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 October 2017

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

can someone explain what tier I’m in, convicted of cp on violation of 2252a (5) (B), 2252A(b)(2) of possession of a single count. With no prior convictions. 9 years ago

Good luck finding out, I have a 288.4(b) no prior, no contact, no victim and no one seems to care to answer my question.

Tier 3

Those aren’t California penal codes and not included in the SB384. However, since all CPs in California are felonies (effective Jan 1, 2014), they will be subject to Tier 3 registration. Not sure how your codes will translate to a California PC, though. I’m not a lawyer. I only know how to read and understand government bills.

Probable murder of Registrant. As usual, the many comments are blood-curdling.

“Missing Florida sex offender found dead, foul play suspected ”

Did my polygraph test today. What a joke! First, the therapist asked me background questions. 7 questions. He looked confused and said, ” Well , this should be quick”. He asked me 6 questions . Then asked each again 2 more times. He then took $ 300 CASH ( because this whole therapy / testing thing is a cash cow for them). And said thanks. I asked if I would get results, and he said” you know you passed”. No wonder the ENTIRE SYSTEM is so hosed up. This is just a way for everyone involved, Cops, judges, politicians, therapists, to make a buck off me. I feel like the most used person.

@Counting the days, et al

Next time, audio record it on your phone w/o their knowing so you have it on record (if acceptable by your state law of one person or two person recording consent), but also to show you asked for a written record of the session. Your PO may be pissed and say it violated some rule somewhere, but you could submit it to your atty to ask the judge for the written record and interpretation. It is YOUR record, not theirs.

And polygraphs are full of shit and a century old technology that is notoriously unreliable which is why they aren’t even admissable in court.

Here’s an interesting tidbit about the fallibility of SCOTUS when it comes to statistics and expertise. “Frightening and high” is mentioned, but is not the thrust of the article. It does highlight how SCOTUS is making course-altering decisions without correct or complete knowledge.


I saw that ProPublica article over at NARSOL and read it with interest. Here is something similar to what I posted on this website a while back on this topic and will do so again for people’s interest and reading leisure:

There is a method to get the correct info to SCOTUS, but it does take time, a lot of time, for corrections to be entered, which they enter into the record. See this article: NYT, 5/25/14, SCOTUS keeps editing (

If Congress really wanted to, they would fund the SCOTUS Research Dept that is needed to ensure correctness is abound.

The problem isn’t so much needing the record corrected, as it is the decisions SCOTUS is making based on the false information. We’re all living proof of that problem, to say the least. Yes, an independent method for SCOTUS to get and check information would be best. Amici are nice, but they’re also incredibly biased. That’s rather ironic, given “amicus curiae” means “friend of the court.” Hardly friendly, if full of lies!


I found this on PBS last year and thought it would be helpful here too (but completely agree with your train of though on their thinking):

Inside the Supreme Court’s little-known revision process

Thanks for that. I think I may have read that piece somewhere before, but again, thank you. I wonder what good revising does, since it doesn’t change the published Opinion. I suppose it creates or destroys the ability to cite some data or a line from a Justice, but that only carries so much weight anyway. Take McKune for example. Even if “frightening and high” disappears from all SCOTUS records, the Opinion stands, and legislatures and courts rely on it as it exists. Perhaps if there were some sort of sanction available against the parties who are found to misrepresent data? That would be tough to prove, and I’m not even sure what entity would head such a cause. All very frustrating, to say the least.

Interesting read AJ….Gives some insight into the court, and possibly more fodder for us….I will have to consider mentioning this…

Can you use 1203.4 if your conviction and probation were in another state (felony CP possession, no misdemeanor in that state) and then you move to CA and register there?

No your conviction must have been in CA. You would need to get the expungement/dismissal in IL. Then CA would.claas you based on comparing CA law to IL law.

Great story in ProPublica “It’s a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren’t Hard to Find” citing the many factual errors made by the Supreme Court, including the one that has devastated all our lives: “In a 2002 opinion, Kennedy wrote that untreated sex offenders commit new sex crimes at a startling rate, ‘estimated to be as high as 80 percent.’ The statistic came from a magazine article, which did not provide a source. The article’s author has admitted to legal scholars the number was a guess. Studies of sex offenders indicate the true rate is a small fraction of the one Kennedy used.” We know this, of course, but it continues to help the cause to have it cited in mainstream press.
Here’s the link to this story
The ProPublica story was also featured in The New York Times giving further currency to our cause: “The Supreme Court Justices Need Fact-Checkers” at this link:

It’s starting to seem like Gorsuch is a bit of a d!ck, or at least incredibly smug and self-assured. His first few writings in SCOTUS cases have been less than impressive.

Why you might need a passport card to travel domestically in 2018…
I wondered how would this play into SO ability to travel interstates in the future.

The states you are travelling to get no notification by TSA (under current policy). They are only there to make sure you are who you say you are. Any attempt to use TSA to screen classes of citizens to prevent travel between states fr anyone except those on federal or state parole or probation would be asking for a lawsuit as it would violated about a dozen laws.

Operation “Cross Country”

“These are children. They are hardened children but they are still children.” – F.B.I. Special Agent Bernie Riedel.
So, we have another nationwide multi-agency crackdown on “child prostitution” which, invariably, means that they have “rescued” a handful of adult-looking seventeen-year-olds and even older young adults who they attempt to portray as “children.”

It’s debatable if any of these “children” actually wanted to be “saved.”;-84-underage-victims-rescued/2552074/

Does anyone know what the stated rationale was for keeping the possession of CP as a crime for which there was no relief from registration? Was there any basis that suggested they those individuals were more dangerous than some of the other crimes?

There’s really no basis for the penalties for any sex crimes. Notice how sentence ranges are in multiples of five years. It just sounds good to the punitive ear. None of it is rational.

It’s a little like how Marshall amps go up to “eleven” instead of just “ten”. It just sounds more impressive.

So much ersatz mythology was developed around child porn that they could only floor the punishment accelerator in response.

@David Kennerly:
I don’t know that Marshall amps in general go to eleven. That was something from “This Is Spinal Tap”, poking fun at Marshall’s seemingly endless quest for louder and bigger. (

Yeah, that seems to be the Pavlovian response when the media starts a shock campaign. If the offense is domestic, add another five years or 25 to life or mandatory minimums. If the shock originates foreign, then drop some more bombs over there. As long as someone’s suffering some more, the problem must be being solved.
You’re right, even the tiered registries go in fives. Heck, residency and presence restrictions seem to go in multiples of five hundred, except that 300 feet seems to be used a lot for some reason. Where do they get these numbers? It’s a mythology, a religion. The numbers have their own sanctity.

No it was purely irrational posturing. For some reason, the public views the simple possession (and distribution in conjunction since nearly every CP offense involved receiving or sending across state lines to or from a person or site run by LE) as a crime more heinous than actual production of CP, physical assault or improper contact with a minor or in some cases rape and incest. This is the fault of mass media fear-mongering and hyperbole and is now the most disfavored class of SO. It is regarded as such even though there is a pleasure evidence the low level CP offender is the least likely of all to reoffend after treatment or to progress to more serious offenses. There is a belief that we are the cause of the whole CP industry as without demand the production would stop. Similarly to drug war where you busy the users and not the producers to somehow kill demand thus destroying the financial incentive to sell. One problem though, there is no financial market for CP in general. Nearly everything out there is digital media and freely available through the dark web. This there is no financial incentive driving production. The production occurs by seriously depraved individuals while the users are generally classified as either mentally ill, involved in self destructive behavior, victims of sexual abuse themselves, or people who make a bad decision and get caught. Almost none of us were using it as a gateway to physically assault minors. Like people who look at pictures of murders and gang violence. They are viewing an illegal act but are not guilty of a crime for doing so.

All sentencing is based on emotional reaction and not on a rational basis involving empirical evidence. Everyone who voted to include the amendments keeping CP as level 3 is probably up for reelection and can now go back to constituents telling them they voted to protect the children.

I see it as how it was with crack during the 90s. Crack penalties were way worse than other drugs, and it was seemingly based purely on attention and the “crisis” of it. Likewise CP versus other SO crimes. It’s the easy hit, the crime that seems rampant. That an actual assault is more harmful than a picture seems not to matter. Those crimes are too hard to prove and get conviction. CP is easy to nab, and widespread (read” “crisis mode”), so it gets hit harder with the hammer. My $0.02.

Try living in my state (SD) where they wrap everything (production/distribution/possession) under one law. When you may have only possessed it. Doesn’t differentiate on the registry either so it looks like you did all three.

Got a question. As of 11/2016 my conviction was reduced to misdemeanor. After several letters to CA DOJ, they finally removed me from the public website as required by law and confirmed by someone other than me. However, that someone has confirmed my information is still being displayed on the Federal NSOPW with a link (broken) back to CA ML. Anyone have any advice on what I can do to get the information removed from the Federal site since it is only a repository of the state databases in situations where the crime was not federal in nature? Do I write a letter to them as well or get a lawyer to do it? Or do they never remove anything like say Florida where you are screwed for life.

Man AJ, you just have a link to everything don’t you????LMAO>>>>

Of course, these people need to be dealt with in some manner. Can someone please explain how these teens are now adults because they chose to cause harm but when they choose to have sex, they are poor, innocent children and ‘victims’?

I’ll explain it for you: the rock did not hold a gun to their heads, get them drunk or, from a position of authority, seduce them into launching it from an overpass so that it could kill a father of 4.

Your point is not completely lost on me, however, and if prosecutors could find a way to paint the boys as victims and shift the blame to the rock, they’d do it.

Hopefully justice will be served in this case and they’ll get what’s coming to them.

I think his simple point was that people cannot be children when you want to say they are victims but somehow magically are adults if they do something wrong. That’s all.

This “charged as adults” is BS. If you are going to do that then if a crime might have occurred there has to be a defense of “this person is an adult and thus there is no crime”. Big government wants the situation to change to whatever way they prefer at the moment.

I am thinking about moving to Texas. I know they have a tier system and CP is a lifetime requirement in Texas. If I move to Texas, what law am I going by? If I get my California conviction reduced to a misdemeanor and get knocked down to a tier one in California, and possibly get off the registry because of this in California, will I still have to register in Texas?

Texas Code of Criminal Code Chapter 62 lists which crimes in the Texas Penal Codes fall under the 10 year after completion of punishment registration or life time registration. You will have to read both Chapter 62 and the penal codes that you find that appear to most likely match your offense in order to see where you would fall. And then after that, you might want to contact a criminal defense attorney in Texas in order to verify where you might fall. You might also be able to contact the Texas Department of Public Safety which handles the state registry. I would do all this before you consider moving to Texas. Compared to some other states, Texas is not quite so bad. But it is all relative…What you really have to watch out for is every municipality can have their own residency and or residency/proximity restrictions and they can all be a little different.

Even if you get knocked off the registry in CA, you still may be required to register in Texas. You really need to read those codes and contact a criminal defense attorney with experience in this topic.

AJ, Mike R, all,

At some point, we need to do research and have a bigger discussion on the “Collateral Consequences” excuse that we’ve seen used by the government to justify any action they want to take against a convicted (or deferred in many cases) felon.

My initial research indicates the term may have originated with a more unavoidable collateral consequence of not being able to get a job as the result of being convicted and the access to public records. If the state used the term “unavoidable collateral consequences” or even “justifiable collateral consequences” then it would be more accurate to what could be allowed by a judge.

The problem is, with them just saying “collateral consequences”, there is nothing that DOESN’T apply to. They could literally have a law banishing a felon and say “Oh, the US Constitutional ban on banishment doesn’t apply here because this is just a Collateral Consequence of a criminal conviction and they already had due process”.

The law allowing daycares and schools to see sealed criminal records could actually be a “justifiable collateral consequence” since obviously it is narrowly tailored and serves a specific objective. If they allowed construction worker jobs to also see those sealed records, they shouldn’t get away with that since there is no justification, but it would survive in today’s judicial world as long as the state brings up the magical “collateral consequences” declaration.

I think it’s time for a new Judicial precedent to further define “collateral consequences” to something that literally can’t encompass everything. I’ll try to find cases to back this up.

padilla v. kentucky

@Chris F:
I view the collateral consequences argument as minor compared to the, “it’s regulatory, so we can do whatever we want, how we want, when we want,” stuff that goes on. Do collateral consequences matter? Yes, but only once the regulatory BS game is out of the way. In the oral argument for Smith ( on pg. 19, line 10 or at 16:25), SCOTUS addressed the idea of a shifting collateral consequence, using the example of a securities dealer and financial statements. SG Olson shrewdly spun it as a collateral consequence, thereby playing a Jedi mind trick on SCOTUS and having them forget that does not equate to ongoing, retroactive regulation. On page 21, starting at line 10 (~19:15 audio) SG Olson lists a bunch of things that prove it’s not punitive–yet these are all things RCs suffer far and wide.
“In this case, there is no affirmative restraint on motion. There is no confinement. There is no restriction on travel or employment or recreation, no obligation to submit to searches, intrusive supervision or questioning.”
Restraint on Motion and restriction on travel: AL requires permission to travel; Many consider one to have absconded if gone for longer than they think appropriate; IML prohibits deviating off one’s submitted itinerary. Restriction on employment: Numerous States ban RCs from certain occupations. Restriction on recreation: Numerous States ban presence in parks, fair grounds, attending HS sporting events, etc. Obligation to submit to intrusive supervision: Numerous States have 90-day registration requirements. All require extensive information on vehicles, schooling, etc., most of which, unlike the conviction, is not public record.
Also of note was this line from SCOTUS: “And that is not merely the consequence of the conviction for the crime which was defined, is over, and done with. This is something new.”
IOW, this is something more than a collateral consequence. Indeed it is.

It’s amazing how much concern SCOTUS seemed to have, even back then, about RC laws. (Remember, it was a 5-4 decision, so close.) Also of interest is that Roberts (representing AK) conceded it was quite possibly a SDP issue but, given that ex post facto was the issue before the court, SDP could not be addressed. Thankfully the courts are starting to see the light on all this.

Thanks AJ, that’s the kind of stuff I was looking for.

It’s also a good argument that Mike R brought up once, that these new laws and restrictions aren’t a consequence of our original crime and conviction, but a consequence of sex offender registration that is over broad, over-reaching, and arbitrary in duration thus obliterating any sense of narrowly tailoring restrictions that merely require you to be registered to have them occur.

I still get mad when I think how Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 got away with creating a public sex offender registry because it was both “based on true public information” and didn’t insinuate that a person on it was dangerous at all. Not only was it incorrect on both counts back then, but now it is incorrect for 1000 other reasons.

Hi, the part in your post:
It’s also a good argument that Mike R brought up once, that these new laws and restrictions aren’t a consequence of our original crime and conviction, but a consequence of sex offender registration that is over broad, over-reaching, and arbitrary in duration thus obliterating any sense of narrowly tailoring restrictions that merely require you to be registered to have them occur.”
Isn’t that circular reasoning? First one explains the other & the other explains the first one. That just means they dont have an answer & they dont want to admit they were wrong and made these monumental decisions without any evidence, just there opinion. You know what they say about opinions. ” opinions are like (censored) everyone has one”

Well, the term “consequences” itself argues that there are penalties which logically flow from a qualifying action so it does not elicit protest any more than saying that the consequences of overeating is obesity and diabetes.

It is pretty apparent to most of us that the most rabid and hysterical of the anti-pedophile campaigners and vocalizers are seriously mentally ill and, collectively (and sometimes individually), represent a significant and continuous danger to us and, in the particular instance cited in this news piece, to others.

Pizza Gate and its obsessors, in particular, have brought this insight into uncontrovertible relief when measured against rational and reasonable people who adhere to evidence-based belief systems.

“Lane chased his parents around their home, spitting in his father’s face while screaming that he wasn’t threatening to kill them, but “pedophiles who were taking over the country.”

He then stabbed his elderly father to death with a kitchen knife, anyway.

Question on Federal Forfeiture laws – I have no legal background and my feeble attempts to research this issue have proven to be fruitless so hopefully someone out there may already have the answers or at least links to get me to the right place.

At the time of my arrest I was charged with 288.4(b), soliciting a minor for lewd purposes, and 311.11(a), possession of materials depicting someone under 18 engaged in sexual acts. The LA County SVU folks were involved and one federal agent. I was living on my boat, which was my only place of residence, and after my arrest the federal government confiscated my boat and would not allow me back aboard. The matter was sent to court in Los Angeles County and the feds decided not to pursue it.

My attorney wanted to take it to trial as the 288.4(b) was completely entrapment and would fail as I never initiated the contact (it was SVU pretending to be someone else and they contacted me and pressed for days as I kept refusing to get involved at first). As for the 311.11(a) we could fight it as I did not know what was on my drive. My boyfriend (at the time) had access to my laptop and it was he who had placed some materials on it. Interestingly, the captured texts from SVU to them where they asked if I had any photos of any underage boys to share shows my response, on more than one occasion, was that I possessed no such materials.

Before a trial date was set my attorney informed me that I would have to name names and that the DA wanted me to set up my boyfriend so that they could arrest him. I absolutely refused to do so. And I also felt that an older gay man who dates younger men was not going to get a fare shake at trial.

I accepted a plea deal where I took one count on the 311.11(a) and of course they dismissed the non winnable 288.4(b) as part of it. A small price to pay to protect someone you love.

It is my understanding that the federal government seized my boat because the 288.4(b) would have been committed on board (as that is where I lived). Since that charge was dismissed as part of my pea agreement the feds were not able to keep my boat via federal forfeiture laws and should have returned it. My attorney at the time confirmed this. However, the feds insisted that they were going to keep it and auction it off and my attorney stated that while we could win it back it would require going to federal court and would cost about $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 to fight it, more than half the value of the boat.

My question is this. If the federal government confiscates property belonging to someone being charged for a crime that 1) the federal government does not pursue in court and 2) the charge allowing them to confiscate said property is dismissed in the local court of jurisdiction, would they not be compelled to return the property to the rightful owner or compensate the owner for the value of the property? It seems that not to do so would allow them to arrest people under false pretenses, confiscate property, then just say oopppss, to bad as they sell the property and rake in the money.

I would love any input that any of you may have. There are so many of you that have the experience and knowledge that far exceeds mine and I am trying to see if I am able to find a loophole to recover my losses without starting a federal trial on something that has already been litigated (although I think that would be double jeopardy) Thanks in advance to any and all respondents. Have a wonderful weekend!

I’m sorry to hear of your plight. Unfortunately, your attorney is spot on. The civil asset forfeiture (CAF) laws, especially with the Feds, are pretty much highway robbery. The Government *knows* it is prohibitively expensive–often exceeding the value of that which has been taken–to fight it, so they go on their merry way. That said, if there’s no civil case of “United States vs. 30-foot ChrisCraft boat” (or whatever), I think I’d try to find out the reasoning the Feds are using for hanging onto the boat (it’s probably due to the 311.11(a) conviction). Sadly you are facing an almost insurmountable battle. One more example of why individual States have passed CAF reform, and even Congress is considering it after Reichsfuhrer Sessions stated he wants to expand it and do end-arounds on those State laws.
What he did:
Congress steps in to stop him:

Sessions and Shelby, both from AL, have been large cheerleaders for CAF and leading the effort for years to enlarge the process. They both see it for what it is, a budget supplemental at the hands of the public at large. Shelby said that a couple years back explicitly and his colleagues know it.

Yeah, I have nothing but contempt for both of them. I wonder what good old Roy Moore will be like for them. He’s unique, to say the least. But Reichsfuhrer Jefferson (as in CSA President Jefferson Davis) Beauregard (as in CSA General P.G.T. Beauregard) Sessions III (great, he’s the third iteration of this horrible “honorific” of a name) takes the cake as far as I’m concerned. He’s so far out in right field and so far back in time regarding criminal justice, it’s ridiculous. Horrible selection by Trump.

Get a second opinion from another lawyer. This doesn’t smell right. You should call Janice Bellucci or Chance Oberstein to get you pointed in the right direction, lawyer-wise unless they can help you themselves. Another one down in SoCal who has a great reputation but is eye-wateringly expensive (but he might give you some gratis initial phone consultation) is Todd Melnik.

Also, you need to get on it, quick from what I understand and keep it from becoming, not just a seizure, but a forfeiture. Maybe you can file something quickly and cheaply to get started. Then decide if it’s hopeless.

I know that it says under California civil asset forfeiture laws that they can’t steal the home you live in, at least in a drug case, but what do I know?

@David Kennerly:
“eye-wateringly expensive”

Thanks for the chuckle, I needed that. I had one of those kinds of guys, but for some reason he, and his staff, really liked me, resulting in his knocking 12.5% off his regular cost, plus free services in getting discharged from supervision.
“under California civil asset forfeiture laws that they can’t steal the home you live in, at least in a drug case”
A very worthwhile point. It’s not just a boat, it’s his domicile of record (right, Malcom?).

Oh, Todd would never give a break, that’s for sure. I could tell a story but I won’t. He has a dynamite track record but he is totally and completely mercenary. If you’re a Hollywood mogul looking at sex charges, he’s your guy.

You are correct. It was my home for many years. It seems so odd that they can take something from you and not charge you. My case was handled by the state of California, not the federal government, yet they are the ones that took my vessel. I had planned to sail south to central America after that summer to start a 3 year planned cruise after working all my life. So it not only took my home but my future. Of course, now thanks to the International Megans Law stamp in passports I will never be able to retire south of the boarder as planned. Sure glad I didn’t purchase my friends condo in Costa Rica. I was so close to doing it.

Id go to the auction find out who wins it and take it back Then it will all come out at your trial and they can’t do anything with the boat until trial and any appeals are done. Ive seen people repo their own property back also you could have a friend say he lent you the money for the boat and he is repoing it because you didn’t pay. They have to let a repo go

While it was not a large asset as a boat, my computers as well as a family members also were seized in a end of parole raid to try to add new charges to me, I fought and got the charges dismissed but the DA attempted to keep the computers as some sort of forfeiture clause “used in the commission of a crime” guise. My lawyer filed a writ of mandate on premise that the computers them selves were not illegal and regardless of the contents that could be wiped, no conviction of a crime surrounding them occurred so my right to my property was not forfeit and there by property must be returned, the court agreed and I got them back. I also filed one on my own (writ of mandate) on a past dismissed possession for sales to get a few thousand in cash, that one took 4 years to get returned but I got it.

My point is that a writ of mandate is most likely your option showing that the boat it self is not a vessel (no pun intended) of crime but a much needed possession in your life.

They took all of my electronics with the exception of the television. I had a brand new digital camera and digital camcorder that I had recently purchased so that I could document my planned trip abroad. Once again, my attorney said that I should get those back as they had nothing on them at all. But as always seems to be the case, I never received my equipment back. It saddens me to see just how unjust the justice system is.

Thanks all for your responses. I wish everyone the best as they move forward while wearing the scarlet RSO.

Demagoguery, definition of today’s politicians.

Looks like formal announcement about passport markings from IML.

Will this law be challenged now? Seems like things have not progressed on our end. Hoping we haven’t given up.

Looks like it was one of those Friday afternoon drops to try to avoid media attention. That’s typically done when Uncle Sam doesn’t want to face backlash. And in a strange and unrelated coincidence, perhaps I lost my passport card on October 26….

I was kind of expecting it to be on the last page, as that’s the only place for “notes” to be placed and still meet whatever international criteria exist for passports. Not that it excuses it in any way, but with it being there, it may not get seen much.

My fear is this will survive rational-basis review, as it’s 100% factual. Where one may be able to strike is with the Green Notices, sent without determining one’s individualized risk. What’s next, a “factual” statement of one being homosexual (also not a protected class)?

Yeah, hopefully this ripens the case a bit, especially adding in the light SCOTUS has cast with Packingham and Snyder.

Here’s something I stumbled across: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( It’s one of the very few Human Rights treaties the US has ratified or acceded ( Of interest is Article 12, paragraph 2: “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.” From what I can glean from another website ( &, this is held on equal footing as an act of Congress, but Congress is fully authorized via the Constitution to overrule it if so desired. (Though the US would then be in breach of international agreement and law.)

What does this all mean? I figure it at least means the question as to whether US citizens have a right to travel has been answered. Given there are no Federal laws prohibiting it, and given the Constitution is silent on it, this treaty and the Ninth Amendment are the defaults. Does this affect IML at all? Probably not, due to the above-mentioned authority of Congress, as well as the supremacy of the Constitution. The only possible chance is a weak one, in that courts are averse to aiding in the violation of international law. The courts might consider something greater than rational-basis review, but it’d still be a reach.

AJ, I think you are missing one of your point: the U.S. government is not restricting our ability to travel – it is merely notifying other countries. It is the other countries’ deciding whether or not to allow us entry.
(Of course, that’s akin to saying, “It wasn’t the leap off the tall building that killed him – it was the sudden stop when he hit the ground.”)

I meant to convey that with, “Does this affect IML at all? Probably not, due to the above-mentioned authority of Congress, as well as the supremacy of the Constitution.” I apparently fell short. Yeah, a few months ago posted that exact thought. “We’re just giving information. It’s the other sovereign nation that is deciding who to let into their territory.” That’s a complete slime-ball move, which one would expect from the Feds. Where that argument fails, at least to some degree, is that the US is telling that sovereign nation something the US cannot back up. By sending a Green Notice, the US is saying I, “have committed [a] criminal offence[] and a[m] likely to repeat the[] crimes in other countries.” I agree, I have committed a crime. But what indication of any sort do the Feds have that I am “likely” to recidivate? Risk assessment? Nope, as they don’t consider that at all; it’s all offense-based. So the exit-entry issue aside, the US is maligning me with the other sovereign nation. That, I believe, is the Achilles heel of IML–especially since judges keep mentioning lack of risk assessment as contributing to a punitive opinion.

What is a covered offender if someone gets off reg are they covered still? from what I’ve read its people on reg and on parole. or probation.

Just got a response from the ACLU.
“Hi Michael, The chapter does not provide legal assistance. What did you need help with?”
So I replied:
“As stated, I recently filed a motion in Federal District Court for Eastern Ca, Pro Se, and I would like to have amicus briefs or some type of ACLU involvement in my case. This is the biggest civil rights issue since the civil rights act. I have a hearing date set for March 14th at 10:00 am., so what I am asking of your organization is to consider joining me, or supporting me in anyway you can, in helping to restore not only my liberties, but those for hundreds of thousands of people throughout this country. People are being killed by vigilantes, families are being separated, life on the registry is a perpetual punishment that is both popular and gregarious in the general public and the legislature. I think this is way to important an issue to let a laymen challenge without support. I am going against the most powerful attorneys in the world, US Ag and CA Ag, and I have zero formal legal education, and very limited experience. I think your org.,as the biggest civil rights organization in the world, would be remiss if you simply disregard this request and/or refuse to get involved in this case.”

The remiss statement applies to all these org.s that are supposed to be civil rights leaders. They are all remiss in their failure to act in my case….


Case Name: In re J.C. , District: 3 DCA , Case #: C080391
Opinion Date: 8/2/2017 , DAR #: 7457
Case Holding:
Mandatory lifetime sex offender registration imposed on certain juvenile sex offenders is not cruel and unusual punishment. When J.C. was 12 years old, he was declared a ward of the court based on his commission of forcible sodomy on a five-year-old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)). After he failed on a grant of probation the juvenile court committed him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), which requires J.C. to register for life as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.008). On appeal, J.C. challenged the mandatory registration requirement as cruel and unusual punishment. Held: Affirmed. Juvenile wards are required to register as sex offenders only “when they are discharged or paroled from [DJF] after having been committed for one of the enumerated offenses,” which include sodomy and lewd acts with a minor (Pen. Code, § 290.008, subd. (c)). A necessary predicate to a finding of cruel and unusual punishment in this case is that juvenile sex offender registration is punishment. (See In re Alva (2004) 33 Cal.4th 254, 260.) J.C. argued that sex offender registration has a disproportionate impact on juveniles, and is therefore cruel and unusual punishment. However, the U.S. and California Supreme Courts have held that mandatory lifetime sex registration is not cruel and unusual punishment. J.C. argued these cases do not resolve the issue because they fail to address the impact of sex registration on juveniles, and the effect of the law is punitive as to juveniles because it mandates public disclosure of information that would otherwise be confidential. But J.C. failed to show that the limited degree of public disclosure applicable to juveniles who must register is sufficiently burdensome to distinguish it from that applicable to adult offenders. Without such distinguishing features, the public disclosure of information for juvenile sex registrants does not render their registration a punitive affirmative disability or restraint that constitutes punishment.

Major issue with this case, “facial challenge”….Of course it is going to withstand facial review. For a law to be facially unconstitutional a person has to prove that the law cannot be applied in any case whatsoever. Good luck on that…These attorneys are grossly negligent, or just plain incompetent. Any one with even a hint of law knows this is the case. There are plenty of situations where this law could survive scrutiny, all it takes is one to render it facially constitutional. This is a disgrace, and is a great violation of the liberty interest in a competent attorney. These attorneys should be immediately disbarred, and held liable for this kids damage that he is going to endure, because of their failure to bring forth a as applied challenge. Disgusting that these people are getting away with this type of BS….

“Here, J.C. mounts a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 290.008,
rather than a challenge to his individual sentence. As the People acknowledge in their
briefing, J.C.’s challenge does not turn on the particular facts of his case, but instead is a
pure question of law that can be resolved without reference to the specific facts of his
case. We have discretion to decide a pure question of law based on undisputed facts
raised for the first time on appeal. (Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394.)
“[A]lthough California authorities on the point are not uniform, our courts have several
times examined constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal, especially when
the enforcement of a penal statute is involved [citation], the asserted error fundamentally
affects the validity of the judgment [citation], or important issues of public policy are at
issue [citation].” (Ibid.; see also In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888 [juvenile did
not forfeit her challenge to a probation condition on constitutional grounds by failing to
raise the issue in the juvenile court because her facial constitutional challenge presented a
clear question of law, easily correctable by an appellate court].”

The following statement should be enough to disbar these attorneys..

“Thus we will consider whether section 290.008, requiring lifetime sex offender
registration in some cases based on offenses committed by juveniles, constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment.”

Of course there are situations that this would be appropriate, or at least constitutional, violent habitual offenders, applied, incredibly high risk factors, applied, severe mental abnormalities, applied, I could go on but I am sure you get my point….Absolutely ineffective assistance of counsel in the most egregious way…It appears that the court thought so as well in some of its statements….

Mike r, please post the link to your filing.

does anyone know what tier would be a person with 288 (a) from deadline NBC with no other history base on the new law in California, please? Thank you

only charge, tier two…as long as its not with a 288.2 or felony cp…

Oh btw, I also emailed that comment to the attorney in that JC case along with some other choice words.

thank you for your response. what is JC case ?

Well today is our big day! Vampires, zombies, werewolves, devils, demons…they got nothing on us. Everybody put on your scariest sex offender costume (maybe a pair of jeans and a t-shirt) and watch people run for their lives as they have been brainwashed to do.

So, I’m laying here in a hospital bed just 2 days after emergency surgery, and I get a call from my fiancé. An KUSI 51 here in San Diego, aparantly “operation boo” is in effect. Janice, I think a phone call is appropriate to this fear monger if entity about how things really are.
Would love to stick around and chat, but I’m in to much pain.

Here’s a really good paper from the Cato Institute regarding Packingham:
There are *so* many gems in this paper, and what I found also to be some good legal arguments from other case law (Hello, mike r?). Packingham may well have done more wonders for us than at first imagined. Coupled with Snyder, it may really start rolling things back.

One thing–of many–that struck me when reading this paper was how SCOTUS does not like Government intrusion in Free Speech (the Roberts Court is known to be rather 1st-Amendment-centric). Ok, so why not fight presence restrictions as abridging my Free Speech rights. Why must I be held back 300′, 500′, or whatever, from a public place such as a library, park, or school? (I could be protesting certain books, failure to protect the environment, and school board decisions, respectively.) What about if there’s a speaker at one of these places? I am not allowed to exercise my Free Speech right to listen. I know this isn’t the first time this has been raised, but it seems Packingham has strengthened the case.

@Chris F: There’s even passing comparison to the Bills of Attainder against Communists.
@New Person: There’s an oblique reference to involuntary servitude. (Not those words per so, but the concept.)

Thank you for the CATO article link, AJ. A number of things mentioned in the paper give me hope. I’ve read it once, and I’m about to read it again.

There she is…

“When the plurality opinion in McKune v. Lile first said that “[s]ex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation,” it was talking about individuals with a medically recognized disorder. But the Court, by repeating that dictum in very different contexts— along with its deeply problematic evidentiary basis—has infected the entire registrant population with ticking-human-time-bomb dangerousness.”

@AJ ,,,,, ,, ,, thank you for the post , this is strong stuff , and may open many more doors , it seems that this could gain more momentum as more cases come foreword , what ever the angle the cases may flow because , the Packingham can be tied into ,so many ways , all I can say is wow , I mean wow , As CR says here , “A number of things mentioned in the paper give me hope” we better check and see if its still legal have hope , almost kidding lol

@kind of living:
You’re quite welcome. Cato has been quite active in SCOTUS cases. They joined ACLU and ACLU-NC in filing an amicus in Packingham*, and teamed up with the Reason Foundation and the Individual Rights Foundation in an amicus for Masterpiece Cakeshop. They definitely are active in arguing for civil liberties and civil rights.
*As an aside, 13 States filed an amicus on the side of NC: LA, AZ, NV, CO, PA, HI, TX, IN, RI, MI, SC, WI, MN. So let’s count ’em…14 States got bitch-slapped by SCOTUS in the Packingham decision–including three States (MI, PA, CO) with significant court cases, in our favor, resolved or ongoing.

Also getting that bitch-slapping via a joint amicus supporting NC were: the Council of State Governments, the International City/County Management Association, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

@mike r: Maybe contact Cato, Reason, or IRF about an amicus?? As well, were I you, I would grab the supporting amici from Packingham filed by ATSA and NACDL ( There may be some nuggets in there worth using.

Very good observation Steve. That fact totally slipped by me. You are absolutely right, and even though the numbers need to be debunked, what you just stated has to be noted in any future cases….

Jesus AJ, thats crazy shi*(&*^%* how many briefs were filed in that case…..I’ll make note and see about making contact with the names you mentioned….