General Comments July 2017

As i stated previously. I would come back and give you guys an update of me being able to Cruise with Royal Caribbean Cruise lines. They accepted me to go finally. If any one who is going to cruise, I believe that you can cruise anywhere but Mexico and Canada. Its the recieving port that will turn you away instead of the Cruise lines if it doesnt allow registrants. It appears that the Cruise lines are turning us down, however, If the port doesnt allow registrants, the cruise line will refuse you as well. I got in contact with the cruise lines before I was ready to book my cruise. The security department explained to me what i had to do if I wanted to cruise being a registrant. You have to let the sheriff department know that you are going and give them a 21 day notice of where you are cruising to and provide proof of it to the security department. You also have to give a brief statement inregards to your case ( what did you get in trouble for) pc codes , what have you done to rehabilitate yourself, have you had any counseling etc. Most of us registrants have had some counseling at some point. This is some positive feed back. A step in the right direction.

Has anyone heard anything about new passports (timeline, what are the markers), or even received one?

Anyone have recent experience with Princess Cruises? My wife and I are booked on a Panama Canal itinerary next January, Ft. Lauderdale to LA with multiple Caribbean stops. I recall someone said that Princess had told him that they had no problem with RCs, but that was a while ago. I’m reluctant to call their security to ask since I don’t want to inadvertently alert them to a problem that doesn’t now exist. I too have liked independent travel, but at age 75, it’s not an option. As to one-day shore excursions, from my reading of the travel blogs and according to the Princess agent I booked with, you get on and off the ship using your cruise ID card, there is no customs check at each stop, and most people leave their passports in their cabin safe so they don’t lose them on the beach. I suggested to Paul Rigney that he add cruise ships to the Travel Matrix, but haven’t seen that happen.

I just want to throw this out there. I was completely unaware of this and I asked for a Restraining Order against my wife and custody of my kids. Well that went wrong. If you have children, or even live with children in the same home be careful. As soon as I filed for custody I got slapped with this. My children were removed from the home and placed in a Domestic Violence Shelter with their mom despite the fact that I requested a restraining order to prevent her from physically and emotionally abusing the kids. The Judge said I only wanted custody so that I can have “full access to the boys” wow. This is so unreal.

Family Code 3030.
(a) (1) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person is required to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code where the victim was a minor, or if the person has been convicted under Section 273a, 273d, or 647.6 of the Penal Code, unless the court finds that there is no significant risk to the child and states its reasons in writing or on the record. The child may not be placed in a home in which that person resides, nor permitted to have unsupervised visitation with that person, unless the court states the reasons for its findings in writing or on the record.
(2) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if anyone residing in the person’s household is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, unless the court finds there is no significant risk to the child and states its reasons in writing or on the record. The child may not be placed in a home in which that person resides, nor permitted to have unsupervised visitation with that person, unless the court states the reasons for its findings in writing or on the record.
(3) The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk. When making a determination regarding significant risk to the child, the prima facie evidence shall constitute a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. However, this presumption shall not apply if there are factors mitigating against its application, including whether the party seeking custody or visitation is also required, as the result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code.
(b) No person shall be granted custody of, or visitation with, a child if the person has been convicted under Section 261 of the Penal Code and the child was conceived as a result of that violation.
(c) No person shall be granted custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person has been convicted of murder in the first degree, as defined in Section 189 of the Penal Code, and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child who is the subject of the order, unless the court finds that there is no risk to the child’s health, safety, and welfare, and states the reasons for its finding in writing or on the record. In making its finding, the court may consider, among other things, the following:
(1) The wishes of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference.
(2) Credible evidence that the convicted parent was a victim of abuse, as defined in Section 6203, committed by the deceased parent. That evidence may include, but is not limited to, written reports by law enforcement agencies, child protective services or other social welfare agencies, courts, medical facilities, or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations providing services to victims of domestic abuse.
(3) Testimony of an expert witness, qualified under Section 1107 of the Evidence Code, that the convicted parent experiences intimate partner battering.
Unless and until a custody or visitation order is issued pursuant to this subdivision, no person shall permit or cause the child to visit or remain in the custody of the convicted parent without the consent of the child’s custodian or legal guardian.
(d) The court may order child support that is to be paid by a person subject to subdivision (a), (b), or (c) to be paid through the local child support agency, as authorized by Section 4573 of the Family Code and Division 17 (commencing with Section 17000) of this code.
(e) The court shall not disclose, or cause to be disclosed, the custodial parent’s place of residence, place of employment, or the child’s school, unless the court finds that the disclosure would be in the best interest of the child.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 207, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2007.)

Thank you, Frank Linsey
Front page in the Tribune , San Luis Obispo !
Thanks for having the Balls to put your self out there. .. you made front page For us today

Just as a warning to anyone with a Facebook account: A couple of days ago, someone friend requested me on Facebook. The person was female and had no photos or ANY personal information on their page. This person has 11 friends. I don’t accept friend requests from anyone I don’t know and the lack of info on the page made me suspicious. So I searched out 2 of the real looking names on their friend’s list and verified from their pictures that they were registered citizens. I believe that all 11 friends were registered citizens but I didn’t want to spend the effort to find out for sure. So basically someone is friend requesting registered citizens for some reason. What concerns me most is that I don’t use my real name on Facebook, so why were they friend requesting me? The whole thing is very shady so I’m just posting this so anyone with a Facebook page to be careful of any friend requests from anyone they do not know. If you receive such a request, I recommend that you block them like I did.

I was not sure if this was the proper section for this or if it should be posted under the Michigan section, there is a case in the Michigan Supreme Court The State of Michigan v Boban Temelkoski, and accoeding to Ms Aukerman it is/was suppose to e decided by the end of July.

I would like to know if some one would please dumb this down for me and tell me if I am understanding this correctly, that they have granted both parties, a chance to reargue the case in the up coming term of October, and the court is waiting to see what happens with the Snyder case. Iam really hoping I am reading this wrong and that there will be a decision by the end of the month.

I would really appreciate it if some one could and would explain this order to me in layman’s terms Thank you here it is: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/150643_130_01.pdf

Thank you again.