ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

General Comments March 2018

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

Join the discussion

  1. dph

    Did any one, especially the flats rc’s on here see the release of CALL ME BY YOUR NAME ?
    Interesting hownit was a 22 y.o. American and a 17 y.o. American in Italia. What happened different in the 80’s, especially 84-85??? It’s now on DVD.
    This is when this movie was set to have taken place. Any other observations and what can be learned by others on here that were arrested for the Same and now is an RC???

  2. mike r

    Man that 2005 study on table 2 “re-arrest” for sex offenders 1.7.

    Another telling point of interest.

    Among prisoners released for rape or sexual assault in
    30 states in 2005, an estimated 5.6% were arrested for
    rape or sexual assault within 5 years of release.

    As compare to:

    Among prisoners released for assault in 30 states in
    2005, an estimated 34.4% were arrested for assault
    within 5 years of release.

    An estimated 23.2% of prisoners released for burglary in
    30 states in 2005 were arrested for burglary during the
    5-year follow-up period.

    OMG people, this is an incredibaly damaging doc for the other side. Look at this, it is straight stating that the reports from the 1983 or 84 studies are useless and inaccurate.

    Given the changes in the characteristics of the
    U.S. prison population, an increase in the number of
    states participating in the study, and improvements
    made to the nation’s criminal history records since
    the mid-1990s, direct comparisons of the recidivism
    estimates from the study on prisoners released in
    30 states in 2005 should not be compared to those from
    the 1983 and 1994 BJS prisoner recidivism studies.
    In addition, this study employed a 5-year follow-up
    period, 2 years longer than found in the previous BJS
    recidivism studies.

    That is how I am reading it. WOW is all I can say. I love it also because it is short and sweet.

    • Robin

      Looking at Table 2 and looking across Rape/Sex Assault have just about the lowest arrest rates with the exception of fraud which only those convicted of murder/homicide have a lower percentage.
      Excluding the 5.6 %.

      I would say it is better to look at the broad picture as well as the on point view. Sex offenders have lower rates over all on re arrests and or new arrests.

  3. mike r

    Man this is a report from this year. Great find. Man I need to get this in front of the judge.

    • Robin

      @ Mike r It’s from Dec 2016 filed as a supplement, I guess to the originals in 83 & 94.

      The 1.7 is not sex offenders, it is all prisoners released that are re arrested on a rape/sex assault charge.

      It is very telling in that justices using the term “frighteningly high recidivism rates”, is rhetoric, and this proves it.

      • Robin

        This is the biggest thing to point out, I think.

        During the 5-year follow-up period, the majority
        (51.4%) of prisoners released for rape or sexual assault
        were arrested for a public order offense.

        The thing is, they are very minor charges like, public drunk, loitering, vagrancy etc etc.

  4. TS

    Makes you wonder if the Justices have done their own independent RSO law research outside the courtroom. The things they’ll learn, including incorrect research being used.

    Supreme Court rule: (Other) justices shouldn’t conduct independent research

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rule-other-justices-shouldnt-conduct-independent-research/2018/03/25/7a4f790a-2ebd-11e8-b0b0-f706877db618_story.html

  5. mike r

    Yep I got that 1.7% issue. Table 1 it is 5.0 for sex offenders but table 2 it is 5.6. I do not believe this is a supplement from 83 or 93 or whatever this states it is from 2005.
    Recidivism of Prisoners
    Released in 30 States in 2005:
    Patterns from 2005 to 2010

    • Robin

      mike r

      table 1 is of the 400,000 + prisoners released 5.0% were rape/sex assualt thus the 20,,000+-

  6. mike r

    Yeah it looks like I need to compile data that I want introduced into the record at the status conference. Not sure how it works, anyone want to trow out there any knowledge of what goes on during the pre-trial status conference go for it.

  7. Robin

    I believe if a case were to be put forth to SCOTUS with regard to SORNA being more punitive than civil based on the 2016 release of DOJ 2005-2010 report on recidivism rates, showing the public safety does not weight more than the effect any longer, it would have a good chance of winning.
    Especially since the rejection to hear appeal on Muniz v PA.

    • CR

      No, I believe it would be premature at this point. It needs to wait for Kennedy to retire. Who authored Smith v Doe? Kennedy is not on our side. He doesn’t see us for who we are, Packingham parenthetical or no. He sees “frightening and high”. He’s the one who’s high.

      • Robin

        @ CR

        He’s just 1 justice. If the most recent DOJ rates are put forth it is their responsibility to judge based on fact, and that fact negates “frighting and high”.

  8. mike r

    Here we go Robin just in case you haven’t followed along.
    http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
    It is happening one way or the other.

    • Robin

      Too bad you didn’t list “shaming” and cite Muniz v PA. That court found web based SORNA to be like that of shaming therefor punitive and unconstitutional.
      And yet the state passed new law Act 10 2018 keeping it in there.

      • mike r

        I did not cite Muniz because it is a state supreme court decision and not federal so it has very little if any weight here in CA.

        • Robin

          I don’t know how that all works but I thought if it’s case law it still could have standing.
          Then you also have the fact Fed courts denied PA appeal, so I don’t know if that would matter or not.

        • CR

          @Robin, no, denial of certiorari by SCOTUS doesn’t matter. Denial has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

          From the wikipedia article on Certiorari
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

          “However, as the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins,[22] such a denial “imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case[.]” In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and the lower court’s decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in the case of the Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. The reasons for why a denial of certiorari cannot be treated as implicit approval were set forth in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. (1950), in which the Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case.”

        • Robin

          @ CR thank you.

          Question, could case law in the same state be used? Or can it only be US Court cases?

        • AJ

          @Robin:
          Check out https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/Which-Court-is-Binding-HandoutFinal.pdf for a primer on binding versus persuasive cases. You really only need to look at the last page, page 5, to get it, but the whole document is helpful.

          FYI: For those who previously downloaded this PDF, it’s been updated from the 2004 version.

  9. JesusH

    Can anyone relate some experiences when they’ve contacted the schools to visit for something to do with their child?

    How did it work? Do you call and ask to speak to the principal? Did you have to give any details other than you were an RC wanting to attend Parent Conferences (or whatever)? Did you have to be met at the door and escorted around? Other than the principal? Do you think other people knew?

    Most importantly, was anyone ever denied?

    When I took my plea I knew about the “can’t go to schools” thing. I was confused about the details though. I thought RC’s couldn’t go to schools in general unless you had a reason to be there. If you had a child attending and there was an official school event, or your child was sick and you had to go pick him up, or even just dropping him off or picking him up OF COURSE that was fine. Parental rights trumped anything else.

    That’s what I thought. But I was wrong.

    I haven’t been to my kid’s school since this happened. Have managed to avoid it. But I won’t be able to avoid it much longer.

    If I have to call the principal and ask for permission [permission? To participate in my child’s education? WTF?] I don’t know if I could do it. I can’t tell the principal that I’m a “290 registrant”, or an “RC” or any of those other terms we use. I will have to tell him that I’m a “Registered S** Off**der”.

    I can’t say those words about me. I can’t type those words. I can’t think of those words about me. I can’t.

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but this sucks.

    • Lake County

      I think we all understand your fear and desire not to use that public label. There have been many experiences relayed on this site about RC parents requesting to attend their child’s school. A few have had no problems getting permission, but I think even more have had difficulty or an outright denial to even drop or pick up their kids from school. If you have the money, it might be better to have an attorney write them a letter to make the disclosure easier for you and they might be less likely to deny you legitimate access without a good reason. Just my 2 cents worth of advise.

  10. Illinois Contact

    Yikes! I just heard Thom Hartman on WCPT radio in Chicago say “The recidivism rate of sex offenders is hugely high” and “Most sex offenders are mentally ill.” It was in a discussion about registering gun owners and somehow comparing them to sex offenders. I couldn’t believe my ears. Thom Hartman is normally very rational and well informed, and his show is on many “progressive” stations throughout the country (11AM to 2PM Central Time). The show’s over now but maybe a ton of authoritative well-spoken people with the real facts could call first thing tomorrow and try to get him straight. Warning: he’s a very strong talker and you will need to be forceful to make your points. The call in number is 202.808.9925.

    • Robin

      This is the way the government sells issues. They feed what they want out there to media then just sit back and let the media instill fear and panic among the public.
      That is how they get the support needed to pass laws. In days past media would research all data and report facts on both sides, now it seems they only report what they are told to
      Are there any investigative reporters anymore?

  11. wonderin

    It would be like arguing religion or politics with your in-laws.

  12. mike r

    This is modern day demagoguery at its best. Everything about the registry is blatant demagoguery but yet there is no one calling them out for it. I will be throwing that in my suit at some point because it is hard to deny since there is no rationality to the laws and the politicians are feeding off of the emotions of their constituents emotions in order to get elected or score points.

    Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people. Demagoguery isn’t based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing; it’s based on stirring up fear and hatred to control people.

  13. mike r

    The Founders’ fears of a threat to constitutional democracy led them to design a system to thwart potential demagogues, a system built upon three branches of government to check and balance one another’s powers. But these checks are not fail-safe, and historically, even the strongest of constitutional regimes can collapse. Think of the Roman Republic, which also had a system of checks and balances but ultimately gave way to the dictatorship of the Caesars.

  14. Illinois Contact

    If you’re not up to calling in to the Thom Hartman radio program (and I agree it’s challenging), definitely Tweet him. Let’s fill up his Tweet page with rational factual information. This guy is very influential, so it would be very helpful to get his attention.
    Here’s his Twitter: https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann

    • Robin

      Send him the link to the DOJ report linked above with a caption the true recidivism rates the govt. isn’t talking about.

    • Tim Moore

      I couldn’t find the episode where he says that.

  15. mike r

    Here is some rational information.

    The Smith panel admitted the argument of in-person reporting requirements were not in the Alaska Statute and yet the Court still held significant weight and showed concern when comparing the requirements of the ASORA to probation. Plaintiff contends the Court may place much more weight on this issue since there is onerous in-person reporting requirements, and for all the other reasons stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opposition, as well as supra and infra. The Smith Court noted “The Court of Appeals held that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release in terms of the restraint imposed. 259 F. 3d, at 987. This argument has some force, but, after due consideration, we reject it. Probation and supervised release entail a series of mandatory conditions and allow the supervising officer to seek the revocation of probation or release in case of infraction. See generally Johnson v. United States, 529 U. S. 694 (2000).” (emphasis added) Id. at 101.
    Plaintiff suffers and is obligated to an extensive “series of mandatory conditions” and “law enforcement” are the “officers who seek the revocation” of Plaintiff’s liberty and imprison him for even innocuous and innocent unintended registration (“infractions”) violations. Plaintiff faces “Significant Prison Terms” that are longer than what Plaintiff served for his triggering offense, and which are much longer than from any “infraction” Plaintiff may have endured from a parole violation.
    Furthermore, the rules for the “management” and “supervision” of sex offenders are codified in the Penal Code Part 3. of Imprisonment and the Death Penalty [2000-10007], Title 9. Punishment Options [8000-9003], Chapter 3. Section 9000 et seq. Besides the probative value of where this section is codified (Punishment Options), the relevant section is 9000 (e) which states ““Supervision” means a specialized approach to the process of overseeing, insofar as authority to do so is granted to the supervising agency, all significant aspects of the lives of sex offenders who are being managed [supervised] as described in subdivision.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff remains under the direct “supervision” of the state in “all significant aspects” of Plaintiff’s life. This “supervision” along with all the onerous in-person reporting requirements, the at home compliance checks, the interference in Plaintiff’s child /grandchild custodial rights, the Plaintiff is statutorily prohibited from federal housing and residing in certain areas, banned from even being present in a vast array of locations, having to give notice every time Plaintiff visits another county or state, including 21 day advance notice if he plans to leave the country, the internet publication of sensitive private information about Plaintiff that is not otherwise available, combined with all the other direct and indirect affirmative disabilities, the state does indeed control “every significant aspect of Plaintiff’s life.” This is undoubtedly synonymous with probation or parole and even “more” sever in many aspects than what Plaintiff endured while he was on parole. Plaintiff’s case is incredibly distinguishable from Smith or “any” other cases brought before the Court.

  16. Illinois Contact

    I listen to the Thom Hartmann (note two n’s) show almost every day and agree with almost everything he says, typically based on solid evidence. What a shock to hear him disparage sex offenders with discredited information.

    I’m about 99% sure that I quoted him correctly in my previous posts, but if anyone is thinking of making a big deal about this and wants to verify with your own ears, there is a YouTube video of the show. You have to pay $10 to watch it and I can’t get myself to fund even for that amount his uninformed/lying comments.

    Here’s the link if you want to listen yourself. The comments are in the last five minutes of the three hour broadcast, when he and the guest are talking about the effectiveness of a gun owners registry.

    https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=848679&rid=1587788&redirect_uri=/posts/full-program-for-17806367

    He seems a reasonable person susceptible to factual information, and very influential. If we could turn him around on this issue it could really change public perception.

    • Tim Moore

      I like Thom, too. People with his talents, for all their good intent, don’t recognize the overlapping systems that are suffocating many people on all levels. You would think they would be better informed than the rabble. Thom, like many who seem reasonable and well informed will rightly recognize a fellow human in pain and feel compassion and concern about the rights when it is for foreigners in Guantanamo, but when it comes to registrant citizens, they turn 180 around and then fall into believing their fellow citizens are monsters. Ah, tribalism infects all minds today.

  17. Illinois Contact

    Here’s the link to listen to this in a free Podcast. The Hartmann Report — Gun Control Debate.

    https://www.thomhartmann.com/

    Scroll forward to about 8:50. The caller, a former NJ prosecutor, is the first one to bring up the sex offense laws. He is trying to talk about how they used to rely on the determination of an examiner, but that in the 80’s and early 90’s, most laws moved to an offense-based system. What he doesn’t get into, because the subject is actually about guns, is how that has been hugely problematic. The host, Thom Hartmann, goes on to reply “That’s not a good comparison because a) most sex offenders have a mental illness which doesn’t just go away, and b) the recidivism rate is HUGELY HIGH” as compared to gun crimes.

    What can we do to enlighten Mr. Hartmann? Maybe Janice or another expert could get interviewed on his show or at least post on his blog/website.

    • Tim Moore

      You wonder when people believe such things it comes from some feeling about themselves. A simple tweet, email or phone call from many people is a good start. Thank you.

  18. Robin

    I’ve been thinking on the 2005-1010 study and the effects it could have.

    For us it means the rates are not as they say “frightingly high”

    For them it could turn on us with them then saying “see the registry works in bringing the rates down”.

    Is it just me being paranoid?

    • TS

      If they are thinking that the registry actually brings down rates, then simply ask what validation do they have on that thought, e.g. data of someone’s thought process without using leading questions to draw a conclusion they want to hear. Of course, getting someone to admit they did not commit a sex crime based upon a registry would be crazy because it would put them on a persons of interest list within someone’s office. The cause and effect would most likely never be able to be validated.

      On the converse, you only have to look at the data to see the rates are not where others say they are, so their argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

    • David

      Robin, those findings can also be seen another way: Fewer sexual offenses are being reported because families are aware of the possible repercussions. Example: If the family is poor and needs Uncle Bob’s financial support to survive, they will be hesitant to report Uncle Bob’s behavior to the police if that will mean them losing the house they live and the financial support they depend upon. Instead, they will attempt to resolve the situation on their own without reporting it. [This is not speculation. Through my work, I’m aware of this actually happening.]
      In other words, the actual number of offenses may not have diminished, only the reporting of those offenses has diminished.

      • Tim Moore

        Yes, like in Iran, you try to make do and not file for divorce even if you hate your spouce for cheating on you. If you do you might face stoning for adultery. So an underground illegal society evolves. In the US registrants and their families face an emotional stoning, and the result is civil death. You don’t want to be on the registry or have a family member on it. You can adapt otherwise. You would make do, like any reasonable person weighing consequenses. I know someone who said she would not report the offender if she could do it all over again.

  19. ma.concerned.citizen

    So for the first time since I’ve been registering in Massachusetts, they are now asking for email address and any internet identifiers (screen names, Facebook name, etc) in order to comply with SORNA. I have a few questions:

    – I had no idea MA was a Sorna state, when did that happen?
    – I am a software developer, and have literally a dozen different email addresses, and probably as many internet identifiers. What should I do here?

    I’m NOT looking for legal advice, just opinions.

    Any thoughts?
    Thanks!

    • LostandDevastated

      Is this a new form? http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/sorb/sornacomplianceinformationformoct.pdf

      If that form is indeed correct we also have to notify SORB about out of state travel as well not just international travel

      • LostandDevastated

        I called my lawyer and left a message inquiring about this.

      • ma.concerned.citizen

        Yes, that’s the new form I was referring to. Came with my yearly packet. The regular form was also updated to include email address now. I just left the police station, and the officer said he had no idea, and they aren’t even collecting email address at the station.

        Would have been nice to have a heads up on this.

        Talked to a lawyer briefly the other day, and he said there is a case coming down in appeals court in April, that could have some positive implications on at least requesting a level reduction, though I didn’t get any more detail than that. I was going to go for a reduction hearing last year, but he told me to hold off at the time. I’m a “protected” level 2 right now, which means my info is not posted. But, back then he said if I went for a hearing, SORB could decide to take me off protection status, and my info would then be disseminated. Apparently that’s no longer the case, so after this case in April, I’m going for a reduction hearing, or to petition to have early relief altogether, as I believe this will be 10 years for me.

        Will be curious to hear what your lawyer has to say….

        • LostandDevastated

          I’ll let you know what she says. Who’s your lawyer if you don’t mind me asking?

        • Eric Knight

          My associate once had to register, and he said that if he had to re-register again, he bring a list of thousands of email addresses he uses for affiliate marketing purposes, but by law need to be disclosed. Let them hire the flunky to type them all in.

        • Lake County

          I you had your own domain name. You could literally have every name and symbol that exists in the world as an email to that domain. (anything@mydomain.com) It’s cheap to do and would be so much fun to submit.

        • ma.concerned.citizen

          Part of the problem is that I actually DO own a domain, with a bunch of email addresses attached. Along with a ton of other email addresses for various purposes.

          I had no idea MA was now adhering to SORNA. Is this official, or are they just anticipating and starting to collect info? This is the form for anyone who has missed it:

          http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/sorb/sornacomplianceinformationformoct.pdf

          Like I said above, I went to the PD yesterday to register, and he said they aren’t even collecting email at the station. It’s just a form that I need to send back into SORB (along with my $75 yearly “donation”).

          I can’t imagine giving them every single email address I own.

          LostAndDevastated – Send me an email at ma.concerned.citizen@gmail.com, and we can compare lawyers, etc. I don’t feel comfortable revealing that here. Thanks!

      • Renny

        That out of state travel notification has popped up in MA now too? I thought CA was just doing it because they felt like it.

        Has SORNA been amended to mandate 21 days notice for out of state travel?

        Cripes, I had more freedom on probation than I do now. I am up for a very good work from home job(actually getting my old job back) that requires me to travel to GA next week or the the following week for an interview. I cannot go if I have to give 21 days notice.

        I googled it but came up blank.

        • Tim Moore

          I am planning on going to Oregon this summer. Besides having to learn all their requirements for notifications, possibly for Washington and Idaho too, because I will be on the Columbia River, I now have to give the feds a 21 day notice? For craps sake, I am going to have a romantic vacation with my wife not scope out young victims. This is a tale told by an idiot, it is not public safety by a long stretch. Never was. It has to stop.

        • AlexO

          When did California make this out of state notice a thing? They don’t even technically need a out of country notice, as far as I’m aware.

    • Robin

      Unfortunately if that is the law then you will have to give it all to them, or face charges of failure to register.

      Be ready to lose some of those accounts too if they send out notifications to the hosts, as many of them will delete you.

    • AJ

      As of 12/19/2017, MA is still listed by SMART as non-compliant (https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/SORNA-progress-check.pdf). To become compliant, they would need to start doing the things you’re now running into. The more detailed info about MA’s status is from 2012, so of little use. But if you’re curious, here it is: https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/sorna/massachusetts-hny.pdf

      BTW, if any LEO or other jamoke tries to say MA must comply with AWA, they’re full of it. The Tenth Amendment, and plenty of SCOTUS case law, says States are not obligated to comply with regulations from the feds. The feds can “encourage” through funding, but that’s it.

      • David

        And through *withholding* funding. This is a stick the Federal government often uses to encourage states to comply with what they want.

      • Robin

        Not only that AJ but if SORNA would be against their states constitution then the 10% penalty would not apply.
        Legislatures are not doing enough research when passing laws, or they are just working around laws hoping no one will notice.

        • AlexO

          There’s no incentive or penalty for the legislature to do research or even be truthful. They can pass whatever law they want and it will remain in effect until sued. Someone can try and place an injunction before it goes into effect, but there’s no inherent checks and balances to make sure everything is kosher. The state doesn’t come in and say, “Oh hey, that law is against our constitution or against the US constitution. You better straighten that out”.

        • Tim Moore

          It is good the judiciary doesn’t do that. Imagine if somehow the judges were all mainly from one party and the legislature was all from across the isle. No laws at all would pass, but what the judges approve of. The people are rightly the correct petitioners for redress of grievances. That is why free speech, access to government and due process are so important. The people rule. Or should.

  20. mike r

    The thing is Robin is that the recidivism rates have not changed from before or after implementation of the Megan’s Law so that argument goes out the window. Also the gov reports state that the laws are useless and are counterproductive. And according to the 1994 report cited by the CA AG in my case states that the rates are nearly identical to the current rates. So there goes that argument.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13). Under the current system, many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of [who] are low risk offenders. As a result, law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements [] destabilize the [lives] of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 [visited March 17,2018].
    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s Law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrests for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re-offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350 [visited March 17,2018].
    From Justice Policy Institute. “Registries and notification have not been proven to protect communities from sexual offenses and may even distract from more effective approaches”. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf [visited March 17,2018].

    • New Person

      Mike R,

      Does California have a study like NJ? What exactly are the effects? blah, blah blah…

      I like what you found about low-risk registrants. I’m slowly putting to text my thoughts on attacking PC 290.007 with respect to 1203.4. The fact CASOMB stated:
      ====
      California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13). Under the current system, many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of [who] are low risk offenders. As a result, law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry.
      ====

      So denying full immunities of 1203.4 to registrants actually makes for supervision worse for public safety. Imagine that. LoL

      • AlexO

        @New Person, we do and I think this is what you’re looking for. I don’t believe the full report has been released yet. I think the last time they released something like this they had us as a whole under 1% recidivism.

        https://all4consolaws.org/2018/03/ca-sex-offender-management-board-to-release-recidivism-report/

        • New Person

          From the latest Year End report, 2016, California has no research data like NJ. And that’s probably done on purpose. Here’s a snippet that I found within that Year End report from the link you gave.

          ===========
          The Research Committee and CASOMB continue to be concerned that there is currently no
          centralized repository of data or structured system and process for data collection that
          makes information available regarding registered sexual offenders in California’s 58
          counties.

          The Research Committee has identified several barriers to accomplishing such an
          informative central repository of data that could otherwise better inform California’s
          legislative policy.
          • The California Department of Justice (DOJ) has data on all sex offender registrants
          across the state. However, this information is not readily available for CASOMB
          research purposes.
          • The 58 County Probation Departments have no uniform method of data collection on
          sex offenders under their supervision. This makes it improbable that any research
          could be completed.
          • There are 149 CASOMB certified programs serving thousands of sex offenders
          under Parole and Probation supervision. There is no uniform method of data
          collection on sex offenders under supervision. This also makes it improbable that
          any research could be completed at a statewide level.
          • These data barriers limit law enforcement professionals who come into contact with
          registrants who move across city and county lines.
          • These data barriers also limit CASOMB’s ability to investigate and fully understand
          the impacts of state and federal laws and policies.
          ===========

          NJ has done extensive research and states there was no change before and after the implementation of Megan’s law.

          NJ’s abstract states this:
          ===========
          Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

          The study involved three methodologies and samples. Phase one involved a 21-year trend study of sex offenses in each of New Jersey’s counties and the State as a whole. This period covered 10 years prior to and 10 years after the law’s implementation, as well as the year of implementation. Phase two obtained data on 550 sexual offenders released from 1990 to 2000, with attention to outcomes of interest. Phase three collected data on implementation and ongoing costs of administering the law. 7 tables, 8 figures, and 25 references
          ===========

          CASOMB has nothing compared to the NJ’s 21 year study. Of course, having under 1% recidivism rates is a great record, it pales to NJ’s 21 year study stating the registration program is essentially worthless. But if we conflate NJ’s 21 year study with CASOMB’s more accurate under 1% recidivism rate (which no longer includes failure to register), then these two pieces of data need to be included in every registration related cases.

          The NJ study was published in Dec, 2008 and I’m just finding out about it this year (due to the video debate).

          I believe California doesn’t want a similar finding – especially if they’re not sharing the info with CASOMB, California’s own Sex Management program.

        • AlexO

          I wonder what kind of damages might be collected if California or any other state is found to deliberately be suppressing such information for the purposes of continuing the registry and other matters related to it? To me, that would be the same as cigarette companies or paint companies purposely suppressing data that shows their products were in fact harmful and they were aware of this. I don’t see why a government would have greater leeway in such matters than a corporation. I honestly don’t care about receiving reparations as long as this whole damn thing ends! Give all that cash to ACSOL and other agencies that actually fight for the people and the constitution. Not like their services will ever not be in demand.

        • New Person

          @Alex0,

          NJ got this extensive research completed in 2008.

          CA was one of the first to have a sex registry. Odd that it still has not had a definitive research program like NJ’s. But we do have on record that CA has not been willing to give information to CASOMB.

          Also, maybe why we don’t know how many registrants have tried to earn a CoR as well as who earned them and where.

          But here’s what we do know, the SCOTUS was using unsubstantiated information in deciding what to do with registrants in 2003. At a lower level, that is cause for a re-trial or be deemed a mis-trial for using incorrect information!

  21. mike r

    If anyone wants some reports here we go.

    California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report”; http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf CA 0.8% recidivism rate. Figure 11 [p.30]…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

    California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report; http://www.casomb.org/docs/sombreport1.pdf CA 2.4% total returned for new sex offense within the first year, 0.84% returned in the second year of release, and 0.28% for new sex offense in the third year, California sex offender management Board January 2008, table 3-2 [p.74]…………………………………………………………………………………….4

    California sex offender management Board January 2008 http://www.casomb.org/docs/sombreport1.pdf CA 3.5% table 3-2………………………………42

    California sex offender management 2016 video https://youtu.be/GBoy2FB27yg…………………………..4

    Hanson, Karl. Declaration from Doe v Harris U.S. District Court for Northern California 2012. https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/024_hanson_decl_11.7.12.pdf, [p.1-2] “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. Offenders whose are classified as low-risk by Static-99R pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. 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.”…. “Research has even suggested that offenders may actually be made worse by the imposition of higher levels of treatment and supervision than is warranted given their risk level. 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.” “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] [p.12]………………………………………………45, 46

    This is just a fraction that I have accumulated. This is just CA and the Hanson report has been the gov’s go to source but which they conveniently leave out that passage.

  22. mike r

    Hey I wonder if anyone can find any other legislation where the legislators have stated “this is not meant to be retributive’ or this “is not to be consider punishment” ???? I am just curious if there is any other incidents out there…I don’t even think when passing gun legislation that it was stated “this is not meant to be punitive”

  23. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    It appears that so-called “sexually violent predator” Jeffrey Snyder was rearrested in Fresno for violating the terms of his conditional release from Coalinga State Hospital where he had been caged for more than ten years. His offense? Having sex with an adult male without first having obtained permission from his overseers, “Liberty” HealthCare/CONREP, the company that contracts with California to supervise such people.

    Looking at his arrest history, it’s extraordinary how little he had to do to be considered “sexually violent.”

    http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article206067854.html

  24. Sam

    Felt like googling myself today. Another new site that shows my lovely face shows up. Newyorksexoffenders fantastic (sarcasm) so sick of these sites. Home facts removed their link because I don’t live in the US. But these sites keep popping up using really old info and pictures as well as new information and some information that doesn’t even belong to me.

    This newest one has no way to contact the website or any links. But if anyone Google’s me it will be the first thing that pops up. Which wouldn’t be too good as I’m slowly becoming the public face in the company. Had to meet with an award council today because of some new business award. Their award ceremony is broadcast all over Asia. If I have to go on stage to accept it then that’s like game over for me.

  25. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    The “recovered memories” at the heart of the Sandusky conviction. We need to be careful about using cases of the ostensibly most guilty and depraved in our efforts to distinguish ourselves from them. The same goes for the Catholic priests represented in the movie “Spotlight” which peddled calumnies by the Boston Globe and made its reporters into folk heroes. “TRIAL BY THERAPY: The Jerry Sandusky Case Revisited”
    https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/trial-by-therapy-jerry-sandusky-case-revisited

  26. mike r

    I believe New Person that the CASOMB is the New Jersey version of the reports. I know of no other reports gov. from CA.

    • New Person

      @ Mike R,

      Do you have a link to that 1994 report the AG gave you about the recidivism rates haven’t changed before and after the implementation of the CA registration program? I didn’t a see a link to it in your comment, but you stated it was from your case.

      Thanks in advance!

  27. mike r

    I do not remember who stated to find a case in which the AG was successfully sued confirming subject matter jurisdiction, well here it is.

    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    65(d)(2) provides that an injunction will bind the parties, as well as “the parties’ officers,
    agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “[o]ther persons who are in active concert or
    participation with” these individuals. Even if the Attorney General does not have absolute
    control and direction over local law enforcement, it cannot be disputed that, as to the
    collection of sex offender registration data, local law enforcement at least acts “in active
    concert or participation with” the Attorney General, if not as her agent. See, e.g., Cal. Penal
    Code § 290.015(b) (requiring local law enforcement agencies to forward registrants’
    information to the Department of Justice16 within three days of registration); Schweig Decl.
    ¶ 3 (describing the collection of sex offender registration data as a “collaborative effort”
    involving, among others, the California Department of Justice and local law enforcement
    agencies).
    However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) also provides that an injunction
    only binds persons “who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise.” To
    ensure that all local law enforcement officials who are responsible for collecting registered
    sex offenders’ information are bound by this order, the Court will order the Attorney General
    to provide actual notice to all such officials. This requirement does not preclude the parties
    from further meeting and conferring to attempt to reach agreement that local law
    enforcement will not enforce the enjoined provisions as long as the Court’s order granting
    preliminary injunctive relief remains in effect.

  28. TS

    Stephen Reinhardt, ‘liberal lion’ of the 9th Circuit, dies at 87

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-reinhardt-obit-20180329-story.html

  29. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “11 Call For Action investigates: Registered sex offender living on public dime”

    A total freak-out that a Registrant lives in a HUD building in Colorado (Focus On The Family) Springs. Time to send in “I-Witless News!” “It’s super-scary!”They never do explain what they mean by living on the “public’s dime,” though. Oh wait, it’s because it is a federally subsidized building. So other people CAN live on the public’s dime, just not “sex offenders.” Thank God for vigilantism disguised as journalism. http://www.kktv.com/content/news/11-Call-For-Action-investigates-Registered-sex-offender-living-on-public-dime-478289563.html

    • Robin

      Nice, media just adding fuel to the fear/paranoia propaganda on sex offenders. Who cares if they are reporting all the facts, just the ones they want everyone to believe.
      I didn’t look this guy up to see what crime or level he is, but If he is a life registrant then the news should report that and who can and can’t live in HUD housing.
      Maybe if everyone called this station and told them they are incorrect in stating sex offenders, meaning as a whole, are not allowed to live in HUD housing.

      Please let me know If I am wrong but isn’t it “only” life registrants that are not permitted?
      I admit I only skimmed through this:

      https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/12-28PIHN-ATCH.PDF

    • Tim Moore

      …shift camera to clip of 1950’s era movie of hysterical crowds fleeing giant radioactive insect blob thing.

  30. mike r

    Here we go New Person. I thought that I concluded it in my brief but apparently I just stated it and didn’t cite it.
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

    The AG cited this report and cut it off right at the point when it stated re-offense rates were 5%.

    • New Person

      @ Mike R,

      Thanks!

      I perused over it. It’s only looking at 1994 released from prison sex offenders. You’re correct that re-offense rate was 5.3% back then, but I didn’t read into detail if that included failure to register.

      The 1994 report is only for one year. NJ conducted a 21-year study, 10 years prior Megan’s Law and 10 years after Megan’s law. No difference found. That’s a more valid research as the scope is 20 years.

      I still don’t think CA has a research like that.

      BTW, my on-going first rough draft that PC 290.007 is going surprising well. The fact PC 290.007 states “regardless” of earning the 1203.4, you must continue to register. That word regardless means it acknowledges, but still disregards earning 1203.4. That violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution as well as Section 1, Section 7b, and Section 9 of article 1 of the California constitution. A state cannot acknowledge and disregard a set law that is provided to all its citizens.

      I stumbled upon Brown v Education breakdown where they use the 14th amendment. I found some parallel angles. But I’m taking it slow. Once I gather all the info, then I’ll need to look at samples to go pro se. or per… see… I’m such a novice at this. But all I know is the way PC 290.007 is written, it’s unconstitutional. They put “regardless” into the PC 290.007.

      Anyhow, thanks, Mike R, for showing someone can go up against the state alone. It’s given me the possibility of attacking PC 290.007, now I know what exactly to attack. It won’t take down the registry, but it will provide relief for those who earned the 1203.4 and how the state isn’t treating us like full citizens.

  31. mike r

    Hey New Person, here we go, go get em man. File in state court first since you have more contract rights under state constitution I believe. I think this is the most recent ruling on that issue. I am not sure where you go from there because I have not researched the issue but it appears that it was not settled and the case was remanded back to the CA supreme court for reconsideration or whatever. Dig into more and I will see what I can find giving my time schedules.
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1562124.html

    • New Person

      @ Mike R,

      Thanks for the link.

      Here’s something that’s amazing in that link:
      =======
      But the most recent California Court of Appeal case on this issue, People v. Arata, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 160 (Ct.App.2007), appears to be in tension with the previous three. In Arata, the court considered the same issue it decided in Acuna, viz., whether it violated the plea bargain of a defendant, who pleaded guilty to committing a lewd act upon a child, to subject him to a subsequent law barring expungement of such convictions. Id. at 161. The court noted that, at the time of Arata’s plea, expungement was available “[i]n any case in which a defendant [had] fulfilled the conditions of probation.” Id. at 162 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, even though expungement was not expressly mentioned in Arata’s plea agreement, the court held that, “[b]y agreeing to give [Arata] probation, the plea bargain implicitly included the promise of [expungement] as part of probation.” Id. at 166.
      =======

      “by agreeing to give [Arata] probation, the plea bargain implicity included the promise of [expungement] as part of probation.” Id. at 166.

      Expungement is section 1203.4 of the Penal Code. This was passed in the 1872. PC 290.007 was passed in 2007, with explicit instructions to disregard the contractual obligations of 1203.4 with this statement, “Regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4.”

      PC 290.007 was purposefully written law to impair the contractual obligations already set forth within section 1203.4 of the Penal Code. Purposeful because it acknowledges 1203.4 obligations and then disregards said obligations with one word, “regardless”.

      This is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment of the US constitution: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

  32. mike r

    Also do a search for Sac pleading paper and you will get boilerplate docs that you just add your info in. It is surprisingly easy and very affordable considering it has only cost me a few hundred bucks so far and if I hired an attorney I would of spent tens of thousands already for crappier briefs.
    Also check out the internet identifier case prop 35 that was shot down by the court because there may be some tidbits in there. The following from that case is priceless and i wish i would of paid more attention because I could of just used the following to determine subject matter jurisdiction without going any further but I just solidified my case with what I provided. The following is cool though.

    “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    65(d)(2) provides that an injunction will bind the parties, as well as “the parties’ officers,
    agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “[o]ther persons who are in active concert or
    participation with” these individuals. Even if the Attorney General does not have absolute
    control and direction over local law enforcement, it cannot be disputed that, as to the
    collection of sex offender registration data, local law enforcement at least acts “in active
    concert or participation with” the Attorney General, if not as her agent. See, e.g., Cal. Penal
    Code § 290.015(b) (requiring local law enforcement agencies to forward registrants’
    information to the Department of Justice within three days of registration) (“The Attorney General is head of the Department of Justice.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12510); Schweig Decl.
    ¶ 3 (describing the collection of sex offender registration data as a “collaborative effort”
    involving, among others, the California Department of Justice and local law enforcement
    agencies).
    However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) also provides that an injunction
    only binds persons “who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise.” To
    ensure that all local law enforcement officials who are responsible for collecting registered
    sex offenders’ information are bound by this order, the Court will order the Attorney General
    to provide actual notice to all such officials. This requirement does not preclude the parties
    from further meeting and conferring to attempt to reach agreement that local law
    enforcement will not enforce the enjoined provisions as long as the Court’s order granting
    preliminary injunctive relief remains in effect.”

    Love the language and reasoning in that case.That was the language from that case.

  33. mike r

    Look at this prep for my political science class. What a coincidence that I am taking this class now right after i already to the sociology class where everything in it was stating we all have a duty to fight for our rights. It is just really ironic if not downright spooky. LMAO.

    Know ALL the Bill of Rights and be able to apply your knowledge of those rights (focus on numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8).
    SCLC
    NAACP
    Civil rights
    Civil liberties
    Roe v. Wade (1973)
    Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
    Founders of the women’s rights movement in the U.S.
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its various provisions
    Selective incorporation
    19th Amendment
    Gideon v. Wainright (1963)
    Black Codes
    Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
    Miller v. California (1973) (know the court’s full definition of obscenity in this landmark case)
    Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
    Devices used in southern states to prevent blacks from voting
    New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

  34. mike r

    As far as going up against the gov. Yeah it feels great and it was a really good feeling taking the fight to them for a change and making them answer and be the defendant. Loved it, even if I somehow (never happen) lose I can say I gave it my best and didn’t wait for someone to act for me. I put myself in this position and I don’t have the money nor the trust to let someone else fight this fight. I would never put my life in the hands of an attorney ever again. Never……….They got me once at my mock trail but they will never get me again without my best effort…..

  35. AlexO

    A Long Island judge arrested for stealing panties form his neighbor. The quotes in the article are kind funny in how shocked everyone is because he’s “respected, well liked, and an upstanding person”. People still think most RC’s have physical horns or something, and not the average Joe you couldn’t pick out of a lineup, and often otherwise upstanding citizens.

    https://nypost.com/2018/03/30/dirty-panty-judge-raided-victims-hamper-before-prosecutors/

    • Robin

      But it’s okay to be a person in a position of authority over an intern, have “not sex”, but still being adultry, then get re-elected.
      Just goes to show how people think.

  36. E

    In light of “frightening and high,” this seems apropos:

    “Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side.”
    —Johan Wolfgang von Goethe

    • ml

      This quote should be in all of the motions to overturn these horrible laws based on “frightening and high”. Great quote!

  37. mike r

    The implied right to privacy is pretty interesting since it is in many of the amendments.

    • New Person

      Ca Const., Art. 1, Sec 1 states that California citizens have an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy.

      The registry is all about taking away your privacy (private information given to the PD to do as they will). In CA, the CA registry inherently levies only one term for removing privacy – a lifetime term. That means the CA registry has implicitly removed a CA citizen’s right to pursue and obtain privacy.

      Although, there are venues to be removed from the registry, there is only one term administered to all registrants, a lifetime term. Even with a 1203.4, the state of CA has purposely removed that legal venue provided by the state of CA. Thus for those registrants who earned the 1203.4, they have been denied twice by the state of CA to pursue and obtain privacy. Once due to the inherent and implicit lifetime term; thus removing all rights to pursue and obtain privacy. A second time when the state awards a registrant who qualifies for the 1203.4 and it’s immunities such as setting aside the conviction as well as dismissing the accusation or information against the defendant, but the State of California disregards those immunities; thus taking away the legal right to pursue and obtain privacy duly given by section 1203.4 of the Penal Code.

      The inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy within the CA Constitution runs contrary to the “lifetime term” lack of privacy by the CA registry. A lifetime term implicitly removes the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. There should be not be any lifetime term of lack of privacy levied upon CA citizen as it is an inalienable right.

      With the proposed tiers, there truly is a class of lifetime term registrants. The state has taken away the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy which is was granted within the CA Constitution, Art. 1, Sec 1. That’s contradictory because one cannot take away an inalienable right – especially from a citizen who is no longer under custody!

      We do have the CA Constitution. Why are we afraid to use it? That’s what I learned from the Maryland lawyer that help registrants to get off the registry – she used the Maryland Constitution.

Leave a Reply

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

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.