ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

General 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.

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

@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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

=============== 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… Read more »

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.… Read more »

@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,… Read more »

THanks! 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… Read more »

@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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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,… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

@AlexO: 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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

“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… Read more »

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.… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

@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.… Read more »

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.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x