ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: May 18 – Sacramento, July 20 – Berkeley [details]
April 20 Meeting Audio [Listen / Download]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Apr 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

General News

General Comments June 2018

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

Join the discussion

  1. Bobby

    Hello, I was wondering if anyone heard anything on Michigan’s registry, and why they haven’t fixed it yet. The last time I heard anything was last week from Tim at the ACLU. I do know he is getting tired of hear from me but oh well. He claims they are still working on it, and there are several litagations going on and they are still working on the lawsuit, that was suppose to be filed months ago. This is rediculous, it’s almost a year since the Snyder ruling and nothing is being done. It’s a court order by the 6th circuit backed by SCOTUS. Michigan lost they are out of options, and and the ruling has not been modified, so that means the ruling stands for EVERYONE not just the original six. So I don’t understand what s taking so long, they didn’t take their time passing all these Nasser bills, yet they drag their feet when it comes to fixing the registry. Then they keep saying be patient we are continuesly working on making the nessasary changes to the Michigan Registry.BE PATIENT, easy for them to day they haven’t been unconstitutionally put on a registry that didn’t even rxist in 1992. So has anyone heard any news updates at all, thanks and sorry for the rant.

    • David M

      This is what Tim wrote me 10 days ago in response to my question of what’s going on….

      This has been very upsetting to me but they are doing nothing. So we are going to take them to court again and force their hand. Court will take some time. I suggest you keep track of your local news as I think it will be in the news when we do file the case. I do not know when that will happen. Tim

    • David M

      This is what Tim wrote me ten days ago.

      This has been very upsetting to me but they are doing nothing. So we are going to take them to court again and force their hand. Court will take some time. I suggest you keep track of your local news as I think it will be in the news when we do file the case. I do not know when that will happen. Tim

    • Bill

      Seems like we are being sold out? I can’t believe we can’t sue even after the courts rulings, for cash and real freedom, with all the new laws being pasted, they will be in the courts for years. So sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • T.l.

        Judge’s have no power to enforce judgements.
        Sold out yes!

        Ahhh other examples: NAFTA, TPP, IML each benefit non constituents. Foreign interests.
        Two parties bent on cutting throats of American workers and Wal-Mart shoppers playing along. Anything to get elected.

    • AJ

      Here’s a curious document for you MI RCs, from April 2018: It doesn’t solve anything regarding Snyder, but does work off of it. It seems like a weird agreement between a Doe and MI–I don’t get why the RC would agree to the stipulations presented. Anyway, it shows that Snyder can be used, though it was again in Federal Court.

      What also struck me about this Stipulation is that it was Pro Per (Pro Se) *and* a Doe filing. I’ve been wondering if/how one can do that. I wouldn’t mind firing up a pro se lawsuit, but really want to remain a Doe. This is the first/only document I’ve ever stumbled across that is a Doe pro se.

      • mike r

        Yeah AJ, any one can ask the court for anonymity. The only reason i didn’t is because I want it known who did what I am doing and I am going to write a Pro Se packet like I think it was Horowitz or Carpenter told me I should do after documenting my entire Pro Se process. You can most definitely remain a Doe though, just requires an extra form and court order. You have a reason with merit for not wanting your name out there so it would surely be granted.

  2. Sunny

    Anyone know if there’s a California voter guide regarding candidates’ stances on things like registration and criminal justice reform? Does ACSOL endorse any candidates?

    • AO

      Good questions. I’m fine with voting for whomever ACSOL endorses. At this point, I care less about everything else than the candidates criminal (RC’s in particular) stance. I don’t care how much you’ll bring to the economy if you’re going to treat people with a record like crap.

      • Anonymous

        *AO, Agreed 100%. 100%!!

      • AnonMom

        Yes! This is me 100% at this time, the thing that has the largest impact on me and my family is the registry. I, and the portion of my family that knows about our situation, would support a candidate in CA that stands to abolish this terrible set up, and not only free my husband of this stupid list, but also me and my child. I hope ACSOL has a lost of endorsed candidates!

    • 🇺🇸 David 🇺🇸

      🇺🇸 I suspect that ACSOL cannot make political endorsements or recommendations without endangering it’s tax-exempt, non-profit status. 🇺🇸

      • 🇺🇸 David 🇺🇸

        When I am voting, especially for any court/judge’s position, I usually avoid the the District Attorneys/Prosecutors – especially those who prosecuted sex crimes and child molestation crimes. I strongly suspect they will have a bias that will be reflected in their decisions.

        • 🇺🇸 David 🇺🇸

          And I avoid judicial candidates who are endorsed by too many law enforcement organizations.

      • Counting the days

        Maybe not endorsements, but steering toward a favorable outcome ( if that is possible!)

  3. AJ

    Well this should set our cause back a decade or two…do a search for “Nathan Larson Virginia”. It may be helpful if our advocacy groups (ACSOL, FAC, NARSOL, etc.) could fashion a statement against this dude.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      I wouldn’t be too sure that he doesn’t work for the enemy. He almost couldn’t be any more egregious in his views. It’s almost a caricature. I wouldn’t bet that he will set us back, though. I definitely wouldn’t react, either as an individual or an organization, to his silliness, though. It’s not worth responding to. His views are all over the place and he claims to be libertarian. Hardly! He’s seriously nuts, though. We should do nothing but ignore him.

    • Lake County

      You’re right AJ, this will likely just piss people off. However, if he got elected, it would mean 1 vote for our desired legislation. He could also try and repeal IML. He has never been convicted of any sex crimes. However, “he is a fan of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, Larson said he wants to restore “benevolent white supremacy,” rebuild the patriarchy, eliminate child labor laws and legalize early marriage. He has also advocated for the legalization of incest and child pornography”. I’d say he has no chance of getting elected, however in today’s politics, anything can happen.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        I think that there are saner people who could represent our cause and might get elected. I didn’t realize that he had threatened Obama and did sixteen months federal time until I read your link. Wow! This guy is just radioactively crazy even if one does agree somewhat with a couple of his views. He’s the absolute worst guy to advance them or our cause but, again, I recommend not engaging with him on any level, even to denounce him. He craves attention and the media are having a slow news day and see an opportunity to conflate him with “pedophiles,” in general. Let’s not take his, or their, bait. Remain above the fray!

        • AJ

          My statement about this guy setting us back is not tied at all to his chances of success. I’m looking more at the idea that RC = pedo, and this pedo = nazi/looney/incurable, etc. He’s just one big black (skid?) mark and the public’s tendency to equate all SOs as pedos doesn’t do us any good. More “proof” that RCs are “incurable.” I hope I’m overblowing this.

      • Counting the days

        Voting for your own self intetest is what got Trump into the white house. This guy’s overall bad ideas far outway the one idea that could benefit a select few.

  4. J

    Are there any registrant support groups in Ga.? Please let me know. Thanks.

  5. TS

    Texas taking civil commitment to a new level…..literally taking them off of the streets.

    A prison by another name

  6. E

    For anyone else who needs to see the David Feige documentary again. Good stuff here.

    • New Person

      Thanks for the review. It cheered me up today to know people are trying to refute bad science for us.

    • J

      Good stuff, great video!

  7. Steve

    Just back from my youngest hs graduation. Not a single hitch and nothing but hugs from my child’s friends parents who either know or don’t know or dont care about my situation. FU to California politicians who try and pass laws to hinder families from being together. Throughout all
    my kids eduacation and school activities I pledged to myself I would not be denied attending anything I wanted too. All theee of mine are in college I like to think the family unit helped them get there.

    • C

      Way to go, Dad!

      Did you get permission first, or just go?

      My kids are a few years from graduation and when they do I don’t plan to get permission. I’m just going to go.

    • AnonMom

      Congratulations to both you and your family. You all faced adversity, and it sounds like you did a great job contributing to your children’s academics-just as it should be!

      • steve

        Thanks anonmom…Let
        me know if your husband ever wants to get together for coffee and discuss this issue. Maybe my tips can be helpful. I’m in the LA area. Anyone feel free to contact me. This issue is close to the heart.

        • AnonMom

          I appreciate that offer and will keep it in mind for when he is off probation. We are both pretty paranoid about everything at this point, as he is only 6 months into probation. We are in the Inland Empire. Thanks again!

  8. TS

    For following the law, Judge Persky (Brock Turner’s judge in his sex assault case) faces a huge day on Tuesday, June 5 with the recall election. Huge impacts on this outcome. If you are interested, here is an interesting article on the effort behind it since the sentence was handed down.

    Brock Turner’s twisted legacy—and a Stanford professor’s relentless pursuit of justice.

  9. Mark


    I am in california and a 290 that is NOT on parole/probation.

    A friend of mine is about to get off parole, Can he live at the same residence as me ONCE he is OFF ?

    I remember a LAW? but I think it was for TWO 290’s that are on supervison…

    does anyone know or know the 290 law that talks about this ? I tried to find it and couldnt.

    Thanks in advance for anyones help 🙂

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      He can live with you. The only claims otherwise (please let others correct me if I’m wrong) in California would be at the local, ie “ordinance” level but I think that those have been largely swept-away by Janice’s very big and powerful broom, may it ever fly!

    • Lake County

      I think you’re ok when off paper. Reread what your annual 290 paperwork says.

    • Mark

      Thanks for the few replies above ! Yea im pretty sure there isnt any ordinances of 2 290’s in the same residence… I dont recall seeing anything on yearly trash paperwork.. I do recall seeing something about it in conditions ON parole and recall something in the 290 code but again I think it was if your on supervision (Unless your in a halfway home drug rehab etc..)

      Just wanted to make sure as friend gets off paperwork in a few mos and helps me $$ wise and him to 🙂

      thanks again on comments 🙂

  10. TS

    FloriDUH gets rightfully hammered pretty hard here in this forum WRT RCs, but here is where they hit the common Floridian damn hard also WRT to their lawmaking craziness. It really does show the system is set up for people’s failure unfortunately and a bad cycle in life until resolved.

    Romano: If a law makes sense, then it’s not meant for Florida

  11. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    Now this is a pretty extraordinary story: “Victims’ advocate wants psychologists charged if sex offenders repeat” This is in Massachusetts. “A leading victims advocate wants state-appointed psychologists who declare sex offenders can be released from prison held accountable if the predators strike again.

    Jennifer Lane, president of Community Voices, said charges should be brought against the examiners in some cases.

    “I’m so sick and tired of this,” Lane told the Herald. “There are more people defending sex offenders than the victims.”

    Pedophiles and rapists don’t age out of their horrific habits, she said. “It’s a mental issue.”

    Thankfully, she’s not likely to have this bitter wish granted. Notice how she claims that “pedophiles and rapists don’t age out?” The hysterics have been making this baseless point for some time, now. They know they’re vulnerable. Let’s keep it up.

    • steve

      Obviously her goal is to get every single approved therapist to be to scared to allow anyone off the list. Another idiot.

  12. New Person

    The MLB draft will be conducted tomorrow night, Monday, June 4th at 6 pm Eastern time.

    Will the no longer registered OSU pitcher get drafted this year after being passed up in last year’s draft? This year, he’s OSU’s ace pitcher with the team’s lowest ERA and most innings pitched. He has the most strikeouts on the team with 142 Ks. The second highest strikeout production was 54 Ks. Also, he’s a left handed pitcher.

    He’s no longer a registrant, but because his past is known, he’s been ostracized. I just looked at the MLB 200 draft prospect list and he’s not on there. That’s what prompted me to look up about him. Here’s an article about it:

    It’s a shame that we aren’t allowed to move forward. I pray and hope a team does give him a chance.

  13. mike r

    Shi&*% Steve, my hats off to you. We have had our differences but man that is a real American and I love it. I will do the same thing if need arises. Of course we are not going to have to worry about it after I am done….Got to keep that winning attitude you know. Wait until you guys see my request for admissions. The AG is not going to like it I can tell you that. I am sure she does not even think I know how discovery works. I think I have it down after I found a few good articles and a lot of research and brain crunching. LOL

  14. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Do public sex offender registries work? ‘Surprise’ findings in Australian study”

    The short answer from the “Australian Institute of Criminology” is: NO! One thing that they made particular note of was the significant deleterious effect public registries had on U.S. property values as well as the high rates of threats and harassment of Registrants (44 percent) as a result of public registries. So, other countries are learning lessons from the U.S. experiment with registries which the U.S. itself refuses to acknowledge or to learn from. “Additionally, 16 percent of family members or people living in the same home as a known sex offender were targeted for abuse or had their property damaged.”

  15. TS

    Judge Persky’s recall vote will certainly be the one topic most people and news media will watch tomorrow.

    Vandalism, threats, broken friendships: The heated campaign to recall judge in Brock Turner case

  16. Tired of this

    To those from Texas: I lived there for a few months about 5 years ago and haven’t been back since. However, I just discovered that TX has my info on their DPS website, so they’re apparently like Florida in that they keep you on their registry even after you move. This profile never appeared under a search of my name before, not even the last time I googled myself about a week ago. WTF is going on? Is there any way to get off their website? I definitely wasn’t expecting this.

    • CR

      I live in Texas, but I don’t know the answer to your question. There have been a couple of other people in the past couple of months who have reported the same experience as you.

  17. Margaret Moon

    I am writing for a friend to ask if anyone in the San Diego, CA area has had this experience, or something similar. My friend was transferred from a federal prison to a San Diego Halfway House on a Monday– four days later he was taken back into custody and is currently incarcerated at the federal jail downtown San Diego. He has not committed any violation. It seems that the halfway house cannot provide “therapy” for him at their location. Please comment if this has happened to you or anyone you know.

  18. Eric

    I wonder how others are going in the job market. It’s hard to know how much silence is attributable to Google searches, but I’m not having much luck. What do others do?

    • Chris F

      Off the top of my head…

      Work at home jobs that pay using paypal and don’t do a background check. It’s hard to find the ones that aren’t scams though. is ok but not more than $20 or $30 a day at most for maybe an hour total of work scattered throughout the day.

      Jobs at animal shelters and veterinarians

      Warehouse jobs

      Contacts at a large church can sometimes get you in the door somewhere.

      Mom and pop shops, small businesses, and some restaurants like even steak houses may hire without a google search

      overnight janitorial work

      some temp agencies that really need people will not check any more background than they are required to since they get paid to fill jobs

      Networking with any people you know is sometimes the only way.

    • Gralphr

      I know will hire people on the registry. It doesn’t pay a lot (around 13 or 14 dollars) but its a work from home job while you try to find something that pays more. Its basically tech support over the phone and remotely.

  19. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    Here’s another “sex offender” criminalized for doing what other people can freely do. In Florida, naturally. One commenter noted: “Surprisingly it’s not reported that he went there only to watch his three daughters perform, after their mother refuses to have them see him, although he has a visitation agreement/order signed by a judge.”

    “Sex offender accused of attending dance recital”

    • TDAL

      Unconstitutional affirmative disability, just what was denied in DOE. The intent of an electronic list (registry) is and always was obvious. Face recognition is next.

  20. Lake County

    A man who spent more than three years in prison on a rape conviction has been freed after a family member found deleted Facebook messages that proved his innocence.

  21. Chris Smith opponent

    For those of you who want to know who is challenging Chris Smith in New Jersey for the Representative seat he has, here you go:

    I’m sure any and all help he can get to defeat Chris would be helpful.

    • T

      Hopefully he will win the seat against Chris Smith, this will be interesting.

  22. TS

    Looks like the California voters have recalled Judge Persky according to this article from earlier today. Obviously not all the votes are in but….

  23. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “The Prison-Like Public Hospital Systems Disproportionately Packed With Gay Men”

    “Some critics argue that outdated assessments and scientifically inaccurate testing could be to blame. The civilly committed, as well as mental health professionals, believe the specialists and the tests they use can be “profoundly homophobic,” in the words of forensic psychologist and evaluator Karen Franklin… Her belief — which five other evaluators we spoke to shared — is that there is widespread “implicit bias” and “subjectivity built into every single step of the process.”

    In 1998, the American Psychiatric Association came out firmly against civil commitment laws, finding them to be a “serious assault on the integrity of psychiatry.”

    Bias seems to be baked into the risk assessment phase. The Static-99R test, a 10-question checklist created in 1999 and revised (thus the “R”) in 2012, is a widely used evaluation tool. Essentially consisting of calculations around the mathematical probabilities of recidivism, it is based on data about people convicted of sexual offenses: age, nature of conviction, marital status, and whether they reoffended or not. But professional associations, academics, and practitioners have grave reservations regarding its accuracy and effectiveness.

    For instance, admitting to having a male victim nets the respondents more points, which reportedly increase their risk of reoffending. Another question asks: “Ever lived with a lover for at least two years?” An inmate is considered less risky if they have had a two-year live-in relationship prior to imprisonment. Living with a same-sex lover used to be and sometimes still is risky for many in the U.S.”

  24. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2018”

    Great statistics on incarceration and makes note of those who are civilly committed “sex offenders.”

    “Oklahoma now has the highest incarceration rate in the U.S., unseating Louisiana from its long-held position as “the world’s prison capital.” By comparison, states like New York and Massachusetts appear progressive, but even these states lock people up at higher rates than nearly every other country on earth. Compared to the rest of the world, every U.S. state relies too heavily on prisons and jails to respond to crime.

  25. David

    Well, it’s just a matter of short time before the cases of Kolsuz, of Alasaad, and now Vergara – all having to do with border searches of smartphones & electronics – reach SCOTUS. This is another looming battle for Registrants:

  26. Counting the days

    Judge Persky’s recall proves one thing, the registry is here to stay. The faux Puritanical U.S. society will always find a way to vilify a group in order to feed their lust for rightousness.

  27. TS

    If you cannot get them one way, you will get them another way even when the age restrictions are not broken. School stairwell is not a place for this obviously, but not handling this w/in school first before thinking it needs to go outside of the school is sad state of affairs.

    High Schooler Faced 25 Years on the Sex Offender Registry–For Engaging In Oral Sex

    At a Pennsylvania school, an 18-year-old female student was arrested for a consensual sexual act with a 16-year-old boy.

  28. mike r

    Man people AVVO is great. This is a site that you can ask actual lawyers questions and they frigging get back to right away with legal answers man. Anyone that has legal questions needs this site. I cannot believe this, they have answered every single question I have asked and you know they are right when you get two or more attorneys basically stating the same thing. This is awesome and should be part of anyone arsenal in fighting any legal issue. Watch this, I am going to ask them if Family code sect. 3030 prohibiting me from cohabitation with my own children or grandchildren is constitutional or not.

    • mike r

      So I finally get an answer to this and it is “it is constitutional until the courts say it isn’t” Like no s**(&*^!!
      That is what I am talking about the type of questions you ask.
      Anyway AJ turned me on to this site along time ago and it is pretty handy.

  29. AJ

    @New Person:
    I suggest you review the Legislative record the CA AG supplied to mike r in his suit ( On PDF-page 22, under, “2. Sex Offender Regsitration Overview,” the Legislature itself says:
    A “certificate of rehabilitation” is possible for some offenders, relieving them of the duty to register, but this is not permitted for serious sex offenders.
    There you go! The Legislature agrees, understands, and clearly intends that a COR relieves “non-serious” RCs from the duty to register.

    Now one just needs to find the definition of what a “serious sex offender” is. It may be helpful, based on some other text in the above document.

  30. TS

    From Judge Persky, “To get justice from a judge, they need someone who follows the rules. The basic rule is the rule of law,” he said. “The problem with this recall is it will pressure judges to follow the rule of public opinion as opposed to the rule of law.”

    A widely cited 2015 study of elected state judges in Pennsylvania and Washington by New York University’s law school concluded that judges are influenced by election cycles. The study found judges issued longer sentences for serious felony conviction when they were close to re-election.

    ****That right there proves what has been discussed here numerous times. Elections sway actions on the bench.****

    Recall of judge in Brock Turner case stirs courtroom concern

  31. If I am no longer required to register, must I give 21 day notice?

    I am no longer on any state registry. My question is must I still notify the government before any international travel?

    • TS

      I talked to an attorney last year about the very topic of not having to provide 21 day advance notice once you’re off the registry. They informed me that you shouldn’t have to provide the 21 day advance notice anymore because you are no longer required to register, e.g. you would no longer fall under SORNA. However, it may be advisable, get a consult with an attorney to ensure that is true because I’m not about to espouse legal advice. Registration and notice do go together as written in the 2006 law and the 2011 AG supplemental notification.

  32. mike r

    Check this out. This is what I have been stating for awhile now..
    Individuals aren’t immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Where a statute authorizes official conduct which is patently violation of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity. Grossman v. City of Portland, (9th Cir. (1994)

  33. mike r

    Also people, I am serving the AG Monday with my request for admissions and here they are. If anyone can think of anything else that I should include or know more about this subject feel free to post it.


      You should also state that registrants are the only class of people not on probation or parole that is denied compensation through the CA State Victims of Crime Fund. This is the victim compensation fund for victims of any violent crime. This is not a taxpayer sponsored program, but paid for through the courts restitution fund that most defendants are required to pay into. Since we are subject to being injured by vigilantes, we should be able to have our medical costs covered by this fund like any other citizen.

      “CalVCB cannot pay any expenses incurred while a person is on parole, probation or post-release community supervision for a violent felony; incarcerated or required to register as a sex offender”.

      *Janice, please consider fighting this rule.

      • AJ

        “CalVCB cannot pay any expenses incurred while a person is on parole, probation or post-release community supervision for a violent felony; incarcerated or required to register as a sex offender”.
        This is could certainly be used as fodder to argue that RC status is punitive in effect, if not intent. What fact about RCs, other than their being RCs, justifies such a singling out where the only other citizens suffering like fate are those under supervision?

        That it’s not funded through taxes is of little consequence, as it’s still a benefit meted out by the State. Yes, the Legislature is allowed the power of the purse, but this still points to the State making RCs a “discrete and insular minority” (

        (@mike r, this could certainly work for you in your suit.)

        • ONE DAY AT A TIME

          There can be no other purpose to deny registrants from victim services other than to punish us. Anyone can become an innocent victim through no fault of their own. Since the state points us out to the public as someone undesirable in the community, they should at least provide services to us if we become a victim of this public shaming.

        • AO

          @AJ, My guess is this was done as such because the legislature expected RC’s to be victims of vigilantism but didn’t want to pay out to it as that would shed direct light to the cause of the payout, hurting the registries validity. I honestly can’t think of any other reason as a victim is a victim regardless of their status.

        • AJ

          Oh I’m quite in agreement with you about why RCs were excluded. But that’s a baseless reason, and shows animosity and further reinforces status as a politically powerful, hated subclass.

  34. AJ

    Oh, to have James Madison return to life and straighten this country back out. From Federalist Paper #45:
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

    The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. (
    This country has gone so far afield and awry, it’s sad. The Constitution, as meant and created, is but a shell of what it’s father (Madison) envisioned for and promised to the States and Citizens.

    • TS


      I believe James Madison would be sorely disappointed as you say.

    • CR

      That “all men are created equal; endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is supposed to be a self-evident truth. Yet numerous factions within this “great democracy” have sought from its inception to interpret that truth to exclude those of whom they disapprove or hate.

      The majority of the statutes that affect (and afflict), RCs are state laws. There is uniform hatred of sex offenders as a class across all states, but the measures put in place to regulate (i.e., punish) us and deny us our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness vary greatly from state to state. The laws in some states can be much worse for us than in others, depending upon one’s particular crime and life circumstances.

      One oft mentioned supposed advantage of the federalist model of government is that people can simply move to another state if they don’t like the laws of the state they live in. Yet it is not so easy for many of us to move to another state, due in large part to the disabling laws we are subject to, and the difficulty we have in obtaining work and an income that will afford us that ability.

      Sometimes I think the Grand Experiment has been a dismal failure, and I wonder if it might not be easier to fight a Titan than a Hydra?

  35. mike r

    Amen to that.

  36. AJ

    I stumbled across a potential SCOTUS gem that may be useful to fight “frightening and high.” In Chastleton v. Sinclair (, SCOTUS said, “a Court is not at liberty to shut its eyes to an obvious mistake when the validity of the law depends upon the truth of what is declared.” The 9th Circuit cited this very phrase in its 1985 decision in Burlington Northern RR Co. v. Dept. of Public Svc. Regulation ( And just in case the State says this is dicta, let’s once again visit Chastleton:

    (a) A law depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change.
    Parsing that down a bit: “A law depending upon the existence of a[] . . . certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if . . .facts change.” To me, this means that even if “frightening and high” is taken as truth and factual, one only needs to show the facts have changed in order to challenge the validity of the law. Gee, if only there were governmental data showing RC recidivism is neither “frightening and high” nor “upwards of 80%.”

    From my research in EVA, Chastleton has never been overruled, and has only been “questioned” by the CA SC in one case (Santa Monica Beach v. Superior Court of LA County).

    I don’t have time right now to dig deeper into Chastleton or Burl. N., but perhaps someone else can confirm, or perhaps strengthen, what I read in it all.

    BTW, even if the State argues these two cases are about economic, not non-economic (i.e., liberty interests, civil regulation), I believe one could point to Footnote Four ( and say that if something affects economic laws, it does so even more to non-economic laws.

    • CR

      This is a great find, AJ. One of the posters from Texas, might have been Chris F, said that the retroactive application of Texas’ SO regulations, although in direct violation of the Texas constitution’s ex post facto clause, was justified based on the supposed emergency presented by the high risk to public safety posed by sex offenders. If that is so, then citing this SCOTUS case along with government studies showing that no such emergency condition exists, might result in the registration law, or at least the retroactive application of it, being ruled unconstitutional under the Texas state constitution.

      Since judges at all levels in Texas are voted into office, it is more likely that a suit would end in a loss at every level all the way up to and including the Texas Supreme Court. It would then have to be appealed to SCOTUS.

      Given that SCOTUS accepts so few cases, it might just backfire and add more legal precedent to support an exception to the unconstitutional retroactive application of the Texas SO laws. That would be a terrible blow. It would take A-team lawyers and the backing of powerful and influential activists to even have a chance of an ultimate win. So, not all that likely right now, I guess. Still, this is one to file away for when the time is right.

      • Chris F (@CR)

        Yes, I’ve made that statement about how Texas justifies retroactive laws.

        It really needs to be properly challenged as both ex-post facto and as a retroactive civil law to cover all bases. Texas is one of only 9 states that not only doesn’t allow ex-post facto but also doesn’t allow retroactive civil laws, so they can’t just say “Oh, we can do it because it’s civil regulation and not punishment”. Ummm…no…you can’t do it in either case.

        The problem is, as long as our elected highest state court will still vote against the Texas constitution, SCOTUS won’t touch it since it’s a state only issue as only ex-post facto is against the US Constitution and retro civil laws are fine.

        As pointed out above that is being used in Mike R’s case, many states, like Calfornia, have it in their legislative record that the justification for sex offender laws comes from the 80% and frightening and high. It really needs to be challenged. Good thing Mike R is in that process right now.

        • CR

          “The problem is, as long as our elected highest state court will still vote against the Texas constitution, SCOTUS won’t touch it since it’s a state only issue as only ex-post facto is against the US Constitution and retro civil laws are fine.”


          Thanks for helping me to see the difference here. The only way we could win on the civil question is if our own state supreme court would honor the Texas state constitution. I wouldn’t put money on that happening. Bummer.

    • TS

      This Chastleton v. Sinclair case needs to get in front of the Millard team for their evaluation of it and potential use. The filing deadline is June 25.

      • AJ

        This Chastleton v. Sinclair case needs to get in front of the Millard team for their evaluation of it and potential use.
        Done! I sent her a message via Avvo just now.

        • TS


          Thanks for that. I was calling CO ACLU tomorrow morning to do the same, but this is even better!

    • Debo

      Some of the justices in the PASC when Muniz was being argued that things are different now or changed concerning the effects of the reg and shaming They stated that the internet is is an entirely different beast then it was only 5-10yrs ago and its effects are far more damaging to a persons reputation. In addition to many other punitive effects of SORNA and PAs reg laws.

  37. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “No Evidence of Tucson ‘Child Sex Camp’”

    The fantasists and obsessives fabricated a quintessential moral panic based on absolutely nothing.

  38. mike r

    That is very powerful right there AJ. I will work it in.

  39. Counting the days

    I decided to email the head of global operations for AirBnB and question their policies regarding people on the registry. I used statistics of recidivism, types of registerable offenses, and results of being listed, while leaving out any violent actions against us. I purposely avoided using the term sex offender. I personally find the label rediculous.
    I feel that by opening a dialogue with service related companies, we can hope to begin a change with regards to the misperception of us as a group and move forward to start the process of reversing long held beliefs, therby accepting us as productive members of society.

    • New Person

      @ AJ,

      Thank you for bumping this comment for me! I didn’t see the original one.

      I think I can see it a different way instead of proving what’s “a serious sex offenders”.

      I’m going to try to tie this up with Kelly v Municipal, as they stated those granted probation represent a judgement that the offense was not serious. In fact, Kelly v Municipal also stated that to qualify for 1203.4, there are certain crimes that are excluded – because they’re serious sex crimes! That’s one of the pinnacle ideas that makes all those who qualify for 1203.4 to not be superseded by PC 290.

      Now, if 1203.4 already denotes the difference between serious and non-serious sex offenders, then why wait additional years to be “judged” via CoR to be relieved of the registry? This in itself represents double jeopardy as 1203.4 already granted a convict to be rehabilitated as well as no longer be a convict. The 1203.4 is granted upon completion. The CoR is a whole petition to prove one is no longer a “threat to society”.

      The CoR is additional punishment. If my probationary period is 3 years and my first opportunity to apply for the CoR is 10 years, then the state of Ca has added penalties and disabilities.

      Also, I dunno how, but I want to bring in PC 265.1, unlawful sex with a minor. If you’re charge with 261.5, then you’re not registered. Although the big idea behind this was only because of the possibility a girl could become pregnant, there is a specific reason for this, as I discovered in the dissent for the Johnson vs DOJ 2015:

      Indeed, as the majority notes (maj. opn, ante, at p.17), when the prohibition on sexual intercourse with underage girls was removed from California’s rape statute (SS 261) and designated as the new offense of “unlawful sexual intercourse” (SS 261.5), the principal goal was to eliminate the social stigma of labeling offenders “rapists.” While one bill analysis ties this goal specifically to enabling offenders to support a child conceived by the offense (Bradford, State Bar of Cal, analysis of Sen. Bill No. 497 (1970 Reg. Sess.), undated, p. 1 [analysis of State Bar’s legislative representative, submitted to Assem. Com. on Criminal Procedure]), other legislative history refers more generally to “eliminat[ing], the social stigma attached to the term rapist” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Bill Analysis Work Sheet for Sen. Bill No. 497 (1970 Reg. Sess.) and helping offenders obtain employment by “eliminat[ing] the social stigma which arises when the distinction between forcible rape and intercourse with a consenting female minor is not made” (Sen. Beileson, sponsor of Sen. Bill No. 497 (1970 Reg. Sess.), letter to Governor, Aug. 26, 1970).

      With 261.5, the main purpose was to make distinction between consensual and forcible rape. Otherwise, a person who did forcible rape shouldn’t be on the registry either if there was a child to bear. With this distinction, a person can improve the chances of employment.

      Thus, with 261.5, they are denoting what is not a serious sex offender. Hence, anyone convicted of a statutory sex crime where a person engages with in a sex act with a consenting minor is deemed not a serious offender. With 261.5, they automatically are not part of the registry scheme. With 1203.4, under recent cases (Holland, iirc), said they cannot be relieved of the registry and must adhere to the CoR to be relieved of the registry.

      The court on the Johnson v DOJ 2015 case stated that in the late 1990s, the people decided not to make 261.5 part of the registry. I don’t know how PC 290.5 was able to pass since Kelly v Municipal only pertained to those who qualified for 1203.4. Last time I checked, 1203.4 has not been changed to where it stated those of registrants who qualified for 1203.4 cannot de-register. Thus, the 1203.4 law stays. Again, based upon laws changing and 1203.4 did not change.

      From Kelly v Municipal:

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

      Now, anyone in Ca put into probation and qualifies for 1203.4, was in agreement made by the judge and DA in their respective case. Kelly v Municipal hasn’t been overturned and most cases NOT are identifying that PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4 (not even PC 290.5). It was the judge and DA who deemed the conviction “not a serious sex offense” when they levied the probation as sentencing.

      Also, if you did get probation AND your conviction was one of non-forcible rape act, then it doubles down that you are not a serious sex offender.

      Why does it take an additional 7 years (if you got 3 years probation) to deem your crime “not a serious sex act” through yet another court judgement? You were already judged once for your conviction. Why is there a need for a secondary judgement rather than a threshold met like 1203.4?

      According to CASOMB, the state hasn’t devised a research program about recidivism with sex offenders, but CASOMB has noted in 2014 that the re-offense rate for sex offenders was under 1%. Also, the state doesn’t the risk assessments when it pertains to the registry and arbitrarily moved the goal posts for those who earned the 1203.4 from three years to 10 years AND a secondary judgement in court to determine if you can get off the registry.

      Phew! Thanks again, AJ!

      Creating a suit feels overwhelming. I’m very impressed with Mike R’s pro se work. I just need to keep piling up info and brainstorming. I want to have a check-mate type case to where the state either agrees or contradict’s itself. You pointing out that the CoR relieves those who are “not serious sex offenders” is important and re-emphasizes 1203.4, which also excludes some sex crimes (I suppose would be not serious sex crimes). Shows duplicity of 1203.4 and CoR, which makes no sense, as pointed out by Kelly v Municipal.

      Again, thank you! now my brain is flooded, and need a break. LoL

      • AJ

        @New Person:
        Glad to help! You lost me with a lot of those CA PC numbers and such, what with my not being a CA resident. I don’t know if the Legislature has had any further deliberations or actions on CoR since that legislative finding in 2005, but it certainly narrows down one’s search! Plus, if the CoR laws haven’t been changed since before 2005, you should be golden. Judges always defer to the legislature on these things. Well here you go Your Honor, the Legislatures own words saying I can come off the registry! 🙂

        • New Person


          The CoR pertaining to Sex Offender de-registration started in 2005 (aka PC 290.5). In 2014, the wording change to specifically state you need your case dismissed (1203.4 – Expungement) and then file for a CoR.

          In 2007, as if to make clear of how to de-register, PC 290.007 entered into law:
          “Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.”

          Welp, the judges and DA already identified that the sex offense wasn’t serious enough that they levied probation at sentencing. The arbitrary moving of the goal post for probationers who complete the program successfully has been made without a scienter nor revoking Kelly v Municipal – where it states that PC 290 (Sex Offender Registration) cannot supersede PC 1203.4. (Expungement).

          Thus, the state elevated the non-serious offenses (1203.4) to that of a much higher standard of CoR. Before PC 290.5 (the new CoR version), 1203.4 was the de facto law to de-register as decided by Kelly v Municipal. For a 1203.4, first you must be levied probation and be eligible for a 1203.4, as some sex offenses are excluded. But once you complete probation, then you are granted a 1203.4 (Expungement).

          A CoR has a far higher standard to meet. You must wait 10 years, 5 years contiguous living in California before applying, be eligible to apply, be eligible to de-register, and then petition in a court room about your behavior for the past 10 years even if you haven’t committed a crime within those 10 years isn’t enough evidence.

          The 1203.4 (expungement) hasn’t changed. No where in 1203.4 does it state registrants cannot de-register. This goes all the way back to Kelly v Municipal decision in 1958. I’ll reiterate what the courts said about 290 (Sex Offender Registration) and 1203.4 (Expungement) in Kelly:

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

          Kelly v Municipal link:

          The new CoR (PC 290.5) makes itself a special case still to override 1203.4 (expungement), which Kelly specifically stated it cannot as it fails. If you look at the 1203.4 statute, there are still exceptions on who cannot qualify for 1203.4. It is implied within Kelly that those convictions that qualify for 1203.4 are “not serious sex offenses” and they no longer need to register: “But in the case of the probationer who demonstrates his ability to go straight, upon his own, by faithfully fulfilling all of the terms and conditions of his probation, the need for further surveillance and registration terminates upon his release pursuant to the sanction of section 1203.4.” (Kelly v Municipal)

          PC 290.5 hoodwinks the standing law decision of Kelly v Municipal by superseding 1203.4 protections. It also impairs standing law and immunities provided by 1203.4, which are protected under CA constitution, are are prohibited.

          I wonder what you think of that tact, as it’s the biggest basis of my (hopefully future) suit. Then involuntary servitude b/c compulsory in-person police registration was deemed criminal back in 1958 (a penalty), but isn’t now, but remains “compulsory in-person police reporting”. As for criminal in nature, the register now is shown on background checks. Back in 1958, only the Police had that information. Then address how the state doesn’t use recidivism rates and research. Finally, address “non serious sex offenses” with first addressing 261.5 (unlawful sex with a minor) doesn’t have to register at all, bypassing 1203.4 de-registration, to improve employment and standing by differentiating between forcible rape and sexual intercourse with a female minor. Tie that in with the CoR’s purpose, denoting 261.5 has ZERO years to de-register (doesn’t have to register), 1203.4 gives probationary length (0 – 5 years) and no petition involved, to 2005 CoR of 10 years to petition in front of a court.

          The biggest weapon is the Kelly court stating PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4, that PC 290 isn’t a special act that should be an exception to the General statute (1203.4). And because it cannot, then it violates equal immunity protections (CA Const art 1, sec 7b), it impairs obligation of a contract, which cannot be passed (CA Const art 1, sec 9), and violates the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy (CA Cont art 1, Sec 1).

          Section 1203.4 provides these three sets of immunities:
          1. Case is set aside
          2. Accusation/information dismissed
          3. Relieved of all penalties or disabilities from the conviction

          I was on probation for three years. If I win, then the state has wrongfully labeled me registrant all the years beyond my probationary period. I was rejected from employment after being offered a job solely because of the registry popping up on the background check, which also showed my expungement (1203.4). Being on the registry is criminal in nature, especially when the employer (HR) stated specifically because I was still on the registry.

  40. AJ

    I was recently pondering the registration-update requirements surrounding changes in weight, changes to facial hair, and scars. Does anyone truly have an understanding of when these apply? I have tried to think of an objective standard, but cannot.

    1) Weight. How much weight change triggers the requirement to update? 5 pounds? 10 pounds? 3%? And is it the same for gaining and losing? Some people will have a noticeably different appearance losing 10 pounds, but not so much gaining.

    2) Facial hair. At what point is it considered a change in facial hair? If I skip shaving for a few days either through laziness or being out of blades, must I register the update? If so, must I do so again when I shave? And how many days’ growth triggers it? Some people have “chia beard” facial hair that grows virtually overnight, while others have slower growing facial hair. Are both subject to the same number of days? Are sideburns considered hair, or facial hair? What if they are mutton chops?

    3) Scars. What sort of scars? Visible ones, I trust, but visible in what setting? At the beach in a speedo? At work in a suit? On what parts of the body? What size scar? What if I had open-heart surgery but never take off my shirt for embarrassment? What if I had an appendectomy? What if I’m female and have a C-section scar? What if I had a tattoo done, incorporating the scar into the artwork? Do I then need to list the scar AND the tattoo, even if the scar is not readily visible?

    These all seem quite vague…perhaps unconstitutionally so. I would love to start querying LEOs and ML people to get the answers. I’m guessing the replies will be all over the map. This might be a nice addition to a lawsuit someone files.

    • Lake County

      We don’t have that requirement here in CA. Although I imagine Parole or Probation could require it here.

  41. Counting the days

    Can RSOs convicted of misdomeanor non contact offense purchase handguns?

    • AJ

      @Counting the days:
      Can RSOs convicted of misdomeanor non contact offense purchase handguns?
      It all depends on your State’s laws. Typically it’s only felons who lose their voting and/or gun ownership rights. Many traffic violations are misdemeanors, so there would be a whole mess of people unable to get weapons were that the standard.


    TED Talk: Why our perception of pedophilia has to change.

  43. mike r

    Okay people, here are my RFAs that I am serving to the CA AG. She ought to like these….

  44. RivCo

    Just had my first Home Verification Raid in over four years. Took 2-5 seconds. I walked out, I am xxxx I still live here, everything is the same. Flashlight in the face, flashlight to form in hand – Okay sir, have a good night. Gone. My roommate had just cleaned out her car and piled everything on the porch, I felt like a scumbag and then remembered, oh yeah…. lol.

    • Lake County

      I would never ever walk out, unless you were on probation or parole.

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      I don’t understand how these compliance checks, or “Home Verification Raid” (as you called it), are legal for one who is not on parole and/or probation. Compliance checks are just another excuse for the piggy cops to act like Nazis while collecting their overpaid salaries… maybe even overtime. F*** the police!!

  45. Counting the days

    As a practicing Buddhist, I accept and regret my choices and put the past behind me. But acceptance is hard in the present when others are constantly changing the rules in order to either trap you into non compliance or degrade you for their own personal gain. The 5th tenant says not to hurt or take a life. Do others here have that internal struggle in their daily life?

    • R M

      @Counting, of course others do! I do and I believe “we” all do have those same feelings.

  46. Chris F

    Apparently, even though some research shows access to pornography and sex toys minimizes the likelihood of someone actually abusing someone, our legislators are instead going with any “expert” they can pay to say otherwise and outlawing sex toys that could in any way resemble someone under 18:

    It’s called the CREEPER Act. I’m not kidding. “Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots”.

    The bill passed the House today unanimously, so it shouldn’t be long before it does the same in the Senate and anything other than big breasted 30 year old hooker dolls will mean jail time for those ordering one if it enters the US or crosses any state lines.

    It’s a shame that those that may have been helped by those toys could now have to turn to real children. I’m not sure how those scumbag politicians sleep at night knowing they didn’t do proper research first and instead just want to prey on people’s fears and how they can get more votes claiming they are saving the children.

    Read the crazy nut job text and justification here:

    Just one of many examples of the crazy text to justify the law: “Some owners and makers of the robots have made their children interact with the robots as if the robots are members of the family”

    • mike r

      Yeah, how in the hell are they going to gauge the material age wise? I mean I understand obvious probably ten to 12 year old, but as far as anything after that shit I remember both of my GFs in junior high school my friend and they must of been what are you like 13 or 14 in junior high? any way my two GFs were definitely sexual mature and there is no way I could of told them apart from 18 or 19 year old. So my point being was who makes the call and how are they going to gauge it? Stupid a*&*& legislators. Man nothing to do except call special prosecutors lame hearings all the time against the other party members and it is just beyond idiotic. I know a lot of people do not like Trump but we need more people like that in office. I love how he is working NK. He is a master at what he does and does not let anyone make decisions for him or cater to anyone but the country and us. Hell we got a big ass check about 2 grand from taxes where before that we were paying over a grand. If he pulls off this NK deal it will be historic and so fast in office, sets the stage for Iran and the entire world. That is alright about these frigging leaches in office their day is coming and I think it is already starting. Soon as someone takes down this registry it is going to change the course of this country and I can not wait to see the courts take back their role to check them fools.

      • R M

        @mike r, the Korean war lasted from 1950 to 1953 but never officially ended. There was only an armistice signed which was designed to “ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved”. As art of this armistice, the US was supposed to pay North Korea millions/billions of dollars in oil and also help them build light water reactors. Neither happened. When the US presidency changed, the new president delayed all of that and North Korea declared the armistice invalid.

        Why on hell would anyone believe North Korea will ever give up their nuclear weapons? Yeah sure, give them a second chance as all of us demand of the registry… I don’t for one second believe NK will give up their nuclear weapons. Remember, Trump is a businessman, not a politician… hence why you got a tax refund (I didn’t btw).

        In regards to the dolls, the article states “Once an abuser tires of practicing on a doll, it’s a small step to move on to a child.” Where’s the proof? I’d rather someone have a doll for sex than a real child, be them 3 years old or 14. Sex is a natural instinct for all animals, including humans.

        I get that your questioning this law but don’t idolize Trump in the same response.

        • mike r

          Um, not idolizing Trump. Just stating reality. If he pulls off NK than that will be an historic event. Positive progress on all fronts instead of stagnating swamp people…And just because others have tried with NK and because of the past dealings does not automatically make this dealing with Trump impossible or out of reach. If I sound like I am idolizing him it is only because he does what other politicians do not do, thinks and acts for himself regardless of what others think and has kicked the other politicians right in the gonads on many occasions. Hats off for that crap. Oh, and do not tell me what to say or do, you are not god all mighty or the ACSOL police, we already have them it is called the moderators….And believe me I am very familiar with the chronology of the NK situation as well, so your little history lesson was unnecessary.

        • FATCA SUX

          @mike r – I don’t believe you. You are not even familiar with the Tax Reform Act of 2017. The Korean War of 1950? Muhahhaa.

          ” If he pulls off NK than that will be an historic event.” No doubt. And if my aunt had b@lls she’d be my uncle.

        • Tim Moore

          Jeff Sessions also authored the “Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act of 2011” which gives US Marshall the authority to produce administrative subpoenas, which bypass judicial review, to track down registrants suspected of not registering.
          I think the similarity of this law’s title to “The Fugitive Slave Act” is more than just a coincidence.
          Jill Levison debunks the myth of the fugitive predator in this paper:

      • FATCA SUX

        Yes, be sure and send a Thank You note to your President for the “big ass check about 2 grand from taxes”. It is only the polite thing to do. Especially in light of the fact that any changes from the Tax Reform Act of 2017 will take effect on your 2018 filing.

        And North Korea? Yes, masterful – no doubt. Legitimizing a chubby, murderous dictator whose subjects are suffering from undernourishment to the tune of 10-40% with photo ops and balmy comments, saluting a foreign military officer (of a repressive interior army), musing about real estate opportunities in a hostile nation, suspending long time joint military maneuvers without running it by long-standing allies and own generals, calling them “provocations”… and those are just the things I remember off the top off my head.

        And all that – self-admitted – without any substantive preparation and en route from a meeting where one arrived late and left early and offended every single decade-old ally (with the possible exception of the Italians, two weeks in power and on the fringes of the spectrum and probably gone in two weeks – but seriously, who is mean to Canada?), while apparently watching Fox News and ripping an actor who makes mean remarks at an awards show.

        I am glad you love how is working North Korea. Me, I am feeling a bit “worked”. Not Kim-Jong-Won.

        To his credit, President Trump has not (yet?) jumped on the RC bandwagon like the last 3 presidents from both parties have (Clinton – Megans Law, GWB – AWA and Obama – IML) to keep on topic. I have my thoughts why that is…. one, he is busy wading into waters unheard of in decades, and then, the obvious. Hmmmm.

        Such distorted consumption and digestion of current events is exactly the reason the SOR was created and continues to exist.

      • Tim Moore

        Mike r, please try to tell Mr. Jeff Sessions how 12 and 13 year old girls look like 18 or 19, I think he will understand. What I don’t understand is your faith in this administration on criminal policy. Sure, his chief law enforcement officer is trampling the rights of immigrants and drug uses. About time, I assume you think, we should strengthen mandatory minimums for drug offenders and degrade the rights of those people. But, hey, then they came after the sex offenders:
        When they came after immigrants and drug users, there were progressive people who thought it was unfair and are fighting for them. When the hammer falls of sexual offenders, who are you going to call? Who will care. A judge somewhere? We need all the allies we can get. An injustice to anyone anywhere is an injustice to everyone everywhere.

    • Tired of this

      I don’t understand how an inanimate object can be made illegal; there is literally no victim. Besides, prohibition of items, historically speaking, doesn’t exactly have a great track record. And I hadn’t realized that there was actually research to back up what I’ve long thought, that if those of us with certain proclivities have a safe outlet that doesn’t harm anyone, there’s less chance of victimizing a real person.

      The fact that this retarded bill has unanimous support so far surprises me not in the least. As we know, anything anti-paraphilia/anti-SO that is put to a vote never has any opposition, which is why our ultimate success against all things registry-related (and the registry itself) will come via the courts.

    • R M

      From the link:

      “The Congress finds as follows:
      (1) There is a correlation between possession of the obscene dolls, and robots, and possession of and participation in child pornography.
      (2) The physical features, and potentially the “personalities” of the robots are customizable or morphable and can resemble actual children.
      (3) Some owners and makers of the robots have made their children interact with the robots as if the robots are members of the family.
      (4) The robots can have settings that simulate rape.
      (5) The dolls and robots not only lead to rape, but they make rape easier by teaching the rapist about how to overcome resistance and subdue the victim.
      (6) For users and children exposed to their use, the dolls and robots normalize submissiveness and normalize sex between adults and minors.
      (7) As the Supreme Court has recognized, obscene material is often used as part of a method of seducing child victims.
      (8) The dolls and robots are intrinsically related to abuse of minors, and they cause the exploitation, objectification, abuse, and rape of minors.”

      Where’s the citation/proof?


      “Even though Takagi suggests that using the dolls would prevent people from engaging in real-life crimes involving children, the evidence may seem to suggest otherwise.”

      Again I ask, where’s the citation/proof?

      • mike r

        Yep, they never cite anything ever that is even close to being reasonably reliable sources. Where is the definition of the threshold? What is the definition of any characteristics of the items that they are talking about. Who’s to say that this doll or that doll are 18, or whatever age the are talking about, or under?

  47. T

    I wonder what is Representative Chris Smith’s view on immigrant children being taken away from their parents and are possibly missing since they were separated under Trump’s immigration policy? is he concerned at all about this, since he is all about keeping children safe from sex trafficking and exploitation after his claim that the IML is working?

  48. Counting the days

    After 4 yrs of reading about living restrictions, governmental abuses, and general depressing news, I have decided that I am no longer going to come on this site. It isn’t helping me and is actually creates to much anger in me.
    I will soon have my new German Passport, at which time I will do what is required by California and federal law to “legally” leave. Until then I am going to do what is necessary to survive. The company I worked for overseas says they are looking forward to my return, and my friends there say they are ready to welcome me back.
    I do feel some empathy for those stuck in the U.S. , but know that the laws are not going to change.
    I have made contact with some people here that I feel are genuine and good. I have also heard from some real dreamers that can’t face reality and think that the registry will be abolished. All I have to say is good luck to you both.
    This has been the absolute worst time in my life, losing my love, my freedom, and my way. But better times are ahead.
    I know I will appreciate little things so much more now.

    • AO

      @Counting, I completely understand what you’re saying. I often wish to have remained ignorant as too much knowledge in this manner brings up entirely too much anxiety in me, yet I cannot look away, like driving past a horrific accident. Good luck in your new life! I commend you on taking this step and wish you the best!

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      “I have also heard from some real dreamers that can’t face reality and think that the registry will be abolished.” My experience with people who think that abolishing the Registry is an unobtainable “dream” is that they really don’t think that it should be abolished. This goes for the lady from Virginia, too. You’re very lucky to have citizenship in another country, something which very few of the rest of us have but which also means that you do not suffer the worst of what this country doles-out to Registrants who have become perpetual prisoners of their own country. If, rather than addressing the rebuttal points which we issued to you in response to your previous tirade, you decide to fold your tent and disengage, then that doesn’t say much in your favor or for your character.

    • Debo

      No offense but I’d rather be in America fighting the reg and the deep state than under the thumb of people like Merkel and others. Good luck with that. Of course you could be in CA which is probably worse.

  49. TS

    An interesting read on search and the 4th amendment:

    Judge says ‘literal but nonsensical’ Google translation isn’t consent for police search

    Knowing a second language well could be very helpful

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 *