ACSOL’s Conference Call on October 12 – Domestic Travel

ACSOL’s first conference call will be on Wednesday, October 12, at 5 p.m. Pacific time. The topic of the call will be “Domestic Travel: Rules of the Road for Registrants” and the call will follow the same format as the 9/29 IML call.

Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055
Conference Code: 983459. ***corrected on 10/12. Moderator***

I look forward to having you call in.



***Listen to the Call Recording*** added 10/19

***ACSOL Conference Call Discussions***

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m converting a shuttle bus into an RV for the road. I plan to travel to various reform movement related events. This particular call will be very important for me. The last thing I want is to trigger another landmine like the one that got me in Nebraska when I did nothing wrong or illegal. (Nebraska demanded I check in on my travels to California. California let me “check in” but then Nebraska got me for “Absconding” because they then classified me as having “moved” without telling them 3 days prior.) I was forced at that point not to travel back to Nebraska. It’s stuff like this that needs to be fixed. It’s crazy that this kind of violation of human rights is allowed. Effectively, I was kicked out of of the state for 3 years.

It will be very interesting to hear if there are any pathways for free travel left in America for me.

Whew, I plan to call in and I hope I can get through. Because I’ve got plenty to say about this illegal form of slavery, employment, and taxation. I thank all of you at ACSOL for the opportunity to defend the constitution against the domestic enemies of this nation.

if i am correct thats 2pm here on the east coast, i wanna try and call in. if i cant can someone please post it so i can atleast hear whats going on. thanks all

I hope this is the correct forum and that I am on topic. I am wondering if an rso(off parole) can travel out of state without needing to report to any jurisdiction. Its a simple question but I can’t seem to get an exact answer. (Example:can he travel from maryland to virginia several days within a month?can he sleep in a hotel in va though he resides in md? Can he visit family in va though he reside in md- and I mean WITHOUT having to have his address listed in the familys jurisdiction(as THEIR address- as someone who Regularly visits. I’m so confused. Also,besides each states rules-what are the federal rules? If anyone has answers,please post. Thanks.

The earliest I can be at the house is 6 pm. Can I call after that?

Is there no way this can be recorded and posted online for future listening? Like RSOL has always done with their calls (in the Webinars section). This time is just impossible for me, but I would really like to hear the questions and answers. I have contributed significantly over the past year and think this service is warranted.

geez I’d like to know what the problem statement is. What is it that I have sit here quietly and loss without my knowledge

i cant even get on the call it needs a 6 digit pass code and the one given is only 5… i see now im a little early. but why does it ask for 6 digit passcode?

The conference call code was updated today around 3:30 pm. ***Moderator***

This Conference Call was a fantastically valuable public service…very sincere Thank You to Janice and Chance.

Best Wishes, James

Hope to hear the recording soon.

Great conference call. It dealt primarily with individual challenges experienced by those that have attempted domestic travel. I thought it was going to be more informational regarding some kind of a plan to reduce the burdens imposed upon us to travel. Still it was good information. The primary message is that if you are going to travel be very very careful and do your homework about your home state and the destination state. The system is rigged against us by not having any common rules for domestic travel between states. Our world is getting smaller and smaller. They remove hope, they limit movement, they remove all joy and then stand back and watch almost 900,000 Americans wither and die. Do I sound depressed or saddened? How can this happen in America?

I listened for the entire 90 minutes, and I wanted to thank Chance and Janice for the information that they provided. I already looked into the various regulations of States we might travel to, but it still helped to get a little bit more insight. I found the question interesting where it concerned States like ALabama that require immediate notification to the local LE if you have a layover of a few hours in that State. I could not clearly hear the answer but if you have to register while waiting for a connecting flight, that would be more than ridiculous. We don’t travel by plane, but the question should be of interest to those who do. All in all, the conference call was very informative but also reminded me of just how much trouble we and our loved ones have to go through, just to travel within our own country. Knowing ALL the laws in ALL the States at ALL times since they change periodically, is just too much to ask. Not even the local law enforcement seems to be aware of what exactly the rules and regulations are. How are we supposed to know, and how can this be enforced. We are not LE, or lawyers, and with the ever-changing rules that vary from State to State, County to County, City to City, it becomes convoluting and ambiguous. I just don’t see how this can be constitutional and should be considered for a challenge in court. No other group has been discriminated against like this. It is inhumane not only for the registrant, but for their families. Any chance for a lawsuit on this so we can travel without hassle. I kept hearing the threat of “failure to register” and the severe punishment it can carry. To my knowledge, it should only pertain if someone “willingly” and “knowingly” fails to register. Not knowing ALL laws in ALL States at ALL times just doesn’t fall into the category of willingly and knowingly. It can’t be expected to know more than the normal human being. But I bet, a judge would not see it that way, right? Travel should not become so complicated to take out all the fun. Thanks for everyone who fights for our cause. Together, we are bound to accomplish a lot.

To the CALLER that was talking about buying a lottery ticket in PRIM Please reply:

Im NOT on parole.prob.
I live in SO Cal
and am going to LV for a conf soon….
Could you post/REPLY to my posting with more specific details…
arriving there WEDS Night And would like to buy a LOTTERY Ticket at the place you mentioned…
(that is in PRIM but is a CALI Address ?) this way credit card purchase DATED WEDS NIGHT…)
then goto LV till FRI Night, return buy a new ticket..
and then leave LV SUN and on way back to CALI buy a 3rd ticket this way it shows I stayed LESS than 48hrs each time. (Avoiding registration in NV (48hrs)…

I DO NOT PLAN using my debit AT ALL in NV
I AM NOT FLYING (so no airplane paper trail)
I AM NOT TAKING MY CELL (so it wont register in a NV Cell site)
I AM NOT Renting a car (no paper trail)

Id really appreciate if your reading this as to WHERE in primm this Im guessing convienence store ? that sells lottery tixs is that has a CA address 🙂

Thanks so much in advance !
(Or if anyone else has the address of this place it would be appreciated a lot ! thanks !!)

I also hope to hear the recording soon!!!!!

I, too, attended the conference call and “raised my hand” to ask a question. Unfortunately, I had to exit the call at 6:15 and I was not able to present my questions.

Two questions that were not addressed, and I think are important:

1. Regarding residency and loitering restrictions. As an example, let’s use San Antonio, which earlier this year prohibited registered citizens from being at the downtown river walk area. Let’s say I travel to San Antonio and I leave prior to the triggering of Texas’ registration law. I am, therefore, not registered in Texas. I am, however, legally registered in California. Do those residency and loitering restrictions in Texas still apply because I am registered in a jurisdiction? Even if that jurisdiction is not Texas?
2. Some states are very specific as to when visitors must register. Unfortunately, many others are not. As an example, Nevada simply states that you are required to register within 48 hours of arrival. Our interpretation is that so long as we leave before the 48th hour, we have not triggered the requirement to register. Another interpretation, perhaps that of an overzealous DA, is that the requirement to register is still present; you simply have 48 hours to complete that requirement. Under this interpretation, even leaving the state before the 48th hour does not relieve the requirement to register. Unfortunately, the law is vague enough to allow this interpretation. And I know it’s a ridiculous interpretation, but I put nothing past an aggressive DA staring down the barrel of reelection.

Does anyone have any information that relates to these two questions?

Thanks so much.

Of note, my local Police Department said that even if it is a vacation, if I leave CA for 5+ days, then I need to notify my police (not just the state I’m visiting), which is different than what Janice/Chance state. Who knows who to believe, but considering the police are the ones who can arrest me, I’m probably going to go with them.

It appears to me the ACSOL linked Summary of State Registration Laws Concerning Visiting for the state of Utah may possibly be incorrect where it states “All must register “within 10 days of entering the state, regardless of the offender’s length of stay.””

It appears to me a visitor registers only if in the state 10 days or longer.

Utah Title 77-41-105(1)(a) uses the word “Offender” and also references two places in the code – one to specify who is a “Sex Offender” and how long visiting before considered a “Sex Offender” and the other to specify if considered a “Sex Offender” how long one must register. Utah 77-41-102(11) defines “Offender” referenced in 77-41-105(1)(a) which includes a definition of a “Sex Offender”.

Sex Offender is defined in 77-41-102(17)(b)(ii)(B) and states “who is:…
not a Utah resident, but who, in any 12-month period, is in this state for a total of 10 or more days, regardless of whether the offender intends to permanently reside in this state;…”

So I am thinking if I am registered and do not live in Utah, I can visit 9 days without registering.

It appears to me Utah 77-41-105 is confusing because then 77-41-105(1)(b) states what is shown in the first paragraph above.

I think 77-41-105(1)(b) means that IF one is considered a “Sex Offender” as defined in 77-41-105(1)(a), then one has 10 days of entering the state to register, regardless of the length of stay. Otherwise it would appear to me 77-41-105(1)(a) and (1)(b) are contradictory statements. But even if not contradictory, 77-41-105(1)(b), still does not make total sense to me after reading 77-41-105(1)(a) because if a non-Utah registered person enters the state for less than 10 days, one is not a “Sex Offender” but 77-41-105(1)(b) would require that non “Sex Offender” person to register even if one is in the state less than 10 days. I doubt it is the intent of the state to have one who is not defined as a “Sex Offender” to be required to register if vising the state for any length of time.

77-41-105(1) appears vague and possibly contradictory. Anyone read and understand legalese?