ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (01/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Recording of Emergency ACSOL meeting about new SORNA regulations



CA: California Program to Help Homeless Vets Excludes Sex Offenders

[ –  3/31/18]

It sounds like a great program. Homeless military veterans who have been sleeping in their cars and risking arrest for violating a new law making it illegal to sleep in your vehicle in a residential area overnight, can now park their vehicles in the VA parking lot and get a good night’s sleep and access to bathrooms.

According to California Radio Station WMOT, “Last month, a non-profit group called Safe Parking L.A. partnered with the Department of Veterans Affairs to offer 10 parking stalls for vets to spend the night in their cars. The number could expand if there’s enough demand. A security guard and a portable bathroom with a hand washing station are available on site from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., seven days a week.” Another non-profit group, Village for Vets, had teamed up with Meals on Wheels to bring brown bags of nighttime snacks and breakfast food to the cars.

What better way to help those who have served our country and are down on their luck! Except the new program excludes sex offenders. Other crimes are not checked for – in fact, the individual featured in the WMOT story had served prison time – but sex offenders are.

Read more


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I am really at a loss for words, but I’ll try. Just what is the mind set of these policy makers? do they think the 105,000 people who have been labeled with SO are totally without impulse control, that they have no driving factor in life but to appease an insatiable deviant sexual drive, even though that doesn’t seem to be happening across the state? So drug dealers and robbers and burglars won’t have any temptations sleeping in a small community, but the SO will be totally unable to control themselves an will naturally start assaulting others in the sleeping quarters. It just totally boggles my mind. All one needs to do is look at the evidence of what RSO’s are and aren’t doing across the state. I would much rather have a dozen SO’s living around me than those convicted of burglary.

@ Eric: Precisely. The Registrants will probably be the quiet, respectful, mind-their-own-business, tolerant neighbors we all would like! No all-night loud music parties. No drunken screaming matches in the middle of the street or screechimg hotrod tires. Etc.

This causes harm to registrants. All these good criminal justice policies that exclude so’s are part of the harm caused to registrants

Again, more specified evidence piling up to show how the registry is indeed a punitive measure against sex offenders.

As terrible as these policies are, they only bolster future challenges to the registry.

Excellent observation.

More proof the term sexual oriented offender serves the purpose to bar or ban. The same can be stated for the purpose of the electronic list. The people developed it for the purpose of barring, otherwise known are imposing affirmative disability.

Mr. Roberts & SCOTUS and Congress are professional liars. We follow our leadership.

Man i just hit them up with all my stats. I think ACSOL should have a section devoted strictly to stats. Here is what I sent them and would be a good starting point for the section.

Hello, my name is Michael and I just had to respond to your exclusion of veterans that have been convicted of a sexual offense from taking advantage of any of your programs. I find it very disgusting that you are willing to help all other criminal offenders but refuse to help those that need it the most. The fact that you exclude those convicted of a sexual offense, just like the rest of the world, shows that you are not a compassionate organization and that you will bend toward public opinion and help instill the hysteria, myth, and hyperbole that surround the sex offender label. Please consider the following statistics and compare them to any other criminal offenses and see how foundation-less your exclusion really is. Those that were convicted of a sexual offense and have served 1, 2, 3, or more deployments to try to liberate a society that hates our guts just because the government thinks it will serve our society as well are no less deserving of support than any others and our barbaric attitude towards these individuals is a perfect example at how uncivilized our criminal and societal approaches to this growing problem really is.
Thank you for your time

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 2014 Outcome Evaluation Report

CA 0.8% recidivism rate. [p. 30 Figure 11]. [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 4 ¶ 12.

California sex offender management Board January 2008, An Assessment of Current Management Practices of Adult Sex Offender in California

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% in the third year, making a total of 3.5% returned for new sex offense in first three years after release. [p.74 table 3-2]. [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 4 ¶ 12.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report

“Recidivating flagged sex offenders are most often returned to prison for a new nonsex crime than for a new sex crime. As seen in Figure and Table 12, [] those who return to prison for a new sex crime (5.0 percent).” [p. 24]. [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 43 ¶ 176.

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014

“Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually 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.” [p. 12]. [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 4 ¶ 12.

(1) Dr. Karl Hanson Declaration ¶ 41 in Doe v. Harris 772 F.3d 563, 572 (9th Cir. 2014):

“Research also contradicts the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of re-offending through their lifespan. Most sex offenders do not re-offend. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 19-25; Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 13-15. The longer offenders remain offense-free in the community, the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 7-13, 22, 26-38; Abbott Dec. ¶ 16. On average, the likelihood of re-offending drops by 50% every five years that an offender remains in the community without a new arrest for a sex offense. Hanson Dec. ¶ 27. Eventually, persons convicted of sex offenses are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an “out of the blue” sexual offence. See id. ¶¶ 28, 31-33. For example, offenders who are classified as “low risk” 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 crimes. See id. ¶ 30. After 10 to 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 crimes. See id. ¶¶ 30, 34. The same is true for high-risk offenders after 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense. See id. ¶ 35. Ex-offenders who remain free of any arrests following their release should present an even lower risk. See id. ¶ 39. Importantly, post-release factors such as cooperation with supervision, treatment, can dramatically reduce recidivism, and monitoring these factors can be highly predictive. See id. ¶¶ 23, 39-40; Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 17-18. Based on this research, criminal justice and recidivism experts 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.”. Doe v. Harris 772 F.3d 563, 572 (9th Cir. 2014). Also see, Hanson Declaration [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint pp 45-46 ¶¶ 182, 183.

(2) Video presentation generated by California Sex Offender Management Board 2016

California leading expert’s testimony of facts along with the fallacies of the California registration scheme, see [visited April 13, 2018]. Complaint p. 4 ¶ 12.

(3) Out of state report citations:

Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009

“The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation.” [p. 1]. [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 43 ¶ 176.

Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center

“Sex-offense recidivism was low at 3.0 percent for the registry sample and 3.5 percent for the pre-registry sample.” [p. 10 Table 4]. [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 44 ¶ 176.

Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008

Re-arrest for a new sex crime at 3.1%. Furthermore, re-arrest rates are not absolute rates as absolute rates are extremely lower. [p.50 table 26]. [visited on April 15, 2018]. Complaint p. 43 ¶ 176.

Patrick A. Langan et al., Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003)

“Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994, [] The rate for all 9,691 sex offenders (a category that includes the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2%.” [p. 1]. [visited on April 7, 2018]. Complaint p. 25 ¶ 103.

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. Given the enormous fiscal costs of implementing SORNA, coupled with the lack of evidence that registries and notification make communities safer, states should think carefully before committing to comply with SORNA.” [p. 1]. [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 25 ¶ 102.

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America

Abstract: “The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, [] 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”. [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint p. 24 ¶ 101.

(4) Government Reports outside Plaintiff’s Complaint:

California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB). Letter to Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher Regarding Chelsea’s Law (AB 1844)

“CASOMB has seen the unintended consequences of well-meaning laws intended to protect communities from sex offending, which in some cases have made are people less safe.” [p. 1 ¶ 2]. [visited April 4, 2018].

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: Are Sex Offenders Dangerous?

Abstract: “The results of the research indicate that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders were not rearrested for another sex crime. This finding is surprising given the way in which DNA collection, registration, and notification policies have come about. Research would indicate that robbers may be better candidates for DNA collection, registration, and community notification than sex offenders. The results offered little support for the notion of predicate or “gateway” offenses to sex offending.” [visited on April 7, 2018].

(5) Reports concerning alleged under-reporting:

The following are governmental reports conducted concerning only alleged high rates of under reported of sex crimes. These reports are relevant since the proponents of these laws often use under-reporting as somehow justification for these laws.

Michael Planty et al., Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2013)

“The data in this report were drawn from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police from a nationally representative sample of persons age 12 or older who live in U.S. households.” [p. 2]. “Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based on the results presented” [p. 10]. [visited on April 7, 2018].

David Finkelhor et al., Sexually Assaulted Children: National Estimates & Characteristics, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN 8 (Aug. 2008)

“Using proxy interviews to obtain information on crime victimization and other sensitive topics has never been a preferred methodology and has sometimes yielded poor results” [p. 10]. [visited on April 7, 2018].

(6) Static 99R Risk Assessment Tool:

Static 99R risk assessment that is a tool that is widely used by the CASOMB and is the leading risk assessment tool:

For the predictive factors for re-offense of sex offenders, and which can be found on the Internet at [visited on May 3, 2018]. Attached EXHIBIT 1.

(7) Relevant Academic Evidence:


“current social policies may contribute to dynamic risk factors for offenders in the community, ultimately becoming counter-productive.” [p. 10]. [visited on April 21, 2018] Complaint pp. 3, 25.

The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

“The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. [] This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.” [visited on April 21, 2018] Complaint p .25.

Daniel M. Filler, Making the Case for Megan’s Law, Making the Case for Megan’s Law: A Study in Legislative Rhetoric: 76 IND. L.J. 315, 315-17 (2001)

“Clearly, Megan’s Law supporters used rhetoric designed to make opposition to the law politically impossible. They employed a three-part rhetorical strategy that advocates have used previously to push public support for other child protection legislation: typification, statistical manipulation, and melodrama. During the late 1980s, for instance, advocates argued for new stranger child-abduction laws by making these same three claims. First, citing particularly horrible, well-publicized abductions-cases like the Jacob Wetterling incident-they argued that these incidents were typical of the broader abduction problem1 6 Second, they grossly exaggerated the extent of the crisis, pointing to the high rate of total child abductions (a number which consisted largely of parental kidnappings) as evidence of a massive stranger abduction crisis.” Finally, they described their political struggle as a melodrama: a battle of good (child protectors) versus evil (child abusers).”‘ As a result of this effective rhetoric, activists successfully convinced the public that stranger child abduction was a scourge sweeping the nation.” [pp. 362-363]. [visited on April 7, 2018].

Wayne A. Logan, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: Past, Present and Future, 34 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 3, 5 (2008)

“One of the most striking features of the nation’s modern rush to embrace registration and notification is the utter disregard of empiricism. One would be hard-pressed to identify a public enterprise of similar national scope effectuated in utter disregard for its efficacy or impact. Yet at the same time, registration and notification laws have blanketed the nation precisely because of the perception, repeatedly parroted in legislative findings supporting the laws, that sex offenders recidivate at a far greater rate than other sub-populations. While we now know this to be untrue as we did in the 1950s.” [p. 5]. [visited on April 20, 2018].

(8) Relevant evidence:

Proper citations for ‘specific’ California municipality codes. Regardless if the punitive elements for the Mendoza-Martinez factors in Plaintiff’s case are, or are not, statutorily imbedded in the California statutes being challenged, these statutes and ordinances are relevant facts.

(9) Vigilante Attacks:

“An Alaskan “avenger,” armed with a hammer, is accused of attacking sex offenders using an online registry to flesh out his hit list. Tracking down up to three victims using Anchorage’s public online sex offender registry, Jason Vukovich allegedly broke into his victim’s homes late at night and bashed their heads in with a hammer in June” [visited on April 20, 2018]. Complaint p. 19.

Washington vigilante who killed two sex offenders gets life in prison, [visited on April 20, 2018]. Complaint p. 19.

Another separate attack with a hammer “Griffin’s sentence, handed down by Judge Hugh Mullin in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, included a conviction for an attack with a sledgehammer April 22, 2010, on 58-year-old Frank Lindsay. Griffin tracked down Lindsay from the Megan’s Law sex offender list,” [visited on April 20, 2018]. Complaint p. 20.

The 19-year-old suspect was booked on preliminary charges of aggravated battery and mob action, “He acknowledged knowing that the (victim) was a sex offender, and that the three subjects involved had discussed battering him when they saw him walking down the street.” [visited on April 20, 2018]. Complaint p. 20.

The Vigilante of Clallam County Patrick Drum was tired of seeing sex offenders hurt children. So, he decided to kill them. [visited on April 20, 2108]. Complaint p. 20.

Husband and wife ‘vigilante’ team kill two—planned to work their way through sex offender registry ‘hit list’ [visited on April 21, 2018]. Complaint pp. 19, 20.

In 2006, for another example, two men listed on Maine’s sex offender registry were targeted and murdered by a Canadian man who found the offenders’ personal information on Maine’s online registry which prompted Maine authorities to briefly remove the state’s online sex-offender registry because of concerns that such websites may encourage vigilante-style justice [Visited on April 21, 2018]. Complaint pp. 51, 52.

Great compilation, Mike R here and on the website!

So, the military vet, who is an RC whether from their time in uniform or after, is looked down upon yet was willing to die for the freedom that is willingly taken away from them? Hog wash.

As a military vet, I say this is baloney (being tactful here) and additional maltreatment by the VA towards vets in general and especially those who have either been accused of a sex crime or even convicted of one, either in service or afterward. They have continued to stand the vet in behavioral determination after their time in service when it is not their place to do so, e.g. see removal of VA headstones or burial in military cemeteries. If the vet’s service discharge grade is not honorable through retirement, separation, or commission resignation, then the other grades are potential steps to removal of other VA related items they could be in line for, e.g. headstones or burial. The VA feels they are doing the right thing, but in reality the VA is doing the political thing because it is Congress who fills their coffers for them annually. Constituents cannot support a Congress that supports a Department who does nothing about those who may or may not have committed a sex offense.

I don’t know honestly if enough political or public pressure on Congress or the VA would help alleviate this for those former service members who are RCs also. However, if there was an org who serviced those who are former military and are also RCs only, that would grab the attention of a few. For what gain is not known at this writing, but it could certainly highlight the issues former military members who are RCs also have, e.g. the house that was recently taken away from the military vet amputee after his history came to light unfortunately; the inability to find housing, work, etc much like those who are not military vets and suffer the same.

The VA is an inept Department that is so riddled with idiocy that there is no way it could find its own way out of barn with two open doors on opposing ends with roped lanes, well lit exit signs posted, and blinking neon arrows to boot. This is a shame because there are folks there in the VA who do care and get swept up in with those who are less than caring.

Off my soapbox now…

There are constantly laws being proposed or passed at state and federal levels that grant government benefits or protections to eligible persons based on some identified status, class, or characteristic. It seems that in so many cases, “sex offenders” are specifically excluded. Has anyone kept a list?

When I get some time, I will try to google this site to find as many of them as I can. Former sex offenders are continually being either excluded from government benefits or protections, even those that are made available to other classes of criminal offenders, or targeted with new criminal penalties or ostensibly non-punitive regulations that restrict our liberty.

It should help to clearly establish that “sex offenders” are a politically powerless minority being singled out for discriminatory treatment by the government. “Sex offenders” should be treated by the courts as a suspect class when evaluating the constitutionality of laws that affect them. How can this not be obvious to everyone?

Wow this is utter madness!

This action now ventures into the realm that the registry is criminal in nature, thus punishment. The evaluation of excluding registrants in CA proves this is no longer a statutory scheme for police surveillance, but a tool for retribution.

I stumbled upon this idea of criminal in nature when being on the registry was on a background check and was the sole reason for being denied employment. This means the registry is actively looked upon as a criminal liability when it shouldn’t have any bearing on employment.

For this instance, vets being vetted if they’re on the registry, which shouldn’t be access to exclude, is being utilized as a tool to identify a criminality flag for a person.

Sad but true. But… not all hope is lost, I found myself living in a shopping center parking lot after I was released for PC288.4 (I should’ve checked her ID). I wasn’t from the state, just visiting… I exhausted all my money between bailing out, and paying for my investigators and attorney. My family and friends didn’t understand, and I found myself alone, penniless. All the homeless shelters in the area rejected SOs, HUD homes even rejected my Veteran status because in SO’s on Lifetime Registration are banned. But I kept searching, and I was blessed to have the found a Veterans program called SSVF. It paid for my food, rent, utilities, fixed my vehicle, and assisted with finding me a job. They got me in touch with the VA for medical care, and got me county assistance like a bus pass, and Calfresh. I hit hard times, but I didn’t give up, I kept searching for assistance programs. A year later, I own a small business thats very profitable, I even lent a house to assist homeless veterans, seven to be exact. On a side note, I don’t think it’s legal to exclude a veteran if the organization is accepting government grants. Hmmm.

Here is an update and email from this guy.

Thank you for this most resourceful list of references and data. I truly am now more informed. We do this screen because we have children parking with their parents on the lot. We do not exclude any previous sex offender. We do the screen just for notification purposes for our community.

Per FAC’s website update:

*** UPDATE FROM MEMBER: I just got off the phone with The person in charge of the safe parking at the VA. He told me that rso ARE allowed to park there but there is a screening process but they are not stop from parking there!***

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x