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


CASOMB Reports on Tiered Registry Bill, New Registrant Statistics

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) discussed during today’s meeting that CASOMB and other co-sponsors of the Tiered Registry Bill (Senate Bill 695) are poised to request changes be made to that bill.  The changes include no lifetime registration for juveniles, the addition of time limits for decisions by district attorneys and local law enforcement and a rolling system of dates when individuals can petition for removal from the registry.  The requests are expected to be made prior to April 18 when the bill will be considered by the Senate Public Works Committee.

As currently written, SB 695 would require some juveniles to register for a lifetime.  The co-sponsors of the bill are recommending that juvenile registration be limited to 5, 10 or 15 years depending upon the tiered in which they are placed.  As currently written, SB 695 has no time limits for district attorneys to object to petitions for removal and local law enforcement to determine eligibility.  The co-sponsors will recommend limits of 30 to 60 days.  Finally, as currently written SB 695 allows individuals to petition at any time during the year in which they become eligible.  The co-sponsors will recommend that registrants must wait until the month of their birthday to submit a petition for removal. 

In addition to discussing SB 695, the CASOMB reported that there are now 104,123 registrants on the state’s registry including 6,372 who are transients and 1,561 who are in violation for failure to register.  The state also has 5,889 registrants on parole who are required to wear GPS devices.  According to CASOMB, these numbers indicate a continued slow growth of registrants in the state.

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Is there any relief for RC’s who have successfully expunged their record? I have an attempted lewd acts with under 14 but was able to expunge. As it stands I still have to register. It would be a meaningful win if an expungement granted relief from the registry. Not sure what the benefit to expungement is if people can just google your name and learn all the need to about your past. Anyone else in the same boat have any input?

So are you listed on Megan’s Law website still? Or are you just listed on privately owned websites? If you are listed in the media, then there is not much that can be done about that other than to get an internet company to get those unwanted listings way down Google’s list or learn to do it yourself. If you can learn how, you can do it yourself for no money by using free web blogs and website hosts.

Listed on Megan’s law and required to register every year. No way out as of yet. Can’t even apply for certificate of rehabilitation with a 288. Conviction was in 2003 and it was expunged in 2010.

Also in the same boat. I had my conviction reduced to misdemeanor and expunged; I’d be eligible for a CoR in 2020. I was never on Megan’s Law website. I still have to register though (pursuant to 290.006 even though the original sentencing judge never stated his reasons for it other than because he can).

There’s a statute that says the judge needs to go through a two-step process to levy registration as well as state it court. Essentially, it’s a mini-trial for and against registration. But this statute is only brought up for certain offenses.

Problem is… the courts do not follow their own statutes to the T. There’s much disdain against sex offenders in the court that they always assume “the outcome will be the same”. Well, then let the lower court actually do the two step process, rather than the higher courts “assume no different outcome”. The lower court did not follow the rule of law, but the appellate level just did not care.

Imagine having to go through that process now with all the knowledge we know: Dr. Ellman and Ellman’s paperwork on “high and frightening” contrarian views on recidivism rates + other research on recidivism rates are low + CASOMB’s low recidivism rates + low risk assessment (that’s why you got probation) should not equate to life time registration.

It’s the fact that you or anyone else in your situation were not properly given your “mini trial” on registration that is very concerning. You are supposed to be guaranteed that right in court, not brushed away as if it all sex offenders are a high menace to society. See, there is no context given to you. You are of one and the same – monstrous with a “high and frightening” recidivism rate.

Can someone say “bill of attainder”? Exactly how many registrants were given that “required two-step process” at the lower court level before being forced onto the registration scheme? The first time I read about this “mandatory two-step process” was from the Hofsheier case.

Yes New Person, I concur & say the following:

The Sex Offender Lists are in Form & Function a classic “Bill of Attainder”, which is forbidden by the Constitution: The state cannot single out citizens for Harsher Punishment or Treatment because they are on any List Secret or Public. I hold to the Reality that the Lists Violate Equal Protection and Equal Privileges Protections in the Federal and State Constitutions of The United States Of The American’s & those of The Commonwealth Realms, Great Britain being 1 of 16 of these Realms—these governments can’t teat people differently, under the law.

Furthermore, the fact that the Lists are “De Facto Perpetual Punishment” when we take into Account the Evil (Want Invoking) that the IML law will produce, and there is no Effective Way or Path for a Person, Their Family, Friends, or Associates to challenge One’s Status on the Offender & IML Lists, clearly these can be seen to violate Constitutional Due-Process Protections.

In addition focus can not be denied in viewing the violation of Ex Post Fact Protections.

Any Omission of this Reality is in Fact Twisting True Justice.

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

When it comes to judges doing anything of the sort in a court setting. I can’t recall. It’s probably because my case was in 1993. I don’t remember anything spoken to me about registration. Then in 2008 me having to register was sprung on me through my parole officer during that time.

Big T…… that’s exactly what happened to me. 1994 case and all of a sudden I had to register in 07.

Where can we look up this two step process law? I thought registration was automatic for listed offenses.

I am. Expunged 23 years ago, registering for 28 years, and never have been on the website. Now they want me to wait until my birthday to petition if this bill passes?

My luck. It will past, they will put me on the website and then I’ll have to fight with them for a year. In the mean time I’ll lose my job and everything else.

I can tell you I’m at the end of my rope. I cant imagine how anyone who is on the website and has an open public record makes it day to day. You all deserve better and hope you all the best.


I have the same exact charge. Convicted in 2010. It’s been 7 years. How did you go about getting yours expunged? I would love to do the same thing. Any info would be great! Thanks!!


As long as your 288 was an attempt you are eligible. I had an attorney prepare mine but it went through with no protest from the DA or judge. But like I said, only attempted lewd acts are eligible.

Hi Ron. I have a battery charge/Felony/wobbler/ summary probation 20-21 years ago. Reduced to misdemeanor/expunged. By law, the 17B makes it a misdemeanor and you can state you have never been convicted of a felony. I’m not on the website.
I think the tier updates are heading into the right direction, but I think it would be important to address those with expunged convictions. My offense has been expunged for years! So, I can’t see how someone with no criminal history could immediately become a tier 2 etc. I can’t see how we would just fall off the registry after this bill passes, but maybe putting us in the undisclosed category. Legally speaking, we are no longer convicts!

Dear Ron:

I am in the same boat as you…successful expungement…decades ago, yet I still have to register since my offense is one of those listed on PC 290.5…and so I think I am ineligible to get off or even to seek a COR.

Though I caution, I have not sought a formal legal opinion on my situation….it seems clear, but it may not be. I keep meaning to make an appointment with Chance, spend whatever is necessary, and get a firm final opinion on this….

But, I have been busy.

Eventually, I’ll get this done.

Why do Juveniles receive special treatment when it comes to required registration length of time? 5/10/15 years? That sounds like what it should be for ALL registrants, worst case. Where are they getting these statistics to back up the claims that juveniles should get 5/10/15 and everyone else is longer? Wait, didn’t that Static 99 claim that the younger you are, the more likely you have a risk of re-offending? So why are juveniles getting less than people over age 18? Does anybody within CASOMB and the politicians have authority to Turn On their half-empty brains? No offense to them, but you have to be a special type of ‘intelligent’ to whole-heartedly go along with this Joke. Everyday I am blown away at how horrible of a country the United States is becoming, primarily and possibly entirely due to politics.

What the heck is up with the requested change that you must wait until the month of your birthday to submit the request for removal?!?! That will make me register for almost another full year! My conviction was at the beginning of Nov and my birthday is at the end of September. That means that I will have to wait about 10 years and 11 months instead of the 10 years! Where as someone whose birthday and conviction date are opposite will only have you register for 10 years and 1 month. How does that stand up to the 14th ammendment equal protection clause? What is the point of this change? I can’t seem to find any reason for it!

I suspect it may have to do with officials not wanting to get hit with thousands of requests the day the law becomes effective.

Then point is so that they don’t have everyone doing it at once. Seems pretty logical.

Yep, that isn’t fair and does sound like an equal protection challenge.

They should do the rolling part for only the first year to keep from being flooded the first day.

I agree that it would only make sense for the first year, but even then it’s an equal protection issue. If they want to pass a new law, they should have to take into consideration the cost of that law, including the extra needed to fund overtime for the first 6 months to a year.

You did read that the bill won’t even go into effect until 2019 right?

Anyone that thinks they will get put on the public website due to this bill that wasn’t on it before needs to quickly talk to an attorney if this bill passes.

There are enough precedents now with the registry being punishment that a judge should be able to keep you off the registry prior to you getting a hearing on the matter, and then it should be stopped with a claim of a double-jeopardy violation, due process, and to protect your privacy.

I’m no attorney but I don’t see why those wouldn’t be sufficient.

I think we’re all waiting on what the SCOTUS says about Michigan’s Snyder case. If the SCOTUS agrees that registration is now punishment when compared to the original scheme, then Michigan probably abolishes the registry. Once Michigan falls, others will utilize the same result to abolish theirs. Well, that’s assuming the SCOTUS doesn’t narrowly tailor who can benefit from Snyder – contrarian move considering they blanketed all offenders in their original decision.

As of right now, people can use Snyder case as it has been upheld in Michigan Courts. But it will be reviewed by the SCOTUS (this year, iirc). All registrants of Michigan are holding their breaths until then. Heck, I’m holding my breath too, for Snyder and Peckinghman.

New Person

I would describe your statement:

“If the SCOTUS agrees that registration is now punishment when compared to the original scheme”

As: “Creeping Extra-Judiciary Punishment”

Leading down the Path to: “De Facto Perpetual Punishment”

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

“…then Michigan probably abolishes the registry.”

Only as applied retroactively.

I could be wrong, but I thought the overarching thought by the Michigan courts was that they viewed the registration as a “regulatory scheme as a whole”. Therefore, if one part fails, then all of it fails.

I reviewed the five of the seven factors that the SCOTUS used to skirt around the constitution. I will list the five factors and why that particular factor fails in parenthesis (failed reason/reasons).

1. Conviction is public record, therefore registration is public. (Dismissed convictions are still subject to the registry.)

2. Registration does not cause disability or restraint. (Presence, housing, and occupational restrictions exists. One of the disabilities denoted was periodic update is an imposed affirmative disability by which the SCOTUS countered that the update was not made in person. Actually, one can use this in the court of law to show “affirmative disability” refute 1203.4 causes a disability.)

3. Registration does not promote traditional aims of punishment. (Please note all the items written in parenthesis in factor 2.) The term of registration corresponds to the danger of recidivism. (In California, all registrants must register for life. While you can petition off the registry for some, it is the fact that you were inherently designated for a lifetime term regardless of your risk assessment – ie, low level and mid-level offenders.)

4. Registration is rational and non-punitive as the recidivism rate is “high and frightening” at 80% re-offense rate. Due to the high recidivism rate, public safety is rational and non-punitive. (The recidivism rates are quite low amongst a plethora of researched based works that are substantiated. Also, Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman have disproved the 80% recidivism rate cited by the SCOTUS.)

5. Registration is not excessive with respect to the purpose of “notifying the public of a convicted class, sex offender class”. (This is the easiest to prove as we can compare what was permitted in 2003 to today. The IML implies that all sex offenders are going to commit sex trafficking in other countries. The IML is not notification, but promotion. But please do note the specificity that SCOTUS has denoted “convicted sex offender” in factors 1 and 5. In California and Mississippi, your dismissed conviction still forces you to continue to be a part of the regulatory scheme.)


Now that we have witness what smugness the SCOTUS deemed non-punitive and will never meet that threshold back in 2003, we can affirm that any regulatory scheme like registration will follow suit once again as it has already happened (this is factor 5, excessiveness). If any part of the regulatory scheme is wrong, then the whole must be abolished – this is why the SCOTUS went through the five factors as to why registration is non-punitive. The recidivism rates were the sole reason for public safety concerns in factor 4.

After re-reading the 2003 decision, I wonder if Janice can now add anyone in California or Mississippi who has earned dismissal of their case to thwart the IML. Only those convicted are to be put upon the registry. The IML is promoting many people who, according specifically to the 2003 Smith decision, should not be on the registry. For that matter, I wonder why can’t we use the 2003 Smith decision to uphold that 1203.4 gets you off the registry as the state has gone beyond what the Federal has denoted who should and should not be on the registry.

Another point on 1203.4, one of the reasons why 1203.4 was struck down for registration relief was b/c it did not show any disability to the California courts. Welp, the 2003 Smith decision just said that checking in person periodically is an affirmative disability. So that’s two strikes that California has disregarded to what the statute states in 1203.4.

Thanks for adding this New Person…I was not sure how they came up with scare tatics for false facts and erred info from unk sources and to please the public and voters that freak out.
SCOTUS should Re-Do their decision as it was verified falsely just as the new Pres gets his.
Twisted to their needs and the misinformed public’s wants.

It was easier to read your breakdown than ownline.

I’m no attorney, but if you’ve had your conviction expunged, it essentially never happened (there are specific and limited exceptions, from what I’ve gleaned). Heck, even law-and-order Mississippi recognizes that as fact! See: (Paragraphs 6 & 13 are the meat of the issue) in which the MS Supreme Court ruled an expunged record equates to a clean record for registration purposes in MS–even when the expunged crime occurred in another state! It’s a bizarro world when someone from liberal CA needs to move to conservative MS to enjoy improved civil rights and liberties.

Mississippi is lawless too AJ. Yes, that case was judged correctly but they have discredited PC1203.4 just like California does. See this:

Here is the Mississippi statute: § 45-33-47(4) as annotated in Mississippi Code of Law

The offender will be required to continue registration for any sex offense conviction unless the conviction is set aside in any post-conviction proceeding, the offender receives a pardon, the charge is dismissed or the offender has received a court order pursuant to this section relieving him of the duty to register. Upon submission of the appropriate documentation to the department of one (1) of these occurrences, registration duties will be discontinued.

Mississippi can’t even legally document a conviction exists in this case, required by their own law, but it doesn’t stop lawless judicial decisions when that little three letter word is inserted into the matter at hand.

Mississippi has good law on the books but even their own supreme court won’t follow it. That’s not better than California, arguably worse. California has some bad law on the books that undermines good law such as PC1203.4. Lets hope after three plus decades they correct that glaring statutory contradiction.

CASOMB is disingenuous.

I am sure they are not revealing at the top of their lungs about the under 1% recidivism rates. Also, why are they not questioning the effectiveness and efficiency of the registry? Isn’t that part of the reason they were created?

CASOMB will put out a video that looks as if they’re on the side of registrants, but their actions in government says otherwise. This is what the Michigan courts queried about their state and lack of research. In California, we have the research and they are not using that data to find the effectiveness nor efficiency of registration. The whole point of registration is the false fact bandied about in the 2003 SCOTUS that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate, a rate of 80% re-offending. Where is that process of review?

There isn’t. Why? Because guess who’s on the CASOMB panel. Guess who isn’t. What exactly is the purpose of CASOMB again?

Well, their mission says “The vision will be accomplished by addressing issues, concerns and problems related to community management of adult sex offenders by identifying and developing recommendations to improve policies and practices.”

It doesn’t sound like they will go as far as putting themselves out of a job by actually declaring the truth of the situation. On the contrary, they benefit as much as the politicians by changing stuff just to change stuff and not actually eliminate or reduce anything.

Only the judicial branch can undo this mess, and even then the elected ones won’t help.

Did you see any meeting minutes or recordings of their meetings? I don’t mean prepared reports, but the discussions. If so, every registrant must hear what is discussed there, because it affects our lives what is said there. I looked for those on its web site.

talk about a equal protection issue..I have a attempted lewd Act but since I fought it through trial the judge gave me the maximum sentence which was 4years in prison…how can I others in the same offense be eligible for expungment but I am not simply because I went to prison..

New Person,
What you said about the mini trial is spot on.
I feel like when the scumbag Public Defender (haha) coaxes a kid into signing under threat of lengthy prison time should be grounds for duress.
They handed me a death sentence because I haven’t felt alive since I got out.
I remember my probation officer telling me when I was done with probation I’d be free of registration……that didn’t happen. First example that even LE didn’t fully understand the Registry.
Pray Michigan does the courageous thing, the Right thing and burn the Registry to the ground…..with a splash of holy water.

Every time I read something that comes out of the annals of CASOMB, my stomach sinks because of how dirty and corrupt I think the organization is. I never trust CASOMB information!

I think the comments regarding expunged offenses is very important! In summary, your case has been dismissed! So, posting your information online with the past offense is rather disturbing! I’m not one to argue, but this is a very good point!

USA and all others who commented, thank you. You are exactly correct. As my minutes read, my plea has been withdrawn and the status of my case is dismissed. This would be an amazing idea were it not for the registry. I just think it’s an interesting concept that the government would grant the expungement but still force me to register. I value the idea that I was successful in doing this, but only because I hope it will open a door in the future. It has thus far done nothing to help my cause. We live in a funny world where the powers that be will forgive you for something but insist on reminding you of that very thing every second of your life.

Perhaps they need to reconsider just having the Registrant fall off the registry automatically without filing a petition, then they would not have a rush of people storming their offices. Oh wait that makes sense and we all know how much common sense the government has.

Registration is about “sharing public information”. You have no privacy when your conviction is on public record. Thus, you are on the registry – it does not matter if you are on the website or not b/c you will share the same restrictions, penalties, and banishment.

1. California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 states that all California citizens have the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy.

2. 1203.4 withdraws your conviction as well as return you to the state before your conviction, but there are exceptions to this that are listed specifically in 1203.4 by “…and as noted below”. No where below exists any specific statement that registrants must continue to register, but there are listed exceptions on which registrants can apply for 1203.4.

3. The state of California has obviously denied registrants who rightfully earned the 1203.4 their pursuit of privacy as 1203.4 is a legal venue that meets the threshold of obtaining privacy.

4. From wikipedia on the 2003 Smith decision, 5 of the 7 factors for regulatory scheme:

First, the regulatory scheme, in its necessary operation, has not been regarded in the Nation’s history and traditions as a punishment. The fact that sex offender registration and notification statutes are of fairly recent origin suggests that the Act was not meant as a punitive measure, or, at least, that it did not involve a traditional means of punishing. Respondents’ argument that the Act, particularly its notification provisions, resembles shaming punishments of the colonial period is unpersuasive. In contrast to those punishments, the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public. The fact that Alaska posts offender information on the Internet does not alter this conclusion.

Second, the Act does not subject respondents to an affirmative disability or restraint. It imposes no physical restraint, and so does not resemble imprisonment, the paradigmatic affirmative disability or restraint. Hudson, 522 U. S., at 104. Moreover, its obligations are less harsh than the sanctions of occupational debarment, which the Court has held to be nonpunitive. See, e. g., ibid. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. While registrants must inform the authorities after they change their facial features, borrow a car, or seek psychiatric treatment, they are not required to seek permission to do so.

Third, the Act does not promote the traditional aims of punishment. That it might deter future crimes is not dispositive. See, e. g., id., at 105. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the Act’s registration obligations were retributive. While the Act does differentiate between individuals convicted of aggravated or multiple offenses and those convicted of a single nonaggravated offense, these broad categories and the reporting requirement’s corresponding length are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.

Fourth, the Act has a rational connection to a legitimate nonpunitive purpose, public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community. That the Act may not be narrowly drawn to accomplish the stated purpose is not dispositive, since such imprecision does not suggest that the Act’s nonpunitive purpose is a “sham or mere pretext.” Hendricks, supra, at 371 (KENNEDY, J., concurring).

Fifth, the regulatory scheme is not excessive with respect to the Act’s purpose. The State’s determination to legislate with respect to convicted sex offenders as a class, rather than require individual determination of their dangerousness, does not render the Act punitive. See, e. g., Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189, 197. Hendricks, supra, at 357-368, 364, distinguished. Moreover, the wide dissemination of offender information does not render the Act excessive, given the general mobility of the population.

Your case is dismissed. Your case is no longer public. You should no longer be part of the registry b/c of the fact your case does not exist. Yet California is undermining its two statutes, the Constitution and 1203.4, by denying all the benefits from both the statutes.

Allow me to reiterate what 1203.4 is stated to do:

the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.

Point 1. Notice how 1203.4 denotes exceptions within that excerpt. Use law to fight law. Although ML says you must continue to register, it is not specifically written into the scope of 1203.4. These two laws cannot co-exist and the law must favor the defendant’s laymen translation.

Point 2. Also notice 1203.4 states you will be “released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense”. It does not identify punishment, but rather “penalties and disabilities”. Loss of privacy is a penalty and a disability. Presence, living, and employment restrictions are disabilities. Being reviewed to go onto any campus is a penalty and will be a disability if registrants are denied wholly to venture onto campus.

At college, there is a sign in book for registrants. For this particular college, parolees must sign in every time they venture onto campus. (The school police doesn’t even think a registrant can be on probation as it was never stated.) If you’re not under custody, then you simply check in at the beginning of each semester. WAIT… WAIT, WAIT, WAIT… So I’m still checking in as if I’m currently under custody. Volume doesn’t matter b/c it’s the similar action that matters.

Which this is similar to compliance checks AFTER probation/parole has been completed.

Great, so you get your case dismissed, but you retain all the penalties and disabilities stemming from your conviction. Your case is no longer public as it does not exist. Using the SCOTUS’ purview, only if you’re on PUBLIC RECORD MUST YOU REGISTER. This is noted at beginning of this comment under the “5 of th 7 factors for a regulatory scheme”, #4 (first factor). This quote can be used to negate the ML’s requirement to continue to register as it is beyond the scope of the original intent of the registry.

In essence, this is like living restriction defense in California. 2003 Smith decision says you must register if your conviction is public. If you have no conviction, then you have no criminal record. So why must you continue to have the stigma that you still have a criminal record? I’ll quote 2003 Smith again:

In contrast to those punishments, the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public.

So California is going above and beyond what the federal law states. If Janice and team can win the residency cases, then this should not be any different. Also, this can extend to the IML. Since my conviction does not exist, then I belong to no registry. If I belong to no registry, then I cannot be a part of IML since being on the registry is the first requirement.

Earning the 1203.4 doesn’t distinguish you from any other registrant at all. Why? Because you still retain the same disability. I’ll continue to mock the 2003 Smith decision as I quote them again:

Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.

Earning the 1203.4 still disables you from certain housing and occupational opportunities. Also, you still have to show up in person to register. According to 2003 Smith decision, showing up in person to register meets the threshold of punishment. Another point about 2003 in this quote, “no supervision”, doesn’t that include compliance checks, home or work?

The 2003 Smith decision doesn’t care much about online publication, but rather that you must register. And you are registering because your conviction is public. Welp, 1203.4 says my conviction does not exist. Yet nothing has truly changed. I still have housing and occupational limitations. Right now, I am incapable of leaving the state because my only venue off of the registry is the CoR, where I must live in California for a minimum of 10 years after custody, with five years of continuous living in California before applying for the CoR.

The state of California has rendered 1203.4 useless for registrants. Higher paying jobs most often require you to travel and 1203.4 doesn’t help you at all as registering becomes a liability to the company.

Again, SCOTUS 2003 Smith decision stated being on the registry is only due to your conviction being made public. That’s it. That information is disseminated. 1203.4 dismisses my case and my conviction does not exist. So why is it that I must continue to register when the SCOTUS specifically noted who needs to register? Conflate that with California’s own constitution that the right to pursue and obtain privacy is an inalienable right, but California negated that option in 1203.4 for registrants ONLY.

We really should uphold the law to follow the law. My case is dismissed. 2003 Smith decision implies I no longer have to register b/c the requirement to be on the registry is your conviction is public record. No conviction = no record = no registry.

Can we sue California now like Janice has sued cities for residency restrictions that over-reach the original law for all those who have earned the 1203.4?

I was convicted in 1999 for an offense in 1998 in the US District Court, Eastern District of California, for possession of sexually explicit images, depicting minors. There are no identified victims (internet downloads.) In order to avoid trial, trafficking was added as an enhancement and the sentence was 84 months. As a condition of release, I was directed to register in the state in which released.

Subsequently, as there seemed no other relief, in compliance with SORNA I notified the local jurisdiction, Franklin County, Georgia, of my intent to leave that jurisdiction for Martinique (Windward Islands, Caribbean Sea.)
The sailing vessel on which I departed and now live is a US Documented Vessel, documented in Riverside, CA, with a Home Port of Redondo Beach, CA.

That being my official US Residence, would I qualify to Petition for Removal under SB695 (if enacted.)

I agree, the People, in the person of the state, have an obligation to enact such laws as are necessary to ensure as far as possible the ordered cooperation with the social contract. Nevertheless, such enactments must be balanced with reason and supported with facts. SB695 appears to address the requirements of reason based in fact. It will be interesting to see how this legislation is actually applied.

Wow, that question is way beyond the advise you can get here. You would probably need a maritime attorney for that. Issues like leaving CA boundaries, residing in International, Federal or other State waters. The need to prove locations through the ship’s manifest perhaps. It’s up to you to submit satisfactory proof of continuous residency in California to apply for COR or removal from the tiered registry. I assume you’re now registered in CA. Proof like rent receipts, utility bills or anything else you normally submit when you do your yearly CA registration. I imagine if the Coast Guard boards your ship, they could check your documents and they would likely check to be sure you’re complying to their interpretation of the residency rules. Good luck and check with an attorney.

I’m still at a loss for how the state of California if a tiered registry becomes law will deal with registrants petitioning for removal from the registry whose cases are federal or did not involve a California state court. My registration requirements under federal law end after fifteen years. Who would I petition to be no longer required to register in California?

The bill, as its currently written, would match a person up with the closest California version of the offense. This would then be used to decide the tier. If there’s no equivalent, then the person would be put in tier 2. This is how it’s written for out of state people. Not sure about federal.

Thank you. However I was already aware that California has an equivalent match for the federal offense I was prosecuted for. Aside from slight variations of legal language and interconnectedness between other parts of law, the law I broke federally is represented almost the exactly same under California state law. I know I would be tier one and be able to petition for removal from registration requirements after fifteen years because that’s my federal registration term.

Since my case was federal only a federal judge could be involved in any aspect of the case. After fifteen years my registration requirements under the law at the federal level end. When this occurs no federal judge needs to do anything to end my registration requirements it automatically happens and from then on any federal agency that had kept track of my registration will no longer do so. Which means if under California law I would have to petition to be removed from the state requirements to no longer registration after my federal requirements end that creates a weird situation.

No state court or state attorney in California would know anything about my case and since its only California that requires me to register no federal court could weigh in on the matter. So if no federal court could be involved and no state court has the authority to weigh in on a federal matter who would be petitioned?

The Draconian constitution, or Draco’s code, was a written law code created by Draco near the end of the 7th century BC in response to the unjust interpretation and modification of oral law by Athenian aristocrats, now america, see hundreds years ltr and still little progress.. civility plain doesnt exist .. ex post facto continues, change and the perseverant spirit acheives much ..

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x