ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: May 16 – Phone [recording], June 13 – Phone, July 11, August 15 details
Oct 10 and 11 – Conference (Los Angeles),

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

General News

General Comments September 2016

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

Join the discussion

  1. Keith

    Can someone find the exact penal code for the following two questions:

    1. What is the exact statute that says a registrant has to keep his/her registration receipt with oneself or he/she can go to jail?

    -AND-

    2. A registrant has to identify him/herself to law enforcement as 290 if a registrant ever stopped by police?

    It’s for my cousin (for a project he has).

    Thanks

    • Paul

      Neither requirement exists. It’s sometimes incorrectly stated that both requirements are codified. Especially by law enforcement.

    • Punished For Life

      Keith,
      Just be sure to keep the receipts in a safe place. The system isn’t perfect. I just found out two months ago that Ca. said I failed to register in 1996. I made it a habit to shred every paper I ever received from the horror story of registration. The problem is, I have registered every year since 1990. And when Calif. obviously made a mistake, they didn’t correct it. I was never arrested or even summoned for failure to register. So they realized their mistake and CA DOJ just left it as a record of failure to register that year.
      A similar event happened in my new State of residence, and the new state didn’t correct their mistake either.
      They just leave things as they are and leave the record as failure to register.

    • curiouser

      The “requirement” to carry the piece of paper from your registering agency is a requirement of probation, if ordered by the magistrate. As for the “requirement” of identifying oneself to law enforcement as a registrant is something I’ve never heard of before. I do not have that requirement. However the judge in my case did state in the minute orders that I needed to carry the paper.

  2. mike r

    great suggestion anonymous ya ill highlight any changes or revisions great fredback….

  3. mike r

    I apologize moderator for not staying on topic in the other comments sections I hope I will be able to continue my quest for assistance in the general comments section…that being said…since I didn’t receive any negative feedback about my right to reputation argument I am assuming that particular argument is comprehensive and pretty sound correct??? correct me if im wrong… so now I will post my equal protection argument so hopefully I can get assistance finding relevant case law,anymore empirical evidence and any feedback that would strengthen that particular argument..once again thank you all who are contributing to this…I will be using what information you have already giving me on here and am researching what ms.carpenter has produced also anything else would be great…

    • nomore

      Mike r,

      Have you ever gotten a reply from Janice or her team about your suit?

      • One Day At A Time

        As has been stated several times before on this site, Janice cannot give legal advice on this site. No smart attorney will ever provide direct legal advice on a web site. Because of liability with legal advice you must contact an attorney directly. If you need advice from Janice or her team, the contact information is posted here under the contact link. However I would not expect free advice from any attorney related to a specific case as attorneys have bills to pay too.

  4. mike r

    I believe all I need to add to my right to reputation arguments is more documented evidence on the collateral damages caused by the registry from respected news outlets such as the New York times, Washington post, USA today, Wall Street Journal, BBC, NPR, PBS or any other respected sources.. I need a link to each article and a brief description…..

  5. Erwin

    Since following this forum over a year, I’ve read many comments by Californian registrants & their experiences regarding 290. This is what I concluded about California law. Compared to many states, California is more light in the incarceration area when it comes to sex crimes which will get you prison time in many Midwestern & southern states. Maybe Californians learned their lesson from 3 strikes your out, bad drug laws, and overcrowded prisons drawing costly lawsuits. Whatever the reason, and from comments I’ve read on this forum, a lot of people convicted of sex crimes in California are getting light jail time or probation.

    HOWEVER, the state of California makes up lenient incarceration policies with severe statues & regulations revolving around 290. Number 1 is lifetime registration regardless of the offense. Other annoyances include registering on your birthday, not being able to go near your kids’ school….now the state wants registrant usernames, email accounts, gotta post no candy here signs on Halloween, and most importantly, the state authorizes a law enforcement brigade to check up on registrants anytime, anywhere, any chance they get. And I’m sure there’s host of other things that can be added to this laundry list of 290 rules & regulations.

    Now don’t get me wrong. California has come a long way in knocking down other barriers (like residency restrictions) thru the efforts of Janice who is a godsend. And I believe things will continue to get better for California registrants, but I have to give it to you guys for having the patience to put up with all rritating stuff thrown your way by state lawmakers.

    Would I be willing to do more prison time in place of less time & loosened restrictions on the registry? As bad as the registry is, I’m afraid my answer still would be no. Especially if time is done in a Californian prison which are among the worst of the worst in the nation. And kudos to the ones on this forum who survived both prison & 290.

    I guess my main point is (and Brock Turner you may heed this advice) that Californian registrants may at first believe state prosecutors & judges are giving them a good deal by not sending them to the cooler. But wait til you get on 290 for life. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Thank God Californians have Janice & her team and their tremendous dedication directed toward keeping the scales of justice in balance

    • Paul

      I think a few corrections are necessary:

      1) Internet identifiers (I think still waiting to be signed into law by Brown) will only apply to those convicted after 1/1/2017.

      2) The Halloween ordinances have largely been tossed out in the garbage. Even CDCR has now agreed to not enforce their Halloween policies.

      3) The state does NOT authorize law enforcement brigades. In fact, no where in the law are these checks required. Agencies do that all on their own. And, if you’re not on parole or probation, don’t even bother answering the door when they come knocking (that’s what most of us do).

      • Erwin

        That’s actually good news that the state of California is not as extreme as I thought but I don’t think I was incorrect. I merely stated what the state wants (internet identifiers). That doesn’t mean they’ll get it or it’s already happening. And just because registrants convicted before 2017 don’t have to worry is no consolation to the ones who will be convicted after 2017. And I should have phrased my sentence: the state “allows” local law enforcement to check up on registrants. Even if you’re not legally obligated to let them on your property, it’s still somewhat unnerving & sometimes embarrassing to not only you, but also your neighbors

  6. mike r

    I did 3years in the pen and I would gladly done twice that instead of the hellllll parole supervision I had to go through because of the sex offender designation and the subsequent registration and notification laws….

    • Erwin

      I hear you. I don’t know what your offense was but a mandatory sentence of 3 years is exactly the amount of time my son did for having cp on his computer and he wasn’t even file sharing or distributing it.

      So now you have people thinking if he did 3 years, he REALLY must have done something wrong when in fact he would have gotten probation if it wasn’t for Wisconsin’s mandatory minimum cp law plus overzealous Milwaukee prosecutor. So that’s one reason why I believe incarceration is worst than the registry. You have to always explain to people why the time, plus incarceration is very stressful on individuals & family members who constantly worry about the health & well being of a loved one in prison, you get marked for life as an ex-convict, you can lose your professional license (my son lost his broker’s license), prison can harden people & make them worst off than when they first went in, and I could go on into 100 other different reasons.

      I never would want to have to choose between the registry & incarceration. But if my son could have avoided incarceration by doing more than 3 years probation and extra time on the registry, we both would agree incarceration in the state prison is far worst

  7. mike r

    hey this is great even steve one of the guys that was bashing me before contributed to my cause with a positive and useful comment…seriously Steve thank you for your comment and support keep it coming….

  8. mike r

    ya no more i did get a response from janice telling me she couldn’t assist me I’ve even offered to pay to format and revise it. NO is what I was told un no uncertain terms…

    • nomore

      That’s interesting. Well obviously you’re tenacious, so I don’t need to give you encouragement to keep going but don’t give up. Like a few of us have stated, we’ll have to get things done ourselves if we want abolishment. I promise you, I’m working towards a financial plan for just that. It’s not moving very fast at this moment but that’s out of my hands in a few ways. I’ll be off this mess next year so things will pick up pace then.

      • Chris F

        I’ve got a little over 18 months left. It’s funny how I’ll be able to have much more of an impact after I’m free of the registry…but the combination of joblessness, the registry, and probation restrictions really can tie not only my hands but my family’s hands as well.

        If it weren’t for being registered though, I never would have known how the registry actually puts my two young kids at much more risk than it helps. I don’t need to look up potential predators on a map, but I would like to be notified if one moves nearby. So even as a protective father, I hate the registry and know there are fair alternatives that will accomplish more and allow people to get help and a second chance at life.

        The fact that people are less likely to report a molestation of a child due to the registry (embarrasing the family/victim, affecting housing and income of what was the primary bread winner for life) should be reason enough for the average person to get rid of a public registry. Those with improper urges can’t even get help from a professional without being turned in for most cases. The system just does much more harm than good.

        • nomore

          You can’t have both, liberty and security. You’re not guaranteed nor could you ever be, a safe life. As always a false sense of security is all you ever get. On top of that, your desire to be “informed” usurps others rights. Keep your kids inside. Wrap them in bubble wrap or coat them in shelac but don’t step on my rights by using them against me.

  9. mike r

    hey moderator I hope your not going to censor my post in general comments now… I’ll repeat here is issue #2 in its current form before I revise it to include what you guys have contributed so far…I will only post it once untill I revise it with any suggestions you may have to strengthen this argument…empirical evidence,case law, or suggestions on how to strengthen this argument or improve the articulation in it..any help is greatly appreciated…thanks…

    2) The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.

    All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.

    These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion.
    The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.

    From Justice Policy Institute.
    Estimated cost to implement SORNA
    Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

    For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    • Chris F

      Just something to think about Mike R, and I’ll try to post more about this later, but when I worked on a Writ of Habeas Corpus with my lawyer, he wouldn’t include any published reports due to the prosecutor objecting to it as “hearsay”. I’m no lawyer though. Perhaps government reports would be an exception.

      You may want to look at the original Michigan case that recently said Sex Offender laws do violate ex-post facto:

      https://all4consolaws.org/2016/08/mi-court-voids-state-sex-offender-registry-for-imposing-unconstitutionally-retroactive-punishment/

      Look through it to see how they structured their arguments and any successful objections just to see what works and what is questionable. I am wondering if what is acceptable if a case makes it to SCOTUS actually broadens to include anything you want, since the 2003 Smith case allowed reports that were complete hearsay and false as well as false opinions of politicians.

      I believe the way the Michigan court was able to include reports was because they actually had the authors and gatherers of data present at the trial for cross examination, thus negating the hearsay argument.

  10. mike r

    thank you moderator…

    • PK

      I can see that you are very passionate about what you believe in Mike r.
      I’ve given this some thought I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea at all to have a website or blog, whereby many people can contribute to building a case.

      I’m not clear about how the format would look, but it would be something similar to “code sharing” whereby you would have many people contributing, but not necessarily copying and pasting the entire argument. You would need to have a framework where people can contribute to a certain provision or aspect.

      Then perhaps the contributors could be the plaintiffs in the case. I do think that whatever case everyone builds should be presented to an Attorney or group of Attorneys.

  11. Anonymous Nobody

    Moderator: I have been getting some of my posts nixed as “spam” — so my comments are lost forever. Not a single one has been spam, they have been direct responses to someone else’s post. I e-mailed you about this a few days ago, but here it is still happening today. In fact, I see my latest post, in the few moments between hitting the button to post and it being posted, the last paragraph where I said this to you was nixed from it — you censored it!

    Stop censoring posts!

    If this is a technical glitch, get it fixed. But never censor posts. I have never seen a spam post at this Website.

  12. Chris F

    Mike R, I see in the “Halloween” post where you asked Janice about pushing to overturn Smith V Doe (2003) and she stated she is pushing for that.

    That would affect the retroactive application of registry and also expose it to future challenges of cruel and unusual punishment and other challenges…so that is true that it is needed to be challenged.

    However, wouldn’t it be prudent to also challenge “Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe” 2003 since that relates to “requirement which required public disclosure of information on sex offenders after they had been released from incarceration”?

    I think that would be the challenge to the overall registry and not just the retroactive application.

    It would be tougher since that was a unanimous SCOTUS decision, but it was still based on the same false information that Smith V Doe was. Somehow, it has to be shown that the registry being public is not just the government posting true information with “no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous”, but that they do actually infer dangerousness with all of the laws and restrictions passed after this SCOTUS decision on a local, state, and national level.

  13. mike r

    excellent Chris I will have to research that issue more and if there’s any chance of the court rejecting dismissing the studies and reports then I will have to dig deeper and find case law that will force them to allow it or at least force them to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine validity of the studies and reports…like you said I think it would be really difficult to dismiss all the government studies and reports but I will dig deeper….thanks man
    ..now see that is exactly the kind of feedback I need…that was a totally obvious issue that could of jeopardized my entire case if not addressed and it never crossed my mind that the Court might treat that empirical evidence as hearsay….kept it coming…

    • Chris F

      Mike R, another issue with my case, when I presented to my lawyer what I wanted cited in the writ he said the case I wanted cited wasn’t as valuable as it could be. In my case, I wanted a case cited that set precedent in Federal Court for the 5th circuit in Texas, but my writ was going to the state court system of Texas and not federal. He had to find a similar state case and did.

      My point is, if you are filing a federal case your best cases to reference are in your circuit, and next best is probably another circuit’s federal courts and probably last would be your state court system cases. Perhaps you already have that worked out, and maybe I am not even correct, but I wanted to throw it out there for comment by anyone more informed on what sways judges the most and is there anything they would actually find offensive to see referenced in a case.

      We not only want the best sources referenced in your case, but we want to avoid anything that a judge would essentially turn his nose up to and discard.

      In the end, I am hopeful you will have an abundance of data and info and have to pay for the least amount of real attorney hours to review and provide an opinion on filing your case. On my case, I paid an attorney that specialized in writs around 7k but he would have charged 24k or more if I hadn’t done as much work as I did.

  14. Anonymous Nobody

    Regarding the assessments in our tier proposals in California, I saw some information in a couple different stories in today’s newspaper that provided some tidbits against these assessments, which I strongly oppose other than to lower your tier. (Tiers should be set by offense, with the option for the registrant to apply for an assessment to have their tier lowered.)

    One case focused on the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services’ use of assessments to determine risk of child abuse. They call that system Structured Decision Making. Well, there have been quite a few reports in the news for years now, always following another tragedy, about how the system failed to properly assess the situation and deal with it. I’m sure at least some of this assessment structure would be used for the registrant tier assessments.

    Now, in the wake of another seriously tragic case, the county Board of Supervisors is so alarmed that the assessments keep failing that they are now reviewing them for changes. In this atmosphere, you know the changes are only going in one direction: much harsher. I’m sure a lot of the details in these harsher assessments will end up in our tier assessments.

    But the point is, these assessments are always presented as scientific and of great accuracy and the perfect solution and absolutely necessary. But they never are, as shown by the long list of failures of this child abuse risk assessment system. The really dangerous ones get by, but much lesser circumstances get overrated and find the kids being taken from their parents and sent to foster care. Its just a disaster, it has no bearing on reality of any risk, no matter what all their studies and reviews say about its accuracy.

    We should not let such inaccurate assessments be imposed on us. We should not let any assessments be imposed on us, they should all be presumed to be inaccurate, but more importantly, completely unnecessary.

    And we should realize they will be put in relatively gently, and later, they will be stiffened, as Los Angeles County is about to do, and more and more people will find themselves in longer and longer tiers. And just wait until they decide you should be reassessed because of new assessment standards, and then put in an even longer tier.

    That story is at:

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-supervisors-yonatan-aguilar-death-20160919-snap-story.html

    The other story was about the prisons generally and mentioned how they have an assessment program for new arrivals to determine their security threat. Great, more assessments of risk. That’s all it said, but it just brought to mind the reality. How many sex offenders in this forum who were sent to prison think they were put in a safe place in there because of their assessment as being the number 1 prime target? Would you really agree that those assessments kept you safe and away from people who would love to hurt you? Do you even think they were honest and intended for the best purposes, or were they simply bureaucracy? Did they land you someplace without other types of offenders wanting you punked, beaten or dead?

    NIX these assessments from the tier proposal. Doing so even would be wildly cheaper for the state. Not doing so will only build a HUGE bureaucracy that will be our worst enemy and will lobby and make political contributions against us as their jobs will depend on our longevity of registration and more and more assessments and changes in assessments. I often have said the devil is in the details, and those assessments are a major detail spawned by and loaded up with the devil.

    If we must have tiers, at least set them by offense (and yes, allow application to be put into a lower tier), and do not be afraid of breaking the tiers up into even many more than three, as we would not want someone who would be lowest level in a tier stuck at a longer time frame because of the highest level registrant in the tier.

    And for god’s sake, make the lowest tiers a LOT shorter than 10 years! That is an insanely long time for what in that tier will be the lowest level offenders, even low level misdemeanants who certainly should not have to register at all much less than for 10 years — and notice, even as these tiers are mimicking the time frames for a COR, 7 years is the time frame for a COR for some misdemeanors, not 10 years, yet we have no 7-year tier. But even 7 years is insane. And notice, the time-frame tiers for a COR are set by the offense, not by some BS assessment.

    Someone backing a minimum of 10 years for tiers is someone who has completely missed the point of the complaints about registration, simply does not understand or fully appreciate! If you have some expert proposing tiers and they way 10 years should be the minimum, you should know that is not someone you want to listen to! You should know that is not someone you want assessing anyone or setting any standards.

  15. David

    @ Anonymous Nobody, you facetiously said, “these assessments are always presented as scientific and of great accuracy and the perfect solution and absolutely necessary”. So true and sounds exactly like Medieval witchhunts: “Quick, tie her to that post and light the bonfire at her feet! If she burns, she’s a witch!”
    A thousand years pass, but humankind remains willfully ignorant, entrenched in endless dark ages. 😩

  16. Eric Knight

    Just as a reminder, Janice Bellucci, nor any other board member, do not answer any specific legal questions on this website. Of course they monitor the comments, but keep in mind they are working specifically for the lawsuits and other challenges at hand. If you would like to ask your question anyway, make sure that it is not directed to a specific person, unless it’s in a reply to that person. In any case, keep in mind that the advice is NOT to be taken as legal authority!

    If you need specific advice, I would advise you to obtain a lawyer. I do recommend Chance Oberstein, who will give a consultation for a reasonable fee, and he probably is the most qualified lawyer in the state for giving such consultation. But keep in mind that the lawyers working for ACSOL, from Janice on down, are not online advice lawyers.

  17. Fibblia

    Question:
    I’m registered in another state, and have to do a 60 day jail stint in California. Do I have to register there? I’m surrendering day one, doing my time, then leaving the next day.

  18. mike

    I have not seen it on the site but I understand that the IML was dismissed. We got a true intellect for a judge.
    Very disappointing.

    • Political Prisoner

      Maybe we should protest in front of the Judges home, about how she bowed to the big brother instead of making a just call.

  19. Chuck Schultz

    A CALL.TO ACTION
    To all fellow RC’s, family, friends and loved ones,

    Hear my plea, and let’s act. As Janice and team go to court to fight for our rights and restore our freedom, I think it’s important for us to be active at lower levels of politics. It’s an election year and we’ve already been stripped of any Presidential Candidate who has any consideration of our rights. However, as we ponder which is the lesser evil to cast our ballot for, we need not sit idly by without paying attention to our local elections. Below is a script/letter I’ve draghted to inform those who intend to hold office that, as a public, we want our rights back and we’re watching. I believe this is important for two reasons. 1. These politicians by career will reach for higher and higher offices as opportunity comes and we all want a better political future for our children and nieces and nephews. I want our future politicians to have a firm understanding of rights so my kids and their families don’t have to go through this. 2. It’s real easy to take what you have for granted and while Janice goes to court to perform this emotional and draining work it’s important for her to know we are right beside her, shoulder to shoulder with the team, pushing back against these opposing laws. Join me and contact your local politicians and tell them we want our rights back!

    Thank you and have a great day!
    Chuck
    wethepeopleas1@gmail.com

    P.S. Feel free to edit the script/letter as you prefer.

    Dear Politician
    I’m a citizen concerned about the recent violations by politicians to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I’m a speaker seeking to educate the public on the qualifications of those running for office based on thier knowledge and utility of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I’m a rights activist seeking to vote against any incumbent who’s purpose by will or stupidity is to undermine our rights as US citizens. I work with a
    mass of like like minded people and we’re sending a message that the people of these United States of America are tired of being deceived and lied to for political gain. We are tired of oppression and corruption. We are present, we are awake and we are standing up for our God given rights as human beings and US citizens.

    Sincerely,
    We the People as one

  20. David

    ??? Conundrum: I have received an invitation to our City’s “Annual Police Chief’s Breakfast”. 😶 The invitation is not altogether surprising since I’m very active in community activities and city government forums. (Furthermore, where I live that has, for many years, had problems with gangs, drugs and prostitution. The police have been done a very good job of addressing these problems and are very responsive to residents’ phone calls requesting action.) The police chief knows me and usually greet me by name with a smile and a handshake at public meetings. I don’t think he realizes that I’m a 290 registrant. (There are approx. 200 registrants in my city.) Should I attend the Police Chief’s Annual Breakfast? What do you think?

    • New Person

      Congrats!

      Be a shining example so as to dispel the false,monstrous thoughts the public loves to believe in.

      Seriously, though, I don’t know you, but you make me proud and smile. I like hearing good stories or experiences. = )

    • Lake County

      Well of course you should attend David. Showing that a 290 registrant is just like everyone else and is interested in being part of normal society sets a great example for all of us.

    • David Kennerly

      Absolutely! And invite those other 200 registrants, as well. Print up some RSOL literature and distribute it.

    • Concerned Registrant

      Wow, David! Why are you asking a bunch of people who have no stake in the bad consequences that could arise from a wrong decision? There are plenty of registrants here who will gladly insist that you not only go, but also stand up on the table and shout your status and call the police tyrants. None of us can make that decision for you, brother. Personally, because I am a Christian, I can go directly to God in prayer and ask for wisdom and guidance. He only can be trusted.

      • C

        While no huge fan of the po-po, I would say the politicians are the real tyrants. The police, when it comes to most PC290 enforcement efforts, are the legislatures’ goons collecting a paycheck. In fact I’d wager that most cops working the 290 desk are more on our side than they’d be willing to publicly acknowledge. Who else encounters on a daily basis more middle-aged men with careers, wives children and mortgages who’ve been registering and remained trouble free for 20, 30 or 40+ years?

      • Harry

        You are right, Concerned Registrant, ONLY God we can trust. For pass 29+years I have experience God’s direct interventions even in what appears to be major set backs. Those, whom are on this site, personally knows God, through Jesus the Christ has hope and the light in this dark, dark world to help all, here, to victory.

    • Punished For Life

      @David,
      Yours is a perfect example of how productive the SO can be after their sentence is done and over. (I will assume that you have served your time and probation/parole)
      I admire you for being involved in your community.
      Not all cops are bad. If you weren’t caught up in this registration scheme, going to the breakfast wouldn’t even be an issue. You would just go and say thank you to your community. As it stands, you are constantly wondering when someone will tell the “Chief of Police” about your history. If he does know you are a 290, he’s a good man. We go through life with that knot in our stomach around every turn. It’s punitive. Registration is punitive. Registration needs to go away.
      I say you go to the breakfast and enjoy.
      Frank

    • Kris Klein

      After serving my time, I’ve stayed away from cop shops except to register. I know this function is being held somewhere else, but it still will have a feel of a cop shop although many will be in plain clothes. I’m not knocking law enforcement, but they’re still a cog in the system that perpetuates this immoral system called the registry. If you’ve already been active in community activities and city government, I’m sure they figured out (especially the cops) that you’re a 290 registrant. And they probably overlooked it if you have been doing good in the community. In your case, I would probably attend the function but DO NOT (like some suggested) go broadcasting yourself as a 290. You could be in a don’t ask don’t tell situation. As long as you say nothing, and individuals at civic functions you’ve been involved in have never asked you, they’d accepted you. So don’t rock the boat

    • Harry

      Go! David. I live in a small city and most cops know me and my pass and I have heard officers tell people that “Harry is a good person”. Go there as the good person you are, because 99+% of the RCs in this State are good people.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      There is no legal prohibition on you going. So, if you want to go, go. As for Concerned Registrants comment about possible negative repercussions, I don’t know what that could possibly be.

      You don’t have to tell people you are are registrant. However, I will say, if they otherwise find out, there is no reason you should feel embarrassed or ashamed. Just pint out to them that that means you are the only one there who is believed NOT to have committed any new offense, since if you had, you would not be a registrant. Being a registrant can actually be looked at as a badge of honor, as there are no registrants known to be committing new offenses, those people don’t have to register, because they get arrested and are sent to prison. Your registration is a badge that says you haven’t done anything wrong.

  21. Lake County

    A new bill signed this week will make it easier for the wrongfully convicted in California to prove their innocence and be released from prison.

    On Wednesday, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1134 into law:

    http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48003:new-bill-makes-it-easier-for-the-wrongfully-convicted-to-prove-their-innocence&catid=1:latest&Itemid=197

  22. B.Wat

    I went down to the local cop shop here in San Jose, yesterday to update my annual price club membership. I was told I had to fill out an extra copy for The California Department of Justice, because my case was so old (1988), they need to update my info every 10 years. I never had to do this before, and this is the 29th time I have had to register for this B.S. Has any body else had had to do this?

    • O.A.L.

      I’m looking for others in my area that have some miles behind them to talk to and possibly fellowship. San Jose is a very lonely place these days. If anyone would be willing, let me know here and we can figure out a place to meet.

      • MS

        O.A.L. I might not be that much farther along than you (probation ended earlier this year) but I might be able to provide some advice if your offense was possession. I’m not in San Jose but not too far away.

        I was granted an early termination from probation, 17b reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor, and no longer listed on the ML site. Just know you’re not alone.

  23. Harry

    There should some type of common communique that RCs can be sent out, publish, post and or display stating, ‘that 99+% of Registered Sex Offenders are good and safe people’. We need a PR drive.

    • mike

      I have been saying this for a long time. That and be systematic about recruiting RC’s and their families to join local or state groups. There is strength in numbers and that would potentially help in raising funds. Even $5 or $10 a month would generate substantial funds funds that could be used for legal actions and money to create and fund a PR campaign. I also wish more would contact, CNN, 60 Minutes, Full Measure or Fareed Zakaria to investigate the entire SO issue and then publish their findings.

    • New Person

      CASOMB should be the one publishing their reports to all California media. The only way I knew about the low re-offense rate was reading it here.

      What’s the point of the CASOMB again if it isn’t promoting these findings EVERYWHERE!!!! Their lack of propagation of the re-offense rate dropping for the past four years, with the last two years under 1% is a form of censorship that does not want the public and courts to know the truth.

      That is why the Ca judge who dismissed the case with prejudice can say that once a sex offender, always a sex offender despite what the CASOMB (California Sex Offender Mgmt Board) has empirically researched!

      • Chris F

        My question is, what caused the drop in re-offence rate?

        Unless there is proof otherwise, those who are pro-registry will claim that the registry and tougher punishments and restrictions are causing this to drop. This would be a major blow against us.

        • Timmr

          Ay, they could say that, but I don’t see that conclusion made here. Indeed the recidivism rate, including parole violations has gone down since the last report, so one can assume they are not tending to violate parolees so often. One can even go the other way and make the argument that less agressive violation policies produce less re-offense rate, but there is no other proof of that in this report. Nor can I find any mention of the affect of general registration laws on recidivism in paroled registrants in this report. It just doesn’t go that far. If they wanted to prove a link between harsher registration laws and reduced re-offense, they would have to counter the miriad other reports that show the opposite, the counter productiveness of the registry. I am just afraid we show people this one page of the report with the pie chart. It makes registrants look like die hard parole violators at 90.8 %. Not so. 56% of registrant parolees in this report went back to prison, not that much higher than the average of 46% of all parolees. And look at this: there were 8989 registrants released on parole. Of that number 5041 were sent back to prison. Of the 8989 released, only 31 return for a new sex crime. Do the math, that is a 0.35% re-offense rate after 3 years. That 1/3 of 1 percent rate would go down if we look at other documents. In addition, the CASOMB report shows the rate of re-offense goes down as the years add up, to a point where after 17 years of no re-offense, the risk of offending becomes no more for a registrant than the general population. So it begs the question, with the courts having all this government information readily available, where do they come off defending the frightening and high myth? If the legislators are ignorant, it is willfully so. If that is somehow still constitutional, it can not be ethical. Judging peoples lives on the slide is unethical, at best. When one looks at the pain this ignorance is causing those who have done nothing so evil as want to live a life within the law, it comes down to the level of immorality.

      • What, me bitter?!! 😠

        It’s cynical, but why would they have any interest in publishing data that might lead to their demise. Besides, the politicians who appoint the CASOMB people certainly don’t wish to have their preconceived (albeit erroneous) assumptions challenged by any actual facts.

  24. Brubaker

    Tears for Fears song as lyrics.. ..
    “Time to eat all your words
    swallow your pride
    open your eyes”…
    The words fit on the news of new California justice law signed by Govn. Brown and its about time court officials held accountable. Thanks Govn. Brown…!!!
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-prosecutor-misconduct-20161003-snap-story.html

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 *

.