ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


CA DOJ Makes Significant Changes to Megan’s Law Website

The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) recently made significant changes to the state’s Megan’s Law website, including the addition of conviction and release dates on the profiles of about 50,000 registrants. The state agency agreed to add the dates as the result of a lawsuit filed in November 2015 and settled in August 2016.

“The recent addition of conviction and release dates is expected to help registrants find better jobs and housing,” stated ACSOL president Janice Bellucci. “Additional conviction and release dates will be added to the website as they become available.”

In addition, the revised Megan’s Law website has information under “Frequently Asked Questions” for registrants regarding federal laws. According to the website, federal law requires registrants to notify local law enforcement before they travel domestically or internationally. ACSOL has asked CA DOJ to provide the legal authority for notifications prior to domestic travel. As of this date, the agency has been unable to provide the requested legal authority.

Join the discussion

  1. Paul

    Unless I’m missing it, the information related to travel doesn’t appear to be available on the DOJ site.

    • Moderator (this is in the publicly accessible portion of the site)

      Registrant FAQ
      I need additional information about the laws that apply to me in order to stay in compliance. Can DOJ assist me?

      … or

      “About Megan’s Law” > “Additional Laws”


      • Paul

        Thank you.

        “Should” is far different than “will”, or “shall”. In other words, it’s “gee, we’d really appreciate it if you gave us a heads up.” To which my response is not appropriate for any forum.

        • Legalese of will and shall vs should

          Will and Shall are synonymous and are musts, which is why they are in laws, contracts, etc. Should is a nice to have, but not required.

          Cite the CA law of travel for RCs for clarification not someone who thinks they can add their own addendum or amendment

        • সাধারণ

          I have spent more than 30 years writing DOD requirement contracts…

          “Shall” is an imperative. It is legally binding.

          “Must” is a colloquial equivalent to “Shall,” but the courts have said it does not have the same standing as “Shall” and is not legally binding. Think of it as “Shall minus 3.”

          “Should” is a non-mandatory goal.

          “Will” is a polite request, or desire.

        • Tuna

          How about “may”? As in the IML (not to change the subject) provision that the State Dept “may” revoke passports without the identifier?

        • সাধারণ

          “May” is a discretionary decision.

  2. Timmr

    I’d like them to footnote which law is used for each of those conditions we initial when we register. They can put that up there on the website, too.

  3. Davidh

    I dont get the domestic travel bit. When did that come up??

    • Someone who cares

      It says if traveling out of state or internationally, the registrant “should” notify law enforcement and “should” provide their itinerary. Does not sound like it is mandatory? Or am I missing something?

      • Davidh

        it’s just that other than to check other state law we never concerned ourselves with inter state travel–I’m surprised it was mentioned

      • bluewall

        If its mandatory the police would be swinging by with some paperwork for you to sign off on agreeing to it

    • BA

      The way I see it if you are in a non sorna state (calif.) and go to (Arizona) a non sorna state , then there is no federal requirement, as these states do not comply being non sorna. Tell me if I”am wrong here? Check your non sorna states………

      • Bayarea RSO

        So, if you go to NV (sorna) from CA (non-sorna), you have to notify local LEO even if you stay less than 48 hours?

        Then there’s this: “should provide advanced written notice..”

        But, “ACSOL has asked CA DOJ to provide the legal authority for notifications prior to domestic travel. As of this date, the agency has been unable to provide the requested legal authority.”

        Am I caught in a limbo here if I want to visit NV for less than 48 hours?

        • less than 48 hrs in LV should be ok

          Less than 48 hrs in LV should be good to visit and not registering

        • The Atheist

          NV is not yet a SORNA state as that bill (AB 579) was stayed by the NV Supreme Court, thanks to attorneys Maggie McLetchie and Alina Shell. Just FYI…

      • Marc

        Crossing a state line is interstate travel, invokes federal oversight, is stated in SORNA requiring registration or notice within 3 days.

    • DPH

      I agree DavidH, when was THAT added?
      NO ONE informed the Cali RC’s that on the DOJ/LE during/prior/post annual reg.
      They have our addresses, why wasn’t this mailed to inform RC’s especially when we are NOT allowed to be looking on the MGL site.
      Good point, when is DaveH gonna chime in ?
      Now we cannot travel within or leave the State? ? ?
      Good for the ones’ who might be getting removed from the Reg (ML Site).
      Bad for all of us who want to go Fed jobs still no change there? And of course, re-visit IML.

    • American Detained in America

      I’ve traveled in state several times and refuse to notify anyone of this because I don’t see anything in the law requiring me to do so. I have yet to travel out of state, but when I do, I’m still not sure I will because this is unclear as to whether it is required. It doesn’t appear to be required, just that they wish we would.

      • RJ

        If you read the fine print in the paper that you sign to register, it says that if you expect to be gone longer than I believe 48 hours, from your county of residence, you are supposed to notify the police in your county and also the police where you are going. What if you expect to be gone only one day and have to stay in hospital after an emergency room visit longer than 48 hrs? Are you in trouble? The way I see it, you probably would be wise to mention it anyway to cover yourself. Sounds like parole eh? BTW, you have a thinking error. You can’t just not follow the law just because you think it’s wrong. It’s the law, so be smart and follow it, but work to change the law.

    • Steve G

      I agree, we RSO’s in San Joaquin County have recently been told that the US Marshalls office will soon be taking over Address verifications and additionally we will need to check out and check in with the US Marshalls office prior to travel to another state and upon return from that travel. Per the volunteer that does the registrations, this information is per DOJ. I don’t know what to make of it, unless this is just dis-information.

  4. USA

    Wonderful news! Janice and the State of California should be commended. The one thing I did note was the Static 99 test. As I had thought, how do you realistically test someone who have been crime free 15-20 years after their conviction? Per the website, many (or some) offenders are not testable and those released into the community for 10 or more years (unless they commit another crime) aren’t tested as well. Well done and this is clearly fair

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      You say, “Well done and this is clearly fair”

      I hope that is sarcasm? Because there is nothing fair about the Static.

    • bluewall

      With a score there is no risk level?

  5. Nicholas Maietta

    That’s fine and dandy, but that’s about 12 years too late.

    Everyone has always assumed the crime was recent.

    So I can’t travel without notifying them? When did THAT become law? (Or are they just publishing random stuff on their website?)

    This is only going to encourage more internet stalking, more potential for legal issues and more violation of rights at various points of people’s lives.

    • DPH

      Isn’t that THE TRUTH Nic M!
      EVERYONE assumes it happened yesterday, since no dates were ever on the site until NOW, they have more than half to go according to the percentages given earlier, besides the absconded and homeless around 19K

    • Timmr

      That’s what I want to know. They are always telling me I should do this or I should do that whenever I ask a question at my annual but can’t ever seem to cite the pertinent law or be consistent. And then there is the “well you don’t really have to, but you should notify us when you leave”. It is like seeing a sign on the freeway that says “should go 55” or worse having one sign saying Right Turn Only and next to that another saying No Right Turn. But we aren’t talking about a $200 ticket here if you get it wrong but years in prison for failure to register.


        I may be wrong but I don’t believe you can sue them for incorrect information, if you could prove it. Even if you record it, they’ll charge you with eavesdropping or something. I would never tell them I recorded them till I was able to hide it somewhere off my property. That way I could at least use it for proof to a lawyer I was telling the truth or a bargaining chip. 🙂

        • CA two-person consent state to record

          CA is a two-person recorded conversation consent state where both parties must consent.

        • Marc

          Just wondering if wearing a button that says you have no expectation of privacy, implies consent if someone talks

          or if you have a sign posted ” Security camera, audio and video recorded” if someone speaks its implied consent?

        • Timmr

          I go into the Home Depot and that annoying beeping while I am trying to find a particularly sized screw in mislabeled bins, means I am being recorded. I don’t know if it is also recording what I say, but someone who can read lips will find me saying, “F’n turn that stupid thing off.”

        • Nicholas Maietta

          I bet one COULD and somehow win for publishing false information. Especially since that information is derived from GOVERNMENT records about you.

        • You could sue

          You could sue either under slander, defamation or false light and ask for damages in addition to legal fees…..even the USG cannot be blatant about publishing false info


      I don’t think they give a shit about when it happened. Maybe and I say MAYBE a job might care but the general public? Nope, you’re a criminal. Even the employer bit is only good for those with lots of time served.. if you’re fresh from the DOC factory line, you’re probably SOL either way.

  6. Cool CA RC

    Not so FAST !! they still put down the CITY AND ZIP you live in not the address.
    I think the city and ZIP code should be removed as well.

  7. Cool CA RC

    #7 is WRONG
    It should reads…
    when a person is released on parole after having served a term of imprisonment in state prison for any offense for which registration is required pursuant to Section 290, that person may not, during the period of parole, reside in any single family dwelling with any other person also required to register pursuant to Section 290, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. For purposes of this section, “single family dwelling” shall not include a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons.


    Edit: To Nick M.

    I don’t think they give a shit about when it happened. Maybe and I say MAYBE a job might care but the general public? Nope, you’re a criminal. Even the employer bit is only good for those with lots of time served.. if you’re fresh from the DOC factory line, you’re probably SOL either way.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      This might be true for many, but from my own personal experiences, my exchanges tend to follow this pattern:

      Other person: “We should work together”, “Hang out sometime”, et cetera.

      Me: “Yeah, well, I will be up front and tell you now that i’m on the registry.”

      Other person: “Oh, that really sucks. Sorry to hear that man.”

      Me: “But it was now over 16 years ago.”

      Other person: “Then why even bring it up?”

      Me: “Because I use this tidbit of information to see how people react and then determine how I deal with them based on that information.”

      Other person: “Brilliant.”

      • Brilliant!

        That is Brilliant Nicholas! Good idea! You could do a social experience with a spy cam when you do this and document it for a documentary, where two person consent is not required.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          By the way, i have taught many people who are both registrants and NON registrants this. There are many variations of this method but it works flawlessly. You quickly can learn a lot about people this way. Being on the registry has really opened my eyes and ears.

          If recording in a public place, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus, legal to record both audio and video. It is a felony to record a person without their consent otherwise, unless you are recording law enforcement while on duty, but only if you are not directly interfering or obstructing their duties.

          Know your rights. 🙂

        • Thanks Nicholas

          Thank you for the info Nicholas. Very informative.

  9. Neil

    This is an important step in the right direction. The legislature directed the DOJ to update all MLW profiles with dates of conviction and release in part to protect registrants from the assumption that all offenses were committed recently. The DOJ was supposed to finish updating the profiles *over six years ago,* but simply ignored the mandate. It took a lawsuit by Janice before the DOJ decided to follow the law. If the DOJ feels it can ignore even existing, non-controversial laws designed to help Registrants, then prospects for additional reform are dim. Thanks to Janice and team for holding the DOJ accountable.

  10. bluewall

    Ooo.. nice and fancy.. but still no dates or risk assessment score or tool *looks over other’s shoulder*

  11. Fed Up

    Well my honeymoon is over. I just checked the new site and NOW I am a blue dot on my address, before I was not and now BOTH my PC’s are listed as well. I wonder how long until the shit hits the fan in the apt. building I live in… sick to my stomach right now…

    • Fed Up

      now wondering how long until I get a eviction notice all due to a stupid, consensual act done under duress 5 years ago..

      • bluewall

        You didn’t disclose this to property management
        on their paperwork?

        • Nicholas Maietta

          Criminal convictions have no place on housing applications. I know that HUD/Section 8 paperwork clearly states sex offenders and drug dealers need not apply, but there is absolutely no legal grounds to deny housing or even ask about it on any housing or rental / leasing applications.

        • Will A

          I don’t think a person who is listed on a Registry should ever disclose it unless there is a very direct legal requirement to do so or there is some benefit to the person. People who are listed should not play the Registry game by ever pretending that it is legitimate in any way.

          Everyone should also remember that landlords cannot evict a person just because they feel like it.

          When I first started Registering, I had an apartment complex have their lawyer send me a letter telling me that I had to move out. But they also offered me some money, I could look it up but from what I recall it might’ve been around $1,000. I counter offered with perhaps $4,000, I don’t remember. I never heard from them again.

          The key to dealing with anyone who buys into the big government harassment Registries is to tell them to go F themselves and mind their own damn business. I also like to tell them to go get busy paying more taxes for their big governments. Those people need to pay for their big governments.

          P.S. Because it is known that the S*x Offender Registries, and especially the idiotic laws that they have enabled and promoted, are not really for “public safety”, “protecting children”, or any of those other lies, there are no Americans who support them. People who do are not Americans. They are not the fellow U.S. citizens of Americans. They are lovers of big government who cannot mind their own business or leave other people alone. They are harassing, criminal terrorists, Registry Terrorists. In that respect, they are no different than ISIS. They harm Americans, their spouses, and their children. They must be treated as the terrorists that they are. Please feel free to share this fact with other Americans.

        • Fed Up

          No, I searched and searched apt. buildings until I found one that had a very generic application and did not ask and did not do a background check. All they cared about was a good credit score and money in the bank. 6 Month lease with month to month after that. I can’t seem to find any definitive information on whether I can be booted or not. Luckily the onsite manager loves me, been a perfect tenant.

      • C

        “Consensual act under durres?”

        • Fed Up

          a very long story but….. found out best friend of 25 years(navy/ college together) was sleeping with my girlfriend behind my back. I was very close to his whole family. I basically snapped. His 15 year old daughter whom I was very close too asked if she could come over and hang 2 nights before x-mas. She went into my room and stripped down to next to nothing.. I had been drinking, self medication due depression from the events of what had happened. Needless to say, I caved. She bragged to her cousin who then informed the family and my world came crashing down. Years of suicidal ideation, therapy, 70k in legal fee’s, fines etc. etc. I got lucky, judge looked at my history and letters I wrote and denied DA’s request to give me 2.8 years prison, got 5 years probation, got off in 4.

    • bluewall

      I have no problems… been living in apartments since my release 2003.. If you don’t give anyone a reason and don’t associate with your neighbors … I’m just a blue dot with other blue dots in the area .. I see the other blue dots have release dates and scores and stuff… but not mine…

    • Someone who cares

      How can your address show up now when it did not before? Was that an oversight? Are they already adding people who were excluded?

      • Fed Up

        Yes it was an over site. As soon as the revised site went up, blue dot and both charges listed instead of just one

    • Punished For Life

      @Fed Up:
      I feel for you and others in your position. When I found the dot over my address, I put my house on the market, sold it as fast as I could, and moved the hell out of Calif.
      Best of luck to you. It’s a shame that the State I once
      really loved, has become such a piece of shit, unconstitutional, overpriced sewer.

  12. USA

    Well, this updated website is a huge step forward. I do agree that it shouldn’t have Been a lawsuit to bring this change, but it’s still a win. Furthermore, it clears up a lot regarding Static 99 Testing. People have been arguing about this for weeks. As noted, not everyone will qualify for testing based upon their conviction. In addition, those who have lived a crime free life in the community for 10 or more years really wouldn’t be good candidates. So, if your still angry, I might recommend making a contribution to this movement to bring change. 2 years ago, we where (some of us with expunged offenses) banned from beaches and parks. Look at how these city requirements have been altered as well.

    • James

      USA is so correct….Janice has done so much for us already…her help, leadership and strength to take on these forces massed against us has been a Godsent gift.

      A Joan of Arc out of the blue…lol…!


  13. Timmr

    Vigilantes pass you by if your offense was a long time ago? That’s good to hear, unless your offense happened recently. My impression is your average vigilante thinks we are incurable monsters, and no amount of time will cure us.

    • New Person


      I read a PDF on US Supreme Court Decisions and SO Legislation by written by PhD’s Mancini and Mears. In their conclusion, they cited from the 2003 Smith decision:

      For example, in
      Smith, the Court asserted that it would be “conjecture” to argue that
      registered sex offender status results in employment discrimination or social
      stigma given that little evidence showed Alaska registrants were negatively

      We can now revisit this “conjecture” with evidence. There is vigilante out for SO’s. The social stigma exists today, which includes restrictions and banishment, such as the Fontana School District. Also, finding a job… SO’s are excluded from many job opportunities or volunteering jobs. For example, as an SO, you are not allowed to be a fireman. I read that in a newspaper where some felons would be allowed to be included for that job search, but SO’s are specifically singled out.

      Also, as for a job, you have to personally go into the police department on their time and schedule. What if you job conflicts to that schedule? The 2003 decision was based upon a “mail in your registration”. Instead, we still get compliance checks after probation is complete. That is added stigma that you are still a danger to society if the police continually come around to your house, sending messages to your neighbors.

      Now, this stigma still exists b/c in the CA tiered proposal, they want you to petition to be removed. It is your duty to presume innocence. That stigma of being an SO is revealed in that tiering proposal to where you are always a menace to society and you have to prove your heavenly innocence as opposed to the courts proving you did something wrong to continue to register.

      Worse of all is plethora of research that reflect SO’s have a very low recidivism rate, but none of the current legislation reflect those facts – propagating the stigma that SO’s are monsters and incurable. Why else would CA have a LIFETIME registration law?

      Just like the internment camps, eventually, the research works will eventually reverse all of this unconstitutionality. I still don’t comprehend how the SCOTUS did not see the parallel of compelled duty to register that is not punishment is not involuntary servitude. If it’s not punishment, then it’s prohibited.

      • Timmr

        From what I remember, the lawyers in 2003 did bring up instances of vigilantism, but the court downplayed that. You are right, though, now it is much worse.
        In the end I think the registry will go the way of the pillary, the socks and branding. It now serves this purpose. When there is a horrible crime involving sex or perceived as involving sex, the masses receive a form of group catharthis as the offender is punished. It used to be enough to punish just the offender, but it has escalated so that groups of former offenders get caught in the melee, and new laws are passed to satisfy that need for revenge. Eventually more and more will need to be punished, because it is like an addiction, greater and greater violence will need to be enacted to achieve the same amount of catharsis. The government will be spending more and more, because they gain easy political capital by making more severe and restrictive laws. But they will also be losing more and more credibility, because instead of making people feel safe and secure in their persons, they are feeding their fears. Just look at some of the comments after a particularly nastiy news story about a sex offender. They more often than not blame the government. The government then becomes even more extreme as it has promised complete safety. Eventually, the system will burn itself out, as great amount of resources will be expended on crime and perceived enemies, and little on the true general welfare. When will the intelligencia realize their demise and make changes to this system? That’s a good question.

        • Timmr

          Correction: STOCKS and branding, not “socks”. Have to quit using a tablet for this.

  14. Not Really

    Thank you. That is much more accurate. P.S. I didn’t use Tor to go look.

  15. Tired of this

    One thing that needs to be done is implementing a CAPTCHA to access the Megan’s Law site to prevent third party sites (such as homefacts, etc) from crawling the site and reposting the information.

    • Cool CA RC

      You will see ” I am not a robot” that is another replacement for CAPTCHA

  16. someone who cares

    What am I missing here? When I search an “offender” and enter a Zip Code, that person’s whole address shows up? I thought a Zip Code search would only show the vicinity in that area? Can someone explain the “Zip Code Only” Category which would be if you were a Tier II, correct?

    • Anon

      If you select zip code it will include those whose addresses are listed and everyone without address listed but living in that zip code.

  17. ExpatRFSO

    I re-registered due to a move recently. I asked at both the city I am exiting and the one I moved to if I was required to report domestic or international travel. Both said they weren’t aware of any requirements, and had never dealt with anyone required to do that, though the exiting city was just the jailer that handled registrations. The new city was the sex crimes detective. The detective said there is one registrant that calls in to tell them when he travels interstate “just in case”. The detective did not believe it was required. This is in California.

    Interestingly, they had me do a cheek swab for DNA which they said was required by the California DOJ. I had previously been required to give blood for DNA to the feds over a decade ago while incarcerated.

    • GRR

      Happy birthday to me and oh, happy register day. City of Ventura very professional, appointment on time, and in and out in 15 min. Hopefully my last time. 28th time. 1988

      They gave me a list of rules upon leaving along with the usual copies of the 290 forms. On the list of rules (I might add all where correct) present and residence rules (none), a few other rules (clarifications) and the new federal law for international travel. With this they gave me a form and said I must fill it out for international travel only and they will past it along to the feds.

      Be warned, just because your local law enforcement office and or state may or may not provide a form or tell you about the new federal travel law the burden is on us. Not providing the info to your local agency and you travel may turn into a long stay in the federal pen.

      • Renny

        “Not providing the info to your local agency and you travel may turn into a long stay in the federal pen.”

        Any Former Citizen Detainee who allows themselves to be arrested alive should have never broken the law in the second place.

        We should NEVER be taken alive again. Being alive is not always living. Of course, obeying the law is the better choice.

  18. Jimbo

    I travel often across the US. I always check the registration requirements of the states I am traveling to. Of the many states I have checked, few require registration if staying for less than 10 days or so. In Hawaii, they required me to register, but that entailed copying my driver’s license and writing my local address and phone number on the copy! Not a very formal process!

    Federal SORNA requires a change in registration within 3 days of a change of “residence.” My layman’s research shows that to be an actual change of home address – not a temporary visit. But, most importantly, federal SORNA is tiered and time-limited. Once the time period expires for federal registration, the restrictions end.

    Check the laws.

    • Registering grace periods vary

      I have only seen ten days in Hawaii as their visiting grace period. The grace period can be as short one day in Alaska, two days in LV (48 hrs as written) and three days in Washington for example. As you said check the local area.

      • Jimbo

        The Washington state law is confusing: if visiting, one needs to register only if there for more than 10 days. If moving there, one needs to register within 3 business days. Their law is confusing!

      • NPS

        I’m going to Seattle in March to attend a conference, and I read that Washington’s grace period is 10 days.

    • bluewall

      ummm.. if I was even close to retiring I would love to spend the rest of my life “just passing thru” the states and living out of a RV or camper… wonder what the provisions are if you just turn gypsy “Sorry, don’t have a home address, got a mailing service. I live in my RV and make sure I’m passing thru a state in a day to 3 days”

  19. FRegistryTerrorists

    The entirety of notifying criminal regimes before I travel is completely unacceptable. I am not going to sit around and accept it. Because of that, I am going to harm people by any means that is legal. I am going to identify individual people who support the Registries and I am going to do what I can to hurt them by any legal means.

    The beauty of war is that it only takes one side to declare and wage it. And I’ve done so.

    • Tired Of Hiding

      Count me in! I am ready to brainstorm this with you and make as much noise and “problems” as legally possible. There is no reason to allow these “holier than thou” pricks to get away with mass punishment of nearly 1 million US citizens!

      We can have a powerful voice and can make a difference. The legal system is very quick to add punishments to the ever growing list of additional restrictions and yet, quite the opposite when it comes to actually taking the time to make judgements and/or pass laws/rulings that have any benefit to those who have already “do the time”…”paid their debt to society”…and endured years of public shaming!

      This has to end. We can’t wait for the courts as they have already proven to be hostile enemies.

  20. USA

    Very interesting updates. I found it interesting to read that certain offenders (Who is eligible to be assessed) aren’t eligible to be assessed (10 years or more). So, I wonder how that will play out with a tiered system.

  21. mk

    Just checked my hubs info. My address as well as his is still listed even tho he has not lived here since 2006.
    He does come here almost everyday. But he does not live here. He eats dinner, charges (still on gps/parole) and goes to his place to sleep. Why do they insist my address be on the site? If its because he frequents the house, then every single grocery store or business he frequents, should be included as well.
    Its not that big a deal but it still bugs me.

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 *