ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments December 2016

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


It doesn’t matter what tier you fall under or what you did, the label is guilt by association while being considered an imminent and ongoing public safety liability

Remember, it’s not punishment according to our Christian SCOTUS! It’s just paperwork and having your foto taken until the day you die, no biggie! /sarcasm

I would never call SCOTUS to be Christian. I am a Christian myself, and their stance on registered citizens, as well as many other things, do not even come close to being Christian.

I wouldn’t want SCOTUS to vote based on their christian beliefs or any religious belief. Maybe you meant moral beliefs? Religious background should have no effect on the rule of law.

LM was looking for a way to slam Christians as ebilllll. People like that can’t be bothered by rational thoughts.

Well, if you really want input, then don’t sue because sit will be a huge waste a money. Sex Offender status is not a protected group and so private companies are 100% allowed to discriminate based off of that criterion. Save your money and find a cruise line that will let you cruise.

Hi Everyone,

I’m not sure if this is the right lace to leave this but, has anyone from Michigan,or anyone else for that matter,heard anything on on Michigan’s Registry. I went in on the first to register,and noticed nothing has been changed yet, even though Justice Kagan has denied our AG’s emergency stay. Ms Aukerman said nothing will take place until SCOTUS,decides whether to except the case or not,but that does not sound right to me.
Why deny a stay if if michigan refuses to make the changes now. any one or Janice have any idea why it has not taken place yet,or what the hold up might be,just don’t understand why the changes have not been made yet. Thanks in advance.

“Officials leave sex offenders’ election ballots uncounted”
“Sex offenders at treatment center sue for alleged rights violations”

My thanks to Bill Dobbs for this story. More kindling for the bonfire that will eventually burn civil commitment, and the Registry, to the ground.

David, thank you for linking that. I see a MAJOR lawsuit in the making over this one…can’t wait to see how this one turns out!!!

I can’t see the article without subscribing to the paper. Any other way to see it?

This is probably the only issue related to registered citizens that many attorneys will be happy to file a lawsuit on. I can’t wait to see the big win on this.

I am a RSO in CT and have been looking for go back to school for quite some time, I realize that each state has it’s own set of rules…so my question is: is there anyone here who can offer some assistance?

Anybody going to school that can answer this persons question?

I have the same question. I want to see about grants, college requirements and so on so I can get an IT degree!

In Cali, you can go back to college (I dunno if the SB26 bill will affect college campuses, but it’s easy for the state to do that if banishment is approved.)

If you haven’t exhausted any of your federal or pell grants, then you can apply for them and received them, provided you qualify fiscally.

Also, if you plan on going through the community college route, California also gives out a Board of Governor’s Grant (BoG). That will cover you tuition costs, thereby saving you more of your grant money to go to school.

Each college is different on how they want you to notify them, but check in with the campus police.

As for an IT degree, you might want to check out your local community college, CC. I know some CC’s offer vocational tracks that will help you prepare for the A+ certification (basic computer repair) as well as CCNA certification (computer networking). Look for Cisco Academy or something like that. If you do go through an approved Cisco Academy via your local CC, then they do give out a voucher that will cost you 50% less for the A+ and CCNA certification exams.

You can get your certifications as well as continue on with your education. Going through your local community college will save you so much more money than going through a private college as well as give you the peace of mind that the community college will never go under b/c it’s run by the state of California.

If you are going through this IT route via CC and using Cisco, then make sure you’re double checking with your counselor that you are, in fact, taking the vocational track as opposed to the educational track. If via Cisco academy, then your resources are provided all online (depending in your instructor). If via the educational track, then your will have to purchased all those books needed for the class.

Educational track is a well rounded program to help you gain a degree.

Vocational track is more like an apprenticeship as it’s application based (hands on experience).

You can do both if you want an IT degree, especially if you’ve never used up your grants before. Just make sure you try to look for a Cisco Academy to take advantage of the 50% off voucher (the % could vary). Those certifications are of equal value to degrees nowadays due to the need for experienced computer skilled personnel.

There are some universities that set aside money for felons. I don’t recall which ones, though. There are not many of them.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the info. I realize that each state is different and I’m not exactly sure what to expect here in CT. But that being said, CT is a “little ” more liberal than most states. I have heard of some people having trouble with applying to a state run college/university. I actually have a bachelors and am looking to apply to a private school for a masters.

Thank you. It was very helpful!

I’ve got a couple of online schools picked out but I may check CC to see what they offer. I hope to get a degree that I can telecommute with so CC may be out but I don’t want to dismiss it until I check.

Searched Cisco Academy and went to their website. You can search your area for schools that provide their program. 3 within driving distance.


I’m in college full time, I graduate this December. I’m in the school of Business pursuing a degree in Business Administration: International Business Track and a minor in Economics. (Ironic since I can’t fly Internationally). Any questions you have feel free to ask.

I’ll go ahead and answer some questions you might have.

– My state does not have any restrictions on sex offenders attending college regardless of level. Also schools here do not have a policy of notifying other students if an offender attends school, that I’m aware of.

– To receive financial Aid you need to fill out a FAFSA which you’re probably already aware of. The only stipulation to not receiving financial Aid (at the moment) is if you have been convicted of a drug offense while receiving financial aid. When you apply for the Aid, you are also eligible to receive grants. To receive grants is based only on your financial need. Since I’m over 25 and had a financial need, I qualified for a lot grants. In fact they have covered my tuition. If you don’t qualify for grants, you will be offered loans and work study options. Applying earlier is better. There are other grants out that you have to submit your application for, its usually an outside group that awards these through the school. You would have to ask the school about these grants. A lot of people apply for these grants so you might not get them and if they look you up, they could decide that way, i suppose.

-In filing out an application at my school you are asked about your criminal conviction. In saying yes you have to give a brief description about your crime. Furthermore I was asked to produce record from the courthouse where my conviction occurred. Then I was asked to give a more detailed written description of my crime. When you do that they basically want to see that you have learned from your mistakes kind of thing.

– Then I was accepted, my only strings attached to attending school was I could not live on campus, which would have been weird anyways since I started at 32.

– Of course colleges can deny you entry for a variety of reasons grades and criminal record. Applying to Public school would be a lot easier then private I would assume. I would recommend going to a community college first as a lot have agreements with the state universities that anyone who graduates from community college is accepted at the state school, thats what I did. Also this route is a lot cheaper. i didn’t apply for grants at community college, paid out of pocket.

– Every state is different I know in New York they notify students if your level 2 or 3. If students were notified of me attending school, i would not have attended. We do a lot of group work on and off campus. Your supposed to notify the state when you sign up for school in my state.

Hey Rob thanks for the encouragement! I am just so hesitant about applying to the school because of the discourse if/when someone finds out who I am. The school I’m looking to apply to is a pretty liberal school and I don’t think the dean of students is going to really care very much. I too am looking into studying something that deals with the EU and I’m worried that I won’t be able to actually use my degree if not allowed to travel abroad…

Do you work and go full time to school?

I am unemployed at the moment and leaching from my parents…not ideal for either party

Thanks for answering.
I should’ve been more specific but I guess that answers my question still. I wanted to know if there was a way to go to school full time and have loans cover living expenses as well. I suppose if you knew of a way, you’d be doing it.

I’m trying to get off my family’s back. I could easily do so if I had a little more monthly cash to start my business. I could find the time to go to school full time and run the business but working a job as well or in lieu of the business would be tough. Can’t answer calls while at work. Besides, not only is it hard to find work, it’s not easy to keep it. That’s why I want to create my own ‘job’. I’m sure you understand. Anyway yada yada.

If there is a way that you know please let me know.

Yes, you can. While I was on probation, I went back to graduate school (in California), and I was able to get both loans and grants (from the university). The ONLY crime barring you from obtaining loans/grants is if you have a drug conviction.

Awesomw. Thank you.

Don’t forget, we STILL have to Register with the Campus PD (Real & if not State, Security Office) if you are not online but ON CAMPUS. Be Safe. I did, and I wasn’t plastered all over campus, there are others.

As much as I would like to have my own business, I don’t know where to start. My main reason to go to school is so I can possibly move abroad and live…but I’m not even sure i will be allowed to.

If you’re interested in really starting a business you’re welcome to come to my site where I can give you pointers. I’m on a mobile phone. This sites format is very hard to carry a conversation on.

Thanks, but at the moment I have been told that I am not allowed to own/operate my own business.

You can probably challenge that condition, even if you’re on parole. It’s not inherently illegal and it’s too broad of a statement to be able to show that it relates to activity related to criminality unless your crime happened to be using a position to do something with an employee.

That’s great that you want to go back to school and I suggest that you choose your course of study and career goals carefully.
During my 8 years in the joint I was able to earn an AA and BA through the college program with a local community college and CSU. When I got out in 1994 I went into IT, got an MCSE and a few UNIX certs and enjoyed 10 years of 6 figure income. That all went to heck in 2004 with the Megan’s law web site and the super cheap and easy online background check. If a company is going to hire a CCNA they will be larger outfit with an IT department that includes dev and internal support which has visibility into every department of the company including HR, Finance, customer records, etc. They will be doing a background check on you and, unless your uncle owns the outfit, they are not likely to give the keys to the kingdom to a registered citizen.
I hate to seem full of doom and gloom and dash your hopes of an career in IT, but its just the way it is. During my career I developed a small clientele doing side work which I was forced to take full time when I could no longer fund a full time job as an IT Director, Manager or even sysadmin.
In 12 years have grown my business substantially and while I dread the potential ramifications of a client learning of my past, my income is diversified. If a customer cuts me loose I’ll only lose, say, 10% of my income rather than 100% if I were a full time employee. Plus, all of my clients are on annual contract. If they want to fire me, fine, they just need to pay the remainder of the year in full and we can part ways. I bust my butt, working harder than I ever have in my life, but that comes with being a successful small business owner, not a registered citizen.
If you want to go into IT, you’ll have to free lance if you don’t have an “in” with a company. Otherwise, pick a degree that will lead to a worthwhile career where you won’t have to worry about a background check or getting canned when someone spots you on the web.

Best of luck!

Thank you for answering. I’m aware of our problems with work all too well. It’s one of the reasons I oppose a registry so vehemently. All of these little wins for residency, presence and the like are great but in the end, if you can’t find a job, you’ll be homeless in a tent.

Anyway, I’m business oriented and I think with a telecommute and the potential of jobs worldwide with an IT degree and the fact that I live dirt cheap, I’ll be able to thrive, instead of just survive. I’m working on a long term retirement plan so I can live remotely and an IT degree would fit nicely I believe.

I know its not going to be easy just because I get a degree nor am I relying on a degree for my future. I have diversified my plans like you’ve done your work for more security. I think that’s smart of you All registrants should endeavor to downsize and diversify economically where they can.

Thanks again!

I guess you all want to make it on your own. I guess that is the American Dream, so more power to you. I am just surprised a group of unemployed and underemployed registrants doesn’t get together, form a cooperative or something, hire themselves, use their skills to economic advantage.
Seeing how we seem to be at odds with each other on this site, I guess that is improbable. But if we use our registry situation to our advantage, how much more do we conquer our opressors. Well, just blabbing…

I’ve tried helping and continue to offer that. I started a website for that purpose. I offered a place to stay for people. I offered you and others help in the form of advice if you’d just join my site so we’re not babbling on this site.

14 people have joined, 2 have commented and 1 of those was just trying to pry personal info out of me lol.

Only one person has taken me up on my offer to move here and he’s vanished seemingly.

There are two sides here Timmr. I have a lot of plans that could help but it requires the people who need help or want to help to get involved. Nobody can make them.

I do what I do because it is what I know and it pays the bills.
I am not clear what a co-op is or how to form one. Please share your knowledge and maybe we can get something started.
BTW – I’ve known one of my lead contractors for over 15 years. About 6 years ago he got popped for a minor crime and now walks among us as an RSO. I told him my own saga after his conviction. In a way we have a little co-op going.

“A cooperative, often shortened to “co-op,” is a business that is owned and operated by and for the benefit of its members.”
One great example is the Mondragon corporation, which started in a small town in Spain were citizens tired of unemployment started their own enterprise.
I too am doing what just pays the bills and I know how to do, but it doesn’t have much of a future.

Is there any chance you’d be willing to share what a year contract might look like? 🙂

I know that’s personal and sorry to ask but I’m curious if I could live on it in my present economic state. Of course I won’t hold you hostage if you choose not to answer. 🙂


Curious, but your denial of employment b/c of a registrant flies contrary to what the 2003 SCOTUS decision.

Shouldn’t that be a civil suit for you and said companies or the state? I’m presuming a lot here such that you had your case dismissed as well as not have a felony.

If a dot on a map gets you fired or denied for a job, then that isn’t a valid reason – again presuming you don’t have a felony and your case was dismissed.

My second sentence should be a pretty good indicator that my conviction was for a felony: “During my 8 years in the joint…” and, no, it was not dismissed. 😉

I was fired from a job in 2006 when the Megan’s law web site went up and a former employee, who after an unfriendly departure, outed me to the owner for the sole purpose of stirring up Sh1t in the company. I could have sued, but CA is an at-will state and, even thought it was clear, they do not have to say why they fired me.

The owner wanted to keep me on, but the staff was split 50/50 (I heard) and working there would have been awkward, to say the least. I did land another full-time job shortly thereafter, but took a big pay cut when the economy took a dump in 2010 and was laid off in 2011. That company was my biggest client in terms of recurring revenue and is now one of my smallest. But, I digress..
After the pay cut I was searching feverishly for full time work and I got so many interviews, but an employment offer remained elusive. Two or three interviews in and they would suddenly lose interest. This must have happened 6 or 8 times. In one case, I’ll never forget, I think the employer caught wind of my background minutes before the interview and did not tell the recruiter to cancel the meeting in time. They sort of pretended to interview me and showed me the door. It was chilly to say the least. Awesome office, too – penthouse of MGM building in Century City – but by the time I got home the recruiter called to tell me they said I was “Not a fit.” That’s the safe way to not hire someone and avoid a lawsuit.
Anyway, I am grateful to have built my little business and I am expanding. Ideally I can sell this thing and retire comfortably w/out being a burden my kids – they are #1 in my life and I want to get off that damn registry, or shut that thing down, so they do not pay for the sins of their father in any way, shape or form.

Thanks for sharing. I’m very happy to hear the outcome is still good for you.

I’m sorry to hear the law has “collateral consequences” upon you still. = (

“Otherwise, pick a degree that will lead to a worthwhile career where you won’t have to worry about a background check or getting canned when someone spots you on the web. Best of luck!” Yes, which degree is that.

If I had to start over under current conditions I’d start by making a list of careers that interest me, then narrow it down by those for which I have an aptitude and are least vulnerable to uneducated gossipy paranoids co-workers.
To that end an MBA would be ideal to help an entrepreneur start and build a successful business.
If I didn’t have kids I’d get a pilot license, leverage the house to buy a plane and start a charter service.

I agree, a career that puts you as the boss of your fate is the most likely to survive the registry.

Jobs suck. Just start your own business and then nobody can fire you and you’ll make 100% of the fruits of your labor. I’m sorry that the registry sucks, but it’s our life. Make the best of it.

Yes, we are going to make our own jobs, create our own lives, like the Jews and Gypsies had to do in Europe under legal and cultural rules that excluded them from participation in the main culture. Integration is becoming more and more unlikely as registration laws become culturally accepted and there is no return.

That sounds bleak lol. It’s not that bad yet Timmr. The current culture isn’t set in stone, we have cases showing that.

Which cases? The ones I have seen limit the registry, but assert the essential value of it. Don’t be fooled because some of the troops on the other side look like they are forced back a little and in disarray. There is the full power of the Executive and most of the Judicial and Legislative branches still lined up there on the other side of the hill to continue this crusade against us.

I know you know the cases I’m referring to. I understand your frustrations but time will show that you were incorrect. Nobody said it wasn’t going to be a fight nor that all of america would some day throw us parades. I personally don’t need anyone’s validation of my life, I just seek the courts recognizing that they’re wrong in our case. It will happen I believe in the next 10 years, maybe by my suit or by many suits. Have hope, because there is hope.

Merry Christmas Timmr and All!


If you’re going to a community college or state school you should be fine.

Some schools, the private ones, will do background checks as a means to screen their student applicants. However, if you have a compelling personal essay outlining your struggles you may sway the majority, although unlikely. Try anyways. The worse they can do is say no.

Thanks. It will be one of those when I go.

The reality is that getting an education or training that far exceeds the training or education you may have needed before becoming a registered citizen is the best way to for most of us to overcome the handicap of being registered.

Disclaimer; 20-years ago, I was convicted of 1 count of attempted lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 16. I spent 270 days in jail and spent 5-years on probation, which I successfully completed without incident.

In an effort to rehabilitate and to give myself the best chance to recover from my past mistakes, I returned to school to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees in microbiology and molecular biology.

During my time in academia, I felt no discrimination from my academic peers, however, the Florida university I attended for my B.S. and M.S. degree revealed the my status and the status of every registered citizen enrolled at the university by email – the email was sent to 30k plus students at the university, some of which were my friends who were unaware of my past. The “notification” email was NOT sent to the registered citizens so, we were all caught by surprise. When the news was made public, without exception, my classmates and professors stood beside me – and many of them were outraged that my status was shared so broadly.

I had a similar experience when I attended graduate school for my Ph.D. The application I filled out to apply for my doctorate studies did not ask for my conviction record or even ask if I had been convicted. Once I arrived and was doing my lab rotations, I was called into the office of the Department Chair and confronted with the fact that I was registered. I was told that the university would post pictures of my around campus and notify the students, faculty, and staff about me. To my surprise, the confrontation meeting was also attended by two female professors who defended me and said that they would be willing to support me if I opposed the sanctions the university had proposed. The university ultimately (and quite quickly) said that they would not post pictures or notify anyone other than my supervisor.

Fast forward a few years; I successfully complete my Ph.D. and remained at the university for a few years as a Postdoctoral Scientist on NASA-funded projects and other funding to support the work I did in Graduate School. The work I did for my Ph.D. was patented by the university.

I have since started working for a large consulting firm. The firm knew that I was a registered citizen but they abide by the premise that the past is the past. The “Ban the Box” – second chance provisions are taking hold for even the folks like us and we have a chance for a second chance.

It is sad to say but true; when you fall as many of us have, we have to hold our heads up – apologize (if appropriate) and rise above our past. We will stay in the hole – regardless of who dug the hole – until we decide to crawl out.

I say this to let everyone know that investing in an education, a craft or a business is worthwhile. Federal student loans are available to registered citizens and I would encourage you to find ways to crawl out of the hole that many of us find ourselves in after a conviction for a sex offense.

Impressive… Excellent advice and my feelings exactly. It’s a daunting task for us indeed but nobody except you can choose to move forward with your life. I’ve made plans and choose to rise above my situation!

I am posing a hypothetical question for everybody.
With California defying the federal gov’t on immigration and sanctuary cities, I wonder if any of these sanctuary cities would be willing to harbor a registered citizen who might be out of compliance? I know the answer, but seems like laws are just not enforced equitably throughout this (and other) states. We all know what the public perception of a registered citizen is, but what about cities that choose to harbor active felons, drug dealers, illegal aliens…is there some equal protection issue here? Just curious.


My thanks to Bill Dobbs for the following:

60 years. Six decades. That’s the prison sentence imposed by a federal district court judge in a child pornography case. The Department of Homeland Security was involved in the investigation and prosecution. The defendant took an appeal; on June 14 a three judge panel of the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 60 year sentence and sent the case back to district court for resentencing. Then something unusual happened–the decision was withdrawn. A new and presumably final ruling was handed down December 6 with quite a different result. The same three judge panel upheld the sentence as “reasonable.” More about all this below: Thea Johnson, a federal defender in NYC, has a blog post about the latest ruling, followed by a link to the decision. Farther down is commentary, by a pair of lawyers, about the now-withdrawn ruling and a link to the court’s earlier decision. If human lifespans are increasing they sure aren’t keeping up with extreme sentences such as this one. Individuals must be held accountable for wrongdoing but what about an opportunity for change, for reform? 2064 remains the defendant’s expected release date. –Bill Dobbs

Federal Defenders of New York Blog | Dec. 8, 2016
60-year Sentence in Child Pornography Case Is Found Substantively Reasonable

By Thea Johnson

Excerpts: On Tuesday, the Second Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Brown. The opinion examines defendant Nathan Brown’s 60-year sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. The defendant pleaded guilty to 3 counts of production of child pornography and 2 counts of possession of child pornography.

The opinion presents an interesting debate about how the federal system punishes defendants accused of child pornography charges. I encourage defense attorneys to check out both the concurrence and dissent, for some powerful arguments about the risks of unreasonable sentences in child pornography cases. MORE:

US v. Brown
United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals No. CR-13-1706
Opinion issued December 6, 2016:



Second Circuit Blog | June 29, 2016
Divided Court of Appeals Vacates Child Pornography Sentence for Procedural Reasonableness

By Jessica Rice and Harry Sandick

Excerpt: While the Court insisted that it “express[ed] no definite view on the substantive reasonableness” of Brown’s sixty-year sentence, it proceeded to analyze in some detail whether an “effective life sentence”—one that typically is reserved for the most heinous crimes, including murder—was warranted in Brown’s case. Noting that “the harshest sentences should be reserved for the most culpable behavior,” the Court distinguished Brown from murderers and from more violent sex offenders who rape and torture children. MORE:

US v. Brown
United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals No. CR-13-1706
Opinion issued June 14, 2016 [Note, this opinion was withdrawn.]



I remember seeing a local news short where a man received 500 years for production. I guess it is not a deterent when someone only gets 60 years. By God, there is a chance he will get parole and still enjoy a couple of years of freedom before going six feet under. What sort of woosy punishment would that be?

I thought this was and interesting government site full of statistics on crime.

Has questions and answers like this question:
How many persons in the U.S. have ever been convicted of a felony?

A bill is currently working its way through the Minnesota statehouse that would restore the right to vote to some 47,000 Americans, all of whom have been convicted on felony charges and are currently on probation or parole. Under existing Minnesota law, it is illegal for these 47,000 people to vote in elections, just as it is for more than 4 million other non-incarcerated felons around the country.
This is a good article discussing how politicians think about this issue.

Felons are becoming a potentially significant voting block. The BJS says 1 in 37 adults have been to state or federal prison. I have also read elsewhere that many felony convictions do not even result in prison time. I have heard that it is approaching 1 in 10 adults having a felony conviction. If you can give back those felons their voting rights they will remember you at the polls.

Starting my birthday weekend off today with a trip down to the local PD for my yearly “non-punitive” registration. Oh wait, had to take the day off from work with no pay to accomplish this, so can somebody remind me how this is “non-punitive”?? Nothing like a little depression to start off the holidays!

First Compliance Check in my new home, new city, same county.

Knock at the door. I answer, Officer is standing there with the standard paper with my photo and information. He says, “well obviously you are living here now.”
Do you still work at XX? I answer yes.
Do you still drive XX? I answer yes.
Is all the information you just told me correct? Yes, I just registered last week.

Can I get you to sign here? (The page has an “under penalty of perjury” section).

Now mind you I just registered last week, for the move and my semi-annual.

I ask him if this is considered an investigative stop? (My kids are standing behind me) He pauses, surprised, and answers, “Yes, it is.” I then asked what his individualized reasonable suspicion is. He replies, “look this is the way its done here. You will get a visit in the middle of the six month requirement. This is just how it is done.”

OK, but no where else in Utah have I ever been required to sign anything in a compliance check.

“Well, you did in American Fork,” he asserts. I explained how odd that was since I never lived in American Fork. “Well, you did somewhere, I just looked it up in your case file.” I explained how another city would come by, only once in 4 years, and as soon as they saw my face – they walked away and did not stop me to ask questions.

I again pushed what individualized reasonable suspicion he had to initiate an investigative stop, and what his legal authority was for being at my home. He again asserted, “This is just the way it’s done here. If you have any questions you can talk to my supervisor.” I got his supervisor’s name and number.

He explained he couldn’t make me sign. I reminded him that my refusal to answer further questions, or to sign when I certified my information just the week prior, could not be construed as reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and thanked him for his time.

I left a message for his supervisor. Now we see what happens next.

That’s how WE do it HERE! Let’s all take a page from your perfectly reasonable example and get in the habit of (dispassionately) asking the right questions and politely asserting, AND EXERCISING, our rights (so they don’t get lost!). That means we have to become familiar, and COMFORTABLE, with our own rights and to practice asserting them. This could be role play, in front of a mirror or just getting better at it with the cops over time. Well done! Here’s a quick refresher for dealing with the cops, not as a sex offender, but just as a citizen. We’re still citizens, after all.

Noticed today is Human Rights Day as declared by the UN……Wonder if the USA will notice their own Human Rights violations internally? Doubt it. Others have, but the USA won’t look in the mirror on it….what a shame…

Today, we have two big stories involving Russia and Putin. One has to do with our President Elect and how he may well have gotten help getting elected by the Russians and the other is how the Russians are likely planting child pornography on their detractor’s computers and engaging in frequent programs of slander which often involve accusations of pedophilia. Both are deeply disturbing and appear to be every bit as outrageous as some of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories except that these appear to be well-documented and investigated. It’s a new world, one in which our new Prez is both friends with Mr. Putin and not averse to making loose with the truth to advance his own agenda.

As a reminder, rank hysteria about pedophilia first emerged here, in the U.S., and has since spread to consume the whole world and is now employed to destroy reputations and to shape the power dynamics which govern us.

“Foes of Russia Say Child Pornography Is Planted to Ruin Them”


“Analysis: The CIA concluded Russia worked to elect Trump. Republicans now face an impossible choice. ”

*** ***

Mainstream news is the biggest pusher of “fake news” out there. Surely you’re not buying this convenient line that the “Russians did it”?

Before we had the results, they were bashing trump and anyone else that claimed cheating. Obama spoke about it as well and made jokes about the conspiracy nuts… NOW it’s real because Hillary lost lol

It was Hillary that called anyone who questioned our “democratic” process “unamerican”. I believe those were her words.

It’s pathetic how obvious they are.

I thought all news was fake news?

Have the all4consolaws updated their flyers ?
I would like to print couple up and post them in our Registry office.

I wonder if everyone here knows that not every CA county even has a Sex Offender treatment program? Just an interesting situation: My sentencing judge only required me to attend an approved offenders therapy program with no time guidelines. I moved to a small county after my arrest and this county did not offer treatment as I was required to attend since there was no qualified therapist. So I was required to drive 1 1/2 hours to a therapist in another county. She was a therapist for both victims and offenders. She asked me if I would be comfortable in group sessions and i said no. So she let me do individual sessions for only $40 per 50 minuets once a week since I had no income. So after about 18 sessions she said there was no more reason to continue seeing me and she wrote a letter to probation saying i had fulfilled my treatment obligations. I actually completed my therapy prior to having to serve my 4 months at a non security county “farm”. My charge was for CP. This final conviction (after many appeals) was in 2003-2004. I feel so lucky having moved to a small county that did not have resources to offer the treatment that so many other Registered Citizens have had to endure. Maybe others should consider trying to relocate to less populated counties that can’t offer the harsh therapy situation that larger Counties provide?

Here is another interesting case that has ramifications for “sex offender rehabilitation,” potentially in every part of the country. A registered citizen in Minnesota is being threatened jail time for not succumbing to a treatment-ordered polygraph, therefore not completing his sex offender treatment.

We’ve been through this in Texas and prevailed in the sense that you can’t have probation/parole revoked for asserting your right not to self incriminate on a sex history polygraph.

This guy isn’t doing a good job arguing it though, and may lose. If he sites specific questions that self incriminate, then he may be ok.

Unfortunately, the probation/parole departments here will sometimes just take your 5 worst disclosures of minor violations and present those to the judge to get it revoked even though the real reason is for polygraph refusal or polygraph failure.

For all those near the southwest Riverside county area who wish to attend a “Christmas” open house to “share your thoughts on legislative and community issues” with Assemblywoman Melendez and Congressman Calvert at Pins’ and Pockets 32250 Mission Trail, Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530 (Monday Dec. 12 between 5:30-7:30pm) . I received at postcard announcement about this and thought it might be an opportune time to speak with them regarding their position on RCs.

There is plenty of “fake news” in American mainstream media and widespread omission of actual and very important news, including what happens to sex offenders in this country.

I’ve been following Vladimir Putin since the Yeltsin era and he is a masterfully evil villain who is now outwitting the U.S. on the world stage and knows how to employ its fears and obsessions, such as its unhinged fear of pedophilia, to influence its elections and to position his currently favorite useful idiot, Donald Trump, into a position of great power.

He has used pedophilia hysteria to great effect within Russia itself having studied its effects here in the States and recognizing its power to reorder society along strictly authoritarian lines.

His reign began with the apartment house bombings in Moscow which he almost certainly orchestrated himself but which he blamed on Chechen separatists with whom he then went to war; a catastrophe for both Chechnya and the then-nascent Russian democracy, since extinguished through his brilliant and ruthless campaign to eliminate all challenges to his authority. He has killed countless opponents and journalists through the manipulation of both state and non-state actors leaving himself completely impervious to prosecution. His personal wealth, acquired entirely during his time as a modestly-paid head of state, is difficult to estimate but certainly numbers in the many billions. It is widely believed that he is the richest man in Europe, perhaps in the world.

So it should not surprise us if he should undertake to manipulate American elections through the opportunities presented by both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. He is, in many ways, using the devices of subversion and manipulation long practiced by American media and politicians but ever so much more cunningly.

All of these facts, including the depravity of our own politicians and media, are perfectly comfortable being true at the same time.

‘All of these facts, including the depravity of our own politicians and media, are perfectly comfortable being true at the same time.’

True but you couldn’t anymore know what you’ve read are facts than what I’ve read about pizzagate. Our media or westernised media were the ones reporting on Putin. I remember that story and I also remember one of the government “senators” supposedly bringing up the bombing before it happened. I know he’s KGB so it wouldn’t surprise me if he had done it nor would anything you’ve mentioned except I don’t have proof. I wouldn’t trust the proof after I watched the accusation play out like it did.

Hillary blamed the Russians hours after. A month later, they have proof from the CIA yet we’re still not seeing it nor will we. On top of that, they let slip the other day just what they meant by “the Russians did it”.. It’s just what I thought happened… They blame the Russians for the wikileaks dump. That’s their “Russian interference”. Its not the first time they’ve mentioned the Russian wikileaks connection so it’s not about Russians “hacking” the election directly even though they’re allowing that perception to float through the news.

All I know is they’ve tried their best to ramp up tensions and go to war with Russia as they’ve done with numerous countries. They either bomb them and/or start an economic war with them. Look at Venezuela right now. Hell I’m sure you can name the last 7 countries we’ve gone after in a decade. I DO NOT want a war with anyone much less Russia or China. All because some 1% of the 1% can gain dominance over the entire world? Yeah, screw that.

Assange blasted her and I don’t care how he got the info. I hope he peels their flesh from their skin and exposes all of them.

By the way, I haven’t heard the Putin using pedophilia angle. Got links for that?

If I relied solely, or even substantially, on U.S. media I would probably agree with you but I don’t. Unfortunately, since my career went away when I was no longer able to travel abroad, I have a lot of time on my hands and so spend even more of it than before consuming news and reading voraciously.

I read, at minimum, dozens of newspapers (selectively, not in their entirety) every day. Amongst those are both U.S. papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and Reason as well as a number of foreign publications, e.g. The Economist, The Guardian, Le Monde, The Intercept, English language editions of German papers, South China Morning Post, etc.

I also frequently read the dissidents from Russia such as Masha Gessen who have done so much to document Putin’s rise to power and his current state of total, unchecked power. I use to read Anna Politkovskaya before she was murdered. I watch Al Jazeerah, MSNBC, FoxNews, RT, BBC News, PBS and even Alex Jones (as much as I can stomach him) on YouTube. I listen to BBC Radio and NPR.

So all of those sources, frequently contradictory, as well as my knowledge of today’s Russia, go into my assessment of Putin as well as my belief that he has undoubtedly attempted to alter the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election and has probably succeeded.

As for Russia’s own pedophile hysteria; it’s there for the finding and has also been linked with the cause of gay rights which are not respected in Russia. Putin has masterfully joined forces with the Russian Orthodox Church, just like fundamentalist strains of Christianity have been harnessed in the U.S. to advance a moral purity movement.

Pizzagate does not pass my own personal smell-test. Not even close and I’ve examined what the obsessives are counting as “evidence.” That’s why I said that it was B.S. and of a sort that I have come to expect from Alex Jones and others like him. His previous pedophile conspiracy theories, such as “The Franklin Cover-up” are thoroughly discredited calumnies and canards. He is a stereotypical, populist demagogue of the worst sort. He is utterly poisonous and, whatever tidbits which might emerge from him that are fragmentarily truthful, are simply not worth the psychic assault of listening to him. Truth can be had from much better sources.

Alex Jones’ obsession with pedophiles is surely especially germane on this forum. His accusations of global elitist pedophile conspiracies reflect much of what animates our country’s current state of sex offender hysteria. His lies are demonstrable, vile and slanderous and even promote vigilante violence against us yet are very much in accord with what many Americans think must be present reality and accurate descriptions about pedophiles or “sex offenders.” Need I say, he is not someone who points to a more just future for us?

Some people prove, through the abundance of their past words and actions and lies, that they don’t deserve to be credible sources for truth. We are not obliged to completely disregard their track record or to start afresh as if it did not exist every time they make a new claim. As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Mike made a comment, which I think must be in this regard, to the effect that neither Russia or China are at war with us. That’s true enough but we have not been so near to conflict with either in a very long time. And when you consider that our President-elect is alarmingly ill-informed and gullible and impulsive, not to mention frighteningly incurious, I don’t think that our concerns for his Presidency are misplaced. This says nothing for my low regard for Hillary Clinton.

I follow those as well. Only two of those news sources though have an ounce of credibility in my view and a third I admit to not even knowing of.

The two are: The intercept and Der Spiegel (assuming that’s the German one?) I still don’t trust any news, even greenwalds or reason . You do the best with what you’ve got

My distrust of Alex has grown as of the last year or so. I’ve watched him lie about facts in story’s, become an apologist for republicans and trump, cozy up to the likes of roger stone WND and Matt Drudge.

I personally called him out when he was misdirecting people about the closure of the ATF. It wasn’t a closure, it was a misdirect to hide consolidation under the DHS through an omnibus bill. Which was spearheaded in the news by Jeff sessions I believe What a coinkydink that Alex supports trump, sessions and stone.

I listen to the guy still because inadvertantly through his game of “I’m part of the liberty movement” he gives you the basic direction to the actual news. You just have to dig after douching your ears.

I do wonder if others are “in on it”. David Knight “sounds” much more libertarian. I like listening to him on Sundays. If you want to save on data, they have a 24hour listen line that repeats yesterdays and today’s stream.l (605-475-5800).

Much of the pizzagate is jumping at connections. There are some “interesting” parts though. The owners twitter posts that have since been removed. Very creepy statements and pictures for a family restaurant. The singer video where the guy outs the owner seemingly. The connections to other businesses in that strip mall to child trafficking agencies.

MAYBE you’re correct. Maybe it was a smear tactic used in connection with the podesta spirit cooking emails along with bills epstein connection and the child abuse videos to cast a larger shadow.

We’ll probably never know but isn’t that the way today? What you want to know, you never will and what you think you know, may not be.

What should you expect when you’re in a constant CIA project. 🙂

Hello Everyone,

I’m not sure if this is the right place to post this, or if i should post it under Michigan,but anyway I found this tonight,on youtube of all places. Iwould also like to know if anyone could explain this argument in laymans terms, and if it sounds like good news or bad news for us. Thank you in advance for your help.

I just took a look at Donna Zink’s Facebook page, and she has deleted all remarks and photos since she published all the level 1 Sex Offenders names in Washington. I wonder why? She was so public prior with lots of photos of her and links to her 290 list.

I have a question and need some advice.

I am currently on parole in California. I took a deal and was given 3 years with 5 years of parole. Today I went to my containment meeting and was informed that my 5 years of parole has been changed to 10 years. I have been out of prison for 9 months. I was not sent a letter of explanation as to why or how this can be done. I was told that this is happening to a lot of registrants on parole here in California.

Is this legal? Have already done my time in prison, can they really extend my punishment like this?

What can I do?

Sounds like an increase in the adjudged sentence to me – you should have been given a hearing and had due process. Probation and Parole are not judges, they cannot change an adjudged sentence.

It certainly doesn’t appear legal, but they are doing it to all the S.O.s that are on parole. If you had 5, now you have 10. No explanation. I have never violated. I’ve followed all of their rules.

Is parole considered punishment? When can I be set free? Is there now no hope at all? I’m stressed out about this.

No, it is not legal. Ex Posto Facto additional punishment is illegal. Seek a good attorney who is willing to work with you on getting the punishment that was added, removed, unless you violated the terms of your conditions. Adding additional punishment after the fact without case is illegal even if states and legislatures believe the can willy nilly.

Good luck. I think the commenters here are telling you how they think things should be rather than how they are. How they are, in the real world, is that the judge can tell you whatever s/he wants regarding parole, but it is actually up to CDCR and certain crimes have prescribed lengths of parole. If your crime happens to have 10 years, that’s what CDCR is going to give you, regardless of what a judge claimed.

I am not an attorney but it’s my understanding that CDCR has been violating people’s rights for ever now…from what I understand they can only keep you on parole until the end of your actual say you got three years during sentencing and you do either half of that or 85% depending on your offense and you get out then they can only keep you on parole for the remainder of your sentence ie. 50% or 15%. think about it..parole is a release on supervision until the end of your sentence…just like you can serve out your whole sentence in prison and they can’t by law make you do parole..people don’t realize this and just blindly follow what CDCR says..I only did 2/12 years on parole and I believe it was because I fought for my halftime credits and won so they knew that I would file for release from parole at the end of my sentence and could actually sue them for everyday that they continued to require me to comply with parole past my actual sentencing date..I wouldn’t recommend trying to do this because I am not an attorney but if they tried to add five more years to my already unlawful parole length I would fight it anyway I could…parole was almost as bad and at times even worse than prison…you better get the CDCR manual on parole or look up the statue that controls conditions and requirements for parole…god i hate CDCR they will do anything they can to keep you in their grip even if it’s unlawful because they know nobody will challenge them on these issues in anyway that can’t be denied or dismissed on technicalities..don’t depend on an attorney to research this either they don’t have a stake in it other than how many hours they can bill you for whether you win or lose and none of them know the rules of parole and will not even research it…

Mike, thank you for the advice. I am definitely going to do more research. It’s amazing to me what they feel they can get away with. Essentially they are adding 5 years to my sentence after the fact.

yep look it up ..

If you were sent to prison and then released, you are in the latter part of the process referred to as parole. How long you will be on parole depends on your original sentence and the judge’s orders. The time of parole cannot exceed the length of sentence ordered by the judge. For example, if you were sentenced to ten years in prison, and release after three years, the length of your parole will be the balance of your seven years. If you were paroled after receiving a life sentence, then you will be on parole for the rest of your life. If you violate any conditions of your parole, then your parole can be revoked.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook

it appears that only a judge can impose special parole at sentencing not to exceed your maximum release date…CDCR absolutely cannot but will if you let em get away with it…

be sure you do diligent research on this and find statues, case law, and or CDCR rules for parole as I maybe be wrong…I definitely would…five more years of parole hell ya I’d fight that…

SAD NEWS: Man freed after wrongful imprisonment dies

This is the final chapter to a man wrongfully sent to prison for a sex crime he did not commit.

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A man released in February after serving 18 years in state prison for a crime he didn’t commit has died.

Luther Ed Jones Jr., 71, died early on the morning of Dec. 6, according to his attorney, Angela Carter.

Jones was freed in February at the order of Lake County Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum after evidence was brought forward by District Attorney Don Anderson that exonerated Jones, who had been convicted in 1998 of molesting his ex-girlfriend’s 10-year-old daughter.

This, from Bill Dobbs:

Just before the deadline, as expected, Michigan filed a petition asking the US Supreme Court to review Doe v. Snyder. So far this effort to get help from the Supreme Court hasn’t made the news; the legal papers are not yet online. If you want to see the state’s petition, drop me a line.

Doe v. Snyder is an important decision concerning Michigan’s sex offense registry. Lots of cheering by registrants, lawyers and civil libertarians last summer when the ruling was handed down by a federal appeals court, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Michigan is unhappy and hoping to get some relief from the US Supreme Court. The chances? Many requests for review are made but few are granted…

The petition, recidivism fears: The public has much fear about sex offenses, and that those convicted of such crimes will do it again—recidivism. These widespread fears play a role in the creation of registries and other draconian laws. Michigan’s petition to the Supreme Court starts off with a bang, saying the recidivism rates related to sex offenses are “frightening and high,” quoting from a landmark 2003 Supreme Court case (Smith v. Doe). That’s a very interesting beginning because in 2015 a widely circulated essay by Ira and Tara Ellman debunked that claim—the statement was based on the bragging of a treatment provider, not on research. Recidivism rates are actually among the *lowest* for any category of offenses. With its fateful words in that 2003 decision the Supreme Court promoted a falsehood that went on to infect a whole area of law and policy. The Supreme Court’s own dubious reasoning has now come back to haunt – what will the court do? “Circuit splits” are another big issue in Michigan’s petition, there’s plenty about federal and state courts who see the registry as a mere administrative mechanism and refuse to reckon with its power to incapacitate, to cause what Michelle Alexander calls, “social death.”

Background: Michigan’s registry is one of the largest in the country with over 42,000 individuals required to sign it. Lawmakers didn’t just get the registry rolling and call it a day, over the years they’ve been enacting ever harsher measures designed to slam registrants harder and harder. A federal court lawsuit knocked some holes in the state’s registry law; Michigan, the losing party, took its plea to a federal appeals court. Late last summer a three judge panel of the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a remarkable ruling in Doe v. Snyder that did really serious damage to Michigan’s scarlet letter machinery. The appeals court blasted various registration requirements as “punitive,” the first federal appeals court to do so. And it put a stop to piling more penalties on those already sentenced, ruling the practice is ex post facto and unconstitutional.

What’s ahead: Next, the legal eagles fighting for justice for Michigan registrants will be answering this petition, led by Miriam Aukerman of the Michigan ACLU and Paul Reingold of the Michigan Clinical Law Program. Below is the first passage of Michigan’s petition to the Supreme Court, and some past headlines and links to new stories about Doe v. Snyder. Stay tuned. –Bill Dobbs

News coverage and blog stories about Doe v. Snyder

Washington Post | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Fred Barbash
Court says Michigan sex offender registry laws creating ‘moral lepers’ | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Jacob Sullum
6th Circuit Says Mich. Sex Offender Registry Is Punitive and, Not Incidentally, Stupid

Mimesis Law | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Andrew Fleischman
Sixth Circuit: Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry Is Punitive

Simple Justice | Aug. 27, 2016 | By Scott Greenfield
The 6th Circuit Finally Said The Magic Word: Punitive

Michigan Radio | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Jack Lessenberry
Michigan’s sex offender law is unfair and probably unconstitutional

Slate | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Mark David Stern
Appeals Court Issues Scathing Ruling Against Michigan Sex Offender Penalties

I find it completely insane that Michigan is basing their appeal on the now completely discredited high recidivism rate myth. I heard Miriam Aukerman speak at the Illinois Voices for Reform event in Chicago last month, and she is brilliant, committed, caring, and truly dedicated to the cause of reforming the illegal laws which are causing us so much misery. She and her colleagues have been anticipating a Michigan appeal to the Supreme Court and she is very hopeful that the Court will accept the case. It could be the opportunity we have all been dreaming about for a full overturn of Smith v Doe. If the Court denies the appeal, the decision in our favor stands, but the affects will be murky, at best only affecting registrants in the Six Circuit, and possibly allowing the state to make slight alterations in the laws so they pass muster. Now is the time for all the amici curiae to get busy providing Aukerman with all the backup they can. Also, Aukerman emphasized how expensive just the out-of-pocket costs can be fighting a Supreme Court case, so find the Michigan ACLU website and get out your credit card.


Did you see were i posted a link to Michigan’s Supreme Court,where Ms Aukerman on 12-7-16 and her oral argument, on the Temelkowski case. I also spoke with her the otherday,and of course she said we have to be patient,but when the decision does come down that it will effect eveyone on the registry especially those of us like my self,that were sentenced 1992 before Michigan even had a registry.

My hope is being that there was no registry in 1992,and that i was not sentenced to register by a judge that i should be removed all together,not only because of the ex pos facto,but because of the violating my right to due process.whether the Temelkowski case is heard first or Doe v Snyder, I think we are in a very good position to win hands down.

Is there any chance that the State’s appeal to SCOTUS is actually a “Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing”? (see what I did there)

In other words, is it possible they started with the “frightening and high,” quote knowing that it would be immediately squashed and corrected with a new quote that would set precedent and over-ride that falsehood?

They already showed no evidence or statistics to prove their side in the lower courts as if they were trying to lose. Is it possible that they want to start undoing this horribly expensive and useless mess of laws?

They know they’ll never succeed in undoing registry laws with public support through the normal political process.

If so, then the pendulum is really swinging the other way now. I am convinced that the only way the 2003 SCOTUS decisions (Smith V Doe and Connecticut Dept of Public Safety V Doe) allowed “frightening and high” hearsay to stand as fact is because our side didn’t challenge it and the 3 fact-checkers assigned to each justice let it slide. In essence, SCOTUS and our legal team wanted any excuse to ignore the constitution and take away rights from what were, at that time, mostly violent sex offences by pedophiles that were the only ones eligible for public registration.

“In other words, is it possible they started with the “frightening and high,” quote knowing that it would be immediately squashed and corrected with a new quote that would set precedent and over-ride that falsehood?”

No, they’re just ignorant and they just handed us a gift. We should be grateful because we now know how to demolish that fictitious factoid. The Doe guy, Darryl L. Thompson, just didn’t know any better.

One fascinating insight I just had: JOHN ROBERTS (now Chief Justice) argued as amicus curiae in support of the State of Alaska. Will he recuse himself in a reexamination? I don’t know but, of course, each Justice gets to decide if they will recuse themselves. But that would be wonderful since he will almost certainly never vote against registries.

Re: “In essence, SCOTUS and our legal team wanted any excuse to ignore the constitution and take away rights from what were, at that time, mostly violent sex offences by pedophiles that were the only ones eligible for public registration.”

No. There was no collective defense wisdom or agenda In the case of Smith v. Doe. The attorney arguing against Alaska was not terribly capable, I’m afraid. Earnest and well-intentioned, but not effective. It’s a pretty sad oral argument which can be heard on I’m sure that he would have done anything to prevail but he was not up to the task. It’s really too bad as this was such a momentous case with huge repercussions.

Also, and simply for the record, the contention that pedophiles are somehow more violent than other sex offenders, which you may well not be saying, is completely fictitious. This is another of those bits of received wisdom that are convenient for the carceral state but not rooted in evidence.

‘No, they’re just ignorant and they just handed us a gift.’

A potential gift. Michigan hasn’t done research on recidivism if I’m not mistaken. They could slam together a study that’d benefit their side. The judges then would have to pick between two contradictory findings. The plus is, these lawyers don’t seem like the types to back down. Saying that, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen a judge dismiss truth and even outright throw out evidence to favor the government. Ross Ulbricht comes to mind. Not being pessimistic, just realistic.

Further of Smith v. Doe and Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe.

Here is a C-Span video of press statements by the arguing attorneys in both of the cases (they were heard one after the other on the same day, Nov. 13, 2002) made outdoors in front of the Supreme Court.

This is pretty good in providing rather in-depth overviews and perspectives of both cases with one reporter, in particular, asking very tough questions of the states’ representatives.

You will need to skip ahead of the Senate hearings which precede this outdoor conference to the 35:00 minute mark.

Also I again urge those interested in these issues to go to and listen to these oral arguments:


Very interesting, seems like we have now the same arguments used 15 years ago both for and against. What I can’t see holding up any longer is Mr. Botelho’s answer that registration in not like probation. Registration does limit where one can be and what one can do, despite what he said back then.
And the frightening and high argument should easily be blown out of the water by the studies to date for registrants as a whole.
But I think these pro registry arguments will morph like the registry itself. They will say they have put the frightening ones in tiers 2 and 3 and given a chance for others to get off. It will be like chasing snakes in the grass arguing against fear based policy. And if the registrant advocacy groups go on record favoring the tiered registry compromise, our goose is cooked.
The idea that the government can make people update personal information regularly and indefinately relating to a past crime after completing sentencing has to be stopped soon. Otherwise look for it to be as hard to expel from our culture as institutional racism, which has survived centuries of empirical arguments against it and still lives and breaths is the injustice system.

Agreed! The longer people become comfortable with such measures the more difficult it will be to extirpate them. There is, truly, real pressure on us to accomplish that challenge soon.

I’m afraid that the Registry has become an entitlement granted to the citizens that they will not easily give up.

I should have pointed out that, at then end of that C-Span video is the moment when LAURA AHERN seizes an opportunity after the attorneys had spoken and, uninvited, lectured the gathered reporters on the necessity of the laws just discussed.

I hadn’t seen or heard her before and I was struck at just how much of a villain she obviously is.

Do watch that video.

Yes, I did watch, and like you it confirmed for me what people said about Ahern who I have never seen or heard before either. In that video she manufactures a truth to fit into her agenda. Thanks for that video.

That’s a really good find. Where do you get all this stuff, I’ve looked and looked and I’m no net noob.

Yeah, the lawyer seemed taken back by the judges questions and let his best points go unpushed. He also brought up the high and frightening but didn’t elaborate as to why he didn’t believe it. The judges acted like they had no idea what a registry was either. I thought they researched the cases they agreed to take at least a little. Sheesh they seemed stupid.

Hey, any chance you could find the floor speeches that led up to Alaska’s first and subsequent bills? I’m looking for intent by the legislature to enact punishment even if they didn’t word it that way in the actual bills. I’ve seen these fiery “let’s get these bastards lets make’m pay” speeches before on bills so maybe there’s something there. I know in Florida politicians were in the news saying they were going to run offenders out of town with new rules! Talking tough gets the votes!

I have been researching and writing about the history of Supreme Court decisions as they relate to sex offenders. I have put together a spreadsheet of all sex offender-related cases before the Supreme Court going as far back as 1960 but the first qualifying case in my spreadsheet dated to “Ferber v. New York” in 1982, showing how much the topic exploded in that time frame.

In the spreadsheet (which is available from me at are links to each of the cases in Oyez where the oral arguments and decisions for each can be listened to.

I haven’t gotten to the lawmaking side of things yet, only the court challenges. If I do run into floor debates for Alaska I will let you know.

I have a gut feeling, it might be worth finding. No stone unturned!

Please do let me know.

It appears that Alaska established its Registry in the 1993-4 legislative season. This makes it remote enough that getting a hold of session proceedings might be difficult, at least on the web.

Since you are in Alaska, I recommend locating the nearest (or only?) government documents repository, probably located at a University, and talking to their reference librarian who can probably locate this for you. They tend to be very good at digging this sort of thing up.

Alaska appears not to have a law school but there is something called Alaska Law Review.

Additionally, consider contacting the attorney, Darryl Thompson, himself. No, he wasn’t terribly prepared for his appearance before the Court (and certainly could have used a haircut) but he may see this as his deepest regret and want others to take the Registry down. Maybe he’s just waiting for others to show some interest. Who knows?

He’s obviously a one-man band law firm in Anchorage, judging by Google Street View and his extremely modest office space. He’s probably a pretty decent and conscientious guy. Why not contact him directly?

He can be reached at: 907-272-9322 or

Meanwhile, here’s a link to the original bill:

Of course, there’s also your state archives.

I reposted your last two comments on my site in their entirety, for notes, I hope you don’t mind.

Thanks David. That gives me a good place to start.

You’re welcome and, of course, I don’t mind my comments being re-posted by you.

This sort of digging is exactly what should happen in every state and is amongst the research we need.

Establishing a nexus between the legislative bills and the animus of their authors, with an unambiguous goal of punishment, will help tremendously.

Exactly, David, show their intent in their own words. Happy Holidays to you and all rational thoughtful people.

“they’re just ignorant and they just handed us a gift” I agree with your statement 100%. I spend a lot of time watching high courts in action on YouTube and I constantly wonder where they get such ignorant judges. We need a better way to pick judges. Trump gets to pick one now, lucky us.

Yes, we will wait on pins-and-needles until he indicates his intentions for the Court. Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and William Pryor of Alabama have both been mentioned as being at the top of the list. Trump’s promise to put anti-abortion people on the Court is not a good sign for us as that indicates religious fundamentalism and they are bad for sex offenders, just on a statistical basis. I can’t get much of a read on Sykes in regard to SOs. She has ruled both for and against SOs previously. It’s hard to get a good read on her. Pryor hates gays so that’s not a good sign. It’s not looking good.

Good points.

About this: “the contention that pedophiles are somehow more violent than other sex offenders, which you may well not be saying, is completely fictitious”. I wasn’t meaning to infer that. I was meaning to point out that in 2003 there were some places that only registered the more egregious sexual offences against children and not only were other sex offences against adults not register-able, but some of the more minor sex offences against children didn’t even require registration like they do now.

Yes, I realized that you were probably not asserting that yourself but paraphrasing the prevailing thinking, which is why I said “which you may well not be saying.”

Even so, I want to point out that there is this unexamined assumption (of pedophiles as “violent”) at play which needs to be challenged because it is simply untrue. We need to systematically counter the hystericist victimological narrative that continues to distort reality and to shape policy without benefit of the facts.

This is in contrast to what has been the standard response from our community thus far, i.e. to let these assertions go unchallenged or worse, to reinforce them ourselves.

Another bit is that the label “violent offender” means “repeat offender”. For some reason people conjoin the level of horror in the crime with the propensity to repeat the crime. And then you have the many uses of the word violent to confuse matters.

I am just going to throw this out there, but will the justices who were on the Smith v Doe case possibly recuse themselves (if they chose to hear Snyder v Doe) since they will be possibly hearing the same plowed ground and thus make the court smaller who would hear and vote on the merits of the petition?

Is it possible Eugene Volokh would write in on this petition to keep the court straight? However, I agree this is the time to get the info straight with the court so they fully understand and correct themselves. Of course, this could be the retirement move Justice Kennedy needs to move on in life.

I don’t believe that they would have to recuse themselves for having previously heard Smith. In the case of Comstock, in which SCOTUS rejected the challenge to federal civil commitment of sex offenders, Elena Kagan, who was the Solicitor General representing the U.S., would have to recuse herself in any subsequent re-hearing of federal civil commitment laws as she has recused herself in a number of other cases in conflict with her tenure as SG. These were cases where she had not previously acted as an impartial judge, however, but as an attorney arguing on behalf of the government. A good question might be if she would have to recuse herself in a fresh reexamination of STATE civil commitment laws but I don’t think that she would since she wasn’t representing the interests of any state.

From a practical standpoint, the entire Court, having heard a case within the last seven years (the last time a Justice was appointed) would have to recuse themselves if, say, a new case involving a challenge to the same law were to be heard as a result of effects unanticipated in the previous case. That would, obviously, not be tolerable nor would it be necessary since I don’t see any potential for conflict.

I don’t see how re-hearing similar cases as a result of new information and developments, which is what a reexamination of the Registry would be, would trigger recusal. The Registry has been challenged from other perspectives, too such as in Connecticut v. Doe (in the same year as Smith, 2003) and there was no need for recusal since there was no conflict of interest.

A fresh challenge to the Registry would be accepted by the Court as a result of new information having emerged since their last examination of the laws. There is a LOT of new information for them to consider, too since the Registries mean something completely different than they did in Alaska fourteen years ago.

I agree, there is no need for recusal. All new information being submitted.

There used to be a PDF with each states requirements.

I cannot find it.

Does anyone have the link?

Thank you!

Has anyone done their annual reg lately?

Have you noticed any significant changes or additions to the requirements?

I only asked because of the recent changes on the Megan’s law website and seems like our group is gaining traction and has a lot of articles and laws passed or rejected throughout the nation.

Did mine at the end of October. There was one added thing that I think had to do with cars in your possession. Nothing else had changed.

So apparently you need a cellular phone in order to register with Long Beach.

I went in for my annual, just as I have for the last five years with no problems, and there are two newer, younger officers. I walk in, the woman officer points to a chair and orders me to sit. I sit. There’s this form already laid out for me from the Department of Justice clarifying that my information may be subject to internet disclosure on the Megan’s Law website, for which I have never had to worry about previously. I suspect it’s just a generic privacy notice every registrant got this year. Anyways, she explains this is to be done every ten years and it’s now my turn. Pretty standard form: Address, DL number, SS number, registrable conviction, arresting agency, etc. It’s reportedly being uploaded to DOJ for an unexplained reason. I asked for a copy of the form and she vehemently refused initially. I retorted that I will have an attorney in here in a New York minute if I don’t have copies of everything I’m signing today. She threw me a pissy look and reluctantly made me a copy, however, this set a precedent for the rest of the registration experience moving forward.

So the officer has this pissy attitude, which I’ve dealt with before but not in a long time. She’s going through the questions and asks me for my cell number. Because of her tone, I felt a little rebellious and asked her why she needed my cell number. She immediately blows up at me, refusing to register me unless I provided a cell number. I then asked her what would happen if I was transient and couldn’t afford a cellular phone? She shot back a look at the officer behind her and he stood up and asked why I was being a jerk. He then asked me if I wanted him to call down some detectives (intimidation) and I said that was fine with me as long as I get processed and be on my way. He sat back down in his chair and tells the other officer to just get me out of there.


She grudgingly had me fingerprint my thumbs. No picture was taken, which is a first. I received copies of all paperwork and I was out in ten minutes.

I’m not sure if there’s a moral to this story.

“I’m not sure if there’s a moral to this story.”

Yeah, know your rights, stand your ground and give’m hell! Lol

The moral of the story is that just as with any oppressed minority, standing up for your rights against the authorities who are oppressing you is the first step toward change!

Don’t go to the back of the bus! Demand equal justice. Ask questions – questions “authority” and don’t make it easy for them to walk all over you/us.

Being a “registered sex offender” has become the new “black” in a manner of speaking, in this country and they are trying to extend it world wide!

Let’s FIGHT this!

The moral to the story is that the officers/cadets/explorers/detectives who handle registration at the variety of places we’re forced to go to have only a scant idea of what they are allowed to do under the law, and how far they can “push” us. I think a lot of it depends on the actual job of the person doing the work. Detectives seem to be assigned this detail and are responsible for compliance checks, arresting people for violations, etc. So they are usually a little better versed in what they can legally do. Jailers only know the most basic of the rules, and are far from well-versed in the laws of arrest. Most of the time they are bluffing, for instance, the threat about calling for detectives. They pretty much know what they are told to get from us, how to fill in boxes, etc. But jailers really only know about how to get a person processed for holding. I register in two locations. One is handled by the detective assigned to the sex offender unit, the other is handled by jailers. Detective didn’t care if I didn’t have an “emergency contact,” which as we all know is NOT required by 290, but jailer pressed me for it. Since I’m still on paper, I just told them to use my spouse. I figure I can be more of a jerk when they can’t use my attitude as a reason to call my keeper and try to violate me. But when I’m off, stand by.

I missed any mention of iCloud in the written article and the video has an error.. The danger is exceedingly poor judgment by a presumably smart person.

So, I’ve been in a battle of sorts with the State of Utah Department of Corrections, over my information online. During Doe v. Shurtleff, they told the judge I would have to register for life under Utah law – which was the first time I have heard such a thing. During that time they changed my conviction information was well – which does not match my charge sheet given to them by the military.

I’ve complained in the past, and they fixed my release date on one charge back to the correct date – but then screwed up the charge. On the other charge, they screwed it up as well – but put the release date a full year after my maximum sentence (which was 18 months). I was released unconditionally, with good/earned time, 6 months early and was not under any terms of supervision – just done.

I challenged Utah through letters regarding the lifetime requirement, and they tweaked the law 2-3 years ago to separate non-Utah convictions from Utah convictions.

So, this December is my 10 year Anniversary… BUT, my charges are military (aka Federal) and thus the AWA applies directly to me (AWA Tier II – 25 years). I met my sixth month requirement, by registering December 1, 2016, and even had a compliance check on December 10, 2016.

I’ve been checking the website to see if they corrected my information, every couple of days, as I sent them another notice to correct it. Today I go to check, and my name is not listed on the Utah State or National Sex Offender Registry. I don’t show up on the map in my neighborhood.

Utah law states:
77-41-105(3)(b) Except as provided in Subsections (4) and (5), and Section 77-41-106, an offender who is convicted in another jurisdiction of an offense listed in Subsection 77-41-102(9)(a) or (17)(a), a substantially similar offense, or any other offense that requires registration in the jurisdiction of conviction, shall:
(i) register for the time period, and in the frequency, required by the jurisdiction where the offender was convicted if that jurisdiction’s registration period or registration frequency requirement for the offense that the offender was convicted of is greater than the 10 years from completion of the sentence registration period that is required under Subsection (3)(a), or is more frequent than every six months; or
(ii) register in accordance with the requirements of Subsection (3)(a), if the jurisdiction’s registration period or frequency requirement for the offense that the offender was convicted of is less than the registration period required under Subsection (3)(a), or is less frequent than every six months.

So, my conviction was outside Utah’s jurisdiction – it was military. The military is its own jurisdiction, outside the federal court system and Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The military has no provisions in the Manual for Courts Martial regarding registration, they just give you a paper upon release telling you to register IAW the laws of the State you live in.

So, am I done? Looks like I have to contact an attorney now, to see if this will stick and I am done in Utah, or if the AWA will require me to register here.

Is the AWA controlling? Does Utah even have to register me if their laws say it’s not needed (Utah is Non-compliant with the AWA)? What mechanism does an offender use to register if he is no longer under a state obligation, but is still under the federal obligation, and the state won’t register him?

This is what I am partially talking about. Mine was a state offense though non awa. I’ve tried to register here before but they won’t let me becouse I’m no longer required too. But according to federal law I’m required too lol. But no way to do it. So I try to follow any state law that exists that I’m in. My biggest thing is finding out about layovers.

Also, in UNITED STATES v. KEBODEAUX, SCOTUS said that his UCMJ offense was a federal sex offense subject to SORNA. But, the military, as its own jurisdiction, does not set registration length requirements in DoD Inst. 1325.07 (2013), nor does it even reference SORNA as controlling. In fact, it does the opposite by saying that each state is different and sets their own requirements.

That is fine, but 18 USC 2250 states: Failure to register
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever—
(1) is required to register under the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act;
(2)(A) is a sex offender as defined for the purposes
of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Act by reason of a conviction under
Federal law (including the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), the law of the District of
Columbia, Indian tribal law, or the law of any
territory or possession of the United States; or
(B) travels in interstate or foreign commerce,
or enters or leaves, or resides in, Indian
country; and
(3) knowingly fails to register or update a
registration as required by the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 10 years, or both.
(b) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.—In a prosecution
for a violation under subsection (a), it is an affirmative
defense that—
(1) uncontrollable circumstances prevented
the individual from complying;
(2) the individual did not contribute to the
creation of such circumstances in reckless disregard
of the requirement to comply; and
(3) the individual complied as soon as such
circumstances ceased to exist.

It specifically states that as a UCMJ offender, I have to register in Utah, pursuant to SORNA, or I am in violation of federal law.

Yes you get it! We are both in violation of federal law with no way of complying. I would think though that this would be a defense in our case. What I’ve been doing is emailing my itinerary to the officer in charge of registration whenever I go on a trip. Even though I’m not required too. He understands that I’m paranoid about the whole situation. I can tell you though there are probably 1000s of offenders subject to sorna that have no clue. And do absolutely nothing to protect themselves.

Well, wasted my time applying, but had a better chance than Past POTUS’s since he did a Record conv. reliefs. Hoped to of been #79 since that’s when I Grad and also convicted date.
Here is the article… I was turned down but he helped Worse convicted. I didn’t take anyone’s life away perm.

Since our Gov Brown won’t allow any 290’s, I thought what the heck, he has (POTUS) been helping more people than any other Pres.

I’ll try and post my denial from the office of the WH. for Pardons. Don’t own a scanner and use Chrome OS.

If I am not mistaken, the POTUS can only commute or pardon federal offenses. State offenses would not be pardonable by the POTUS.

So…The Beef (poultry) I have with the Potus Pardons is that…

They will Pardon a damn Turkey,

and state….”INDIVIDUALS DESERVING OF A SECOND CHANCE” even decades later most of us will NOT make it to the POTUS Table for signature of a PARDON…feeling we are less than < deserving. Sad. We're MORE reliable and consistent and dependable than most others getting these pardons and don't go back to the Pokey. (No hawaiin fish involved here) Just Sad. Happy Holiday Fellas (and Gals on here too). I'm still glbtq

Going in for my annual this Friday. It’s only the 3rd time. The last 2 times it was pretty simple. For this one after I made the appointment I got a letter with a form I had to fill out and take with me. I’m in California (LA county).

The form asks for lots of info. Address, social, home phone, cell phone, drivers license number, additional address, emergency contact, work address, when I started working there, vehicle information including plate, make, model, year, color, VIN, year vehicle registration ends. They also ask for probation/parole officer contact info if on probation or parole.

I definitely don’t want to give them any more info than I have to, but I am still on probation and realize that during this time they have me by the balls so I have to do anything they say.

Am I correct in thinking that home address is the only thing legally required? But also that while I’m on probation I should just provide all they ask? With any luck I should be expunged and off probation by next year’s annual, I would definitely have more fire to fight anything then.


I would suggest going in without the letter and be First and assertive stating you have “No Change” regarding your data, be the first to set the topic and focus of the conversation, impose your will and should they ask you for the form they sent, simply say you never received it – The US Postal Service is not always reliable. The ball is in their court.

Be smart, clever, and humble. Be the one to set the pace and cadence.

The Eternal Father Most High in Heaven be with you and shine light on your paths.

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Nancy Skinner was just appointed Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee. She has supported criminal justice reform in the past and definitely someone we can work with. The Democratic members of the committee are Bradford, Mitchell, Skinner, Wiener and Jackson. I don’t think we know where Bradford is, but the other four have supported us in years past. Anderson and Stone are the Republicans on the committee. In general, I think it is a committee that will be very open to reform.

Rapper Tupac Shakur is being inducted into the Rock’n Roll Hall of Fame. Aside from being a gangsta rapper who is getting into the RR HOF – were he still alive today, Mr. Shakur would be a Registered Sex Offender. Of course, there is no mention of his Sex Abuse conviction from the mid 90s that I have seen.

Great observation. Someone said that a squirrel is really just a rat with better PR, and the same can be said of certain public personalities that rise above their criminal convictions and maintain their celebrity. Not that they are all really rats, just that good public relations has helped them put their sordid pasts behind them.
It is all they know and once they get out of the joint some seem to very successfully transition back into the lime light to keep the income flowing and bills paid. Michael Milken, Martha Stewart, Jack Abramoff, the list goes on. Tupac would still be successful even if he went to the can for a few years. At my gym there must be 4 or 5 different guys who wear Mike Tyson Boxing shirts. Frankly I am surprised some triggered millennial snowflake hasn’t made a stink about it, but my point is simply that people can and do rise above the registry to become successful to the point that others no longer care of your biggest mistake. Indeed, they’ll even were your name emblazoned across their chests.

Ed Hasbrouck, who writes and speaks extensively on travel freedom, sent the following link to me which provides a wider perspective of U.S. border controls and demonstrates the expansion of extreme vetting of visitors to the U.S. IML exists within this system which, nevertheless, is about so much more.

“Documents suggest Palantir could help power Trump’s ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants. Training materials obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center show Palantir has played a role in a far-reaching customs system”

Janice Belucci and affiliates+ CASOMB,
Please dont forget about us registrants that have moved out of state that fall under the California guidelines of the registry. I am a registrant that has followed you for the longest time. Please do not forget us when it comes to the tiering system because it will make a difference for us as well. It is some rso’s that are not computer literate that have moved out of the state as well with no recourse other than a tiered registry bill. I live in the most harshest state known to the registrant,Florida!! No registrant should ever move to Florida. Some states already have tiering systems and allow some out of state registrants off of the registry. I made a mistake in moving back to Florida 8 years ago, I am warning all registrants to stay away from Florida. There are no levels of the registry, everybody is the same here. No justice for no one at all. I dont want to be selfish either, even though , I am a level one registrant, I would like to see every registrant on all tier levels be given a chance to come off of the registry at some point to be able to know what it is like to be able to support your self and family. Some one please respond!!

Okay, none of us in Calif on Gov BROWN’s PARDON list, he did do more than 100 YET, he Pardoned a guy that shot someone else’s eyeball out…and that’s NOT VIOLENT? REALLY?
He said from his office, he is ONLY Pardoning NON VIOLENT OFFENDERS, is Online RC’s Really VIOLENT???

WHy or what is Gov. Brown’s excuse for NOT Pardoning any RC’s his final and last year in office, He maxed out like his father, but REALLY? Obama too.

Sad. Pardon the drunk driver who kills and mames and the kidnapper, but not one of us?

This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. No CA governor has ever pardoned a registered citizen. Former CA governors often have hopes to run for president some day, so who would want to be the first governor to allow a pardon? I would imagine this issue would be used against a presidential candidate as being soft on crime. And if the person the gov. pardoned committed another violent crime, they could kiss their political future goodby.

Why don’t they fear that a drug offender will commit a violent crime after pardon? Has happened, I’m sure. It’s all propaganda. Non violent drug offenders are now the victims of the system. About 30 years ago they were portrayed in the media and by the government spokesmen as dangers to civilized society. That monster got old, I guess.

As the sunset of 2016 is appearing in the West and in the timing of this Christmas season, I would like to express, to everyone, my gratitude and a Merry Christmas and great blessings and accomplishments for the New Year!

For activists, here is an indispensable link I came across. It is a database that allows you to find out the laws of all state legislatures with regard to any sex offender laws on the books. This also allows you to find all laws of various states that may pertain to a single subject, such as residence restrictions.

Thank you, Eric! It sounds intriguing.

Los Angeles is now considering barring all adults from playgrounds unless they are accompanied by children. And this in conjunction with Los Angeles’ continued actions to put in pocket parks everywhere in the city that they can fit a few feet of grass.

This latest related to playgrounds comes from Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, a close protege of Mayor Eric Garcetti — both of them Democrats and (falsely) claiming to be liberals, so nix that thinking that Democrats will be our saviors, that is phenomenally naive. O’Farrell justifies his proposal by saying that it can’t be assumed that every adult at a playground is benign — that is, all adults on their own in a park are presumed by law to be pedophiles and shall be treated accordingly. And Garcetti has been the big pusher of the pocket parks everywhere, which we all know prevents us from living anywhere, even as these stupid pocket parks are normally too small for anyone to even use them for anything, some even only about 10 square feet, but they will keep us out.

At least the Los Angeles Times came out with the editorial at the link above opposing the proposal. But while they wrote the editorial, they have yet to cover the story, the public doesn’t even know about this proposal, because the Times generally chooses to keep the public in the dark about most of what is going on in the city, the better to manipulate the news.

I note, for what its worth, O’Farrell is gay. I have always been surprised at gays coming out in favor of all this crap imposed on registrants, as so many guys struggle with their sexuality, or course more so looking backwards that forwards. I also suspect gays are disproportionately represented in the registrant ranks, as that struggle can lead them (or anyone) to the wrong situations. So, I say not only are Democrats not going to be our saviors, neither does it seems gays will be.

On an aside, I have told friends for years that I won’t even go to a park because the hysteria is such that any lone male who goes to a park will automatically be leered at and presumed to be a child molester looking for a victim. Everyone tells me I’m being stupid, that is not so (no one knows my status). Well, I did end up at a park a year ago alone, the only time I have allowed that — waiting for two friends to show up who turned out to be very late. After a while the police came up and gave me the third degree and told me to get out. They said there had been complaints about me making people uncomfortable. But all I was doing was minding my own business sitting on a park bench, waiting, and even only about 25 feet from a security guard, as the park was adjacent to a museum (that’s where we were going), and the guard was there to make sure anyone going past that point had a ticket. The guard already knew I was waiting for friends. Yet the police terrified me and told me to get out, there had been complaints. And gee, there weren’t even any children around!

This proposal from Councilman O’Farrell now takes this public hysteria and makes it a formal law, and to hell with any Constitutional presumption of innocence. We should put O’Farrell high up on the enemy list.

If it’s legal for you to be somewhere, I say, the complainers can go shove it. I purposely visit one place where I’m sneered at just because I can and it pisses them off. I’m not the person causing the problem, it’s the brain dead simpletons. I wouldn’t look to cause trouble but don’t run from it either!

L.A Parks Ban….what nonsensical thinking. O’Farrell says it’s to keep out drug dealers….as if no drug dealer has ever sold drugs while their child plays nearby on a swing set! How about mothers who sell their kids for a drug fix? But at least people with children could go to playgrounds because none of them have ever harmed a child, right?
Dear God, why are so many of our politicians such dumbasses??

Hello everyone Merry Belated Christmas,

I was just wondering if anyone has heard anything regarding Michigan’s Does v Snyder, and how much longer it could take SCOTUS, to rule whether they will take the case,or not, I do know that as far as Michigan v Temelkowski goes that oral argument took place 12-7-16,and you can find that on youtube.

I just want to find out what is going on with does v Snyder, I know we here in michigan just have to be patient,but that is getting to be very hard,since the new year is approaching very quickly now, if anyone has heard any recent news regarding Does v Snyder, and can let me know something,or anything at all I would greatly appreaciate it. Thank you in advance for any help.

excellent link Eric,we need more contributions such as that..

My other half looked my info up and still no convection dates, test, or test score.. anyone else’s info still hasn’t been upgraded?

My conviction was 20 years ago on Florida, pre-Internet. They’ll never even bother to search for my records and they’ll certainly never fix my info on the website.

But, then again, my friend checked my profile and it barely says anything at all about me…… and they’ve had my eye color and hair color recorded inaccurately ever since my initial arrest!! LOL

in California

Well as many of you know… I was denied entry into Thailand due to the Lovely IML. I have been to Thailand two times prior to spend time with my fiance… Now ex fiance. This is the most recent correspondence from my Thai lawyer in an attempt to obtain a copy of the Alert Notification sent
Dear Al

Festive Seasons & Happy New Year.

1.1.1) The Thai Immigration authority has not yet disclosed written evidence about your case.
1.1.2) We will not pay the official to expedite communications because that could be interpreted as bribery.
1.2) Therefore, we telephoned them whereby its official stated it shall not disclose any correspondence received from the US authority; however, confirmed you were refused entrance after its receipt of the US correspondence.

2.1) It is possible for you to submit an Appeal to the Thai Ministry of Interior without inclusion of the requested evidence from the Thai Immigration authority.
2.2) The grounds shall be either:
– the Thai Immigration’s decision was erroneous or unsubstantiated;
– procedural non-compliance or impropriety; and
– your connections to Thailand, reason/s to return & subsequent conduct since the original offence.
2.3.1) The Appeal process cannot be used as a means for discovery because the Thai authorities cannot be compelled to present the US correspondence as evidence.
2.3.2) Instead, it is likely the Thai Immigration shall assert its reason to refuse you entry was your 1998 US conviction (howsoever such intelligence was reported and established) & your comments, including adverse admissions/ confession, made during interview.
2.3.3) Therefore, whether the Thai Immigration complied with the procedural requirement to provide you with an opportunity to Appeal may be asserted as a separate policy-issue to the substantive risk of prohibiting an alien felon from (re)entering the jurisdiction to prevent the commission of a potential further offence.
2.4) Regarding the prospects of your Appeal being successful, we cannot guarantee that the Ministry of Interior shall revoke the restriction. In our professional opinion cases involving a fact-pattern similar to your own matter, when the alien felon committed a less serious offence, have been dismissed.

3.1.1) Whether your Thai Appeal is successful shall not reveal the US correspondence.
3.1.2) Instead, if successful, it shall revoke the endorsement in your Passport and permit you entrance.
3.2.1) Therefore any potential action you may have against the US government authorities will be separate.
3.2.2) We cannot advise on whether the US government authority will disclose the correspondence directly to you.

(a) Appeal ‘out-of-country’ from the USA = THB 50,000 & 7% VAT plus disbursements.
(b) Wait an indefinite period for the Thai Immigration authority to reply; whether including or omitting the US correspondence.
(c) You travel to Thailand and, during the 48-hour period while detained, Appeal ‘within country’.
(d) Separately, you engage an US attorney to apply to the US government authority/ies for disclosure of your personal information.
Option (d) can be initiated regardless of options (a), (b) & (c).
Option (c) attracts the actual risk of being refused entry & detained without a positive outcome; plus additional (wasted) travel expenses.

What are your instructions?

Best regards

In short….. I’m screwed on that front.

Can you get the notice from the DOJ or whatever agency issued the notice? I think you should be able to request the notice under the Freedom of Information Act.

Please contact me. I want to talk to you about this ad it directly affects my future. This is very important.

Here’s a quote from the Washington Examiner:

Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.

SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

Ummm… Wait, so those under 18 years of age can consent to sex? Am I missing something here? And what exactly does this mean to any registrant involved in any “statutory” situation b/c a person under 18 cannot consent – be a willing participant?

Does not this law conflict with just having sex with anyone under 18 years old? I’m really confused right now. Can ACSOL help explain this new rule and does it have any effect for registrants? Thanks in advance!

So I looked up the bill.

The bill is there to not prosecute any minor caught soliciting. I guess before they were treated like adults and shared the same punishment. Essentially depicting that minors have no right mind to do the things they set out to do.

the law does state that minors won’t be treated as criminals if they are caught under such circumstances. But state Democrats say that distinction was necessary so that the children aren’t being blamed or punished for their situation.

They are instead to be treated as victims who can be placed into a safe environment by the Department of Social Services, keeping them out of the criminal justice system and potentially off the streets again as sex workers, said state Sen. Holly Mitchell, who introduced SB 1322.

So basically the new law will put minors into protective custody with DSS instead of Juvenal Hall. Therefor Police will still be removing them from the streets.

Just had my annual, which went well overall. Same woman I’ve had in the past and she is pleasant so that helps. Only issue out of the ordinary that was brought up was the station declares one must carry the receipt on the person at all times. I know better and asked for the ordinance or code number, something, to prove that. When she returned to provide me my copies, she stated there was nothing that could be found. She then followed that up with, “if a cop pulls you over and asks for it, you can deal with it then”, in a threatening like tone. I’ve read the other posts, including Janice’s, about the rules of the receipt. I’m somewhat appalled by the blatant lies, as this is not the first person from this station to feed me a line.

It’s all nicey nice till you’re not showing you’re scared and crapping in your drawers, compliant to them. Their real side comes out then. Lol

“HUNTED”!! IMHO, it will be interesting to watch the new CBS reality show “Hunted”. What secret law enforcement tools will be revealed?? And just for fun, let’s label all the contestants “sexual predators” so the general public will also be hunting them! Fun, huh? *rolls eyes* Maybe viewers will get a taste of what our society is really becoming: a fascist regime designed to oppress the masses.