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

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at


General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments March 2017

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of March 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thanks for having a spot for us to voice and vent!
Hope this keeps us all on track and spot on the topic of news.

These are the kind of comments at the end of a news story that makes me nauseous

California trying to lower voter age to 17 years old.


If this happens, then what does that mean for the many registrants whose threshold offense was 17 years old?

I find the thought of lowering the voter age to 17 ridiculous in California because what elects the president are the electoral votes; not popular vote. The Dems have California in the basket with no real opposition. Then again, California did agree to tax itself higher.

Lemme see, in CA, you can vote at 18 (or 17 if people have their way); 18 or 30 (upper house) to run for CA state government (and be a registered voter); drink, dip and smoke (tobacco and marijuana) at 21; die for your country at 18 (maybe 17 with parental consent); legally have sex at 18 and drive at 16. Dang, being a teenager is getting tougher with all of these different ages in CA. Pretty crazy all things considered!

I’m not sure if allowing younger ages to vote is a good thing, but how could it get any worse than it is now? Maybe the youth are better educated and will make better, less uninformed decisions. I believe that today’s youth are very aware of today’s social and political issues since they were raised with today’s social media.

Kind of like proximity restrictions – it’s becoming increasingly difficult to be a compliant teenager.

I agree, but how to get them to vote or be active? I went to a political rally and 95% of the participants had only 10 or 20 years good active life ahead of them. When we are gone, what?

Notice: HR 1313, requiring employess to give samples of DNA to employers or face penalties.
So, registrants (in California at least) have to submit DNA to the Dept of Justice. Would this bill now give employers information of our conviction, if not to deny emoloyment, to raise health premiums on registrants?

I don’t see this bill having a chance of going any further. Too many powerful groups are against it. They are now aware of this bill and are going to fight against it. “Congress (already) passed GINA to prohibit discrimination by health insurers and employers based on the information that people carry in their genes. There is an exception that allows for employees to provide that information as part of voluntary wellness programs. But the law states that employee participation must be entirely voluntary, with no incentives for providing the data or penalties for not providing it.” I think the author of this article is just trying to stir up fear to get more readership, which has worked. Since this bill conflicts with GINA, if it was to pass, it will be held up in court for years.

I’m pretty sure they age change would only impact state elections, as federal elections (President, Senate and House) are governed by federal laws.

Still, it’s pandering to a demographic, just like Nixon did with changing the national age to 18.


I have been reading these articles and your comments to them for a while. 9 months left on probation ( actually a lifetime left , but whose counting). I have been able to conclude one thing…… You are a bunch of dreamers! You get excited when some trivial B.S. ordinance gets changed. Oh boy! You can live 500 ft closer to a school! Wow, the state’s Tier system might give a few people a slim chance to get what’s left of their lives back.

For making a stupid Internet mistake and not erasing my Laptop’s trash bin, I get turned down for every well paying job I am offered, lose all material comfort I worked hard for, and have to live in a low life area full of meth heads and gang members. All because the government has marked me for public judgement.

If any of you think that this all is going to somehow change, please take a moment, breath deep, and re- read your 290 form. Your every move, every change of lifestyle, every job, every minute piece of your life has to be reported, for the rest of your life. Now, I know, ” Don’t let them win” , ” Appreciate the little things” , ” If we band together, we can beat this”. Nice sound bites, but doesn’t change the fact that I have lost my life, scared to even respond to a woman’s advances, sweat when I go to a public place, and contemplate suicide at least once a day.

I expect a lot of negative responses to this post, but so what, none of you can say a thing that could hurt me or even vaguely affect my future, and I do mean MY future, because despite this warped sense of brotherhood you all have, if you got off this bullshit train of pain, you would never look back.

I am done, Bon Voyage!

Dude. Chill. Just leave California. If all you did was what you state than there are several states that can see you off any registry or reporting requirements in 5-10 years. California is a cesspool of ignorance. Go somewhere else.

You too have been ensnared in this little experiment that the powers that be have perpetrated on humanity. We here on this forum ( and probably thousands of others who read but don’t post) are independent people who just happen to have a common goal, and gain a little bit of strength in knowing that we are not alone.. Their little game is and will continue to be exposed as people are waking up to the tyranny that is starting to creep into everyone’s life ( in one form or another) You’re understandable anger reveals that you have not quite succumbed to defeat ( yet) . Please don’t let that happen……

“The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”


Good… bye. I have the same charge 8 mos left on parole and have a job, friends, hobbies, and wife. If u want to act like a Whiney a jerk then I’m totally cool with u doing it somewhere I don’t have to hear u doing it. Life is hard if ur trying to do the right thing. It’s harder if u sit around complaining about a situation that u caused. Get over ur self

So, you have 9 months left on your probation. Uh, I do not know how you think you can preach to the choir here. We have all felt this way. I was convicted in 1998. You are just starting my friend. Welcome to the club.
I have a home, a son and a beautiful fiancé. I went through a brain tumor. I have to be reminded to register every year or i will forget. I can find a dozen reasons to give up, but there are more pros in this life than cons. Keep your eyes forward. Delving on the past and how you are treated shouldn’t dictate how you act. You made a mistake in the eyes of the people. It is up to you, and only you, to prove everybody wrong in their wrong assumptions.

@ w/o a life,
While I was on parole, I was grumbling at my teen son about wearing the ankle bracelet, having travel restrictions, mandatory and pointless therapy sessions, home invasions from the SAFE task force, on and on. He played this ditty for me. Seems appropriately funny in some ways if you like Pythonesque humor. Enjoy.

“When you’re chewing on life’s gristle… don’t grumble…give a whistle, and this will help things turn out for the best.”

Living w/o a Life,

I believe a lot of us have went through what you went through.

Right now, you are incapable of securing a high paying job. But since you did get probation, then you’re eligible to get 1203.4, provided you successfully complete the program, paid all of your dues, and not incur any more infractions. I would suggest you start collecting a list of references who can write letters of recommendation for you b/c that’s what you’ll need if you have a felony and want that reduced as well via 17(b).

In all legal sense, your case does not exist if you’re able to secure both 1203.4 and 17(b). That will increase your pool of jobs. 1203.4 gets your case dismissed. 17(b) is a felony reduction.

Don’t stop, though, b/c you still need to apply for the Certificate of Rehabilitation, CoR, in about a decade or less. Get that and you’re off the registry.

It’s been done before. Our president, Chance, did just that and was able to regain his license to be a lawyer again.

The road is difficult, but there is a pathway for your own individual self. You don’t necessarily need to be on ACSOL, but you should keep in touch with Chance if you want your CoR. Chance won his CoR. He’s a shining example of how to win back your life without changing the system. So I wish the best for you. Complete probation successfully and that will open up more doors. Until then, try to bide your time by gathering up your letters of recommendation, in case you have a felony and want that reduced along with being awarded 1203.4.

You are right —-> Living w/o a life

A vast majority of people posting on here seem to have developed a form of Stockholm syndrome, whereas normalizing their life circumstances as “at least I’m alive” mentality thus reinforcing their pseudo life and meager existence.

They ramble on and take false pride in their jobs, children, cars, education, girlfriends, wives and homes, but they will never truly be free and will always be castigated, vilified, demonized, marginalized and shunned online. They will never be able to escape their past and most have made peace with dying on the registry. But hey, some are on-board with being witch hunted all the way to hospice; the freedom without privacy and safety lifestyle, and being bad-mouthed before getting off a plane in another country in the name of “protecting children.”

Wow, here’s some interesting reading.

This statement below sounds so familiar;

In an eight to one decision the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made clear that the challenge was not upon the medical procedure involved but on the process of the substantive law. The court was satisfied that the Virginia Sterilization Act complied with the requirements of due process since sterilization could not occur until a proper hearing had occurred at which the patient and a guardian could be present and the patient had the right to appeal the decision. They also found that since the procedure was limited to people housed in state institutions it did not deny the patient equal protection of the law. And finally, since the Virginia Sterilization Act was not a penal statute, the Court held that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment since it is not intended to be punitive. Citing the best interests of the state, Justice Holmes affirmed the value of a law like Virginia’s in order to prevent the nation from being “swamped with incompetence.” The Court accepted, without evidence, that Carrie and her mother were promiscuous and that the three generations of Bucks shared the genetic trait of feeblemindedness. Thus, it was in the state’s best interest to have Carrie Buck sterilized. The decision was seen as a major victory for eugenicists.

The ruling encouraged other states to enact sterilization laws. By 1930, 24 states had passed similar measures and about 60,000 people were sterilized under these statutes. Virginia alone sterilized more than 7,500 people between the Supreme Court ruling in 1927 and 1972 when the law was finally replaced.

It is said that Hitler based Nazi Germany’s first eugenic law, the “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring” on our law.

I hope it won’t take us 40 years to replace this laws

Lake County you speak Truth

Hitler and the Nazi (National Socialist party) he founded were also great followers of Mararet Sanger’s Solutions for society.

The Ugly Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

“……..They ramble on and take false pride in their jobs, children, cars, education, girlfriends, wives and homes, but they will never truly be free ….”

You just described most American citizens.

You think your neighbors are free? Your local grocery clerk? The truth is that the Government wields control over almost every aspect of our lives, registered or not.

You’ve had the veil lifted . Shaken from the collective trance like state. You have been liberated from lies you once believed in and now you KNOW you are not free which is the prerequisite for obtaining true freedom.

You are demonized and marginalized? Only you can do that to yourself.

This is a spiritual war if nothing else. Now be a warrior. Or don’t.

I was just saying take some responsibility for the situation u put ur self into, quit whining, and man up. The registry totally sucks, so help fight it. Be part of the solution not part of the problem.

Question for those with kids…

What are your experiences in asking permission to visit the schools? What was the process like? What was it like when you went to the school? Did someone follow you around or did the teachers know?

Breaks my heart to have to avoid going to my kids’ conferences, back to school events etc. Won’t be able to do that forever.

If there’s any possibility that they’ll treat my kids different once they know though there’s now way I’d do it. Not fair to them.


I am not on parole or probation. My conviction was in 1998. Never have I asked permission to be involved in my sons education. I drive him to school, watch him in his activities etc…. thing is, any activity at a child’s school that is yours, you have every right to be involved in their education. Called parental rights. There are always other adults and parents involved. Don’t be afraid or intimidated. Be a parent.

While on probation I obviously asked every time I wanted to attend any event at my children’s school.

Once off probation, I don’t ask permission from anyone. I drop off / pick up, and attend functions just like any other “normal” citizen. No one has said anything. Let them stop me from being part of my children’s lives.

I do not have kids, but have visited schools (with appropriate permission) in order to attend District community meetings, emergency trainings, and local government events. It’s certainly a hassle, but I have usually been able to get permission (or I don’t attend), but it takes a couple weeks of emails. (I was denied permission by a local private school whose auditorium was being used for a public informational meeting by a local semi-government utility provider.) At the last event, I spoke with the school’s principal after the event – she actually apologized profusely for her response taking so long but she explained that it had to go up through the proper administrative channels.

“I can think of no area of the criminal law, except perhaps international terrorism, into which contemporary American society has terrified itself into more ignorance than this.”

“Disgust, Dehumanization, and the Courts’ Response to Sex Offender Legislation” by Alexandra Stupple

Nice read. It’s from 2014, but still a good read. Interesting take on “disgust” being the moving force rather than empirical evidence. Here’s a succinct quote from that pdf:

The law’s enabling of the “vicious cycle” of
disgust, dehumanization, and banishment would be checked if more judges
(and especially Supreme Court Justices) were to depend more on empirical
data than commonly accepted “knowledge” when deciding an issue.


There are many instances of disgust and dehumanizing language being
allowed to enter criminal courtrooms. A district court judge referred to a
defendant as a “predator” and a “pedophile monster.”

Which segues to this:

Another constitutional bulwark against the tyranny of the majority is found
in federalism. The judiciary should act to ensure the other branches are not
creating laws that are violative of the Constitution. One way to do this for
courts to demand legislatures produce data in support of their lawmaking.

Proof of this:

Recently, in California, Judge Thelton E. Henderson determined that,
under intermediate scrutiny, a law that would require the registering of
all Internet identifiers of all 73,000 California sex offenders was not nar143
rowly tailored. He based his decision on facts presented by the opponents
of the law:
In this case, the government has not provided any evidence regarding the
extent to which the public safety might be enhanced if the additional registration
requirements went into effect. Plaintiffs’ evidence—as yet undisputed—
indicates that only 1 percent of arrests for sex crimes against children
are for crimes facilitated by technology, and that registered sex offenders are
involved in only 4 percent of these arrests.126

All this is pertinent as it gives us insight as to what Janice and Team are doing with this tiered proposal. Janice will be querying the makers of this bill with Public Safety as to how the makers arbitrarily constructed this bill and what use of scientific data helped construct that tiered proposal? Obviously, the makers probably did not use any and will probably refer to “common sense” or “because the SCOTUS deemed this a regulatory scheme”.

And this is where the example of the reversal of the internet identifier in California would prove contrary to not abide by the utilization of statistical facts and research. Especially with CASOMB proving less than 1% re-offense rates would question the totality of the registration scheme altogether. Also, with the recent Snyder case from Michigan, it posits that the regulatory scheme approved in 2003 is not the same as present and was deemed punishment.

There needs to be a way these re-offense rates have to be entered into the government and this tiered proposal may be a way to introduce these statistics that the government cannot refute, especially when the government has not shown any statistics that reveal registrants are “high and frightening” to re-offend. In an odd way, this tiered proposal could be the venue to where the government can actually re-visit registration with Janice being our voice to thwart “disgust” justice with “empirical” justice.

Unfortunately I am still on probation… hope to be done by October.

But the kids are definitely mine… even though they tried. The police reported me to child services when I was arrested. 8 months and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees later and I finally prevailed in child court.

I am not one to do illegal things or skirt regulations but I do wonder what would happen if someone got picked up for violating the ‘can’t go to schools’ provision. Can you imagine sitting in the city jail… “what are you in for… DUI, got in a fight, stole someones purse… me? Oh I went to my kids school play.” It’s a classic malum prohibitum isn’t it?

It’s also what is known as a “status offense,” a term which we really should be using more often. A “status offense” is a law which only applies to a specific class of powerless citizens (most often, minors) but which clearly also applies to the many laws which Registrants, exclusively, are obliged to obey.

Sounds like a contronym. It should be “lack of” status offense. I get your point. We need better phrases to describe the reality of registration laws and how they are unlike most anything seen in recent times. Cruel….and unusual.

I’d call it a Stigma Offense. Murder, robbery, manslaughter? No problem. Looked at something or touched someone in their “bathing suit area”? You filthy disgusting POS! Stone him!

Plus 1

I went thru the same thing with children’s court. They tried so hard to keep me away from my kids but I prevailed as well. My kid’s school found out once it went online. They go to catholic school so i eventually had to have a meeting with the archdiocese. From that meeting I was allowed to be on campus for events etc…. It was very hard at first knowing everyone knew my past but some very loyal friends were very vocal in a positive way about me that pretty much silenced everyone. i found that out much later. These are my best friends today. There are people out there like that you just have to have faith in people. AYSO banned me from watching my daughter play soccer. My son was black balled out of one of his sports clubs. Recently, my daughter, who is in college 2000 miles away, her friends parents found out and I received a text from one of them with my picture from the website saying “WTF is this” After a night of painful phone calls to 5 different families it all sorted out and everything turned out fine. My point is, it doesn’t end. Be prepared for a few “hurricanes” be it eventually settles. I actually feel better now that it’s out there you don’t have to hide.

Registration Question:

I live and register in Upland, CA.

In the next month, I will likely be opening a business — a warehouse — in either Upland or a neighboring city (let’s say Rancho Cucamonga as an example).

Do I have any sort of registration or notification requirement? It’s not a residence and that’s the only thing I can find a law on, but you guys have a lot more experience with this than I do.


No. If you are not on paper (probation or parole), the only requirement is that you register where you live.

Oh, sounds awesome! Good luck with your business venture. Let me know if/when you would be hiring. I don’t live too far from those areas. 😉

And I agree with Hookscar, you only need to notify them asap if you move, etc.

As far as anything else, you can just wait until your annual to give them that info. I’ve asked numerous times if one is required to give information where one works. No one could really give me a straight answer. There is some mention of it in the legal jargon, but nothing about it when you initial your requirements.

will you be hiring ? if so let us know;

I’ve been operating my business out of an office in a business complex for years and have heard nothing about registering ones work place. In fact, as far as the cops are concerned I maintain a home office. I don’t tell them my company name because I don’t want them to ever show up here, and if they decide to start publishing work addresses, as they do in some states, I don’t want it on the social media web site from Hell.

Regarding hiring: If someone has a truck and is not on parole/probation, I may be looking for someone to do deliveries for me. It would be very part-time, something like 5-10hrs/wk, but I would pay well for it (equivalent to $25-30/hr).

NotLikingCA….. I have a truck. I’m in SCV. Is that to far from you.

I have a full size pick up, can they be done on weekends? I would love to have some extra income. I live in LA, can drive anywhere not too far, NOT on parole or probation.


What does being on parole or probation have to do with your job offer?

I suspect that it has to do with being unable to have regular contact with convicts/ sex offenders when one is under probation or parole. That condition was very specific under probation.

Has anyone ever been flagged entering a secure building, like a downtown LA skyscraper?

I have to enter these buildings from time to time and get paranoid, especially when they swipe my driver license.

Bought an annual pass for a local theme park that takes a finger print scan to verify your identity for future visits. So far, so good, but it is always in the back of my mind that that one of these times I’ll get taken aside and told to leave.

Some theme parks like Disneyland will do background checks on season pass holders. They have been known to take registrants aside and deny entry while you’re with your family. There are some old posts about it somewhere on this site.

Here’s one topic:

CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT against the United States Government by Registrants is MUCH overdo, and much needed. Too many low-intelligence politicians with interests of their self-image who are in power making asinine laws which make absolutely no sense to humanity or public safety or a better society. It’s TIME for a change, time to stop being overly-polite and afraid of expressing your outrage with what’s happening to this country’s justice system.

Well stated and I agree totally that the only way to make any sort change is to come out of the shadows and act out in some way be that by suing every local. state, and federal government there is over and over until we get to those bastards on the “supreme” court and finally get some actual facts used instead of the lies they bring out each election cycle to gain votes from the scared sheep who want the government to hold their hands and save them from the scary real world. Pathetic

C-SPAN3 live right now 12:00 noon PT, Hearing is going on now about children being on the registry. Subject: Prosecution of Crimes Against Children. They clearly stated on TV there is no evidence that the registry prevents child sexual abuse. They are talking about removing all children from the registry. I’ll add more info as the hearing goes on. There are people on both sides of the issue testifying.

Child Advocates and Investigators Testify on Crimes Against Children;
Witnesses, including John Sheshan with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, testify at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on laws to prevent child exploitation. They said that only the worst of the worst children have to register.

Nicole Pittman with Impact Justice, VP & Center on Youth Registration Reform Director is testifying for registration reform.

This might be able to be found on YouTube after the hearing. The hearing seems to be skipping around to all subjects regarding sex offenders. Some politicians speaking seem to have a balanced view of the issues of registration.

Thank you for this! I am watching the recorded hearing now on C-Span.

Here’s the address:

Crimes Against Children Witnesses, including John Sheshan with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, testified at a hearing on laws to prevent child exploitation.

Here’s the video from the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on laws to prevent child exploitation.

Having now nearly completed viewing this hearing I have to say that I found it all but unwatchable. Nicole Pittman was the only expert with any integrity amongst a number of lying hysterics.

So, I couldn’t find home compliance checks to post. So I will post this here.
Every year I have a compliance check. Have been registering for 17+ years. I have talked to a deputy Barrett of the S.D. County sheriffs department and learned that I need to submit a request in writing to:
License and Registration Division
9621 Ridgehaven Court
San Diego, Ca. 92123
Now, I don’t know about you, but the deputies performing these checks have lied and have repeatedly said that it was a law that they had to perform these checks. There is no authority whatsoever for them to do these. It is harassment. I implore all RCs in S.D. County that are not on probation or parole to also request this information.
My fiancé sees a therapist, she has been diagnosed with PTSD and these affect her greatly. I will give an update on the lawyer search to challenge these.
It just amazes me that if I lived in another part off California I wouldn’t be harassed every year.

HOOKSCAR, interesting what you discovered.

Here is how they see their Purpose in Life to Be.

The San Diego County Sheriff’s License Division is responsible for the regulation and enforcement of approximately 32 regulatory ordinances and other State mandated licensing requirements within the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. This division serves as a registration center for those required by law to meet certain criminal registration requirements (ie: sex offender, arsonist, narcotic offenders and gang members). Other services include ink-rolled fingerprinting, notary services and international clearance letters for individuals leaving the US to enter a foreign country. There is a thirty-nine dollar ($39.00) fee for this service. If you need the document notarized, there is an additional ten dollar ($10.00) fee for each notarization. This process takes three (3) business days. Individuals wanting a background check within the US or for immigration purposes please contact the Records Division at 858-974-2110.

For more information on regulated ordinances and license applications, please contact the Licensing Division at (858) 974-2020.

Why do you need to submit a request? A request for an exemption from home compliance checks? A request for a copy of a hidden law giving them the authority to badger you?
There is no law or ordinance regarding compliance checks and law enforcement agents know this. If you are so inclined, question them about 290/ home compliance checks the next time they show up unannounced at your dwelling and ask them to please verbalize the exact penal code under which they can enforce your obedience. They won’t, because they can’t. When pressed about it they will tell you it is their “policy”. Their department policy governs THEM , not private citizens.

In theory, they can go around and knock on anyone’s door, on any day at any time to ask questions of anyone. But if you are not on supervision, you have the right to question their ruse or not say anything at all.


And you have the right to not answer your door. Make it inconvenient for them to contact you so it will cost them as much as possible in time and wages. I received two “private” calls today that I didn’t answer since it’s usually them (same time of year they normally do compliance checks). I’ll let them keep wasting their time looking for me. My car is in the driveway, they know I still live here. Idiots.

Yes, I to want to know what request you want to submit since you didn’t tell us.

It is not a request for exemption, but a request for ALL records of compliance checks performed on me. I know that they can knock on anyone’s door, but the mere fact that they come to my house for the same reason (compliance checks) and lie(it’s a law), it constitutes harassment.
Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is behaviour that appears to be disturbing or threatening.
This has got to stop.

It is clear to see that they have under The Color of Authority caused and permitted there to be a disturbance & nuisance for You, Your Family, Friends, Associates, Visitors, Neighbors, & Any Public Person Sojourner in passing by your domicile.

It is irrefutable that this activity creates a Safety & Theft concern for You & The Peace of Mind of The Community at Large.

It is Not Unreasonably or does it go beyond their Duty to Keep the Peace of the Community when you request for them to Cease & Desist This Activity they are Sworn to Keep & Comply with all the terms of their Swearing Oaths to The United States Of American’s Constitutions.

I Speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Police are allowed to lie. About anything. With the exception of being under oath. They are given the widest latitude possible when conducting their investigations in the name of “serving justice”. And when they arrive at your home , they are, regardless of what they tell you or any other occupant in your household, conducting an investigation. Of you.

Obtaining a record of these home compliance checks would be a necessary step to pursue legal action against them. Also, recording the encounter with a cell phone is very valuable especially if you have told them not to trespass and they continue to do so.

Their visits are investigatory to them but harassment to us, and our mental duress is compounded by the threat that they can show up at our front door, whenever they feel like investigating you simply because you committed a crime at some point in your life. The last compliance officers who came to my house to perform a check on my husband said that they could come every day if they wanted to. A judge may ( and I hope would) disagree. Our best chance of getting an injunction would be to go after the lack of probable cause for each and every visit they make.
I agree. This does have to stop.


Here is some condensed information of Federal guidelines for FOIA requests. This is a longer post than I normally write, but all of this info could be of good use. Could you imagine if we all requested this info from law enforcement. They would be scratching their heads wondering what was up. And could you imagine the man hours they would spend responding? Could require them to hire more employees to meet the deadlines.

In your request letter, you must specify what you want, because the law requires your request to “reasonably describe” the records you seek. This means that “you may not simply ask questions” but must request records describing or pertaining to a particular subject. You do not need to specify a document by name or title, but you must provide a reasonable enough description to allow government employees who are familiar with the agencies’ files to locate the records you seek. Your request should state that it is being made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a).

To request records about yourself, you may ask for “all records pertaining to compliance checks attempts and contacts on myself including dates” and include your full name, address, date and place of birth, and social security number. To verify that you are requesting your own records, you must have your signature notarized by a notary public or add to the letter the following: “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”

The Act provides that agencies may charge different fees depending on who is requesting the information. Generally these fees will be small (a few cents per page) and you can request they be waved in your initial request. It’s doubtful that your local law enforcement will charge you a fee, but it’s possible. If you are denied a fee waiver or if an agency grants an unsatisfactory reduction of fees, ask the agency to justify its actions. Fee issues may be appealed and are also subject to judicial review. An agency is prohibited from charging certain fees if they do not respond within the required 20 days.

The law sets specific deadlines for replying to FOIA requests: 20 working days on the initial request, and 20 working days on the administrative appeal. The 20 day deadline is “tolled” (that is, the clock is stopped) if the agency asks for more information or clarification from the requester, either as to the scope of the request or fees. The tolling period ends (the clock begins again) once the requester has furnished the necessary information. In spite of these rules, delay is common. Even though the law says that an agency may receive a time extension only in unusual or exceptional circumstances, agencies regularly exceed the twenty working-day deadline without notifying the requester.

Under the FOIA, an agency may deny your request for a variety of reasons. It may assert that you have failed to reasonably describe the documents. If the agency claims you have inadequately described the documents you seek, you should rewrite your request more precisely and resubmit it and/or contact the official processing your request to describe what you seek. Second (and most likely in our case), an agency could assert that it has conducted a reasonable search and has determined that the requested documents do not exist. (I expect that most Police and Sheriff Departments do not store this information).

Finally, an agency may withhold some or all of the records that you seek if they fall within one or more of the Act’s nine exemptions, like “Investigatory Records: This exemption protects information compiled for law enforcement purposes that could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ….or to disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations.

I hope this info helps. Just keep your request professional and to the point. You do not need to tell them why you are requesting this information. Let us know if you actually submit this request.

Here’s my version of a simple sample FOIA letter:

John Doe
Phone (optional)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, [and/or the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a,] I hereby request a copy of all records pertaining to all compliance check attempts and contacts on me since [start date] to [end date].

I am requesting these records for my own non-commercial personal use.

*OPTIONAL: [If any expenses in excess of $______ are incurred in connection with this request, please obtain my approval before any such charges are incurred. ]

*OPTIONAL: [I request a waiver of fees because I am of limited income and my interest in the records is not primarily commercial and is for my personal use.]

I will expect a response within 20 working days as provided by law. If my request is denied in whole or in part, I expect a detailed justification for withholding the records. I also request any segregable portions that are not exempt to be disclosed.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Very truly yours,

So then we get a notary’s stamp and signature? My wife is a notary, but I guess it has to be a non relative. Very good! Thanks.

I believe that since it is a CA public entity, you would have to file a CPRA request. FOIA is only for federal, but CA’s CPRA is similar but not as broad. Here is a site that explains the process for the OC SD office.

You are most likely correct. I’ll have to read it over another day. I didn’t consider that CA would also have its own request procedure. Does the FOIA law state it can only be used in Federal document requests?

I don’t like that part about denial due to “law enforcement purposes”. Could we file on some sort of privacy law, a right to review our information compiled by government? Anyone look up how they fought stop and frisk in New York? Reason magazine had an article on stop and frisk and reading the description of the stops by the victims of that and reading of the emotiinal affects of that, it sounds a lot like registrants and compliance checks. Maybe there is something to learn there. I have very little time. If I am not working, I am looking for work. If we could organize we could take a piece of the puzzle and learn how to do this. Do this.

There is the Stop and Frisk and the Knock and Talk. Both are devious tactics used when the police can not obtain a warrant because they have no probable cause, but I think the Knock and Talk is more relevant to home compliance checks. According to the Kjv law blog even with a Knock and Talk the police are limited to :

…knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then absent invitation to linger longer, they must LEAVE .Police can not linger about your property i.e. front porch, side yard or curtilage ( the land attached to your house or apartment)
They can not knock pre dawn or after hours OR for more than a few minutes….

Peering Through A Window Next to A Front Door is A Fourth Amendment Search, as is a Sniff of the Nose.

Application of Florida v. Jardines (March 26, 2013), which holds that bringing a drug-sniffing dog up to the front door of a home for a “sniff” of the front door area is a Fourth Amendment search.

A 2013 decision in Powell v. State of Florida, officers went up to the front door of a mobile home and knocked. When there was no answer, they took a step off the front steps and peered through a window at eye level about two feet from the front steps. Peering in, the officers saw marijuana growing under lamps in the home; they later obtained a warrant based on that viewing and searched the home.

The State Intermediate Court held that peering into the window was A Fourth Amendment Search that required a warrant. Going up to the front door and knocking was fine, but peering through the window off of the front steps was not okay under the Jones Trespass/Intrusion Test:

The deputies . . . deviated from established norms by entering upon that portion of the property directly in front of the window. Nothing in their testimony or the record establishes any license to do that. The officers had to step off the front door step, move two feet to the left, and position themselves directly in front of the window, their faces no more than a foot away. At that point they were “Virtually Within The Home” without “Breaking Its Close”. Because they physically entered a part of the Curtilage where they had No Right or Title to be for the “Purpose of Gaining Information”, “The Intrusion Test is Met”.

The court has held that the “Jones Trespass/Intrusion Test” is the easiest way to resolve the case: “Cases involving warrantless searches of the home or Curtilage may be somewhat easier to analyze under the intrusion approach because the property interests are generally better defined.” (The court also concludes that the Jones test is best characterized as being about Physical “Intrusion” not “Trespass.”) The court also holds that this was a search under the “Katz Privacy Test”:

Similarly, the State’s evidence lacked any indicia that the privacy of the mobile home’s kitchen area had been diminished by its occupants. No evidence exists that Powell or Wilbourn knowingly exposed the interior of their home where the plants were located to the public view or “Impliedly Licensed” the general public to peer in their front window from a foot away. No evidence was presented that the kitchen area (where the plants were located) could be seen from the public roadway, from the pathway leading to the front door, or from the front door itself. Instead, the plants could only be seen from outside the home by stepping away from the front door, placing officers within a hand’s width of the window pane, “Casting Their View” rightward at an acute angle. As in Olivera, Powell and Wilbourn “could reasonably expect that no one would observe or overhear [their] activities” from just outside their window.
It’s true that the window was right near the front door. But the Fact that The Officers “Stepped Off The Front Porch” meant that it “Exceeded the Implied Permission of The Homeowners Rights & Titles”:
We cannot agree . . . that stepping off a porch, even a few feet, onto portions of the “Curtilage where Persons are Uninvited” and then looking into the home at a sharp angle from a hand’s length away from the window pane is anything other than “An Impermissible Intrusion into Constitutionally Protected Space”. Whether Two Feet or Twenty, the distance between the door and window matters little given that the officers said they could not see the plants without leaving the front door step and positioning themselves at “A Spot or Space where they had No Right to “Be” or “Exist”.
Under certain circumstances, Implicit Permission may exist to look through an un-curtained window while standing on a front porch “Momentarily” to see whether the resident is approaching the door, “Assuming No unreasonable Means or Devices are Used”.

Thanks to several Florida lawyers — including Howard Blumberg, who argued and Won Jardines.
Re: Powell vs Florida

I now posit:

Such a public spectacle unfolding in a residential neighborhood will invariably entail “A Large Degree of Public Opprobrium, Humiliation and Embarrassment for “The Righted & Entitled Citizen by The Creator in Heaven Most High, whether or not He or She is present at the time of the search, for such “Dramatic Government Activity” in the eyes of many—Family Members, Friends, Associates, Neighbors, Sojourners, Enemies or Adversaries and the Public at Large—will be viewed as “An Official Accusation of Crime or Forthcoming Indictment”.


At the Fourth Amendment’s “Very Soul or Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš)”* Stands the right of a Man, Woman, & Their Children to retreat into Their own home and there be Free From Unreasonable Governmental Physical or Mental Intrusion.
Which until the latter half of the 20th century was tied to trespass under common law. *

Citing precedents as far back as 1765, from Entick v. Carrington, a case before England’s Court of King’s Bench, quoting:

“[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s “Close” without his Leave.”

In addition:

I would Venture to believe that The Late Seat Antonin Scalia would concur with I as I repeat his Opinions:

“We therefore regard the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home”—what our cases call the Curtilage—as “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” … That principle has Ancient and Durable Roots. Just as the distinction between the home and the open fields is “as old as the common law,” … so too is the identity of home and what Blackstone called the “Curtilage or Homestall,” for the “house protects and privileges all its Branches and Appurtenants.” … This area around the home is “intimately linked to the home, both Physically and Psychologically,” and is where “Privacy Expectations Are Most Heightened.”

[We need Keep or Shamar (שָׁמַר shaw-mar’) safely within our minds the following from Scalia:]

“The Court has acknowledged that a “Doorbell or Knocker” is typically treated as an Invitation, or License, to the public to approach the front door of the home to deliver mail, sell goods, solicit for charities, etc. This License extends to the police, who have the right to try engaging a home’s occupant in a “knock and talk” for the purpose of gathering evidence without a warrant.

This Implicit License typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the Terms of that Traditional Invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters”

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Interesting find.

Underlying question is… for what purpose are the Officers knocking on any registrant’s door? Is there a warrant for their knocking on the door? Are they doing this for your neighbors as well?

The officer’s are singling out registrants who are no longer under probation/parole. Compliance checks are probation/parole traits. If the officers are knocking only on a registrant’s door on that street, then facially, only that housing has been deemed a possible negative interaction has occurred. If the officers are going to every house on the same block knocking, then there is no singling out as every “free” person was subjected to the same action.

So while the officers do have the right to knock on your door, we have to question the motive for knocking on the door initially as the officers have singled out your house and no other on the same block. What legal right does an officer have to single out a home without any suspicion of wrong doing? The officer does not.

This implies targeting of a specific person(s)/group. This is harassment that has not been challenged. I want equal protection as a free person not under probation or parole as well as having given no reason for a compliance check of wrong doing. I want those officers to do compliance check on all homeowners on my street to make sure those home owners or renters actually do live where they say they live.

Compliance checks are traits of probation/parole, which is punitive. Similarly, checking in person for your annual registration was explicitly deemed punitive in 2003 Smith decision as checking in person is also a trait of probation/parole. It was a specific example in one of the seven factors the regulatory scheme is not punitive – the registrant does not have to register in person.

New Person you speakTruth!

I concur with your Extrapolative Logic.

If I may offer another expression of your observations. No offense will be taken should you not agree with I.

You stated:

“Compliance checks are traits of probation/parole, which is punitive.”

I posit:

The Compliance Checks origin & Parent Roots stem from the Duty of a Offender subject to Probation/Parole Punitive Servitude.

You stated:

“This implies targeting of a specific person(s)/group.”

I posit:

It is Irrefutable by Evidence of the targeting of a specific person(s)/group(s) in the Form & Function of a classic “Bill of Attainder” it being Illicit before the founding of The United States Constitution under Common Law.

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Officers arriving at your front door signal something more significant than a girl scout coming to your door. A cookie seller goes to every door. A neighbor seeing her at your door would not set off any alarms. Now if a police car parks at your house and uniformed officers come to your door the scenario is interpreted differently by a neighbor seeing such. The message is that a crime is being investigated. That message is then tied to you, since they came to your door. The damage is done without them having to linger, indeed if the police stay off your property and watch your house from the road. The presence of the police is the message. That is also what causes the damage to your reputation. It is another form of public notification. It reinforces the message to the public you need watching.

Timmr, your comments are correct inferences.

And in addition:

Defamation & Malignment* is effectually Perpetrated upon the domicile in the Past, Present, & Future Tense in a Complete linear Fashion.


Evidenced by the physical attacks that have been Inflected upon The Innocent New Occupants of a residence.

The Real property Values & Rights are effectually diminished upon The Innocent real property owners or Holders in Interest at large in a Actual Global WorldWide reach as they are Guilty by Association in Being good neighbor to: The Registered Domicile!

It is a Classic “Bill of Attainder” projected upon A Registered Domicile!

The whole Real Estate Industry of The United States Of The American’s are Innocent Victims in their Lawful business to Realize Gains or Growth of Equity within all of the Parcels of Land.

In conclusion:

All innocent Parcels of Land are Punished by Guilt of Association!!

All of this Destruction of Construction of Wealth in the name of Revenge.

The question begs to be asked?

Where is the Glory in That?

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Revenge is truly heinous when perpetrated by the state. All those kings “reigned” in by the Magna Carta for taking revenge on their enemies using instruments of torture and horrible drawn out demise. That is the birth of that prohibition against the bill of attainder. It is long overdue to again rein in the sovereign campaign of slow burn psychological torture and vigilante death of registrants.

Hear, hear – Hear Her, hear Her!!

Nondescript, Speaks Truth right here!!

Nondescript, the police do linger on the street along my property or in my driveway.

The above snippet ( re: knocking promptly and then must LEAVE) is from the decision:
Beard vs Alexandria 341 U.S 622, 626 ( 1951).

Furthermore, a decision rendered in California vs Ciraolo 476 U.S 207, 213 in 1986:

“The area around your home (ie a driveway) is intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, and is where privacy expectations are most heightened”.

“The police can not take circuitous detours that veer from the pathway to the front door that a visitor could customarily use”

Unfortunately, they can linger in the street as long as they want.

Illegal searches are part of their repertoire mostly, because they know the public is 1) afraid to assert their rights and 2) lacking in any real job consequences for them if they do.

Here is a rather lengthy discussion of knock and talk:
Thing is these examples are mostly of police acting from a tip. The situation registrants find themselves in is different. In San Diego we have a structured policy of knock and talk run by the SAFE department. It targets one group, 290 registrants. The motives for the investigations does not seem to be anonymous tips (I don’t know for sure, that is why I want to get information on my particular compliance checks), but targeting of a population. This puts it in more as a species of stop and frisk or downright organized stalking.

Timmr we Hit Gold!

Law Enforcement & their Agent play the Role of:

The Staking Jealous Boyfriend!

The Crazy Ex-Girl Friend!

The Passive-Aggressive Partner or Mate!

We Speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Thank you. I couldn’t help but laugh. Yes, they are like an ex who can’t stop checking on me to see if I am cheating. I want a divorce from these sickos.

Can’t we start a fund to stop these compliance checks. They’ll be knocking on my door next month and my wife and I are already tensed and stressed out. I’m not on parole or probation. 22 year old expunged case with exclusion. Home owners of 17 years now. They know I live here because I verified it over and over every damn year when I go in for my annual. So crazy!!


I would suggest removing any Doorbells or Knockers and posting “No Trespassing” signs at your Domicile as close to the property line as possible to clearly Give Notice to law enforcement officials & the public at large that there:

:Include the following on the Posted Sign:
1. Exist No Implied License or Permit to approach the front door of the Home.
2. Exist No Traditional Invitation or Permit to come upon the Property, Home, & it’s Curtilage or Homestall.

It would be to your & your beloved wife a Profit & Peace of Mind to Install a Video Surveillance System to document any violation of yours or your families Rights & Titles enumerated by The Constitution of the United States Of The American’s.

Should there be any violations by any Government Official or Agent on behalf then a Case can be filed to obtain a Court Order of Restraint upon the Wicked Servants.

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Never forget that you (we) are dealing with low IQ evil control freaks usually with a savior complex so it doesn’t matter that you have lived at the same place for 17 years and never had as much as a speeding ticket in all those years.

These are not friendly or even in most cases, mentally stable individuals notice all the police abuse videos now that everyone has smartphones with video? Don’t expect anything to change either…best thing you can do is use extreme sarcasm with these losers.

A couple of weeks I had a home address check. I live on the second floor and I get a knock at the door…I always expect them so I just don’t care anymore. I open the door just enough to stick my head out and there are 6 officers up and down the stairwell! I said, “Really…all this for me? Kinda overkill don’t you think?” No One laughed although I thought it was very funny.

Keep in mind that my victimless “crime” occurred 20 years ago…this is a joke when Republicans are caught with underage male prostitutes in a motel room smoking pot.

Blows you mind right! So yes, used treat it as the joke that we all know it is. They can’t control your mind unless you let them – DON’T LET THEM!

@Tired of Hiding.

Humor is both a shield and a weapon. Gallows humor has historically been used as an expression of resilience by the oppressed (and not merely as a coping mechanism). You have shown them that you can not be intimidated and taken some of their power away from them during these encounters. Too bad for them.

Humor projects strength.
I applaud you.


Why not contact Attorney Chance Oberstein if you need an attorney. He can at least give you good advise. He is ACSOL’s President and is likely the most knowledgeable attorney available to us. His number is 949-365-5842.

What they are hoping is to catch the registrant at a lie, if not generally to cause stress in your life. It is a form of broken windows, that belief that goes if law enforcement continues to pursue the little violations, it will prevent the big crimes. We are in a virtual sex offender ghetto. They ask me every time if I have any changes in my vehicles or phone number, two things not required to update except once a year. 17 years now the same thing. Avoid talking to them any way you can.

Would it be possible to post that letter here or contact me at and attach a copy? I would like to get this information from the department about my compliance checks. I want the information in writing, not some over the gate banter with the cops at my residence. They are not the ones deciding to do this, it is department or higher policy, and I feel you need to confront the policy makers not the officers.

I no longer use my e-mail, but I sent you my contact # ending in 3699. Please give me a call and leave a message as I screen my calls. Will call you back ASAP. I am in Lakeside.

I couldn’t resist posting this. This woman is nuts.

Texas bill would fine men $100 each time they masturbate.

Make it retroactive and they can build high-speed rails all over the state.

Wow, can’t tell you how much money I would have to pay if that were ever to become a real law…it’s really the only hobby I am actually good at! 🙂

This women is not nuts. Apparently Lake County you missed the whole point of the bill and the not so subtle ironic humor of it. She presented this bill with the full knowledge that it would not pass. It was presented to show how ridiculous the war on women’s health is in Texas and this country and how because of the conservative agenda and men who make these laws with the intended purpose to make it more difficult for women to access health care and allow them and not men to control what they do to there bodies. This bill is designed show how insane the polices are towards women by introducing a bill that does this to men.

check out the about us page on the judicial crisis network. ..

I just sent them this and I think everyone should send them something similar.

To whom it may concern…

I am emailing or posting this in hopes that it will be passed around so that I might bring to light facts and concerns surrounding a serious issue. There is an epidemic of bad policy coming from the government that is causing great harm to millions of people in this country and needs to be made public and which must be addressed.

I am labeled a sex offender. I am one of those people who most people consider as monsters lurking in the bushes or stalking parks and schools searching for future victims. I was convicted for talking to an underage girl over the Internet with whom I never had any physical contact with almost 15 years ago. I am not attempting to minimize my culpability or to down play the seriousness of my offense but am simply trying to educate people about the facts surrounding this issue.

I haven’t re-offended or ever considered re-offending. I did my time, finished extensive parole without any incidents, payed off my $15000 child support, and am in my sixth semester of college. I am a father and grandfather, an uncle and brother, engaged to be married, and all these people love me from the bottom of their hearts…Does this sound like a monster that needs to be ostracized for life or shot or locked up forever like a lot of people suggest? If anyone says yes then you have absolutely no interest in facts and have absolutely no humanity left in your cold dead hearts…

The fact is none of these failed policies have achieved any positive results and have absolutely nothing to do with why I haven’t re-offended. If I wanted to re-offend I would care less about any of these laws and not one of them would prevent me from doing so…That’s a fact …These laws only affect those individuals who want to be law abiding citizens and have no effect on the monsters people claim they are all concerned about…Zero effect…

I do agree with those of you that feel that people who attack and rape children or adults should be locked up for an appropriate amount of time and subjected to intensive treatment before ever having a chance to be released,(which they are already, and the worst of the worst usually never get out), and if they re-offend lock them up and throw away the key…But do you really want our limited law enforcement resources wasted on a guy like me or would you rather have that money put into monitoring the high risk offenders and into programs that actually help prevent sexual abuse before it happens?

These laws are absolutely useless, are a waste of tax payer dollars, and are a misplaced use of valuable law enforcement and governmental agency resources.

Here are some facts from the leading authorities on this subject which indicate that there is no need or justification for these laws.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

The full report is available online at.

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

The full report is available online at. ID=247350

The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of non-effectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

The full report is available online at.

These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)

The full report is available online at

Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

Link to Report:

CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“

CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870. When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3%. This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

More state studies;

CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012

DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5%. Rearrests should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’s recidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IA table 4 0.3% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released.

The full report is here

Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

Link to Report:

Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

Link to Report:

Once again, these are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

Then we have those that are attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry which is another myth and misrepresentation of the facts. This type of misinformation that is based on hearsay and not on facts or evidence is also being used in order to create harsher penalties or further punishments.

These laws only effect people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. Once again I want to emphasize that these laws only effect innocent family members and those individuals who most just want a second chance to become a respectable, productive and law abiding citizen and have absolutely zero effect on anyone who’s interested and intent on committing a crime.

No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one study showing examples of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA, which many states refused to do. This list doesn’t include the cost to maintain the entire registration processes for the plethora of official state and federal agencies that is a product of these laws.

From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

None of these failed policies have not achieved any positive results in the US and are in fact destroying the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent children and their families because one of their parents or family members are on such a registry.

There has not been a single incidence in which a person was apprehended or prevented from committing a crime anywhere or anytime in this country because of any of these laws.

Please take the time to research all the real facts and evidence on this subject and all the collateral damages to individuals and thier family members that are being caused by these laws.

You don’t have to take my word for it, just watch what the experts say….

Thank you for your time.

I have a question for anyone with a contractor’s license. I read that even expunged offenses will be reported to the CSLB (California State Licensing Board) and any offense, sealed or expunged, will have to be disclosed on the application for the contractor’s license. Is that true and also how long does one have to wait after probation to apply for a contractor’s license? My guy has an opportunity to work with a friend who owns his own business but would need him to submit to a Live Scan to get the license. He just got off probation this year, so it looks like it will be a lost opportunity? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

You can be denied any type of state license while you are a registrant. It’s a complex issue that may require an experienced attorney like Chance Oberstein to help you. Has his conviction be expunged? If not, that must be your first step. They may require a certain amount of time to elapse and might even require a COR. It will be a case by case bases depending on his charges. Hopefully someone here who has received their license will have more information for you. It has been done, but it will take added effort and time.

I recently called Chance on a related issue. He didn’t return my call. Hired someone else to advocate on my behalf. Will let you know how it works.

that masturbation bill shows just how ridiculous and useless lawmakers are nowadays…they have absolutely nothing to do but make up crap like that…way to many laws now there’s nothing to justify their existence anymore…

Does anyone have any experience or know of others who have moved out of state after they have been relieved from registering as offenders? There seems to be quite a derth of information out there regarding this issue. My registration requirements will be up soon (as long as nothing changes in the law like what happened in New york etc.). I would like to move to a few different locales in this country. I know some will say stay put and i do like the state I reside in. I’m just looking for some feedback from people who have experience with this issue.

You’ll need to check any state’s laws and periods of registration.

The problem is, if another state has a longer, or lifetime, registration for the type of crime you had, they may put you back on the registry. This is the case even if you had deferred adjudication and no actual conviction.

For instance, I was required to register for just the 5 years on probation since my offense wasn’t registerable in my state. However, most other states have 15 years or more as required. If I move, even though my crime wasn’t in their jurisdiction, wasn’t a conviction, and I met all requirements and will be off registration in my state, they could put me right back on with no trial or anything.

Now how is that constitutional for someone to finish their sentence and period of registration as assigned by a judge that understands the risk the person poses to society, and then have another state add you back to the registry without any hearing or review?

Due Process violation? Double Jeopardy violation?

Just thought this was mildly interesting. Yesterday I had my annual Price Club registration. The officer who usually handles the registration for my town retired last fall, so I had to speak with a new officer. Meeting someone new to discuss this is always a source of anxiety.

Come to find out, this guy was young, maybe 30, and totally the most cool officer I’ve ever had to deal with. He was very sympathetic to our cause, stated plainly and matter of factly that the registry was “of course punitive and punishment” and was almost apologetic regarding taking my information.

We ended up talking for almost a half hour about my charges specifically, various aspects of the registry process, what it’s like to live under it, and what is happening with all the fights going on right now. He even asked if I’d keep in touch with him, and let him know of any updates to the cause.

He was very respectful, even when talking about my charges, and was glad that in my state, my level was not disseminated. He shook my hand at the end and said good luck.

Just thought I’d share that.

**** This is great info to have****
If your senators and reps aren’t saved in your phone yet, text your zip code to 520-200-2223. You’ll get a text back with everyone’s contact info. It gives you Federal and State. PASS IT ON (cut and paste or share for maximum views). Easy peasy, lemon squeezy!
***This works 100%, I just did it myself***

I know some say that social media i.e. facebook is a major waste. To an extant I agree… Just as hanging out in the public commons to meet and interact with others can be seen as a waste.

I see reported now that Facebook has introduced a new feature called “town hall”. It allows people to easily locate and contact their elected officials. Banning social media access now goes beyond restricting access to social function and has moved into directly restricting equal access to the political process.

While banishment from larger society is unfair and painful, denial of equal of access in this area seems to me to be something actionable as a civil rights issue, even though we are dealing with a private companies “terms of service”.

Other thoughts?

I agree, and if we win the Packingham case that could lay the ground for more challenges.

Look at it this way, sure, Facebook is a private company and can ban whoever they want to as long as it isn’t a protected class. But, it is our government that provides the social media companies there own private list that includes Sex Offender email addresses to enable them to ban us. Any other US Citizen is able to post anonymously on Facebook and being able to be anonymous is covered under our 1st amendment protections, but because the government tracks our email addresses and provides them to Facebook our “equal protection” under the constitution is being denied as well as our right to speak.

The government can’t give the loaded gun to Facebook and still claim they aren’t directly affecting our rights just because the government doesn’t pull the actual trigger. This needs to be challenged.

“Briefing the Supreme Court: Promoting Science or Myth?” by Melissa Hamilton
Emory Law Journal Online (Forthcoming)
21 Pages Posted: 25 Mar 2017


Amazing article!

How do we get this to the assistants of the SCOTUS Justices so they don’t fall for the State’s lies again like they did with Smith V Doe???

I really wish someone also attempted to bring up how the law only impacts law abiding Sex Offenders and is just a way to justify a search warrant. Those Sex Offenders wishing to do harm wouldn’t use the email address they supply to the government and therefore wouldn’t be caught by this law (thus making it useless).

@ Chris F, Nodescript P. & those interested in reaching out Proactively to build Rapport and inform with convincing positions to persons with effect upon SCOTUS, I put before you:

The Supreme Court Jurist select Law Clerks, as described in link below form Wikipedia, a careful understanding should yield valuable Incite for your individual imagination to creat opportunity and a path to resurrect lost Rights & Titles from on High.

In addition I posit a link to of a audio recording of Rafael Ted Cruz & Noel Francisco in the year 2007 after they both had argued opposing positions before SCOTUS a few months prior to this recording while they awaited a decision. Ted Cruz in 07 held the position of Texas Solicitor General and Noel Francisco was legal council to Bush at the White House and as you may be aware Noel is Today Nominated & Acting SG by selection of President Trump, if I may call attention Jeffery B. Hall appears to be concurrent Acting SG.

The Most High Creator only Possessor of Heaven and Earth, I plead Be with us.

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

This here caught my eye…
Unpaid snack lands sex offender in jail

“The suspect was a sex registrant from Lancaster which increased the shoplifting charge from a misdemeanor to a felony offense,”

Apparently, Prop 47 made the shoplifting of items under $950 a misdemeanor UNLESS the accused has a conviction for crimes such as rape, murder, or child molestation or is registered sex offender.,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014)

What is the rationale behind this? How is this related – other than using that as a means to get the proposition passed? A person with 6 dozen priors for theft…. not affected!?!?!?

How is this possible? Far be it from me to whine that “someone gotta file a lawsuit”… but c’mon!

So we can’t find anyone to give us a job or housing, but if we steal an apple because we are starving, we get a free ride to prison. I guess that ends my career as a petty thief. Such ignorant laws.

Sounds like a clear “equal protection” challenge to me.

It’s also more evidence for a broad “Bill Of Attainder” challenge as proof the entire “sex offender” scheme is unconstitutional.

So, for a convicted child KILLER it would still only be a misdemeanor.

Ok, well as long as it’s fair, I’m cool with it Prop 47.

Very odd story. We know the only reason that this story was worthy of taking up space in bytes and pixels, is so they could remind the residents of Santa Clarita that sex offenders are everywhere doing very bad, bad things- even in the seafood section at Vons.

$20,000 bail? And he has already been released the same day? Sounds fishy.

What happened with IML and the passport mark?

Do we have the mark yet?

Is it yet “ripe” to challenge?

Chris, the State Department must issue a regulation before they can add a unique identifier to anyone’s passport. No such regulation has been issued and therefore the issue is not ripe.

Why is there not a challenge to the notices being sent?

I do not understand that either. What I really do not understand is on what basis, does the gov have the legal right to predict another offense. WTF? How is that right on any level?

No legal right and without any mental health process.

Thank you Janice.

I am kind of surprised they aren’t getting heat for taking so long, but I guess the longer the better.

Does anyone know if other aspects are in full force? Are they sending notices on all sex offender travel to all countries now, or just the ones with crimes against minors or whatever the criteria was that is specified in IML?

I sometimes read laws and scratch my head? On the Megan’s Law Website, I noted we are supposed to contact LE whenever we leave town or go on a trip? I wouldn’t even know who to call. When I last registered, none of that was mentioned: initials

I do have a question. I typically list my vehicle when I register, while my wife has her car and a sports car in the garage. I can’t even recall my license plate number, but I bring my registration in. They even request the vin? I didn’t list /never have my wife’s car and a sports car. Prior to receiving a receipt, they gave me a handout:/print out of past cars and maybe a sports car license plate? Mark yes or no? The license plates where listed and some of the cars makes? I posted not sure by some of them? Any thoughts? I can just see the compliance guys coming by to try something ? (Exlunged battery 20years ago with summary probation). Please advise

I just checked the senate public safety committee’s website. Lara’s tiered registry bill does not appear in any meeting’s agenda. I suppose this means they have pulled the bill. This is just for those of you who are interested.

Jack – thanks so much for the heads up! I don’t believe this can be construed as good news if you’re in favor of the bill.

Janice can you please provide any updated information on this? With a significant number of heavyweights in support of this bill I’m surprised it was pulled.

Thanks from me also, Jack….this is worrisome.

Hopefully we will know something soon.

Best Wishes, James

Well it’s not up on any agenda. I can’t believe Janice doesn’t know what’s going on. I’m sure she’ll notify you for sure. But my assumption is that it’s been dropped.

03/29/17 SB-695, April 18 was set for first hearing but canceled at the request of author.

Ricardo Lara: 3 offices to contact. / Holly J. Mitchell: 2 offices to contact – Making contact with Senators, their personal Assistance, Office Managers, & Staff would create opportunities for Present & Future Clarifications of the Serious Issues at Hand. It’s a win win win opera unity!

Ricardo Lara:
Democratic — Senator — District 33 Available Terms:
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Ricardo Lara represents Senate District 33 in the California Senate, is a member of nine committees, and is the primary sponsor.

State Capitol, Room 5050, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
Phone: 916-651-4033

3939 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 107, Long Beach, CA 90807 (562) 256-7921

6550 Miles Avenue, Room 214, Huntington Park, CA 90255 (323) 277-4560


Holly J. Mitchell
Democratic — Senator — District 30 Available Terms:
2015 2016 2017 2018

Holly J. Mitchell represents Senate District 30 in the California Senate, is a member of seven committees.

State Capitol, Room 5080, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
Phone: 916-651-4030

700 State Drive, Suite 113, Los Angeles, CA 90037
Phone: 213-745-6656

If you are the registered owner you have to tell them about the cars. if you’re wife is the registered owner you don’t have to tell them.

Correct, but you also need to tell them any vehicles you drive. ie company car, wife’s cars etc.

I just had a compliance check and the officer said…. “You said you would return with the vin# to the Caddy and didn’t do it.” I said…. “Yes I did” I have never had a compliance officer lie to me before but I gave them my registration that had the vin# on it. Then my compliance check lasted like 45 minutes. It was a interrogation. She asked me why I had a hushmail email. I said I’ve had one for fifteen years. It’s odd because I live in Michigan and I could have sworn the state didn’t get a stay and I have been on the registry over fifteen years. Then she asked why I’m not working and lots of other questions. The compliance check before that they just walked in the house. I contacted the ACLU.

‘Sounds like the compliance officer mistook you for someone on parole/probation. All those intrusive questions – why aren’t you working, etc.- are uncalled for.

That is exactly how my new compliance officer is acting! My local sheriff has issues. On his main web site under sex offenders it mentions what a valuable tool the registry is especially at holloween. Every day I read the newspaper with my coffee and that includes the day after holloween and I can’t recall once reading about sex offender attacks on holloween.

One compliance check they greeted me at the top of my stairs inside my house then said… “A burglary happened nearby so we are checking. By the way do you have ID.”

It amazes me how they get more aggressive in Michigan with compliance checks with time. They use to be very professional. Now they are anything but professional. Everything can change if they get a few nuts in charge of the RSO’s. Meanwhile they discovered 500 more untested rape kits from almost ten years ago. They don’t have the funds to test rape kits or the time but they can break into my home and try to taunt me during compliance checks. My original charge was CSC-4 a high misdemeanor. One would think after over fifteen years they would have better priorities than me.

““A burglary happened nearby so we are checking.”


I NEVER show them my ID. They just want to check the address and make sure it’s the one they have on file!! I always have someone drive me to register, that way I can always say my wallet is not on me. I do everything I can think of to piss them off.

USA – I am assuming you are in California? If so what city or county if you do not mind my asking.

There is no where in 290 that I am aware of the requires you to give notification for domestic travel unless you are on probation or parole. I travel extensively for work and do not give notification to anyone both in California as well as to my destination of my travel plans.

As as it relates to automobiles you only need to give any changes at your annual renewal.

I’ve never had anyone give me a list of my previous vehicles or ask for any VIN Information.

Or a car you ” regularly” drive whether or not it is registered under your name.
Regularly means with a constant or definite pattern, at uniform intervals of time. Yes, ambiguous, intentionally so.

I was reading another’s States ( Iowa, I think) registration rules once , and they require any vehicle that is kept on your property, including names of people they are registered to. ( and your household members names, ages and birth dates, whether they have a car or not)