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 November 2017

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m a registered citizen and would like to fly from US to Denmark. Can I fly direct to Denmark or is Spain the only point of entry? I apologize if there’s another place on this site to post this question. I hope this is allowed here in ‘general’. Thank you.

No, as I mentioned earlier, there are any number of Registrant-viable points-of-entry into Western Europe. If there is a direct flight where you are located to Copenhagen, then that should be fine. Otherwise, Amsterdam would be a good place to fly with onward to Copenhagen. Just completely avoid the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland. They will likely stop you dead in your tracks.

Thanks again David

I am on it AJ..Yeah, I agree totally with you on Young…The AG rep. states that federal court has no subject matter jurisdiction but then cites Young which specifically states that they do. I believe they are only referring to the claims that they wish to dismiss, 6-9. I am not sure yet. I have posted the docs on my webpage, gofile didn’t seem to want to work, so ya, here’s the link again.
Although I know a motion for summary judgement by default for not answering my complaint completely will fail, I think I will file it anyways and claim that the court should grant me summary judgement on the issues the AG did not seem to want to address, 1-5. Or order them to answer or show cause why they haven’t or wont. To me this seems like a blatant due process violation if they intend to argue any points on any of the other issues simply because they are not treating me the same as a qualified attorney by not answering every claim and they are trying to subvert justice by hobbling me even more then I already am by not providing me with what arguments they are going to bring against those other claims thereby denying me my ability to prepare a proper response when we go in for the hearing. I am thinking about adding in the motion that I am already at a disadvantage since I am not a legal expert and have no formal training or experience in these types of fields and settings. The AG reps. are seasoned, skilled, experienced attorneys with unlimited resources at their disposal so in order for me to have any resemblance of a fair due process I at the very least need to be a able to prepare a response to whatever arguments they want to bring in court…..Without this fair process and with the AG trying to subvert justice, already, I should be granted summary judgement or have the court order the AG to properly respond…What do you think? Read their responses on my site and let me know what you guys think……

I really believe that they are saying Young doesn’t apply only to the federal and other states ordinances or issues. Such as IML and any other state laws…Which like I said I was expecting….I will contest this as I did cite local ordinances and I have to look into it more since I believe the state officials are enforcing some kind of federal laws somehow to me……Looking forward to hearing your responses….Oh, and hey, what about this protected class of offenders now? Um seems like a real equal protection issue since are info is available for life and easily accessed thru their website why other felons or ex cons do not face the same consequences and their records basically go away or are not used after so many years…..I am sure I can manipulate this issue in some way to our advantage…..

Here is a good resource. Although it is pertaining to prisoner rights, it also applies to civilians not incarcerated. I am glad I read this since I was unsure if I actually had to reply to this motion to dismiss. I am definitely responding…..


I really believe that is how I am going to respond….They will either laugh it off or take notice that I am not playing and will not stand for any unethical and/or nefarious actions by the AG…..

Right on point Chris, we can do this and already you bring a valid point…

Yep, it’s like if the Federal Government had laws to prevent lepers from flying on airliners or going to national public parks for the safety of the citizens, and tasked the state’s with stating who is on the leper list. Now let’s say California decides to put people with the flu on the leper list. You have to sue California because they are the ones that didn’t allow proper Substantive Due Process and put people on the list that didn’t need to be there.

California can’t claim the feds make the rules, since California gives lifetime registration and for things the feds don’t require.

Using the 2003 Smith v Doe decision, anyone whose case has been dismissed (conviction does not exist) isn’t a part of the registry. Also, the 2003 Smith v Doe decision states a reasonable length of registration. For states that only give up one term to all registrants, that’s contrary to the SCOTUS decision.

The IML is a federal law, but relying on individual states for the registry. That does seem ripe for equal protection cases there. For example, the legal age of consent differs between states. So sue California for not being 2003 Smith v Doe compliant? Isn’t that SORNA?

Just throwing ideas out there ,,,,I might have to file with the DOJ. I have major homework so any feedback would be great.

It doesn’t sound relevant and probably a waste of time for you to go this route. You should focus everything on your original case. This is more used for protected classes to use against a law enforcement agency that has a pattern of abusive and unfair treatment. Until we get some SCOTUS rulings that what they are doing to us is unconstitutional, they won’t rule in our favor that our treatment is unfair by law enforcement.

Since SCOTUS is a hot topic here always, this was found and thought to be interesting to read and discuss amongst the peeps here:

Chief Justice Roberts a secret liberal?

I say AJ and David Kennerly, the Toxic Radioactive man who is Addicted to Love, will provide some rather insightful comments to start this off, but could be wrong.

I will say, this is an interesting way to use statistics that could be seen as “frightening and high” within their respective elements

@TS: already took care of it:

I don’t really think all that much of 538, after watching their numbers constantly adjust and shift on election night. They were just like my GPS system that is always exactly right about when I will arrive–when I arrive.


Thanks for the Reason article. Very interesting, especially what is said about legislatures by Roberts and courts.

Yes, that Roberts quote explains a good many things. It’s also somewhat in line with the ideology Gorsuch seems to have about legislatures making the laws, and judges deciding legality *as written* (i.e. judicial restraint). With that sort of SCOTUS ideology, there will probably be few cries of, “legislating from the bench.” Heck, Gorsuch is already know for that with the infamous “freezing trucker” case.

Yeah, great comments, this is what is going to help win my case. I made a big leap of faith tonight and talked to my Sociology professor at class tonight about my situation, my court case, everything about whats going on. He is involved with reintegration programs at Folsom state prison, his family is all hells angles over in Italy but he wanted out so he came here about 25 years ago and got his masters in Sociology. Anyways we talked for over a hour and a half and he is very interested in helping me in any way he can. He will be a expert witness and is going to stand by my side when I go to court. He is really in to social change and is disgusted we government overreach and the lack of rehabilitation and reintegration of ex cons and said he was amazed at the timing because he is just starting to get informed about the sex offender registration issues and has great respect at my courage to go this alone and at how I have pulled myself back from the abyss. This guy is incredibly intelligent, incredibly qualified, and has incredible insight and experience into the prison and reintegration sides of the criminal justice system, and he is willing to go fight tooth and nail right along with me..I am so stoked, and I know he is for real and serious. I know just by the way he has discussed the issues in class and how he reacted when I brought it up after class that he is for real. I am going to one of his sweat lodge meetings that he has in his back yard in a couple weeks and have emailed him a link to my site and the docs. on my case. I showed him a sneak peak at what I have on my phone but am unable to pull up the original complaint on my phone for some reason…..This is crazy, it is like something is making all the stars line up in my life to make this happen……Keep your comments coming man. I am going to start on the opposition as soon as I get a chance . This is almost finals at school so I am having to juggle everything to make shi*^&%% happen. I decided not to do the summary judgement or order to respond. I will just note that they can not argue any legal merit of any other issues other then those that they have responded to or I will bring a procedural due process claim…..

@Mike R

That’s great the you have a new resource to help bounce this all off of!

What do you mean by the last part, about “I will bring a procedural due process claim”?

Are you able to share the government’s response yet?

Are you able to file something to counter the government’s assertion that California has nothing to do with IML since California is the one that decides who to put on the list and sends that list to the government and California is aware of how those on the list they send are going to be impacted?

Good luck with your studies and case!

Sorry Mike R, I see you provided that stuff on your website. I’ll go look now. For some reason, I am not seeing the latest posts on here. Probably browser issues on my side.

Perfect argument Chris…I am so lucky to have your guy’s help.

As for the AG saying California is not liable for things like IML and other things outside California’s control, that is not actually true. California is the Gatekeeper of the California registry and they participate in sending that list to the Federal Government for the sole purpose of whatever actions or restrictions the Federal Government deems needed against someone so dangerous that they need to be on “the list”. If California didn’t violate your Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection rights by including you on that list, you would not be subjected to the Federal restrictions and restrictions by the other states and even cities. It would not be practical to sue every city in the country for protecting themselves from such a presently dangerous individual to be included on “the list” when California is well aware of what them putting you on “the list” means and them providing “the list” to the Feds. California is in complete control of who is affected by IML in their state.

This is great….They way you articulated it CA is in complete control over every federal or state law across the country that applies to me….Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!! There goes their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction….

I know i am asking a lot from you guys but, if you can go to my site and write me some arguments in order and addressing each claim the AG made in that response. If not I will have to figure out how I am going to juggle this while I am trying to pass my classes. I am already barely passing my math class because I am spending so much time on this…..And Chris and AJ, you guys are very perceptive and articulate so feel free if you have time…..

@mike r:
I have just now downloaded the AG docs. I’ll read and respond in a day or two. Great news on the Soc prof, brother! If nothing else, he’s a sympathetic ear, which we can all use now and then.

They lay out six arguments that need to be addressed….any help will will be great…..

Ok Mike R, here is my take on the AG’s motion to dismiss:

I don’t know about California’s Jessica’s Law and how it only affects those on parol for residency restrictions. They may win on that.

You are affected by other state’s residency restrictions, but those would have to have the other states as defendents and is out of CA control since they are based on who needs to be registered in those states.

Pg 4 Line 15 – Sex offender registration is designed to promote the state’s interest in controlling crime, facilitating investigation of sex crimes, and preventing recidivism in sex offenders.

*Point to your filing’s lines that counter these points and show it increases recidivism as well as how it’s design is not constitutional or narrowly tailored or allow Substative Due Process to challenge inclusion on the list

Pg 7 Line 9 “…Ninth Circuit has determined that SORA’s registration requirements are non-punitive”

*Need to research that case and state why they reached wrong conclusion and reference the new cases that find it punitive.

Pg 7 Line 12

Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith V Doe, Megan’s Law is also non-punitive.

*Point back to the lines in your filing showing how things changed since Smith V Doe as well as the incorrect assumptions of “frieghteing and high” used in Smith.

Pg 8 – all of it – SORA’s Registration Requirements Do Not Apply Retroactively to Plaintiff and Are Non-Punitive

*You can show that Sora is now punitive and the false “frightening and high” demonstrates the incorrect data used to come to past incorrect conclusions by the courts. You can also show changes to SORA after 2004 are retroactive to you as well as IML triggered by California including you on the list.

Pg 9 – “The Public Notification Provisions in Megan’s Law Are Also Non-Punitive…”

They are punitive and relying on Smith V Doe is not relevent to the current scheme as it would fail the test from Smith V Doe as well as Smith V Doe relied on incorrect information on recidivism to form it’s conclusions.

Pg 11 Line 17 “a person is authorized to use information disclosed pursuant to this bill only to protect a person at risk”

*The information is used for far more than that, and there are more narrowly tailored methods of notifiying nearby families if that were a valid government concern. The global lifetime public dissemination of the original crime is such an extreme method to reach such a localized goal it is nothing but punitive.

Pg 12 Line 12 “Finally, throughout the legislative history, the enacting representatives discussed how Smith V Doe provided a “green light” for this legislation”

*The decision of Smith V Doe being based on mis-information about sex offender recidivism that lead to its conclusions and the extreme burdens added since that decision are well documented in the original complaint. This statute is clearly punitive in effect regardless of what legislators claim.

Pg 13 Line 19 – California Penal Code Section 290.46 is Not Punitive in Effect

*Yes it is – Per almost all factors listed as demonstrated in the complaint.

Pg 15 Line 18 – Factor 3: On Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that Internet publication of the sex offender registry did not impose any affirmative disability or restraint…

*It does now…it allows web sites like “Nextdoor” and “Facebook” to exclude you from membership in violation of your freedom of speech and triggers inclussion on IML as well as being declined for international travel and cruise lines and exclusion from federal housing assistance. It allows museums and amusement parks to deny you admitance.

Pg 18 Line 5 – A bill of attainder claim has three elements…

*Part (2) Punishment is satisfied because the cumulative effects of the notification scheme marks me as a moral leper forever and feeds the national database that triggers inclusion on IML and housing assistance denial. Part (3) lack of judicial trial is satisfied because there was no trial to determine what danger I pose to the public or for what duration I should be marked with such a derogatory label as “Sex offender” and no way to challenge it or be removed.

Pg 18 Line 10 – SORA and Megan’s Law Do Not Impose Punishment

* Yes they do. They meet all 3 factors as outlined in the original filing. The legislative records show numerous statements by legislators of an intent to punish even when they fabricate what looks like they are protecting the public . They fail to acknowledge any real statistics, fail to acknowledge government reports that state the registry does the opposite of its intent and continue to restate the false data from Smith V Doe.

Pg 19 Line 12 – Plaintiff Was Convicted in His Criminal Trial

*The fact that I had a trial to determine guilt for a particular crime has no bearing on the third essential element of Bill of Attainder, lack of a trial. My trial did not determine if I was an ongoing threat to society, to what degree, and for how long, if at all, I should be subjected to the harsh and permanent stigma of being declared a sex offender and danger to society. In fact the opposite, as the sentencing portion of the trial determined how long I should be under the state’s supervision which the Sex Offender registry does not take into account. ***INSERT PACKINGHAM QUOTE HERE ABOUT SCOTUS CONCERN OVER RESTRICTIONS AFTER SUPERVISION IS UP****** Legislature simply added the registry and all negative aspects on top of what the judiciary determined adequate for my crime, knowing that a group as politically powerless as anyone convicted of a sex crime has no chance to stop it. It is by definiation, a Bill of Attainder.

Pg 19 Line 24 – The Eight Claim for Cruel and Unusual…

*As stated above, the Sex Offender Registry scheme as a whole is punishment, and it’s lack of being narrowly tailored, challenged, under the direction of a judge, or taking into account the individual circumstances makes it very Cruel and Unusual.

Pg 20 Line 9 – Involuntary Servitude

*Hard to argue this one

Pg 21 Line 17 – Sixth Through Ninth Claims

*From my post earlier on all4consolaws:

As for the AG saying California is not liable for things like IML and other things outside California’s control, that is not actually true. California is the Gatekeeper of the California registry and they participate in sending that list to the Federal Government for the sole purpose of whatever actions or restrictions the Federal Government deems needed against someone so dangerous that they need to be on “the list”. If California didn’t violate your Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection rights by including you on that list, you would not be subjected to the Federal restrictions and restrictions by the other states and even cities. It would not be practical to sue every city in the country for protecting themselves from such a presently dangerous individual to be included on “the list” when California is well aware of what them putting you on “the list” means and them providing “the list” to the Feds. California is in complete control of who is affected by IML in their state.

Pg 12 Line 12 “Finally, throughout the legislative history, the enacting representatives discussed how Smith V Doe provided a “green light” for this legislation”

*The decision of Smith V Doe being based on mis-information about sex offender recidivism that lead to its conclusions and the extreme burdens added since that decision are well documented in the original complaint. This statute is clearly punitive in effect regardless of what legislators claim.

If Mike R had his case dismissed, then he can also point to a quote by justice Roberts stating only those convicted are on the registry. The green light was on those convicted; there was no green light on those no longer convicted.

As for Involuntary Service, the AG is being disingenuously cunning.

1. They’re trying to saying because the service isn’t “akin to African slavery” is trying to marginalize that some involuntary servitude is okay compared to others. That statute, from a layman’s POV, is: “Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.” Nowhere in that one sentence does it designate that the severity of one type of involuntary servitude over another. It just states any involuntary servitude is prohibited. Is slavery in the 2000s not as bad as slavery in the 1800s? Slavery is slavery. Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude.

2. Other types of involuntary servitude: jury duty, military service, and tax reporting (I dunno about road work, i presume road work is for prisoners to work on the roads. If that’s the case, then it’s imposed upon all prisoners, not just one subsection.). All these types are for all citizens and wasn’t brought upon by conviction. The registry isn’t applied to all free citizens. The registry isn’t applied to all convicts. I think they just opened a can of worms with this as now the AG has dictated that there is involuntary service that subject to all and then there is the registry that is not subject to all, it isn’t subject to all who were convicted either. This brings up equal protection. Remember, the registry is imposed upon free persons (once out of custody) who had a specific conviction. All the other services are imposed under free persons.

If the AG wants to use jury duty, military service, and tax reporting, then why isn’t all of California forced to register with their localities? Are Registrants second class citizens to where only they have this involuntary servitude?

== Compensation for Service ==
1. Jury duty pays for your time while serving.
2. Military service pays for your time on duty.
3. Tax reporting is not done in person. (This is important. You mail or email your paperwork to the IRS. You do not go into an IRS facility, wait around for your turn, and then turn in your paperwork. In fact, in my personal situation, I could not even bring home the registration paperwork to fill out ahead of time so I can reduce the time inside the police station. That means I was forced to do work at the police station as opposed to being able to fill out the paperwork on my own time at my own pace.)
Registrants do not get compensated for being forced to report to the police station and fill out paperwork at a minimum of once a year. Any changes to registrants life such as going to school, a new housing address, getting a new job, or acquiring a vehicle, then the registrant must report to the police station. There was an article discussing about registrant’s collateral consequences for visiting other states. The minimum process time in a police station to register was 1 hour, the maximum was 3 hours, and the average was 1.5 hours.

Also note that the Registrants have to go into the police station at specific dates and times.

So this in-person reporting by registrants is not compensated at all like jury duty or military service when called upon in person.

== Compliance Checks ==
Registrants are subject to compliance checks as part of their duty. This is a compliance check on a free person living in their home. Compliance checks can administered at any time of the day, at 5 am or at 11 pm. There is no notice. The number of Compliance checks per year also varies. Registrants are involuntary subjugated to this duty for the registration for life.

Again, no other sets, or subsets, of convicts who are no longer under custody are forced to partake in compliance checks for life. No other free persons are forced to partake in compliance checks for life.

== Restrictions and disabilities ==
What many people fail to notice about the registry is that it isn’t just about going in to an office a minimum of one year per year. This involuntary servitude is specifically aimed only at one subset of the California population for a life term. The registrants are subjected to compliance checks as a part of their duty. The registrants were subjected to presence restrictions or still are depending on the county. The registrants were/are subjected to living restrictions. Registrants were forbidden to participate in Halloween. Registrants are forced to disclose their movement and itinerary should he or she go on vacation. There are restrictions on registrants who are parents of young children and have been prevented from participating with their children’s livelihood at their school campus or functions. Rep Leyva has brought up a legislation to exclude all registrants from entering any campus in 2017.

Being owned by the state of California by being labeled a sex offender dictates to the state fewer freedoms for a registrant. Since California only has one designation for registrants, a lifetime term, they are barred from housing assistance. Registrants are barred from certain jobs and jobs that require licenses. Registrants are barred from use of some online media. Registrants are being banned from visiting other countries due to the being owned by the state of California as a registrant.

Recently, the federal has passed the International Megan’s Law, IML. The IML has now made registrants’ (whose crimes were against minors and are still registering) current passports invalid and requires a new passport with the marking, “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l).” No other sets of convicts or former convicts are subjected to this extra scrutiny or demarcation. The IML denotes this set of individuals through the state’s respective registry. The State of California designates who is a registrant as well as designates who is a minor. In California, a minor is an individual under 18. Yet in some other states, a minor is an individual who is under 17, 16, and 15. (you need to find a link to this. there was federal case that stated, for federal purposes, a minor is an individual who is 16 years old or younger. the case dealt with an illegal immigrant who committed a sex crime in the US and didn’t want to be deported.)

Registrants are barred from the full immunity provided in the statute of 1203.4. The court then dismisses the
charges against the person, and the person “shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the
offense of which he or she was convicted.” No where in statute 1203.4 does it state that registrants must continue to register, but within 1203.4, it does state specific exceptions on who cannot benefit and what that benefit is. Statute 1203.4 does state which sex crimes that cannot qualify for 1203.4. No one was a registrant before their conviction. Statute 1203.4 states specifically that a person who is granted 1203.4 “shall” be released from all penalties and disabilities. Yet, all registrants who qualify for 1203.4 does not receive full immunity prescribed within 1203.4.

I reiterate that the only exceptions for 1203.4 need to be identified within 1203.4 as it is written specifically. Megan’s Law was written outside of 1203.4 statute. If the state wanted to bar registrants de-registering, then it needs to pass legislation to specifically denote that within 1203.4. 1203.4 is a contract and it is binding to the word!

Attempting to de-register posits a 10 year restriction, at a minimum. Since a registrant has had their equal immunity protections taken away within 1203.4 statute, then a registrant must wait a total of 10 years to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation (CoR), with a requirement that a registrant reside a total of 10 years in California and must reside five consecutive years in California before applying for the COR. That itself restricts travels if one wants to attempt to have complete freedom again, or rather be “restored to an individual’s life before the conviction”.
AG wrote:
Like the former categories, SORA also serves regulatory and civic purposes, as opposed to slavery, which is to exploit free labor for profit.
This is false.

1. Serves regulatory and civic purposes.
For what purpose was this brought upon? That sex offenders’ recidivism rates were “frightening and high”, according to 2003 Smith v Doe. The state of California does have its own Sex Offender Management Board, CASOMB. It has scientifically tracked sex offenders. It has recently revised the tracking of recidivism to only identify re-offense sex acts; no longer including failure to register. After this correct revision by CASOMB, the recidivism rates are under 1%. In 2015, it was 0.8% recidivism rate. In 2016, it was 0.6% recidivism rate. (Mike, you need to double check the dates… I don’t want to be side tracked while I write this.)

What regulatory and civic purposes are there to register a group whose recidivism rate is under 1%? But if this is the standard that the State of California chooses to abide by, then registrants now have equal protection claims. Every convict subject that rates higher than sex offenders MUST also register.

2. Exploit free labor for profit: monetary.
A. Because there is a registry that includes in-person registration, notification of travel, notification of schooling, notification of new vehicles, notification of job(s), and compliance checks, to name a few items, the local police department is making money off of this free labor. These labors are specific only to registrants, many how are free persons. A college campus makes money off of this free labor as they will assign someone specific to check on the individual(s) who attend that college, depending on the severity or if he or she is on parole/probation. Each notification creates a wage for the employee. Running the ML’s website generates revenue for those who created the website, upkeep the website, and for those who input information of registrants to the website.

There are now private websites that also post registry information. Some of those private websites have been charging individuals who no longer are required to be on ML website to take their information off of their private websites. (I think Nicholas Maietta (sp?) went through this experience.)

The federal government is making profit in voiding all current registrant passports (whose crimes were against minors and/or registering). Those registrants must get new passports with the new demarcations. Registrants must pay for those new passports. Also, those businesses who make passports now make a profit. All those businesses that help make the passports, from specific papers used for the passports, the ink used for the passports, the photo machines for the passports, and the businesses that house the photo machines all make profit.

To attempt to de-register, there are many legal fees that profits lawyers and the court system. The 1203.4 statute used to de-register registrants. (You need to research this. Anonymous Nobody is the expert on dates of this and it’s many transitions.) Now, it does not. Some registrants can apply for the CoR in 10 years to get off the registry. Some registrants, applying for the CoR just the first step if they are granted the CoR. Then they have to apply for a Governor’s pardon. There were over 75,000 registrants in December of 2016, according to CASOMB’s 2016 Annual Report, appendix A.

In short, because so many businesses and employees were created specifically to address registration, then it is only logical that the registry does create profit. Again, no other subset of convicts are subjected to what the registration community does.

3. Exploit free labor for profit: Political.
Registrants are being used as political pawns. Often, they are referred to as sex predators or sex molesters as if that was their current state. They are used as a political bargaining chip in a political race with sayings such as he or she “is being soft of sex predators and molesters”. In residency and presence restriction cases, many representatives of the community have shown displeasure at the conceding of the repeal of residency or presence restrictions. Residency and presence restrictions have been deemed unconstitutional, but there are representatives who still vote to uphold unconstitutionality of the unconstitutional laws. This is akin to some representatives stating that slavery is okay, but state deemed it unconstitutional.

If you want to win an election, then you must show you are tough on sex offenders and make your opponent look like they are soft on sex offenders.

Remember, CASOMB, California’s own state research has founded under 1% recidivism rates.

Then there is “Operation Boo”. Why is this a special occasion? Why is this a separate occasion? There is no valid reason to create such an act outside of normal duties aside from political profit. “Operation Boo” is specifically aimed only at sex offenders and to highlight the achievements of the police department to the community for that one special occasion. Why is this not done on a daily basis? Again, it is to gain political favor and to paint sex offenders as only monsters despite the less than 1% re-offense rates by registrants.
AG wrote:
Finally, the act of travelling to a local law enforcement office up to a few times a year to provide very basic and limited personal information is not overly burdensome.
(Mike… I’ll paraphrase this first paragraph. You need to find the actual case and quote.) According to 2003 Smith v Doe, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the registry was not punishment because it did not have requirements such as in-person reporting.

The act of in-person registration is an act that informs the individual that he or she is owned by the state of California under penalty of law, akin to still being under custody, but only to individuals who have been convicted of a sex crime. No other subset of convicts or former convicts are subjected to travel “to a local police law enforncement office up to a few times per year to provide very basic and limited personal information”. The only subset of convicts who are subjected to in-person reporting are those on parole or probation, which is part of their punishment.

Once an individual is no longer under custody, then they are considered a free person. Aside from free Californians who have to register, no other free Californians have to travel “to a local police law enforcement office up to a few times per year to provide very basic and limited personal information”.

“A very basic and limited personal information” that takes a minimum of one hour to a maximum of three hours to complete does not represent basic and limited personal information. Again, serving on a jury or in the military service will pay for your service, even if it is only a half hour of jury duty as one is paid by the hour. The registry must be in-person and on specific dates, during business hours. That can create a conflict with a registrant who holds a job during those same business hours. Essentially, the registrant has two masters: the state of California to register and him or herself to provide for him or herself. The AG has posited that the State of California comes first before the free individual or be punished.
“Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.”

Jury duty, military service, and tax reporting are administered to all citizens. Registration is limited to only one subset of the convicted population.

Jury duty and military service will pay you for your in-person service. Registrants are not paid for their in-person service to the State of California.

Tax reporting is administered through mail or electronic mail. Registrants are required to do in-person registration.

The registry has created employment specifically for registrants with in-person registration with only personnel that does registration, the employment of compliance checks upon citizens no longer under custody, the employment of Megan’s Website along with all the collateral businesses to maintain the online website, the employment of private websites that post registrant information as well as black mail registrants who are no longer listed on the official website, the employment of new passports with demarcations, and the political profits amidst the recent CASOMB research of recidivism rates under 1%.

There is no former drug offenders’ registry akin to former sex offender registry. There is no former Driving-under-the-Influence (DUI) offenders’ registry akin to former sex offender registry. There is no former robbery (grand theft or petty theft) offenders’ registry akin to former sex offender registry. There is no former domestic violence offenders’ registry akin to former sex offender registry. All these former offenders have higher recidivism rates than former sex offenders. It is disingenuous for the AG to state the registry is regulatory and civic, but does not apply to all former convicts who have higher recidivism rates than former sex offenders.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

If a person were convicted and punished by either prison, jail, or probation, then that person is under custody of the State of California. If that person does not abide by the rules of being under custody, then they are under subject to the respective penalties. Once a person is no longer under custody, then they no longer belong to the State of California. They are considered free California citizens. No extra involuntary burdens exists as a free California citizen.

The registry forces a free California citizen to continue its custody to the State of California for his or her lifetime. The registrant has duties such as in-person reporting that could take up to three hours of a person’s time at least once a year or more for newer information, must adhere to compliance checks, must adhere to travel restrictions or notifications, must adhere to presence restrictions (where cases are still being fought), must adhere to residency restrictions, must adhere to employment restrictions, must adhere to volunteering restrictions, must adhere to grade school campus restrictions, and must adhere to other state’s registry laws, that may differ vastly from California’s registry laws.

Jury duty, military service, and tax reporting was born to all citizens, citizens who are not under custody. The registry was not born to all citizens. The registry is not born to all convicted groups. The registry is only born to those convicted of a sex crime. The registry is not punishment, according to the 2003 Smith v Doe ruling. Because the registry is not punishment, then it unconstitutional to enact upon a subsection of the population into involuntary servitude. Yet this subsection of the population forced into involuntary servitude is not paid for in-person reportings, abiding by the superfluous restrictions, or adhering to travel notifications for leisure or business.

Although indentured servitude was done away with long ago, any registrant willing to “pay off” the registration debt, must serve the state a minimum of 10 years, with five consecutive years of residency service to the State of California before applying for Certificate of Rehabilitation. That step is just for a subset of registrants. For other registrants, it is a just the first step to “pay off” the registration debt to come off the registry.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited, unless to punish a crime.

If you are being punished for a crime, then you are under custody of the State. You must abide by all the rules, restrictions, and conditions from the State. If you are under custody of the state, then you are not a free person until you are no longer under custody of the state.

Under punishment, the convicted class must adhere to all rules, regulations, and conditions of the state because we are under custody of the state. In jail, we get up when law enforcement tells us to get up. In jail, we allowed out of our cells only when law enforcement lets us out. Under probation or parole, we abide by the rules and regulations set forth by the probation or parole office or officer. Under probation or parole, we are forced to do in-person reporting, subject to searches any time of the day or night. If you do not comply with the state, then you are punished. Whether you are in jail, prison, serving probation or parole, you are under custody of the state. That means you are servicing the state of California if you are under custody of California.

Again, the registry is not applied to all citizens like the involuntary servitude scenarios for jury duty, military service, or tax reporting. The registry is not applied to all convict classes. The registry is applied only to a conviction of a sex crime. And since the registry is not punishment and born only out of a sex crime conviction, then it cannot compel an individual into continued service to the State as it was deemed unconstitutional if it not to punish a crime.

@New Person

Very interesting write up. Thought provoking.

I bring these to the conversation:

In America, we have an all volunteer military service and has been for 44 years when the draft was abolished (1973), so it is not an involuntary service like other countries who have a mandatory military service period still to this day? Yes, the military service in America is paid, but it is voluntary. There is the selective service registration for males 18-25 that is mandatory, but you can get away with not doing that; however should expect to suffer consequences if the male does not, e.g. student loan denial is one.

In America, jury duty is not mandatory. If you are selected, you have the option to be excused from it if you feel you cannot serve on the jury. It is not mandatory to serve, but you are paid to do so if selected to perform a civic duty.

Road work is usually contracted out to companies, but you do see “chain gangs” of roadside crews from local confinement facilities doing road work as part of their time (as you could see in Cool Hand Luke with Paul Newman, 1967).


Wow… that was really long.

I just wanted to point out that Involutary Servitude isn’t just in-person reporting. It includes all of the restrictions that the individual must abide by. All of those restrictions carry a legal penalty that forces a free Californian to abide by. Jury Duty, Military Service, and Tax Reporting are all born to all California Citizens. Road work, presuming it’s work in jail, is born to all convicts in jail and they are paid – but that’s a situation where a convict is under custody, which is punishment.

The registry is not born to all California citizens. It is only born after a sex crime has been convicted. Except, the registry is not punishment. So once a convict is no longer under custody, then it no longer belongs to the state, or rather services the state. Under the registry, that individual is still required to serve the state and belong to the state after completing his or her punishment. That sentiment is being obfuscated in reference to the statute of involuntary servitude.

1. The registry isn’t applied to all California citizens such as jury duty, military service, and tax reporting.
2. The registry isn’t applied to all California convicts or former convicts such as jail road work.
3. The registry was born out of a sex crime conviction.
Under custody, you belong and serve the State because that was part of your punishment. Out of custody, you no longer belong nor serve the State, unless you are a registrant. But the State of California and the US Government states:
“Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.”

The registry is compelling free Californians into servitude due to a crime, but it is not classified as punishment. On that basic, laymen’s interpretation, the registry is involuntary servitude.

Jury duty, military service, and tax reporting are civic duties inherently is born to all Californian citizens. The registry is not inherently born to all Californian citizens. It is born due to a conviction. And the only inference about conviction in the one sentence statute is “unless to punish a crime.” If this is so, then a crime implies a California citizen is under custody of the state for the duration of his or her punishment; custody meaning belonging to and serving the state such as in-person reporting and following all the restrictions stemming from the conviction.

Thus the comparison of the registry should not be of that to jury duty, military service, or tax reporting due to the birth to All California citizens. The comparison should be that of an individual being convicted. That person is subject to being under custody of the state, where involuntary servitude is not prohibited, as it is part of their punishment. The registry still subjects a free Californian to being under custody of the state, but it is not classified as punishment. Therefore, the registry is prohibited because involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. The State cannot compel a free citizen to continue his or her service due to a conviction after completing his or her term of custody. Also, there is equal protection case here as all convicts should be under the same service to the state after their custody has been successfully completed, but that it not the case today.

@New Person

Thanks for the follow up as it clarifies what you are saying quite a bit about involuntary servitude, in my mind at least, and makes your point easier to see in your rebuttal.

I can see where mike r could use it in his return document.

Of note, military service and taxation are powers explicitly granted to Congress, so they are worthless examples of involuntary servitude as it applies to the Constitution.

Beautiful Chris. Thanks, that is the boilerplate beginning I needed to start my arguments. I work so much better when I have a basic starting point like that….Once I throw authorities and citations in there the AG’s motion is thru. I agree with every point you made and damn good spot on points at that.I also agree involuntary servitude is a hard one so I may concede that one unless I can come up with a plausable argument….Excellent…..It doesn’t appear that they are trying to dismiss all the other claims to me, what’s your veiw on that?

As far as Jessica law goes, I did not challenge that law but only referenced it as a spring board that all the local municipalities are using as a blueprint to enact their own residency bans on. Contrary to the AG claim, I did lay out and cited numerous CA municipality codes which is what I am arguing the AG has authority and jurisdiction over. And which play a role in a lot of my other arguments.

Mike R

Make sure to look at the support document from the librarian on page 16 Item #10. It outlines all of the false frightening and high recidivism that are “repeated in the legislative findings and declarations stated in this bill”. The information then goes on the say this could all be a “myth” and questions if this bill should go forward if based on false information.

Since the defendant has submitted this document and reports it to be undisputed facts, you need to point the above out to the court in support of your position. The legislature based the need for the law on a lie that they knew and were warned could be a lie and yet failed to investigate. That high recidivism as well as the quotes used to describe the “grave concerns” of this particular class of offenders has been proven to be unfounded and yet were the basis for this law and all subsequent additions. That decision by legislature to ignore concerns further proves the bias needed for a Bill of Attainder, cruel and unusual punishment, and equal protection challenge as well as the intent to punish and humiliate instead of being merely a civil regulation.

I do think they will file something to try to dismiss your other claims. I think they are harder to do, and will take more time. Substantive Due Process will be the toughest for them as SCOTUS even hinted that a public registry may fail that challenge and few lawyers have brought it up.

Keep it coming Chris, you are brilliant, I can tell you that. Where’s AJ? He needs to chime in on this so we can get the full force of our collective power going on this crap….Yes that is even more proof that the legislature was told and were aware that their positions concerning recidivism rates were in question but did not act and do any legislative fact finding to confirm any of their stated facts. And like you stated, it is undisputed facts since it came from the AG themselves…. Brilliant…..I am going to continue that argument stating that if they would have researched they would have fund that the recidivism rates are even exponentially lower then what was stated in the proposal by that single study mentioned….The legislature were aware and have been continuously informed by all the state sponsored studies that included that the recidivism rates were the lowest of all ex offenders and in no way close to a frightening and high rate, yet they continue the myth and pile more and more burdens and resources into a non existent, mythical problem.

Not that it came from the AG, you know what I meant. They msut concede that it is undisputed facts since they are including it in their response. I know it states that they will move to dismiss other unspecified claims at some other time, I just want to make sure that they are not trying to pull some tech. on me and have my entire case dismissed if I don’t properly respond. Which I am going to do anyways, but yeah, I will contest any attempt to dismiss. I will make some argument for the involuntary servitude also just to keep it open and valid for the appeals and later hearings.

Do you know how long you have to respond?

Is it that date in January, or is it earlier so they have time to review your response before that date?

One other thing worth mentioning.

I see in the AG report where it talks about how the registry used to leave some people off the public registry for certain sex crimes against family members when it is in the best interest of the family, and acknowledges that without that type of deal the family would not come forward or assist. I don’t know if that is still a part of the law or not. Either way, it shows acknowledgement that sex crimes won’t be reported BECAUSE of how bad the consequences of public registration are when it involves family or friends. This is proof that the registry causes more harm than good, since unreported sex crimes against children will just lead to more victims.

Yes, I don’t know how long they can support this argument that the intentions are good, and downplay or deny that the consequences are real and egregious. It brings to my mind those stories about ancient physicians drawing blood to cure ailments, when that cutting actually draws away the patient’s strength, and makes him more likely to succumb to the disease. Ignorance at some point is an excuse, except when the physician (or the state) has a new body of evidence available and by his duty as a professional to know such things he should know, that at the very least casts doubt on a good outcome. Ignoring that evidence is itself hubris or at least negligence, and I don’t see how a court can say it is stepping over the separation of powers line in using that against the legislatures. One can not be above the facts and still be taken seriously in any court of rational persons, when claims of “good intentions” are made, when information is at hand, even information produced by the state itself that the results are anything but good.

What I meant by a Procedural Due Process claim is if they try to subvert justice and try to intimidate me, get the suit dismissed on a technicality, or do anything unethical or nefarious such as trying to provide the court with misinformation then I have a “procedural” due process claim. A lot of people misuse or don’t understand when or what “procedural” due process is. For those that don’t, it is after you have a case in the court started and there is some type of violation of the judicial process in any way then it is a procedural claim…..

Can a RSO live with children? Like their own or step children? My gf is pregnant with my child but also has a kid of her own and we plan to move in and I can’t find anything about this or any law regarding this issue. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Yes, unless your conviction and sentencing state otherwise.

This is an explosive and emerging issue. First of all, what state are we talking about? Traditionally and for hundreds of years, parenthood and parental rights were seen as sacrosanct and criminal conviction history, even sexual criminal conviction history – unless it involved ones own children – could not sever those parental rights. Now we have seen instances of parents, especially fathers, being denied a role in their children’s lives. Has anyone here kept track of which states are doing this? AJ?

This is in california, is a misdemeanor case. No physical minor contact in my case. Southern california

I have not paid attention to what States are interfering in familial relationships. It’s not an issue in my case, nor does it appear my State does it.

One could certainly sue for the liberty interest deprivation. Whether or not it’d be a win is uncertain, but the State would be the one needing to prove the law is proper and necessary. They can certainly make a compelling interest claim (protecting children is a State interest), but narrowly tailored and other less burdensome means both come into play. Blanket denial of all RCs under a law is not narrowly tailored, as it is ensnaring all risk levels. A less burdensome, proactive, method escapes me. But the State also has a compelling interest in keeping a family unit together, so though their interests are complementary, their methods are in conflict.

In California, if you’re off supervision, then there are no restrictions on whom you live with.

If you’re still on supervision, then you likely have a blanket restrictions of no contact with minors, even if they’re your family. In that case, you need to go back to court and get a weaver for your own kids.

The courts generally do not go out of their way to ask such questions. They’ll simply place a no-contact clause on your supervision record. It’s up to you and your lawyers to bring that up before anything is finalized. A guy we were in group with spend nearly 3 years at a local train station for several hours a day because he had a blanket no contact with minors (non-contact crime, misdemeanor). He had to be out of the house for the period of time between him getting home from work and when his wife came home.

I had a blanket no contact either and couldn’t see my nephew for the duration unless my wife was with me. My PO even stated she’d have no problem with me being around boys but she had to do what the court stated because I didn’t ask for anything else prior to my sentencing.

So California doesn’t have any specific law against this, but courts in general will make this restrictions as a matter of process unless you address it beforehand. And do address it beforehand because it’s a lot harder to correct after the fact.

I’m confused. AlexO says there are no restrictions on association if one is off paper, yet mike r says a Section 3030 says there are restrictions. (@mike r: I recall something in the AG doc referring to a Welfare Code…is this the 3030 you are using? Page and line in the AG doc would be helpful.)

@AJ, here’s the section in question. I don’t really understand it. It sounds like this may more apply to legal disputes of custody rather than live-in situations where both parents are present? I don’t know if it would apply to someone being off paper and then having children with their spouse afterward. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anyone violate section 3030 after they were off paper and living together as a family unit. I know of many guys who have families and nothing like this has every come up that was discussed.

I think this may more apply to going through divorce or looking to adopt and doesn’t inherently remove parental rights and guardianship? I think many RC’s would otherwise be in violation of this as tens of thousands still have a full family.

Thanks for the URL. From my reading, mike r’s statements are spot on. I’ll have to dig back into the AG doc to see why they claim it doesn’t apply…perhaps because one has recourse through a judge?

I found the text I was seeking in the AG document on page 3, in footnote 3. According to the AG, Section 3030 is part of Jessica’s Law, and thus only applies to those on parole. Though this is bad news for mike r’s suit, it’s good news in general for RCs in CA–and answers AlexO’s point about thousands of RCs and paper tiger laws.

It may still merit confirming 3030 does not stand on its own, but is indeed inextricably linked to JL as AG claims.

@AJ, That’s a good find. Thanks! You’re like a walking Wiki for all this stuff lol

What you found seems to fall in line from what I’ve experienced second-hand in the last 4 years, watching guys struggle to keep their families together in spite of courts trying to rip them apart on technicalities.

Regarding your comment that it’s part of Jessica’s Law, and thus only applies to those on paper (maybe parole only?), is Jessica’s Law a law that only applies to those on supervision? I didn’t realize there was something so specific. I always thought named laws like that applied to RC’s in general (like IML and SORNA) and not just for those on supervision.

I’m not a CA resident, so I don’t know the ins and outs of the legal landscape regarding Jessica’s Law. From what I’ve gleaned on here, the CA SC ruled it only applied to parolees. I have no idea if they also said/meant probationers. As for Section 3030 only applying to those subject to Jessica’s Law, again I don’t know. I’m going 100% off what the AG’s office states in the footnote of a court document. The smidgen of digging I did made no mention that 3030 is only applicable to parolees. Without going deeper into it (something well outside my realm of interest), it appears to stand on its own, meaning it’s not only applicable to parolees. That makes me wonder if it was part of a larger legislative “package” that included JL, versus being an element of JL and void outside that. It is definitely something mike r needs to find out for sure…if the AG is wrong or lying, it would certainly hurt their image to the court. (@mike r: were I you, I would try to find a family law attorney who give 30-minute free consultations. Ask her/him if 3030 applies even if off paper.)

It’s an entirely different court when it comes to your own kids or kids you will be living with. You’ll be working with the lovely people at DCFS. Get introduced to Children’s court. I went thru it all. It will help you to get a good family family lawyer as the kids will have their own.

Do you know if this applies to RC’s in general, such as having their own kids after completing their terms, or reintegrating into their family that they’ve had prior to their conviction? For example, my victim was a minor as a non-contact crime. I’ve successfully completed my probation. Can my wife and I now have kids and live like a normal family, or do I need to first get permission from the government to do so?

Consult a family law attorney. Do not trust DCFS if they get involved. They did everything they could to keep our family apart. My hatred is deep for that bs government office run and operated by some really stupid people.

I would review California family code 3030 carefully, it greatly impacted my ability to have contact with and custody of my child from prior to my conviction and greatly impacted my custody of my subsequent children. Your GF could be at risk of having her current child removed from the home as she is putting that child in danger (per the law) and giving the baby-daddy possible ammo for a new custody arrangement. Tread carefully and good luck.

Concerned, CA law says you can’t have unsupervised visits and/or have or live with someone that has physical custody. I don’t believe they are enforcing the law but it is on the books, it is one of this issues in my motion, go check it out. New Person, great response, I am sure I can create an argument out of what you wrote. All this feedback is great, you guys are great, all this free flowing info and diversity is very powerful, especially when I manipulate it and add authorities and citations. I can’t wait to get the feedback from my sociology professor. He has a unique perspective since he is so involed with cdcr and the reintegration and re-entry programs as well as lecturing parole/probation officers on how to treat and help people instead of looking for violations to send them back to prison.I realize I am taking a big risk with the guy but I think I have good instincts when it comes to people’s characters.

Where can i find this law?

This is the first time I’ve come across this code but it does seem like it’s yet another one of those laws that’s on the books but not enforced.

I know of several men who have children, their own, step, and adopted, who didn’t seem to be restricted from being with them because of this law, but rather because they were still on supervision and had a non-contact clause in their probation terms. Once they were off paper, all that seemed to have gone away when it wasn’t directly related to a custodial battle.

It’s seems insane that many RC’s would need to first get a legal permission from to start a biological family of their own after or continue with them after they’ve completed their sentence. Then again, the whole thing is insane. Now I really want to know to whom this law applies and if it’s one of those paper tiger laws or a real thing?

“Now I really want to know to whom this law applies and if it’s one of those paper tiger laws or a real thing?”
There’s no such thing as a “paper tiger” law, especially when it applies to RCs. All laws can be enforced at any time.

True. But we do have laws (and RC laws) that seem to only live on the books while not enforced. California in general still has a 2000 foot minimum law for all RC’s as a blanket. But even in the documentation we receive at our annual registration it states that it’s currently not being enforced. You’ve also seen several posts here from Janice about the lawsuits of such laws that she’s battled and won on the city and county level (residency restrictions and Halloween thing).

Yes, and I’m rather sure she battles them (and spends money doing so) for more than their being unenforced laws. I suspect she wants 1) to change the narrative by removing them, and 2) getting them off the books just in case the winds shift. Removing them just because would amount to little more than tilting at windmills (

1. I am largely restricted from directing the care and upbringing of my children and my grandchildren, not only by these types of local ordinances but by actual state laws that severely restrict whether I can live with them or interact with them unsupervised, in violation of my liberty interest in the upbringing of my children or grandchildren. See CA Family Code sect. 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, (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.” So this makes it virtually impossible for me to reside with my children/grandchildren, or even my family, in any residence if they have children. I cannot even enjoy any normal activities with my children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc. unless I am under constant supervision. This makes it impossible for me to have any semblance of a normal relationship with my family or friends. If I am reading this correctly it also means that my wife, other children, brothers, sisters, mother-in-law or any other person cannot have physical or legal custody or unsupervised visits if I cohabit with them.
In addition to the restraints and burdens stemming from the registry laws inclusive, registrants are also subject to severe social penalties stemming from the Government’s continued assertion, and resultant public belief, that presence on the registry indicates that an individual is likely to recidivate. See CA Family code sect. 3030, (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”.1. Also see, International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders. Pub. Law No. 114–119, 130 Sta. 15 (2016). (IML), which is implicitly stating that I am a danger to young children in other countries.
2. The fact that the government is disseminating my conviction and personal information internationally, created codes that prevent me from having physical or legal custody of, or being in contact with, any minors, including my own children/grandchildren unsupervised and has created residency and presence restrictions is prima facie evidence that the government is implicitly stating that I am a danger to children. See para 11, 13-14, 17-18, and para 120, 148.

Right. I see what you mean. My case however did not involve contact with any minor nor was it a felony but it was a misdemeanor.

The CA Family code 3030 states you can have custody if the judge puts the mitigating reasons in writing. This doesn’t seem like an outright ban but puts a lot of burden of proof on you, instead of the government.
I got to reunify, but I don’t know how. That was not that many years before this statute was written, and it seemed at the time the goal was reunification, unless there was some reason outside the offense itself, even if the victim was part of the family. How things have changed, and really in a short amount of time. The state seems to have no problem breaking up families, under color of protecting a minor. Seems like they have made it more difficult for the former offender to recover, but also for the family to reunify. We are all assumed to be irredemable truants by the all knowing paternal state.

I know that back in the late 1980’s the Juvenal court firmly believed that reunification was the best policy for children and their parents. The law required that the court spend at least a year attempting reunification with the help of any resources the court felt necessary. Often the court would enlist the help of a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) volunteer. The CASA volunteer would help with supervised visits and work with all others involved. The CASA volunteer would report their findings and custody opinions directly to the Judge.

I am talking about 2000. There was even a non-profit existing in my area to enable healing between victim, offender and spouses, and the goal was reunification in families, if parties were willing. About 2002 it was abandoned and the containment model was instituted. Things were moving more with emphasis on changing the offender’s thought patterns than healing wounds. Therapy became a business more than a cause. I guess it was a last gasp of the optimistic 60’s. Now it appears a cynicism has sunk in. Once you commit a sex crime you are treated as a dangerous commodity, rather than someone who has caused a sever imbalance, but one that can be righted, and you are now segregated so you can’t cause any harm. Contained. The baby boomers who seem to do most of the voting, could care less about the future now. They don’t have much time left. Why bother, just lock them up somewhere. The whole perspective has changed.

Ya they are going to have a hell of a time refuting my claims……This one for example, one of many, has no defense by the AG.

If anyone comes across something important or relevant to my case remember to post it here on general since I can not check every other topic simply because of the time restraints that I am under right now. Thanks…..

@mike r:
I’ve finally read through the AG’s filing for dismissal of the four claims. I have some thoughts, but I need some clarification. Where does your situation fall on the spectrum between Smith and Snyder? From the AG’s filing, you’re something less than Snyder, since there are no residency restrictions upon you. From what we all endure, you’re something beyond Smith. I’m not asking for a hard, “legal” answer, more just a general list of what items you are mandated to do under CA law, and what items you’re prevented from doing. This means that, “nobody will hire me because of the Registry,” and similar don’t count.

Mind you, the AG’s statement that it’s all non-punitive and thus should be tossed is exactly the rub between State and citizen. Of *course* the State maintains that position! That said, we need to fight with facts and truths, not anecdotes and surmisals.

@AJ; @Mike R- Here is a web site from the Justice Center.Org showing “Collateral Consequences” / restrictions for CA sex offenses and the corresponding codes. 298 listed items.

(select ‘sex offenses’ under offenses tab.)

Thanks for this URL, it’s quite handy. It could certainly be helpful for anyone considering a move to a “friendlier” jurisdiction. I see PR has only 16 collaterals.

I heard that Alabama wants to pass a law to have all registered citizens whose conviction is against minor to be castrated.

@ T ,,,,, ,, the registry is pretty much castration , castration of life , for life

My crime did not involve a sexual act, but this conviction did effectively castrate me. I have had no desire for sex with anyone for almost 20 years now. I would imagine the registry has had this effect on many of us. Chemical castration would be my least concern from the harms of the registry.

Has anyone here in California ever applied for a State License with an expunged felony or does the board still deny the license even if the charges were dismissed?

All RCs in Illinois anxiously awaiting the final meeting of the Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force on Thursday. The committee will discuss and vote on the final report that will be presented to the Illinois General Assembly next year. No call in number has been provided, so if you would like to hear this discussion, you will need to attend the Chicago meeting (1-5pm at 300 W. Adams, Chicago in the 2nd floor conference room). Illinois Voices will have representatives there and will send out an email after the meeting to let us know what was discussed.

I’ll post the Illinois Voices email when I get it, and possibly the entire report.

It’s just possible that all of us lifers here (almost everyone) will be allowed some relief, based on crime and years since conviction. This Task Force was set up by the state legislature, so even with the hostile politics, its recommendations might be accepted.

Hey AJ, Chris, New Person>>>> and any others helping our cause, >>>>here is my email just in case somehow this site or my abilities to communicate on a forum arises I will still be able to keep in contact with you guys. Email me if you can so that I will have your contacts too. Thanks…..
So I cannot really find no definitive answer on how long I have to reply to the AG’s response with my opposition but as soon as I am done with this semester in a week or so I can concentrate on this.