ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

California

Senate Committee to Hear SB 1143 on April 24

The Senate Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider Senate Bill (SB) 1143 on April 24. If passed, SB 1143 would require registrants convicted of an offense involving a minor to disclose their requirement to register to both potential landlords as well as those who have a house to sell. If a registrant failed to make this disclosure, the landlord or seller could lawfully cancel an existing lease or contract.

“This bill must be stopped,” state ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “If the bill becomes law, there will be a significant increase in the number of homeless registrants and that, in turn, will reduce public safety.”

The committee hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. and be held in Room 3191 of the State Capitol.

Registrants, family members, and supporters are encouraged to write letters opposing SB 1143 to Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee.

SB 1143 – Oppose – 5 April 201804052018 Sample Letter

SB 1143

CA: Vidak authors measure to prevent sex offenders from secretly moving in next door to schools, parks and child care centers

 

Join the discussion

  1. AO (AlexO)

    Election years produce the worst kind of laws. Really, the only law that I want to see passed is one that would require the legislature to actually produce data as to why a law is required instead of the current “sounds right, so it must be right”. I have a feeling we’d have far less new and old laws if the burden of data was actually on the people who create all this BS.

    • mike r

      Ya we should start an initiative here in CA for such a law, and also one that would not give immunity to any public official for passing unconstitutional laws…

      I am really glad to see this issue getting the attention it should. This is the biggest issue since the last residency bill….

  2. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    Wow, this is incredibly stupid law.

  3. Anonymous

    Too bad there isn’t a similar bill for domestic assault felons, or those convicted of pushing opioids. (Or for politicians convicted of corruption. Oh I forgot, their convictions are usually overturned, or quietly expunged)

  4. Sunny

    Wouldn’t this be found unconstitutional because you are compelling speech from one private person to another private person, thus violating the First Amendment? The Legislature and voters have moved away from this forced disclosure of criminal records, notably by “banning the box” (questions about criminal records) on job applications, which became effective this year (see AB 1008). In addition to being unconstitutional, this bill conflicts with existing law, specifically Section 290.46(j)(2), which “expressly prohibits the use of information disclosed on the [Megan’s Law] website for purposes relating to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, employment, education, housing, or benefits, privileges, or services, provided by any business establishment.”

    http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-290-46.html

    • Ron

      Unconstitutional??? It doesn’t matter if it is. The law can still be legally implemented and have a devistating affect on many people. It will only be removed (maybe) after several years of litigation. By then the damage will have been done and the politicians will have been elected. – we are just fodder to be manipulated as the kings see fit.

      This is why the judicial branch is NOT an equal branch of the government.
      We need a judicial system that allows legal review of laws before the are implemented to prevent exactly this type of situation.

    • American Detained in America

      Since the registry itself is unconstitutional (regardless of what SCOTUS officially says, we know it is cruel and unusual punishment), I seriously doubt they care.

  5. Robin

    Tell a person that is selling a house that you want to buy, WHAT?

    Now that would be discrimination at its worst. Really the same goes for landlords too being there are no longer restrictions on where you can live in CA now. This seems to be an attempt to put that law back in play just using a different approach, no?

    • RFS

      This was my thought too, remove one housing restriction law and implement another.
      This one is actually worse. Landlords will not choose RSOs unless they have no other applicants. Can you imagine, in California, that there would be no other applicants and if so, what poor quality a property must be in for this to be the case.
      From another angle, what kind of liability would be on the landlord who knowingly allows an RSO into the neighborhood and something happens to the kid next door. Even if not legally he/she or the property could face vigilante justice. Currently, they can say they didn’t know. Why would they rent, ever, to an RSO if the RSO must disclose.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        And there’s the property insurance industry which will penalize landlords for renting to sex offenders and the lawsuits that will be filed against landlords who knowingly rent to sex offenders if they look cross-eyed at someone. So from this one public policy – putting us on publicly available websites, there flow many consequences.

  6. J

    These fires will continue to pop up until the registry ends. I just hope our DEFENDERS can get rich off the numerous lawsuits until that day comes. Thank you Janice, Gail and All who are invoved with me in this nightmare.

    • ExpatRFSO

      Our defenders, if you are referring to ACSOL et. al. do NOT get rich of us. Lawyers that send deceitful, alarming half-truth filled mailers to scare us into coughing up lots of $$ for pipe dream promises do, but they are not our defenders, they are predatory vultures.

      • Jason Alford

        You misunderstood my post. I hope our Defenders (ACSOL and the like) can make some money on these disastrous and plain out stupid ordinaces and laws that they continue to challenge for myself and others.

  7. mk

    Im confused. It it saying that the rso would need to tell a seller that they are rso? Any seller?
    Or if the rso is selling a home he needs to tell buyers?

    besides isnt that info public already?

    • steve

      It’s worded strangely but I believe the buyer of a house would have to tell the sellers…just another way to keep the less desirables out of the neighborhood.

    • AO (AlexO)

      It’s if you’re the renter/buyer. When Janice posted this earlier, the headline that senator gave was something like “Sex offenders secretly moving in next door”. At that time, the bill would require this notification for any property that falls under 1200 feet of certain locations (schools and such). I’m not sure if any of this has since changed.

      The “good” news is that there is no legal penalty for not complying, unlike just about every other “non-punitive” RSO law. The bad new is that this creates a loophole for the landlord to break any contract they may have without penalty by citing this law. This will effect renters far more than home buyers as when buying a home you basically just need to clear the sale and then the law is meaningless (they won’t reverse the sale after its been completed).

      This bill is 100% a re-election ploy, hence the no legal (incarceration) penalty. If they seriously thought this was good and needed, rest assured they would’ve applied a jail term in the language.

      • ExpatRFSO

        Thanks for that clarification Alex. That is how I read it too. No where is there a penalty listed. It just allows renters to evict you or sellers to pull out before closing. And it’s only if your crime was involving a minor, and only if the residence is a 1/4 mile (1329ft, not 1200ft) from a school, park etc. If you aren’t on the Meghan’s Law website, don’t volunteer that information!

  8. JesusH

    No.

    I am lucky to still have my job and make a pretty good living. The criminal court and DCFS process cost me my life savings and our house. 4 years on and I’m almost back to the point where I can afford to buy another house for my kids.

    No way in hell I’m going to tell anyone anything.

    I was able to rent where I’m living now but if I had to tell the landlord I might not have been able to.

    I’m getting sick and tired of all this crap. I want to be able to do anything all other people can do. Sure I probably couldn’t ever afford to do much of it, but I understood that. Money, that’s all. But to be held back by arbitrary rules (IML, etc) is wrong. The game is rigged.

  9. someone who cares

    I can’t imagine this bill ever getting anywhere, but we have seen more stupid laws being passed just to get overturned. What a waste of money yet again. This is discrimination at its best and would definitely spike a lot of lawsuits ( I would hope ). Family members and the children of registrants would be discriminated against and treated unjustly. It will be either all “criminals” or no “criminals” will have to be objected to such an idiotic and unconstitutional law. Ban the Box was the beginning. They can’t just pick another law at random, just because.

  10. USA

    Well, I think this is a wonderful idea. Ca is presently broke and we have an incredible homeless problem at the moment. So, this could or would certainly help! I think it could create a homeless epidemic, destroy families, ruin a child’s life and the list goes on and on! Great idea. This is probably one of the most disturbing and thought provoking ideas I’ve ever read. It’s very hateful. I guess murderers, wife beaters, drug dealers and prostitutes can now buy a house anywhere they desire!

  11. Agamemnon

    Wasn’t it already ruled unconstitutional to deny a person housing based on a prior offense?

    • AO (AlexO)

      The registry in general is unconstitutional on paper until you get to the part where it’s been ruled to be “non-punitive”, thus avoiding the constitution. If something isn’t meant as punishment, then the constitution doesn’t really apply. This is especially true in this case since the bill isn’t trying to apply a legal (incarceration) penalty for non-compliance. It simply allows the landlord to breach the contract without suffering a penalty. In other words, it’s not the government that’s denying your housing (where as housing distance regulation is the government denying housing, which is why that was ruled unconstitutional, making California one of very few states allowing us to live wherever we want once we’re off supervision).

      • Tim Moore

        Notification, notification, notification. It’s all about revealing our personal information. The government is requiring notification with this bill. Just like IML. And washing its hands of any consequences.

        • New Person

          Yes, but this is on US soil. As Agamenon pointed out, “Wasn’t it already ruled unconstitutional to deny a person housing based on a prior offense?”

          The only way to you’re on the registry was due to a prior offense. You could lose your house if you don’t disclose you’re a registrant or you could lose a sale if you don’t disclose you’re a registrant. Losing your house or a sale due to not disclosing your registration status is being domineered into doing this service under penalty of law – the penalty is losing your housing or your sale with the law stating so.

          If you do not do this compulsory service as commanded by the State, then State will not legally recognize any of your transactions.

          “Involuntary Servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.”

          Since the registry isn’t a punishment today, then forcing a free citizen to do any service under penalty of law is unconstitutional. In this case, you’re right for free commerce is being deterred if you do not do this compelled service by the State of Ca, as you lose the right of being an equal citizen with not recognizing your commercial act by not disclosing your registration status.

          ——— A twist of fate here —————–
          Fair Housing Act
          Sec. 804.[42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
          =====
          As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful–

          (b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

          (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

          (d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.

          (e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
          =====

          Look at Point (c). This bill is potentially limiting and discriminating against registrants. This bill is adding sections to “housing restrictions”. That’s a guise that makes discriminating against registrants legal for housing purposes that which FHA states is prohibited. CASOMB has the recidivism rates under 1% for two consecutive years (maybe three). Why is this bill punishing, limiting, and discriminating on the over 99% who do not re-offend for a sex crime?

          Just like the registry is a guise for legal Involuntary Servitude on citizens no longer under custody – except the registry is actually unconstitutional to Involuntary Servitude if it’s not punishment.

          *****************************

          Another note:
          Why are registrants with section 1203.4 of the Penal Code not being represented here to help refute this bill? This bill says any person on the registry involving a minor.

          This summer, I’m going to try like heck to put a suit up against the state of CA for undermining the full rights of a citizen and limiting my privileges/immunities as a citizen with respect to section 1203.4 of the Penal Code. My rights are being trampled upon, but I guess we’re too small of a group to worry about.

          Here are the three sets of immunities provided within 1203.4, if you qualify and earn it:
          1) Verdict set aside (You’re no longer convicted)
          2) Information or accusation are dismissed (no one should know what your offense was)
          3) All penalties and disabilities are released from the conviction. (you’re restored to who you were before the conviction.)

          I’m a registrant with a 1203.4. So this bill is commanding that:
          1) I “must” inform people b/c I’m a registrant or my legal representation for commerce isn’t recognized as a citizen (my compulsory service to penalty/disability from my conviction.)
          2) I have a conviction (present tense conviction – which is false since it’s set aside)
          3) That conviction involved a minor (compelled to inform of my dismissed information/accusation)

          See… this is why PC 290.007 must be identified as unconstitutional to the recipients of 1203.4! Look up Kelly v Municipal case. It states those PC 290 is not applicable to people with 1203.4.

          Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/160/38.html

          PC 290.007 states “regardless” of earning 1203.4, you must continue to register. Sounds dismissive and retributive. Kinda like this Bill on housing restrictions – and it’s quite discriminatory, tbh.

  12. totally against public registry

    My letter to the senator was mailed this morning…

    Janice, is this something you want us to show up for?

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Totally – Yes, we need people to speak against this bill during the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing. Please join us at 8:45 a.m. at Starbucks on L Street, across the street from the Capitol, and we will walk together to the hearing.

  13. feed up

    It never ends

  14. JAB

    Hi. What happens when your not the one on the lease? Another family member is? How will this hold up? Anyone know?

  15. ExpatRFSO

    And here I was having a pretty good day…looking to move into my dream house very soon. I guess that is on hold.

  16. bob

    This is about the stupidest law ever…what a F’ing waste of taxpayer $ for a lame bill….. like a HOUSE seller would even care ? he wants to SELL.

    If I was selling a house and the guy said he was a convicted murderer… would I sell it to him ? yepppp
    same as if i was on a jury trial, regardless of the crime…. id find the perp.. NOT GUILTY !

    Anyone know the details on WHO started this bill ?
    name and email ?

    • JDP

      Introduced by Senator Vidak.
      Capitol Office
      State Capitol, Room 3082
      Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
      Phone: (916) 651-4014
      Fax: (916) 651-4914

      Fresno Office
      2550 Mariposa Mall, Suite 2016
      Fresno, CA 93721
      Phone: (559) 264-3070

      Bakersfield Office
      1201 E. California Avenue, Suite A
      Bakersfield, CA 93307
      Phone: (661) 395-2620

      Hanford Office
      113 Court Street, Suite 205
      Hanford, CA 93230
      Phone: (559) 585-7161

      • Janice Bellucci

        Thank you for providing phone and FAX numbers for Senator Vidak’s Offices. I hope that everyone who reads your comment will start calling those offices and sending letters via FAX.

  17. Registered Citizen

    I seem to recall hearing at one of the Saturday meetings that use of the information from the registry was not lawful for purposes of employment, housing etc and subject to penalties (I forget if it was criminal or simply civil)?

    Obviously, I’m not a lawyer, but wouldn’t just about any court find that language sufficient to find this bill (if passed into law) as unlawful?

  18. USA

    Well stated. Many people are online for all to see? Yet, they want to continue to tack on more and more? If this continues, let’s all file for disability? I can’t find a job or housing because? It’s very thoughtless and we have bigger issues here in bankrupt California. Why doesn’t someone submit a bill that would help rehabilitate? Create job skills? Help with employment? Very narrow minded. These things never work.

    • JAB

      Hello USA,

      I have been saying the same thing thing for years, if you are going to beat a person down for year after year, new law after new law, then disability should be offered! I wonder has anyone gone this route and actually won?

  19. USA

    So true! In summary, none of this really makes sense. I suggest one of these lawmakers spend a day in a court room and hear some if the case loads (3rd offense//2nd probation violation/new charge while out on bail). I suggest we continue to move forward and prepare for 2021. I imagine we will hear more about that new law as well. I suggest getting your charge reduced (everyone) to a misdemeanor and expunged if possible. What Tier are you in with a expunged offense? Summary probation? I personally think the courts are going to have difficulty denying this motion unless you have more arrests etc.

  20. AJ

    Once again, the words from Smith ring in my ears: “…offenders subject to the Act are free to move
    where they wish and to live and work as other citizens….”

  21. Eric

    Watching the Zuckerberg senate hearings is a goldmine of learning how the law makers actually feel about protecting privacy. particularly informative is Kathy Caster, R. Florida and Senator Durban who adamantly stress the absolute rights to privacy and that “The American people do not want to be monitored and should not be monitored,” and “There is a need for legislation to protect the American people’s privacy and from being monitored.” Those are quotes from the law makers. Now I accept that when I was on probation I was monitored. But that is over. My incident happened 12 years ago. I have since met every single requirement of the justice department. I have passed polygraph tests, psychosexual exams, had my computer and phone monitored, and was on supervised release. I satisfactorily met all conditions. Yet I am still being treated as if I am engaged in the crime, and although I had a non contact offense, I am being treated as if I am currently suspect in contact crimes. I am on a public registry, I have police come to my home unannounced, I have to register, I cannot stay over night at my girls house, I cannot get fulltime employment, and I am discriminated in housing all because I am being monitored and my privacy is on public display even though I completed all the requirements. I was a sex offender. I am no longer one. I have not engaged in that activity for twelve years, yet I am monitored as if I am still suspect. If I would have shot someone in a drug deal I would be able to lead a normal life by now. How do our law makers explain this in the sacrosanct view of right to privacy?

    • CR

      All good questions, Eric. Why don’t you write to those senators you mentioned, quote them in your letter, and then ask your questions.

      There’s a good chance you’ll get a response if you type or hand write a letter and post it via the regular mail. And if you do, please let us know what they say.

    • Facts should matter

      Correct! I saw and heard the hypocrisy also. Privacy is a protected public interest and Megan’s law circumvents an individual’s actual privacy, safety and security just so some random stranger can stalk us and garner a false sense of reassurance and false psychological relief. We (and our family members) are sitting ducks and soft targets because it increases the likelihood and probability for physical violence, murder and arson. Not to mention it has a negative impact on the mental health of not only the registrant, but immediate family members as well because of open-ended systematic and orchestrated abuse and neglect on our legitimate right to feeling safe in our own homes.

      In short, freedom WITHOUT privacy means NOTHING. It’s a form of torture and terrorism to make someone relinquish the personal sense of safety under threat of incarceration.

      Just because a rule or law is supported by public consensus doesn’t mean it’s right or constitutional. Unfortunately… the first rule of politics is: Keep your constituents dumb and afraid.

  22. Counting the days

    This is the state’s version of IML. They aren’t saying don’t rent or sell to us, but by disclosing our past, they are allowing the landlord/ seller to make that decision. A chickenshit way to discriminate.

    I am going to leave the biggest pile of💩on the carpet when I pass threw my final airline check out of this dump of a country!

  23. Robert Curtis

    I looked at his in district stats. He is in a weakly held Republican seat.
    I believe this to be political grand standing at it’s best. He is a Republican
    senator in an over 60% Democrat district up for re-election. check the link below:

    http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/districts/SD14/

    • Eric

      That makes sense. For a politician, when you have no ideas, no leadership, weak following, poor history, but want some attention write a bill attacking sex offenders. You are sure to get some following.

  24. Counting the days

    In an adjacent issue, SB 1204 ( iI think that’s right) is a pimp and pandering bill that wants to expand the laws to make anyone that “supports” sex workers guilty of a felony and subject to registration. That would make a drug store cashier that sold condoms to a prostitute a sex offender. OMG! The legislators have become the defacto Sex Police!
    I listened to a very good interview on 94.1 Berkeley and it made my want to blow up the state legislature! Half those guys get handjobs after work! But they are dictating our lives? This state and country are hopeless. I eas going to wait for my reduction before moving out of country, just for my own peace of mind. But with all this crap, it is obvious that ” the pendelum” will never swing back, and any kind of attempt at a quiet peaceful life here is futile.

  25. Jason

    Someone needs to read PC 290.46. We can’t be denied housing it’s already a law.

    • Counting the days

      What they are saying is that if we don’t expose our status, then we are responsible for not abiding by the law, and that gives the landlord/ real estate agent the right to deny housing. Same way insurance can cancel or deny if you don’t tell of ore existing conditions. Same thought.
      So they are bootstrapping to get the old ordinances back in.

  26. Eric

    Isn’t this what the registry is for? Also, credit check, internet search, if a manager or owner wants the information it is there.

  27. 290 air

    This will make more transient sex offenders. So the law makers would rather have us register 12 times a year instead of once. Just think of the burden on the local police forces. If we were all transient then what would be the point of the registry? Plus it would be 1.2 million registrations a year in California instead of 100,000. Politicians have their heads so far up their arses they can’t figure out which way to go.

  28. CR

    I thought transient sex offenders had to register weekly. I think that is true in Texas, anyway. Not sure about CA.

  29. mike r

    Unfortunately Jason, the word “may” is a major problem. The other major problem is it is a private party making the call not any state official, furthermore, the penalty is civil and not penal in any sense, at least according to any state statute. I am really glad to see this major issue getting the recognition that it deserves and that people are coming around to know exactly what the consequences that this bill would have…..If passed I am not even sure who you would sue unless you actually get denied housing or sale of property but even then the language protects civilian landlords or sellers from liability. Who to sue???The gov.???What part of the gov exactly???Can you sue the legislature???Doubt it…This is bad if passed and it very well may pass, last time the bill was in the state statutes and the public safety members were well aware that the courts would strike that law down but this is a entirely different breed of animal and I see it passing very easily…..I don’t even see a way to file for a TRO because who the Hel*^%$ due you sue???? You have to have a defendant……I think the state itself has absolute immunity if I remember correctly so their out….IDK man….

  30. mike r

    You know what I think needs to happen is someone who is a credible attorney needs to send this politician a cease and desist letter and inform her that if she introduces this bill and it gets passed and if there is any damage or harm caused by it and if the law is declared unconstitutional then that politician “no longer has immunity” and that she will be sued and held personally liable for any damages that arise from the unconstitutional law. This is exactly what needs to happen and I do not know why no attorney does this. Just think all those people that were affected from Jessica’s law had a right to sue the individual legislators that authored that bill in the personal capacity since they enacted an unconstitutional law knowing very well what kind of harm it would do…..I really believe this is the case and that is what the “under color of law” are for but people do not use it for some reason…..That lady is working under color of law to deprive tens of thousands of people of their constitutional liberties know very well that (or should have known, which is the same thing for suit) that the law is unconstitutional and that it will deprive individual liberties so there goes her frigging immunity out the window. The only way to fight these people is either thru the courts of thru their pocket books…..
    He&*%^&% if no one else does I just may very well do it myself…

  31. mike r

    If anything it will be in the back of her mind because you know she doesn’t know what the laws are and if she really can be sued. Make her take pause at the very least and show her we are not going to just take this crap laying down…….Look this law has already been debated and reject by the safety committee as well as been struck down by the CA supreme court (although only for parolees) so this lady knows very well that she will be violating our liberties but is going ahead anyways because she faces absolutely NO consequences one way or the other unless some one does like I am stating…Just throwing it out there as I have my own case and are embroiled with the CA AG right now because I will not sit back and take it…

    • mike r

      At least a very similar bill only it was in the state statutes which is why it was rejected I think. I find it really hard to swallow that the safety committee found a heart or cared what the effects were. They didn’t enact it because it would be shot down in court and they knew it and they did not want to look like fools with the other committees and courts or wherever. This law does not face that same challenge…..

  32. mike r

    Just a quick look online..IDK man….Take a lot more research…

    The immunity only applies to lawsuits that try to force the government to act or that demand money damages. You may sue the government for a declaratory judgment, to protest a wrongful injunction, and for equitable relief. Generally, you may sue to restrain the government in some way, but not force it to act.
    You may sue if a government employee, official, or agency abuses its authority or acts beyond its authority. Employees are protected for acts and omissions in the scope of their employment, but not beyond it.

    If the government, or a government employee, does an act of gross negligence or recklessness there is no immunity.

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 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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *