ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

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

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments June 2017

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Packingham v North Carolina was just released by SCOTUS. And it’s BEAUTIFUL!

Outside of the obvious, that SCOTUS ruled in favor the registered citizen, the best passage within this opinion is:

“Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have
served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.)”


Amazing! I hope the mods can get this story listed on the main page quickly!

It’s time to bring down the entire Registry Scheme!

SCOTUS mention 14 years ago that a Substantive Due Process claim may work, and now they give us another hint how to beat it. Now, to just figure out how to get a case challenging the entire thing before them!

@Chris F
“Now, to just figure out how to get a case challenging the entire thing before them!”

The only one I’ve stumbled upon that’s even close is the IL case (Pepitone). Problem there is that Pepitone is not an RC, so though presence and/or residency restrictions could get knocked down, it would have no effect on the registration burdens.

It wold definitely attack the issue of how, “the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.”



“Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have
served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.)”

That is an amazing quote! This is setting up for the Snyder case!

I’m in Florida but I just thought about something that could impact states like CA. etc… more so


Why are the courts allowed to discriminate? doesn’t static 99 use age and sex in considering the results thus I’m thinking it is discriminating under United States Laws and other State Laws

This is wonderful news for all of us! This gives us all new hope for bigger reforms in the future. We need to find a path to get a case in front of SCOTUS to at least end the “public” registry.

JetBlue Airways Corp. and Delta Air Lines Inc. will test facial and fingerprint recognition technology at two U.S. airports to replace boarding passes and ID’s.

This should make it even easier for them to enforce IML. I’m not sure why they will still need to mark our Passports when they can identify us quickly with this new technology.

That is interesting and sounds like a CYA action by them to ensure they could cover themselves from liability by moving people around in seat assignments because they cannot stop you from flying even under IML since they are not agents of the USG (like Best Buy appears to be). How can they get fingerprints and facial photos? I am not providing them. Are they going to mine the internet or DMV databases? I am not giving up my phone boarding pass.

Apples and oranges Lake County.
That’s because the passport identifier is for the customs official in Bum-phk Whateverstan who makes the decision on who he allows entry into a country. IML flags your name on a manifest list for the receiving country. Facial recognition (in this context) is for exit. Not all countries have unlimited and artificial taxpayer dollars to employ these invasive and overbearing methods.

Yeah Chris I am willing to take whatever amount of time to get this right..reasonable amount of time I should say because we have been waiting long enough and this Packingahm case just helps concrete my position that SCROTUS will rule in our favor at least on one or two of the issues I bring if not all…..We’ll get in court and I am sure that the lower courts will probably rule in our favor too.

I would like to suggest that everyone in this group add the state they live in to the end of the name they post here with. Now that this group has become a national group, it’s hard to provide a proper response to questions or comments without knowing what state the poster comes from. I have now added it to the end of my user name so that no one confuses it with the much larger Lake County, FL. Please consider doing this so there will be less confusion when questions are asked or advice is given.

@Lake County, CA
A worthy suggestion, but not all of us wish to have our resident state identified. I know I don’t. My state is out in fly-over land, and aside from having to register, they leave me alone. Also, given my focus is on national issues, my state of residence is irrelevant.

I usually run with the premise that, unless stated, the post is about CA.


I understand some might not want to disclose current state. But if cops were interested in our location, they could just read all our past posts and figure it out.

@Lake County, CA
It’s not at all about LE, though I can see how my writing may have led to that conclusion. It’s just about my being a more private, cautious person.

I will say that if/when someone has a question or problem concerning their situation, they should indeed reveal the state. Again, a worthy idea.


I am looking for someone who is good at building things, like decks, patios, retaining walls and the like. I need some help.

I stumbled across an interesting essay regarding the constitutionality of the No Fly List. I found so many gems in it, I’m thinking about opening a jewelry store! Many of the precedents cited could apply not only to IML, but to some state RC laws as well. It’s a long, sometimes tough, read, but worth it.


Specific subject matter aside, this op-ed makes some good observations about how things are supposed to be regarding rights versus where they are. I particularly like the point that we don’t have constitutional rights, we have *inalienable* rights. Also, that the Government doesn’t grant us (we, the people) anything, rather we (the people) give limited power to the Government.


From the article:
We need to dispel the constitutional myth. We the people do not have “constitutional rights.” We have unalienable rights. The latter are far, far superior. If we had only privileges, then the government could act on whim and grant or restrict our privileges.

Read more at:

See, this is the point I was making with the California constitution and the inalienable right to obtain and pursue privacy. The registry takes that all away! Obtaining privacy is not a privilege, it’s an inalienable right. That means the government cannot take that way from its citizens. The registry takes away privacy as well as takes away the process to pursue it with its “lifetime term” as if privacy was a privilege. In California, it’s not a privilege – it’s a right that cannot be abridged.

This is why I don’t understand why Ca registrant lawyers (ACLU) doesn’t want to defend California citizens when it’s written clearly in the California Constitution! Out of all states, California actually states obtaining and pursuing privacy is an inalienable right. It’s constitution negates the removal of privacy (as a free person), which is what the registry is.

So according to this, Trump should be able to ban Muslims from coming here?

That may be true, as the government is charged with protecting its citizens and the people in the other countries do not have protections of our constitution until they become a US Citizen.

However, since Trump is targeting a specific group and was on record asking his advisers how he can legally discriminate against them and keep them out, I think that makes this a Bill of Attainder issue even though it is against non citizens. We know he isn’t really protecting us with his actions and only playing into people’s fears. He is also affecting the US Citizens that want to have family come here, thus it does affect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to some citizens.

@Chris F
I prefaced my post trying to avoid the hot-button issue of Trump’s ban: “[s]pecific subject matter aside.” What was of interest to me was the rest of the op-ed about rights and how they’re viewed. But, to your point, immigration has long been viewed by SCOTUS as a national security and/or foreign policy issue, and have yielded to the other branches. With that in mind, I would say SCOTUS will rule in favor of the Administration. I’m not giving any opinion as to the wisdom of either outcome, I’m simply looking at precedent. For a related, though dated, reference, see:

“[T]he government is charged with protecting its citizens and the people in the other countries do not have protections of our constitution until they become a US Citizen.”
The Constitution in some places does give rights to anyone within the borders, the Fifth and Sixth readily come to mind. In some places it gives rights to a “person” and others to a “citizen.” (This is a good guide for ANYone to have, read and know.)

Given U.S. citizens don’t even have Fourth Amendment rights until cleared through Immigration, I don’t see how a non-citizen can have a First Amendment right outside the national borders. The case that may help with all this is where CBP shot and killed a Mexican national on the Mexican side of the border.

I think whatever SCOTUS rules will open up a can of worms. I’m sure Alito will have some draconian resolution to it all.


P.S. How is it I have a responsibility to follow U.S. Law when outside the country (IRS, anyone?), but I don’t have rights? That truly seems to be a price of/for citizenship…

So according to this, Trump should be able to ban Muslims from coming here?

What Trump says and what is in the written request are two different things. It’s a temporary ban from seven specific countries until there is a better form of vetting people from those countries. Those seven countries are the same seven countries that President Obama identified as a terrorist threat.

I hope this ends this discussion about “banning Muslims” when it temporarily bans seven countries. A 90-day temporary ban. B/c what you’re doing is expanding those seven countries to the world… or saying a few bad apples makes all apples bad… or the most dangerous registrant makes all registrants dangerous.

Why does Trump still need the 90 day ban to refurbish the immigration process? He’s had 150 days now to make any changes he wanted. If this was a real problem that just needed 90 days to fix, then it would have been fixed already. What, he can’t make changes without stopping immigration? Something smells about this whole temporary ban.

It’s not just an immigration process, now is it? It’s for anyone willing to travel from those places.

Again, this admin is saying we don’t have a proper vetting process. Currently, anyone can come in. The 90 days halts it. That’s when they can probably start doing more research on all people wanting to come from those 7 countries, which the Obama admin had originally denoted as terrorist threats to the US.

An analogy is there a leak. Do you start trying to fix the leak first or do you stop the source providing the leak first? For a kitchen sink, you shut off the valve underneath temporarily. Once you’ve addressed the problem, then you can turn valve back on again to test it. If it work, then great. If not, then you turn the valve off again. For a toilet issue, you have to shut off the main valve, which is located by the sidewalk. Go buy the materials to fix or replace. Make sure it’s the correct size and connectors. If not, then it’s another trip to the store. Once everything is fixed, then turn the water main back on. If nothing leaks, then you’ve been reassured it is fixed.

It’s a temporary ban with the sole purpose of setting up a vetting system. It’s not a lifetime ban on one religion. That’s what I’m trying to correct here.

Ok, so my original post used the Trump EO issue to highlight the change and erosion of rights. Despite my desire to keep it off the EO topic, it’s obviously gone there. I apologize for starting that ball rolling and for not being wiser in my choice of links.


LOL! Oh come on, it’s a good topic that relates to how Politicians hide their prejudiced intent under seemingly good intentions.

Muslims or Sex Offenders. or…

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.”

@Chris F
It’s a topic that will not die. I still maintain that regardless of any shenanigans associated with it, SCOTUS will rule in the Administration’s favor for reasons I’ve previously stated. That is not an opinion from me one way or the other as to the propriety, and I will not give one. It’s simply a statement of courts traditionally ceding immigration to the legislative and executive branches, as well as expatriate non-citizens not having Constitutional standing. It’s probably not a whole lot different than the wet-feet, dry-feet policy regarding Cubans. (,_dry_feet_policy)

Here’s a thought for the sake of argument: what if instead of a ban (i.e. 0 allowed in), it’s limited to 1, or 10, or 12 allowed? Is it okay then? What is the “proper” number?

Next time I’ll find a source that includes abortion or some other safe topic…


As I said, the judiciary typically yields on immigration to the other two branches:

It sounds like if an immigrant has some sort of tie to the U.S., they are not to be banned, but anyone with no ties (read: refugees) can be.

As I expected and posited…and again offering no opinion one way or another.


“Do you start trying to fix the leak first or do you stop the source providing the leak first?”. Well, in this case, to fix the leak they turned off the water to the neighbor’s house instead of the one with the leak.

Because the truth is…It’s a ban on specific countries to disguise its real intent of being a ban on as many Muslims as he can get away with that doesn’t hurt Trump’s past business deals. “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

Just like Sex Offender residency restrictions are disguised as policies to protect children, the real intent is to ban sex offenders from their city.

In both cases, all you have to do is look at original intent. Trump specifically said he wanted a Muslim ban and asked his staff how to do it legally. That’s a fact. They don’t even ban the counties that most terrorists come from! The ban does not include Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the United Arab Emirates – all countries with which Mr Trump did business and from where the 9/11 plane hijackers came.

If you look at sex offender residency restrictions original intent, there are some great quotes on Oncefallen’s site. The original intent is to keep sex offenders out, and force them to other cities until they set up the same restrictions, ending in an escalation of the distance until it’s a total ban. It is not to protect children, like they write in the laws.

So…back to Muslim bans…The Muslim countries already go through a lengthy and hard vetting process. Experts don’t know what else could possibly be done, and Trump hasn’t said one thing about that. He is going to sit and wait until he gets his ban put through, and then task the Departments of State and Homeland Security with figuring out what more can be done. Why hasn’t he asked them yet after all this time since the first attempt at a ban???

There is nothing but shady stuff going on here.

Let’s recap the Trump part in this:

1) He specifically asked his team how to legally ban Muslims to pass constitutional muster…he did not ask how to improve security or vetting. Banning that specific list of countries is what they came up with.

2) He doesn’t have to wait for the ban to start improving the vetting process, but he is, because otherwise he won’t need a ban in place because the work will have already been done that is the entire reason for a ban.

3) He purposely excluded the countries he has done business with that just happen to be where ALL the 9-11 hijackers came from!

Sorry…my BS alarm won’t stop going off on this charade…

The seven countries were the seven identified under the OBAMA ADMIN!!!

How you fail to omit such information is stupendously erroneous on your part. Don’t be misleading like Alito. Here, Trump is specifically identifying the seven countries to temporarily ban that the previous administration put under watch of a terrorist threat country. Trump isn’t banning all Muslims here. That’s what he said on the campaign, but that’s not what’s on legal documentation for the law.

Again, either deal with facts or you’re dealing with fear. You can’t be dealing with fact for registrants and deal with fear in a temporary banning on 7 terrorist countries.

Because the truth is…It’s a ban on specific countries to disguise its real intent of being a ban on as many Muslims as he can get away with that doesn’t hurt Trump’s past business deals. “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

But they’ve perpetrated attacks upon other soil not on their own. So why not increase the vetting process?

Anyhow, it’s a temporary 90-day ban. That’s it. They’re not Americans being banned. It’s people we don’t know, but would like to know. We don’t want a blanket, open arms to all from those seven countries.

You’re quite reactionary than preventative in your actions. That’s like you behaving like Justice Roberts implying all these things that could go wrong with the registry is all conjecture b/c it hasn’t happened yet.

There’s nothing wrong with what Trump wants to do. Do I agree with it? I think he could be working on a vetting system right now. I don’t know if he needs the temporary ban. If we’re allowing refugees and others we don’t have a background into this country from those seven countries that produce terrorists (again identified under the OBAMA ADMIN), then we have to vet those already in the USA as well as those that want into the USA. I see what they’re trying to do.

You…. I see what you’re trying to do too. This isn’t a lifetime ban on all Muslims. Please, stick to the facts. This is a 90-day temporary ban on people from those specific seven countries. And it is important for all to make sure Trump abide by it as well. But there’s no need to be hyperbolic with farcical statements.

You can look online. Every publication will state what was presented to the court: a temporary 90-day ban on seven countries. Where inside what was presented to the court that it banned all Muslims forever? Where?

@New Person

Ok, so, Trump asks his staff “How can I legally ban Muslims from entering this country” and they find Obama’s list of 7 countries. They tell him “place a temporary ban on just those, and you’ll have your butt covered because that’s Obama’s list, not yours”. Great. Sounds fine then.

It’s been much longer than the 90 days he said he needed. Where is his progress and why does he still need another 90 days? Is it ok if we give him the 90 days and then keep extending that 90 days? It’s obvious that is the intent, or we would see SOME progress on this by now.

The experts have no idea what would make the current vetting process better, and Trump isn’t pointing out what is broken or what needs fixing or research. He just wants to complete his campaign promise to ban some amount of Muslims, or at least slow them down as long as he can legally figure out a way to do so. Why is this something we should agree with?

Looks like Trump got a partial win.

SCOTUS says they can start banning only those that don’t have a family or job interest in coming to the US. Luckily, that means most of the plaintiffs can keep traveleing. The rest of the SCOTUS review will be decided in the Fall. Someone will have to explain how we won’t have everything figured out by Fall for Trump to still need his 90 travel ban. How many blocks of 90 days does he need exactly?

Most US teens have sex by 18

If you are in CA, then of course, there is a large amount of potential RCs if the teens have intercourse before 18, which is against CA law as stated here numerous times. What is needed are some politician’s teens caught so things can be rethought in the Sunshine state. Biology, biology, biology…

Sure other states too in the union could rethink things….

Help me out people…I need conclusions to both the bill of attainder/separation of powers argument and the involuntary servitude argument.. I need them to be very specific such as the following…

Unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive official action…
192. I am entitled to relief because, a) The registration scheme is unreasonable in that it subjects me to a lifetime of registration when I have a less than one percent re-offense rate, b) it has not been confirmed that I pose a cognizable risk high enough to justify my inclusion on the registry, c) the registration scheme is completely arbitrary since it applies to me when I do not pose a risk for re-offense any higher than the ordinary public, d) the registration scheme achieves no legislative objectives and actually exacerbates my risk for re-offense, e) the registration scheme is oppressive because I cannot leave my house without fear of being attacked which has already occurred, f) I cannot find meaningful employment because of my inclusion on a public registry, g) I am severely restricted or completely banned in what occupations I may pursue because of the exclusion zones, h) I cannot buy new vehicles because my property will be vandalized, which has already happened in my current location, i) I cannot move into homes that are in affluent neighborhoods because most HOA’s will not allow ex-sex-offenders to move into their neighborhoods, j) I cannot buy a home without fearing that I will be forced to move because of some retroactive law that gets passed against ex-sex-offenders or for fear that my property will be vandalized or even destroyed by vigilantes.

Bill of Attainder…
I am entitled to relief because..

Involuntary Servitude/Slavery….
I am entitled to relief because..

Mike R,
I sent this online, but it didn’t show up. So I’m trying this again.

Involuntary Servitude….
I am entitled to relief because..
a) involuntary servitude is prohibited, unless to punish a crime.
b) registration scheme was deemed a regulatory scheme in 2003
c) once an individual completes the punishment supervisory term, then that individual is considered a free person that no longer needs to continue to serve the state
d) registration imposes services upon an individual to continue to serve the state after the completion of their supervisory term, which includes serving the state by monthly check-ins with authority.
e) there is no registration system imposed for any other group of former convicts under the same penalties
f) there are four traditional factors in determining involuntary servitude: 1) contract done in free will, 2) compensation, 3) term, and 4) domineered.
f1) registration was attached to a penal code, but it was deemed not punishment, which presents an oddity to the end purpose of registration.
f2a) there is no compensation for being on the registry, yet under a supervisory term and if one completes it successfully, then that individual regains their freedom.
f2b) because there is no compensation and the involuntary servitude is not to punish a crime, then this trait ventures into slavery upon a free person and slavery is prohibited under the Constitution.
f3) in California, the term is a lifetime term upon a free person, which is an extreme contractual term that all courts would strike down as the lifetime term is directly defined until one dies
f4) a free person cannot walk away from this lifetime term as they will be hunted down, punished, and returned to service for a lifetime.
g) registration removes the liberty of walking away from a service, job as a free citizen

I don’t know if you want to add more to your pallet, but maybe you should include California Constitution Article 1:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

I want to specify that “pursuing and obtaining… privacy” is an “inalienable right”. This right cannot be taken away from a free California Citizen.

a) inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy means the state cannot take away the ability to get and have privacy b/c it is a right, not a privilege
b) after the completion of any and all punishments due to a conviction, one is deemed to be a free California citizen once again.
c) registration is the dissemination of an individual’s private information
d) registration exposes a free citizen’s private information
e) the lifetime term is inherent to negation of the pursuit of privacy, which includes the negation of obtaining privacy.
f) California has taken away my right as a free California citizen to pursue and obtain privacy after the completion of my penalties due to a conviction by excluding registrants from the removal of all penalties and disabilities stemming from the conviction under 1203.4. (Again, right to pursue and obtain privacy is a right, not a privilege b/c due to the specific language “inalienable right”.)

Just wondering, I had some people lie to a detective and said I was staying in a city that I wasent, luckly im in a small town my neighbors see me daily, the detective called me and asked if i was staying there he doesnt believe the person and said nothing should come out of this. Im thinking its the city council in the city, is it possible to sue them for the false accusation or is this something i should just leave be?

This sounds like a detective making stuff up to test you and trap you.

Are you still on probation/parole?

If not, you don’t need to answer any questions from anyone. Unless they try to charge you for failing to update registration with proof that you resided somewhere else over whatever period your state says you have to update registration, then tell them to quit harassing you or you’ll sue. I’m not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion.

I’m not on parole or probation, but me and my detective are on good terms he has known me 8 years, he told me he has my back if i ever need help that ive done everything right with them, he always goes the extra step for me when I do need help. pretty sure its the city because the city kicked me out for the case 8 years ago, and none of the city residence know me but i can visit anytime i want,and i have my secondary address there. I have 2 more years out of the 10 left to be done, doing my best not to let it restart, ready to fight this thing but waiting till i’m off till i do, i’ve been quiet the last 8 years, been paying attention to this site constantly thought

What state are you in? You should always let us know what state you are in if you want a proper answer.

Given he’s on a 10-year limit, it’s not CA or FL, that’s for sure! Given he raised no issue that appears state-specific, I don’t know that it much matters.


I would say that since you suffered no harm, I’d just walk away. I would, however, keep notes of the days in question, as well as the date and time and gist of the conversation with the detective. Just a CYA. As a boss of mine used to say about documentation (which nobody liked doing): “none of it matters…until it does.” I became diligent about documentation thereafter, and it saved my and my employer some serious problems.


k thx was thinking about the documentation also, was going to buy a night vision game camera and point it at my house. just to show when i leave and get home, ive made it this far on luck with this registration. this would be the 2nd time someone tried to get me to jail, the first person they threatened to break in my car and put drugs in there and call the cops, because my brother broke up with her:/ the detective helped me get a restraining order on her

Sounds like the detective is also biding the last couple years until he’s free from having to monitor someone who’s not a problem! Good for you, but still be wary of any LEO. Any. Without making a big deal about it, you could maybe innocently ask the detective what happened to those people who made false claims to the police about you. I wouldn’t go beyond that, but definitely would write down what he says, as well as having the time and date. Any conversation with him, I would document. Not to trap him in anything, but to establish a pattern which shows that you document things. In other words, the many pages of benign documentation will bolster the strength and validity of any crucial documentation.

You’re in the homestretch, time to CYA as much as possible!


My advice to you is to what AJ stated, document everything. And always document when not staying at a certain residence. Something I did while on probation. And since you have only 2 years left and your detective has your back, at this point, as much as you want to, don’t make any waves. Wait until you are off probation to fight back against anyone. Just fight back before the statute of limitations runs out. And I suggest once off probation, to let go what you can so you will not be angry and bitter and instead focus on your future.

I have been in a very similar situation. A friend of mine (who had a mole in the police department) told me they were planning to plant drugs either in my car or house. Rather than do that, they called a contact at the county sheriff’s department who with the probation department threatened to file false charges against me to put me in prison, threatened harm to my children who lived with their mother, and threatened to illegally release to the public details about my crime. Well, the sheriff department followed through with two of these things and thank god no harm to my children. Then I was kicked out of my treatment group and then kicked out of another treatment group I was told to attend by probation. I passed a polygraph I had done nothing wrong but a warrant was put out for my arrest. But after the probation department admitted to the judge they told the treatment groups to kick me out and that they had manufactured the probation violations hoping to put me in prison, the judge let me change treatment providers and complete probation. The sgt I registered with even stated I was his model registrant and he never did anything to bother me, never coming to my house, though he sent officers to my house one night to make sure I still lived there since the place appeared empty since I had not mowed in awhile and I had covered the front windows with plastic making it hard to see into the house. He told me just to move the garbage can around, plant flowers or mow more often so I know you still live there when I drive by. This fall I have to hire an attorney to get the illegally disclosed public crime information issue resolved.

I also had the city administrator (who was an ex chief of police) stalk everyone who came to and left my house.

Since I lived 300 feet from the city limits, I just went directly out of town and never went into town for nothing for awhile. And I put a small piece of paper at the top of the door and powder at the bottom of the door. Every day when I came home from work, I would open the door slowly and do my checks. If it was obvious the police had entered, the plan was for my friend and some of his friends to search the house, for them to put the drugs in a plastic bag and for me to wear gloves and immediately take it to my parents house in another local city until I could take it to the FBI the following day. But, they never did plant the drugs, just do what I stated in the above paragraph. People in the community offered me security equipment and money to watch the police, but I turned it down as the police would just tear up the equipment. This was about 10 years ago before all the newest tech and places to stay. I had to turn down places to stay as I was required to tell the police where I was if not staying at home.

The police at the direction of either the mayor or the next city administrator broke into my house, stole multiple items with my DNA, vandalized the place and stole other items, all costing me about $1,000, which I later got back when I added that to the sale price of my place to the developer, who was in bed with city council, with them all admitting they got bribes. There was a rumor they were going to plant things with my name and DNA in the park. But, after I heard rumors of the drug planting, I made sure there was not one thing in my house with my name and no pictures of me or anyone I knew in the house, so there was nothing with my name in my house when they broke into my house.

Luckily I knew someone who had connections at the FBI so that person went and explained what was going on and the FBI offered protection, but I refused. I never asked that person to go to the FBI.

And luckily the FBI was investigating county and city governmental crimes in the area during the time the police broke into my house, so I went to the FBI and explained in summary what happened I was asked to come back with details, the reasons why and all evidence. Since I was still on deferred probation which could be revoked at any time, and one of the politicians possibly involved had power over my judge, I did not follow up for fear of being revoked. But, my intention was just to tell the local city and police I had gone to the FBI and that they were interested in what was going on. I just told the city they had gone too far this time and to leave me alone. After that, I never had any more problems with the city or police. In fact, I ran into the chief of police more than once at a bar and he tried to buddy up with me and buy me and my dates drinks. So I got free drinks (no alcohal) and my dates both times got free drinks.

I counted more than 50 low level and felony crimes committed by people in government against me (and let’s not count all the unconstitutional probation and state requirements). But I did nothing as I against anyone at the advice of my attorney for of revocation. And I was reading the bible at the time, and just decided to forgive everyone and move on. God has taken care of me. I figured if I am doing nothing wrong, God will take care of me. And now that I am off probation, I don’t have time to go after any of these people and I let the statute of limitations expire. I am focusing on my future goals and the current relationships in my life.

this is an Illinois case original never had probation just registration, he isn’t worried about me at all, i thought they were trying to set me up at first, I clean houses and work at a carlot i should of registered everything just for general practice lol, i would of been there twice a day wasting the program funds. *faceplant* How i was cleaning residential houses is beyond me btw i should of never been there lol, the 3rd month he asked me if i had a case i said to, he said dont tell me what it is i dont want to know lol.

takes alot of courage to forgive this, it messed up my relationship with my gf, and it makes me really angry, when i see these couples go thru the same things that me and her went thru the last 8 years. ive avoided doing anything except working.I cant see myself letting this go after im done with the registration, this shouldn’t even be in existence. thanks for the responses everyone

Like to elaborate on the last post missed something. They said I’d be ok as long as I dont drive the same car after 72 hours then I’d have to register it, I woulnt drive a car more then 2 days on purpose had 70 some cars to drive, I should of drove them all more then 2 days just to keep registering it and unregister it, I didn’t want to cause problems though

Interesting that you can hop and skip to a different car every 72 hours and be okay. What happens if you happen to drive a car again, say a week later? Or do you have to keep a list of VINs that have been driven? 🙂 (Not that crazy of an idea for you, actually. Snap a picture, which can automatically timestamp too.)

The arrangement J is allowed is interesting, and makes me wonder about my own state. Within 3 business days, I’m required to register any vehicle that is “owned or operated.” I’ve often wondered about the situation where I’m done operating a vehicle before I must register it. The question is, at what point does it become “operated”? If I drive my aunt’s car once, then never again, must I report still report it within 3 business days? The law would seem to say so. Can I drive my son’s car once, then not for a month or two, then drive it again and be okay? If I didn’t expect to have driven it again and do, and then decide to register it “to be safe,” am I guilty of not registering it within 3 business days of the first event? Nowhere does the State define how frequently one must use a vehicle for it to qualify as “operated.” They also require me to let them know when I cease owning or operating a vehicle. So maybe they want me to tell them my start and stop dates and times, which both occurred prior to the 3-day window? “Hi Mr. LEO, I’m stopping by to let you know I test drove, i.e. operated, five cars at a dealership yesterday. Where are the forms for me to complete so you can enter that info into a computer for no helpful or rational reason?”

I don’t expect anyone here to have the answers, and I don’t think LEOs, or even attorneys, can answer correctly…which is exactly the problem and my point. It’s impossible for a reasonable person (or me, for that matter) to know when or if one is violating the law, which automatically makes it unconstitutionally vague.


In CA, you only have to provide updated vehicle information during your regular times of registration. But if you are on probation or parole, you should do whatever probation or parole instructs you to do.

@Lake County, CA
Ok, so in CA you could drive another vehicle from the moment you walked out of registration, then cease using it sometime before registering again and be good? Even if you can go a two weeks, or a month, or 60 days driving an unregistered vehicle, it shoots a hole in any validity claim as to registering vehicles. That seems like a hole large enough to…well, drive a car through! 🙂 I guess someone who’s going to do something bad only does it with registered vehicles.

This would seem to be yet another example of a law that doesn’t do what it claims to achieve, which a rational judiciary would then strike down. (There I go being rational again….)


Registering our vehicles is pointless, because when they run our license plate, they also run a check on the registered owner and the computer has us flagged as a 290 registrant. The only time vehicle information would be helpful for them is if the vehicle was not registered to you. But the entire policy of registering our vehicles with law enforcement is pointless unless we were required to register any vehicle we were going to drive prior to driving a vehicle. If that were the case, we couldn’t even drive a drunk friend’s car from a bar.

@Lake County, CA
I get the whole pointlessness of it and running the registration. You’re more furthering my point and question, not answering it. Does CA require you to register all vehicles you operate, regardless of ownership? That’s the situation that is the head-scratcher. If I use it only intermittently, when is the standard reached of “operating”? My State also posts the vehicle info I supply them on the ML website. I guess some Mrs. Kravitz ( is going to memorize all the vehicle data on the site and know right away that she should call the boys in blue about me.

I’m not asking the value of it to LE, I’m asking what anyone else has run into as to the “operating” or “using” or “driving” or whatever their particular state laws say. My State seems unconstitutionally vague; I’m guessing others are, and possibly more so.


California registrants are required to register with the police every vehicle that is registered in their name AND any other vehicle that is “regularly” driven by them . (The word regularly is actually written in the statute) Regular means a constant pattern, frequently, repeatedly, continually periodically, constantly , perpetually , or on numerous occasions. ( Purposefully ambiguous.)

And yes, because there is no requirement to immediately update a vehicle, you could be driving grandmas car for 11 months of the year, but if you stop driving it and decide you’re never going to drive it again prior to your annual registration – It would seem to be legally non disclosable.

That, and the fact that you’ve already registered your own car with the police surveillance state anyways, basically makes vehicle disclosure irrelevant and ridiculous.

Thank you. You answered exactly what I was asking. As enacted, the current requirements do absolutely nothing as we all know. Of course the legislative response if they discover this fact will be to tighten the requirements. More than anything, hopefully it can help point to the fact that these myriad hurdles and hoops do nothing. Since they have no effect one way or the other, they can never achieve the stated legislative purpose, setting them up for failing even rational basis review. (Fingers crossed!)


Legislative reaponse? As I have said, local response, per me at least, was to try to get me to register within two weeks after I bought a car. Why? Beats me. Aren’t we all proling the streets looking for victims (sarcasm). As if we are we would tell them what vehicle we are doing it in? C’mon, do they have the brains of an amoeba? They are interpreting changing vehicles like an address change.

The compliance officers keep asking me if my vehicles are still the same as registered. They want you here to register new vehicles with them within two weeks. It is something they use to hope to catch you on during the compliance checks. I haven’t found anything in 290 that mentions registering vehicles more than your annual or quarterly obligation. I deduce they are simply trying to entrap me. It is laughable. If anyone knows me, it would be rediculous to assume I am driving around looking for victims. Please, can some lawyer challenge this nonsense.

They seem to be particularly obsessed with phone numbers during these compliance checks too.

There is nothing in 290 about a phone number being required information and who would want to have a telephone conversation with these people anyways?

They would count it 3 days in a calendar in MN, it doesnt have to be all at once at least thats how I understand it from Illinois Law, they only list the plates and color here, the same with houses if i cleaned a house more then 3 times in a year id have to register it, but now they are telling me when i open my LLC. they just want me to report the LLC not all my customers houses. Im going to double check with the BCA on this one though before I do it, heard that from the sheriffs dept.

Alright I finished my motion and believe it is ready to file…
check it out see if there is anything I should change or add….

@mike r
I’ve copied-and-pasted your entire motion into a Word document. I’ve read a good deal of it, but need to read all of it yet. I do have some suggestions, which I’ll try to get done over the weekend or so. I’ve even figured out a way to get you an edited copy anonymously. 😉


@Mike R

Holy crap!

That’s over 32,000 words and fills 45 pages in Word.

That’s impressive, and will take me some time to read!

I won’t get much of a chance over the weekend, so I hope you don’t need to file too quickly.

@Mike R

Before I read the entire motion, there are some things I hope you are pointing out in multiple sections, especially under Bill of Attainder, Equal Protection, Involuntary Servitude, and Substantive Due Process.

Please repeatedly include the fact that Sex Offender Registration restrictions continue after your adjudicated sentence, parole, or supervision has successfully ended, and that none of those restrictions suffered as a registrant were deemed necessary or appropriate to your circumstances during the sentencing phase of a trial where both sides have the constitutional right to be heard before punishment, rehabilitation methods, or restrictions to protect public safety are placed on the defendant by a competent judge.

If you don’t have it already, you may want to quote and reference the latest from the Packingham SCOTUS case as well where the Court noted the “troubling fact” that the North Carolina law imposed severe restrictions on persons “who have already served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.”

@mike r
Just in case you haven’t found this resource:

That should help you avoid things getting tossed on a technicality. The “Pro Se Packet” seems like a very helpful guide.


yep it’s all in there..every suggestion all you guys made are in there….I am very happy with what we as a team have accomplished and I believe I am ready to file…I want to see what the opposition has to throw at me with their answer so I know what I need to concentrate on refute. what I am going to pound home is that I have completed all of my sentencing phases and am supposed to be a free citizen, judges are the only ones that can determine punishments based on individual basis not the legislative branch, the false statistics and misrepresentation of the facts to the court, bill of attainder, all of it…..I will not let anyfalsehoods slide by like all these attorneys…I got A’s in both my public speech clases the last couple semesters so I think I am ready…..I already to the federal courthouse and talked to the clerk and I am looking forward to arguing this in front of a judge….

Here’s some food for thought, courtesy of Black’s Law Dictionary online ( regarding a form of corporal punishment, the pillory:

“The pillory was designed to humiliate offenders. Typically, the offender’s hands and head were locked in place and he or she was often put in a public place, such as a market square. Passersby would view the pillory as a form of public entertainment and would often do their best to humiliate the offender, such as by throwing rotten produce and other items at him or her. While the pillory was primarily designed to humiliate petty criminals, sometimes passersby would throw stones and bricks, which could lead to permanent injury and even death.”

The “market square” is now the Internet (as Packingham even now says), and the “rotten produce” is now signs posted (as in AR), special ID cards and/or driver licenses, etc. Even the last phrase about permanent injury and death has already been well documented by various vigilante events around the country. Pure and simple, we’re being pilloried. Punished.

That same URL has other corporal punishments listed, too. Though they seem to somewhat apply (esp branding and cropping), what got me was that they imposed lifetime, readily discernible identification of the person for a past offense. Again, sounds familiar.

Also courtesy of Black’s ( is the definition of banishment:
“A punishment inflicted upon criminals, by compelling them to quit a city, place, or country for a specified period of time, or for life. See Cooper v. Telfair, 4 Dall. 14, 1 L. Ed. 721; People v. Potter, 1 Park. Cr. R. (N. Y.) 54. It is inflicted principally upon political offenders, ‘transportation’ being the word used to express a similar punishment of ordinary criminals. Banishment, however, merely forbids the return of the person banished before the expiration of the sentence, while transportation involves the idea of deprivation of liberty after the convict arrives at the place to which he has been carried. Rap. & L.”

It sure seems a residency and/or presence restriction compels me, “to quit a…place…for a specified period of time, or for life.”

These definitions, coupled with the Packingham ruling, sure make it seem a case could easily be won in pretty much any court in the land (ok, not FL or LA), not just Federal or SCOTUS domains. An opposing party in the suit would probably try to quote Smith, which I think would actually work in our favor. As we all know, Smith was upheld because none of these items were part of the scheme; they are now integral. So go ahead, Mr./Ms. Attorney General, please bring up Smith so we can all agree the State has gone well past what SCOTUS reviewed there.



Great find on Black’s definition of banishment. That should be used in all states to repel any and all presence and living restrictions.

I’m curious if that can extend to employment? Employment is set up in an edifice. And edifice is a place. For example, one is banning a person from working at this location b/c that individual is a registrant. Whether it is for 15 minutes or eight hours, it is a specified period of time that a free person (who is a registrant) is banned whereas other free persons are not.

There is also the concept of ‘internal exile’ in which a person is forbidden from leaving a place. That is what IML does and is also the effect of many states’ onerous registration laws for visitors.

yeah I’m going to beef up the involuntary servitude argument..I will research the closest regulatory mandate that is even close to relevant which is the obama health care mandates in a free person..that is the only reg. that compels a free citizen to a government mandate that isn’t connected to some kind of licensing or permitting process and I am going to push the issue that mandate comes nowhere close to the registry since there is no threat of imprisonment for failing to comply..if there was such a consequence for non compliance for healthcare mandate it would have never have passed constitutional scrutiny….I believe this is a strong argument that I have to resesrch more…

glad to see you guys riding this out .I know it’s extremely arduous and time consuming and I appreciate all your help….I am going to try talking to ACLU again now that they got a bunch of money to fight Trump here in Cali…they are supposed to of opened a new chapter or office up here in Sacramento so I’ll get on it Monday see what happens…

I can’t wait to hear how that goes!

It’s not like the ACLU would be making kids more apt to get molested. The opposite. Ridding the world of the registry would improve the likelihood of people re-integrating with society and the money wasted on registration and prosecuting registration violations could be spent on true help to victims and prevention.

I recall there being a discussion some time back about CBP doing searches when one is reentering the country. I know it’s an issue before SCOTUS, or will be soon. Anyway, I happened to be looking for secure password systems, and stumbled across something ANY international traveler may wish to use:

Pretty cool.


That is very cool! It’s important that it actually removes the data from your devices (although I would check further that it is not retrievable) because many countries, including the U.K., can demand that you provide them with passwords for data on your devices. Of course, the U.S. has successfully done this, too and at least several people have been jailed pending their willingness to supply passwords. This will also need further review by SCOTUS.

@David Kennerly
If you read down into the back-and-forth comments, your concerns and thoughts are addressed. Nothing indicating anything is left on the device, and cannot be restored in any way (excepting forensics, of course). The data only gets put back on once you disable the travel mode on the website. So unless they are really digging into you, you’re good to go and you can feel safe giving them whatever passwords they wish–you’ve made all the data benign. (If they ARE digging that deep into you, it’s moot to try to hide it.)


Well, I was thinking of forensics since they have the capability to apply it to your device using something like Encase. I would be concerned if it doesn’t scrub the data to the point of irretrievability. I wouldn’t say it’s moot, I would say that it requires more effort and knowledge to secure your privacy. Encryption does work.

@David Kennerly
Are forensics to that level happening at a border check point? I’ve got to say that if you’re in a situation where they’re running Encase on your devices, they’re probably also launching warrants at cloud hosts, etc., and not having the data on this or that device will be rendered moot by said warrants and activity. But for the somewhat cursory “unlock your devices and let us scan through it” type stuff from CBP or similar, you’re probably good. The idea of the feature is not to smuggle state documents (or contraband material) through the border, it’s to keep private data private. If you’ve had or carry the former on your device, particularly internationally, you’re running some significant risk.

As to encryption, yes it does work. And failure to turn over the key can keep you in jail for contempt. (

At any rate, it seems to be a useful tool for those who wish to travel internationally without some nosy border cop poking into things one prefers to be kept secure and/or private.


Well, not to belabor this slightly esoteric discussion too much but, for people doing serious investigative work, like Laura Poitras, who has been searched at the U.S. border dozens of times and had her equipment seized and held for examination, then serious encryption (not Bitlocker) is absolutely essential. Further, the hold-in-jail issue for not providing passcodes is not yet settled law although a couple of judges have asserted this authority. We have not yet heard the final word on this highly dubious assertion of authority and clear violation of the right to not testify against yourself. Also, if you’re using encryption correctly, then the cloud will not offer any advantages to the spies as you will be end-to-end protected which will mean its also safe in the cloud (even if not advisable) or anywhere else the data travels.

All of this takes on a completely different cast when travelling internationally. The U.K. can, and will, compel you to give up your passphrase and, no doubt, many other countries will, too. In those cases, and for anyone with the responsibility to, say, protect their journalistic sources and work product, then the best option is to upload the encrypted data somewhere before crossing borders and scrub the hard drive of your computer or the equivalent in memory cards on devices.

One thing: the U.S. government puts memos in Immigration computers when it wants to get data off of someone’s devices when travelling as kind of a standing order. The F.B.I., say or ICE. Very sneaky. An end-run around search warrants.

@David Kennerly
“[N]ot to belabor this…discussion too much.”
I’d say for most on this board, you and I crossed this point already. 🙂

I have a hard time believing Laura Poitras, or any journalist, is being subjected to Encase-level forensic examination. Will CBP and other LEAs exploit legal gaps? Of course, thus the reason for this app functionality. I wholly agree it’s an end-around on the Constitution. Sadly, it’s neither the first nor the last.

Yes, encryption such as PGP is a good answer. Unfortunately, or police-state has gotten to the point that just using encryption and/or disk-wiping software is used in court of intent to evade discovery by LE. I guess were it me who was worried and traveling, I would at the very minimum have a laptop with an encrypted SSD with TRIM and garbage collection enabled. I’d do a bit more, but it’s beyond sharing here. Some say DHS has figured out how to carve the slack space of SSDs, others say they haven’t due to proprietary schemes the manufacturers use. I figure anyone with unlimited money (read: USG) can and will reverse-engineer the chips and drives, and never say a peep.

As to the jailing for failing to release the key, I’m totally with you! I think it’s a horrible violation of the Constitution. Obviously courts disagree, using the “foregone conclusion” exception to the Fifth. (I say if it’s a foregone conclusion, then no need for me to comply! 🙂 Go ahead and put me on trial.) They also have the much-abused All Writs Act in their corner. It’s all just more chips taken off rights, liberties and privacy. The founding concepts of keeping an abusive government in check and protecting the minority from the “mob” majority are gone. Now, it’s the government has the right to see what’s going on to (try to) prevent a crime, and majority should always rule. The scariest part is that even judges have no problem doing a civil end-around on the Constitution:

“The court, for its part, is bypassing arguments over the Fifth Amendment altogether, arguing that courts have the authority to hold persons in contempt, without a trial: ‘Civil contempt orders are intended to be coercive or compensatory in nature, and do not require… a jury trial.'”

–AJ, a disgusted, libertarian (small L) citizen of Amerika.

“I have a hard time believing Laura Poitras, or any journalist, is being subjected to Encase-level forensic examination. ”

They certainly are doing that level of examination. That’s why they seize computers rather than simply going through them at the border.

In her case, they are looking for everything they believe that she is doing which, in their minds, includes giving aid and comfort to the enemy as well as establishing a network of activists, sources and journalists.

Question about travel: Have any of you, my fellow Registered Citizens, used a tour bus in Europe? I ask because I know that cruises can be very problematic for registered citizens but I wasn’t sure about tour bus groups in Europe.

I’ve never encountered any level of scrutiny on tour buses in Europe or anywhere else, for that matter. If you’re crossing borders on a train, however, immigration officers often jump on board at some point to look at passports. Yes, even between Schengen countries. But they’re not likely to see into your past as they have always, in my experience, never been able to electronically scan the passport.

Thanks for the helpful info!

And lawmakers think *we’re* who need watching? How about members of the NJ State Police? Sounds like we need a registry for that.


Does any one know the California Contractors license boards , polcey on registered people ? Are we not allowed to get a license ? Are our old licences revoked if they find out about our conviction ? Is there a time limit after conviction that the contractors license is revoked. I’m not about to ask the license board.

Here’s the best answer from their website, they will evaluate you on a case by case basis. I would hire an attorney to help you.

For rehabilitation evaluation, pursuant to the California Code of Regulations §869, CSLB is generally
looking for three (3) years to have passed after a misdemeanor conviction and seven (7) years to
have passed after a felony conviction, without further violations of law. These timeframes are calculated from the applicant’s date of release from incarceration or from the end of probation if no time was served and are subject to reduction or extension based on several factors, including the nature of the applicant’s conviction history as a whole. In addition, any type of conviction could be considered substantially related to the qualifications or duties of a contractor when evaluated in the context of the applicant’s entire conviction record.

You are required to attach a statement disclosing all pleas/convictions, including violated
law sections, and thoroughly explain the acts or circumstances which resulted in the plea/conviction. In addition, the following information must be included for each plea/conviction: date of the plea/conviction, county and state where the violation took place, name of the court, court case number, sentence imposed, jail/prison term served, terms and conditions of parole or probation, parole or probation completion dates, and parole agent/probation officer names and phone numbers.

Failure to accurately report any and all disclosable convictions is falsification of your application and is grounds for denial. If your application is denied, you will be prevented from filing another application for a minimum of one (1) year, and up to a maximum of five (5) years.

That’s only if you want a first time license or if you have to reapply because you changed your business type or want to add a classification, then for sure it is like starting over with current requirements. You renew your license every two years, I believe, if you have one, just paying the fee and updating address, business owners, officers, insurance. I am thinking Doug is asking about if one already have a license that renews. Can they revoke a license previously granted, even though, when granted, the offense wasn’t considered a grounds for denial, but now it can be. Is that correct, Doug? I don’t remember, but I don’t think they used to ask if you had a conviction of any sort, just if you had a conviction for something “construction related.” I don’t think anyone would have been lying in many cases, saying their sex offense was not construction related. Lately, it seems this “moral tupitude” wording has gotten into the requirements, which is a higher bar to jump over. Seems silly just to be able to fix a leak in a roof or plant a tree professionally.

Not to worry everyone but I’m a bit concerned about the rumors of Justice Kennedy’s impending retirement. And just when we got him into shape…

@David Kennerly
Yeah, I’ve been watching those Kennedy rumors for some time. They seem to have fired up more this weekend. We may even find out as soon as Monday. Most say he will either go soon, or stay one more year, tops. Maybe he will decide to stay on to decide Snyder in our favor!


Re: Kennedy retiring, here’s a decent op-ed from Sunday night. Hopefully he’s right (we’ll find out by day’s end, probably.)


@Mike R

I finished reading the entire motion. I really like it.

One mistake I noticed. Do a search for this line because you list it twice in a row:
“the fear that the legislature, in seeking to pander to an inflamed popular constituency”

I haven’t read AJ’s article yet that explains filing Pro-Se. I was wondering though, would it make more sense for your conclusion to be shorter, and more in your own words than repeating or bringing up too many legal points? Since you are Pro-Se, I am hoping that in that format you are allowed to simply state your problems and in your words why they seem wrong, and allow the judge to bring up arguments you may have missed, or that they feel is more relevant. Again, I don’t even know if you are allowed to do that, but I would think so.

I would be happy to help try to write a convincing conclusion for you to look at, if that is even possible to do in a pro-se motion. It would sum up how this started, how its original intent was de-railed by politicians, press, and judges, and how it now ruins your life in any city you wish to pass through yet without a single day in court to fairly assess dangerousness. It would conclude with how the entire sex offender scheme can be removed, and we still have in place the safety protections needed for the public.

Right on Chris I would be happy to see what kind of conclusion you can come up and would definitely consider it and your observations as well…..I am also looking into the Obama mandate to see how it relates because like I said it is the only mandated regulation that actually compels a person to do something and not regulate actual activity..The following is just one example that I have pulled from the case so far go feel free to read it at the following link..

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate
individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a
new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress
already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.
Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause
would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not
do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and
doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce,
not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle
that the Federal Government is a government of limited and
enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained
under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

Even though they are talking about commerce I believe the same would hold true for any government actions…still researching this for the involuntary servitude argument……Fell free to comment on this.

@mike r
I’m still picking through the document, but already have some suggestions. I’ll post them once I’m all done reading through it.

@Chris F
Did you see the link I posted for an opinion by Jeffrey Kahn, re: International Travel and the Constitution? It has some good legal references, even though it is about the No Fly List (I was going to just type NFL, but thought that may be confusing!) and not IML. I figure if Mike is going to toss the whole bowl of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, IML may as well be included.


I looked around but couldn’t find it with the name Kahn. Could you link again please?

@Chris F

There’s an easy-to-overlook download option right above the word “Abstract”, or apparently you can send it to your Kindle with the button at the end.


@mike r
I read a good deal of your document, and skimmed all of it (there are some redundancies, brother). One question I have is whether any of the non-CA and non-Federal issues ca be raised. You’re suing in Federal Court, and I don’t see how they have subject-matter jurisdiction over anything to do with TN, FL, CT, OH, etc. Unless you’re raising every single one of the laws in every single one of those States as Federal questions (i.e. violating US Constitution), your court has no standing. Even if you are pursuing them as Federal questions, those States have the right to defend themselves, so you’ll need to name each of them as defendants, issue them all a summons, and then fight them all in court.

I also think it may be prudent to limit the scope of your complaint to the base issues: lack of due process, Bill of Attainder, and the proven failure (by government and non-government studies alike) of the stated legislative intent–meaning the scheme fails even rational basis review.

Anyway, that all said, here are some things I noticed, in mostly work-flow order:
1) In your opener, you should include “Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3” of the US Constitution along with the Amendments. Also, you should include the specific section of the CA Constitution, not just Article I.
2) Citations for your statements are needed. Ex.: “12. In fact, there is now general consensus among researchers that these laws not only fail to protect the public, but actually exacerbate genuine risk factors for recidivism thereby increasing the chance of future criminal activity.” How do you support this claim of “general consensus”? You need to cite these early, then refer to them elsewhere as needed. Likewise with “13. Most states conduct risk assessments….” List the states and, if possible, their documentation that shows they do this. You’re going to have to come up with at least 26 for it to be “most.”
3) “15. The State publicly and falsely identifies all registrants as a danger to children and the public generally – despite knowing this imputation is false in individual cases and for the vast majority of registrants.” What proof do you have the State is doing this? What proof of “vast majority”?
4) Item 16 I think should describe how such restrictions amount to Banishment as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary. (
5) In 17, you mention “Fundamental Liberties.” We have either Liberties or Fundamental Rights. Also, a citation is needed.
5) In 18, cite proof the State is doing as you assert.
6) In 21, cite the source of the quotations. This is also where the court may not have standing for “state laws across the country.”
7) In 24, examples of the plethora of Liberties should be cited.
8) I see para. 25 as harmful to your suit. Any mention of “guilty going free” is a bad topic to raise. I’d avoid any mention of it appearing that anyone will “get away with it.”
9) I’d make 26 read more as “not being afforded due process to challenge being placed into an inescapable class of citizens,” instead of refuting dangerousness.
10) In 28, an example would be helpful. A presence requirement is usually a nice vague one to use. How’s it measured? How is an average citizen to determine where the boundaries are and aren’t? Does the State have the data? If not, how can they expect compliance? If so, why is it not publicly available to aid compliance?
11) 30 made me ask, “So? They also have no plan to quit regulating driver licenses….”
12) In 32, paying taxes is not some sort of membership dues granting access. The taxpayer angle is irrelevant.
13) In 35 (and maybe elsewhere), change “criminals” to “former offenders” or similar.
14) In 36, Court cases about these freedoms would be helpful. This would also be a good spot to introduce the studies showing no registry has ever been demonstrated to prevent or solve a sex offense.
15) I think it would read better if para 37 was rolled into para 33, and para 38 rolled into para 34.
16) 39: Citation needed.
17) Para 1 has way too many “as well as” connectors. I would, at minimum, break the US and CA sections into separate sentences.
18) In 4, you mention the “defendants are officers of agencies of the United States.” That is not true for the CA AG.
19) Para 2, change “first time” to “single time.” I’d also clarify your dates, as I for a second thought there were two offenses (2004, 2006). Maybe drop one of the dates? “I was convicted for doing such and such in 2004,” or “In May of 2006, I was convicted for doing such and such.”
20) In 7, I would drop the side info about your son. Mention of his legal problems and becoming a “productive member” casts a negative light with no benefit.
21) I think para 11 should be moved higher, perhaps to becoming para 7 of this section.
22) In 16, some mention of how you arrived at these Does, and that there are twenty, is needed. Are these county sheriffs? CASOMB officials? Who? You should at least be able to list their official capacities and how they are thus defendants.
23) In 2, you should state “Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments” for the Federal purpose, as the 14th only applies to the individual States. (Tip of the hat to Chris F for clarifying that a while back.)
24) In para 2 and continuing, I’d avoid laying out the whole detail of the case for two reasons: 1) the Court should be aware of it or can receive a brief, and 2) You don’t want to accidentally put forth something in writing that isn’t exactly true. Save it for oral argument.
25) In 15, I’d change “choice of housing” to “housing opportunity.” Opportunity makes it more of it being imposed upon you, versus your opting for it.
26) In 22, give some examples of how you’ve been restricted or, better yet, prevented from certain employment.
27) Somewhere in this area, it may be good to equate the registry to being pilloried in the public square, but instead of rotten produce thrown at you, you face real risk of vandalism, arson, or even murder. Then offer citations of news stories.
28) Para 2: Not true, at least outside CA. Sometimes they are misdemeanors.
29) This may be outside the E. Dist purview, but it’s certainly an Equal Protection violation.
30) There is some syntax error in para 8. I cannot figure out what’s being said ahead of that semicolon.
31) In 4, I again don’t see how the court will have any say in what other State’s do. If CA and/or the Feds are doing it, game on.
32) In 12, I’d add something to the effect of, “the average citizen cannot readily ascertain where zones are. Additionally, the State provides no means or method of discerning where a restricted space starts, ends, or even how it’s measured. The State itself either doesn’t have the data, or is willingly withholding it from those most needing it.”
33) In 19, maybe add, “as well, unless I invest in prohibitively expensive GPS hardware, I cannot reliably ascertain if I’m a foot too close, or 3 inches too close. The State, on the other hand, has more resources and can acquire highly accurate GPS equipment.
34) In 20, make mention of it being virtually impossible to know the laws. “I would also need to be constantly aware of any and all legislative activity regarding changes to distance restrictions. Though this may be feasible for a legal resident, a RC ‘resident’ (which is defined differently and specifically for RCs) will not be as attuned to the state, county and/or municipal legislative activities. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but these laws can change quickly and sometimes without sufficient warning. I can read every law of a given State, County and/or Municipality, and yet the next day be at risk of imprisonment for innocent conduct occurring 10′ too close to an empty park.”
35) In 27, you make mention of “these requirements” but there’s no explanation to what requirements you’re referring.
36) In 29: It’s Angel, not Angle. 😉
37) In 30, address how no person of average intelligence can understand and interpret how to comply with all of them at once. Meanwhile, LE only needs to find my having violated just one–even innocently–to arrest me. Addressing that the laws punish even innocent behavior, and are thus overly broad, would be good, too.
38) In 2, I’d try to find a way to say and show that you pose a risk no greater than a citizen who has never sexually offended. (If true, based on your time and crime.)
39) In 3 and 6: “single time” 🙂
40) In 9, maybe add “by both governmental and non-governmental researchers and studies” to the end of the first sentence. This highlights that even the State itself says this.
41) In most of para 19, the links are mostly OneDrive URLs. These should be the source URLs, not your copies of the docs from the sources.
42) In 9, offer an alternative of re-purposing the enormous amount of resources expended away from registering, tracking, confirming and watching low-risk citizens, and towards risk assessment. Perhaps also raise the point that given the State has spent many millions of dollars for no statistically measurable effect, it appears “price is no object.”

After about there, you outlasted me. 🙂 I do think that less said can end up being more. I’d refrain from lengthy explanations of Court cases and decisions, instead mentioning a key phrase and give the citation.

All in all, I think you’ve done a lot of good work, Mike. I’ll cross my fingers and pray for your success!

Also, if I happen to take up your document tomorrow when the sun is up, I’ll try to read the latter parts a bit more in-depth. 😛

P.S. Here’s a decent law article about Banishment and freedom to live where you wish: It even mentions RCs a few times.

Wow AJ, great job with suggestions!

In regards to him mentioning other states, I think that just goes to point out how his designation by California affects his travels outside of California. That may benefit him, or it could mean nothing if the judge points out that other states inflict those burdens on him not because of registration in California, but because of his plea to a crime on that state’s list of similar sex crimes that he must adhere to whether registered or not. This national sex offender scheme that is so different from state to state is a big part of the overall Constitutional problem though.

I don’t know…makes my head hurt just thinking about how to stop this impossibly complicated mess.

The fact an average person has no clue what to do from city to city should be the most unconstitutional of it all, since nobody but the presiding judge should be placing any restrictions to begin with. Otherwise, let’s just make judges decide only on guilt/innocence and then leave it to every city to determine punishment and protecting the public based on just the crime and when it occurred. That’s what sex offender offences have degraded to anyway.

Thanks AJ very perceptive reading and comments. I agree with everything you said and will make those changes. This is exactly what I need, positive criticism and feedback….I think I need to connect those other state statutes to violating federal constitutional rights and explain that by removing me from the federal registration scheme as well as the CA scheme will moot and null and void the other laws across the country..I had the same apprehensions about that issue and have even considered adding every state AG in my motion but like i said if I am struck from the federal and CA scheme I don’t believe I’ll be subject to the other states’ reg. schemes…

Removing you from your state will remove you from federal unless you get forced to register again in another state. Texas, and most states around me, don’t care if you were removed from the registry in your state of conviction. Adding you to the registry is based on your past conviction or deferred adjudication if you move here or spend too long here.

When I get off the registry in Texas next spring, if I go to Louisiana they will add me right back on because they have a longer registration period for my offense. They shouldn’t be able to do that for lots of constitutional reasons, but as usual, those all fail because they claim it’s regulatory and only apply rational basis review.

Totally agree Chris…I like how you worded that and I will work that statement in somewhere relevant…That is a major part of the issue is that the laws are not applied equally across the country and I am and will be subject to other state laws at the whim of their states or municipalities choice of laws..Especially how if I choose to move to another state how that effects my registration status even though my circumstances haven’t changed…And AJ you were right when you said I am going to throw the whole pot of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks..That’s exactly what I am going to do and I agree with you that I can pare down some of the arguments as you suggested I really want more input from you AJ because you have made very articulated suggestions for changes and that’s what I need…This is going to be a marathon not a sprint so however long it takes is how long it takes..Right??? I am also waiting to hear back from the ACLU within a couple of weeks even though I don’t hold out much hope from….Already copy and pasted your comments to a word doc and will be applying it soon….

Well someone today sent me a nice gift of a burning newspaper onto my porch. I have a fence, but anyone can throw anything over it without a problem. Last year they threw a large firecracker that caught my property on fire. Fortunately, I was able to put that fire out in time. Got to love being on the vigilante list (AKA Megan’s List). I’m not sure if it’s worth my effort to make a police report or not. Probably pointless.

Filing a complaint with the police will establish that you, a Registrant, is being threatened and harassed.

Also, I suggest you put up some cameras.

You should of called the fire department and the police and make a big deal out of it.

Lake County, CA

You should report the attempted arson to LE.

Not doing so cheats you of your due service by the Government and hides the fact of the danger that you are placed in as a RC.

In addition you will be a valid voice to sound the Trumpet of InJustice in Letters, Community Meetings where you may attend, & as a Sincere Victim of your lose & stolen Rights & Titles assist the public at large Convincingly & Persuasively from a position of Confidence.

I bit The Most High grant you courage as you travel upon the Path of Correct Conduct.

I speak a true song

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

As others have mentioned…filing a report of the incident might (over many years) could prove beneficial if we are ever asked to provide evidence of the harm, danger, etc we are put in thanks to the registry.

Maybe a special area on this site for us to post examples of this type of thing when it happens. Perhaps limit it to just a few hundred characters. I’m sure over just a few months there would be a nice repository of examples of the injustice of it. Hundreds of short and sweet examples of what the registry does. Examples: today I couldn’t attend a town meeting because it was held at a school. Today somebody threatened my child because of my registry status, today I was given an eviction notice thanks to the registry, today I lost my job due to the registry, today I couldn’t attend my daughter’s high school graduation, today I was asked to leave a restaurant because they saw me on Megan’s Law, etc. I’m sure it wouldn’t take long to have thousands of examples. Maybe the best ones could be used by Janice and team for their fight? Just thinking out loud.

Maybe the “Living with 290” would be a place for this?

I agree with David Kennerly and Harry: file the reports and make them provide the services to which you are entitled as a citizen. As David says, it starts to establish a pattern. As I’ve posted before, the more documentation one has before something that “matters” happens, the better. You can establish harassment for sure. You can also start documenting the behavior of the LEOs. Each time there’s an event, call them, file a police report, and get the case number (which the LEOs should be able to provide prior to leaving). If nothing else, you turn the table from your disliking them coming to your property, to their disliking coming to your property. That alone would give me reason enough to call them.

Think about this in the bigger picture that it adds to the many instances of RCs being harrassed. With the police report, you could also use it in any contact with legislators to highlight the harm and outright danger ML can cause.

To all of you that replied, thank you for your support; I didn’t expect so many of you would reply or thought that I should bother to report the incident. I will take your advice and report it tomorrow. I wasn’t sure I wanted to report this because it takes hours for cops to show up and my medical issues makes it hard to be able to respond whenever (or if) they decide to show up. I’ll let you all know later tomorrow what happens after I call the Sheriffs Dept. I do understand that all documentation of vigilantism is important for us. But at the same time I also know of a well documented case of a guy a few miles away from me that was killed because of Megan’s List that no one feels any sympathy for. And yes AJ, I dislike them coming to my property. Especially since I do not cooperate with compliance checks.

If you can, put up cameras, but not so high up they just confirm what you already know: someone launched flaming newspapers onto your porch. Place them so they catch faces and license plate numbers.
I put up a Ring doorbell and cameras at my house There are less pricey options, but Ring brand is known for ease of setup. Cloud based, they are easily controlled and viewed from a smart phone or computer.
Storage is a lousy $30 per year.
Good luck!

I just installed the Ring Pro doorbell and have been enjoying the footage. Already, have totally nailed those two guys who refuse to clean up after their dogs 🙂

The Ring camera can be set to record activity, in general, and not just a person ringing the doorbell. You need two mb/s upload speed, though for the “Pro”, one mb/s for the original.

I have been very lucky in never having had any actual harassment or threats at my home.

I assume that you mean Michael Dodele (the guy who was murdered in Lake County a number of years ago). Well, I cared and so did Charlene Steyn and, together, we made a big stink of it which caught the attention of the L.A. Times who made it, i.e. the murder of a Registrant, undeniable. That’s precisely applicable to the reporting of acts of vandalism and harassment that you have experienced.

I don’t want to sound callous but I don’t know how else to say it,, but an arsonist endangers the whole community, whereas a registrant murderer’s crime is viewed as more selective, and if a small, ignorant, yet vocal part of the community doesn’t care if you get killed, and the rest are afraid to stand up, but everyone should at least care if the community burns down, even the police. Flames and embers show no bias I should hope the police would care. Down here in SoCal fire season is already here. 105° F last week just 20 miles from the cool Pacific. I assume it has been hot and dry up there, too. You are further inland than my county.
And, I think it is safe to say, everyone here cares for what happens to you. Also, thank you David and ASCOL for protecting us.

I would certainly note how long it takes the LEOs to respond. I’d also then try to find out the average response time for that agency regarding non-911 situations. 😉 (Gotta try to build a bias case, you know!)

I completely understand your not wanting them around. But if they’re going to be setting their jackboots on your castle’s grounds, you may as well have it be with them being the ones saying, “yes sir” and “no sir.”

A side benefit will be that whoever did the burning newspaper will see that the police have been made aware. (The “prankster” obviously keeps an eye on you in some manner.) It may dissuade further antics if it always yields a LEO response.

As for the suggestion to get cameras installed, I agree. Some wildlife camera traps placed in strategic spots (and up high and covering each other) would do wonders. They are designed for harsh climate conditions, are battery-powered for long use, and quite often include infrared capabilities. They would also reduce the chance of interference (bad Wi-Fi or even cut wires).

Lake County, CA

PLEASE contact the Fire Marshal, Fire Captains, & Watch Commanders for your area they are Extremely Serious & Unbiased when addressing the issues of Wild Fires in the Beautiful State of California, keep in mind that many Fire Fighters have willingly of their own consent stepped into The Grave where no man can expect to return to this Life as flawed as it may be.

Fire Fighters are True Heroes – Lares: That surfer the fact of their Mortal ship in the act of Being Consumed by Flames! They have True Courage.

Remind the Fire Fighting Official that they are denied Justified Resources that are commandeered for the Wasteful Registry.

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

Other people’s empathy or lack thereof is not your problem. People in general are becoming less caring towards their fellow species. Look at all the videos of bystanders who won’t get involved while they witness an innocent person being harmed. It’s pretty disgusting. I’m glad you decided to make an incident report about this with the authorities, because what you describe is felony arson.

If you can’t afford cameras, you can get a sign ( or several) and post on your property ” WARNING premises protected by 24 hour audio and video surveillance”, as a psychological deterrent . They work. You can get them on Amazon for about 10 dollars.


2 of my immediate neighbors have those warning signs along with a neighborhood watch sign, it has not reduced neighborhood crime in the slightest. I think everyone just needs to actually have good cameras up these days.

I contacted the Sheriff non emergency number and was told that since no harm was done, I would have to come down to the station and file a report at the counter. I understand their reasoning as we only have 7 or 8 sheriffs working at one time in this large County. We have more towns they have to cover than there are sheriffs officers. Wait time for a major emergency is often over a half hour. I’m not going to the station as it is 45 minutes away (one way) and I don’t like going there. Bad enough I am forced to go there once a year for my birthday. I will just have to get the physical energy to put up my full camera system with the online viewing. I’m going to skip 4th of July fireworks this year and stay home to watch my property (with my water hose at the ready). I suspect the continuing problems I’ve been having is done by some neighborhood teenage kids that walk by my house calling me names when they see me. You would think that if I was so dangerous to be listed on ML, that they would be afraid to piss me off. So much for telling your kids to stay away from sex offenders. The first 10 years I was not on ML and had not problems, but some law changed and put me on it which caused me to loose my job, my friends and receive threats of violence. I’m so glad this is not equal to punishment, nothing more than a Price Club membership.

“I contacted the Sheriff non emergency number and was told that since no harm was done, I would have to come down to the station and file a report at the counter.”

Note to self: ensure some sort of (minor) damage occurs before extinguishing fire….

I’ve had two incidents occur at my some big ass half drunk black dude was hassling my gf and I had to comply out and confront him in the parking lot, needless to say all he would do is yell and scream how i am on Megan’s law and the typical remarks, second like three or four little around 10′-12 year olds wrote crap all over our apt. porch luckily it was with chalk so our prop. manager was able to just spray it off. my point being is I didn’t want to call the cops but after that guy stood there just screaming and I just calmly told him right up in his face that if he’s got a problem lets deal with it like a man and leave my gf alone he wouldn’t do shi…so mu gf insisted calling the cops. I don’t know what the cops are like where you are at but they were very respectful and seem to be generally concerned and sympathetic to our situation. there were two police cars and all the neighbors seen what happened and when the cops made the dude leave and told him he will go back to prison if he messes with us again the dude never said another word to us and has actually stop coming over to his uncles or whomever it is that lives in the next building over…same with the second incident that happened a couple years later when the stupid as… kids kept hanging out on our porch stairs just because I’m sure all their parents told them to stay away, or to hassle me one of the two, I think it was because their parents told them to stay away so like most kids that age of course they did the opposite what the parents say, anyway after my gf had to keep asking them to move so she could walk up our stairs, which I never had to do because they were totally respectful to me for some reason,lol, so after they hassled my gf and her and her 20 year old son I had to tell them to get the hellll off our porch and stairs that night they wrote all that crap on our porch. I didn’t want to call the cops but she insisted and took pics of it and all that and when the cops sent out two cop cars again and went and talked to the parents of these kids because our prop manager knew who they were and he’s cool with me so he told the cops who they were, my point once again is it scared most of them enough to where they didn’t screw with us anymore, there were a couple more incidents that I just handled myself that my gf doesn’t even know about but the gist of my point is call the cops, make sure you get the report number because I didn’t and after multiple attempts to get those #s after the fact i still haven’t been able to get evidence of those incidents, like others have said just knowing you’ll call the cops will stop most people from messing with you…thats my point it just took awhile to get there..

I had a lady walk right into my backyard screaming at me and waving my Megan’s law website info in my face. I called the cops made a police report and they were going to arrest her. I decided not to press it granted this was in 2004 when it just came on the internet. Cops were very much on my side. It will be a far different story if it happens again. On top of that my house has been egged 3 times and my cars vandalized and I live in an upscale neighborhood.

You also have an increased risk of being swatted. Everyone on the registry is a lightning rod, soft target and a sitting duck. Our safety, privacy and security is trivialized!

I haven’t been able to relax or feel at ease in 10 years.

Registery rage… 10 years is horribly long, heck one day of this nonsense is too much. I’m going on 25 years on an misdemeanor disnissal. Talk about weariness and battle fatigue uuuugh 😖

@ John4,
For me, it has now been 20+ years I’ve been on the registry. I now find myself growing increasingly hostile toward the smartass LEOs everytime they conduct a compliance check and everytime I have to do my annual registration. 😡

I feel your pain.
Since ’94 I’m happy to say most of the cops at the annual renewal have been pros and get me processed and on my merry way in 15 minutes. Most. Not all.
I’ve only encountered the compliance lackeys only 3 or 4 times when I happened to be home. The obvious lesson here: don’t be home during the day, or just don’t answer the door.


Luckly I do not have that issue, I have been out now for 21 years, or 25 years since they moved my registration date from 96 to my conviction date of 6-19-92. , but I am also in Michigan so it is probably a lot different for you then me, plus I live in a small town and have my whole life 48 years. So I never have issues with the cops, last time I did they came to my apartment just to ask if I was at the park this was about 6 years ago, I said NO but even if I was I am not on paper and can go were I please. They asked if I could tell them were I was at 2pm I said right here watching the Detroit Tigers and The NFL Draft, I told them what was happening in the tigers game and who the Lions drafted, other players, and then he looked at me and said sorry I bothered you, obviously some one is playing games and you were not there, even though you can be, and ever since then no one jas come to check on me again. Now hopefully the Snyder case or the Temelkoski case goes in my (our) favor and the state of Michigan can kiss my ass.

Hopefully you’re now reporting every single event. Every time the LEOs come out, it becomes more of a “problem” for them. The more it becomes not only your problem but their’s too, the better. It will also raise the crime statistics in your neighborhood…oops, sorry upscale neighbors! As I told Lake County, CA, I would document every interaction with LE, including what their response times are. I would then find out what their non-911 average (or perhaps median) response time is to that area. If they are consistently delaying responding to you, it tends to show bias against you.

I know we’ve had our differences Lake but throwing a lit newspaper on your porch is serious and dangerous, you need to call the cops…just my opinion….

Man AJ you really opened my eyes on this motion issue…I need to really focus on getting this right..I need to apply what I have learned in all my English classes so far at college and and give sources for every assertion I make and fact check all my other sources that I have just pasted and copied. I know I can do a lot better. I have had straight A’s in English 101-301 so I know can do this..I am in the process of going through the entire thing and will keep you updated because I would seriously like your feedback once I get it done….

@mike r
No worries, brother, and I’m glad I can be of help. I can empathize with falling down on things learned in comp. I took a business comp classes years ago and had to be cured of my penchant for commas.

I have yet to go through the new doc, but will in the coming days. I’m also reading a law review doc about Bills of Attainder, and will post it if it turns out to have fruit.

hello everyone , I ran out of internet the same day I had to do my prize club , so you missed me ragging about that, Lucky For You ! anyway its great to see everyone here , things have been crazy here everything from FBI sniffing around , too cops looking for people that are not even at this place , under cover cops , so what ever it is they are doing its feels strange , i live in a high crime area and all that , but this is new and it gives me the creeps , I am still looking for a place out in the cut , its time to get out of here big time , sick of this just want some space and some real friends , so if you know of any places out in the sticks here in CA let me know please , if I can find one the first BBQ is on me and my family ,