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 September 2017

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This bears watching to see what the courts say about it: “DHS planning to collect social media info on all immigrants” (
This is retroactive, and will by-catch citizens as well. If struck, it could provide leverage for off-paper RCs; if upheld, every single human in this country should be terrified of what’s next.

It is still premature to guess a denial of snyder, there could still be additional order of cert grant tomorrow, as in case of gay marriage grant on thurs, and friday court grant obama care cert in oct 2015 session. So yes, there is still hope on tomorrow order.

So if SCOTUS does deny Snyder, that’s at the very least good for the people of 6th, right?

But how will that effect others? Could this denial (I guess a loose agreement in its correctness by SCOTUS?) be used by other states to help overturn the registry?

Will it effect the 6th in overturning registry all together, just for those post supervision, or non of the above and only help deregister those who were convicted prior to SORNA implementation?

Who knew law could be this complicated? 😛

Another thing to consider with any ruling determining, “punitive in effect,” is how it will affect someone like me who has changed State of residency. I committed my offense in a State that has no residency or presence restrictions for my being Tier I, and my information (were I still living there) would be restricted to LE only. However, I now live in a State that is fully SORNA-compliant, has residency and a couple presence restrictions, and actually has slightly stiffer tiers than AWA recommends. If my State’s items are found to be punishment, I would be freed from all of it due to Double Jeopardy, Due Process, and/or Full Faith and Credit. So for me, given the “lax” registry rules of my convicting State, ex post facto is a win no matter what!

Has Brown signed that tiered bill yet? Since it’s going to happen, I hope that it is enacted before I go to court; it would be more fodder for my case…

@mike r

But it isn’t supposed to be enacted before 2021 I thought……long time to wait for a court date. You mean signed before your court date so it can be referred to?

It becomes a current law when the Guv signs it even if its key provisions don’t take effect until much later. I hope that this also means that it can be challenged immediately.

Thanks David Kennerly, Social Contaminant, that would make sense then. Sooner he signs, the better then for mike r and others who want to challenge it based upon other cases in the nation.

I have a business meeting to go to in Las Vegas the end of November for 5 days. I would like to hear from someone who has been in Las Vegas for more then 48 hours and how they had to register and any fall out ?

I would check out, drive back to the border, play couple hands. Then go back. I would not register in any other state. Screw that.

yeah, as soon as our loving gov. signs it, it will be law. Just because it doesn’t take effect till later isn’t of concern. Once it is signed it becomes demonstrably inevitable to cause me harm, therefore standing to sue. I hope Janice and team immediately files a challenge as soon as he signs it also, asking for a temp injunction, and if needed a restraining order, if it will not be in front of a judge before it takes effect, and a permanent injunction for the long run.Soon as it’s signed I believe it’s game on…

I would suspect that anyone who will still be subject to the law on the effective date could sue prospectively.

Yup. I imagine everyone who had a chance to get off via CoR but can’t under the new law due to being placed into tier 3 with the CoR being eliminated entirely would have a case. Removing an out option that was there during the plea seems pretty important.

You know it’s kind of strange how they slated it for 2021 to take effect. Why? Since when do they stay any law that is enacted towards us? It’s unheard of in the realm of sex offender legislation. It’s almost as if they want to give it enough time to be challenged in court or something, I don’t know, I just can’t fathom any other reasoning. Maybe they are waiting to see how it plays out in other cases around the country, I just don’t believe that they are postponing it for anything other then their perverted nefarious reasons.That’s just my opinion, I think they are all being bullied, and politically pressured, to continue with this insane system that they have created that is now worth billions of dollars, and supports international org’s around the world. There are some powerhouse people that have a vested interest in keeping this going, and that is the people who are pushing back…

Saying RC’s can’t live within X is easy to implement quickly. Needing to organize 100k people from a single pool into three as well as put into place everything required to then process petitions to get off, is a whole other story. Whether or not they actually need the full 3+ years to get their ducks in a row is debatable, but they do need far more time to implement something like this than to implement a blanket restriction.

Here is another Supreme Court case to follow.

Essentially, the Justices are asked If no trespassing signs directed at police prevents them from the implied permission allowing them to enter your property to knock on your door. So of the Juctices agree with the Plaintiff, all you have to do to stop sex offender “compliance checks” is to place no trespassing signs.

I’m assuming this is more directed at RC’s post supervision? I doubt this would do anything for those on supervision.

Good find!

That looks like a “bad facts make bad law” type of case. Does anyone really think he has a chance of winning? Meth manufactures could rent warehouses, mount machines guns in the windows, and post no-trespassing signs at every entrance. Not gonna happen.

“Meth manufactures could rent warehouses, mount machines guns in the windows, and post no-trespassing signs at every entrance”.

I don’t see anything wrong with that. I would prefer meth manufacturers to produce it in a commercial warehouse to keep it out of our neighborhoods. I also see no issue with machine guns in the windows since that would likely provide police with probable cause to get a warrant.

If you were on the Court….

The big difference between your two examples are the phrases “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause.” In a compliance check, LEOs have neither; at a meth house, they would almost assuredly have the former.

In this particular case, LEOs had information from citizens they had no reason to doubt; had first-hand information from a man they had witnessed leaving the home and who stated meth was being made, the purchases from Kroger, etc. In this particular case, I say the LEOs were fully within their policing authority to enter the curtilage. In fact, given the reasonable suspicion a crime was in progress in the house, the LEOs appear to have been fully within the exigent circumstance exception to the Fourth Amendment ( They definitely had reason to believe evidence faced destruction, and, not knowing who all may be in the house, reason to believe suspects would attempt escape. This is settled case law, and I am 100% sure the petition will get denied so fast, his meth-cooked head will spin!
Of interest to me is a Fourth Amendment case SCOTUS accepted this week: The guy was guilty–and a bit stupid–but it does raise the question of just how much snooping around LEOs can do on curtilage.

“A homeowner may post as many No Trespassing signs as she wishes. She might
add a wall or a medieval-style moat, too. Maybe razor wire and battlements and mantraps besides. Even
that isn’t enough to revoke the state’s right to enter.” United States v. Carloss, 818 F.3d 988, 1004 (10th Cir. 2016)
(Gorsuch, J., dissenting)

I am glad to see Gorsuch dissented on this ruling. The more I learn of his decisions, the more I think he’s the right Court Justice for us.

@Lake County:
Agreed. I would not be surprised if he and Kagan vote in step on “us against The Man” issues. He seems wary of government overreach, and she seems high on individual freedoms, with a bit of law-and-order tossed in.

Thanks, KM. This certainly intetests me as it is precisely what I intend to do: Place “No Trespassing” signs on my property to deter compliance check officers from invading my life and the sanctity of my property. A favorable SCOTUS decision would be great!

Don’t hold your breath on SCOTUS even accepting this case. Just because someone exercises their right to appeal to SCOTUS doesn’t mean 1) it has any merits, and/or 2) that SCOTUS will accept the case. This case has significant problems for Appellant Christensen. Of note, too, is that TN waived its right to respond.

We have a “No Soliciting” sign at the front door of our Conde ( shared entrance with neighbors ). Has not stopped the “Gestapo” from knocking and yelling and announcing them as Sheriff’s department. So, what is this article all about? Can we argue this if it happens again?

@someone who cares:
“So, what is this article all about?”
It’s about a meth cooker who thinks LEOs have no authority to enter without a warrant even when they have probable cause of crime in progress. (They can enter in this case, it’s called the Exigent Circumstance, and is a legal, valid exception to the Fourth Amendment.)
“Can we argue this if it happens again?”
Sure, and you’ll have as little success as this person has had…and will have.

My husband wants to remind all of you, if SCOTUS does not take Snyder its a victory for us. Its a great start! If they dont take it then it can be used in other appeals. Think about this, SORNA in Pa ruled Punitive applied retroactively. In Snyder it was ruled that too. My husband knows he was sentenced to comply with ML3 in Pa. He will be off of his agreement if the Muniz is not heard by SCOTUS. Each state needs to fight there own battle. Because each state has its own law code with Sora, Sorna, AWA. Whatever you have in your state, they will never get rid of the registry. And anyone sentenced after Dec 20 2012 in Pa, you agreed to be on it when you committed your crimes. The debate over if Scotus will take Snyder or not is frankly unneeded. If they take it and they agree. It still goes back each state will fight there own battle. If they take and Snyder gets overturned, then what, regret? If you are out there that thinks SCOTUS is for you and my husband, its like pooping in one hand and wishing in the other, try it and see what fills up first. My husband is from PA. People in Michigan are from Michigan. He is for it being gone, but it isnt going anywhere.

How do you then explain SCOTUS ruling in our favor in the Packingham case earlier this year? Sure, they are human and have some bias, but for the most part they do look at the constitution and work off of that. They never specifically look to hurt or help any particular group of people. If that were the case, we’d still very likely have slavery, or the very least, separate drinking fountains.

To be fair, Packingham wasn’t really a RC case; it was a First Amendment case that happened to involve a RC. But the Packingham Parenthetical (c’mon folks, it’s catchy…!) *does* speak volumes and had absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment issue at hand in Packingham. That parenthetical was a loud and clear statement–that as someone else has recently shown, is already appearing in court Opinions.

“Who removes from list”

Whether any of us does or doesn’t want SCOTUS to review Snyder is irrelevant to what they decide to do. We all just have opinions on how we want reform to happen. I think most of us in the 49 other states would prefer to have this decided by SCOTUS sooner, rather than later. Eventually SCOTUS will need to decide these issues especially if you ever want to travel or reside in another state. If SCOTUS takes this case and decides in our favor, it becomes the law of the land. Each state will not need to fight separate battles on these same issues. In any case, none of this will end the registry completely in any State. It will just likely be limited to what it was in 1996 when SCOTUS said the AK registry was no more burdensome than a Price Club membership.

Even if SCOTUS were to find Snyder unconstitutional on ex post facto grounds, that does not mean every other registry would also be unconstitutional. I think California has tried to keep that in mind whenever the Cal Supreme Court ruled on the registry, e.g. no residency restrictions and no internet identifiers ex post facto, etc.

In other words, PA could revise its registry and that could resolve the Snyder ruling.

But it does mean you cannot increase the risk levels nor include some odd factors to de-register from the registry, to which the tiered proposal does.

Under that logic, which makes sense, the new 3 tier registry bill might be unconstitutional while the one we have now might not be.

And anyone sentenced after Dec 20 2012 in Pa, you agreed to be on it when you committed your crimes.
What I like about this is that if with my having been sentenced after that date, I could move to PA and be exempt from it. After all, if it’s punishment in PA, applying it to me would subject me to Double Jeopardy and also violate my right to Due Process.
The debate over if Scotus will take Snyder or not is frankly unneeded.
I disagree. No Federal Circuit is required to agree with Snyder if it is only a 6th Circuit decision. It is considered persuasive (in laymen’s terms: non-binding), and nothing more. So someone in the 5th (LA, MS, TX) could cite it, and the Circuit could say, “yeah, we read that, but disagree.” The reason SCOTUS affirming it is so desirable is because it is then binding on every single court in the USA. Every. Single. One.
If they take it and they agree. It still goes back each state will fight there own battle.
Again, I disagree. Any SORAs that are exactly like MI’s would instantly be struck, as there would be no argument the State could make saying, “but ours is different.” Also, any SORA stricter than MI’s would also obviously be struck. It’s the ones that are close or less stringent that would maybe require a fight. But I can tell you, I would much rather walk into that fight with a SCOTUS ruling in hand versus one from a Circuit other than mine. Also, the power of that SCOTUS ruling could be strong enough that it strikes every single SORA. For example, if SCOTUS says using offense-based tiers constitutes punishment, then every single SORA (including AWA) is instantly punitive. Again, no fight needed.
If they take and Snyder gets overturned, then what, regret?
No, not regret. At some point, SCOTUS *will* have to address the continuing, and certainly growing, conflicts among the Circuits. So if they take it and overturn, they’ve merely shortened the timeline. Dashed hopes, for sure, but they would simply be sooner proved to also be false hopes. For me, it would be a cue that I need to work a little faster at packing my bags for expat status.

Thats why my husband loves you. He always waits for your response. Your info helps too. Thanks for your insight.

Yeah, screw Nevada…my fiance wanted to go to Vegas on one of those time share conventions where they pay for your motel for three days if you listen to there little speech and pitch, but I am not registering there, and you have to if you stay more then 48, so nope, not unless I leave before the 47 hour, I am not even sure how that would work…..So I probably just won’t doing it until I get off this crap…I don’t know, I might do it and just go visit the grand canyon for a day or two, I have to see what kind of BS Arizona has to offer….

Question about moving SORNA to 34 U.S.C. Chapter 209

I just noticed the transfer of SORNA from 42 U.S.C. 16901 to the reference above. Anyone know why? I also noticed Section 20916 “Direction to Attorney General”, which I have not seen before. Perhaps it is new. There is a subsection which states: “(d) Notice to Sex offenders of new requirements: The Attorney General shall ensure that procedures are in place to notify each sex offender of changes in requirements that apply to that sex offender as a result of the implementation of this section.”

Interesting. Comments? Sort of says the AG must notify each and everyone of us of a change? Was this in place when the AG regulations regarding SORNA were released? Is it a defense to say we were not notified of a requirement, that is if we are charged for a regulation failure?

In CA; DOJ must notify us of all the new laws for that year when we renew our yearly registration. Basically their might be no more than an average of one new law/condition added that we must initial the entire form to prove we have been formally notified.

Full registration forms for 290 annual registration

Do you have any more info on how and where you saw this change? Or were you just skimming the US Code for fun? 🙂 It certainly has some sort of meaning, but who knows what. Perhaps they moved it from criminal code to civil code to look better?
“Sort of says the AG must notify each and everyone of us of a change? Was this in place when the AG regulations regarding SORNA were released? Is it a defense to say we were not notified of a requirement, that is if we are charged for a regulation failure?”
If I recall correctly, they must inform you, and failure to do so would provide a RC with some semblance of a defense. There was some decision (SCOTUS? USAG final rules?) that said without telling RCs of their obligations, they could not be held accountable, or something along that line. (This is another one of those things I stumble across and promptly forget where I read it.) Sorry for not having a citation or source on that. Hopefully I stumble across it again soon.

Had I done a smidgen of research before posting the above, I would have found out it’s an editorial change to US Code ( Pages 35 & 36 of show the new Classifications of interest here.

Different subject: Child porn conviction upheld in youth sexting case

The Washington State Supreme Court just affirmed a conviction of a 17 year kid of transmitting child porn (RCW 9.68A.050) by sexting a picture of himself to an adult. Interesting article, but the opinion is better reading (State v. Gray, 93609-9 (Wash. 09/14/2017)). I have already emailed state Senators urging they change the law. These statutes should not be used to convict children of child exploitation.

I recommend any Washingtonian to contact the state legislature to complain about the high court’s ruling, for the legislature surely did not mean to use these offenses that protect children to prosecute children.

@MatthewLL, I sort of disagree with you. It’s a terrible law and a terrible decision, but it is only when little Johnny and Susie get convicted on child porn charges will the hysterical public sit up, take notice and, hopefully, make efforts to fix this giant mess they unwillingly created.

It is a sad reality that, the more infamous and dramatically evil our system becomes, the sooner we will have dramatic mobilization against that evil. Just as, if there were suddenly a number of Registrants murdered by vigilantes, there would be much more support for our cause. It’s not something I would wish for but the conclusion is indisputable. It is an unfortunate, yet unavoidable conundrum in which the system might be gradually reformed, but in a way which only provides relief to a few, on the one hand, or dramatically dismantled to the benefit of everyone who is its victim, on the other. In the first case, some will attain liberty while a core of less sympathetic individuals (for whatever reason) will not. We didn’t create this awful truth, however, so we should not feel guilty for its consequences just as we had no role in its creation. It just is what it is: a system in which the suffering of some people may well redound to the benefit of others. I will say that I hope that children are not among those who would continue to suffer, but that, too, is out of my hands.

IL considers having a murderer declared a SVP so they can hold him beyond his mandatory release in 3 years: “State officials are examining the case to see if they can file a petition to keep Kokoraleis incarcerated as a sexually violent predator.” (–convicted-killer-parole-20170929-story.html)

So once again, being a RC is worse than being a murderer…and this guy was no “run of the mill” murderer, either.

I have 2 questions. 1) In California, Riverside county are there any restrictions or curfews for RC’s on Halloween. I think it only affects persons while on parole but want to make sure. 2) During the conference call about the tiered registry it was said that once 2021 gets here there will be no more certificates of rehabilitation. I understand it will no longer remove someone from the registry, but I wanted it to assist in getting a contractors license as well. Will it still be available for those types of purposes or can one be grandfathered in?


1) This link should answer your Halloween questions:

If you’re not on parole or probation, I wouldn’t worry about it at all. Although you’re better off staying at home safe from all the drunk drivers who attended parties at their local bar. It’s just another amateur night for drinking.

2) I think there are too many unknowns with this bill. Many changes may take place before 2021.
I would suggest applying for your COR before the tiered registry takes effect. It certainly wont hurt to get one. I would imagine it may at least be additional evidence that you deserve to be removed from the tiered registry.

I’m not eligible for a COR for 5 more years, unfortunately. Thank you for the comments

The CoR itself remains unchanged. The change is to 290.5 that looked at having a CoR for relief. 290.5 has now had it’s CoR language replaced with the new tired language.

So I think then I should still be able to get it … hopefully. I’ll still have to be a tier 3 for cp offenses. 311.11, 311.4, and 288.3a. All for asking someone who said they were 18 to send some photos when I was 23. They never actually did.

Where’s all the hysterical hype this year about banning clown costumes like we had last year? I guess the media still has time left to start another new Halloween myth to keep everyone in fear.