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 April 2018

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Yep, just furthers my assertion to go state not fed. Even so that case is pretty harsh New. The argument that a certificate of rehabilitation has anything to do withremoval is false I believe. Maybe wrong though. I think the only thing that is going to have any affect is the evidence as I presented and only if we can force the courts to recognize them, with the repkrts that I have provided a judge would look like an idiot to not take pause and figure out the friggin blantent obvious facts that this BS is punishment,was meant to be punishment for decades, and any reasonable mind can conclude nothing different. I will frigging shame a judge into taking notice if I have to. Go public and make them look like a fool. I bet one of the networks would pick up my story if I brought it to their attention. I don’t just brainstorming here.

Oh, here we go… Orange County (and Face) Register editorial: “Dangerous flaws in Proposition 57 could result in early release of sex offenders”

Through out my legal process, which started with the attorney I retained, and through my completion of probation, which included the court mandated counceling, I was not once asked about the circumstances surrounding my offense ( 311.11 1 count possesion ). They all seem to assume that I was intentionally downloading pix. Even when I showed that the pix had no description, only a numerical i.d. , which was not a searchable item, all came from same file, and were in my trash folder. This didn’t seem to make a difference. Not one question was asked about ANYTHING.
Yet I see akl the time in felony trials whare the defense mounts a proven hypothesis for why the accused committed a violent act, asking for leniency. Does the entire legal / political / social system automatically think that you are the worst of the scum without so much as a ” what happened?”. In a one word answer……………. YES!

Yeah don’t get discouraged man, you can do this. That is exactly how I started and although it took me at least two years of prep it is going and I think it will keep going well. Take all my evidence and prove to them you are not a risk statistically by our own government. Wait and lets see how the court reacts to my judicial notice request because I think that could be a big win and incredibly important. Put to rest the hyperbole and misrepresentation of facts real fast….Put whatever you have on that pleading paper I posted because it helps to see how professional it looks, builds your confidence a little. 🙂

Well, had my meet and confer call. Went very well, trial will be set for sometime in December with a multitude of actions in between then and now. The AG states that she will be attempting a summary judgment and/or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, no big deal there. She hinted that she may be wanting to dispose me and that she may be bringing expert witness on recidivism at which point I am going to research to see how I ca get the court to subpoena my own expert witness such as maybe Emily Horiwitze or Catherine Carpenter or some one from the CASOMB maybe, IDK yet still need to research this. Pretty straight forward and although we are on opposites sides of this, and I am not ignorant of this fact, but she is really helpful in giving me exact rules and where to find them and pretty much is working in good faith to expedite the case. Sounds as if she is going t use every play in the book though that is plain. Interesting….

Just emailed Carpenter and Horowitz as well as the ACLU and will continue to press forward and contact all that I can “again” pleading for assistance. I am ready to keep going it alone but some back up would be nice. Hint for anyone who sees this….Here is what I emailed basically with the relevant parts changed of course..

Hello Miss Horowitz,
My name is Michael Richardson, I have filed Pro Se in the Eastern District Court for California (CA) and am embroiled in a fight against the CA Attorney General (AG) and am about to enter into discovery. Although I have included a vast amount of reports from research on sex offender recidivism rates and the efficacy of the registration schemes here in CA and across the country the AG has informed me during our meet and confer conference call that she may very well be calling an expert witness on those subjects. My question to you is: since you are one of the leading experts in this field what would it take to get you to be my expert witness in my case? As a Pro Se litigant I do not have the resources such as the CA AG has at her disposal and I believe that an expert witness in my case that is not biased and basically employed by the CA AG would be a great benefit to my case, if not an outright necessity. I understand that you do not know me and that you are probably a very busy individual but I also think that these issues are very relevant and important to you since you have built a career surrounding these issues. I desperately need an expert witness that can state the facts and counterbalance and even the scales in my case. The actual trial is not to begin until sometime in December since we have just completed our meet and confer conference call, the discovery and datelines are going to be determined shortly. I understand that this is a long shot but my case in California is going to be an extremely important case I believe and if I can withstand and conform to the rules of the court and to Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure that this case can and will affect tens of thousands of individuals in my home state and will set precedent for future filings. So far I have been able to hold my own and have forced the AG to admit that the court does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the issues in my case. A complete chronological documentation of my case can be found on my site at
Thank you for your time

Sex-offender registries under attack for violating ex-offenders’ constitutional rights
(Community safety competes against stringent controls offenders face even after completing their sentences)

(If this is a duplicate posting here, I apologize. Interesting set of comments)

Gorsuch sounds like exactly what SCOTUS has needed, a new face that isn’t as old as dirt and thinks for himself. This could be a good start to getting our constitutional republic back…..Now only if the 9th engages in the judicial process such as Gorsuch and don’t just defer to the legislature and hopefully even questions questionable precedents.

All this worry about the registry may be pointless if China’s new social “personal credit information system” that aims to rank citizens based on various behaviors works well for the government. The national social-credit system’s aim, according to a slogan repeated in planning documents, is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

This may be our new future that could spread worldwide. If we had this in the U.S. you know that we would be at the lowest social credit levels and all our activities and benefits would be severely restricted. China will have 600,000,000 camera set up by 2020 to watch and record everything people do. These cameras can also use facial recognition. Any crime recorded, even jaywalking, will take points off your social credit score. What you purchase will also affect your score and of course your social media accounts will effect it. The future looks pretty scary, especially for those that society has already determined to be dangerous. Of course we are not a communist country, so this could never happen here, ….right? Maybe our government wouldn’t construct a system like this, but I bet private companies would love to build this system. China is expecting to use all government and private business information for these ratings. In the U.S. (and the rest of the world), Google and Facebook will make a great start in developing such a system.

We are already commodities.

@ Lake County: “What you purchase will also affect your score …. ” It is my understanding that “vice purchases”, such as massages and alcohol, are noted by Experian, Transunion & Equifax and will actually impact one’s FICO credit score.

Well, if anyone is interested, I finally got a response back from some one claiming to be a staff member of Michigan Senator Rick Jones, concerning the Michigan Registry and why it still has not been revised yet, after being told 6 months ago to fix it. Its not much but this is what they wrote back to me.

Groups are still working on it and it should be fixed by the end of the year.

In my opinion it should not take until the end of the year, I think they should shut it down until it is fix, and I also think we should be compensated for damages. That will never happen though, RIGHT

Yeah EVA is pretty cool AJ. I never got that far on it. Love how it gives links automatically to every case cited in my briefs….I haven’t delved in yet to see what it has about my case but I am interested if it has the entire case as of now….

She Retroactively Decided She Didn’t Like Their Encounter, And It Destroyed His Semester

An Illinois State University student is suing his school because even though they found him not responsible for sexual assault, a premature suspension effectively punished him.

This writer, Ashe Schow, has a good string of campus SA due process related articles under her profile.

I guess the court pretty much has to take judicial notice of the reports and of the Hanson Declaration…

“Under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may lake judicial notice of the records of state courts [and] the legislative history of state statutes.” Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp. 460 F. Supp. 2d 1 153, 1 155, n.4 (CD. Cal. 2006). Defendant Becerra requests that this Court do so.” AG Motion to Dismiss p. 3 footnote 2.
“See also Terrebonne v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 997, 1000 n. 4 (51h Cir.l981) (“Absent some reason for mistrust, courts have not hesitated to take judicial notice of agency records and reports”).” Ibid.

Seems pretty straight forward to me….

Dam*&%^ I wish I would of included the following but I will get it in the record at some point…
““Finally, throughout the legislative history, the enacting representatives discussed how Smith v. Doe provided a “green light” for this legislation. Assembly. Comm. on Public Safety, Analysis of AB 488 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) April 1, 2003, at 107.” AG Motion to Dismiss p. 12 at 12-13.

This shows how the legislature (which helped influence the decision in Smith) turned around and used Smith to enact CA laws….There has to be a name for when someone influences a decision and then turns around and uses that decision to further their objective or agendas…

I believe it is called COLLUSION.

Re: Chinas social credit scoring scheme: Banned from flying?Cant buy property?This sounds awfully similar to the SOR. Global communism is the goal, and I always knew that the registry was the beta test and part of a larger future control mechanism.

WOW, did a google search Richardson v sessions and got 4 instant hits. Semi famous AJ. LMFAO…. This one has every filing.
way out man….

That is strange I cannot get any hits on my original case even though it went all the way to a habeas in the fed court even though at that point I did not know how to certify it for appeal which you have to do if you file a habeas. BS I can tell you that because I already had one justice in the CA supreme court want to take the case but the other two declined. Apparently there was a problem according to at least one CA supreme court justice. I also had a civil motion for summary judgement as well….Interesting….

“State Senate targets masturbating jail inmates, making ‘sex offender’ tag easier”

“It is aimed at combating what I would say is a pretty extreme brand of workplace sexual harassment that is occurring right now, particularly at Cook County Jail. It’s a growing phenomenon of male inmates exposing themselves to female staffers and engaging in various forms of lewd behavior,” bill sponsor State Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago, said on the Senate floor.”

Guess that site cost money to see the filings though. Man I really like the following. This along with Weems is gold..

“There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is instead the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society.” Trop v. Dulles, supra, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630.
Admittedly, the sole function of the judiciary is to examine legislative acts in light of constitutional limitations to assure that the punishment imposed is exercised within the limits of civilized standards (Trop v. Dulles (1958) 356 U.S. 86, 100, 78 S.Ct. 590, 597, 2 L.Ed.2d 630) for to do otherwise would allow the Legislature to be the sole judge of the permissible means and extent of punishment, rendering the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments superfluous. (People v. Anderson, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 640, 100 Cal.Rptr. 152.)

On a side note, I like the thought process Justice Kagan used recently in regards to try sway Justice Kennedy on his decision on Trump’s Muslim Travel ban. Check it out if you haven’t read it. It’s this kind of thinking that we need to be applied to the sex offender registry. She asks if we had an anti semitic president who wanted to ban people from Israel from coming to the US would we declare that unconstitutional. The time is ripe for a supreme court case to overturn the whole registration thing and declare it unconstitutional.

Yeah, in this case, the government argues the president’s intent during the campaign was not relevant, just the facts; that the banned countries hold only eight percent of Muslims. Contrast this to Smith vs. Doe or the recent Illinois case were government intent means everything and the facts, low recidivism rates, mean nothing. Bliblibliblibli– what?

Domestic Travel
I currently have to register in California for CP offenses. We have a family trip planned to New York in a couple months. I’m just trying to plan and to figure out if I’m going to be stopped or hassled at the airport either flying from California to New York or back home. Any comments would be welcome

@JC, I haven’t really heard of any issues traveling by plane within the country. But do keep in mind that you technically should register in NY if you’re there longer than 72 hours (I don’t know the exact period of time for NY, so maybe someone else can give you a more solid answer, but I think that’s what it is). If you do end up registering there, keep in mind that you might end on up NY registry indefinitely even after leaving the state, moving out of the country, and even having your registration requirement dropped by CA. For a deep blue states, they’re one of the worst when it comes to RC’s.

No. I’ve flown all over the US and it is not an issue

Same. I’ve encountered no problems, questions, or delays when traveling domestically.

Thank you

The Dr’s TV show has a segment on today’s show about the high risk of sexual offenders contacting kids through online video games. They stated that 750,000 child predators are online at any given moment. They stated we need more laws to prevent the recent large increase of sex predators contacting kids through these games. This story is full of myths and half truths. You can watch the full story for free at this link:

It sure makes it hard to stop these myths about predators when major news and TV shows keep the fearmongering fresh in the media.

The easiest places in the world to get citizenship or residency, from Thailand to St. Lucia

I feel like giving up. I’m 3 months into the price club and feel like there’s no hope to ever get a job. I have a highly employable skill and have no problem getting job offers until the background check. I even worked in both landscaping and hard labor each for two weeks until the crew found out that they were working with a “pedophile” and threatened to quit unless I was fired. All this over 10 words to a 17.5 year old (how’s your boyfriend in bed I bet you have fun) while drunk. That’s it no pictures no solicitation no grooming no other inappropriate behavior or comments and the age of consent is 16. I lost a PhD fellowship and everything I worked for in my life. What is the point of even trying anymore?

Sorry to hear your story – sounds utterly insane. No, beyond insane that those words could get you in the registry.
Well, hang in there, bud. You’re obviously very bright and you will, believe it or not, survive and thrive. There will be ups and downs, but there would be ups and downs anyway, registry or not. Remember that there are probably millions of less fortunates who would trade places with you in a nano second.
Good luck!!!

Yup on top of that it’s a felony too. Thank you for the kind words.

Lost ~ I can’t believe that something like this would get you on the registry. What State was this in, and was your attorney utterly useless? These are the things the public is missing. They hear the word sex offender and automatically assume child rapist. The registry has to come down on grounds of idiocity and incompetence. Hang in there! If you get a job offer, why not be upfront and educate your future boss about what got you this felony. He might find it as ridiculous as we all do?

MA. No I hired a supposed great attorney, one of the best in the state, who like you found all of this utterly ridiculous. Problem was I had my trial during the height of the MeToo movement and the jury crucified me. I was sentenced to a year on probation and required to register for 20 years. I’m also subject to IML because of this too. Both bosses at the landscaping company knew and also found this ridiculous, but the crew refused to believe that something like that had to happen and would frequently talk about what they would do to CHOMOs in jail.

Problem is that even though the employer finds it all ridiculous, being on the registry is a bad image and no reputable company in my field (data science/computer programming/quant) wants the take the risk of hiring me. All of this happened when I was 24.

What was the charge, solicitation of a minor? As presented, it seems awfully weak, if not baseless given the consent age. Have you considered finding another attorney to review it for appeal?

If your state deregisters when you move, consider looking for a state that doesn’t put you on a public registry based on your offense. (If your state doesn’t de-register, such as NY, FL, MS, LA, etc., it’s probably moot.) I know NJ (ironically, given it’s the ML epicenter) keeps low-risk offenders as LE-only, though IDK if you’d meet that criteria. Also, I know MN has a LE-only registry. I believe, but am not sure, that there may even be one or two states that don’t list employer address on their ML sites. Pick through the “50 States” file ( on here for possible places to relocate, then dig into their laws to see if it’ll work.

I do agree with @someone who cares that if you’re upfront about it–maybe including court transcripts?–you may have a better shot at things. But, sadly, many employers simply don’t want to be associated with RCs or felons, let alone both.

Dissemination of Matter Harmful to a Minor

Yes I have hired an appellate attorney, who has said that he thinks that the appeals court would be very interested in hearing this case.

I’m glad you’ve got another attorney looking into it. Based on what you’ve said, you were railroaded. Does the girl have a dad who’s a politician, judge, or LEO? Even though you got a very light sentence, the whole thing sounds like a crock.

@AJ she was rich so probably had connections. This whole thing has been so much bull. You hear worse on TV

@All RC readers, et al

As we have hashed out IML (HR 515 –, AWA (, and SORNA (, the one thing that was never found in any of them was 21 day notification. WTF did it come from?! I wanted to know. If you know already, skip this reading.

So, I was able to finally find where it came from:

Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification (

“Since the publication of the SORNA Guidelines, issues have arisen in SORNA implementation that require that some aspects of the Guidelines be augmented or modified. Consequently, the Department of Justice proposed and solicited public comment on supplemental guidelines addressing these issues, which were published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2010, at 75 FR 27362. The public comment period closed on July 13, 2010.” (

Following consideration of the public comments received, the Department of Justice is now finalizing the supplemental guidelines, which do the following:

(3) Require jurisdictions to have sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance of such travel and to submit information concerning such travel to the appropriate Federal agencies and databases.

International Travel

Part II.A of these supplemental guidelines exercises “[t]he authority under 42 U.S.C. 16914(a)(7) to expand the range of required registration information * * * to provide that registrants must be required to inform their residence jurisdictions of intended travel outside of the United States at least 21 days in advance of such travel.” (

“Some commenters objected to this requirement on the ground that it would prevent sex offenders from engaging in legitimate international travel, because it may be necessary for sex offenders to travel abroad for business, familial, or other reasons without being able to anticipate the need three weeks in advance. However, these supplemental guidelines recognize that there may be circumstances in which requiring 21 days advance notice would be unnecessary or inappropriate, and expressly allow jurisdictions to adopt policies accommodating such situations subject to approval by the SMART Office.”

This is a long doc with a lot of background info and justifications of why the DOJ/AG can do what they can do. It also shows that 21 days is not codified in law, but supplemental guidance only at DOJ/AG implementation through the SMART office (which could be the way you fly overseas for family emergency, etc if you can get into the country).

Yes, the AG was given broad power to decide all sorts of things regarding SORNA that would seem to exceed the Executive Branch authority. This is why the separation of powers suit mentioned somewhere else on this site is of such interest. Toss in the recent Dimaya decision, and there’s a sliver of light that SCOTUS is going to start holding Congress to a higher standard of detail regarding laws, reducing the broad authority given the “fourth branch” of the government, the Administrative Branch. Gorsuch has certainly shown he’s no fan of less-than-detailed laws.

In case anyone is interested, that separation of powers case is Gundy v United States.

Well, I received the draft from the CA AG in my case and here it is. Man the rules are really complex people and although I am trying to stay confident and positive they are very intimidating since there are over 900 fed rules when it comes to court. I really am not sure how to respond at this time and I really took what USA had to say to heart. He was kind of right that I should dial back the ego and be a little more humble but man I am under a lot of pressure with this case and school and everything else but I know this case is very important to me as well as many others…Thank God for Janice and everyone that stopped that residency bill because that was a big issue. Anyway I want to hit back with everything I have at the AG but I do not want to go overboard or look like a fool filing frivolous BS so I am really in a quandary here people. Any suggestions?????

I was going to throw everything I could think of at her but I am rethinking that way of thinking as I am just trying to get relief and am not out to make her look bad or or to boost my ego. I just want relief as many others do….Anyways any suggestions would be cool. I know it is pretty much all me now since it really is about the rules at this point. I think the following will be all I ask to be included in the Status report…

(c) Plaintiff anticipates possible amendment to the compliant dependent upon the substance in the answer from the Defendant on Plaintiff’s first through fifth claims of Plaintiff’s complaint and dependent upon Defendant’s forthcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend (see section e., below). Also, amendment may be dependent upon the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss claims six through nine of Plaintiff’s complaint and if the Court finds Plaintiff must amend and grants leave to amend.
(e) Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion in limine pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 103(a)-(e) concerning the inadmissibility of evidence dependent upon the substance of full discovery and Federal Rules of Evidence 702(a)-(d)., and Rule 703 if after full discovery Plaintiff learns that Defendant intends to introduce any expert witness.
(f) Plaintiff anticipates needing full discovery that is in Defendant’s possession as well as all requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 et seq. including all requirements pursuant to Rule 26(2) et seq. concerning expert witness if such witnesses are to be used.
If anyone has anything to add or comment please do so since I can use any and all help as well as a boost of confidence at this stage….

I just got a text that
Gavin Newsom is running for California Gov.
Anyone here knows him?

I don’t know him personally, but I definitely know him as he was the mayor of San Francisco (where I used to live before moving to the East Bay) and current Lt. Governor.

He definitely has a more progressive mind. He is the one who ordered city hall to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That resulted in a backlash with the creation and passage of Prop 8 before it was struck down by the 9th Circuit. He also tried to aide the homeless with his “Care not Cash” program offering housing services. He’s also vehemently against the death penalty. I’m not sure his stance on the registry, but he has worked with Scott Wiener when they were both city/county officials. Wiener is the one responsible for the tiered registry.

I liked Gavin when he was in office in SF, and he definitely has my vote for governor.

I’m not in CA, so it doesn’t much matter, but I like what I’ve read about Gavin Newsom, too. However, since he is not a registrant himself, it’s statistically likely that he favors keeping the registry. Since he’s also a politician, it’s a virtual certainty.

“However, since he is not a registrant himself, it’s statistically likely that he favors keeping the registry. Since he’s also a politician, it’s a virtual certainty.”

That is a complete unfair, if not ignorant, statement. You’ve said it yourself. You’re not in California, so your view of Newsom is skewed. Newsom has never enforced nor created additional RC restrictions in San Francisco. His Care Not Cash program did not have any barriers as to who could benefit. There was no background check of RC status. If someone needed help off the streets, they were helped.

That he is completely against the death penalty, reserved for the most heinous of crimes far worse that sex offenses, says more about his view on humanitarian issues.

No he is not a registrant, but he knows what it means to have his name dragged through the mud due to a sexual indiscretion. Everyone here in the Bay Area knows about his breaking the “bro code” and having a sexual affair with his best friend’s wife. That was something he had to overcome. If anything, that makes him a bit more empathetic to others who were adjudicated for sex crimes that are more or less mundane than his mea culpa.

He’s not too bad. Nice guy, liberal San Franciscan. The only thing about sex offenders with him was when he was Lt. Governor and endorsed increased penalties and enforcement of “trafficking” of women and children and making those convicted have to register. I don’t see him going out on any limb to eliminate the Registry, that’s for sure, but he’s unlikely to become a fire-breather like that horrid former SF DA and now U.S. Senator Kamala Harris or the reliably statist Dianne Feinstein.

Question for anyone with time on ” the list”.

Has anyone experienced an early termination from registering Federally?
I am asking because I have had reduction in charges to misdomeanor on possession 1 ct. I am going to be moving out of country within 2 yrs. , but would like early termination on my record.
I am in Ca., and would have 3.5 yrs if/when tiered bill goes into affect. I have read that one may petition for early federal release after 7 yrs. Is this an urban myth?

I want to be able to return for professional purposes (seminars, classes, etc.) without being hassled by ICE or having to register due to time in states.

Any info is appreciated. This whole thing even has attorneys that I have asked confused.


@ AlexO

You wrote: “@New Person, So what does that all mean in regards to still needing to register after being granted 1203.4?”

A person is required to register when convicted of a crime under PC 290. That’s how you get on the registry.

In Kelly v Municipal, the courts stated two things about PC 290 and 1203.4:
1. Registration and re-registration are criminal in character. Thus a penalty or disability.

2. 1203.4 aligns well with PC 290 such that only convicted are required to register. Under 1203.4, you’re only convicted during your probationary term. Once off, then you’re no longer convicted. If you’re no longer convicted, then you aren’t required to register.

Point 1 was deemed useless because NPS founded People v Hamdon that stated b/c the registry was deemed statutory, then it cannot be punishment.

Point 2 was never argued. In fact, according to AJ’s research on EVA, Kelly v Municipal hasn’t been overturned. Therefore, it still stands. By all accounts, anyone who received the 1203.4 cannot be on the registry due to point 2.

The CoR exit actually negates what 1203.4 awarded via Kelly v Municipal. I think this is what I’ll be using as well as introducing involuntary servitude based upon the specific verbiage introduced into court within Kelly v Municipal.

So if anyone else has founded info to refute point 2, then I’ve got a solid basis. = )

@New Person, So at the moment this is all theory for permanent relief, or has anyone successful been able to drop registering citing these things? Also, keep in mind that come 2021 when the tiered registry goes into effect, the COR will not longer be available to remove you from the registry. It’ll still be around and you can still get it, but 290.5 will be replaced with the registry, and it’s the current 290.5 with COR applied to it that allowed you to get off.


At the moment, this is theory. Before the Hamdon case (2014), one used Kelly v Municipal to get off the registry using 1203.4. (It’s crazy to find this Kelly v Municipal case. I’ve been part of CARSOL/ACSOL for probably seven years and it’s the first time I heard of the Kelly case.)

As for the new tiered system, I really want to win this case before then. If I do win it, then I don’t have to go through several extra and unnecessary burdens as well as have a judge and DA weigh in upon my release from the registry. If I do win, then there’s proof the state has violated my civil rights for several years beyond my designated probationary period, which Kelly passed law that protected registrants under 1203.4.

The extension of registration period serves as a deterrence and retributive as it impedes my full rights to be a part of society again.

@New Person:
You mentioned that NPS had found a case that erodes Kelly v Municipal. Was that case by chance People v. Hamdon ( It doesn’t outright overturn Kelly, but it does seem to render it useless. The gist of the case is that 290.5 overrides anything decided in Kelly.

@ AJ,

Thank you! And yes, it was the Hamdon case.

There are two points in the Hamdon case:
1) The registry was deemed not punishment, thus registering isn’t criminal or quasi-criminal in character.
2) 290.5 now defines a way off the registry.

Again, thank you for looking this up. I can fight against 290.5 with Kelly v Municipal b/c 1203.4 did give a legal way off the registry at the end of your probation period (that implies you successfully completed probation). 290.5 moved the goal post from the end of probation to a total of a 10-year waiting time for the CoR petition, which may or may not release you from registering. Which is far different from the decision on Kelly – once you successfully complete probation, then you’re automatically off the registry (without a judge or DA weighing in). [I can use CA Const. Art 1, Sec 1 here – state negates legal path to pursue and obtain privacy.]

Also, 290.5 conflicts with the decision of Kelly with respect to conviction status and 290. You’re only convicted during probation. You’re required to register due to a conviction under 290. Once you’re no longer convicted, then you no longer need to register under 290. [I can use Ca Const. Art 1, Sec 7b – equal immunity; Ca Const. Art 1, Sec 9 – a law impairing the obligations of a contract may not be passed.]

I think that’s key in Kelly upholding what 1203.4 does for registrants. Here’s point 4 in Kelly (two paragraphs):
“A word should be said concerning the state’s contention that section 290 should prevail upon the theory that it is a special and 1203.4 is a general statute. They are not in that [160 Cal. App. 2d 46] category. They do not meet the test for the rule which the state invokes, declared in In re Williamson, 43 Cal. 2d 651, 654 [276 P.2d 593], in these words: ” ‘It is the general rule that where the general statute standing alone would include the same matter as the special act, and thus conflict with it, the special act will be considered as an exception to the general statute …’ ” Section 1203.4 deals with all probationers, including those who have committed none of the offenses mentioned in section 290. In addition, section 290 applies to some convicted persons who are ineligible for probation as well as to some who are eligible. Clearly, the rule invoked does not apply.

The parties have given considerable attention to the applicability or inapplicability of our holding in Truchon v. Toomey, 116 Cal. App. 2d 736 [254 P.2d 638, 36 A.L.R.2d 1230], interpretive of the word “conviction” as used in section 1 of article II of the Constitution, relating to loss of the elective franchise. We perceive no similarity, no conflict, and no problem. In the Truchon case we pointed out that the word “conviction” has been used in criminal statutes with varying meanings. As used in the constitutional provision there involved we held that “conviction” referred to a judgment which remained final, thereby differing from a mere plea or verdict of guilty. Here we are considering the use of the word “conviction” as it appears in two statutes. Section 290 uses it in both senses: After judgment, in respect to the convict who has served his sentence or who is released upon parole; during the suspension of imposition or execution of sentence (see Pen. Code, § 1203.1), in relation to the probationer. Section 1203.4, because it deals with the probationer, has reference to his status as a convicted person during the period of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence.”

So in these two paragraphs it defines 290 as not something special and cannot circumvent 1203.4 immunities. It also defines 290’s definition of conviction pertaining to two sets of registrants – ones without 1203.4 and ones under 1203.4.

At least that’s my logic. And since Kelly still is law, then 290.5 conflicts with said law. It simply cannot override it due to California Constitutional protections. I would appreciate any feedback on this. (Like shouldn’t there be another due process case from shifting away from 1203.4 to 1203.4 AND CoR? Why the double rehabilitation tests (1203.4 and CoR) and more stringent process via CoR? I didn’t see a scientific reason behind it. Or should I just focus only the conflict itself?)

Thanks in advance!

Sections 290.007 seems to directly make point #2 invalid.
Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.

(Added by Stats. 2007, Ch. 579, Sec. 15. Effective October 13, 2007.)

I’m curious if they’ll grandfather people in once the tiered registry takes effect since it would completely change how CoR and 290.5 interact.


290.007 actual violates the obligation set forth in the Kelly case. In the Kelly case, it protects probationers. (the more I re-visit Kelly and answer questions, the more I get out of the Kelly decision. Again, thank you for responding and helping me brainstorm.)

The fact it states “regardless of whether the person s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.” is evidence for me.

The keyword is “regardless”. It acknowledges, but ignores law. By literal verbiage of regardless, 290.007 is in direct conflict with standing law in Kelly by impairing obligations of a contract via 1203.4 as well as renders the part of the immunities set forth in 1203.4 limited/reduced as prescribed by Kelly in protecting all probationers.

Hmmm… I need to use 290.007 in conjunction with 290.5 as proof it is trying to ignore law set forth in Kelly.

Oh thanks so very much for the brainstorming! The Kelly case is protecting probationers, specifically probationers under 290. It isn’t the other way around: protecting 290 registrants with 1203.4!!! (Yes, my thoughts are coming out as I type. heh but this is a huge distinction!) Read the response I gave to AJ about Point 4 (two paragraphs).

290.5 and 290.007 are actually attacking probationers. In Kelly, they state 290 cannot circumvent 1203.4, but rather 290 aligns with 1203.4. That’s the first paragraph of Point 4. Because 290 must align with 1203.4, only those convicted must register. 290 actually made a distinction on applied conviction: those released from sentence or one parole; during the suspension of imposition or execution of sentence (see Pen. Code, § 1203.1), in relation to the probationer. Section 1203.4, because it deals with the probationer, has reference to his status as a convicted person during the period of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence.

wow… registrants are protected under the probationer class of 1203.4 by the Kelly decision. 290.5 or 290.007 cannot extend registration length upon a probationer who successfully completes probation. When the conviction classification is gone, so, too, is the need to register to be gone.

Here’s what Kelly wrote “conviction denotes a need for registration and police surveillance when the convicted person is allowed to return to society, whether after serving a sentence or upon the granting of parole or when released upon probation prior to the imposition or the execution of a sentence of imprisonment.” Conviction is what initiates registration and police surveillance. Once that conviction is set aside, so does the need for registration and police surveillance is also set aside.

wow… i’m doing a happy dance in my head! (at least for the time being until someone else finds something else to thwart my thoughts. ha!)

Human Rights Watch: “India Sex Offenders’ Registry Not the Answer, Need to Enforce Existing Laws to Protect Women and Children”

“PAEDO PAINT ATTACK Vile sex offenders tied to bench and covered in paint during iron bar attack by furious vigilantes in Northern Ireland” How’s that for a headline? This is typical of British tabloids. “TWO vile perverts were tied to a bench and covered in paint after they were beaten with iron bars by a vigilante mob in Northern Ireland.

Child rapist James White, 48, and sex predator Jason Lydiard, 26, were hauled off by cops following the alleged attack by furious locals in the village of Mullaghbawn, Co Armagh.”

“Tarring and feathering is a form of public torture and humiliation used to enforce unofficial justice or revenge. It was used in feudal Europe and its colonies in the early modern period, as well as the early American frontier, mostly as a type of mob vengeance. Awareness of tarring and feathering in popular culture remains.”
Boy, does it still remain.

“Sex offenders furious after prison ‘kitchen lags spike food with human faeces, urine and metal chunks” “An unnamed inmate of HMP Glenochil, Scotland also said an old shoe had even made its way into their grub”

What is the big deal? As long as the weenie wagers and guys with 15 year old girlfriends are kept living more than a 6 minute stroll away from little Suzie’s school…

Has anyone used college financial aid? If so what and when

“Proposal to restrict sex offenders from travelling abroad” (IRELAND)

“As California moves to speed up executions, a man is exonerated after 25 years on death row” Revisiting the horrors of the Ed Jagels era in Kern County and more.

“Homeless sex offenders living in tents outside Hialeah say they have nowhere to go”

“People don’t have a right to live anywhere they want to live.” – Ron Book