ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Oct 19 – Los Angeles, Nov 16 – Sacramento, Dec 14 – Phone | details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

ACSOLCalifornia

California DOJ Agrees to Correct Megan’s Law Profiles

The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) agreed yesterday to correct more than 90 percent of individuals’ profiles on the state’s Megan’s Law website which lack the date of conviction. The agency’s agreement is the result of a lawsuit filed by CA RSOL in November 2015.

“The lack of a conviction date coupled with an individual’s current photo on the Megan’s Law website profiles led many potential employers, landlords and others to assume that the offense for which individuals were convicted occurred recently,” stated ACSOL President Janice Bellucci. “There are many individuals listed on the website who were convicted decades ago.”

According to a settlement agreement signed by CA DOJ, the agency will correct most of the profiles no later than December 31, 2016. Corrections to the remaining profiles, belonging to those convicted prior to 1980, will be made as soon as the necessary data is made available by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

State law required CA DOJ to correct individuals’ profiles on the Megan’s Law website no later than September 2010, however, the agency failed to make the corrections due to limited financial resources and computer software.

Join the discussion

  1. J

    Congrats Janice and all!

  2. PR

    Congratulations on another victory!

  3. Roger

    Janice, as one of many RCs whose information was incomplete and wrong, my many thanks to you for making a lazy, intransigent bureaucracy dance! It is no surprise that the CA DOJ have insisted they couldn’t do it since Sept 2010, but now that they are forced to, they claim they can do it in 4 months. Wonderful! Many kudos for your hard work.

  4. Richard C.

    Great job ACSOL and Janice. I do have one concern though. I was perusing the State of California’s Department of Justice Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) as it relates to Sex Offender Risk Assessment. The DOJ appears to list a claim that the Static-99R is accurate “70-75 percent of the time.” Yet I’ve read studies showing the “high-risk sex offender flag” only accurate ~20 to ~29 percent of the time within a five-year period. Then after, the “high-risk” recidivism rates appear to drop dramatically at the 10 yr mark for those who do not reoffend while free. Here is a link at the DOJ’s questionable 70 to 75 percent accuracy claims (which seem totally bogus and a downright lie by the CA DOJ): http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/riskfaq.aspx?lang=ENGLISH

    • Joe

      What are they using the Static 99R for? As best as I can tell, it is designed to be used either before release from incarceration or being put on probation and doesn’t apply to people that have been back in the community for a long period of time.. I am currently scored as a 1 as best as I can tell because the modified the age categories after I was convicted. I used to be a 0 as I had a non-related victim that adds one point but I had a -1 score because I was well over 25 at the time of my conviction. . I wonder if the card carrying members of the general public know that the shrinks consider someone whose victim is a family member to be less dangerous than someone whose victim was known to them, but not related? I know that the shrinks have done their research, but to a layman, that might seem a bit odd to most people as you have the double taboo when you add incest into the mix. . What is of concern is that with the new age categories, there does’ appear to be any way that a young adult offender can have trouble being classified as low risk. That 1 point you get if you are under 35 puts you into the moderate-low category even with just one other hit anywhere. That means if your victim isn’t a relative or God forbid, if you are a gay man, there you go. .

      • Wadsworth

        Or how the Static 99R gives an extra point for non-contact offenses, which doesn’t make much sense either.

      • Drew

        Joe and Wadsworth, good arguments. Another thing I read under another comment section was how the “age” risk factor that Joe mentions only takes into account age at release from jail/prison. The Static-99R scam does not at all take into factor ****current age****. So if you are released at say 25 years old, you’ll have the same static score at, say, 95 years old (even if you don’t reoffend). Who does the static hurt most? A person released before 35 years old w/ a non-contact offense and has a male victim (i.e. likely gay). Does not seem at all fair. They are talking about this 99R scam in another comments section. I didn’t really understand this 99R scam until I read this: http://www.all4consolaws.org/2016/01/sex-offender-rehab-center-moving-to-former-out-of-the-closet-space/

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        Joe:

        You say, “I know that the shrinks have done their research, but to a layman, that might seem a bit odd […].”

        How could you be so sure that the Static-99R “developers” have done their research, when they’ve kept its data — as well as its methodology — secret? These phony ‘developers’ use the convenient excuse of “trade secret,” so they are able to evade accountability from well-deserved scrutiny.

        http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/12/judge-bars-static-99r-risk-tool-from.html

        Makes you wonder what Karl Hanson and his Static-99 cohorts are hiding.

        When these “instruments” are being used to label alleged “risk” levels, it is the people’s business to be privy to the instrument’s methodology. I suspect many “high-risk” offenders are inaccurately labeled.

        IMO, we have a right to know.

    • Wadsworth

      Richard, I wouldn’t be surprised if the California Department of Justice is lying as to manipulate the Static 99R’s accuracy so that the public can be fooled into believing the necessity of the registry and its quack “instruments” of psychic fortune-telling. I am willing to wager that the professed 70% to 75% accuracy rate to the Static-99R is fudged. There is more to that accuracy claim than meets the eye. It doesn’t take Einstein to figure out that the California Department of Justice has invested a lot of its political capital, as well as its credibility, into selling Megan’s Law and the Static pseudo science that come with it. CA DOJ will not admit wrong-doing, even if many of its soulless bureaucrats have a sense of the wrong that they do.

    • Drew

      Seems like a lie to me. I don’t know how the CA Dept. of Justice defines “accuracy;” but it sure seems like they are not forthright w/ their 70 to 75 percent claim. For example, on their website, they only show Static-99R scam figures allegedly predicting recidivism ONLY FIVE YEARS into the future. But the DOJ conveniently omits the 10 and 15 year predictions. I suspect it’s because their own “norms” would show low recidivism for even high scorers at 10 and 15 years. And, as in most Static norms (which cannot be replicated), some higher scores may actually have lower recidivism rates than lower scores at the 10 and 15 year mark… which would not make a good narrative for Kamala Harris’ goons. Take a look at how the crooks at our Department of Justice portray their Static-99R scam for yourself: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/risklevel.aspx?lang=ENGLISH

      • Vindicate Our Rights

        Why is the CA D.O.J. only advertising 5-yr prediction norms? I thought the Static 99R scam also came with 10 and 15 yr norms. Why do they leave the longer predictions out? Seems fishy. Also, CA D.O.J. is claiming, at best, 75% accuracy? They should elaborate as to false-positives and false-negatives in the Static 99R scam giving high risk and non-high risk designations. I am guessing the accuracy is not so great if they break this alleged 75% accuracy down to detail. Another thing: when D.O.J. is advertising these scores on Megan’s Law profiles to make the Static scam SEEM scientific (when it is not), we should be expecting 100% accuracy. Until then, I say this Static 99R scam is about as fake as the baloney in the plastic wrap that they feed in prison. And if the Static 99R scam is REALLY 75% accurate, then I am Mother Teresa.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        All good points. However, the Static-99R norms do not extend to 15-years. They only have norms for 5 and 10 years — which is why it doesn’t make sense to impose lifetime registration because of one’s static score; it only purports to predict one’s future up to 10-years out.

        Unless I am mistaken? Does anyone have a link to Static-99R norms that predict over 10-years?

        Regardless, I too would question the purported 5-year recidivism rates on the DOJ’s website. They seem too linear. Too perfect. And where is the 10-year prediction? Why is it left out?

        Also, why do they leave the recidivism rate out for a 10 scorer?

    • DONALD J. TRUMP

      You losers are lightweights. The Static-99R is fantastic. I have a friend who happens to be a doctor. You know what he tells me? He says, “Donald, the Static-99R is so accurate, you wouldn’t even believe it.” I know statistics. I’ve made so much money from statistics. I sell it to Mexico, Chy-na, and Japan. I make a lot of money from statistics. Let me tell you. The Static-99R sample size is HUUUGE. You wouldn’t even believe it. All sex offenders are the same. They are all equal. We need to lump them all into the same statistic. Then deport them. #Static99IsAccurate #BuildAWall #TrumpPence2016

      • nomore

        I knew Trump supported tiered systems! He’s right up there with “black youths are super predators-3 strikes” Hillary! Snakes, one and all!

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        The “J” in Donald Trump’s middle name stands for “Jamal.”

      • 72FLH

        Donald Trump LOL , I love this , I hope you did not pay that doctor , ducks cant be doctors , but anyway where do I sign to be deported ? that would be huge to live in some country that really respected there constitution ! could you please send us some where that its ok to smoke lot of weed ? and its ok to have lot of sex? you no real sex ? I don’t consider being bent over by the feds or state as sex , that’s.called , , lets see I cant seem to find the word,,,,,,,,,,,oh ya , that’s rape ! lol I love that comment ! it was great to see a good joke , great post

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        Maybe this is the doctor that’s telling Trump the static scam is accurate:

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=UjFKpIq4ixM

  5. Kev

    Thank you Janice.

  6. wonderin

    Pretty pathetic when a body calling out their name as “the dept of justice” has to be sued in order to do the right thing.
    Where’s the remorse,and the public apology.to those who’ve they’ve harmed, as I’ve shown?
    Where’s the pledge to be a better entity, moving forward, as I made to myself 40 years ago?

    • Timmr

      By great Themis, but that is a laugh! They agree to obey the law they make others obey — as if the people had granted them the choice in the beginning.

  7. jo

    Thank you so much

  8. Erwin

    This question has been bugging me and maybe some Californians can answer it. Does the state’s Megan’s Law public site still divide disclosed information into categories home address, zipcode, undisclosed, and excluded? Or did the state stop that practice and make all registrants disclose everything. I never hear anyone on this forum mention the disclosure categories. That’s why I think the practice may have stopped but I could be wrong. If the California site only list the addresses of the most high risk offenders, they’re way ahead of most states that disclose everything regardless of offense or risk level

    • Janice Bellucci

      For most of the registrants listed on the CA Megan’s Law website, their complete home address is listed including street name and number.

    • Chandler

      Define “high risk sex offender.” Because the way things stand now, the STATIC-99/R SCAM is what California uses to label people “high risk.”

    • 72FLH

      Erwin , mine is all out there in the wind for all to see , and its not going to change , because of the coming tier system , just as every tier state levl 3’s are stuck , we are the perfect target

  9. USA

    This is truly wonderful news! I personally find it hard to believe that these updates will occur in a timely manner. I believe there are 80k plus registrants in Ca? I wouldn’t even know where to begin. Hopefully (guys/no negative comments) this will be a wake up call and allow for a tiered system to occur in Ca. We have thousands of individuals who remain on the registry, despite being a non disclosable offense and having their offenses being expunged. We even have people on the registry who received summary probation?

  10. C

    What score is given for those of us never given a Static 99 test?

    • steve

      I believe they put nothing. I also did not have one.

    • BlueWall

      I’m sure they’ll error on the side of public safety and stick ultra high risk

      • Ricky

        It doesn’t take much to legitimately score high risk sex offender on the static scam. Got released between 18 and 34 yrs old? Automatic 1 point hit. No contact offense? Another 1 point. So there you are, already in the “moderate” category,” lol. What’s crazy about this DOJ static 99 scam is if a person commits a violent crime, they would not get the extra 1 point and in this example… this person would remain in the “low” risk category. Look at this coding form to see this bogus “instrument” that pretends to predict the future: http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf

        • Timmr

          Whoa, I too think this is a scam, but wait, are you implying that those who commit a violent crime are more likely to repeat the offense or are you saying the Static99 should be used to punish violent offenders more?

        • WATSON

          Well, it seems the STATIC99 R SCAM is saying non contact offenders are more likely to reoffend. Which is not any better than saying violent offenders are more likely to offend. Both claims are bogus because you can’t lump everyone into the same statistic. That is what the STATIC99 R SCAM does… it lumps everyone into the same statistic.

          The reality is that every person is different. They should be assessed individually… not by this STATIC99 R SCAM.

          A SCAM created and pushed/sold by fake doctors.

  11. David

    As a resident of California, a taxpayer, and a government employee, it is utterly APPALLING to me that it requires a lawsuit and settlement to get the CA DOJ to do the job IT WAS ALREADY REQUIRED TO DO six years ago!! Unbelievable!!

  12. Bruce Ferrell

    Uh… This may seem an odd or contentious question.

    If the law already required this for September 2010 and CA DOJ failed to comply due to lack of/poor resources, why will they now do this?

    Are there unrevealed “teeth” this this agreement? Won’t they just cry “poor” again?

  13. cool CA RC

    I’m wondering if we can pressure the California State to admit that this is “unworkable” and be forced to drop the whole thing? I know I’m dreaming that it will be done anytime soon.

    What will it take to remove Megan’s law ?

  14. mk

    It’d be good if they would include factual info. Local PD put my address as one of two my hub supposedly lives. He does not live here. He visits here almost daily so they included my address. He cant live here legally as its too close to a park/school. Yet they have my address listed.
    As far as the stat99? What a joke. In order for my hubs score to be lower, he’d actually have to commit another offense. (no, he isnt going to) So how stupid is that?????
    And the extension of parole? Dont even get me started on that crap.

    • Anonymous User

      Hey mk I can totally relate to your frustration, your husband’s frustration, as well as the people on here.

      I am shameful to admit it, but I score fairly high (5 points) on the Static-99R scam. But the Static-99 is jack shit (excuse my language).

      I used to not know much about it, but when I read the Static-99R coding form I now see it as a scam. Even though I never touched anyone, it gives me 1 point for having a non-contact offense. 1 point for one unrelated victim. 1 point for one stranger victim. 1 point for being released from jail before age 35 (as I was 26 when I was released). 1 point for never living w/ a lover for at least 2 years (though I’ve lived w/ my GF for almost 2 years now… so the CA DOJ should change it, right?).

      Everyone calls this Static-99R a complete scam. Because IT IS a scam. Look at this oversimplified scam for yourself. No way it can tell the future:

      http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf

      • Timmr

        A scientist needs a super computer to tell which way the wind will blow, but apparently a clerk in the Sheriff’s office can predict the likelyhood of you offending by answering a few questions. No wonder they can’t predict what will happen two days from now more than fifty percent of the time, the meteorologists are making it way too complicated. But humans must be way simpler systems in composition than air, land and water. While it takes the weathermen inputing thousands of factors to see if the sun will show her face tomorrow, the clerk at the police station has it made with an E Harmony type system of a few key questions to predict how billions of brain cells are going to connect. Amazing.

        • lisa

          Timmr, your sarcasm is duly noted, lol. Though “predict” seems to give the Static 99 scam more credit it deserves. The thing can hardly predict sex crimes. That is why it is so unpopular among its critics. Because there is no way in hell a 10 question test can “predict” human behavior.

        • 72FLH

          your right timmr ,,,, just ole snake oil sales men , this dose not compute !!! dose not compute !!! warning ! warning ! lol

    • Edwin

      Static 99R is just pure and complete nonsense. The fact CDCR and government put any weight on it whatsoever proves that our public policies are often junk.

  15. The Unforgiven

    In checking my own name on the site, obviously having someone else type for me in case someone cares, it shows Abdomen Unknown under the Scars/Marks /Tattoos section. This is new this year and completely false. I have never given any information to warrant that and they wouldn’t know anyways. What gives? Others have blatantly false information?

    • "moderate-high?"

      Yeah, I also had someone type my name into the Megan’s Law website. Shows me as “moderate-high risk” for a non-contact offense from 2011. Never in trouble with the law before or after. It was a first-time offense. I was 22 at the time.

      Static 99 scam!!

    • David Kennerly

      I certainly understand that individuals do not want to do anything “illegal” but checking the sex offender database for your own name is entirely within your rights even if California has said that it is “illegal.”

      It’s controversial, but I recommend that Registrants begin to reassert their rights by exercising this very basic, and manifestly obvious right, now.

      To say that it is an unenforceable law is to put it mildly.

      We need to be able to do this much for our own selves.

      • Roger

        David, there is no need for any RC to risk prison time for doing this because all we have to do is have a family member or a friend go to the website using a computer away from home and print our personal info on paper for us to see.

        • David Kennerly

          Roger, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I have no friends, nor family, whom I can ask to do this for me. Is it really that I cannot confirm my presence on the registry or the veracity of the state’s denunciation of me?

          Yes, the state has asserted that it is a crime for me to access the online Registry. It was easy enough to do, they simply slid it into the law that created the web Registry itself. It was, essentially, cost-free (for them) to toss in a throw-away prohibition that, while serving no rational purpose, helped to satisfy the lawmakers’ cruel appetites.

          Has it ever been challenged? Has anyone ever been charged, let alone, convicted of having looked themselves up on the Web?

          Are they likely to? What might be the consequence to them for doing so?

          And what does it say if we, as individuals, are unwilling to assert our rights – and to exercise them, when they attract the most vanishingly obscure of risks?

          We are, as a community, awfully dependent upon the willingness of others, mostly family members, to come to our defense. Thank goodness there are as many of them as there are. At some point, however, we really need to more forcefully assert ourselves and to take risks, if we are to succeed.

        • Janice Bellucci

          David, you have raised many valid points about the law that prohibits registrants from accessing their own profiles on the Megan’s Law. It is on our list of laws to challenge, but it’s not at or near the top right now due to the pending IML lawsuit and lawsuits challenging residency restrictions.

      • Anon

        There is certainly a First Amendment argument in David’s comment. I mean how many of us are able to challenge inaccurate publications, such as static 99/99R scores, if we are not able to check the website ourselves?

        Also, could there not be an argument made that the law inhibits our ability to freely assemble so that we can protest and petition the government of our grievances?

        Seems like the prohibition against being able to check the Megan’s Law website is intended to chill our freedom to speech and assemble under the First Amendment.

        • Lake County

          They don’t want us to freely assemble. They assume if we had contact with other registrants, we would be eagerly trading CP or discussing where the best hiding places are in parks to grab children. Just more false fears by our politicians.

      • ONE DAY AT A TIME

        If anyone is paranoid about checking ML website, just use a friend’s computer and they can’t know it was you. Or if you want to check from your computer but make it extra difficult to know it’s from you, you can just restart your modem before you “take your look” which should assign your modem a new IP computer web address and then after you completely leave the ML website, restart your modem again to reset it to a different IP address again. The easiest way to fully reset your modem is to just unplug it for a few seconds and wait for it to automatically reboot after you plug it back in. But even without these paranoid precautions, it’s unlikely they will ever be able to track the exact location of 10’s of thousands (or more) of daily accesses to their website. Web servers are just not set up to easily track this exact location (unless you have a more expensive dedicated static IP address) or other personal information. Keep in mind, CA state’s server software is always 10+ years behind in technology. Also “very important” ML website will leave a cookie on the computer you are using that will basically show that the computer accessed their web site and you agreed to their terms of use. So if you are using your own computer, you will need to delete this cookie from your computer. You will need to go into your browser’s settings and delete all cookies or better yet, you can chose to just delete the one cookie. Google “how to delete cookies” for more information.

        • David Kennerly

          There is also TOR, an incredibly easy-to-use application that provides very substantial anonymization of web-browsing.

          It can be downloaded here:

          https://www.torproject.org/

          And if you really, really want to go the distance and make it nearly impossible for anyone to know that you’re accessing California Megan’s Law website, you can download TAILS, also available from TOR, that can run a ‘virtual machine’ on your computer. It runs from a USB stick or a DVD.

          These tools are de rigueur for those fighting oppressive governments.

        • nomore

          “These tools are de rigueur for those fighting oppressive governments.”

          Unfortunately, it’s still highly unsafe. First, TOR was a military communications program. I don’t care who has it now. Secondly, all “computer electronics” hardware has 3g backdoor capability built into its SOC. It’s being sold to the public as an IT repair feature. And those are just two of the problems. Proceed accordingly. 🙂

        • David Kennerly

          I don’t believe that it is “highly unsafe”. It is certainly vastly safer than not using TOR. What I think is that there is some uncertainty, especially regarding exit nodes. The government has thrown a lot of resources at it and have had some success. I don’t recommend that anyone take legal risks with it except for such things as checking the Megan’s Law website. So no, I wouldn’t stake my life on it but it is very good.

        • Timmr

          Why be afraid of being caught if it is a right? Janice says it is low on the list to challenge, yet if they do try to enforce it, it will move up that list.

        • David Kennerly

          I’m not but others may want to limit their exposure while exercising their (absolute) right to access their own data records.

          So I’m saying that arguments exist for accessing the hitlist directly while accomodating varying levels of discomfort for doing so by minimizing risk. TOR does this.

          Note that I am not exhorting others to put their own heads on a chopping block but pointing out that we should be challenging this issue more forcefully and that we should begin to take somewhat more courageous action even if it is limited to vanishingly unlikely prosecution (in my opinion) for accessing California’s Megan’s Law website.

        • nomore

          The first thing you said was the safest. The rest is 20 years or more outdated for security and in some cases never was or has been.

          If you’re a sex offender, you are being tracked by multiple agencies, including NSA and numerous corporations on behalf of them. Don’t think deleting cookies or rebooting modems for new ip’s are going to keep you safe from prying eyes. The likelihood of them going after you over checking for accuracy is probably low. It would be an easy challenge in court.

          It’s a bold new world. 🙂

        • David Kennerly

          Again, I respectfully disagree with your analysis of TOR and have never suggested that deleting cookies puts one on the path to safe computing nor would I do so.

          Context is important here and I said what I said about TOR within the context of accessing Megan’s website; hardly a death-defying act of surfing.

          I have a lot of familiarity with computer security without being an expert and refer to experts, such as Bruce Schneier, frequently when wanting to get a distillation of what’s likely in the arena of security and government capabilities. I’ll stick with him.

          There is no absolute security nor will there ever be but we must use the best tools available to limit our risks.

        • wonderin

          “If you’re a sex offender, you are being tracked by multiple agencies, including NSA and numerous corporations on behalf of them.”
          Not me, I have a secret spy blocker I purchased from alcoa.

      • The Unforgiven

        I was being funny because that part is a joke. I certainly may…or may not look up my own name to check for accuracy.

  16. BlueWall

    No correction or updating on mine.. Tool blank… score blank… risk blank… promises promises and nothing yet

    • Janice Bellucci

      As the article states, California DOJ has agreed to make changes to profiles of individuals convicted after 1980 by December 31, which is more than three months away. Please be patient, Bluewall. If you cannot be patient, please send me a recent Live Scan Report and I will request changes to your profile “immediately”.

      • DavidH

        Hi Janice:

        It’s no small thing that they could create such a thing on a person and not allow them to view it, if for no other reason than to check it;s accuracy

        Just on more element of civil regulation carrying a criminal consequence. If this weren’t directed at Rc’s I’m certain .anyone would agree this to be unreasonable, if not absurd!

        If you ever see an opportunity in any lawsuit you bring forward to address this issue that would be appreciated!

      • PK

        I’ve always been curious as to why some of these new regulations only pertain to those RSO’s convicted after 1980 for example. What about those convicted prior to 1980? Are they more dangerous?

    • Lake County

      I am not sure, but I doubt they will be assigning static99 scores to those whose conviction dates were prior to the use of static99. They just wouldn’t have access to all the information needed to do a score.

  17. Jonathan

    I am very upset that the Dept. of Justice claims to be able to predict the future with the Static 99R scam. I think my score is grossly exaggerated. I’ve always felt this way ever since the score was given to me by an imposter Ph.D contracted by CDCR. The fact the static score is listed on my profile and assumes I am at the same risk level as I was 6 yrs ago is really stupid.

    As someone mentioned, where are the alleged recidivism rates for over 5 yrs? What is DOJ hiding?

    There is no way my score reflects my true “risk.” The fact the Static 99R SCAM is advertised on public profiles and sold as a credible scientific “instrument” by California is even more troubling. It’s abuse of power!!

  18. Cool CA RC

    It been a while
    have anyone check on this to see if they have made any progress?

  19. Cool CA RC

    Well now it is almost end of Oct. Have anyone ask a friend if there were some changes on their Megan’s Law website? Remember, if you are a RC you can’t even look at your own record.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.