ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

Internet Exclusion Bill (AB 558) Hearing Scheduled on April 18

The internet exclusion bill, AB 558, is scheduled to be considered by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 18. The committee hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m. in Room 126 and include consideration of more than 30 pending bills.

“This bill must be stopped,” stated ACSOL executive director Janice Bellucci. “If the bill becomes law, families will be harmed and victims will be re-victimized.”

AB 558 was previously scheduled for a hearing on March 28, however, the bill was pulled from consideration by its author. The Assembly Public Safety Committee has issued an analysis of AB 558 which notes that only low to low-moderate risk offenders are currently granted exclusions from their personal information being posted on the Megan’s Law website. In addition, the committee analysis cites a CA Sex Offender Management Board report which states that the current sex offender registration systems and Megan’s Law website have become too unwieldy to be effective for law enforcement.

Organizations in opposition to AB 558 include ACLU, CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice, CA Public Defenders Association and ACSOL. In addition, AB 558 is opposed by the Office of the Los Angeles District Attorney. The only organization in support of AB 558 is the CA Protective Parents Association.

Registrants, family members and supporters are encouraged to speak in opposition to AB 558 on April 18 as well as to send letters and make phone calls to members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee prior to the hearing date.

Call and write the Assembly Public Safety Committee in opposition to this bill

Assembly Public Safety Contact Info – Sample Letter in Opposition to AB 558

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

I really hope all of you folks have made calls and sent letters. Please note that the Public Safety Committee has a new member: Heath Flora. He replaced Cunningham.

This is going to destroy my entire life if it passes.

The California Protective Parents Assoc. What a pile of garbage. Their mission statement:

“The Mission of the California Protective Parents Association is to protect children from incest and family violence through research, education and advocacy.”

Well…if they did their research they’d realize SB558 is counterproductive.

I’m going to guess this group is run by someone who is a victim of incest and now wants to unleash her venegenace on everyone else.

I don’t know this group, but I think the problem goes way deeper. The California Constitution devotes more than half of its bill of rights to victim rights –“alleged victims” that is, they are not even proven so in court. That language was probably cobbled in by some initiative process. What a clusterf&*k that system is. It seems to negate the protections of the accused in the federal Constitution. No wonder California is so willing to prosecute and punish people, even after the fact, and has an overburdened prison system and lifetime restrictions on those convicted once of a sex crime. It is a strong victim culture we are going against.

Micro managing offenders based on static scores is inherently flawed, it assumes the questions rely on imperial data derived from reliable axioms! Portraying this system as being good for society is a farce. The majority of offenders suffer because of the lesser number of pathological cases; not being able to find work or housing, and being unduly hobbled in achieving a law abiding life.

ACSOL members, get ready to write those letters and make those calls! We are about to post to this page (1) an updated letter that reflects the amendments to AB 553 and (2) an updated list of Assembly Public Safety Committee members (one changed). We will also send an updated action alert that has this updated information.

So, they pulled the tiered registry bill, but put this abomination back on. What a complete shock. The only way any of this is ever going to be finally resolved is at the Supreme Court level. And I have no expectation that the current cast of characters would ever vote in our favor. I hope I am wrong. But this is just classic.

I have been told by the people in the Assembly people’s offices that none of them see the text of our letters, only that the person writing in was either for or opposed.

What do you guys think about that? Should we bother writing anything in our letters except to state our opposition?

TG, an office may not read a letter in detail, but the fact that you took the time to write a custom paper letter is still impressively rare to them in today’s electronic communications.

It doesn’t take a long time to copy some of the points in Janice’s letters and rework them into my own, so I always put in a few choice tidbits that mean something to me. Perhaps a staff member will skim the ideas, see one that catches her eye, and decide to pass it on to the representative.

If you happen to be writing to your personal representative, you can bet they pay more attention because they want your vote.

Don’t get me wrong. I have sent emails and letters and made calls. I spent a couple of hours writing my letter, which is why it was a bit discouraging to be told that the assembly people can look at them “if they ask for them as a public records request.” Which means they won’t.

Oh well. At least I did something.

As long as the SCOTUS doesn’t do anything stupid in the North Carolina and Michigan matters then I’m ok with Cali leaving 100,000 + and growing So’s on the registry because that is a bubble which will burst sooner than later!

Davidh – Please clarify…are you actually saying that you’re OK with this bill passing?

If we only had a little pin…

I’m a little confused. Sometimes these bills are difficult to understand. If passed, does this mean all registrants will be online? I have a misdemeanor battery/expunged from 20-21 years ago? No arrests etc

Read the bill, if your conviction code falls under the amended category than yes, you will be on the site if this Bill goes through.

The amended category stated Felony Sexual Battery. Does anyone know which convictions are automatically not shown on the website?

No, it will apply to those who were convicted of :

-A felony violation of subdivision (a) of Section 243.4.

-A felony violation of Section 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, or Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, or 311.11

Until it was amended, I think it would have applied to 647.6 as well.

There are application exclusions and automatic exclusions. This bill is trying to do away with the application exclusions.

(It looks like this bill is targeting people who were convicted of felonies that have not been reduced ( yet) )
Just incrementally chipping away ……

It still applies to 647.6(a) for misdemeanor which is ridiculous considering it’s the lowest possible risk conviction and literally threatens MANY and their families who are simply not a danger to society.

Asm. Quirk-Davis is truly motivated from a self-serving platform.

SB 558 includes felony sexual battery on its amended category. My 243.4 felony has been reduced and expunged. Does anyone know where that leaves me? Thanks to all.

I looked at the sample letter to get talking points for this amended bill. The sample letter hasn’t been updated to reflect the recent changes. I still talks about in family offense. Anyone write a letter for the amended bill, would you be able to post it. Basically my talking points are they need to show evidence that this bill will increase safety and whether that is enough to counter the debilitating effects posting on the internet site will have on registrants due to lack of obtaining jobs and putting themselves and their families in danger amongst other deleterious effects of the public registry.

Nondescript, your correct. I recall many years ago calling the Megan’s Law Website/I was posted online. The operator asked if I had filled out the exemption form, but by that time the charge was a misdemeanor/expunged.

Those fed up (like me) with many of those politicians using us as their whipping boy for votes can join me in getting many of those elected officials un-elected/out of office in 2018. Our efforts will be separate from ACSOL. We will harness local relationships within communities throughout California I’ll train on the how-to and you’ll learn an extra skill and income while fighting for our cause! Robert (949) 872-8768.

So does a reduction of felony to misdemeanor mean I would be excluded? Lots of reference to felony violations not being excluded but after 7b motion my felony is now a misdemeanor right? All so confusing. I’m thinking I should be excluded now. Guess I should see a lawyer and find out.

Follow the $$$….. I’m right in the same boat with u. and I’ve been trying to fig that out for the longest. Do update as soon as you get an answer or even just an idea would b helpful. Thanks.

Copy that. I just sent an inquiry off to my attorney who did my 17(b) and 1203.4. I’ll be sure to update.

It depends on the penal code. For some penal codes, CP for example, only those convicted of a felony are supposed to be listed on ML site. Not sure what other 290 type penal codes this holds true for but I bet there are others. That you will have to research.

What I can tell you…don’t wait for the DOJ to automatically remove somebody that should no longer be listed on the site after a 17b motion has been granted. I waited three months after my 17b was granted and I was still on the site. Not knowing who I should contact about this at the DOJ, I hired an attorney to contact the DOJ on my behalf. I never saw the letter my attorney sent over but I have a copy of the response from the DOJ. The letterhead came from Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General. The letter stated “We have updated our records and the change will be reflected on the ML public internet site within two days from the date of this letter. I no longer show on the site.

Thanks for the info. For the PC I was convicted of violating it only lists felony offenses in 290.46(b)(c) or (d). So now that I got the 17(b) granted I am doing what you did and getting my attorney involved.

“Hard to go to work without a place to live” ( on fighting homelessness)
~ Sharon Quirk-Silva‏ ‪ ( her own tweet)
But does she really care?

Prior to the hearing, we will meet at Starbucks (12th and L) at 8 a.m. and then walk together to the hearing room. Or you can join us at the hearing room (Room 126 of the Capitol) at 8:15 a.m. Either way, please join us! Don’t rely on others to protect your civil rights. We need YOU to show up, stand up and speak up!!

I read the text of AB 558 and trying to understand the context. So technically, registrants can still apply for internet exclusions given they met the requirement. I was charge with 647.6 and currently not on Megan’s website. If this bill, hypothetically pass, does that mean I would have to re-apply to be excluded from Megan’s website?

No, 647.6 will be published.

I understand it will be published but my question is registrants can still apply for exclusion if they meet certain requirements?

No. Your exclusion will be gone if this goes through.

No, you can’t. For other crimes, if you can prove you were related by blood to the victim, then yes.

Quint – it does not require you to be blood related to obtain an exclusion. Stepparents and step grandparents are eligible for exclusion as well.

How about 311.11 that was a misdemeanor when I was arrested but now is a felony? (Federally charged but corresponding CA code in respect to registration was 311.11)

For those of you who have gone to a hearing, what can I expect? Will I have a chance to say something to the committee?

How do these things work?

“Prior to the hearing, we will meet at Starbucks (12th and L) at 8 a.m. and then walk together to the hearing room. Or you can join us at the hearing room (Room 126 of the Capitol) at 8:15 a.m.”

You will find seating (or standing room) in the Room 126 until the bill is heard and then you stand in line to voice your opposition for 1 minute which is basically you saying your name, your district, and your opposition to the bill.

Thanks. One more question: I have made phone calls, sent faxes and letters and convinced my wife to do the same. I am reluctant to drive 4 hours one way just to State my name for one minute. My question, then, is how important is it for me to be there?

Showing up and putting a face to the label helps a great deal towards humanizing SOs and will be the most effective thing towards convincing the Committee to stop this Bill. It is far easier to disregard us as “monsters” and “bogeyman” when we’re just numbers on a page.
And the more people show up, the more we show that’s what the great majority of us really are, just normal people who made mistakes and who have already paid their debt to society. The more people that show up, the harder it will be to pass these ridiculous types of Bills that so obviously attack basic civil and human rights.
Janice and CARSOL have successfully lobbied against other Bills and I believe it has a great deal to do with the gatherings of SOs and their families at these hearings.

Yes, it’s an inconvenience but it’s the single most helpful thing we can do as SOs considering our voices are strictly limited in so many other ways. You will feel better about yourself, you’ll feel stronger for standing up, and it’ll be easier the next time you need to speak out.

Even if it’s just a minute, it’s a minute where we actually have a platform to speak. It’s extremely important.

TOMORROW is the hearing for AB 558!
Please show up in Sacramento and speak out!
I hope everybody made their calls and emails.

It’s so quiet in the comment thread concerning this Bill. The hearing is tomorrow and how the Committee decides on it will give a good idea of how they will vote on other upcoming legislation concerning SOs.

Even if you’re not directly affected by this Bill, I hope that you and your families will show up to voice their opposition. Only through solidarity can we expect to affect any change. We have to realize that it’s all connected, we can’t just cherry pick what we’ll support and what we’ll remain silent on.

Please consider speaking out on April 18th against this terrible, terrible bill.
AB 558 must be stopped.

If you want others to support YOUR concerns should legislation come threatening your life, then please do the same for other SOs and come help tomorrow in Sacramento and voice your opposition!

Is it too late to send email? What is the email address?

Yes. It is too late.

Re-posting just for easy reference for meeting tomorrow morning in Sacramento to protest AB 558, we need every voice we can get:

Prior to the hearing, we will meet at Starbucks (12th and L) at 8 a.m. and then walk together to the hearing room. Or you can join us at the hearing room (Room 126 of the Capitol) at 8:15 a.m. Either way, please join us! Don’t rely on others to protect your civil rights. We need YOU to show up, stand up and speak up!!

I just can’t be there, but in case you need some talking points (it’s still not clear to me that you can say anything at all) I was going to try to say this:

“The exclusion has not been a “loophole,” as Asm. Quirk-Silva states. It has been a lifeline that has allowed registrants to rebuild their lives, and to get jobs and employment.

If this bill passes, all that will go away. That means that there would likely be hundreds of newly homeless and jobless sex offenders. And that will definitely not make communities safer.”

That’s unfortunate, TG, as it seemed that you were originally going to.
If it’s simply a matter of nerves we beg you to re-consider. If you’re potentially going to be affected by this Bill then it behooves you to make a small sacrifice in inconvenience and speak in opposition to it.

Sorry, but I have to laugh at something absurd. I do not currently show up as a dot on a map, but if you look me up by name, I’m there. Now here’s the stupid part: if this law causes me to appear on a map, what will that do to the prices of houses adjacent to me or otherwise nearby? Yup, negative impact, right? Realtors should be adamantly opposed to this law as should most homeowners.

PC 311.11 (Possession of obscene matter, the corresponding state law to the federal one I was convicted of) was a misdemeanor when I was arrested. It’s now a felony. So I am assuming this change in AB558 won’t apply to me? I’m not sure.

My understanding is, If you were convicted of a misdemeanor, it won’t apply to you.

@ExpatRFSO – I am in a similar situation. It sucks for us because we are not eligible for COR as our State equivalents are. Believe me, I’ve tried to exhaustion. However, we should be ok here. Most 311 convictions were misdemeanors in the State until 2006, when the law changed to allow charge as misdemeanor OR felony. There is really no change, it simply defers to prior law. I hope that helps you.

Janice and team, I am praying for you all. Give them a fight.

Well, unfortunately, they passed the Bill. Nevertheless, many thanks should go to Assemblyman Bill Quirk for his valuable and courageous comments in opposition to this Bill and his “No” vote – the sole “No” vote – against it.

Did they just pass it? Or did they also amend it?

If they amended it, what were the amendments?

Thanks for any information.

No man, they didn’t amend it, they passed it.

They can do both, and often do.

243.4 felony 22 years ago, exclusion and recently reduced and expunged. Would any happen to know if this bill is finalized will they go off the expungement or the original felony. Any help would b greatly appreciated. After so many years it just seems there’s always something.

It will go based off the original felony.

S, how do you know it will be off the original felony? Once a conviction is reduced it becomes a misdemeanor permanently!

You sure about that in the way it applies to this Bill and SO laws?

S, penal code 17 .b clearly states once a conviction is dropped to a misdemeanor, it is a misdemeanor for all purposes.

That’s good to hear then.
It had been my previous understanding that for SO laws the original conviction was referenced.

PC 1203.4 states that all penalties and disabilities will be removed stemming from the conviction… yet you still have to register.

Don’t you know there are different standards when it comes to registrants? Felony and misdemeanors mean the same thing in California. It means lifetime registration. To some registrants, expungement carries the same value without expungement in respect to the showing up on ML. You still have to register.

As a registrant in Ca, you’re treated as a class, not as an individual. You’re risk level is just for show. Why? You still are bound to register for life without a direct path off of it. The number of registrants are growing. Just how many actually do get off the registry? If anything, the state of California should provide this as well as the rates.

Thus, using the SCOTUS’ standard of 80% represents a group, then the high rate of registrants not getting off the registry should be a standard that states the State of California is suppressing the right to pursue and obtain privacy, as denoted in the California Constitution.


Once a felony has been reduced to a misdemeanor- it is classified as a misdemeanor thereafter, for all purposes.
People vs Park 2006

Here, the California Supreme Court ruled against an appellate court and rendered its decision that a felony that was reduced could not even be used as a ” prior” for enhanced sentencing in a subsequent conviction. Once a judge declares the conviction a misdemeanor – it IS a misdemeanor.

Insofar as this internet exclusion for felony reductions-
Once you obtained your 17b, the DOJ reclassifies you into the ” other” category. You no longer need to be granted an exclusion via an application but instead thereafter automatically excluded as many other misdemeanor offense are. I happen to know this (via a letter from the DOJ .)

This is what is so fundamentally wrong about 558. That Silvia lady can harp on all she wants about current loopholes in the law but the legislature initially codified certain offenses for exclusion by application for registrants that were/ are on probation, because those are a subset that are also eligible for a Certificate Of Rehabilitation. So in effect, if this bill passes, the Government will be declaring these people ” likely rehabilitatable” perhaps even 99.9 % rehabilitated, while at the same time declaring them dangerous .

Nondescript….. information of such goes a great way. I’m very relief to hear this and thank u greatly for taking the time to post this. This whole registry is nerve wrecking as it is and any more added punishment as we know just creates more stress, headache and difficulty to live a normal life. Again thank you.

It was amended approximately a month ago. They put back in the provision that parents, step-parent, or grandparents were eligible for exclusion

It’s true. The Assembly Public Safety Committee passed AB 558 today. It’s also true that there will be many more opportunities to stop in the bill in the future. The bill’s next stop is the Appropriations Committee and if passed there to the Assembly floor. If the bill makes it that far, it must travel the same path in the Senate. While there are no guarantees, it is likely that we can stop the bill in the Senate. A more complete article will be written and posted “soon”.

I don’t understand why they’d give the analysis that they did, basically stating that they don’t support this bill, but then vote to approve it?!

Janice and Chance…will there be any suit filed to stop this or is it basically a done deal? Also, if you’ve had your case expunged, is there a case against it? I’m a misdemeanor 647.6, 20 years ago. Never been listed…is this just the end of the road now and all hope is gone for not being listed any longer?

The expungement will not affect exclusion eligibility, unfortunately.

The analysis was done by a private attorney named Gabriel Caswell, not the Public Safety Committee.

This is not yet a “done deal.” It still has to go through several more committees, and then get approved by the full Assembly and the Senate, and then be signed by the governor.

And along the way, the bill could get amended at any time.

One thing about the analysis was the following. I hope future committees will take this seriously:

5) The Current Sex Offender Registration System and Megan’s Law Website has Become too Unwieldy to be Effective for Law Enforcement: Again, according to California’s Sex Offender Management Board, there are a number of problems with the current system as a result of adding too many low-risk sex offenders. California’s system of lifetime registration for all convicted sex offenders has created a registry that is very large and that includes many individuals who do not necessarily pose a risk to the community. The consequences of these realities are that the registry has, in some ways, become counterproductive to improving public safety. When everyone is viewed as posing a significant risk, the ability for law enforcement and the community to differentiate between who is truly high risk and more likely to reoffend becomes impossible. There needs to be a way for all persons to distinguish between sex offenders who require increased monitoring, attention and resources and those who are unlikely to reoffend.

They all have access to this information, but only Quirk remembers that increasing public safety is the public servant’s job. The others have a different agenda, not giving sex offenders a “loophole” to escape punishment. Truth be told punishing registered citizens will keep them in office. They basically said so and appologized to us for it. Nice of them, kind of like saying, no offense, sorry, but I just have to rob you of your life savings. They will only vote this bill down if they see loosing their jobs by supporting it. Not likely as things stand. Somehow we need to threaten their jobs, I don’t have a clue how, but there are 80,000 or so of us voters and some of these elections can swing by a handful of votes. No more holding their hands and singing kumbaya, look at us, what nice people we all are.

Are you banking on the hopes that it’ll be amended?

No, I am terrified it will

1 – stated “will there be any suit filed to stop this or is it basically a done deal?”

There can be no lawsuit yet as it’s not a law yet. We’re a long way off before this becomes a law. I’m guessing that this will easily pass the Appropriations Committee and likely be passed by the Assembly (unless we can pull off a massive campaign to educate the Assembly into voting no). Our best bet now is to plan on putting on a big fight if/when it reaches the Senate committees. We need people to have their children write letters and show up at these hearings so that the politicians will realize the harm it will do to the children of registrants. I doubt that the average Legislator has any idea of the harm it causes children when their parent is publicly listed on the registry.

You are right, there is shame to all children of registrants. That makes them victims in a coloquial sense, their sole fault is guilt by relationship, and accepting and loving the parent. Not faults at all in any compassionate person’s book… Victims of crime concept may be extended to those not directly receiving the criminal activity, but its conseqences are consequenses dolled out by the state. Don’t know if that has been coded in law or precedent , but it is an interesting concept. Victims have a right to privacy under the California Constitution. You may get a couple legislators questioning this bill because of that, those that still have some shame. Other than that I think most will be impressed only by what they think their voters think. I think we are forced to take the camel eye’s view of things. We are in a political desert. There won’t be much to sustain us and a lot of false hopes, and mirages attracting us to easy satisfaction, like easily killing a bill with a few choice words. I am just plodding along, parsing out my resources, not doing too much or too little, but keep heading in the direction of what I trust my nose is next oasis. Then I can do a short celebration and move on the next task. Impatience is of no use here. We may not stop this bill, but there is no stopping us.

Are there any exclusions ? or will everyone now be listed?

Everyone will not be listed. You should read the text of the bill.

Big surprise right – NOT!

As long as there is money to be made nothing is going to change! Over time for the pigs…creation of a sub-class of citizens to use a pawns by politicians…while California should blaze a trail of reason it is no better than any RED state.

The only way off this list is to move out of the USA (or die) and they have effectively locked us into a virtual prison so that is not even an option.

This state and country BOTH sicken me!

While I was not able to go to the hearing, I did spend a considerable amount of time writing letters and emails, and calling the members of the Public Safety Committee, my own Assemblyman as well as Asm. Quirk-Silva.

I assumed that others who are RSOs and otherwise part of this organization were doing the same.

That’s why it surprised and disappointed me in the latest analysis, dated 4/17, which states that only 10 individuals were listed as being against AB 558.

Here it is:

Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office
10 individuals

Seriously? Only 10 people wrote or called in their opposition? I can’t imagine that only 10 people are part of this organization, so does that mean that a lot of you didn’t bother to do anything?

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that, if you are affected by this bill and others, you need to stand up and do something.

If I am way off base here, I’d like to hear it.

Surely it can’t be just 10.
I and the few friends who know of my situation were at least 4 of those 10 if that’s the case.

Hummm…10 individuals you say?

That is quite interesting…

(I confess that I did not write…out of fear, I suppose)

I need to re-think all of this and my reluctance to contribute, except financially.


10 seems awfully low. Especially considering my wife, son, and I all called on separate occasions to voice our opposition. That’s 3 right there. So my family represents 33% of the opposition by individuals? No wonder it gets passed so easily. What happened to “we’re all in this together”? Seems the only people who called were those of us who were directly affected. Or, the politicians are not honestly reporting the calls.

I also write letters and sent emails to each member. I got an email response from the secretary of the public safety committee thanking me for my email so I guess I must be one of the 10.

What happened to “we’re all in this together”? …this from the guy who is looking at losing his EXCEPTION. That is rich….

We’re all in this together…. are we? Yes, what happened to All for One and One for Exceptions?

So you begrudge him for his exclusion??
Is it his fault he has an exclusion and is worried about losing it? Is it unreasonable to ask for support for that fear? Is he saying he isn’t willing to support other SOs even when it doesn’t directly affect him?

What is your problem with having a “call to arms”?
Instead it seems like you’re trying to sow conflict and division among us, so I ask you if you honestly think what you’re doing is better?

Thanks AB…appreciate the understanding.

@Joe…your comments prove my point. Perhaps not by all, as I’m sure some that weren’t affected by this probably feel bad for those of us who have exclusions. Afterall, who better to know how devastating this will be for those of us who will be added. But you sound awfully sour that some have exclusions (or had) and seem to be fine with that right being taken away. Assuming I’m correct, It’s a bit hypocritical when you probably feel that all the laws imposed on RSO’s are unconstitutional and punishment, yet at the same time have no issue with people being given more punishment. And for the record, I’m not affected by the school bill that was just passed but I made my phone calls for that, as well. It’s all about helping out for the cause and not just for my own personal gain. Your comments actually make it sound like you’re OK with additional punishments, as to make sure nobody has more leeway than you have. Shame, as I really thought we were all fighting for a common cause, even if some of us did have an Internet exclusion. (Sorry, but my crime was considered minor if there’s such a thing for RSO’s, whether you feel that’s fair or not)

@Joe, Ab, 1, & all Subjected.

I suggest taking into consideration the Nature of The derogatory term “Registered Sex Offender” in that it is a insult and has been Pejoratized. We know this because it is applied to a overly broad group of Subjects.

Therefore we should project the analogy of the Plantation Slaves to help visualize the positions of those made in the form of Subject Slaves. Keep in mind that the Plantation Lord would set Traps to create contention among The Lords subjects, creating division among fellows.

For further evidence we are privileged to seek Eye Witness accounts further back into time say 1500 BCE during the enslavement of the Hebrew people by analyzing the books of Moshe aka Exodus & extra biblical sources to see the same set of Traps set by Pharaoh and the Matrix of his Overseers upon a group of Registered Peoples.

I suggest to elect Not to take Offense when reading or hearing the term as “Taking Offence” is the Intended Pupose of the term Being “Pejoratized” by those Pharaohs and Overseers who seek Vengeance and Build Barriers & Bear Traps among, in between, to Bewitch Fellow Countryman. Therefore in addition I suggest Not to take Offense at the different positions among men, women, & children.

When a Person is Easily Offended it demonstrates & is Evidence that they erroneously utilize “Intuitive Judgment” when they should correctly utilize “Probability Judgment”


Because if a person elects Not to be offended then the person can now use The Oppertunity at Hand to speak & educate in conjunction with Critical Thinking Skills* on the Base Rates of the Issues there by effectively Counter the Attack of a Baal (lord) on a Minority Class & the innocent family members who suffer UnJustly with them.

expressing contempt or disapproval.
“”permissiveness” is used almost universally as a pejorative term”
synonyms: disparaging, derogatory, denigratory, deprecatory, defamatory, slanderous, libelous, abusive, insulting, slighting; informalbitchy
“his remarks were considered too pejorative for daytime radio”
a word expressing contempt or disapproval.



In the term critical thinking, the word critical, (Grk. κριτικός = kritikos = “critic”) derives from the word critic and implies a critique; it identifies the intellectual capacity and the means “of judging”, “of judgement”, “for judging”, and of being “able to discern”.

I speak a Truth Song

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Sorry, but I fail to see any point proven. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of mobilizing the masses for exclusions of the few. That is not being sour, that is being realistic.

And I never did understand these exclusions, in the first place. Let’s see.

1. 19 year old guy fondles / gropes (aka makes out with) 15 year old neighbor girl who sneaks out of her house to do just that. On the website he goes, no question asked (PC 288(c)). Step/grand/father gropes and fondles 5 year old step/grand/daughter (PC 288(a), no penetration). Gets an exclusion from the web site, in the interest of victim privacy. I don’t get that.

2. Step/grand/father gropes and fondles 5 year old step/grand/daughter. Gets an exclusion from the web site in order to protect step/grand/daughter’s privacy. Step/grand/father anally, vaginally or orally penetrates 5 year old step/grand/daughter. Goes on the web site, no question asked. To h3ll with step/grand/daughter’s privacy – now let’s be sure that everyone knows her anguish. I don’t get that.

3. There are guys on this web site for PC 647.6 from 50+ years ago. UNLESS they had the need for legal representation during that time, and the financial means therefore, or the legal / intellectual capacity to do so, there is a very good chance that they will never know that there is / was such an exclusion. And neither a do-gooder, nor a business savvy attorney could notify them, since their address is not included by design. So, this exclusion will only be / was only an option for very few, anyways. An exclusion that only rich / smart people know about is not much of an exclusion. I don’t get that.

Just a few thoughts off the top off my head. PC 290 was a bad idea in 1947, and every amendment has made it worse and more non-sensical. Including this exception.

Of course, the biggest joke of them all is that a child killer / beater is nowhere to be found on the internet. In the interest of child protection, you would think….

I do not know @1 and bear him no ill will, and adding him to the web site will not take anyone else off – so why would I “begrudge” him his good fortune?

What is wrong with a “call to arms”? Nothing. What is wrong with a call to arms with the battle cry “we are all on this together” to get exclusions? Everything. The concepts of “all in this together” and “exclusion” are mutually exclusive.

I feel bad for every single person on this wretched web site. But shaming the many who suffer, for not advocating for exceptions for the few is a strange way to go about it.


You stated:

“That’s why it surprised and disappointed me in the latest analysis, dated 4/17”

Would you kindly post the link to your Source?

So we could all review the material and clear the air of any doubt.

Kind Regards

Son of Liberty Child of Freedom,


It’s in the bill information. Just click on the “analysis” tab. But the link follows. Click on the 4/17 version. The info I cited is all the way at the bottom.

If we note at the Header of the Doc it states:

“Date of Hearing: April 18, 2017
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell”

In addition at the Footer of the Doc it states:

“Analysis Prepared by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / ”

So we need consider did the Legal Counsel Gabriel Caswell do a complete Accounting of the actions & events in the relatively short period of time the Doc was produced?

Is it a Possibility that human error may Impose a False Order upon the Doc?

After all Life is full (Bara) of Surprizes.

But never mind I, what do I know.

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Perhaps it means that 10 individuals physically showed up to the hearing and voiced their opposition?

The 10 must have been those that showed up.

I counted 18 individuals (besides the 3 that testified) that stood up and stated they were against this bill. That was a decent number of people showing up. Thank you to all that showed up and represented all of us that couldn’t be there.

This bill is wrong in so many ways. How do “they” plan on telling the public that those now on the Internet have not been on the public website for x amount of years and cause a horrendous threat? All of a sudden, these people who have lived a peaceful life, made friends with neighbors, etc are considered monsters? Why were they not monsters all these years? These politicians will have to answer to the public as to why they did not “protect” their children until now. We all know the answer. There is no threat, nor will there be a threat. What a way to lose the public’s trust.

I am sure, this has been posted her before, but I came across it on the SOSEN website, and it makes sense. Why is this not the same for us here in California:
I copied and pasted the response here:

Quote: “In MA when the legislature passed a new law that would add all tier 2 registrants to the public register, the State Supreme Court ruled that publishing names of those who had taken pleas with the knowledge that they would not be on the public registry, WAS ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT, expost facto. The new law could only publish those tier 2 whose convictions were after the passage of the new law.

Newspaper articles here still claim that the Internet registry list here has those classified as tier 2 and tier 3, but actually the Internet list only has those classified as tier 3 and those tier 2 registrants whose convictions were after the new law was passed which I believe was around 2013.

Anyone speaking at the hearing should have the facts of that ruling to present as a precident to show that adding registrants who were previously convicted but not listed would be ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT BY THE LEGISLATURE EXPOST FACTO. ~ End Quote.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x