance checks when your either on parole or probation. I’m not on either. My wife and I have owned our home for fifteen years where we raised 4 wonderful daughters and not to mention we have a good report with our neighbors. I’ve been a registrant for over 20 yrs and all of a sudden I get a patrol car parked outside my home with 2 uniformed sheriffs knocking on my door every six months. I know I have the right to not… Read more »

Thanks monitor for your descretion, I respect that

Hopeful and Tee. Do you guys live in smaller towns? it seems the “cowboy” sheriffs in smaller towns like to do these compliance checks. There MUST be financial incentive for them to do them (Overtime). I live in the SF Valley, LAPD, and have never had one check in nearly 20 years and I am on the website.
What’s happening to Hopeful is complete BS.

Yes, it appears to exist more in conservative, rural areas and more conservative suburbs of Southern California. By conservative, I mean those who are tending xenophobic. In those areas the law enforcement shares the sentiments of the population. That is what it seems like.
But we won’t know for sure where it is worse until we do a survey, like one being done in TAG with IML.

Wrong. We have numbers, but no strength. This site is for venting only. Nothing gets done because we are second class citizens. Accept it. Janice can sleep at note knowing she tried, but that’s as far as it will ever go.Maybe these religious groups are doing it right. Sacrifice yourself for the cause.

If you choose to open the door for the cops ALWAYS record them wheather it is with a phone or another device. If they try to say that you can’t record them they are lying. It is your 1st Amendent right to do so and as public officials they haveno expectation of privacy while they are on duty and in public. This way you have arecord of your conversation and proof if they try to violate your rights.

Thanks, tee. What kind of lawyer did you hire for this? Would you mind providing his or her name? My husband could then contact that same lawyer maybe.

The Feds are now pushing compliance checks, and more and more so and are even sometimes involved in them. The feds are now giving money to the locals to do them. But under my reading of 290, it actually bars compliance checks. It lists what things can be used to determine residency, and compliance checks — or anything outside the police station – are not on that list. By 290 law, your driver’s license “PROVES” you live there – they cannot impose an in-person check because they don’t want to let it go with only your driver’s license. I hope… Read more »

After probation is over, you have every right to tell them to “take a flying duck and go practice going down on each other”. Besides registration, the blue balls have no authority over you.

In fact, after probation you don’t even have to open the door when they come.

I have been off parole in Long Beach for seven years now. I have never had a compliance visit. Was called on the telephone once, a couple days after an annual, to verify my phone number. And, for what it’s worth, my personal experience with the LBPD registration staff is that they have always handled my many annual registrations with professionalism and remarkable efficiency. I have always felt they treated me with dignity and respect. Based on some of the stories I’ve read here, I count myself lucky to be living in Long Beach. Speaking of luck, and being sometimes… Read more »

Someone in LA (Louisiana) was just arrested for having a social media account in violation of the law – It is illegal to even have an account there. If this is not an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment I do not know what it. It creates a chilling effect on free speech.

So if I go vacation in Louisiana I need to delete my face book account first? Then when I get back its ok?

Technically, you’re not supposed to even have a facebook account since they claim they don’t allow registered citizens. Do you report the one you have? Every time I go in, they ask about social media accounts.

American Detained in America, are you living in CA? You do not yet have to disclose social media accounts unless you are on probation/parole in CA. And Facebook Terms of Service says sex offenders are not allowed to have accounts. Although it is not a crime to have a Facebook account, they can delete it if someone complains about you having one. I would suggest any Registered Citizen not use their full real name on a Facebook account. Also don’t post pictures of yourself on your account as Facebook is a major user of facial recognition software.

I think that was a question. HA HA
A prime example of how pitiful some of these laws are.
As well, the pitiful lawmakers who actually stand behind some of these laws.


I have a solid question… so I was convicted of sleeping with a 15 year old who lied about her age when I was 21. At that time there was a law stating age of victim and the fact she lied was not a defense. Now there’s a law that says age of victim is a defense so I was not allowed to use it. I took a plea and there is no way I am going to go to court again because I would probably get screwed with more time. Do you think it’s a due process violation that… Read more »

I don’t understand about you needing to register again.

Are you saying you didn’t have to register and now you do?

It’s normally an ex-post facto violation to have a change in laws affect someone for a previous crime. However, Doe V Smith 2003 found that registration is not punitive and is regulatory and therefore can be applied. Since registration is now nothing like it was in 2003, it would be nice if this could be challenged again though.

“Now there’s a law that says age of victim is a defense”. Please explain what you meant by this and what law are you quoting from and what state.

If anyone hasn’t read this yet, including Janice, than it is a MUST READ:

This is a great summary of the history of how we got stuck with registration laws, and ends with the ways the tide can change if a new challenge can make it to SCOTUS. I’ve read hundreds of articles on the subject, and this is the best I’ve seen.

Is there a place to permanently put this on this web site? It is a crucial legal analysis that would benefit registrants as well as legal professionals.

Sorry for my ignorance, I see now that this professor talked at RSOL with Janice back in 2013 so of course Janice is aware of it!

Great video…I guess I just need a simple web page that educates me on all this in the right order.

Wow Chris F.
I just got an education. Comprehended about 2/3 of the content. Will need to go over it
again and again. Great Stuff!

Really noticed this:

And herein lies the critical threshold issue:
Can it be said that ramped-up sex offender registration laws
continue to warrant the label of civil remedial sanctions, or have they morphed into criminal penalties cloaked in civil rhetoric? The balance of
the Article argues that under
the Mendoza-Martinez multifactored test, spiraling amendments have
tipped the schemes to the punitive and that tip unravels their


WANT TO GET JANICE’S ACTION ALERTS EMAILS? Send us an email to this address (sorry, I have to spell this out due to spam bots):
carsolinfo at gmail dot com

You can ask us to put you on the Action Alert list.

You can also ask us to forward Janice’s latest Action Alert to you.

You won’t be spammed because we don’t give out our email list and we only send a few emails per month at most.

Not sure if there’s a dedicated thread for this or not, so figured I’d post here. Last weekend, I went in for my annual registration update. (On Father’s Day) I’ve been a registrant since 1998. Since my first registration, up until last years annual, I’ve always registered at the Anaheim Police Department front counter. This year, however, they’ve apparently changed things. When I called to make my appointment, I was told that I’d be reporting to the jail on the backside of the station. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect, so I was a bit cautious going into it.… Read more »

No they cannot take you into the jail area and search you. It’s a violation of your rights on so many levels. My County did this for many years (actually booking us) and then they realized they might get sued, so they set up a 290 section in another building. Somewhere here there is some old comments from about 3 years ago on this subject. Try searching, I will also look more into it tomorrow.

Thanks for this info. I found an older thread regarding the Santa Ana and Torrance process. I can only assume Janice was able to get the processes changed. Maybe she can head this off in Anaheim before it continues for long. Not quite sure why Anaheim decided to change something that worked pretty well to begin with.

Actually, while they might get sued, in the description here, they walked the borderline between legal and not legal. They are allowed to check people coming into the police department, especially past the front desk. Would it have made a difference to you if they had used a metal detector rather than a simple pat down? It was only a pat down, not a more intrusive search. If he had asked to leave that first room, and the door were locked and the officer would not unlock it, only then would he have been in custody – it was not… Read more »

G12, out here in SCV we get the same treatment as if I’m an inmate with a full pat down hands in your pocket while walking towards what looks like an interrogation room. So demeaning.

It’s terrible, considering we’re not prisoners. We should receive the same treatmeet as someone going in for fingerprints for a background screening for a job. I’d bet they aren’t being patted down or brought to a jail holding area.

G12, I am sorry that Anaheim is going this way…but it is only one day a year. Hold your head up…this is the best revenge for them being bastards.

On the other hand, my jurisdiction has gone from being a terrible and lengthy process to being fast, efficient and fairly pleasant.

Who knows how these things go? I think maybe a new police chief, a reassignment of officers or detectives…but if it can go from good to crappy, then it can go back to good again, as it has for me.

Who can fathom these things?

Best Wishes, James

Agreed…I continue to hold my head up and respond in kind, but at the end of the day it’s a bit depressing. And fearful knowing that things can actually get worse.

Correct me if I am wrong, I believe one country in South California actually tell RC to change their clothes into jail clothes and charge them with “possible 290 violation” Thanks God, Janice put a stop to it..

I believe that was Santa Ana.

Thanks for your responses, everyone. Not sure what can be done here, but hopefully Janice will read my latest experience and let us know if this can be fought the way that some of the others were in the past. (Santa Ana, Torrance) It’s one thing to be required to do this process against our will, but another to be treated as if you’re an actual prisoner during the process.

Unfortunately my NY Attorney has just informed me that we would be unable to move forward with a federal action against the NY Registry with the other Plaintiff, who would have been my co-plaintiff. He already went through the NY State Appeals Court regarding his issue in the fact that NY is forcing him to remain on their Registry despite the fact that he no longer lives, works, or pays taxes in New York. Similarly, I haven’t lived or worked in New York for over 16 years, and yet despite the fact that I’m not even required to register in… Read more »

Amazing PK. What fundamental interest does the government have in displaying your information when you have not been a resident for 16 years? I would like to hear their reasons for doing so, except for “because they can.”

Well they do it in Florida- You didn’t know?

According to several posters, even if you are visiting Florida for a 1 week period to visit Disney World, ANY RSO must register IN Florida within days of their arrival.

Then, as a rule, that person is to remain on the Florida Registry for life, and no mechanism exists to have one’s name ever removed from the Florida Registry.

I have an ideal. RTAG put together a matrix of all the countries that are a go and no go for RSOs traveling internationally. We should put together a matrix of states that keep RCs registered for life just for visiting that state. We know about Florida & New York. I know Kansas doesn’t do it because they specifically say on their state registry website that they remove the name of a person once they depart the state. I found that out for my son so he now can go visit his grandmother in Kansas without staying on their list… Read more »

There is a link in the top right of the site that gives an overview of the registration laws in all 50 states. It’s a year or two old but still a good place to check first.

I am curious to know PK what was your tier level in NY? If you were a lifer in NY, normally the state you move to goes by the “greater” time period between your convicting state & your new state of relocation. Now if you were suppose to be on the NY registry for just 15 years, and if NY still lists you after that time period has past and you’re living in a different state, I can see it posing a problem. New York state does give visiting RCs plenty of time (compared to most states) until they have… Read more »

I’m a Level 2, because I had a previous conviction of Possession of Controlled Substance. That- in and of itself, put me into the Level 2 bracket, as opposed to Level 1. According to my Plea Agreement for my BS 2001 Misdemeanor Conviction, I was to register for only 10 years. In 2006, they changed all that, and eliminated the 10 years I was promised- so now it’s a lifetime of wonderful registration. I’m not required to register at all where I live now, but yet I continue to receive those Annual Registration Letters from New York. The Matter of… Read more »

where do you live now?

Sounds like the state of New York moving the goal post but you’re not alone. RCs are fighting this retroactive bull all over the country. Recently courts in Massachusetts & I believe New Hampshire said you can’t go back retroactively when new laws are passed. But it seems NY is still behind the times. Hopefully you’ll eventually get some more co-defendants so you won’t do it alone. Good luck

Yes these Registries need to be challenged for each individual statute.

The Issue of Ex Post Facto whereas new regulations and statutes are applied retroactively, is one that has been challenged in many state level courts. My issue is somewhat different than that.

New York can adopt all the laws it wants. Its laws do not extend beyond its border. They cannot place any sort of requirements on people in another state for anything other than something they might be doing in New York — unless you perhaps are on parole, possibly lifetime parole; when you are on parole, you are considered to still in custody. So, they can put out an arrest warrant, and if another state would even honor it, then you would fight extradition — and I think you would have a very strong case to win — if it… Read more »

So the States must receive federal funds based on the number of people on their registries. Or perhaps by having so many registrants, L.E. can make the argument that the legislatures must give them more and more money so they can keep track of oh so many registrants.
At the same time, do state’s really won’t bragging rights for who has the greatest number of registered sex offenders??

When reading this article:

Then seeing a Supreme Court Justice Thomas ask “Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

I bet the person he asked didn’t bother to point out “ummm…thousands of sex offenders convicted or even deferred on misdemeanor sex offences maybe?”

If I’ve read this article correctly, Hawaii is about to start adding gun owners to the FBI criminal database. Stuff like this just makes me smile…

All the comments screaming about how this can’t be constitutional. About how it will be challenged in court. About how it could never stand. All the people who didn’t so much as blink while registration precedents were affirmed all the way to the supreme court as being merely regulatory and civil.

Welcome to Price Club Hawaii gun owners, it only gets more fun from here.

Hope you enjoy the ride.

Janice Bellucci is enjoying some grilling time in the courtroom today. She was scorching defendent Charles Roderick, shortly after Roderick’s former attorney testified that Roderick is a sociopath. This is really good news!

The law enforcement sex scandal in Oakland and surrounding areas is a joke. Why is anyone surprised at this. Cops thinking their illegal activities would go unnoticed. Looks like “serve and protect” means get your underage whose to service me and I’ll protect my fellow law enforcement officers from exposure. This is going on in every law enforcement agency throughout the United States. They are the real sex offenders and I hope they suffer.

I agree wholeheartedly and tend to gloat when cops, politicians and bureaucats – those who capitalize on the misery of others – crash and burn.