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 January 2018

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of January 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

URGENT CALL TO ACTION: Florida wants to reduce registration period to 3 days!
by Florida Action Committee

Senator Lauren Book (senate) and representative Fitzenhagen (House) have sponsored legislation that, among other things, would reduce the number of days that constitutes a permanent or temporary residence to THREE (3) days, instead of the current FIVE (5) days.

Five days is bad enough, but three days would mean no more long weekends away with the family without having to take the extra day off to go IN PERSON to the DMV to change your address (and then again, to change it back)!

Please call your legislator and tell them to VOTE NO to this HORRIBLE Bill

HB 1301: Sexual Offenders and Predators

SB 1226: Sentencing for Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators

Sexual Offenders and Predators; Reduces aggregate & consecutive number of days used to determine residency for purposes of sexual predator or sexual offender registration; provides for mandatory minimum sentence of community control with electronic monitoring for certain offenses.

It will change the current 5 days to 3 days. Require in person notification!

It’s impossible for registrants to comply. This is just another tactic of the legislature to set mine fields for registrants who want to travel or for visitors to our state.

Once on the Florida Registry … even if you are not on a public registry in their home state … they will be now, courtesy of Florida.

For those who DO live here and periodically travel, this requirement is unrealistic. You would have to make TWO trips to the DMV to change your address (and then change it back). For a three-day trip, you’d have to spend two days waiting at the DMV.


If anyone wants to follow my case here’s a link and I’ve updated everything…
Check it out…sorry bout my mistake above….

181. Even so, I would still like to present some of Dr. Hanson’s own quotes from his written testimony in California’s Doe v. Harris case. “Contrary to the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of re-offending through their lifespan, the longer offenders remain offence-free in the community, the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Eventually, they are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an “out of the blue” sexual offence.
My status (pre-trial) conference is set on my 14 anniversary of my offense.
“After 10-14 years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime.”
After 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense, high risk offenders pose no more risk of committing a new sex offense than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. Based on my research, my colleagues and I recommend that rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.”, [p.1-2]. “Research has long shown that the longer an ex-offender remains free of arrests or convictions the lower the chance he will reoffend. In fact, most detected recidivism occurs within three years of a previous arrest and almost always within five years.”[p.8] see,

I am an R.S.O.

I am in my late 50s. I was convicted of 311.11(a) and have served my 90 days and 3 yrs probation. I was successfully employed in the healthcare industry, but no longer. I had a nice home in a nice area, but no longer. I travelled, met interesting people, and made friends all over the world, but no longer.
I was never happy growing up in U.S. because my internal values never matched this society’s values. Now I am stuck here.
I hear and read,” start a new life” , ” get involved”, “things will get better”. This is more for their peace of mind. I know that life will be a struggle if I choose to continue, and that is really the question I deal with every day now. Do I just keep faking it and think somehow I will ever get back what I lost, or do I accept that this is as good as it will ever get.
Faking it is easy, I read it all the time here. Accepting is painful, and I think I have had enough pain in my life. I don’t want pity, or empathy, or advice. I want what I can’t have, my life back.

“Coalinga State Hospital Patients Denied Appeal For Electronics By Judge”

And Big Brother continues his march ahead…HR 4760 ( has a slew (or perhaps “slough” would be more appropriate?) of mentions of “biometric” in it. (A routine search yielded 51 results.)

Some of the lesser “news” sites (and Ron Paul) are saying it calls for a National ID. From what I read of it, it kind of does, kind of doesn’t. There’s nothing in the bill to prevent everyone present in the US from having to have a National ID card and, just like SSNs, such a beast would quickly catch on as the way to get anything done. What I found disconcerting is inclusion of biometric tracking for entry *and exit* from the US, and also for CBP to be required to use facial recognition and/or another biometric to ID those at ports of entry.

As I’ve said before, good thing the terrorists didn’t win on 9/11. Not one single loss of civil liberties, not one bit of fear of the unknown or “them”, since. Nope.

@AJ ,,,,, ,, good comment about being glad the terrorist didn’t win . that was a great finish !

Making a video of a young person violated in any way is wrong. Somehow, viewing it 20 yrs after it was made is considered just as bad.
Then how can videos of a woman being decapitated with a knife not looked on as just as horrible.Because this is what a son of a client showed my today. And if it is, then doesn’t anyone viewing it considered a danger to commit the very act they are viewing.
And why aren’t PUBLIC sites that show this kind of violence exclusively shut down.

Hello, does anyone have or know where to get a complete list of all of the USA’s congress members (both house and senate)? I’m looking for a list in excel format (preferably) so that I can mail merge letters to all of them. I would need their names and addresses.

Actually, I found one at:

This list will need some cleanup though to only get what I want. If anyone knows of a better list, I’d love to see it. Thanks.

Can someone explain to me why CP pos is Tier 2 in South Carolina (which is a SORNA state).

I thought CP was just Tier 1 with SORNA compliant states?

The Tiers and lengths of time in SORNA are floors/minima. A State could make everything Tier III and lifetime and be compliant. Were CP a Tier II and SC made it a Tier I, there (perhaps) would be a SORNA-compliance issue.

I know of at least one other SORNA-compliant State that only has two items that rank as Tier I, and CP is not one of them.

Folks – FYI, just completed my annual renewal this morning. Was in and out in less than 15 minutes. Nothing on the 21 day IML requirement, I asked him and he said these were last years forms but it was fine. He and I had already spoken last year about the requirement even though California is a non SORNA state. I asked him on his thoughts regarding the upcoming new tiered registry and he stated he was looking forward to it as 75% of his guys have been registering for 10 + years without any further issues and with them gone he can focus his time on the remainder of the folks who do pose some risk. He also said there would not be any pushback from him or the department when the judge holds the hearing in 2021. I truly hope that is still their mindset in three years.

“You might be a sex offender if…”

The Cato Institute features Lenore Skenazy on February 8, 2018, 12:00 noon to 1:30 EST with details found here to follow it online if you are able to do that:

A side story, but a victory nonetheless: Florida’s ban on felons voting is unconstitutional, federal judge rules ( Of course murderers and RCs are still prohibited, but I wonder how long that can stand, given this ruling.

I just finished watching “American Standoff”, about the Hammond ranchers in Burns, OR (another example of Government gone out of bounds), and there was a quote in there I found applicable to what seems to be going on with/for us:

“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” –Samuel Adams

Plenty of brushfires in State Courts of Last Resort and some Federal Courts. Let’s stay irate, tireless and keen!

Just got this good news from Mary Sue of Texas Voices:

A VERY nice decision today out of an Illinois Court. It will be interesting to see how this fares as it moves further through the courts. I copied and pasted the below info sent in by our Illinois connection.

Here’s a quick summary of yesterday’s decision: Opinions/AppellateCourt/2018/ 3rdDistrict/3150243.pdf

People of IL v. Kyle J. Tetter

Defendant, age 21 at the time, began a relationship with a girl who represented herself to be 18. The jury found that the defendant continued this relationship after learning the girl was 16 and convicted him of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to 180 days in county jail, 4 years of sex offender probation and lifetime sex offender registration

On appeal the defendant raised a constitutional challenge claiming the Illinois SORA, Notification Law, residence and presence restrictions within 500 feet of school zones or 100 feet of bus stops, residence and presence restrictions within 500 feet of a public park, mandatory annual driver’s license renewal and prohibiting defendant from petitioning to change his name impose disproportionate punishment AS APPLIED to him.

The 3rd district appellate court found that the defendant’s lifetime subjection to the sex offender statutes constitutes grossly disproportionate punishment as applied to Kyle. The court vacated the defendant’s subjection to sex offender registration requirements and restrictions.

Mary Sue’s comment: I am expecting this case to be appealed to the IL Supreme Court. I don’t think the state can let this one go on account that other individuals will file the same challenge to their requirement to register since sex offender laws could violate 8th amendment rights for anyone who doesn’t pose a high risk to reoffend. In fact, I think it could become a class action legal challenge!

Thank you for fixing the link! I tried to edit mine but it was too late.

The Good News: This majority opinion contains many of the recent tide-changing precedents by courts across the nation as reference. It shows what happens when judges look at the true facts and information. Definitely worth reading.

Where it falls short: It fails to directly call out the false recidivism from Smith V Doe that has infected most cases and laws passed since 2003. It does look at this particular individuals chances of recidivism, but without addressing the false claims laws are based on it still leaves room for the “frightening and high” claim to stand as justification for the overall laws.

Where it fails completely: The dissenting judge’s opinion, Justice Vicki Wright, is quite alarming. She completely ignores the constitution and allows whatever her personal feelings are make it impossible for her to objectively do her job as an impartial judge. She should have recused herself.

This part shows how disconnected from reality this justice is:

Respectfully, I do not find laws that restrict this defendant from working within 500 feet
of a school or public park, or within 100 feet of a school bus stop particularly disproportionate to
this offense. The record does not indicate defendant is a student, will be a student, or has any
reason to be present near a school. I also find it reassuring that this convicted sex offender must
disclose his e-mail addresses, cyber identities, and instant message accounts as part of the
registration requirements set forth in the sex offender laws. These restrictions, and others, will
protect underage targets that defendant might attempt to win over with his sweet-talking,
manipulative, communications in the future.
Other ridiculous comments:

“The requirement that defendant must notify law enforcement when he is away from home
for three or more days does not appear to be burdensome to this defendant. ”

The defendant who was 21 believed the victim, on an adult website, who claimed she was 18, yet the justice says this below, and ignores the EXPERT opinion of the COURT CHOSEN psychologist of a near 0% chance of recidivism:

“Defendant’s recidivist potential is evident in the circumstances of this offense. Once was
not enough. Here, defendant repeatedly had sexual intercourse with a teenager on multiple
occasions. In my view, defendant has already demonstrated his propensity to repeat the same
criminal acts, again and again. ”

and then:

“Surely, if defendant was not at risk to repeat this criminal misconduct, sex offender treatment would not be recommended in this case”

But it’s required in probation for sex offences that require registration!!!

She clearly needs to be removed from her elected position.

Wow, another nice result (so far) out of IL. I agree, Chris F, the majority did a really good job of itemizing and addressing the claims that swirl around every case–on both sides. They even tossed in Pepitone for good measure, cast it in the best light for the State, and still found for the citizen. Nice. I also like how they addressed individualized risk, even though they didn’t outright say it’s a concern. The concept is well-threaded into their words and analysis.

To me, this case indicates that Snyder is starting to have the effects (I believe) SCOTUS wants: for lower courts to follow it and resolve things shy of the SCOTUS doorstep. I’m not troubled by their not attacking “frightening and high”. That they were able to establish punitive-in-effect without addressing that lie is actually a benefit to our cause. Though it would be nice to have a court or two outright say that phrase is a sham and falsehood, here I don’t see it mattering too much.

@Chris F: I 100% agree about the dissenting judge. She comes across as a very poor magistrate. She seems content to rely on what others have ruled and said, and has no interest in seeing if things ever change from previous rulings or times. Were her type on SCOTUS in 1954, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be law of the land! Her extreme distaste for all things and people in the sexual offense realm comes through clearly. She has no problem with First Amendment disabilities (travel, association, speech), that much is clear. Her statements in ¶ 94 sum it all up for me:
The majority minimizes the seriousness by noting defendant had a “relationship” with the victim that began when the victim posted her photo on MeetMe, a site restricted to adults only. These observations seem to unfairly shame or blame the victim and are not persuasive.”
Acknowledgement of the public (via court record) fact that the girl lied about her age is shaming her? Yikes. And yes, she *is* partly to blame, because she was where she shouldn’t have been! But ML, etc, is not shaming. Gotcha.

Yes, this will definitely be appealed to ILSC. As I’ve repeatedly and long said, every single one of these cases gets appealed to the Court of Last Resort, due to the stakes. Thankfully, we’re seeming to chalk up more wins than they are. They overplayed their hands by going above and beyond Smith, and now courts are batting them down left and right–and not only via ex post facto now. I’m warmed by yet another “brushfire of freedom.” 🙂

I haven’t read the case yet, but if the decision was based on the 8th amendment, that is a rare and exciting occurrence. It will be good to watch this case as it progresses through the courts.

A very good ruling out of Illinois. The court declared the Illinois Sorna laws to be unconstitutional in his situation because the law was cruel and excessive punishment. It further stated that the Illinois Sorna law is punishment. Their rationale was in large part based on all of the restrictions on movement and general freedoms. This thinking could be directed at the AWA as well as the IML. I read the decision pretty quickly but I really liked their rationale.

For those interested, the latest court filings for the massive (135 plaintiffs) ID RC case is available at (expiring Feb 7, 2018). The two documents are the State’s Motion to Dismiss (tossing up almost the exact same arguments mike r got from the CAAG…), and the RCs’ Motion in Opposition. I’ve only skimmed the State’s doc, as it’s the tired arguments we’ve all heard. The RCs’ doc is a bit better, though not the most compelling arguments I’ve ever read. It, too, mirrors mike r’s Complaint, so it will be interesting to see how things go in ID (also part of the 9th).


Thanks for this. Please refresh here, are they doing this like Millard in CO through “As Applied” individually with 135 individuals?

Yes, it’s an as-applied challenge. And “only” 134 plaintiffs, pardon my typo. I’ve put the amended Complaint online for convenience: (exp. 2/7/2018).

Thank you @AJ. 134 in ID will make things interesting for “as applied” in that quantity.

AJ, I can’t download it. It gives the error: The requested URL /download/JXzYRC/0531519474adc7731d1929eaf4dbccbe/Plaintiff-response-to-Motion-ID.pdf was not found on this server.

Is it working right now for others? I tried both one at a time and the zip option. Same error.

Not working for me either. I get the same error, Chris F.

Sorry about that! There was apparently some problem with the website, as I got the same error (it was having issues yesterday, too). I’ve uploaded all three documents and tested them for download, with success. Here’s the link: (Exp. 2/8/18)

I really don’t like that case AJ. There are to many plaintiffs, to vague and not specific to the individuals as applied, doesn’t provide enough empirical evidence (or any real evidence hardly except for a couple of quotes). The case actually is very troublesome, it’s like that Minnesota case with civil confinement-to many plaintiffs, and not specific as applied challenges with enough evidence. None of these suits are going to win on an class action, a facial challenge, or with such a broad range of offenders. If any do I will be truly surprised. The only way class actions or large groups of individuals win is if every one of the plaintiffs are in the exact(or almost) circumstances such as all having the same offenses or all be determined to be the same risk or something that they all have in connection and then you can start your arguments. There isn’t even a argument until you can prove all the requirements I stated needed for a class action or over-broad plaintiffs. Any attorney who even tries a class action or a facial challenge should be disbarred if they don’t have the requirements that I stated. There isn’t even a question about the law or case law when it comes to what I m stating. It’s common sense and common knowledge…

This is going to get interesting since we are both in the Ninth. It’s almost the exact same timing as my case as well. I hope if there is some kind of split here the Ninth doesn’t try to just consolidate the two cases together when the two come before them. I’m going to have to make sure to be prepared and maybe even mention somewhere during my case that my case is substantially and factually different than the Idaho case.

The only way I could see a facial challenge working is if it focuses on Substantive Due Process and Bill of Attainder. Those are true of everyone on the registry since there is not a way to be evaluated and excluded from the registry, or appeal the placement on the registry, and the length is arbitrary and not adjusted by a judge. It is a Bill Of Attainder for all because of how it singles out one named politically unpopular group that can’t change its status, and the comments by legislators point to wanting to stick it to offenders and how they don’t care about an offender’s rights.

The other challenges are more difficult.

Nobody said anything about facial or class-action suits going on. 134 is a large amount of plaintiffs, but if many of them are similarly situated, it doesn’t harm the case. In fact, were they not similarly situated, it would make the case exceedingly complex. I’m not overly impressed with some of the arguments, but we’ll see what happens. It sure beats any suit I have pending (read: none).