ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


Sex offenders will have to disclose email addresses, user names under new law

Sex offenders will soon have to report their email addresses, user names and other Internet identifiers to police under a bill Governor Jerry Brown signed Wednesday.

The bill, authored by state Sen. Ben Hueso (D-San Diego), will apply to people convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2017 of Internet-related sex crimes. Full Article

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The change to the law to include only those convicted after January 1st 2017 still doesn’t change the fact that it chills the free speech for those individuals.

So why couldn’t IML have been setup the same way..going forward instead of backward compatible and grossly unconstitutional?

Because it would expose the lawmakers for the liars that they are.

Post facto at it’s worst.

Doing so would be the government admitting that IML is punishment. Ex post facto applies only to criminal punishment and, therefore, retroactive punishment cannot be applied. By calling it a “civil registration scheme”, it’s civil, and NOT punishment and, therefore, the protections against retroactive punishment to not apply.

Even though the “civil” punishment for violating the “regulations” is a felony – go figure.
they have it greased on both sides…

Registration is a “civic duty”. Thus, making this a service to the state. Any service without pay or the consequence of not doing said service rises above loss of pay or loss of job (to register in our case) is called involuntary servitude. There are other factors, but it still fits. That’s why prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude exists in the US and California Constitution. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

Since registration is not punishment, then it is compelled service. It is forced service. It is coerced service when imposed. Long ago in California, registration was identified as punishment. Now it is not considered punishment. It had to be considered punishment back then b/c it met the threshold of involuntary servitude. How it switched, I don’t know. But no one has brought up involuntary servitude to combat the “civic service without pay and full felony penalty when not complied with said service”.

The collateral consequences of registration such as isolating a certain group and preventing them from living in certain locations or attaining a job falls into the Bill of Attainder.

As for “having it for both sides”, this occurs when no one stands up for the fact that it is involuntary servitude. Forced application of registration service for a membership with felony penalty is involuntary servitude – but no one on the SCOTUS ever alluded that registration is an application of involuntary servitude.

If registering is a required civic duty, i’m a consciousness objector as I firmly don’t believe in it and it is against my religious beliefs.

Oh but this issue was raised in nys, the judge dismissed te entire lawsuit with prejudice that was filed in the northern federal district in april 2015. The suit claimed it was both slavery and involuntary servitude, in addition to numerous other claims. The dismissal was expected to protect the governor and his henchmen who are all corrupt. Then the court f apeals dismssed the apeal n a technicality even though it was by right.

Told everyone, we’re just slaves, citizenship is meaningless.

wow what a loser ben is, If I was convicted after this date I WOULDNT DO IT EVER, PROVE it that its my email address. Its called MORE GOVERNMENT DATA COLLECTION Our govt has gotten TO BIG and TO EVIL and imho needs to be overthrown ASAP.

So does the new ‘law’ say what the punishment for NOT doing it is ? is it a failure to register ?

I recall seeing ben posting a sex ad on craiglist trying to sell himself ! ahha

Ben Hueso is a convicted drunk driver. I’m thinking we need to expand the scope of registration to include DUI offenders; you know, “to protect the children”.

it may seam more than reasonable since drunk drivers -and anyone that has taken a human life for that matter- are clearly known to kill and maim any and all -children included. how many lives and families have been shattered by the death of such an enormous amount of innocent victims attributed to drunk drivers?

those under supervision for dwi (and manslaughter) should reasonably be under such scrutiny as they represent clear and present danger. as such, anyone having been convicted of vehicular manslaughter should be barred from international travel in the sound belief that he is there clearly to drive while intoxicated in a premeditated attempt to kill or main innocent citizens in the country of destination.

and so on…

drunk driving (and manslaughter) registrants in turn should expect their own families to be subject to ex post facto implementation and unwarranted intrusion and inherent violation of the constitution rights of family members.

the database can make certain that friends of children of drunk driving (and manslaughter) registrants are notified that they should exercise caution when accepting rides from (or being around) these subjects.

in practical application locally, people can go run in the opposite direction or otherwise protect themselves when one of these subjects is within a particular radius etc. they clearly ought to restrict where their children play in hopes of keeping them from being victimized by a drunk driver or a person convicted of manslaughter.

the sky is falling… pass a law so i can feel good about the whole thing, no matter what the downrange impact to families and children of registrants.

such laws should accordingly enlist ben’s sense of public service by rolling up his sleeve and making drunk drivers subject to similar prejudice and subsequent lifetime entrapment.

at this point it seems to futile attempt to apply logic to such demagoguery. god loves you ben.

Very well articulated “J”.
I think that “Uncle Ben” should be forced to read your post. I believe I would put that in a letter and send it to his desk.

We’re all just a bunch of free range chickens in an open air prison with zero privacy, safety or security whatsoever.

I would just make up one of those “10 minute email” things just to give them in order to make them feel IMPORTANT and to pacify their “we’re protecting children” with this feckless measure/initiative.

I’m surprised they didn’t want to know what color socks we have.

Of course this is going to be challenged.

Drop kick me congress through the goal posts of life… While chicken feathers fly and free range chickens roam aimlessly waiting for the final solution…

It’s a silly bill by a silly man, who needed a “win” after his DUI arrest and conviction, bought and paid for by a power hungry Facebook troll. It had to be gutted to be pushed past committee without the ex post facto and other issues that got that portion of Prop. 35 ruled unconstitutional in the first place. And yes, it will be challenged, as soon as the first poor soul is convicted under it. Until then, it won’t be ripe for challenge. But isn’t that the way of the S.O. world? Write garbage, push garbage, sign garbage, and then let someone sue and have the judicial branch declare what we already know? We’ve danced this dance so long and often…Let’s do it again.

Ben should strongly consider voluntary chemichal castration to do his part to help keep children safe.

The biggest hypocrites are usually the ones who push for these laws. We all know about John Walsh and his admission of statutory rape. The assistant D.A.. who prosecuted my son’s case got reprimanded for a ethics violation involving DUI which repeated would have led to a mandatory minimum sentence which is what put my son away for a sex crime

“We have learned that the internet has become extremely popular for sex crimes,” Hueso said. Keep a eye Benny, he has more experience on this than most RCs.

Here’s another case of The bill, authored by state Sen. Ben Hueso (D-San Diego) and signed my
one of the most liberal Governors (D-Jerry Brown) in all 57 States (per Obama). We just can’t count on Democrats to be in our corner, as they once were.
I’ve been saying for some time now that we need to look to those who really abide by and truly believe in our “Constitution”.
I’m sorry, but this is an example of more trashing of our Constitution. The current Administration has absolutely trashed our Constitution. That “trashing” just filters down to the State and Local levels across the board.
I believe before I vote I’m going to bluntly ask this…”Do you believe in our Constitution?” Next question…”Do you believe that RC’s are being treated according to our founding fathers aspirations?” Their answer will make the voting decision simple. I’ve been watching this registration process morph over the past 26 years into something that looks very much like this. Since we don’t have “Communists” to kick around any longer, let’s just screw the hell out of RSO’s. If they try to fight us, we’ll just screw them harder.

Frankly, I don’t know why any of us continue to be surprised when these bills are authored by, or supported by, Democrats. As for Jerry Brown, he transformed himself ages ago while running for Oakland Mayor into a tough-on-crime politician.

Republicans are somewhat worse for us but Democrats are pretty terrible and going back at least forty years ago to Mondale in the U.S. Senate.

Republicans aren’t ‘somewhat worse’
They are faar worst. Yep, it sucks having to report your email but at least yah get to have one. Think it’s bad in Cali? Come to Georgia. The republican controlled state has an ordinance that bans the state’s sex offenders from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and parks. So if a church is handing out food, don’t stay in line too long and don’t think about worshipping inside. Libraries….imagine libraries are off limits so don’t go checking out books. We have tent cities here and around Atlanta where homeless offenders are living. I’m very luck to be grandfathered in at my place but I still can’t check out a book. Republican Governor Nathan Deal makes California’s governor look like a choir boy when it comes to who’s hardest on registered sex offenders
(4 minutes and 21 seconds)

Yup. And I suspect the states that brand “SEX OFFENDER” on the drivers license are not blue states. And look at which Supreme Court Judges are generally supportive.

So basically what you are saying is that Governor Nathan Deal doesn’t give a crap about the Constitution. There are a bunch of them who don’t care about the constitution. All they care about is being re-elected. Most elected officials have no other skill to fall back on. They’ve learned to lie for a paycheck.
Ya’ll need Janice back there in them southern states to slam dunk some of those unconstitutional restrictions. I have no reason to visit Georgia or Florida.

It borders foriduh and south carolina. Par for the course. Xpct more human suffering at the hands of so called lawmakers.

We all should register 100 emails each, all of which we never use. Let’s overload the database. Surely they would take them from any RC, even those who do not have to. Then we legally use one we do not register. Ha…ha…help our brethren who are required to do this.

This sort of idea has been mentioned for years.

Sadly, it’s an awesome idea. And is the only tool I can think of that could actually be effective.

So why does it never work? We’re just not organized? No one is willing to step out and actually do it?

With IML, there’s a notification processes every time your “intent” changes. This one with email identifiers is easy as you point out. But even the “original” process is easy as well. An officer needs to take time out of their day to handle the paperwork. Many smallish stations have one person assigned to the task, so even just a small group of 4 or 5 could overwhelm them. If they don’t update your info, which you can see on the state website, then you can legitimately start calling/writing the state office as well. And the media “I want to update my information, but the police won’t do it.”

Almost 1,000,000 registered, a very small amount could make this happen.

But most know about this strategy. But it never gets attempted. Why?

You know what might be easier. If someone could create a website or forum for us that gives good ideas on how to sabotage (I mean update) our registry requirements. Things that people have tried and were successful. We can all share and help bog down the system.

It doesn’t even have to be sabotage, just following the letter of the law. Register every car, even if you simply enjoy test driving cars. Register all email addresses, even those 10 minute mail addresses. And update every intended travel plan, even if your plans change a dozen times a day.

But why doesn’t it happen? It’s a great idea. Most here complain about nothing changing. But no one does this?

There has to be a simple software that allows you to create thousands of emails on a daily bases. Then give them the new list each day (do not offer, or give them an excel file) Print out only. They will have to manually type every-single-one of them into their systems. Make the font very small, so they will hate their jobs (and the new law).

I like this thread about new ideas to thwart the assholes and their BS contrived system. We need to get organized. Here is my latest thinking:

First thing is to create a database of RCs who have valuable technical capabilities (ie. computer programming) and other professional skills such as management, finance, etc. I am certain there are multiple hundreds of us in the country.

Second, let’s brainstorm on the best ideas for furthering our cause. We should take a critical view of the entire registry apparatus and identify the points of weakness, ie. flooding the system with travel intentions, internet identifiers, legal challenges such as the Equal Protection clause, Bill of Attainder, etc.

Third, the business and financial experts work together to raise a modest amount of capital and we bid out the software development project to qualified RCs to create the software that will achieve our intended objective (see above).

A variation on this theme is to scope out one or more projects and then award a “grant” or “stipend” to the person who comes up with the best ideas. If the business and finance people do their job right the sums could become impressive.

Let’s embark on this and run it like a business instead of a church bake sale.

I actually have a related for-profit business idea that takes the aforementioned waaaay beyond what we are discussing today. I feel like Ahab and the registry bull^*’t is my White Whale. I intend to kill that MFer ASAP.

Big props to the leaders of the band but we need many more us and I am ready to stand-up and be counted. Fcuk em all!

If you have to report emails you should register several internet domains (, etc.) Then you set up an auto email router to handle any possible email address registered to your domain and forward it to a regular email address you use (most of the places you register domains offer this as a free or low cost service.)

Now, you run a program that generates a list of ALL possible email addresses for ALL the domains you’ve registered. Put them in a database. Mix in any other addresses you regularly use. Randomly sort things so they’re all shuffled in a different non-sequential order everytime you print them out. Print out the list with only a comma between, no spacing, in 3pt type (law doesn’t specifiy font size does it?) Deliver a copy of the book to your registering agency every single time you add something new. They can go searching to try to figure out what was added each and every time (remember you print them in a different random order every time you provide them the list.)

Oh and add a greyscale watermark that repeats over the entire page at a slant “This information is confidential and provided in accordance with P.C. xxxxx” The small font and background image noise makes it VERY difficult to scan with OCR software.

Good luck with the manpower required to track MY addresses oppressive government!!!

man these guys up here in Sacramento don’t even want you coming in when you change or add vehicles or when I enroll or unenroll in college every semester…they tell me to go away and report back at my annual and tell me just register with campus police.which I do at the beginning of every semester….talk about onerous thats 4times a year I have to register and if they did follow the law and made me report everytime I enrolled and completed a semester that would mean reporting 13times a year….sounds a little more than price club….then the FBI and dhs and cia all claim they dont havethe resources to monitor high risk suspected terrorist or to fight gun violence and gangbanging drug lords…ridiculous….cops are to afraid of their own shadows to go after real threats…thats why they shoot anyone every time someone even looks threatening….plus they get paid vacations for every waiting for them to arrest me for not reporting everytime I enrolled or unenroll in college because there’s no way they can say I intentionally failed to Report when I’ve been reporting for the last 8years and report every semester to campus police….even if they do arrest me it will just open the door for a habeas corpus in which I can get my motion and arguments in the courts without all the filing requirements im going to have to follow…as far as this Internet indetifier issue it’s just like I said amend reenact and pass through the courts because now it’s narrowly focused I hope I’m wrong but I’m sure we can expect the same thing with residency and presence restrictions….except those so called narrowly application will be retroactively applied…I really hope they don’t try to screw me out of my education because like I said that will be the last kick this dog is going to take…I will bite back and hard…

sorry for being negative and just whining like I’ve been accused of doing but we can all talk until we’re blue in the face but in the end the only way to get change is going to be through the courts…I wonder who these others that janice was talking about…Janice please let me and the rest of us know who these others are that are supposed to be preparing to get the real issues in front of a judge so maybe we can feel some kind of hope and maybe even be able to provide some kind of assistance even if it’s just suggestions or evidence or???? I know these lawyers are professionals and don’t pay any attention to or give weight to any of our layman suggestions but maybe we might be more successful if they did…just saying it’s insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results….

I hear people on this thread coming up with ideals to turn this new email law into a headache & bureaucratic mess for the state to handle. But be careful what you wish for. Instead of easing up on the law because the system gets overloaded, the state may just decide to ban registrants from having emails at all. Less paperwork and overloading the servers. At the same tome, legislators can still appear to be tough on sex offenders

Unfortunately, all that will happen if we overload any system is they will simply not process them and their database will have inaccurate data.

They use absolutely none of the data they currently gather anyway, so they really don’t care and the police just put forth the best effort they can within budget.

We will affect nothing by overloading them.

Banning RCs from using email cannot happen on 1st Amendment grounds, I am afraid that too many people on this thread lack imagination and courage. Sad.

Based on how California operates its government agencies, Former Citizen Detainees do not need to do anything extra to break the system. Just maintaining the system if each FCD has one email address will be too burdensome.

The state literally cannot afford the paper required to print the laws they pass each year. The red tape and hassle involved to enforce and maintain this law in CA, just as it stands now is to much for the state to manage.

Once they apply it to all of us, and they WILL close that “dangerous loophole” that allows the rest of us to not be monitored, they system will be crushed and they will try to pass a law limiting email addresses to FCD. Actually, the way things are going, the state might mandate that FCD can have email addresses, but they must be provided by the state

I wonder once that passes what the penalty will be for someone who decides to avoid the official system and sets up their own server in their home and uses a non-official email address?

I better stop now before I shoot myself three times in the back like Seth Rich did.

not to mention I’ve read or heard somewhere that it against the law to intentionally disrupt or attempt to incompacitate these laws…

Technically the only thing not illegal for FCD is breathing. A dangerous loophole Ben Hueso will surely try to close.

Hilarious how these people think we can be pushed and pushed without consequence.

Eventually…. some day… FCD will be pushed too far.


im glad to see a quite a few new names on here…hopefully words getting round about sites like this…especially this site…am i missing something..whats FCD renny…im not getting the acronym…also janice or moderator or someone please update us on who these others are that you mentioned are preparing to challenge these laws and wat they are going to be challenging or some kind of information besides just leaving us hanging and wondering….like I said give us some hope….it seems like the pendulum is starting to swing back the govs way again…

I realise how some may feel but don’t ride that ride. Just accept that even though we’ve made some headway, there will be setbacks but we will win this. It’s just a matter of time.

FCD = Former Citizen Detainee

A former American convicted of a sex offense who was stripped of their US citizenship with the passage of the IML.


This is potentially a very dangerous law. Just like 290 itself (which only required registration for 13 offenses in 1947), the internet identifier will grow to include more of us if it is not challenged in this early stage. It chills Free Speech, so it must be challenged.

So, I correct that this new law is admitting that requiring this reporting is punishment? If so, does this law say it must be handed down as part of the sentence, not a notice aside from the sentence as SOR is?

Does this provide an avenue to attack the entirety of registration, since 290 now specifically says it is not punishment, yet this admitted punishment will be in 290? Or, will this be a separate statute?

Or, are they still claiming that this is not punishment, doesn’t not violate the US Constitution, they simply decided not to make it retroactive?

And considering all this, how does the passage of this new law affect the challenge to the previous ballot measure imposing this requirement on all registrants? Does this somehow provide something to officially and definitively override and KILL PERMANENTLY this similar requirement but for all registrants in that ballot measure? As I recall, the challenge to that provision in the ballot measure is still in limbo. I think at the Ninth Circuit.

And I additionally say, and everything considered, including that this law will not apply to me: This is still VERY wrong, and surly still violates the First Amendment. And it absolutely violates the California Constitution’s much stronger protection of individual privacy.

In other words, is this new law amending that previous ballot measure, now more limiting to whom the requirement applies, or is this a statute or clause in addition to that previous ballot measure?

Increased punishment for human traffickers, but not increased punishment for registrants?!

I see a lawsuit and a huge contradiction to registration not being punishment.

If registration were merely “administrative” and not punishment and comparable to a “Price Club application,” then there would be no additional restrictions, no additional punishment for failing to register, and none of this intrusive information required. Everyone knows it, whether politicians or just the average joe off the street, everyone it seems except SCOTUS.

Compelled service coerced under penalty of law is strictly prohibited. That’s called involuntary servitude and it is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

Since registration isn’t a punishment, then what is the forced duty to register with a felony penalty if you do not comply and be forced to continue to register after your violation called? Involuntary servitude.

No one in the SCOTUS ever thought that registration is a form of involuntary servitude, at least that’s how I see it. No one else is bringing up this defense of involuntary servitude when everything about registration, especially the lifetime term, triggers involuntary servitude. NO ONE IS BRINGING THIS UP AT ALL.

Use law to fight law. Who cares if the SCOTUS calls it administrative? They just made registration involuntary servitude by not making it punishment. And no one’s caught the faux pas.

Look up involuntary servitude. There are four interrelated factors to prove involuntary servitude.
1. Contract – were you in perfect freedom? No. It’s part of your sentence.
2. Compensation. There is no compensation.
3. Term. Lifetime contract??? Yeah, that’s a red flag and totes obvee trigger for involuntary servitude.
4. Dominated by promisee. The state of California will hunt me down if I don’t register, impose felony punishment, and then return me to service of registering.

There is an easy way to prove registration is a service. If a person has a job and he is forced to change his schedule to accommodate for this registration service, then that person is forced to put into hierarchy of one service over another. One service, if not attended, will lose pay or lose a job. The other service, if not attended, will result in felony punishment.

I don’t know why involuntary service defense is avoided or not used.

There are lots of good challenges to be made against registration, but I am afraid this one won’t work as long as registration is seen as a civil non-punitive remedy needed to protect the people from those convicted of sex crimes.

They will claim that without the person being required to update information with a severe penalty for non compliance, that the public will be harmed by offenders that move to new areas and try to commit new sex crimes against unsuspecting neighbors. They will compare it to the other inconveniences that the government places on citizens with census, licenses to drive, licenses/training to do certain types of work, taxes, military drafts, and jury duty. The amount they pay for jury duty is a joke of a token amount, so would still fit this analogy.

Where all this logic fails for updated registration and email addresses though, is that those that really do want to commit more crimes will ignore these laws and probably won’t get caught in violation of them anyway..until they are caught for a new sex crime. The laws really just inconvenience those that are going to be law abiding citizens and do absolutely no good at all to protect from those that will re-offend.

great argument new person…. That will definitely have to be included in any court challenge in the future…..

Advise from anyone ??!!
Could anyone give me some advice ??!! I am 75% done with my Parole with the crime of sexual assault on an adult 261(a)(4).
I have monthly meetings w/ my PO along with urine tests .
Today my PO checked my iPhones out and shortly later texted me saying I had to close my Facebook account because I am not allowed to be on Facebook . As we know Face book is used for everything. Over the past 2 years I have been involved more and more with political activities blogging etc since this is the most important election I will see in my life time ( and I wont be able to vote in it ) Line 87 on my Parole paperwork is what I am in violation of.
I really don’t want to close my FB for so many reasons . Last week the Therapist from the weekly therapy classes that I have to take was asked about discrepancies in applications of rules between POs and what she told us several times that the POs have quite a bit of leeway on how they want to enforce these rules , if your PO is cool he will not fuck with your Facebook participation .
I want to figure out on how to respond to this in the right way that would continue to allow me too respond to the Political conversation on Facebook and participate with my family and friends on FB.
I could agree to stop any submembership to any groups that are not either non political or have no direct relationship to my family or friends
If I try to fight this guy I will lose . I could give him my Password so he could check for himself if I was involved with anything that involved communicating with pretty women .
I could as for a meeting with his supervisor and lay everything out and plead my case there .
Anybody Please give me some advice as I have only a short time to deal with this .
As we can see in the news sexual misconduct censorship is most effective to use in political censorship as it is the most PC victim class . Wikileaks founder Julian Assange hides out in an Embassy in London from falsified sexual assault charges from Sweden that is being used to silence him . Perhaps my PO does not like my Rants against the Prison Industrial Complex . I don’t know but any advice woukl be greatly appreciated !
Thank You fellow sufferers

While there is no law preventing you from participating on FB, you must deal with the clear and present danger – of having things messed up with your supervised release which may result in a revocation or other sanctions and complications.

Not being allowed to participate amounts to cyber bullying by FB and it’s arrogance and ignorance.
Facebook is actually in violation of 290 because they are preventing you from using business services.
Megan’s law amounts to state sponsored cyber bullying in essence.

That aside, do you want to damage yourself trying to prove a point with unreasonable people? Your PO is looking out for his own neck and obviously won’t mind throwing you under the bus if push comes to shove.

Your counselor said “if your PO is cool…” – well he doesn’t appear to be “cool” or going out of his way to make things easy for you. In a perfect world, they would try hard to let you return to normal, but it won’t happen at any risk to him or his superiors.

You may get a letter from your counselor that indicates your participation on FB is honest, healthy and therapeutic. To what extent that will help, I simply don’t know other than to have that in your file.

What really matters here is that harm could come your way in relatively short order if you anger your PO
and it will take months and even longer to iron things out.

This is tragic however a moral victory here could be costly – albeit unfairly. You could have your attorney petition the judge that presides on your case for leeway. Aside from that, the PO does not have anything to gain by being lenient and you are in a position to lose a great deal at this point.

I am being empathetic to your situation but with a reality check on what risks are involved here.
Someday you will be off parole and will be better off in many ways. In the meantime don’t tease a mad dog cause you in fact my be bitten.

Contact a lawyer. Do not give them your passwords EVER!

Your PO could just contact FB and have your account closed since FB Terms of Service does not allow Registered Citizens to have FB accounts. In fact anyone could tip FB off about your account. If your phone or computer is set to disclose your location, this will verify your status to FB. Anyone here with a FB account needs to make sure that your location settings are turned off and that none of your google accounts have your address. Political activism is not worth violating parole or probation.

In Texas where I am, you would first file a motion to amend conditions of parole with the parole board. You would have to state that the requirement has no relation to your conviction, condition is in no way criminal, and forbids conduct that is not related to future criminality or serve statutory ends of parole. If that fails (usually does fail), then an attorney has to file a civil rights case with a temporary restraining order so that you can immediately start using facebook again until this gets through the court system.

I am no lawyer though, and you definitely need to consult one so you don’t make things much worse for yourself with this short time left. It is good to show the lawyer you know something about the process by bringing up what I, and others on here, have stated. Be careful about getting a cheaper lawyer that has 95% of his cases as DUI because he won’t have the expertise or spend the time on your case that it needs and will just file generic requests that will get denied, but he’ll have your money.

catch in my experience and my opinion the only way to fight your issue is by filing a 602 appeal form with the parole Department..its an extreme Longshot unless you have an attorney prepare and argue it or if you’re incredibly articulate and know your laws and regulations on what and how parole decides and implement their conditions of parole…they are extremely difficult to fight but it can be done…I don’t believe there is anyway to force them to expedite your appeal either so it takes a quite a long time to get thru the process although there are time requirements for them to follow and meet…good luck man

Thanks guys this was exactly the type of advice I was looking for and I have almost decided my strategy . I will text him back with one last appeal to reason before doing what he askes . It would be nice if I could kind of put my FB site into” vacation mode” with a I will be out of town until June 15th 2017 but I would have to see how that would work . I don’t really want to restart my FB again and I want to keep the name I am using if possible . 10 mos left on Parole seems huge but I should be able to hit the ground running if I am patient .

Unless a lawyer tells you otherwise, I wouldn’t push your luck. It’d be a shame to see you wind up in prison over something such as facebook and politics. Neither candidate is worth a crap to begin with.

How is Ben Hueso still in politics after his DUI? Only in the world of California’s dysfunctional politics.

Maybe it would be understandable if he didn’t choose “sex offenders” as a scapegoat to project his inadequacies. But using “sex offenders” to further his very own political career says something about this guy’s faulty character.

Can someone clarify this applies to new registrants, this wording is concerning:

290.023. The registration provisions of the Act are applicable to
every person described in the Act, without regard to when his or her
crime or crimes were committed or his or her duty to register
pursuant to the Act arose, and to every offense described in the Act,
regardless of when it was committed.

290.024. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms apply:
(a) “Internet service provider” means a business, organization, or
other entity providing a computer and communications facility
directly to consumers through which a person may obtain access to the
Internet. An Internet service provider does not include a business,
organization, or other entity that provides only telecommunications
services, cable services, or video services, or any system operated
or services offered by a library or educational institution.
(b) “Internet identifier” means an electronic mail address, user
name, screen name, or similar identifier used for the purpose of
Internet forum discussions, Internet chat room discussions, instant
messaging, social networking, or similar Internet communication.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x