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 December 2017

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

David, Thank you for your reply. I passed it on to one of our people in our advocacy group Nebraskans Unafraid who wanted information on Justice Kozinsky.

Did anyone hear anything in any news media about the train derailment at DuPoint, Washington and some guy who was among the dead was convicted of CP was identified by the media, what does everyone think about this?

Man I really don not know what to do or how to approach this opposition. My original complaint isn’t very precise in staking claims. Should I amend it? Can I use this opposition to stake claims more precisely? I am going to have 4 affidavits from individuals signed and notarized confirming my harassment claims can I include them in this opposition? I am trying to figure this out but man this is complicated ….

Chris I am going to post what I have on my site and then update after every section. I think I may be coming very close to what needs to be included in this opposition. Let me know what you guys think……

@mike r:
It is my belief the claims need to be made in the Complaint. And really, amending the Complaint plays in your favor, as it automatically pushes the timeline back, all while you have the State’s objections in hand! I fear that no matter what you say, if the judge cannot find a statement of harm in a claim, it’s gone, period. Look at it this way, do you want to find out the hard way that you should’ve amended?

Perhaps good news? Justice Kennedy hired a full complement of clerks (including Clayton Kozinkski, as previously mentioned in a Slate article about his father, Alex) for the 2018 OT (i.e. 2018-2019). While not a solid statement he’s staying on the bench, it sure beats his not hiring any.

That’s interesting; I read a few days ago that Kozinski had been a “feeder” to Kennedy of interns over the years having recommended most of them. Glad his kid’s in there, assuming he’s as libertarian as his old man.

I have an observation and two questions regarding 290, which I’m reading over to be a little better educated in helping mike r.

Observation: 290.015(a)(7) lists the various proofs of residency a RC may/must use at registration, including, “or any other information that the registering official believes is reliable.” Ok, so if the registering official believes it to be reliable, what basis is there for a compliance check? The Legislature has already deemed the lesser of annual or relocation as the criteria for information to be updated with the State…what makes LE justify anything stricter? What reasonable suspicion is there, given it’s already been deemed reliable (even just days later, using Lake County’s recent example)?

Questions: Where in 290, or elsewhere, does it say one cannot be on school property? I haven’t the law with a fine-toothed comb, and managed to miss it. Also are there any other presence restrictions for RCs in CA?


BTW AJ, they’ve stopped coming by my place. Maybe they’ll try again this summer? At least it’s better than 10 years ago when 8 of them would show up with U.S. Marshals all dressed in swat gear.

So you actually have had, previously, a gang of U.S. Marshalls descend upon you? I knew that this happened in some states but wasn’t sure if it varied by state and had something to do with local collaboration with the Marshalls. Fortunately, I’ve never seen them at my door and have only had local (San Francisco) police stop by except for when I was on parole several decades back and had a squad of interagency task forcers, including the State Attorney General’s Office (Dan Lungren) swarm my house like locusts. Were they accompanied by local or state law enforcement?

AJ, I believe the statute you’re looking for is Statute 3000.5 or something thereabouts. It is not in 290 – it is in a differently numbered statue that contains a whole list of restrictions including the school presence restriction.

Thanks, but I think 3000.5 is part of Jessica’s Law, and therefore only applicable to those on parole. I know I *just* read it somewhere (maybe the injunction ACSOL got?) and it was in the Education Code. Good old (stress on “old” more than “good”) me figured I’d remember it, and didn’t save or write it down. Grrr…

Hi All:


I need a little research help here. Yes I have tried Google and maybe I’m not using the right search words, but I’m not getting what I need.

I’m going, again, for my California Certificate of Rehabilitation. Unfortunately I’m going for it in Orange County which apparently, I’ve heard makes it a little bit tougher. So I need a couple of things to counter the DA’s pat arguments regarding RSO’s.
Here’s what I’m looking for:

1. I’ve heard of the California sex Offender Management Board putting forth the stat that after 10 years an offender who has not reoffended is no more likely to offend than anybody else.
Can someone please tell me the citation for the study or studies that say this?
If they are out there, more than one would be nice.

2. I can’t remember who I heard saying it, maybe it was Janice in some writing from some time ago, but I also heard the statistic that, as a group, the only ones LESS likely to reoffend than sex offenders after release from prison are murderers.
I would like to know the citation for where that statistic is flushed out.

I know prosecutors and the tough-on-crime crowd like to massage the statistic to make it look like sex offenders are at a high risk of reoffending and therefore return to prison. But I believe to get there they include non sex crimes related crimes someone who has to register may commit and/or probation or parole violations so they can say, “See look at all these sex offenders being returned to prison. Look at their giant recetasvism rate”.

So any info on the above would be helpful.

I just want to throw one thing out there that maybe some attorney helping a sex offender with a Certificate of Rehabilitation might want to throw it a court.

You know, the law outlines what it is that makes one eligible for Certificate of Rehabilitation. But then they go on to say that judges have a lot of discretion in the matter.
But you know, that’s pretty ridiculous.

A petitioner should not have to be subject to unknown or arbitrary requirements, that can vary from jurist to jurist, hiding under the guise of judicial discretion.
Because then you have the potential of never being able to meet the requirements. Of never meeting an unknown standard that’s just not good enough.


Michael, here is CASOMB 2015 report.

They site that a registrants propensity to reoffend after 10 and 15 yrs offense free is “negligible” and their recommendations to the legislature was/ is that an offense free registrant should just fall off the registry when they hit their 10 or 20 year tier benchmark .

Thank you. Appreciate it

Do a Google search on Ira Ellman. He is a great source for reoffense rates.

AJ, here’s a list of CA local ordinances..See 32 pages of local ordinances for California alone,
Yes AJ, I do believe I should amend and spell out my claims precisely. The AG just called me again today and asked if I could reschedule once again for Feb. 14 at 10am. I agreed, after all I really do not want to antagonize them and she is being really straightforward with me. She even gave me a heads up and reminder to check out Federal rule 26 (f), so that I can prepare, that sometime around Feb 21 according to the Federal rule 26 (f) we will have to have a phone conference between her and the US AG and myself. She stated once again that she would not object to me stating my claim as being against the local ordinances and not Jessica’s Law and that the court would most likely except that proposition in my opposition. I know it’s going to be all out war but I have to admit so far she has been truly approachable ans seems to have some empathy towards my plight. Or at least some sort of respect…..I have to take some time to get Christmas in order so I will check out how to amend my compliant soon. If you got that info AJ or anyone post it…Thanks…

I sure hope you are receiving letters to confirm these date changes. I wouldn’t put full trust in anything she tells you. At least call the court and verify any new dates if you don’t receive a letter. Verify everything she says to you especially on the issue of making your claim against the local ordinances and not Jessica’s Law. Her point may make things easier for you, but you’ll have greater impact if you can win against Jessica’s law. Just my thoughts…

Quite the Valentine’s Day present there, @mike r, from the CA AG office

@mike r:
From what I have gleaned reading the Federal Rules and the Local Rules for the CA Eastern District, your window of opportunity for filing an amended complaint as a matter of course (i.e. simply because you choose to do so) has expired. Under Rule 15(a)(1), you had 21 days from serving it (expired), or 21 days after receiving the Rule 12(b) Motion (which is what the AG filed…and has expired). This moves you to Rule 15(a)(2), which means you need the Defendants’ or court’s agreement to file the amended complaint. From what I read (, it’s fairly common for the opposing party to agree to the complaint; as well, if they party opposes, judges more often than not agree to the amendment in order to avoid wasting the court’s time arguing over things.

For some help with how to file the amended complaint, check out & Before you get all wound up in dong the court documents, first simply ask the Defendants (both CA AG and US AG) for their written agreement to allow you to file an amended complaint. If one or both oppose the amendment, you then must ask the court to allow you to amend.

The benefit of the doubt is on your side when asking the court to allow amending the complaint, however every day you wait chips away at that benefit. I hope this helps!

@Mike R,

just for future reference on any legal document, you might want to know the difference between except and accept. They both sound alike, but have two different meanings.

accept – means to say yes to an agreement. eg: I accept this proposal to delay until Feb 14.

except – means to not include, as in an exception. eg: 1203.4 removes all penalties and disabilities except for registrants.

So proof read what you wrote b/c it could be used against you in a legal document.

I believe amending the complaint may throw them for a little loop also with precise claims…..Make it a little more interesting…LOL….

I thought I’d share this YouTube video I just found with everyone. It’s about an investor that is teaching people how to make money investing in trailer parks. The 1st 3 min of the video are about investing in trailer parks for registrants, because they don’t cause any problems and they will want to live there until the day they die. It would certainly help many registrants if more investors were willing to do this. What other group would be more willing to keep their rent paid and not complain about any of the living conditions.


@lake county ,,,,, ,, this is the kind of thing I have been talking about forever now , me and my family are ready to move in something like this ,

Merry Christmas everyone!!!

Living in our own community does sound good. However the one that is shown in the video like many others understandably do not allow children since many have restrictions from being near kids. And I don’t think children should have to endure the stigma of living at such a place.

@Lake County ,,,,, ,, yes you make a good point , but many of us don’t have little kids , like my youngest is 25 , but other trailer parks could be opened for the RC’s that can live with and around children , and a large park can be split , I know of one that’s for sale or was for sale that also had A lot of room to expand , it was out on 58 Hwy , there was single wides as well as double wides and a few campers , there is camping all over out there , “Dirt Bike haven” hour and a half from the lake , and where I go camping out there your 45 min from Red Rock canyon , great hiking , , tons of stuff to do , snow top mountains few mile away in the right time of the year , if I had the bucks I would have already opened that place out there , but I am seeing them for sale all the time , a good tight community could do wonders with theses places , as well as farm some of it , there are more stuff open than I can list , but all the same at least its action , that helps many familys, RC familys , all these things can be worked out for everyone , I seen one park that was for 55 and older m and the other half of the park is for familys with kids , and that place looks like its about to go out of biz, and its in the county , and that’s really a big deal if your an RC here , because when if your county zoned when you go to do your price club you go to the county rather than the city , and that’s BIG , because the county treats you with respect and it takes longer to do your paper work than the rest , the city is always trying to mess your day up , they are very rude and yell your biz out so everyone know’s that sitting there , , anyway hahaha ! hope you had a great Christmas , and I pray for a better new year for all .

You can build houses out of local materials, even mud (adobe). Children are a part of any community and can learn how to build houses and provide food. Not a bad education. It is missing from today’s childhood. I used to build “forts” in the woods, real ax in hand. As an adult I can now build almost anything. A community of registrants can provide for the safety of kids. Maybe more so, because we know what behaviors cause problems. Experiences and life education are good things if learned from and not pushed out of mind nor devalued as failure.

Yes, but it doesn’t sound like much of a community if there are no kids. I would hope that such a voluntary community would not put restrictions on ages of its residents if at all possible. Just how much can the authorities restrict parolees and probationers from living near kids? It’s not like they would be living in the same dwelling. After all, if it’s a trailer park then each trailer is a separate residence which should be regarded as no different than if they were separate houses on a block.

@ David K ,,,,, ,, Good Points , I am not a builder , but I know a lot about gardening , as well as live stock , we would be a great team , people from all walks , there is always some thing to learn , and teach , Tim Moore has some very good skills that could help everyone , and I bet we all have something very cool to offer , hell my son is a good worker , its to bad i new very little about building , I built forts in the woods when i was a kid too , but they were not pretty , i could build survival shelters pretty good , would love to see a community come together , RC’s putting the good thing out there , growing food for us to live on , and selling , i get stoked every time i think about things like this , face it we all have positive things to pass down

I wish my property was bigger than it is, I would invite some over to see what we can do. Maybe even a vinyard. Local produce is very big here. I have aboit 54 years growing plants starting at 6 planting some carrots next to the garage. There is a guy near me that is doing sustainable farming and self sufficient energy generation for his property as well as hosting tiny houses and having straw bale house building parties to show how low cost housing doesn’t have to be barbaric. He has a big retirement so he can do that sort of stuff as a hobby. I am sure a community would need some investment income. I am just trying now to hang onto what I have, but kind of dream about it now and again.

I wish you had a bigger place as well Bro , your one of those people that are key to making things happen , dang sure one that I would call friend , maybe a little fishing , lol , me and mine don’t even leave the parking lot here , if we leave to go camping someone WILL break in and steal what little we do have , and our rent is far to high for this little dump room , stay low and safe Bro ps ,you friend has a cool pass time

Yeah, I like the meetings and conferences, but atmosphere is important and wouldn’t mind a fishing trip or a boat to Catalina Island. Why? because we should claim anything citizens should have, and if they are calling this a Price Club membership we can make it a membership with benefits.

I subscribe to the “ICE” news releases so that I may be reminded of how depraved our government has become in the form of frequent accounts of their many predations. Here’s one I received today: “Southern Arizona man sentenced to 340 years in prison for possessing and distributing a large collection of child pornography”

“The investigation into Kimball Hoff, 61, began in October 2015 when HSI special agents received information regarding child pornography being downloaded and shared from a specific internet protocol address. On Oct. 27, 2015, HSI special agents executed a search warrant at Hoff’s Pima County residence.”

Nothing like excessive penalties and punishments. I suspect the Government stacked the charges, which should be unconstitutional. (I believe the Feds also have successfully claimed that each frame of a CP movie is an individual image and thus chargeable as a standalone offense.) Unless there are some strong contributing factors in the case, I foresee the sentence greatly reduced.

Maybe I’ll drive to his house and talk with him about it…. 😉

A.J., would you do that, please? And then report back to us, sparing no details. I’m sure he won’t mind.

I see they did jurisdiction shopping here. The investigation started with the feds but they turned the actual prosecution over to Arizona, which has especially draconian penalties for CP.

(***@mike r, this should be of particular importance to you!***)

Items in the news of late (Sanctuary Cities/States; Christie v. NCAA currently at SCOTUS) led me to wonder about the extent of Federal Government’s power to force a State to comply with Federal Law. I was pleasantly informed: “States Don’t Have to Comply: The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” (

After reading this, it appears the AG in @mike r’s case is being somewhat duplicitous about the claim that CA was required to pass SORNA. (AG even cited the Section of AWA for effect.) Not only has SCOTUS four times said the Feds cannot force States to pass laws, in Sebellius it perhaps delved even deeper, challenging the “carrot and stick” trick Congress routinely uses: “the Court ruled that the federal government cannot force the states to act against their will by withholding funds in a coercive manner.” (See also: loss of funding if States don’t pass .08 DUI laws; loss of funding if States don’t substantially implement AWA.) I have yet to read Sebellius, but it’s definitely now on my to-do list.

P.S. Apparently SC had it right all those years ago…Nullification lives and breathes!


Thanks for that informative info.

Because some information is not “informative.” 🙂

Yes AJ, I just found that rule 15 and added it right before I opened up the post today….I am going to go over my motion to see if I do actually need to amend because the only issues the AG has brought up so far are the ones that I rushed through and didn’t pay that much attention to and are the weakest. I think I can wait and ask the court for leave at the hearing or after I have an idea of what the US AG has to say. I do not know yet. I am still researching it….Also, Got it New Person, I will definitely watch that….Oh by the way, something good happened last night and it is also something to my advantage, I just got married last night in Reno…And the Stipulation from the AG is on my site….

@mike r:
Amending prior to trial will go across a LOT easier with the judge and the opposition. The idea of allowing amendments is to get it right *before* court, particularly to avoid wasting the court’s time. I counsel against waiting until trial. Also, I feel your claims that make no claim, as the AG has pointed out, will have a tough time surviving. Each and every claim needs to show how it applies to (i.e. harms) you personally. Your claims need to be more scalpel (as applied), and less chainsaw (generality).

Agreed with AJ… Make the case personal to you. That’s how Colorado was able to get Judge Matsch to call the registry cruel and unusual.

You got this mike!

Oh and congrats on getting married!


Just as Millard, et al was in CO, precise, not hacks.

Congrats mike r, that’s awesome!

I assume that your nuptials were such a typically Nevadan whirlwind affair (possibly even a drive-through chapel?) that you were not there long enough to have to register? That would have been ironic, indeed 🙂

Congratulations, Mike!

Congratz on marriage Mike R!!!

I’m away for the holidays so won’t be able to help much until next week.

Like AJ and others say, make it personal and get it amended sooner than later. Real life specific examples of negative affects and how relief would help.

Happy Holidays to all!

As for not complying with Feds, didn’t CA declare itself a sanctuary state? Also, marijuana is legal in CA, but not federally.

@New Person:
I’m not sure what your message is supposed to be saying. Are you bolstering the idea of state sovereignty (read: 10th Amendment rights), or trying to counter it?

This is hilarious/outrageous! Just had to share it with all of you this holiday! Think of it as a gift.
If you’re not familiar with the pygmy chimpanzee / Bonobos’ culture, you may want to Google that.

… “Bonobo Embarrassed After Walking In On….”

This one’s pretty good, too:

Here is this years list of Pardons from CA Governor Jerry Brown. I don’t think any of us made that list, again.
He did pardon someone for providing drugs to a minor, but it’s not like drugs could mess up a kid for life (right?).

Apparently you can be pardoned for willful cruelty to a child, inflicting injury on a child, and first degree murder of a toddler, too.

The only crime even remotely close to a sex crime that was pardoned was for prostitution. I don’t think one has to 290 register for that, though. I also saw someone pardoned for kidnapping which is actually a registerable offense.

Thanks you guys, Appreciate your comments. AJ I will look into that. I need to know exactly how I do it and what I should include……

@mike r:
” AJ I will look into that. I need to know exactly how I do it and what I should include.”
I assume you’re referring to amending your Complaint? My the lower portion of my earlier post has some good guidance:

From what I gathered, you need written approval from the opposing parties (since you sued both US and CA AG, you’ll need approval from both), or file for approval from the judge (this may be wiser, as I expect you’ll need to get in forma pauperis approval again, too). As for the amended Complaint itself, it appears you go through the same process you did when filing the original–and must not refer to the original Complaint in any manner.
Well played and congratulations on the marriage, my friend! Sorry for being late to the party in acknowledging it: I missed it in the first reading, then have been indisposed over Christmas weekend.

Thank you AJ.

Here is the beginning of my Bill of Attainder claim…

Defendant claims that I did have a judicial trial which I was found guilty of the offenses that require registration. This interpretation of the scope of a Bill of Attainder challenge and a judicial trial is erroneous. Simply stating that I had a judicial trial is not evidence that I had a trial in which a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that I pose a significant risk of recidivism which is the staple of the sex offender registration scheme. I could not present evidence, make objections, or where I could defend myself against such an act of legislature. Furthermore, I did not have the opportunity to defend myself during sentencing by offering mitigating factors in opposition to my inclusion on the sex offender registration schemes. Nor did I have an opportunity to appeal any decision regarding my inclusion on the sex offender registries. The United States Constitution contains several provisions related to criminal sentencing. … The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits increasing the maximum authorized sentence for an offense based on a fact not found by a jury. The Supreme Court has held that every fact that increases the maximum authorized sentence or minimum mandatory sentence must be named in the charging instrument, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt—whether or not statutory law labels that fact as an element of the offense or a sentencing factor. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), overruling Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999); Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151, overruling Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002).

there goes the CA presence and residency prohibitions. better now then later.
just made my case a little weaker but oh well. its good for us all…

Mike, shouldn’t that be proof that some laws enacted are unconstitutional? That’s a point for you.

So, one good thing is that INTERPOL is getting a really bad reputation for helping to develop a global police state through its system of notifications and detentions. It’s not just so-called “sex offenders” they’re pissing off but political protesters, journalists, whistle-blowers, HRW, Amnesty and ACLU types.
“Has Interpol become a tool of oppression?” ]

@David Kennerly @AJ

Can the misuse of INTERPOL then be challenged locally for how the USA uses them with their notification system of travelers since INTERPOL’s mission is to fight crime, etc, not notify fellow INTERPOL countries of travelers based on history and unsubstantiated suppositions where a crime is not and will not be committed, especially since the USA is the #1 contributor to INTERPOL? I’d feel this could fall under a misuse of government funding by those who believe they have good intentions (yeah, right), but in the end are actually breaking the law?

Side note for all here –

INTERPOL is funded by member nations (in addition to other entities, e.g private entities, foundations, et al) like the UN is funded by member nations :

The USA has a stake in the success of INTERPOL and, therefore, you have a stake in INTERPOL as an American. The USA is the#1 contributor to INTERPOL and goes through the Dept of Justice (parent agency) to contribute (Interpol Washington, the U.S. National Central Bureau, coordinates law enforcement activities between U.S. agencies and their international counterparts).

Because RCs want to travel overseas unhindered regardless of their destination, the fight now comes to you, the RC, to speak up on, if you want. The information is here, become informed.

Given SCOTUS has already said the Government can make unfounded disparaging comments about you (, winning a case where they are making factual ones surely won’t go far. (I know, don’t call you Shirley. RIP Leslie Nielsen.)

RC stuff aside, I think we, the human race, are in the beginning of a global shift in trust of and reliance upon the State–including global organizations such as Interpol. I think Edward Snowden got the (snow? 🙂 ) ball rolling by exposing the unconstitutional BS Uncle Sam does on a routine basis (BTW, if you haven’t watched “Citizenfour”, I *highly* recommend you do!). After that, Brexit was another salvo in repudiating the wisdom of the faceless State (here, the EU bloated bureaucracy); Trump’s election another (regardless what party you support, he’s disrupting D.C.-as-usual); the various close elections in France, Austria, and the Netherlands also are fair examples. I’m sure there are more out there, but they slip my mind right now (chime in @David K.?). Populism is on the rise around the world, and the entrenched governmental systems are in the cross hairs.


Thanks for the movie tip, I will be sure to find and watch it. Surely (don’t call me Surely), it will be captivating based on the topic alone. Maybe there is a tide changing time period coming.

Interesting, I heard tonight somewhere in the news, many countries are getting pissed off about ramped up American detentions and screenings at foreign airports. Germany in particular is complaining about it.

After reading my Complaint once again I believe that I have stated claims in every instance although the Ex Post Facto claim was not stated accurately since I stated I was challenging Jessica’s Law when I was in fact challenging all the local and national ordinances, which the CA local ords. are now moot. All the rest of her reasoning is based upon the registry as not being punishment. Although the Complaint is over kill in some instances I do think it sufficiently states claims at the end of each claim and that in each instance there is evidence and support for each of those claims in the text of the arguments. I knew those last issues starting exactly at claim six were hard ones to argue and that they all rely on the fact that the registry will be considered punishment, if not there is no claim. No where does the Motion to Dismiss state that the language of my motion fails to state a claim…It concludes: no subject matter jurisdiction; not punishment; had a fair trial.

Here’s a thought. All these dead beat fathers who neglect their children by not paying court ordered child support, isn’t that child abuse? And if they use that child against their mother in court proceedings, isn’t that exploitation?

I am almost done with the complete first draft and will post tonight to my site.

@mike r:
Sure, just as I have some stuff for review, you’re almost done. Check out (exp. 12/29/2017) for my additions and suggestions.

I had further thoughts about the wisdom of amending your complaint to ensure each claim actually has a claim: the Court may well dismiss them with prejudice! ( That would be very bad for your case. Besides, with the Jessica’s Law and residency restriction issues in there, it’d be good to sweep them out via amendment.

Yeah, sorry AJ. Your markups are all great, but remember I believe that I have to stay around 20 pages, at least every example I have seen has been right around 20 pages and the rules of civil procedure state that I have to be in the 20 page mark. As far as amending my Complaint, I truly do not see a reason why I should. I have stated clear claims and have personalized the claims as much as possible. This is a good strategy I believe in the way I am doing this in that when the AG responds I have the opportunity to really narrow it down and slam the opposition with facts and case law that is already included in my Complaint as well as outside the Complaint. I do not see a disadvantage as to leave the opposition a challenge to figure out how to respond to my Compliant. Like I stated, no where in the Motion to Dismiss does it state that the text was insufficient to state a claim and I do not believe that it is insufficient. Just as with this opposition I have a chance to really hammer the Defendant’s claims and have really pigeonholed the AG as to what type of response they may use. Do not get me wrong I am totally considering it and am in conflict whether I should or should not but as of now I do not believe I need to. I believe the strongest claims I have are the reporting requirements, right to reputation, freedom of travel and association (presence prohibitions, reporting requirements and IML), substantive due process, equal protection (this one is on the fence), arbitrary actions. None of these claims rely on the punishment issue and have already be proven to be successful in many instances.
I am going to wait to do any update or revisions until I see your revision on the entire opposition, if your are going to make one. If not let me know and I will just continue using your suggestions and what I have.
Thanks man, I appreciate it.

Just because the AG states that I didn’t state claims doesn’t make it true. In fact the AG concedes that I did have specificity in my claims (since there was no mention or challenge of this fact) and relies heavily on the fact that the registry is not punishment as her reasoning for me stating a claim….

@mike r:
I’ve downloaded your latest (as of 5:25 PT; 12/27) document, and will pick through it in the coming days. Twenty pages, eh? Hmm…I’ll have to work on my verbosity. 🙂

What’d you think of my “bonus” at the end? The AG comes across like an idiot for claiming the Feds can force a State to comply with a regulation. I think they’re trying to point fingers and say, “it’s not our fault we have this system, Uncle Sam makes us do it.” Nothing is farther from the truth. As a side note, I suspect a State could win a challenge to the withholding of the 10% of funds if non-SORNA. It’d be a tough fight, but possible. I have no dog in that fight, but I wonder how many States would continue the system if they could dump it and still get all their money.

Also, since you’ve apparently seen my document, I have deleted it from gofile. If you need it back/again, let me know.

No if you are going to revise my latest doc I do not need the other one. Yes I did like how you made the AG look like an idiot but we have to save space since we are limited to approx. 20 pages, I say Approx. because all the examples that I read either go over a page or two in some cases. After reading the AG’s motion more she really is a dimwit or they just do not have any authorities to back up their arguments. Every case I have read so far totally debunks any thing the AG states in that they all have statements that the cases are not different then the Smith case and that every case she mentions relies on Smith, it is a domino and every domino I tip from the latest case in Clark v Ryan which relies on Hatton v Bonner which slams the assumption that registration is not an affirmative disability since every aspect of current registration is in direct conflict in what the court stated. If you haven’t read it I suggest you do. None of the cases she cites is relevant here. At least not the ones that I have read so far. I am down to Doe v California Department of Corrections (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) and this case simply relies upon Smith v Doe again. The Ex Post Facto claim is limited in my case though since the only things that are retro to me are IML, Presence and residency prohibitions (other states and locals), and AWA. and i am trying to find when ca family code sec 3030 was enacted. Another issue that may be a real issue that the US AG might use. I am not going to mention it since I do not want to give it up if they do not think about it, but it has potential to harm my case against Federal SORNA. Anyways I look forward to your revisions AJ.

mike r, where can I find this document? I’d like to see it in it’s entirety.

AJ, you have to remember in Paul they determined that it takes a stigma plus to violate you right to reputation. In Bani v. Hawaii established that there was stigma plus so he was granted a hearing and further cases also demonstrated stigma plus. It is in my Complaint under right to reputation.
Here is my completed draft of my Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.It’s on my site at under Opposition to Dismiss. Check it out and throw some feedback at me. We have until at least Jan. 10 no matter what…

Either way, proving defamation due to release of public records is a very steep climb.

Was anyone aware that the California Supreme Court ruled sex offender registration to be a punishment, back in 1983? Even 33 years ago, before the internet and all of the other hoops we jump through today, the Court realized just how punitive (their words) registration is.

I pay pretty close attention to this site and I’m not sure I’ve seen these casescited here.

“More serious crimes not related to sex, such as robbery, burglary, or arson, do not require registration, though violence and victimization are more pronounced and recidivism is often proved. A felon convicted of such crimes may serve his time and be done with it; while a misdemeanant convicted of a non-violent section 647(a) offense in a semi-private restroom, involving no victim as such, must carry the onus of sex offender registration for a lifetime. This discrepancy demonstrates the relative severity of the punishment imposed for section 647(a) violations.“

“n Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963) 372 U.S. 144 [9 L. Ed. 2d 644, 83 S. Ct. 544], the United States Supreme Court enumerated the following factors for consideration on this issue: “Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence, whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned are all relevant to the inquiry, and may often point in differing directions.” (Fns. omitted; id. at pp. 168-169 [9 L.Ed.2d at p. 661].) We find that by this standard sex offender registration is punitive.

First, we are convinced that such registration is an “affirmative disability or restraint.” In Kelly v. Municipal Court, supra, 160 Cal.App.2d at page 41, the court described the requirement as one of the “penalties and disabilities” imposed on certain convicted misdemeanants.”

Here’s another tidbit from one of the cases you linked:

FN 8. The dissent by Justice Richardson suggests that mandatory sex offender registration is non-punitive. If such were the case registration necessarily would be regulatory. Surely in this context a regulation mandating sex offender registration for the misdemeanants in question would run afoul of the requirement of procedural due process (see Goss v. Lopez (1975) 419 U.S. 565 [42 L. Ed. 2d 725, 95 S. Ct. 729]; People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 260 [158 Cal. Rptr. 316, 599 P.2d 622]) if not also of the guarantee of substantive due process (see Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441 [37 L. Ed. 2d 63, 93 S. Ct. 2230]; Atkisson v. Kern County Housing Authority (1976) 59 Cal. App. 3d 89 [130 Cal.Rptr. 375]). It may be that Penal Code section 290 incorporates an aspect of both punishment and regulation for all registrable offenses. We are satisfied, nonetheless, that because registration of misdemeanants convicted under section 647(a), falls well within the rubric of punishment, we need not reach the issue whether, as regulatory, the registration requirement would violate the right to due process.

It does make one want research more as to what is run afoul here when registration is regulatory.

@New Person, @AJ, et al

Given the dissent, then in my mind, it reinforces the fact that anything while on paper is acceptable as regulatory, etc, but afterward without a SDP assessment that concludes continued on paper actions are needed, e.g. registration, etc, anyone should be able to be removed from all regulatory motions once on paper time is completed. I don’t know why that comes to my mind, but that is how I am seeing this possibly going, e.g. on paper v off paper regulatory actions. Does this make sense?

Still would love to a EU Right to be Forgotten law instituted in this country,

This is a good find and a nostalgic look back at the California Supreme Court as it was constituted in 1983, before Rose Bird was drummed out of her chambers by the braying mob. Too, there was Jeff Brown as San Francisco’s Public Defender. I don’t know what we could do with this, i.e. a court calling registration punishment but it couldn’t hurt to cite it, I would guess.

Yeah, it’s been mentioned before, but I don’t know that anyone has dug into it. I certainly haven’t, but it is on my “to do” list for mike r’s case. Thank you for posting the links to the cases. It will be interesting to see what changed in the legal world that shifted it from punitive to non-punitive. I do recall someone on here further citing the subsequent reversal/overrule CASC did of the case.

So it was overruled, then it is not much use to us is it. Or is it?

Perhaps. The case itself, no, since it was overturned. But there may well be gems in there to use. Also, Smith only said ASORA didn’t violate the US Constitution, and said nothing about violating Alaska’s. In fact, that same ASORA was indeed found to violate the state constitution. So in short, the cases, even overturned, can maybe be woven together with contemporary decisions to win at the state level. Federal…much tougher due to Smith and due to SCOTUS’ reticence in taking up another case. (Personally, I think they want the COAs* to handle them all, using Snyder and Smith as the guides.)


Thanks for digging that up. I knew Anonymous Nobody described this before, but I’m glad you have actual case links. This should help Mike R with is case – especially denoting the origin of the registry was punishment to begin with due to it being born out of conviction. But now it’s regulatory, but still born out of conviction creates a contradiction of involuntary servitude to the state.

The more I read the more info pops up.

So these cases was about removal from the registry with 1203.4. Back in 1984, that’s the court date denoted, 1203.4 would stop you from registering, but all your information would still belong to the registry. These cases allowed 1203.4 to not only stop you from registering, but also took you off the registry altogether.

The case used “cruel and unusual” punishment to win the case. Because the registry was deemed punishment, having a lifetime term was indeed cruel and unusual as probation has a limitation to expire and not carry on after serving time.

But nowadays, we do have a scienter stating under 1% recidivism rates. Not only that, but all registrants are treated the same even if you earned a 1203.4. Just comparing registrant to registrant, it seems unusual to have all registrants share the same burdens even though there exists different levels of risk assessments.

Also, if they’re using the SCOTUS’ decision that the registry isn’t punishment, the SCOTUS laid out that only those with convictions are to be on the registry. 1203.4 has your conviction set aside and dismissed.

But b/c the registry is regulatory, there’s a due process missing if the registry is applied… or at least that was stated in the case.

I followed up on some of the SCOTUS references from these cases, and one stands out. In Vlandis v, Kline (, the Court held that a “permanent irrebuttable presumption” violates Due Process (they didn’t differentiate between PDP and SDP). Though the case involves tuition, it sure reads as though it could apply to any situation where the State assumes facts without letting a person rebut them. Some of the references SCOTUS used in the case refer to DL revocation, voting disenfranchisement, etc. Anyway, taking this ruling hand-in-hand with the CT DPS debacle–and the specifically highlighted detail that SDP is what was needed in the case, but not before the Court–really points towards there being a valid SDP claim. The State imposes a “permanent irrebuttable presumption” of dangerousness, of homogeneity with other RCs, etc., and provides a person no method to refute. This also seems to tailor in nicely with the repeated concern of many courts that RCs have not had individualized risk assessments.* All in all, this seems a good case to use somehow; I’ll have to dig into its citations to see what else comes up.

I’d love some feedback from others on this. In the meantime, I’m going to dig deeper into the concept of “permanent irrebuttable presumption.”

*As to a possible State claim that individualized risk assessments are slow, or expensive, or something else, that too is addressed in this case, and cites precedent: “In Stanley v. Illinois, however, the Court stated that ‘the Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency.’ 405 U.S. at 405 U. S. 656. The State’s interest in administrative ease and certainty cannot, in and of itself, save the conclusive presumption from invalidity under the Due Process Clause where there are other reasonable and practicable means of establishing the pertinent facts on which the State’s objective is premised.”

I saw my Probation officer yesterday and I get off paper in two weeks, he told me I had to inform my registering agency know that I was off probation. My yearly is six months away and I have not read that I had to do an update for getting off of probation. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Seems weird. I was off paper about 4 weeks before my annual and I wasn’t told I had to notify anyone that I was off. Maybe your PO is confusing this notification with the notification you have to provide after you’re released from incarceration? If you’re jailed for more than 30 days, you have to re-register upon your release as if you just moved into your area. He might be thinking getting off paper is the same as being released from incarceration. I’d give your local department a call and ask them if they want you to do that. Might be some weird local ordnance?

Could it be that his PO is just stupid? :>/

I’ve never heard that before. My registering agency was well aware of when I was getting off probation since they conducted a search of my house just before probation ended. The 290 statute does not say you need to re-register when going off probation. You only have to re-register after leaving jail or prison.

When I came off probation – 2 years early – My PO told me to report the registering jurisdiction, even though I had already completed several annuals.

I received an interrogation by several officers, me on one side of a conference table, the officers on the other. They fired accusatory questions at me for about two hours. It felt a lot like an oral board for Engineering Watch Officer and Officer of the Watch in the Navy. They did not do a special registration for me, just the interview. I left feeling overjoyed, I was free, I had completed my probation. Yes, I was a naive idiot. I was more free on probation then, than I am now.

After reading the case in which FREDERICK RAYMOND DRONEY, failed to state a claim there are many differences. First off he was arguing for a summary judgement which entails a statement of undisputed facts which is impossible to convey in this type of case as well as you have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in immediate danger from the action you are disputing. Neither is possible in this type of case. No claim…..Also disputing that the guidelines for SORNA was actually law that the government uses to prosecute which it is not. It is guidelines not law as stated by the court. Once again, no claim. He further goes on to claim that the state will prosecute him under the federal guidelines which again is a false assumption, the state has there own penal codes and requirements that are not guidelines but actually laws in which they would prosecute if he were to violate which Droney did not contest or claim. No claim….Big differences then my case…I have many different claims on many different constitutional authorities and I am not claiming I am in immediate harm if the court fails to act. This is a big difference since there would be no ripeness to the claims since there is no immediate danger of prosecution unless I violate a law, even then it would not be the laws that Droney is claiming in his suit…No claim….
I really like this article and statements about separation of powers and minimum sentences. It is basically the same argument that I am bringing about punishments that go beyond the maximum sentence (sex offender registration) I was sentenced to the maximum allowed by law but am being subjected to punishment beyond the maximum which is a violation of the separation of powers….
“If Congress continues to breach its authority in enacting and maintaining
statutory mandatory minimums, the Supreme Court and federal courts should
exercise their authority and deem these laws unconstitutional. Although the
judiciary is the least powerful branch of the tripartite government, it does have the authority to rule laws in violation of the U.S. Constitution void. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).The Supreme Court began along this path in Booker, and it should continue in subsequent cases to render statutory mandatory minimum laws unconstitutional. This is the beauty of the separation of powers doctrine: it is both a directive and a remedy. United States federal courts should use the separation of powers doctrine as a remedy to unconstitutional statutory mandatory minimum

Didn’t I warn against getting too wrapped up in the petition itself? 🙂 The parts I found of interest were how things are now vs ASORA in Smith.
“He further goes on to claim that the state will prosecute him under the federal guidelines which again is a false assumption”
This is part of the argument the AG makes in his Motion against you. They make some sort of reference that there’s no indication AG will ever prosecute for federal or local laws.

Here’s the link to the post (I think…hard to tell, being an OP, not a reply…) is under discussion:

This is also incredibaly important because this is exactly what I was concerned about with the US AG claiming since I am not subject to federal law at the moment the court would have no subject matter jurisdiction like the CA AG tried to pull but according to the following as long as I am not asking for monetary releif and only ask for equitible relief than the US AG can be sued in his official capacity for constitutional violations whether I am subject to the laws at the very moment or face enforcement or not does not matter…At least this is how I am reading it..Let me know if I am reading it wrong….
“Defendant Holder argues he is immune
from a Bivens claim against him. A Bivens claim is a cause of
action for damages brought directly under the United States
Constitution against a federal official for violations of constitutionally
protected rights. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In
plaintiff ’s second amended complaint, which supercedes all
prior versions of his complaint,
This part is really important….
“plaintiff is not seeking money
damages, but rather equitable relief. Declaratory and injunctive
relief is available against a federal official who acts unconstitutionally,
and sovereign immunity is not a bar to such a claim.
See 5 U.S.C. § 702 (action seeking relief other than money
damages should not be dismissed on grounds that it is brought
against United States); Raz v. Lee, 343 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir.
2003) (holding that § 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity is not
limited to cases brought under APA, but it applies to claims
arising under the Constitution); Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Barlow, 846 F.2d 474, 476 (8th Cir. 1988) (§ 702
waiver is not dependent on application of APA; § 702 waiver is
dependent only on suit being against government and being one
for nonmonetary relief); see also Presbyterian Church v. United
States, 870 F.2d 518, 524-25 (9th Cir. 1989) (§ 702 waives
sovereign immunity with respect to injunctive-relief action
arising directly under Constitution).”

@mike r:
I think you’re on track with things regarding being able to sue the USAG. And to be sure and clear, you are so subject to Federal law. AWA/SORNA *does* apply to you, even if CA exercises sovereign immunity and ignores it. IML *does* apply to you. Granted, it would take a federal officer (FBI, USMS) to arrest you for violation and the US Atty to prosecute, but the possibility does exist.

If the US AG claims you are not subject to Federal law, I’d say you’ve gotten yourself a Golden Ticket!

Yeah AJ, that is exactly how I was reading it….According to that little gem I just posted it is going to make the AG look like an idiot if they try to say no subject matter just like the CA AG. Her entire subject matter argument and motion states it’s the AG and DOJ that has complete and utter control over the CSAR data base and Megan’s Law Website. It is idiotic and completely absurd to think there is no connection. At least that is how I am seeing it….Could be wrong but I don’t think so….

And the AWA issue I am still researching and digesting the fact that it is retroactive in my case, I was sentenced in June 2006 and AWA took effect in July 2006….If you read my Complaint I do state in the facts in the beginning and in the request for relief in the end that I was including the AWA in all instances.

Also AJ, I believe that if I violated the federal law then CA LE could arrest and hold me for the feds. I think I really like how my Complaint is put together as it confuses and sidetracks the AG’s while always maintaining a claim either in the text or at the end of each argument and I state exactly what laws are being violated and what Constitutional liberties are being violated. Just because it isn’t as eloquent and as obvious as they would like it to be, it is there……This is what I am talking about when I say I can slam them once they try to dispute issues since I can just refer to my Complaint and say “well Mr. or Miss AG, I did actually state my claim and the laws and Constitutional amendments that are being violated see (Complaint p ? at ?)” I think this is an advantage of being Pro Se….I like this little intro as well. “I am asking this court to construe the issues in this opposition based on the merit of each issue with little regard to court rules and procedures or technical errors. Court submissions by pro se litigants’ are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than the submissions of the lawyers in opposition, being provided with wide latitude, including but not limited to, unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972). Also, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8 (d) (e) CONSTRUING PLEADINGS. “Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice”.”
It kind of covers my a&&^^$ a little when it comes to an appeal since if they violate my Procedural Due Process rights there is going to be hell to pay. Not even a murder conviction or anything besides the Patriot Act can subvert or even effect Procedural Due Process, it is the most fundamental liberty interest that we have in the Constitution.

Marcy’s Law:

This doesn’t apply to us, but I thought I’d post it anyway as it applies to crime victim advocates and the unintended consequences of new laws they advocate for. This law has put limits how the media can report vehicle accidents because who the the victim is will not always be known until the accident scene is fully investigated. As we know, any law that is named after a victim is usually a poorly written law that almost always has unintended consequences. This law was added to California’s constitution in 2008 and is being adapted in many other states.

Annual today.

We had to sign a form acknowledging new laws. On the sheet, number 1 was that we must give the state 21 days advanced notice before Out of State or International Travel. I also had to give a new DNA sample.

I had not been in this forum for awhile, I am one of the lucky perverts that has a job and I am usually exhausted or asleep, so I have not been active.

I signed it because I am a good little drone, but I DID question the officer about the out of state part. She said as far as she knew it was only International. I asked then why out of state is on the form, without a parole or probation comment, that all perverts must give 21 days for out of state travel. She did not know why it was there, that it must be the law now.

This is Riverside County.

I apologize if this has been discussed, but I did not want to read through all 344 comments in this section to see if this has been previously discussed.

21 days for out of state travel? As someone who’s entire family lives out of CA, I am wondering how I can possibly make attendance for funerals.

When I was on probation, I had to travel to Atlanta for work several times a year. All I did was tell my PO and I was able to go.

I am really starting to wonder what is the point of staying alive anymore? I cannot really think of any reason not to blow myself up in Sacramento other than the pain that will be felt by my friends and family. The only reason not to Steven Paddock is because it will hurt other people. I have hurt enough people, but I am just getting weary of all this.

Something must be said, and like I always say, “If you are not willing to kill or die to be heard, your voice is but a whisper.”

This is typical registration day depression and by mid Jan I will be okay again.

One of the perverts with me was asking about going to Canada on an upcoming cruise he had purchased. It was not my conversation so I kept quiet, but I wanted to tell him to get a refund. The registering officer did know that cruise lines and airlines check their manifest against the registry, which was refreshing, usually those folks know less about the laws than we do.

The out of state thing surprised me. Is there a way to upload pics so you folks can see the form?

@Renny – If you don’t mind me asking, which city are you registering with? Or do you register with the county?

Lake Elsinore

@Renny I’m out of the same registering office as you and my annual was a few months ago. yes I got the new updates and we discussed the travel issue, the out of state part was more of an adviser airy preemptive thing they said “to keep your ass covered” type of thing.

Renny – We are in Orange County, and I have never seen anything about a 21 day notification, international or domestic. I can’t imagine anyone having to let LE know you are traveling out of state since every state has their own rule on registration when visiting. If Arizona has a 10 day rule for example, why would I have to let California know I am going on vacation. I hope Janice can chime in and explain. That would be completely unconstitutional!

Yes. Go to and you can post it anonymously. You can also add an expiration date to the file (this comes up after a step or two). Be sure to write down or cut-and-paste the unique URL the site gives you, then post it here. I *think* there’s a way to find it again if lost, but am not 100% sure.

Not sure if it worked the first time.

I just read the file. Note that there is no penal code following their travel rule. There are PCs after the others, though.

I did my annual in September in Contra Costa County. I was not shown or given this paper work. There was never any mention about travel whether domestic or international.

I swear, the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing. Different jurisdictions seem to have their own rules that are not under 290. The one constant pattern…they have no clue when it comes to 1203.4. Each registering officer has said, “You have an expunged record? And you still have to register? I didn’t know that registration was still required.”

I noted that the lack of a PC code as well, but at the bottom of the page, they have a notation that those rules are in addition to PC290. There was actually several pages, but all the rest were common knowledge stuff like living with another offender, entering schools, etc…

It was the out of state travel notification that got my attention.

Re: “living with another offender.” I don’t see any mention of this in 290. Are there restrictions for those not under supervision?


The cohabitation restriction is listed in the *other* penal code ( and only applies to those on parole).
Cal. Penal Code sec. 3003.5 prohibits more than one paroled registered sex offender from living in any single family dwelling unless legally related by blood, marriage or adoption.

From what the AG said in the Motion against mike r, 3003.5 is part of Jessica’s Law, and therefore only applies to those on parole. I recall mike r having a mention of a Welfare Code item (3030?) that prohibits a RC convicted of an offense against a minor from cohabiting with minors. (@mike r, feel free to chime in on this.)

I for one don’t appreciate you designating registrants as perverts. Maybe you are a pervert, but I doubt most of us identify as that.

The Megan’s Law website does state 290 registrants must give notice for out of state travel. However that is NOT what the law says. So feel free to travel out of state without the 21 day notice. Just be sure you don’t stay too long in a state that might require you to register.

I interpreted Renny’s use of the term “perverts” as a sardonic form of class identification. It’s an offensive term, to be sure, most particularly when we are referred to as such by someone who is not a member of our class.

Some black people refer to themselves as “niggers” within their own circles. It’s not offensive when they refer to themselves by that moniker, but when non-black people (esp. whites) use it, it is offensive and disparaging.

Other disparaged groups do the same thing. Gay people may refer to themselves as “faggots” or “queer”, but they don’t offend themselves by doing so. It’s only offensive when the Roy Moore’s of the world use those terms.

Well I find the word offensive no matter who says it. And I have and have had countless gay friends and I have never seen them use the word faggot in any situation even when I’m the only strait person in a large group. They consider it a most offensive word. – The “N” word is the only word I’ve seen “okay” among a class of people. Although I still feel it’s offensive. Maybe it has something to do with respect for all.

I agree, Lake County. I have a lot of gay friends and they never use “faggot” as a sardonic term amongst themselves. The only time I heard a gay person say it was in an argument with another gay guy. In other words, he used it as a pejorative. As far as the “n word”, the only class of African Americans I’ve ever heard use it tend to be of an uneducated class. I would never accept anyone calling me that because 1. I have self-respect and respect for others, 2. I’m not a pervert, and 3. I’m a woman, so my response to it would be probably different than it would be for a man. I avoid using profanity regardless.

Yes, people with class should not be using profanity or derogatory slang words regardless.

For those of you offended by the N word you should avoid Asia or at least southeast Asia and Korea as this is the word commonly used to describe black people. It caught me off guard when the people at work used it instead of just saying black as well as talking to people I had met here and while traveling around. The N word doesn’t seem to carry the power it does know the west

I was having a conversation with a girl about foreign workers and she said “I’m okay with other kinds of Asian coming and working just as long as they aren’t Bangladeshi or N******”

I then asked her if she mean black people or African

She then said “yeah, N******, what else would you call them? ”

I replied “black or African”

Any who sorry for the randomness I just thought it was weird the importance people put on words. Also fag, faggot, or poof is used to call gay people here… But then again it’s illegal to be gay here or at least to act on it.

I noticed the frequent use of the n-word among Asians. I understand the animosity between African Americans and Koreans especially after what happened in Los Angeles (pre-LA Riots) with the Soon Ja Du murder trial (got probation after shooting and killing a black girl). It’s not just East Asians but also Central Asians (Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Mongolians). I was shocked by their disdain for African Americans and their casual use of the n-word!

I guess I won’t be witnessing the use of that word in Asia thanks to IML.

Quite interesting you and Lake County spell out the “f” word and don’t spell out the “n” word. Maybe I am reading some significance that wasn’t there. As to your main point, in my opinion, people who repeat the derogatory words among themselves, which oppressors use against them, are mocking the terms and subverting the very meaning and power relationships. I get a kick out of so called uneducated blacks using the “n” word amongst themselves while any consequential white bystanders sit by being very uncomfortable. A technique as old or older than Shakespeare’s plays. Mockery. It is sometimes the only weapon the oppressed have left.

Funny…when you said “f” word, I immediately thought you were referencing the 4-letter word, which I don’t use. But yes, you’re reading into something that isn’t there. Faggot is actually a cigarette or kindling; it is still in frequent use for those meanings, and, therefore, doesn’t have the same offensive impact. Whereas the “n” word has always been defined and meant as a derogatory term for people of color. I can also type the word niggardly as it has nothing to do with the n-word. Sorry to talk semantics, but I do have an M.A. degree in English and Linguistics.

I appreciate the semantics. I don’t think you are British, though. That f term means only one thing in colloquial US English, and this is a mostly American general audience, so only those like you or me who think of the meanings of words excessively would think of that and use it as an alibi. Niggardly is just silly. Who uses niggardly? I am going to be quite niggardly in accepting that alibi. I was reading into it you were not afraid to spell out an offensive word against gays, but were afraid to spell it out for African Americans. Where is the equity in that? Probably I recognized I would do the same thing and recognize it as a cultural Freudian slip. Some words are more PC than others.

Well after this discussion, I think I’ll smoke a fag. (British slang)

So, being American, when you cozy up to the hearth, be sure it’s a “log” you are throwing in the fire.

Nope, I am as Californian as they come; born and raised. However, I work with many different nationalities and have been used to hearing different slangs from around the world. BUT, as for the British meaning, I’ve actually heard it since I was in sixth grade, so I know it’s been in use in the States. Same goes for the word queer, which was standard for the meaning, “strange”. As far as niggardly is concerned, it made national headlines when a local politician used it at one of his meetings and the whole Black Community raised a fuss…not realizing the meaning of the word. Needless to say, they back peddled on calling for this person’s resignation.

As far as my not writing out the “n” word, it’s not about fear. It’s about a word that I just don’t say. I’m the same way with other words like B—-, A-hole, F—. I’m the same with words in Spanish (my other native language) and Italian. I have no problem with writing out slang words in Russian because I have no emotional connection to them, and most people don’t know what I’m saying. (Yes, I speak a lot of languages.) Besides, if you type out the “n” word, most sites will automatically censor it anyway, so most people are probably used to typing “n-word”.

You are very fortunate to speak many languages. I envy you. I have trouble enough articulating what I want to say with this one. On the other hand, I won’t be able to understand the insulting slang words used against registrants by foreigners if by chance one is nearby and knows my status. Sometimes a little silence (incomprehension) is golden.
As far as English words, I use everything available on the table depending on the audience, the meaning and the response/reaction I hope to get. Or just because the sound of the word makes me smile. Like many older people, I am caring less about what people think.

It is sardonic and shouldn’t bother anyone if another on the list states it sardonically, unless it is true then they may take offense. At least that is my opinion and you know what they say “opinions are like a^*holes and everyone has one.

Well I like yours.

Opinion I mean, I like your opinion!

Non Sardonic = YOU are a pervert

Sardonic = One of the lucky perverts….

Some people are easily offended and others are not. I will do my best not to offend those who get offended easily, although I suspect pointing out that some people get offended easily might be offensive to those who do get offended easily. I guess I just can’t win!

Guess I am just another offender.

Oh crap, I did it again

This just made my day. 😂😂

One of the biggest things I hated about living in the US is how PC people try to be.

*trigger warning as this is an example I do not condone the use of paid sexual exchanges in any way although in many countries they are not illegal per say*

Like if a person dresses like a hooker, walks like a hooker, talks and acts like a hooker then in my eyes you should be able to call them a hooker. It’s not anti feminist or degrading of their empowerment, it’s just saying if you don’t want to be seen as something then don’t wear the uniform.

In Europe and Asia it’s easy to tell if someone is a hooker based in how they are dressed, because even if a girl is going out to a club looking for some love they don’t dress like the girls who want you to pay for their company.

It’s the same as if I dressed like a cop, walked like a cop, talked and acted like a cop people would probably think I was one.

Well not here because all the police are short and skinny.

Where was I, totally lost my train of thought. Oh yeah. Political correctness is just irritating. Here they lack the PC but still retain getting offended easily.

Like if you give someone the middle finger here even in a joking manner they take it seriously and may kill you over it, but they see nothing wrong with calling a black person a nigger or a woman a whore Or just being full and outright racist.

Do whatever you can to legally subvert the registry, even small acts. It will make you feel better.

Stay strong Renny, times are changing and something is going to happen one way or the other. Either our constitutional republic is coming to an end or the founding fathers visions will live on. Sex offender registration is going to be the deciding factor. Either way it is coming to a head…..AJ,Chris< New Person and anyone else commenting or collaboration with me, no more posting large legal jargon like I always post, lets use the gofile site like AJ uses so as not to clog up the general comments sections. I know it is usually me so I will keep it down to just references. if any one wishes to contact me personally…Thanks…

AJ, in your markup where you state (alterations added) am I supposed to include that phrase in my motion????

Also AJ, I am updating your mark ups that you have already made so you can disregard those…Thanks man. You are a lifesaver….
I am really impressed with Janice and team in her victory in the Clymer case..Well done and a major step away from incrementalism and serving thousands in one fell swoop. Motion for summary judgement was well played…..

@mike r:
I presume so. I’m going off what I’ve seen in court documents. Whenever a change (any change) has been made to a citation, a parenthetical is added to alert the reader to the fact. Thus (emphasis in original) or (emphasis added); (internal quotation marks in original) or (internal quotation marks removed); etc. So, to my limited layman’s knowledge, yeah, you should include the (alterations added) phrasing.

I’ll try to get to your latest iteration by the end of the weekend.

Got it AJ…I am learning as well, we should be able to pass the bar exam by the time we are finished…..

The AWA was enacted after I was sentenced, I wonder how that effects the Ex Post Facto issue in my case…..

..refer to the 6th circuit.

New Person, I love your updated argument for Involuntary servitude. It is perfect……

Another way the federal government wastes time and money:

Having someone take a sexual history polygraph when the individual has no sexual, dating, or relationship experience.

Email me New Person, I need your assistance with the Involuntary Servitude and I appreciate your take on the issues. It takes a wide array of perceptions and ideas to make this happen…..I am about done posting about it on here as there is very little feedback from anyone but you three. And I do not want to state everything on an open form or clog up the comments on ACSOL site. Hit me up man.

@mike r

I am reading with great interest what you are posting but haven’t said anything because others have it covered. I usually only input when value is added, not redundancy, but believe Millard, et al (CO) is the way to go that you’re now doing.

I am not the legal eagle @AJ, et al are, but will certainly review the doc to ensure it’s smooth as can be before your deadline.

I do wonder if your docs will be the catalogue of cases cited for others to use since many cases have come out to be cited and used or is someone else cataloging them all for applicability? Surely (there’s surely again @AJ, but don’t call me that) we should do a Vulcan mind meld with @AJ to be sure the library has content, but we don’t have that ability (yet).

Btw, congrats on the Reno nuptials!

Wow, I just now read that Co case…That is eerily similar to my case only with less of a record and way less attributable harm shown. almost all their claims for harm was anecdotal and unconfirmed but was still weighing heavy in their favor. I also have four eyewitness accounts of harassment that is directly attributable to my Megan’s Law profile and in fact the perpetrators were actually yelling at the top of their lungs in my Apt. parking that “you are on Megan’s man” “you must be a child molester and a pervert since your on Megan’s Law” in another eyewitness account the individual was standing outside his new apt. across from me yelling ” there better not be any 290s in here” and ” I better not find anyone in here on Megan’s Law” and a few days later he was yelling at me calling me a “weirdo” and “pervert” before he eventually moved out after my on-grounds property manager confronted him and warned him against taking any adverse actions against me. Also..For example, in 2010 I was offered employment with an Electrical contractor but I did not accept employment since I was fully aware the position required frequent and extensive travel, both interstate and intrastate. Again in 2012 I was offered a position by a close friend as a Forman for a general contractor which I again had to reject because of the extensive travel that position entailed. These instances may appear to be anecdotal based solely on personal accounts without confirmation but it is supported by common knowledge that these types of positions require extensive travel and frequent entry into these safety zones. The fact that these individual employers do not want to get involved in my case, and the fact that I do not want to put these professionals in any precarious position by requiring them to participate, does not negate the fact that I am an eye-witness with firsthand knowledge that these events occurred and I am willing to testify under oath of such events.
Plaintiff was also laid off from his most recent employment in 2015 because of his exposure from the Megan’s Law Website when one of his colleagues at work discovered he was on said Website. The word was spread to other employees who eventually shunned and harassed Plaintiff to the point that the stress was overwhelming causing Plaintiff extreme chronic health issues. Once his employer caught wind of his inclusion on the Website he was mysteriously laid off for a “lack of work” while all others were continuing to be employed. After asking why he was being discharged and if it had anything to do with his sex offender registration status the employer denied even being aware of plaintiff’s status. The disclaimer on the Megan’s Law Website specifically prohibits an employer for retaliation or discharge for an ex-offender’s information being included on said Website so of course any employer will deny any knowledge of that information or that it was in any way a cause of action to prevent litigation or culpability under the law. Plaintiff is subject to lifetime registration that is accessible to potential employers for the remainder of Plaintiff’s life, unlike similarly situated citizens (i.e. felons) who are only subject to a seven year background check; Ca Civil Code Section 1786.18 precludes an investigative consumer reporting agency from containing convictions that are more than seven years old.
Fortunately, Plaintiff’s sex offender status has not been discovered by his fellow students at the community college that he attends as of yet or the ostracism that Plaintiff will undoubtedly endure will be fatal to his desired goals of achieving a higher education as well as placing impenetrable barriers that plaintiff will face when applying or attempting to enter into a professional career. This imminent harm is real and predictable and unless the court acts Plaintiff will undoubtedly suffer irreparable harm from the consequences of being subject to sex offender registration and having his personal information on a publically accessible Megan’s Law Website as well as private website such as and

Love it AJ…I had to post this for all to see what I wrote and how it totally relates…….
Although it was decided on different issues the case in Vlandis v. Kline 412 U.S. 441 (1973) is apropos of this case since it appears the states seem to believe, erroneously, they have a right to make a permanent irreversible and irrebuttable presumption concerning recidivism rates and future dangerousness. The Supreme Court held that permanent irrebuttable presumptions are constitutionally disfavored, because they deny due process. Id. at 446. In Vlandis the Court concluded by saying that “standards of due process require that the State allow such an individual the opportunity to present evidence showing that he is a bona fide resident entitled to the in-state rates.” (parenthesis added). Id. at 452.

Man any org. seeing this has got to be extremely interested and intrigued by what we are producing here…This is cutting edge and I think we are doing an absolutely amazing job at being armchair attorneys. LMFAO…..Way better then ANY lawyer or firm I have seen so far….Compared to the “omnibus” Compliant i filed that contains all the necessary elements this precision attack and professional rebuttal of her Motion will be hilarious.

Here is an article with detailed arguments why ” irrebuttable presumption” is a hard one to convince SCOTUS to accept with more than ‘rational basis” applied and therefore likely to fail:

It does leave room for Strict Scrutiny review if either a fundamental right or suspect classifications are present. I think we have enough fundamental rights affected, and the fact that we are a hated and politically powerless class should also help clear these hurdles outlined in this article.

Another article, this time a little specific to Virginia, about how an “irrebuttable presumption” is usually perfectly constitutional:

I still think we need to touch on this in a Sex Offender case. It’s just not as easy as it originally appeared to invoke the phrase and get results that we would like.

No, but it is probative Chris, I have worked it in there….You might want to check out my current revision on my site…I think I will create a table of authorities and all the bells and whistles…..

On second thought after reading what you posted I am removing any reference to that “irrebuttable presumption” theory.

Still digesting that issue, I’ll get back to you on it…..Those are both pretty old reports or articles or whatever they want to call them…..Ones 1977 and the other one doesn’t even have date on it….

It definitely may warrant inclusion in your argument since you can easily fulfill the two requirements of getting strict scrutiny on “irrebuttable presumption” by referring to your numerous “fundamental rights” involved and addition of being a suspect class due to our being perhaps the most politically powerless group there is. Not only are we politically powerless, but legislation has proven they can’t even rationally retract unconstitutional laws without elected representatives forfeiting their careers.

It only takes one of those two to be accepted to get strict scrutiny, so we don’t even need to win with both but should.

Edit: Or maybe not after reading AJ’s comment below. I don’t really know now. You’ll definitely have to weigh the pros and cons and don’t need a distraction from your good arguments already in there.

Yeah, after posting it, I did a bit more digging. The concept had a short lifespan with SCOTUS, as they soon realized it was SDP by another name (which was, and is, out of favor when it comes to the citizen vs. the State), and also that pretty much any law could be found to violate the principle. I do think the concept can be thrown in there, especially when attacking fundamental rights, but to use the phrase itself (or it’s twin “compulsive presumption”) will draw too much negative attention.

It’s a great legal concept, but in the eyes of the courts it tips things too much away from the legislature. Nice jobs, courts, give the legislature more power than the citizen…yup, that’s exactly what our Founding Fathers wanted and loved…government over individual.

Yes, but we voted them into office. If we could only get together as a voting group we could make many changes. Due to low voter turnout in most elections, our numbers are large enough to sway most elections if all of us who were able would actually vote.

I agree guys, I am going to trim down the opposition as much as possible to get it as close as possible to two pages and get rid of anything that isn’t authoritative and unquestionable…I want it very precise without any unnecessary legal jargon….

Extraordinary, isn’t it? Well, no; it’s become rather typical now. More puritanical than the Puritans, that’s what our culture has become. Puritan, except in matters involving oneself.

Page 102: the Fontana Police Department claims that SO’s have the lowest rehabilitation rate, and that more than 90% will continue to reoffend.

They seriously believe their own BS! Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this is a statement of fact included on a Grand Jury report! They should have their asses sued for defamation, or whatever the hell it is they can sued for.

Yes there should be some kind of ethics committee or something…..

I need a bunch more of these statements for any type of legislation or relevent public policy like this with citation….>>>>>Report to Grand Jury: 2014-2015 San Bernardino County Grand Jury – Registered Sex Offender Websites
Fontana Police Department: Sex offenders have the lowest rehabilitation rates according to the Fontana Police Department representatives and approximately 90% of sex offenders will continue to re-offend. [p,102 para 3]visited on December 31, 2107)

I will be able to apply for a COR in 2018. I am not currently on the public website, and I have been fortunate enough to land an excellent job. I was not planning to apply for a COR because of my current, positive, employment status. But since the California legislature just torpedoed me with the “super-fantastic” tiered registry scam, I intend to attempt a COR in 2018 so that I can try to get off the registry before what’s left of my life gets destroyed in 2021. The question: Can anybody who has applied for a COR tell me what, specifically, to expect from the Nazi’s when they do their investigation, relative to a COR application? I have read all of the information in the “living with 290” section of this website. But there is very little information about what happens during the application/investigation process. I have heard that the DA investigators show up at the place of employment and try their best to get the person applying for a COR fired. I don’t know if that’s true, or if it’s fear-mongering. Any specific information that anybody can offer would be very helpful. My case was settled in 2008. The offense was very low level and I have never been on the public website. That said, my case was high-profile because of who I was in the community; not what I did. Knowing that, I expect the DA to do the same thing upon application for a COR that they did during the investigation and eventual prosection. I know and understand the laws. I have done all the leg work to get ready to apply on the day I am allowed. What I need to know is what to expect from the Nazi’s when they show up at my job. Will they talk to the owner? The HR person? Anybody they want? How hard will they try to smash my reputation with my coworkers? Thank you in advance for any guidance you can offer.

The process depends on your jurisdiction. Therefore I cannot offer any guidance… but some perspective.

Last CoR I was told about, the DA put up fierce opposition. After more than a quarter century on the list. But again… depends on your jurisdiction.

The Tiered Registry Bill was NEVER designed to offer relief to all. There was always a good size number of registrants who were going to be registering for life, and, inversely, due to the reduced total number, made more evil and dangerous through no action of their own.

That was perfectly acceptable to you… until YOU were put in that group (“torpedoed” you).

As it stands now, tens of thousands will be able to stop registering. Some immediately, some soon. And some never. That is just the way the cookie crumbles.

You are welcome.

Joe, your assumptions about what I was perfectly okay with are totally incorrect. That said, I am now trying to make the best of a bad situation that just got worse. But thanks for your editorial on what you think I believe. Very helpful.

“The Tiered Registry Bill was NEVER designed to offer relief to all.”

There was a part in it that said that all Tier3’s could petition to be Tier2’s, but it got removed. So there actually were designs to provide relief to all eventually.

Hey New Person, or anyone else for that matter, you may want to go to my site and check out my final revision of the Opposition to the AG’s Motion. In particular, New Person should read the Involuntary Servitude section at the end. I think with your help we nailed that as well.

Hey, Mike R!

Sorry, I’ve been quite busy this holiday season. I just read the involuntary section.

For the business and profit portion, you might want to add the third party websites that post or rather re–post registry information as well as the fact that they extort monies. There was a recent article about it posted on ACSOL. I know Nicholas Maeitta (sp?) had sued a third part website for continued posting of his information.

But I think you should include the tradition four components of involuntary servitude:
1. Contract
2. Compensation
3. Term
4. Dominion

Look up “Specific Performance and the Thirteenth Amendment” by Nathan B. Oman, College of William & Mary Law School, published in 2009.
Here’s a quote from that publication:
The pre-Thirteenth
Amendment understanding of “involuntary servitude” indicates
that the condition did not result from government compulsion
of an unwilling actor, per se. Rather, courts and legislatures
drawing the line between permissible enforcement of contracts
and the creation of “involuntary servitude” under the guise of a
voluntary agreement looked at four interrelated factors.12 First,
did the promisor enter the contract while in a state of “perfect
freedom,” or did the promisee have some overarching power
over the promisor? Second, was the promisor compensated for
her services with a “bona fide consideration,” or did the relationship
constitute “unrequited toil?” Third, were there temporal
limits on the contract? Agreements extending over extremely
long periods of time were suspect while more limited
engagements were not. Finally, did the promisee—the master—
physically dominate and degrade the promisor—the servant—
with abuse and claim a right to personally capture her and return
her to service if she tried to quit?

Those four factors are important because it reveals several things displaced upon a free citizen.
1. Contract. *The registry was applied upon conviction. The registry is not punishment.
2. Compensation. *There is no compensation aside from compliance could lead to freedom from the registry (regaining your privacy rights).
3. Term. *In California, there is one term, a lifetime term.
4. Dominion. *By law, if you do not comply, then you are subjected to punishment.

1. Contract. This proves the registry was born out of conviction and the registry is not punishment.
2. Compensation. There is no compensation for your “service” aside from possible freedom. But this “service for freedom” can be interpreted as a type of peonage.
3. Term. A lifetime service imposed upon a free person that they cannot walk away from is unconstitutional.
4. Dominion. This is defined by Peonage. In Bailey vs Alabama, “the Court went on to hold that
“involuntary servitude” existed whenever there was “compulsory
service.” Writing for the Court, Justice Hughes stated:
The act of Congress [i.e. the Anti-Peonage Act], nullifying all state
laws by which it should be attempted to enforce the “service or labor
of any person as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or
otherwise,” necessarily embraces all legislation which seeks to compel
the service or labor by making it a crime to refuse or fail to perform

The Court emphasized the complete domination required
to find “involuntary servitude” in its most recent case to consider
the Thirteenth Amendment, United States v. Kozminski.3

In construing
the statutes, Justice O’Connor looked to the Peonage
Cases, noting that, in those cases, “involuntary servitude” had
been predicated on the fact that “the victim had no available
choice but to work or be subject to legal sanction.”399

Oman is addressing “specific performances” of a contract, meaning the ability to leave (breech) a contract due to specific performances. Right off the bat he helps identify that the registry isn’t an offered employment, which is strike one against the registry. The rest solidifies the unconstitutionality of such a service upon a free person. Here’s his conclusion on the published work:
To be sure,
when a contract is entered into while under the domination of
another, extends for a long period of time, lacks adequate compensation,
and involves the on-going domination of the master
over the servant, the specific performance of such a contract
would violate the Constitution’s ban on “involuntary servitude.”

There’s a vast difference between punishment levied for a crime and compulsory service levied upon a free person.

Mike… the roadwork service isn’t for convicts! I found it in this publication as…
** See Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 333 (1916) (upholding a Florida statute
requiring able-bodied citizens to work on state roads). **

From Wikipedia:
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit “enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.” Onerous long term alimony and spousal support orders, premised on a proprietary interest retained by former marital partners in one another’s persons, have also been allowed in many states, though they may in practice embody features of involuntary servitude.[1]

The Road Service makes it worse b/c it’s applied to all citizens, not convicts!!!!

But that means these types of involuntary servitude is applied to all citizens. The registry isn’t applied to all free citizens, just convicted (and dismissed convictions) ones of a sex crime. Again, b/c the registry isn’t punishment, then this compulsory service upon a free citizen is prohibited by the 13th amendment of the US Constitution and the California Constitution.

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

The registry was born from a conviction. It is a specific compulsory service upon a specific set of free citizens that no other free citizens are subjected to be enforced, not even all other sets of convicts who completed their punishment service are required to do this compulsory service like registrants.

Mike R, look up this publication and read it. You might find even more stuff to solidify this involuntary servitude angle. Again, sorry for the late response.

One more note…

The registry service isn’t once a year type of compulsory service. It’s a 365 days service to the state. Remember, we’re forced to carry registration cards at all times. We’re subjected to compliance check at the whim of the local law enforcement departments. We have restrictions to adhere to as part of the registry requirement and service. If any sex crime occurs near our domicile, then we can be subjected to be rounded up to be questioned, confined to be questioned, or be subjected to a lineup. You were subject to specific living restrictions and presence restrictions before they were founded to be unconstitutional. Everyday you belong to the registry is a day of service to the state.

And you being on the registry makes money for somebody as you’re a part of that enterprise in the system stating you are still servicing the state as you’re currently a registrant.

You can’t quit the registry. You serve the registry or be punished by law as a felonious act. No other free citizen is subject to this compulsory service. And the registry is not punishment.

New Person, you’re forced to carry registration cards? What state are you in? CA does not require us to carry any 290 ID card. They don’t even issue one anymore.

Yes they still issue one. I was given mine this past September. I never had one before, but the officer said I need to have it on me at all times to show an officer that I’m current on registration. I told him it shouldn’t matter because it’s in the system. I’ve also been stopped for a traffic violation and was never asked for this card. He still said I needed it. So I took it and threw it in my glove compartment. It’ll stay there until my next registration date. This is in California, by the way. In the SF Bay Area.

In CA, there is no requirement to carry any such documentation. A few years ago there was such a bill (around the time of the very first CA RSOL meeting, I do not recall the #, but something out of the IE), but it was soundly defeated.

On this forum, some people have reported their efforts to flush down the toilet that little strip one is provided at one’s annual. And rightfully so.

As well they should, as in CA, there is no requirement to carry such documentation. None, whatsoever. One would hope that next time you were told the “need to have it on me at all times to show an officer that I’m current on registration” you tell them to put it where the sun don’t shine.

Seriously, @NPS, with your self proclaimed knowledge of the law one would think the glove compartment is the last place you would put this….

@ Joe ,,,,, ,, In the glove box is better than not having it when you run into that violent cop that don’t know the law , and is looking for a reason to hurt you or your family that they have laying on the ground with their foot on your neck , people better get real LE will hurt you , they are not Andy and Barn , opportunity is all many are looking for

@Joe…excuse me? Self-proclaimed knowledge of the law? I never made any such proclamation. No need to be a condescending jerk just because I’d like to help others understand the text of the law. I do have a linguistics background, which is what I use to analyze legal text. The ONLY thing I’ve mentioned is that I am currently back in university studying law. But hey, if ripping someone’s knowledge is what makes you feel superior, more power to you.

As for my keeping it in the glove compartment, it will stay there until I have to submit it to the registering officer. I may not legally need it, but I’m not going to put my chance at a COR on the line when this cop can find a way to bust me. He’ll want to see it when I come back in September. Otherwise, it is never on my person.

But not in San Francisco, right? SF used to issue these to me, years ago (and also claimed that it was to be kept on me at all times) but stopped doing so something like ten or fifteen years ago, I don’t remember exactly when. I just know that I haven’t seen one of those cards in a very long time. When we decided to burn our “registration cards” for the IML protest outside of the Oakland Federal Courthouse, I had to recreate these in Illustrator for that purpose. I had fun with that 🙂

@ NPS ,,,,, ,, LOL , I live in Kern county , and I never take chances , I always carry the stupid card , because most LE have no real clue what the law is , because most really don’t care , and the laws change to many times a year for their pay grade lol good job by the way on your comments ! thank you for your time my friend

It is a condition of probation, but not required by law.

When probation pulled one of their unannounced panty raids on my residence one morning, that was one of the things they asked for. I register in two locations. My OC agency provided the card, but the agency where I was at the time of the raid had since stopped issuing the scraps of paper. I told the head goon this, but she told me I was still required to carry it. I asked her where I was supposed to get the scrap, if the registering agency decided it did not need to do hand them out any longer. She said I needed to take the face page of my annual registration paperwork, copy it down REAL SMALL, fold it up and stick it in my wallet. Okay then. Hope they bring a microscope the next time they want to kick on my door.

But the day i’m off paper, i’m burning the damn thing.

As I have learned over the years, some jurisdictions will do whatever they damn well please.

I register in Lake Elsinore and for a time both Elsinore and Ontario PD(I was attending college in Ontario)

1. Lake Elsinore does not adhere to the “five working” days portion of the law and will insist that it is five days, not five working days. I argued nearly to the point of getting shot over this while trying to make an appointment one year. HOWEVER this year there was a new person taking appointments and I got in 6 days, but three working days.

2. The recently discussed 21 day written notice prior to out of state travel.

3. Lake Elsinore has issued Registration Cards at least since 2002 and they are very adamant that it WILL be on your person. I do believe that the Lake Elsinore police would kill on the spot any sex offender not carrying their registration card, and probably kill our dogs too, just for good measure. Then they would get a promotion and a pretty little ribbon. Because I am not ready to die, yet, I carry the card because I am not being flippant, I truly believe that Elsinore police will kill any offender that looks at them funny, lacks their card, does not answer the door during home verification raids, refuse to answer questions, etc.


Thank you. Although, what if I’m too shy to share my email and you exposed the subtlety? I like the anonymity of the forum, and, yes, I really am that stigmatized. I am sorry for the length… I get passionate sometimes.

Does anyone have details of when the Tiered Registry goes into effect – specifically when all offender profiles will become public? I would like to be prepared for the repercussions of my new notoriety at work and in my community.

Paul posted this earlier:

It looks like no one can start to petition until July 1, 2021 due to the DOJ having to determine tiers. Updated Tiers 2 and 3 will be included on the website by January 1, 2022.

I see what could potentially be some Ex Post Facto and Equal Protection violations, but I’m not a lawyer (yet), so perhaps other legal minds can give their thoughts?

NPS, thank you & Paul for providing better, more updated information. I appreciate it. I stopped paying attention after the kill-shot amendment to 290 was passed. I agree with you that there are challenges to the amended 290 three or four years from now. But there are challenges to the existing one too. And since those who think they just got off the hook won’t likely stick around to help those who remain in the cross hairs of law enforcement, (assuming they actually get relief, which is a long-shot at best) the pool of people and resources available to mount a legit fight will decline. That’s why we should be doing something now. The registry is unconstitutional now. Today. Just as it has been all along. Waiting three to four years, while assuming some will get relief, to challenge it later, is counter-intuitive to me.

Ok, somehow I missed that pdf from the California DOJ.

One troubling thing in that pdf is the fact that the DOJ put so much emphasis on the Static-99R. However, the Static-99R Coding Rules specifically state that “[s]tatic risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.” Again: The Static-99R has a shelf-life of only two years! Furthermore, after five years offense-free, alleged risk “halves.” So why does the DOJ continue to propagate the false notion that it is appropriate to place someone into Tier 3 for the sole reason of having a “high” or “well above average risk?”

From the DOJ’s pdf, look at page 7:

“If a tier three (lifetime) registrant is placed in tier three solely due to his or her risk level, which was well above average risk (formerly high risk) on the Static-99R, after 20 years of registration, the registrant can petition for termination from the Registry unless the conviction offense is listed in PC sections 1192.7 or The court shall determine, based on factors listed in Penal Code section 290.5, whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration.”

Compare the DOJ’s interpretation to page 13 of the Static-99R’s Coding Rules:

“The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk. Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

It is clear that the California DOJ is not using the Static-99R appropriately in using it to place people into lifetime Tier 3. If the Static-99R is only valid for two years, with risk halving after five years, then it is clear that the Static-99R is a limited tool not designed for lifetime “risk.” (If any, the Static-99R is only designed to determine “risk” from release to two to five years.)

David, as it’s currently written, January 1st, 2021. I’m trying to prepare as well. See my post above.

🤔 Thanks. A lot can happen in three year’s time – especially as we continue to see courts rule SORs punitive and, therefore, unConstitutional.

David, Looks like NPS has better, current, more up to date information than me. And yes, a lot can happen in three to four years time. It can, and will, get a lot worse. I would start planning now if I were you. And if there’s anything that you can do to make your life better before then, I would take the opportunity to do so. A lot of people seem to think the tiered registry is a really great thing. I can understand that mentality. After so many decades of horrible things, there must be something good; finally; right? WRONG! Once the amended 290 goes into full effect, any person wishing to remove himself from the registry has to apply, and pay a lot of money, and successfully be removed from the registry by the court. In that respect, it isn’t much different from a COR. There is no automatic removal. It’s true that there is a glimmer of hope for those who peed in public 30 years ago, and for the 288’s. But for about half the people on the registry today who don’t fall into those categories, life is about to get way, way worse. Three years is a long time……to try to perform damage control. You’re smart to be thinking about it now.

288 convictions seem to be the ones most at risk for lifetime registry. If you look at page 7, it says, that if someone is placed in Tier 3 due solely to their risk level, “the registrant can petition for termination from the Registry unless the conviction offense is listed in PC sections 1192.7 or 288.”

I would say there is still hope for relief of those convicted of 288(a). Based on the bill as it’s currently written, 288(a) is Tier 2 if it is the only conviction on their record. If there are two separate convictions of 288(a), then it’s Tier 3. My guess is most of those who are on the registry for 288(a) probably only have that single offense and nothing else. If, by 2021, they have completed 20+ years, they will be able to petition for termination. The only concerning factor is that risk level.

Separate conviction DATES.

Yes. That’s what is implied in my original post. I forget some people need it spelled out.

I think that such a distinction is reasonable as separate charges filed over a span of time can be confused with a multiplicity of counts originating during the same timeframe and charged as part of the same prosecution. This is one of those things that needs to be spelled out so that people don’t panic. It works for me, anyway.

So, if we are EXCLUDED NOW from the megans law website, we will stay off until January 2021 or 2022???

CA: Check the link provided by NPS above. The Nazis will begin the process of exposing people to the public website on 1-1-21. It may take a while for them to get to any particular individual. But rest assured, they will move as fast as they can to hurt as many people as possible. I would be fully prepared to implement whatever plan you’re going with by 1-1-21. It may take them a year to catch up to you….or it may take them an hour.

Here is the part that answers your question (page 5)

“If a registrant is currently excluded from the Megan’s Law Website will he or she remain excluded?

Pursuant to SB 384, registrants who were previously granted exclusion may no longer be eligible. If the CA DOJ determines that a person who was granted an exclusion under a former version of Penal Code section 290.46(d) would not qualify for exclusion under Penal Code section 290.46(d) as amended under SB 384, the department shall rescind the exclusion, make a reasonable effort to provide notification to the person that the exclusion has been rescinded, and, no sooner than 30 days after notification is attempted, make information about the registrant available to the public on the Internet Web site as provided in this section. “

Translation: We at the California DOJ want you dead. We hope that this will be the best way to achieve our goal, without bringing liability on ourselves.

That part is quite absurd. How can the state rationalize the necessity that someone be published when they’ve lived many years off of the Megan’s Law website without subsequent re-offense? Also, how does sudden inclusion into the Megan’s Law website not violate Ex Post Facto punishment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution? Sudden inclusion IS an increase in penalty after sentence. Ex Post Facto punishment is expressly prohibited by Clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The fact that registration schemes evade being classified as “punishment,” thanks only to a bogus statistic in Smith v. Doe (argued by none-other than who is now the Chief Justice, John Roberts), is even more crazy.

Yeah, the tiered registry MIGHT be a step forward; but the tiered registry also has a lot of crazy flaws to it. Hopefully, the flaws will be corrected. But if not corrected, then hopefully litigation is prepared so that sudden publication will be barred.

There are cases already decided that any change to the current format that adds burdens is Ex Post Facto with respect to the registry. See Snyder (Michigan) and Muniz (Pa) cases.

Man I just don’t get it….Why would you wait to petition the court just because they say you have too?
“In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging “the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted,[1] many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right.[2] The right to petition is regarded as fundamental in some republics, such as the United States, as a means of protecting public participation in government.”
It is so ingrained in our republic and constitution that even trying to tell you when you can petition is a major violation of the First amendment. State court is hella easy to file in and you are almost garuenteed to prevail if you have any writing experience whatsoever…..Bombard the courts people…I am already preparing my state case and petition as I proceed in my federal case….It’s your unconditional constitutional right….Don’t wait, Just Do it……Read the WIKI page…

mike r, Just because someone has the right to petition the courts under the constitution doesn’t mean a judge will hear it or grant it. It could be a waste of a lot of money if the petition isn’t granted and there could be a time period before a petition can be filed again. In NJ, where my conviction was, a petition to get off the registry has certain requirements before a judge will here it…. sure, I could argue it’s a constitutional right but the judge still will deny the petition and I will have to wait 2 years before I can petition again. I understand your point mike but I wish you can prove my thinking wrong.

The right (of petition) embraces dissent, and “would seem unnecessary to be expressly provided for in a republican government, since it results from the very nature and structure of its institutions. It is impossible that it could be practically denied until the spirit of liberty had wholly disappeared and the people had become so servile and debased as to be unfit to exercise any of the privileges of freemen.” “Deprivation of it would at once be felt by every freeman as a degradation. It is not that government has accomplished the “impossible” of practically denying the right, but rather that the “spirit of liberty” has almost “wholly disappeared and the people have become servile and debased.” But “fitness” to exercise the rights of freemen is never determined by the many who have become servile, but by the few who refuse, at any cost, to surrender their rights to government.
It is for those very important few, lawyers, ordinary citizens and patriots, who carry the Nation’s full burden of liberty on their shoulders

Comment: My name is Greg. I would like to sue CDCR and challenge the ExPost Facto Law of making my parole 10 years long when I was originally only supposed to have 3 years of parole. This ruined my life! I got moved from a state group to a federal group in Sharper Future. I was supposedly the first 290 in the state to be allowed to do that, which allows me to meet once monthly instead of once weekly. I have done everything parole asked. I’ve never violated. I’ve been on parole for almost 5 years now. I’ve passed all of their bs lie detectors. I’ve gone to every containment meeting which they tell me I’m a “walk on water parolee.” They tell me they will actually recommend me to discharge at 7 years and it’s unfortunate for this to have happened to me. Ex Post Facto Law is not supposed to be applied if it is punitive in nature. 7 more years of parole is punitive in nature, period! I want to sue them for everyday I’m on parole past three years. I want to take this overkill law down so no one else has to suffer thru what I have. I want off parole, please help. If you need to contact me, 325 864 5386, or This is a fight worth fighting. Hundreds of parolees are in my shoes and the payday could be quite substantial. Let’s do this!
Purpose: Select an Option / General Inquiry