ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  May 25, June 22, July 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. TN RC (For Mike R, AJ, et al)

    Hey Mike R, AJ, and anyone else interested in a great research paper. Check out this link:

    Yeah, it’s a long link, but will take you straight to the pdf file in your browser. Some excellent, rational information in here.

  2. David

    If the doll legislation saves one Barbie, how could you oppose it? (I believe this legislation was co-sponsored by Mattel and Hasbro and has the full support of the toy manufactuters’ association of America.)

  3. New Person

    With Snyder, it listed in-person reporting was punitive. That was recent. The SCOTUS chose not to review it, in agreement that Snyder was correct.

    Now, flashback to California.

    In 1958, Kelly v Municipal stated three things:
    1) PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4 (expungement)
    2) Compulsory in-person police reporting was criminal or quasi-criminal in nature.
    3) Once you have earned the 1203.4, then you longer are part of the registry scheme.

    In 2003, Smith v Doe was decided by the SCOTUS. A couple of points here:
    1) The registry scheme was not punitive, but regulatory
    2) In-person reporting was not part of the registry, which would be a disability/penalty.

    In 2014, People v Hamdon denied relief of the registry using Kelly v Municipal because:
    1) PC 290.5 re-wrote the law, superseding 1203.4 (which was not discussed as debated within Kelly)
    2) Stated that the registry wasn’t punishment, citing Alva.

    In 2017, Snyder v Does was not seen by SCOTUS, answering the following:
    “Whether retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders’ activities within school zones imposes “punishment” in violation of the ex post facto clause.”

    Because it was not seen, then SCOTUS agreed with Michigan Does. In that agreement, in-person reporting imposes “punishment”.

    Because Snyder was upheld by default via SCOTUS, in-person reporting is punishment. Snyder did use the 2003 decision as a basis that in-person reporting was not part of the registry scheme.

    Snyder now negates Hammond’s stance that in-person reporting isn’t punishment. SCOTUS was in agreement. California cannot supersede SCOTUS decision that in-person reporting is punishment, but also re-affirms that compulsory in-person reporting is criminal or quasi-criminal in nature as stated in 1958 Kelly case decision. That means 1203.4 (expungement), at least with respect to in-person reporting, means all those registrants who earned 1203.4 should no longer have to register b/c in-person reporting is punitive via SCOTUS 2017, Snyder, SCOTUS 2003 Smith v Doe, and Kelly.

    So what do you guys think?

    • AJ

      @New Person:
      Your logic, relying on Snyder’s scope, is fundamentally flawed.
      “With Snyder, it listed in-person reporting was punitive. That was recent. The SCOTUS chose not to review it, in agreement that Snyder was correct.”
      Not so fast. In-person was one of a number of elements that, when combined, created a supervision-like situation for the Does. It tipped one of the M-M factors to their side, but didn’t stand alone in making it all punitive.
      “Because it was not seen, then SCOTUS agreed with Michigan Does.”
      “Because Snyder was upheld by default via SCOTUS…”
      Absolutely incorrect. SCOTUS denying a case says nothing about the case. A denial simply means the Court didn’t see a constitutional issue needing their attention. There may be one, indeed over the years SCOTUS has at times let issues simmer across the Circuits to see how it comes out–which may be what’s going on with Snyder. Circuits can agree with it, thus solving it without SCOTUS intervetntion; or Circuits can continue to split on it, and SCOTUS will solve the split. But denying cert is equivalent to “no comment” from someone. SCOTUS gave no opinion one way or the other. Period.
      “California cannot supersede SCOTUS decision that in-person reporting is punishment”
      Again, SCOTUS made no decision, it merely let the 6th’s decision stand. As such, Snyder is only persuasive (i.e. non-binding) outside the 6th Circuit. Having been bounced off SCOTUS does give it a little bump beyond if it had just ended at the 6th, but it still is *not* nationally binding.
      Where I think you could find some traction is in citing the Solicitor General’s assessment of MI-SORA (and to some extent AWA/SORNA) in his Sndyer amicus ( Be sure to read the few footnotes, as I recall there being some goodies in them, including case law showing why RC laws need to be taken as a whole, not as individual parts. (As the saying goes, ‘no one rain drop is responsible for the flood.” The State and courts insist on assessing raindrops and saying all is fine, ignoring the resultant flood. The USSG says you gotta look at the flood.) The USSG document argues the Snyder case nicely for RCs, IMO. I think he is also a little cagey in regards to AWA/SORNA, but that’s a fight for another day.
      Also consider Chastleton v. Sinclair ( The relevant and key phrases from the case are:

      (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.


      [A]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 case, and used the second citation, in a case in 1985, so there’s relevant case law for you to use. (The 10th used it in 1977, FWIW.) This case law is useful to say, “look even if 80% were true in 2003–which Plaintiff does not concede–the government’s own data and facts show the facts are not such now. Or, the Court made an ‘obvious mistake’ in 2003, and this Court cannot ‘shut its eyes” to the ‘truth.'”

      • CR

        Thank you so much, AJ, for explaining in detail some of the reasons why a denial of cert, as in the case of Snyder v Does, does not constitute “agreement” with the decision by SCOTUS. I’ve said it many times too, but usually not with such good elaboration.

        The persistent misunderstanding here about what a denial of certiorari signifies needs to be corrected every time it comes up so that people don’t waste effort trying to make something out of it that can’t be relied upon.

      • New Person


        Thanks! The SCOTUS only agreed with Michigan and didn’t decide upon it. Thaks for helping me avoid that. But Snyder was successful, which included in-person reporting. The basis all stemmed from the 2003 Smith v Doe decision. At least I have that.

        If there’s a conflict between 2003 Smith v Doe and the Hammond case, then SCOTUS decision in 2003 still stands.

        • AJ

          @New Person:
          The SCOTUS only agreed with Michigan and didn’t decide upon it.
          No. SCOTUS gave no opinion one way or the other. They didn’t agree; they didn’t disagree. To use a baseball (or boxing) term, it was a “no decision” (

          If it makes it easier to grasp, simply pretend Snyder was never appealed to SCOTUS. For those outside the 6th Circuit, that’s the legal effect the denial of cert had.

        • New Person

          At AJ,

          I know that Snyder only pertains to Michigan, but Snyder did utilize that the 2003 Decision did denote in-person reporting was not part of the registry decision.

          I can use the same thought that the 2003 decision did not denote in-person reporting in it’s ruling, in fact it stated because it did not include in-person reporting because that would be a disability. That was specifically stated in the opinion.

          CA’s 1203.4 states he/she is relieved of all penalities and disabilities. Then factor in that 1958 Kelly decision stated compulsory (in-person) police reporting was criminial or quasi-criminal in nature relates to a penalty/disability.

        • AJ

          @New Person:
          I know that Snyder only pertains to Michigan, but Snyder did utilize that the 2003 Decision did denote in-person reporting was not part of the registry decision.
          Snyder is binding precedent on MI, OH, TN, and KY; outside those States and the 6th Circuit, it’s what called persuasive precedent. Persuasive means other courts should take note of it, but are free to rule anywhere along the continuum of agreeing in whole to disagreeing in whole. Now, while *legally* Snyder’s trip to SCOTUS’ doorstep had no effect one way or the other, in *practice* the case gets a little nudge higher than if it had never made that trip. IOW, SCOTUS “touching it”–even without rendering any opinion or comment either way–does yield some influence beyond its legal weight.

          You should absolutely use Snyder, if for no other reason than it forces the 9th Circuit to take a stand for or against it. If they are for it, it starts the snowball running faster in our favor; if they are against it, it sets up a Circuit split that SCOTUS will one day need to decide (which could be years away, sadly). Everyone, everywhere, in every case, whether State or Federal Court, should cite Snyder. Gotta make the courts and judges take a position. Snyder, and Muniz to a lesser extent because it was a State court, is a solid foothold and wonderful blueprint for future RC cases. Now we just need Millard to fall our way at the 10th…in a year or two. 🙁

          As for in-person reporting, yes that’s a key difference between Smith and everything since. (Even AWA mandates at least annual in-person reporting.) The 6th not only said in-person is an affirmative disability, it said there appeared to be no value or need for it. That is a key point to hit upon. Not only does it burden you, but the State has no valid reason to do it even if it didn’t.

  4. David

    Wow! Is this modern insanity or what??? A Pennsylvania man is sentenced to 25-50 years for kissing a 13 year old boy.

    Scroll down the webpage/story to another highlighted article about a DUI driver getting 4-8 years for killing someone.

    25-54 years for kissing vs. 4-8 years for killing! That’s insane!!

    • R M

      Richard Vaughn didn’t “just” kiss the boy. “He was convicted in February of corruption of minors, unlawful contact with a minor, indecent assault of a person less than 16 years old, and attempted indecent assault of a person under 16.”

      He also had a previous sex crime, “In 1999, Vaughn was charged in Franklin County with several counts of incest, sexual assault, and one count of aggravated indecent assault, according to online court documents. He pleaded no contest to two counts of incest in September 2000 and spent at least 10 months in state prison. He was also required to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law.”

      While I agree 25-50 years is excessive in his case, I also believe 4-8 years in the other case is too little.

      • David

        @ RM: Are you aware of how prosecutors pile on charges in hopes of scaring defendents into plea bargains? That’s what all those endless charges appear to be.

        • R M

          Yes, I am aware of that. Never the less, he was convicted of all those charges.

        • Joe

          @RM – “According to court documents, Vaughn started wrestling the boy, then kissed him and tried to grope him.”

          Perhaps then the problem is that kissing and trying to grope a teenager and making an inappropriate comment is “corruption of minors, unlawful contact with a minor, indecent assault of a person less than 16 years old, and attempted indecent assault of a person under 16”.

          But the SS Insanity sailed quite a while ago. Here is a woman getting LIFE for having a 13 year old touch her over her sweater.

          The sentencing hearing can be found on YouTube. The defending attorney pointed out that she would have gotten less had she murdered the same kid. If that does not shock the conscience I do not know what will.

          This society has lost all sense of measure.

  5. E

    I greatly fear that airlines will become the next airBnB or Comfort Inn, disallowing people on the registry. Is there a way to be proactive on this? FBI having a big hoopla at an airport due to 68 assaults. Divide that into the number of people who flew the same year and I bet the rate is AS LOW as assaults are on the ground.

    • R M

      I interesting… that link goes to a Baltimore Sun article date June 18, 2018, with a link supposedly validate that “The number of reported sexual assaults aboard airplanes has grown by nearly two-thirds in recent years, according to the FBI.” That link is another Baltimore Sun article with no date references that the FBI said it. The “show more” link on the second article goes back to the first article.

      Is this paper desperate for clicks?

      • E

        Didn’t notice that yesterday, but I did look up how many passengers fly in the US. According to the FAA, it’s 2.5 MILLION PER DAY. Link below. That’s 912 million people per year on flights. 68 sexual assaults, a “two thirds increase” in sexual assaults reported by the FBI.

        Excuse me: 68 assaults in a year in which 912 million people were flown?? How is this even remotely a problem?

        BTW, many passengers would be repeat passengers, of course, but that shouldn’t matter in this tally. The 68 would be divided into the total possible victims, so someone flying 20 times would be 20 of those numbers. I think that makes sense but I didn’t do too well in my stats class.

  6. TS

    We’ve discussed this topic before here and it has tones of relevance to registration when you read what Gorsuch says in it. This will be a big outcome IMO.

    Supreme Court Will Decide If Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional, Violates The Eighth Amendment

    • David

      “If the severity of the consequences counts when deciding the standard of review,” he (Chief Justice Gorsuch) wrote, “shouldn’t we also take account of the fact that today’s civil laws regularly impose penalties far more severe than those found in many criminal statutes?”
      And not only are “punitive civil sanctions…rapidly expanding,” they are “sometimes more severely punitive than the parallel criminal sanctions for the same conduct.”
      I applaud you, Chief Justice Gorsuch. You certainly argue some excellent points, sir! Now, how about we start applying those same thoughts to problems such as the unconstitutional retroactive application of SORNA laws?

      • Lake County

        I’ve been impressed with Gorsuch since his nomination hearings. Most everything I’ve seen him say or written has made me optimistic that he will be our best bet. This may be one nomination that Trump got right. Fortunately he doesn’t have to worry about loosing his job if he rules in our favor.

  7. mike r

    I finally got an answer back from that other civil rights org. I am so tired of hearing the same old crap I sent them the following in response to the following. I will not be so rude as to eliminate any possibility of help but I am also not being so frigging nice about it anymore.

    Joe Martyak
    Jun 18 at 6:52 PM

    Dear Michael,
    Thank you for contacting us. Our amicus brief for the case Gundy v. United States focuses on process issues that we believe violate the separation of powers among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. We are not involved in the particular merits of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), nor with the merits of individual cases related thereto.

    While we fully appreciate the seriousness of your situation and the ramifications of each case, we are not in the position of providing legal counsel for other cases involving SORNA.

    We hope you are able to obtain appropriate counsel to assist you.

    Joe Martyak
    Director of Communications
    New Civil Liberties Alliance

    Sent them the following:

    Same old story. I guess we have no civil rights organizations left in this country when it comes to ex-sex-offenders. Well, hopefully for the sake of our country I, a Pro Se litigant, will have to prevail. Thanks anyways.

  8. TS

    In other news, USA pulls out of UN human rights council.


    Can’t take care of their own to begin with…

  9. Double A

    I’m a registrant, but I’m not on the website. I was wondering if any registrant similar to me has recently applied for a job at a big box store like Target or Home Depot and been hired for employment?

    • David

      Here’s my employment tip for you, Double A: if, while job hunting, you have an application that requests information about felony convictions, use your case number and penal statute numbers. If at all possible, avoid using any words in connection with your conviction(s) – especially words such as “lewd”, “sexual”, “statutory”, etc. The HR department might just ignore the conviction or breeze over it, rather than look up what the statute numbers actually mean.
      Best of luck!

  10. E

    Might be time to get worried. A passport identifier is irrelevant if airlines won’t let you fly their planes for domestic or international flights.

    This is following up on the recent post about sexual assaults “increasing” on US flights: “ In 2014, 38 cases of in-flight sexual assault were reported to the FBI. Last year, that number increased to 63 reported cases, but officials believe the crimes are significantly under-reported.“ (Don’t you love the “underreported” phrase).

    That’s out of 2.5 Million passengers PER DAY. 63 ANNUAL assaults. The sky is falling.

  11. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    This is just how bad “sex offender” civil commitment is in the U.S.

    “Sex Crimes and Criminal Justice. Formerly incarcerated sex offenders say civil commitment programs deny proper rehabilitation.”

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      It would have helped had I included the link address:

      • R M

        Thanks David. That is a very informative article. I have no experience with civil commitment but I was evaluated at Avenel prior to my sentencing; it was a grueling and agonizing ordeal. As I remember, it was about 5 to 6 hours of testing/questioning and then the psychiatrist only pointed out like 2 negatives out of 5 to 6 hundred. Of course those 2 negatives negated all the rest and were the only ones mentioned during my case.

  12. AJ

    Update on the Millard appeal at the 10th: The Millard legal team has been granted a third, and seemingly final (“The court will not grant additional extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.”), extension. Briefs are now due by 7/16/2018. Hopefully they are whipping up a zinger of a document!

    • CR

      I wonder how long it takes the 10th circuit to schedule oral arguments after briefings are complete? I know that the median time from filing of an appeal to final disposition in the 10th circuit is 8.2 months, per the March 2018 US Courts of Appeals statistics published on the site (link below). But that includes summary orders and cases disposed of by published opinion. I couldn’t find any time statistics limited to argued cases.

      I’m sure we’re looking at many more months before final disposition.

  13. TS

    In Major Privacy Win, Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant To Track Your Cellphone

    • AJ

      In Major Privacy Win, Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant To Track Your Cellphone
      It’s not as broad of a win as one would have hoped, since it left Smith and Miller intact, but I’ll take it!
      Based on oral arguments, I was expecting a more lopsided vote and win for privacy (and Carpenter). I was rather surprised how the votes tallied, particularly with Gorsuch in dissent (Kennedy, Thomas and Alito also dissented). However, after reading his Dissent, I think he probably would have concurred if needed to do so to get the outcome. His Dissent is not so much against the decision as it is his blasting of SCOTUS itself. He lands some serious, hard blows against SCOTUS for completely f’ing up the 4th Amendment. If this is the type of jurist he is, we need more like him!

      I think I’ll save myself the time of reading @sshole Alito’s words. I’d be surprised if it veers off his “hang ’em high, the State is always right” philosophy. Thomas’ Dissent is probably worth a read, since he seems increasingly wary of Government power and intrusion. Heck, he’s even on record that Calder v. Bull needs another look (“Since Calder v. Bull. . .this Court has considered the Ex Post Facto Clause to apply only in the criminal context. I have never been convinced of the soundness of this limitation[.]”,

      Maybe one day SCOTUS will do as the Dissents touch on and actually explain in some–ANY–manner just what “arbitrary power” and “permeating police surveillance” mean. I’m guessing every RC can describe and define it quite well!

      Here’s the PDF of this Opinion:

      • E

        @AJ. Thanks for your analysis. Always appreciate it!

      • mike r

        I do not have time to read anything right now AJ so how does this decision relate to Smith. Or does it. Remember if you see anything I need to know and that I can use hit me up…..For some reason ACSOL is not posting some of my post concerning my case but whatever. i do not have time for it anyway since physics is pretty hard and time demanding for the 8 week summer course.

    • TS

      Thanks @AJ for the breakdown. Much appreciated!

      Here’s a NYT article on the decision that’s a bit more in-depth than the NPR blurb I provided earlier. Good read.

      I will say, the justices need to take a technology lesson on GPS and cell tower signals. They both are good within reason of their respective accuracy tolerances. It depends on where you are, such as the country or urban areas where mini towers on bldgs, poles, etc are growing. You can get close, but don’t think down to zero ft with interference. You can get down to zero feet off on GPS but you have to be in line of sight of many satellites and have the right equipment. I can on my handheld but only in the right conditions. Even mil spec doesn’t quite always get there and the regular citizen can’t get that, legally (unless you are lucky by accident). I digress.

      Last thing, serial, serial, serial… The one justice makes it seem they are everywhere! Ugh.

      Defending Privacy, Supreme Court Says Warrants Are Generally Needed to Collect Cellphone Location Data

    • TS

      Follow up thoughts-

      Roberts said no one foresaw an era where the phone goes everywhere. Motorola did. Technology was there. Tesla did. Hedy Lemarr did. You can see with old phones using the technology in cars. Was only a matter of time.

      This ruling makes me wonder about cellphones on wifi in your home and tracking. Is that a home search then? You get the point.

    • TS

      Last article on this topic. Good one from here. It’s noted the court reversed itself in a sense which given the topic is good for parity. While it is a 5-4 split, it sounds like 6-3 in spirit.

      Huge Win for Everyone With a Cellphone (and for the Fourth Amendment) at the Supreme Court

      • David

        @ TS: I’m glad you mentioned this SCOTUS decision. This Carpenter case – along with the decisions in Riley, in Alasaad and in Kolsuz – bode well for future rulings on border electronics privacy.

        • Carpenter Decision

          Roberts , a conservative, sided with the 4 liberals and is the only one to side with them . This doesn’t happen very often and could be taken as a sign of encouragement for other cases where it’s usually the safe prediction that the votes will be along party lines.

  14. AJ

    I’ve been doing some brainstorming over “compliance checks” and would like some group thoughts and feedback. Specifically, I’m trying to see if there’s a way to equate these checks with police roadblocks. With roadblocks, LE must have “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement” ( A helpful article addressing this can be found here: From that URL, “[u]sing checkpoints and roadblocks to help combat crime generally runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment[.]” Okay, so if that’s the case when one is out and about on public roads, the same–or higher–standard certainly applies within one’s curtilage and at one’s door. What’s worse is that LEOs are not “stopping” all citizens, nor all criminals, nor all felons. They are “stopping” RCs…with what reasonable suspicion? Presence on a state-mandated list? What basis is there to doubt the RC completely and correctly completed whatever registration paperwork? I get that LEOs have equal license to knock on my door as do the Girl Scouts, but that’s not my issue. My issue is the rationale and process used that lands them only at the doors of RCs. (I wonder if it may be helpful to FOIA some LEAs to see what system they use to create the list of RCs they visit.)

    Also, at what point does “a too permeating police surveillance” kick in? ( Is it when they visit over and over? When they, as I believe Lake County has detailed, find you into town and block your vehicle from movement? (Which would seem to be a detainment without probable cause.) Is it requiring one to give Internet IDs and the like?

    Please feel free to chime in with thoughts, or even questions. There’s gotta be a way to stymie this BS tactic which is nothing more than a “we’re watching you” threat. (Even the USDOJ guidelines say this is a reason to do them, IIRC.)

    • CR

      That’s an interesting question, AJ.

      Would the putative designation of sex offender registration laws as civil regulatory in nature make a difference?

      A health inspector may call upon a restaurant unannounced to check compliance with health laws. A building inspector may do the same at a construction site to look for code violations. These don’t seem to implicate 4th amendment rights.

      Cops set up road blocks to check for drunk drivers, but drunk driving is a criminal offense. This does implicate 4th amendment rights, so these checks have to be set up in such a way that they cause only minimal detention, and the cops can’t search a car without permission or reasonable suspicion, or arrest someone without probable cause.

      Compliance checks may be done by cops, but they may be done by other state-designated persons who are not necessarily “law enforcement”. Does it matter who does the check?

      I’m just trying to get my thoughts together at this point.

      • AJ

        Thanks for the feedback. A couple counterpoints to ponder from a helpful URL:
        1) Inspections. SCOTUS has twice ruled that administrative inspections require a search warrant if the owner objects to the search. (Camara v. Municipal Court; See v. City of Seattle). Of course with compliance checks, the LEOs aren’t entering the building, they’re “only” knocking on the door, as FL v. Jardines allows them (or anyone) to do. At any rate, yes, administrative inspections do so implicate the 4th Amdt.
        2) Roadblocks. Yes, they can be done, but as you say, the LEA must have very specific criteria established, and the delay must be minimal. In upholding DUI checkpoints, SCOTUS pointed out that the average delay to a driver was inconsequential, at around 25 seconds. Given the vast safety problem of drunken driving, it was upheld as a *reasonable* search and seizure. So it was still a 4th Amdt. issue….but a valid one.

        My thoughts are that with DUI roadblocks, LE can demonstrate a known, statistical public safety risk and costs (property damage, etc.) based on affirmative activity (driving) of the citizenry. As such, they are seeking and removing those safety risks. (I almost said preventing, but I doubt DUI checkpoints prevent much; they just catch.) However, with compliance checks, LE would seem to be hard-pressed to establish my passive activity (living at home) as a public safety risk. Indeed, the whole process itself is to ensure that a RC, who has shown compliance and accordance with the laws by registering, did indeed comply and accord with the laws. So unlike DUI checkpoints where a citizen is doing something wrong and is caught, compliance checks involve no indication of a citizen doing anything wrong.

        I guess that brings me more around to equating compliance checks not with DUI checkpoints, but the “safety checkpoints” used during holiday weekends and the like. There, LEOs check for proper vehicle equipment, valid licensing, etc., which I agree is wholly within the States’ powers. But even there and then, they cannot just do it randomly (DE v. Prouse). I’m going to have to dig deeper into non-DUI checkpoint case law.

        There’s also the point (previously discussed on this board) of what exactly is the visit. Is it based on reasonable suspicion, i.e. a Terry stop? Is it purely administrative? These questions, of course, can only be answered by the State, which is reluctant to say. However I would say if it’s administrative, there are any number of State officials–beyond armed, sworn LEOs–who could accomplish the task. Also, the task could be accomplished by one or two officials, LEO or otherwise, and not require 3 or 4 officials, let alone tactical gear, flashing lights, etc. (as some have endured). In short, I feel the bigger production the State makes of it, the less they can claim it’s administrative. And if it’s not administrative, it sure points towards investigatory, which points to reasonable suspicion.

        Arguing against all this is NY v. Burger (addressed in the URL above), where SCOTUS ruled penal objectives accomplished during administrative searches was okay. But then again, LA v. Patel (same URL) could tip it back our way.

        Be sure to read footnotes 99 and 102, as they describe some facts that align with what RCs suffer with compliance checks.

        • AJ

          I think I’ve answered my own question about compliance checks. In short, either everybody or nobody is allowed to knock on your front door. From FL v. Jardines (citations removed):
          As we recognized in Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___ (2011), police officers do not engage in a search when they approach the front door of a residence and seek to engage in what is termed a “knock and talk,” i.e., knocking on the door and seeking to speak to an occupant for the purpose of gathering evidence. [] (“When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a
          warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do”). [] (“It is not objectionable for an officer to come upon that part of the property which has been opened to public common use” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even when the objective of a “knock and talk” is to obtain evidence that will lead to the homeowner’s arrest and prosecution, the license to approach still applies. In other words, gathering evidence—even damning evidence—is a lawful activity that falls within the scope of the license to approach. (
          I think anyone, even an incredibly able attorney, would have a tough, if not impossible, time getting around this text. The best one could do is say they are coming to specific doors due to past criminality, to which I’m guessing a judge would say, “so? That’s crime prevention.” That it’s discriminatory (as in picking and choosing, not civil rights) is of little or no consequence.

          I don’t know that there’s a shred of traction to be found. 🙁

        • TS


          In ref to all or none door knockers, let’s split hairs for a moment for those off paper:

          Electronic notification systems for lack of better term, whether audio only or visual (screen) with audio. Can someone chose to use that as the interface during these attempted interactions and still be statused as positively (confirmed) checked upon? Can a verbal confirmation of all data they have is accurate through this system enough to satisfy?

          If it’s good enough for the public to use it, then it’s good enough for LEOs as well if I understand your legal rationale.

          The second part of this is crime prevention. If someone has a propensity for drinking alcohol or other impairing activity (even medically) and then driving (or operation of equipment), then should they not be subject to random at home breathalyzer (or other immediate result testing) by LEOs to prevent DUI/OUI (all impairing activity) crimes? Doesn’t matter if it was one time only, the point being, they have a history of such lack of judgement in their thinking to put the public in danger. Sobriety is irrelevant here, the principle remains the same.

          Just some open thoughts…

        • AJ

          Thanks for the input and devil’s advocacy. This is exactly the type of brainstorming and thought processes I’m hoping for. I’ve been thinking more about this. Though LEOs coming to one’s door is not a search, and therefore no 4th issue, that doesn’t change the possible bias and/or discrimination of their coming only to RC doors. I’m guessing the State, and judges, would say that yes, they do have just as much police power and authority to walk up to any door, including those of drunks and drug dealers. That they choose not to exercise that power in no way diminishes or affects the validity of their exercising that power regarding RCs. We cannot use any sort of comparison to other crimes, because those are simply other avenues LE is choosing not to pursue, which is entirely within its discretion. I don’t know how to dig into the “thought process” LE is using to do the visits. Are they going purely off some manual provided by the Feds that says, “here’s X millions of dollars. Follow this checklist and visit this many RC sites in this many days or we’ll take the money back”? Or is it something looser, and therefore more prone to mistake my local yokels?

          As for audio/video interaction versus face-to-face, the answer as to whether it satisfies LE’s task can only be answered by them. Let’s look at it another way: would shouting back and forth through the closed door (i.e. audio only) satisfy their task? I’m guessing probably not as they cannot verify who it is with whom they’re talking. Now if one were to add in video, or in the door example a window, then it probably would satisfy them. They would then be able to match the face of the speaker to the picture they (I assume) have in hand.

          So, can they focus their knock-and-talks on specific homes purely based on specific, past criminality? I don’t know a solid comparison, but will offer up one. Could police run registration checks of cars in line at a roadblock, and only stop those whose registered owners have been convicted of certain offenses, letting all other drivers go unmolested? Based on Indpls. v. Edmonds (, it would seem such a system would be unconstitutional. But, does the same apply at one’s home?

          From the Indy v. Edmonds Syabllus:
          (a) The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens [], and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road []. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers’ licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. [] However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.
          (b) The latter purpose is what principally distinguishes the checkpoints at issue from those the Court has previously approved, which were designed to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Petitioners state that the [DUI] and [immigration] checkpoints had the same ultimate purpose of arresting those suspected of committing crimes. Securing the border and apprehending drunken drivers are law enforcement activities, and authorities employ arrests and criminal prosecutions to pursue these goals. But if this case were to rest at such a high level of generality, there would be little check on the authorities’ ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. The checkpoint program is also not justified by the severe and intractable nature of the drug problem. The gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, the Court must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue. Nor can the checkpoints’ purpose be rationalized in terms of a highway safety concern similar to that in [the DUI case], or merely likened to the antismuggling purpose in [the immigration case]. . . .And if the program could be justified by its lawful secondary purposes of keeping impaired motorists off the road and verifying licenses and registrations, authorities would be able to establish checkpoints for virtually any purpose so long as they also included a license or sobriety check. That is why the Court must determine the primary purpose of the checkpoint program. This holding does not alter the constitutional status of the checkpoints approved [for DUIs] and
          [immigration], or the type of checkpoint [for license and registration checks]. It also does not affect the validity of border searches or searches in airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute. Nor does it impair police officers’ ability to act appropriately upon information that they properly learn during a checkpoint stop justified by a lawful primary purpose. Finally, the purpose inquiry is to be conducted only at the programmatic level and is not an invitation to probe the minds of individual officers acting at the scene.
          There are bits of this that seem to align nicely with what I’m going for, but other parts that fall flat. The hard part is transferring the logic from one’s affirmative action of vehicle operation over to one’s passive action of being at one’s home. It (again) seems to me that although police are fully entitled to approach a door and knock, the rationale that leads them to that specific door may be impeachable. Or, maybe I’m just confusing myself more than I’m solving anything!

        • TS


          See current discussion online about Greyhound letting CBP on board for searches at check points. That may help.

          There was someone here in the forum recently who did the behind closed door check with LE. I read it, I know I did.

          I don’t know if RC checks are fed mandated but state law seems to drive them.

    • mike r

      Blocking your car is detainment, no two ways about it. If you cannot leave then it is detainment bottom line. Of course they could always state that you could of walked away I guess. They block my vehicle and it is on. I am either going to jail or they are getting my Dodge up their A*(&^*&^*&….. when I leave. If their car is in my way it better be in a place that it is supposed to be in, i.e. parking space, which obviously it would not be if it is blocking your car. I would think that it would be a their fault accident when I dodge Ram their car….LMAO

    • Joe

      “at what point does “a too permeating police surveillance” kick in?”

      I would say, at the latest when the law authorizing (they think) such operations states it does, in as many words.

      In California, these checks are justified under PENAL CODE SECTION 13887-13887.5.

      “…through proactive surveillance and arrest of habitual sexual offenders”

      I wrote “they think” because a while ago there was, here on this forum, a detailed discussion about the exact kind of registrant these sections apply to. If memory serves, a good point was made that it does not apply to all registrants, but rather a small and well defined sub-set. It broke down into a grammar lesson, but a good point was made that the these compliance checks of all registrants are unlawful. In California, at least.

  15. mike r

    Big difference with DUI check points as well is the fact that when you get a drivers license you are implicitly stating that you will submit to a sobriety check at any time by any peace officer. Voluntarily complying is implied when you get the license. Every administrative search or seizure is voluntary not compulsory. At some point in time you when you applied for that license whether it be a business licence or a drivers license you consented to those regulatory administrative procedures including submitting to whatever regulation such as searches or compliance with regulatory rules when you applied for your license…..We have not voluntarily consented to shi(&*%^%^. That is the biggest difference between any other regulatory requirement in any situation. Every one of them are voluntary. The only other Gov. compulsive regulation was the affordable care act. I challenge anyone to find another gov regulation that is mandatory that you have not at some point in time agreed to comply with the rules. Good luck.. And the only reason the ACA mandatory compliance was considered constitutional was because the court manipulated it into a tax but they failed to address the issue that even those that did not work were subject to the regulation which made that part of the regulation unconstitutional because it was completely compulsory with penalties for non-compliance. Taxes you agree to pay when you sign your employment agreements and you have a choice not to work without penalty. Completely different and if someone would have challenged the ACA on my claim it could not have survived the tax application either because it was compulsory regulation for just being alive. No go…..No regulatory scheme is mandatory without your consent at some point in time is my point….

  16. mike r

    Once you mandate a regulation (I am not talking penal codes or other rules that apply to everyone either and/or that have a statistical purpose, they also only require you to not do something and do not compel any actions by anyone) with compulsory requirements by a citizen you run a foul of bill of attainder and involuntary servitude just to begin with….Even going to the station and registering is a involuntary detention that requires there to be some credible public threat or probable cause. Like AJ stated, there is also an enormous amount of empirical research showing how devastating and rampant DUI is and even then you have already consented to DUI checks from any LE at any time when you got your license…..

    • Debo

      In addition the DUI consent is only in leu of loosing your license if you do not consent which is a whole other issue with restricting ones right to travel Its under duress also

  17. mike r

    The draft and jury duty maybe. But even those you can avoid by either disavowing citizenship or giving reasons why you cannot be a juror such as prejudice or undue hardship and many other reasons. Both of those examples also have real and present value empirically.

  18. WTF?

    Thete are so many parallels in the arguements concerning the immigration detainments and the RSO laws.
    Unfortunately, human rights only apply to those that people feel will make them look compassionate in the eyes of the voter.

  19. mike r

    Yeah it is beyond doubt that anyone including LEOs can approach your residence or your person if you are in public. Now if you have a gate that states no trespassing might be a different story. But that bkocking your car or not leaving your property when asked or detaing you in anyway is a entirely different animal as well.

  20. David M

    10 Stages of genocide.

    Stage 1: Classification
    Categories that distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion or nationality.

    Stage 2: Symbolization
    Giving names or characteristics that distinguish people by classification.

    Stage 3: Discrimination
    Dominant group uses laws, custom, and political power to deny the rights of other groups.

    Stage 4: Dehumanization
    Members of a group are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases.

    Stage 5: Organization
    Plans for mass killing, formally created by the state or in a decentralized manner with terrorist groups.

    Stage 6: Polarization
    Extremists drive groups apart and eliminate moderates who may stop the genocide.

    Stage 7: Preparation
    Perpetrator leaders build armies, indoctrinate the population with fear of the victim group.

    Stage 8: Persecution
    Victims are identified and separated. Death lists are drawn up. Victims are forcibly relocated.

    Stage 9: Extermination
    Mass killing (legally called “genocide”) begins in a systematic way.

    Stage 10: Denial
    Perpetrators try to hide evidence of their crimes and continue to govern until removed by force.

  21. Debo

    We need to have resolutions past in legislatures in each state for a finding of fact of the real recidivism numbers that way when they write new bills they cant contain BS info to pass them.

  22. NPS

    @Lake County,

    I just ready about the massive fires up there. I hope you’re okay.

    • Lake County

      Thanks for checking. 4 years in a row for these massive fires. Fire is about 5 miles from me and wind is going away from me so far. Smoke is thick. 12 homes burned so far, with great potential to get much worse. We all wish for 1 year off from these fires.

  23. WTF?

    I heard this on morning cable news (MSNBC). There is a discussion among the Democrats to push for the abolishment of ICE. Obviously this is in response to the current border policy. But I was wondering if this could have an effect on travel by RSOs. Theoretically, would this also stop the Green Notices if the agency were closed?
    This could create a window of opportunity for “escape” while the government is in limbo. Any thoughts?

    • Lake County

      Democrats don’t have enough votes to get that to pass.

      • WTF?

        Maybe after November they would?

        • Lake County

          That’s very possible. The more Trump Tweets, the more he pisses his people off.

          I fear what will happen to all the late night comedy show’s ratings once Trump is gone.

    • TS


      IF ICE went away, then in theory Angel Watch could go away too in which notifications could go away also. However, IF ICE went away in law, then the missions within it that are found to be useful would moved to other responsible entities to carry on seamlessly while new letterhead, emails, org charts, etc are being created and published for use.

      Bottom line, don’t expect a broad brush to be used to sweep all of their missions into the ash can and tossed away. If for no other reason, see Rep. Smith’s (R-NJ, 4th District) legacy wanting to be intact for the ages and him personally protecting this mission area.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      I think that people are overlooking the obvious; if ICE were abolished its functions would not go unfulfilled but would be assigned to new, or distributed among existing, agencies. All immigration and ‘entry/exit chokepoint’ laws would remain in place and WOULD be enforced. Sure, I’d like to see ICE get royally shaken-up but it is not as if that would do little more than change its name or possibly reallocate its authorities to separate agencies.

      • Tim Moore

        The only thing that will abolish or weaken ICE is if the American people see the whole picture. People have always moved when things have become impossible where they are at. borders ar always permeable. Our government has a role in instability in other countries, creating migration, and even where that is not true, borders are imaginary lines draw to keep history from entering people’s minds and creating this false sense of a secure nation in an ever changing world.

  24. David

    Thoughts? Yes. They could not entirely abolish ICE or CBP. No way. The U.S. must have border protection and customs. But…. I could see some groups wanting to curb ICE’s powers and limit some of its activities. Even if we are able to get IML abolished, I don’t imagine green notices will stop….. unless an extraordinarily enlighted SCOTUS determines that green notices are unconstitutional. (No, because we’re not bawling 4 year olds “torn from their mothers’ arms”, I wouldn’t expect any sympathy from legislators or the general public.)

    • TS


      SORNA drives travel notification, not IML; so, if IML was canned, travel notifications would continue to Uncle Sam.

      • WTF?

        Well, if Sorna is main factor, and Ca is not a Sorna compliant state, then where do green notices come from when travelling from Ca. I”m confused( no shit). So I could be off federal list, but if Ca. Has me on lifetime, then notices still get sent? Is this a catch 22 ?

        • TS


          It does not matter if California (or any other state) is not SORNA compliant because SORNA comes from federal law, not state law. Federal law drives 21 day advance notice at your registering office, not California law, which in turn drives any sort of federal overseas notification from any state, tribal reservation, or territory of the United States.

          Any sort of federal registry list is born from state registry lists because they’re up channeled from states to the feds.

          So if you’re on a state list, you’re on a federal list. There is no catch-22.

      • David

        Agreed: Transmittal of green notices would not cease.

        • mike r

          Asolutely that is why if you get off the state registry you will not be subject to IML since the language states it only applies to those on a state registry.

  25. AJ

    (Starting new thread for replies)
    See current discussion online about Greyhound letting CBP on board for searches at check points. That may help.
    There was someone here in the forum recently who did the behind closed door check with LE. I read it, I know I did.
    I don’t know if RC checks are fed mandated but state law seems to drive them.
    –>The Greyhound instances aren’t too helpful because 1) CBP has SCOTUS case law saying immigration checkpoints within 100 miles of the border are legal; 2) in general, CBP has broad LE authority to board any vessel or common carrier (i.e. Greyhound) within the United States. However, nobody on board the bus is required to say anything to CBP, ever. They can board all day long and be fine regarding the 4th, but everybody on board is free to exercise their 1st and 5th rights not to speak or self-incriminate.
    –>Were I willing to engage with LEOs at all, even through a closed door, my words would be limited to, “nobody here wishes to speak with any of you, please leave the premises” repeated over and over. The moment that’s first stated, the LEOs (and the Girl Scouts) are obligated to leave, promptly and directly.
    –>I know the Feds encourage them, specifically to let RCs know they’re being watched. (I forget the exact verbiage, but that was the gist!) Likewise, the Feds encourage keeping people on the list after moving away so victims can keep tabs. (What if there’s no victim to follow me, such as with CP or a sting?)
    Having read all of Indy v. Edmonds, there are some good things in there. From the case:
    We suggested in Prouse [] that we would not credit the “general interest in crime control” as justification for a regime of suspicionless stops.
    Consistent with this suggestion, each of the checkpoint programs that we have approved was designed primarily to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoint
    program is to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, the program contravenes the Fourth Amendment.
    The law enforcement problems that the drug trade creates likewise remain daunting and complex, particularly in light of the myriad forms of spin-off crime that it spawns. The same can be said
    of various other illegal activities, if only to a lesser degree. But the gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, we must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue.
    We are particularly reluctant to recognize exceptions to the general rule of individualized suspicion where governmental authorities primarily pursue their general crime control ends.
    For me, “the gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose” speaks right to what goes on with compliance checks. If it doesn’t matter the gravity of the threat for someone on the public roadways, where they have a reduced expectation of privacy, then that gravity surely cannot apply at one’s home. Though a LEO has a right to come to my door (just as a police officer has a right to pull me over) it would seem it cannot be done in the interest of “general interest in crime control.”

    But wait you say, won’t the LEOs just claim they have an “individualized suspicion”? Yes, they probably will, but would that not require some sort of individualized assessment? I posit that their going to however many homes on a list generated from a database is hardly “individualized suspicion.” In fact, based on the justification for checks (making sure we’ve told the truth on a legally binding form), there’s no basis for suspicion at all! They are, pure and simple, fishing expeditions or, as SCOTUS called it, “general interest” excursions. Though it may not be a 4th violation to come to my door based on “general interest”, I may well rise to “arbitrary power” and “a too permeating police surveillance”– the two concepts refreshed in the Carpenter (cell records) case from last week.

    Again, I think it would be a *very* tough case to make, but anymore I do think a competent trial attorney could prevail.

    • TS

      I posit “The Feds encourage keeping people on the list after moving away so victims can keep tabs.” plain and simple. It is the line from Casablanca, “Round up the usual suspects” which this list helps them do. If it was truly about understanding the individual’s situation, then they would want more info, but they don’t care. I tried to get them to understand that from mine, but they did not care and stayed with the generalized info. If they did, they would see there is no need for a compliance check because factors then are not factors now. “You can’t handle the truth!” is great line that explains it all.

      Your summary here is best I seen on this topic – “In fact, based on the justification for checks (making sure we’ve told the truth on a legally binding form), there’s no basis for suspicion at all! They are, pure and simple, fishing expeditions or, as SCOTUS called it, “general interest” excursions.”

      If one can find an atty who would do a Clarence Darrow like effort on it, then I believe what you say about it possibly being successful could work.

      • AJ

        Here’s a paper from 2009 (before KY v. King and FL v. Jardines were decided) that pretty much says police can come to your property for any reason whatsoever and, depending on the courts, can enter, can drag you out, can snoop around, etc. (

        This paper is eye-opening reading for why one should NEVER answer the door to LEOs. Never. Don’t even let them suspect you’re home. Some pretty crazy court decisions cited. Hopefully FL v. Jardines has reined things in a bit, but I doubt it. SCOTUS has eviscerated the 4th Amdt to the point that it’s pretty much gone.

        This paper also has me swung back to fighting checks being almost impossible. In truth, it seems LEOs are subject to more restrictions stopping you in your car than they are traipsing around your property!

  26. AJ

    Re: Greyhound buses and CBP: fondling your luggage is an illegal search.

    • TS


      Interesting case from ’99 showing what the thinking was then about luggage touching of soft sided bags, etc. The dissenting Justices really need to get out and ask the traveler on the street what their thinking is, not think what they believe the traveler is thinking about touching their luggage. They may actually learn something about the public they are removed from. (Well, one has passed on obviously, but the other one has not.)

  27. mike r

    Man AJ you got to admit the way I have played my case has been really smooth my friends. If you guys look on Pacer and follow the order of filings and you got to admit I have hit them with every tool so far and especially the dismissal of the US AG and then the filing of the judicial notice at the frigging perfect timing just like a skilled attorney would have done, sandbagged it till the last minute just like you are supposed to do. Man then I hit her with the RFAs. OMG the AG is probably thinking what the he)(I&^&. LMFAO….Played it all the way. If this pans out this will be hella funny….Really checkout Pacer, you cannot get in unless you have permission but it shows all the frigging millions of filings “it seems like” already, it is very interesting to see how our courts work….This is all the crap you have to do just to build up the record and narrow the issues. It is really a brilliant system if it works like it is suppose to with judges following the rules and constitution like how it was meant to work.

  28. CR

    Here is an interesting statement from the court in the opinion on Trump v Hawaii that, while not a holding, clearly expresses the court’s view with respect to Korematsu:

    “Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).”

    I doubt this helps us in any way, but it is good to see that terrible decision officially disavowed by the court. I mention it because Korematsu has often been brought up on this forum.

    • David

      Yes, I heard a discussion of Korematsu earlier today. The point made was that Korematsu had to do with something that was intentionally DONE TO the U.S. citizens by their government ….
      As opposed to the travel ban in which the government does NOT do something for a foreign national. Specifically, the government does not accept the request of a foreign citizen to enter the United States.

  29. TXSO4life

    Is Anyone familiar with this SO case (Eaton v. United States) pending at SCOTUS conference this week?

    • AJ

      Reading the (pro se) petition to SCOTUS, the 8th’s per curiam decision, and reviewing document history on PACER, it appears it’s a technical petition. Based on the titles of the PACER docs, I opted against paying to get copies. It appears it was a Federal trial with his taking a plea agreement. He appealed to the 8th to withdraw his plea, and they denied per curiam. Now, based on a SCOTUS ruling earlier this year, he’s appealing to SCOTUS to remand his case to the 8th. His questions are certainly of interest to us RCs, but they will not be heard by SCOTUS–at least yet. He specifically asks for the 8th to be forced to hear his case.

      All in all, it sounds like not much of a helpful case, at least anytime soon.

  30. JM of Wi.

    @mike R
    Its great to see your work. I hope it pays off for you. Your arguments are so well documented that attempts to use the “frightening & high” are made to look foolish. Thanks for making all your work available on your website.

    • mike r

      Thanks JW, I will be making a Pro Se packet after I am done as well that anyone can use in all kinds of situations not just against the registry. We need to take our frigging courts back people and the only way to that is to take the fear and intimidation out of the calculus which can encourage others to take back OUR courts………….And you are damn straight, if my case does not prevail we are without hope as far as the registry is concerned….I cannot see how I or anyone else could of argued it better……I am not be braggadocios I am just stating a fact……..Feel free to correct me if I am wrong because I love to be proven wrong if I am so i can correct myself. Also if anyone sees a more powerful case cite it please>>>>>

    • mike r

      Encouragement is greatly appreciated especially now where I am in the important steps in the proceedings. If I survive the partial motion to dismiss on the punishment issue then it a no brainier for substantive claim. I know just surviving a MTD is not a guarantee it would be a great starting point. Should not be much longer for the decision. BTW Great discussions on the post lately . I don’t have much time to be here right now but I stroll in every once in a while.

  31. Lake County

    So today is sort of a good day. My crime was in 2000. It was for Felony CP. I was not on the public ML list until 2010, which of course destroyed my life. So I had someone check my listing on both ML and Homefacts and my picture has been removed. It now says picture unavailable on both sites. All the other info is still there. So anyone know whats up? Maybe a mistake? If there was a problem with my last photo, I would think they would just use the previous years photo. Any ideas from the group?


    So today is sort of a good day. My crime was in 2000. It was for Felony CP. I was not on the public ML list until 2010, which of course destroyed my life. So today I had someone check my listing on both ML and Homefacts and my picture has been removed. It now says picture unavailable on both sites. All the other info is still there. So anyone know what’s up? Maybe a mistake? If there was a problem with my last photo, I would think they would just use the previous years photo. Any ideas from the group? I’m in CA.

  33. AJ

    Today’s Opinion in NIFLA v. Becerra ( is chock full of good material to use against marked DLs and IDs. It relies a good deal on Riley v. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind (, which isn’t surprising given that case’s holding that even factual speech is subject to compelled-speech analysis. I have to think anyone in a marked-DL/ID state could easily win a case using this case and its citations, especially if some Wooley v. Maynard ( is tossed in for good measure. Marked DLs/IDs are easily intermediate scrutiny material (speaker-based speech), but probably strict scrutiny material (content-based speech).

    There are so many gems in this case, but one from Kennedy in his Concurrence (joined by Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch) stands out: “Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions.” Bam! Take that AL, FL, MS, OK, and whatever other nut-job States have marked licenses.

    In the Opinion is a nice phrase to use in a DL/ID suit: California could also inform the women about its services “without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech,” [] most obviously through a public-information campaign.
    Oh, you mean like perhaps through an existing website that provides the same, and more, information without compelling the citizen to speak the State’s message? For example, IDK, a ML site with RCs on it?

    Beyond that, Kennedy’s Concurrence reads like a cautionary tale to our current society regarding its apparent disdain for the First Amendment. Perhaps it’s his swan song, before doffing his robes? (It does seem a little odd that Roberts didn’t opt to write it himself.)

    • steve

      Seems appropriate for IML/passport fight as well.

      • AJ

        Seems appropriate for IML/passport fight as well.
        Perhaps. Not everything exactly translates. International travel is not explicitly guaranteed as is domestic travel. Also, a holder of a passport is traveling at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. As such, it’s considered a form of diplomacy/foreign affairs, which is wholly vested within the Executive Branch. There are certainly some similarities and arguments to be made; they’re just not as crystal-clear.

  34. R M

    Titled “sex offenders in the priseon [prison]national geographic”.
    Fremont Correctional Facility in Colorado.

    Bad, bad video. And why is it documented on a channel documented on “wild documentaries HD” channel, which features wild animals (of non-human form)?
    Why is it based only on sex offenders as wild animals?
    Please dislike/like, comment, etc. Although most comments are against sex offenders, some are helpful in our fight.

  35. cool CA RC

    I hope California become the 1st state to drop Megan’s law from their law books.
    I think in a way we are getting there.
    It too confusing. If I don’t have to register in one state and if i move to another state I have to register.
    Just drop the whole thing

    • David

      @ Cool CA RC: I totally agree…. this rule in one State, that restriction in another State, something different in yet another State! If it were different countries, I could understand …. but this is just craziness with each & every State having 100+ different requirements, regulations, rules, restrictions, timelines, statutes and laws!! If it’s “not punishment”, then it’s certainly insanity!

  36. Witts End

    Just want to share this with people that yesterday was a bad day and i almost ended it all only reason i did not was because of my aging puppy.

    Even though I’m not in an isolation prison cell i’m still very much isolated! for 6 years now after my SO passed away from a heart attack at age 43 we were very best friends and together since we were kids.

    arrested in 1998 went to court in 1999 was offered to plead guilty to attempted L&L with a child under 16 and receive 3 years probation and 5 years on the hit list or go to trial and lose and i would be in prison at least 20 years. (now if they really thought i did it would they offer this plea ) anyway, i took it and they changed the hit list law to 10 years then to 15 then to 25/life.

    i don’t do anywhere on fb to keep up with whats in the little rural community i’m in. like when the hurricanes come through was without power for a week. found out through facebook that red cross dropped food off for our little community that was the only way through social media to find out about needed assistance and the local elected county gov. official provided much-needed info on social media as well. yet if i provide the state with my username, etc… on social media i get booted off and if the state finds out i’m on it i go to prison! i’m ridiculed and shamed in the community i talk to 1 neighbor lived in same home for 15 years and been here longer than 80% of my so-called neighbors. I’m just tired of it all! most likely within 2 weeks after my aging puppy passes (over 11 and a big dog) i will most likely pass on also. family don’t bother with me unless i continue to give them stuff. some stole money some borrowed $$ and never paid it back. so i’m in 99% total isolation even though i’m not in prison i guess you could say i’m in public, community and government isolation. Well after almost 20 years and no reoffence it looks like the Gov. is going to win again! and i’m will have no will so my family that doesn’t talk to me unless they want something can fight over my small home! well enough rambling if anyone was able to or is still reading this here is a copy of email to NASROL and FAC yesterday that i received a reply from only NASROL about 15/20 hours later

    I wish someone with know how could do a site with a chat room feature or add chat rooms to the few more popular SO sites like this or FAC, etc… as it may save a life or two

    here is what i emailed and no, i’m not looking for compassion or anything i just feel/felt the need to share and if this is not approved to be posted i understand!

    “are you aware of any SO sites that have chat rooms?
    I’m feeling really down today and if it wasn’t for my aging puppy today would probably be my last day on earth!
    Don’t know how much i can handle being in isolation! I’m sitting here with tears in my eyes first time in a very long time. I’m just so tired of being in isolation! arrested in 1998 plead guilty in fl. in 1999 to attempted L&L with a person under 16 was told like 5 years on the hit list and did 3 years probation then it was changed to 10 years, then 15 then 25/life. they keep making these laws worse. they want all email so they can report it to fb so not suppose to be on social media but that is the only way for me to have a sense of belonging, being informed of whats going on in the community, etc… as i live by my self, don’t go out to bars, etc… every now n then i’m shamed by my on community for being an SO I’m just so sick and tired of it as there is no one locally i can talk to. arghhh wish there were chat rooms and then also broken down by state also i’m just so sick and tired of it all being in isolation. guess thats the way they want it so we either end up in a for profit prison or 6′ under ground (well in my case i would be burned as there is no one to claim my body!
    witts end”

    • David

      @ Witts End: I’m so very sorry to hear about your situation and the isolation you are feeling. This endless punishment we all go through is cruel, crazy and unconstitutional. It has already – and continues to – destroy so many lives. I don’t know where you are living, but I used to live in Florida and I am sooooo glad that I was able to move and start a new life in a better place. I wonder if you might be able to do the same? It’s much easier to be anonymous and be unharrassed by the public if you live in a large metropolitan area. In larger metropolises, people are more into their own lives than into gossiping about others with nothing better to do.
      (I used to think it would be nice to move to a small, semi-rural town ……. but when visiting family in other regions, I saw how small towns work ….. and it sure isn’t warm and cordial like Andy Griffith’s “Mayberry”.)
      In any case, I hope you can stay tough and hang in there. For whatever it’s worth, there are people who care and who are fighting these ongoing injustices.
      P.S.: My “old man” is a 16 year old shepherd and has been with me 11+ years. He’s very gray in the muzzle now, but still healthy and fit. As I often say, he is the love of my life…. my handsome old “milk muzzle”. (For us dog-lovers, our dogs really can be our best friends.)
      Anyways, I am wishing you the best, friend. – David

    • wonderin

      There are many other people looking for a soul mate on line. No need to feel lonely and isolated.

    • AJ

      @Witts End:
      Sorry to hear you’re going through a *very* low point and tough time. FWIW, you have people here who understand and care, and will always listen to your struggles and challenges.

      As others have pointed out, moving–if able–may help. If possible, perhaps even look into moving to a State that may not list you publicly. IIRC, there are a few, though some default to whatever your convicting State determined.

      Also, what about adopting another puppy, aging or otherwise? (Personally, I’d pick aging…and apparently that’s the “in thing” these days with adopting.) It would give you hope, love, focus, purpose, and companionship still and again.

      Having lost a number of 4-legged friends over the years, I know the sadness you’re facing and will go through. I’m genuinely concerned for you if you’re feeling this way when he passes. Please don’t let them win. That’s what they want, all of us “monsters” rid from the face of the earth. Please don’t let them break you. Please don’t give up hope.

    • Deborah

      Witts End, stay with us one more day and one more day after that if you can do it. There are more people than you know that are going through your experiences, and people do love and care about you, people you might not even know. I heard some actor the other day say every person we know has a whole different life we don’t even know about, and I believe that is true . The illness or loss of a pet is devastating. I know some days seem worse than being dead, but God has a plan for you, and society does not determine your worth , you and God do. I value you. Deborah

    • Tim Moore

      Yeah, I know Witts End, we got to lessen this isolation. That’s what kills us, in mind and soul if not in body. Conventions are nice things for those who can afford to go to them. Meeting locations likewise may be far away. You get a response on this site, sometimes not. Let’s get some kind of local stuff going. Talk, walk our dogs together. I don’t know where you are, but there has got to be thousands feeling like you in your state. It doesn’t have to be about talking about the stinking laws. It could be about talking simple companionship. We all need that, it makes us feel secure in our persons. Isn’t that a principle in the Constitution? We should have local groups and every registrant has a vote in the group to recognize we all have power. Your voice is important not just to the 4 legged friends, but to all registrants. There is someone you can comfort and get comfort from. It’s a technical problem not a moral one. What if we had our own social media?

      • someone who cares

        Tim ~ I think, I would like the idea of having a group meet once in a while to talk and brainstorm ideas or to just get together for coffee and do small talk. Maybe, we can can get a count of people who are in Orange County and San Diego and find a meeting place in between, like San Clemente or Oceanside? Any takers? I know that Janice has the monthly meetings, but usually there is a set agenda, and some of us would like to talk about their individual situation. Just a thought.

        • Tim Moore

          That’s a great idea. Oceanside or San Clemente is not a far drive for me or maybe somewhere around Temecula would also be convenient enough for anyone coming down from the Inland Empire. Thanks to Janice, Frank and Chance, we could even meet in a park.

    • David M

      I’m sorry you feel isolated and alone. I would very much like to be friends.

    • Witts End

      I wish to thank everyone for the kind words. I hope i never feel as bad as last week but i’m just sick and tired of being a 2nd class person (i feel as though I’m no longer a citizen), being called child molester, perv, etc… by people in my own community even though they moved here after i did. Impaired driving has injured and killed more adults and children than any other crimes but it seems they basically get a free pass. then there is the victims that cry, victim, what the hell we all been victims one way or another but just the so-called sex offender victims I guess are the ones who count, me being the victim of a burglary, robbery and drunk/drugged upped driver I guess don’t count. i could sell drugs get a kid or adult addicted to drugs where they go on to murder, rob steal over and over again totally ruining their life and get a free pass. how this is all equal under the law i have no idea! and yes i am in Florida and unable to move for 14 more years as i’m under a contract with a home (yes a sex offender received a mostly free home from the county/state/feds combined and they never asked about convictions and i never told them but it’s not hard to find out) but most likely i’ll be dead before then or it will be brought to someones attention and they will try to take it from me but i already owned the land.

      I worry every day about my aging puppy the only reason why i’m still living and i’m worried if she passes before me cause i take so much crap and then i explode and that worries me having nothing to live for and someone pisses me off. guess the news could start off with a sex offender headline but hope that will not happen although no one knows what the future holds.

      The reason i think in the past few years we have so many police shootings is lots of people no longer have any hope and feel as they have nothing to lose there needs to be a 2nd chance act before it’s to late.

      enough rambling and i hope everyone has a wonderful day!

      • AJ

        @Witts End:
        I’m glad you’re still with us, but I’m also still concerned about you and saddened you’re suffering as you are. Please don’t lose hope. The tide is turning, even if quite slowly.

        The name-callers and unforgiving people are showing more about themselves than anything. They’re dragging you down in order to feel lifted up and better. If it’s in you–without getting angry–look them right back in the eye and give them some matter-of-fact reply. “God loves us both equally.” “And your point is…?” “My sin/crime is public, let’s hear about yours.” “Have a nice day.” Anything to disarm them. Wave at them whenever they pass by, or even when they say something. The incongruity of a smile and a wave in reply to an insult can be powerful. Unless it’s someone who could be violent, typically these types of people cannot handle any sort of engagement. Once they’ve shot their wad with their insults, they have nothing more. Once it’s no longer “fun” or props up their own ego, they may well stop.

        Finally, maybe see if there’s a 12 Step group nearby. I don’t know your mobility circumstances, but if you’re able to get away, even to a neighboring town or city, and be a little anonymous, you may find it therapeutic. I would hope/guess there may be a synagogue, church, mosque, or other religious group you could attend. Some sort of socialization to feed your soul, to provide connection, can do wonders.

        I’ll continue to have you in my thoughts, and I hope you can regain even a glimmer of hope.

        Give your pup a hug, let her know your love for her. I hope she’s doing well.

  37. Lake County

    Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday he’s retiring at the end of July.

    Look out, this will be a roller coaster ride.

    • Harry

      Remember Lake, that it was the liberal court said “that RCs has frightening high re-offense rate” and it was the liberal judge in SF that dismiss the our IML suit.

      • AJ

        it was the liberal court said “that RCs has frightening high re-offense rate”
        Ummm…no. McKune v. Lile ( was the case where “frightening and high” came from. SCOTUS was comprised of Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Of that list, only 2 (Ginsburg, Breyer) were appointed by a Democrat President. Even if you toss in that Stevens and Souter “flipped”, that still leaves it a 5-4 conservative-leaning panel.

        Even if you’re referring to some other case, this exact same Court decided Kansas v. Hendricks, Smith v. Doe, and CT DPS v. Doe.

  38. WTF?

    This might have been addressed here before, but is asking for asylum in a foriegn country due to persecution and the government ceeating a dangerous environment posdible. I am not up on all the international laws regarding this subject, but from reading comments, seems like there are alot of ” arm chair ” lawyers here.

    • AJ

      is asking for asylum in a foriegn country due to persecution and the government ceeating a dangerous environment posdible.
      It has been casually discussed on here before, but I don’t know that anyone has ever done any digging into the feasibility. The first steps would probably require learning a lot about the UN resolutions regarding human rights, then finding what signatory countries are most welcoming. With the Syrian refugee crisis over the last few years, I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of even the most welcoming countries have closed doors or severely restricted entry.

  39. Chris F (@AJ)

    AJ, sorry, I’ve been away on a family vacation and getting ready to move, so I’ve been out of the loop, but wanted to comment on the Compliance Checks discussion.

    Another thing to consider about compliance checks is they actually are effective to some extent. Most of the success they have had from them is from when they knock on a door and someone new that is living there tells them they have no idea who they are asking about, and a warrant gets issued for the sex offender. So, they don’t really care about sex offenders not answering the door or telling them to go away, though I know the officers enjoy the harassment aspects too. They are really hoping average citizen Jane Doe answers and doesn’t know who they are talking about or even better, knows exactly where Mr S.O. moved to without telling LEO.

    I suppose someone could put up both signs for No Soliciting and a sign directing police to also go away or call their attorney if they have any questions, but nobody wants to advertise on their front door that they don’t talk to cops. Probably best to just ignore.

    I wouldn’t want Compliance Checks challenged in court directly, because I think it is far better to use in a bigger case against how all restrictions cumulatively demonstrate Government Supervision when government supervision was supposed to end with the end of the judicially determined period of probation/parole and the “troubling fact” that it has not is priceless ammunition.

    • mike r

      Welcome back Chris, hope you had a good vacation my friend………….Still checking my mail everyday for the really to the RFAs and also the Pacer site for the decision on the MTD. It is kind of cool because as soon as it is filed it will be on there.

    • AJ

      @Chris F:
      No worries, brother. I figured you’d either get around to it, were busy, or had decided life absent all things RC was feeling pretty good.

      I’ve given up on trying to find a way to stop compliance checks. Simply put, absent harassment or an excessive presence (lights, guns drawn, etc), it’s chalked up as a perfectly legal “knock and talk.” It still grinds my gears that one seems to have better 4th Amdt. protections in a car on a public roadway than in one’s house on one’s private property. But, SCOTUS has gutted the 4th so much over the years, it’s not surprising. Saddening, but not surprising.

      As for “no soliciting” and/or “no trespassing” signs, they don’t necessarily help. Depending on your State, it may mean lots, or it may mean absolutely nothing. IIRC, most courts lean towards it meaning nothing. And as Alito pointed out in FL v. Jardines:
      The law of trespass generally gives members of the public a license to use a walkway to approach the front door of a house and to remain there for a brief time. This license is not limited to persons who intend to speak to an occupant or who actually do so. (Mail carriers and persons delivering packages and flyers are examples of individuals who may lawfully approach a front door without intending to converse.) Nor is the license restricted to categories of visitors whom an occupant of the dwelling is likely to welcome; as the Court acknowledges, this license applies even to “solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds.” And the
      license even extends to police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant (by asking potentially incriminating questions).”
      In short, anyone, for any or no reason, can walk to your door via the obvious/direct path, knock, briefly wait, and then leave. Personally, I’d still vote for “no trespassing” means nobody is allowed, even with the added inconvenience of having to figure out how to get my UPS/FedEx stuff (diversion to one of their stores works well), etc.

      • Chris F

        Thanks guys, and don’t worry, even though I am finally off that RC list I still lie awake just as many nights trying to figure out how to fight this and asking myself why the courts are rolling over so easily as the legislature takes over their only role of deciding guilt, punishing, rehabilitating, and protecting the public tailored to the individual and the crime. Meanwhile, the legislature doesn’t have to follow any of the rules it set up for the judiciary on how to accomplish that within constitutional guidelines.

        Now…if you’ll entertain me getting back up on my rusty old soap box again…

        Until the first city decides to create a law making it a felony for someone that ever plead guilty or no contest to a DUI/DWI to drive on their streets, nobody will pay attention long enough to realize how unconstitutional it is to have laws targeting past conduct and preventing normally legal activities with no ill intent. Not only does it create a situation more impossible to comply with than unconstitutionally vague laws do (like really? We have to research every city law every day before traveling through it just in case it changes?) , it violates the contract between the offender and state as well as the separation of powers.

        There…now I feel better.

        I look forward to more updates on Mike R’s unprecedented Pro Se case (How many Pro Se’s were done over the course of years while getting help from many people with an actual stake in the outcome) and AJ’s amazing research that adds more ammo to future and present challenges.

        • AJ

          @Chris F:
          Until the first city decides to create a law making it a felony for someone that ever plead guilty or no contest to a DUI/DWI to drive on their streets…
          Unless there’s a city/county run by the Nouveau Women’s Temperance Movement, it won’t happen. Legislators aren’t going to set themselves, or their family or buddies, up like this.
          We have to research every city law every day before traveling through it just in case it changes?
          I’ve been thinking about this issue a LOT of late, and I wonder how much, if at all, Lambert v. CA ( applies. It all probably hinges on how the RC laws are written. If I’m traveling through, do the RC laws apply?
          Suppose a State’s (I’ll use FL) law says I must register within 48 hours of entering. Does that mean I’m required to register the moment I’ve entered FL, but have 48 hours to complete the task? Or, does it mean that I must register prior to 48 hours, *if I will be present (intentionally or not) beyond 48 hours*?
          If it’s the former, does it mean that if I enter FL for an hour and then leave, at the expiration of 48 hours, FL can put a warrant out for me for FTR? I seriously doubt it, which to me means it’s the latter that applies.
          If it’s the latter, then I am not (yet) required to register, which would also mean any law hanging off that cannot be enforced against me. Most presence/distance restrictions say something to the effect of, “anyone required to register as a RC is prohibited from….” Well, that’s not me until the earlier of my registering with FL or 48 hours have elapsed (in which case I can be nailed for FTR *and* the presence restrictions).
          I encourage one and all to punch holes in this reasoning. Lambert might be a red herring in all this, but I suspect it’s why we have 42 USC § 16917 (“Duty to notify sex offenders of registration requirements and to register”). But I still don’t think any State–even FL–has legal standing to nail someone for FTR if they enter and exit the State prior to the registration window expiring. If nothing else, you could argue you wanted to go to FL, but once there found out it was too short of a time before you had to register, so you left. How is that illegal? I would even say making that illegal could be a restriction on one’s freedom to travel. 😉 (Ok, I may reaching now.)

        • Chris F (@AJ)

          In Texas, our state sex offender rules under our Chapter 62 refer to “Extrajurisdictional registrant” as someone from another state that must follow our rules and register until their original registration in their state of origin expires even if that same crime is not a register able offence here.

          So we would have to look at a lot of the technical wording of both the state definitions of sex offenders as well as the wording in the city laws to determine if their restrictions apply immediately to a sex offender from any state, or only once they actually are required to register in that state they are visiting. I have a feeling many require compliance if they register anywhere.

          It just adds more fuel to the fire that to travel across country we have to research both state laws to see when we have to register and what rules we have to follow as well as each city we pass through and do so every time since it can change and we are subject to retro-active legislation with only rational basis review that apparently doesn’t have to be rational or real logic as mere perception and claiming a good intent is all that is required to allow it.

        • AJ

          @Chris F:
          Having read TX’s Code just now, I think their wording is about as clear as IML’s. Required how? Currently? Prospectively? In general?

          I feel my argument hinges on whether the laws say “required to register” or “registered” (or similar). I’m thinking laws saying “required to register” mean that they apply the moment one is in the jurisdiction, but the RC is given some amount of hours or days to complete the administrative task. On the other hand, if the laws say, “registered” or “registered subject to such-and-such law” I would say one can escape their application until the admin task is completed. IOW, “required to register” implies “even if not yet or currently registered in this jurisdiction.”

          Well, once again I’ve done a fantastic job of counterpointing my own point! 🙂 (I gotta quite posting later at night.) Hmm..back to the drawing boards.

      • Will Allen


        I don’t think Registered people should allow compliance checks. Simply because normal people should never allow law enforcement (LE) to get near them, talk to them, or get assistance in any way. There is nothing good about allowing LE to be near you or on your property.

        I think all Registered people should put walls or fencing around their entire properties. If you can’t do that, then it is quite trivial to perhaps have a small deck/patio right in front of the front door and put a railing around it, with a gate. Make it 6 feet tall and keep it locked. Are they going to climb over it?!

        If that is not possible for some reason, I think a sign would be just fine. I don’t have any problem at all “advertising” that I hate LE and won’t help them. In fact, if all approx. 1 million people who are Registered would use the exact same sign, I think that alone would send a pretty nice message. And it is a message that needs to be sent loud and clear – you terrorists can have your Registries but they are only going to exist at the highest possible cost – of time, money, respect, concern, niceness, assistance, etc.

        How about a sign that says?: “No trespassing. If you have not explicitly been invited to be here then you are requested to leave immediately. If you do not, you are illegally trespassing. Do not approach this home. Do not knock on this door.”

        • AJ

          @Will Allen:
          I don’t think Registered people should allow compliance checks. Simply because normal people should never allow law enforcement (LE) to get near them, talk to them, or get assistance in any way. There is nothing good about allowing LE to be near you or on your property.
          I agree completely. However, LEOs have the exact same privilege “to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave” (FL v. Jardines; see also KY v. King) as anyone else. So yes, the only way to prevent someone–LEO or otherwise–from knocking on the door to your abode is to have some sort of barrier at some distance from said door. It really doesn’t take much, but I would certainly recommend whatever is used to be locked. Otherwise, I could easily see the argument made that the gate being unlocked indicated your were okay with someone entering, you just wanted them to enter your property at this specific spot (the gate). From my understanding, if there’s any barrier across the normal ingress/egress point (usually the driveway or a walk, according to SCOTUS), then entry is barred–by all, including UPS, Girl Scouts, proselytizers, Land Sharks (“Candygram…”), etc. For instance, suppose my property has a decorative split-rail fence extending along most the frontage, but the driveway is wide open. Were I to install a barrier of some type–even a chain from post to post and locked in place, entry is prohibited. Going over, around or through the split-rail fence would not meet what SCOTUS has said is an acceptable path. The point being that either nobody is allowed past your ingress point, or all are–even Thin Blue Liars.
          How about a sign that says?: “No trespassing. If you have not explicitly been invited to be here then you are requested to leave immediately. If you do not, you are illegally trespassing. Do not approach this home. Do not knock on this door.”
          The “No Trespassing” argument is one the courts have not yet fully resolved. A good write-up about it comes from the Volokh Conspiracy ( He links to a case from TN that was petitioned to SCOTUS–and denied ( Absent a physical barrier such as your and my examples, there’s no stopping entry.

          Personally, I feel that if the default societal norm is an invitation exists, then there must be some way for one to revoke said invitation…via a “No Trespassing” sign. I should not have to make a physical impediment, a curtilage fence, to achieve that revocation.
          That all said, it appears fans of the 4th Amdt. may have a friend in Neil Gorsuch; see: Note that this was written well before his recent dissent (smackdown on the other 8, really) in Carpenter. He comes across as HUGE proponent of the 4th being about keeping Government away from citizens’ and their stuff. Given the state of their world back then, I too think that’s what the Framers meant.
          Hand-in-hand with this, hopefully the third-party doctrine gets shot down in the near future.

        • Tim Moore

          What works good is “Beware of Dog” and fence the whole yard. Nothing is perfect. The attempt matters. I like the Mediterranean style property that fits this Latin climate with the wall around it and an inner oasis within. My outside is also part of my curtalage, because in this warm, dry climate we live a lot outside. There is no anglo/American “front yard.” We must attempt to be secure in our property no matter what SCOTUS says. Architecture and ladscaping must always serve the human need to protect and nurture the inhabitants. If we have to even get together, pool resources and build castles to live within then so be it. Registrants (and everyone) have a right under common tradition to create an environment where they can live in comfort and be unmolested.

        • Will Allen

          AJ and Tim Moore:

          I think the issue with the “No Trespassing” signs is that it is a sign that really is saying nothing more than “don’t break a law, specifically trespassing”. It is the same as having a sign that says “Do not steal”. A person coming to your front door is not trespassing.

          I would hope some type of sign would be effective in court. Surely a person can post signs that say perhaps “Do not enter this property. Do not approach the home. Do not knock on any door.”

          But of course a wall or fencing is best.

        • David

          I got tired of waiting and wondering when the Compliance Check LEOs would stop by and pound on my front door (because you know they never knocked politely). My yard now has a very large sign warning about my dogs and the driveway gate and fence walkway gate are now padlocked. So unless you climb over the 4 ft. fence you will not be able to come to my door.

  40. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Former Therapist Critiques Child Psychiatry”

    This may be off-topic but this guy offers some powerful insights into the “treatment” industry that has much in common with our own experiences in that milieu. Also, he found the way kids are patronized and stripped of all authority over themselves to be reprehensible.

  41. Bobby

    Hello Everyone, especially to those in Michigan

    I finally heard back from a Mrs Hernandez, from Michigan’s ACLU, to ask what is going on with Michigan’s Registry and the class action lawsuit. and this was her response back to me, its not much but at least it’s a little more then what I was getting from other ACLU People.

    Just to let you know the complaint as a class action complaint was filed yesterday, Thursday, June 28, 2018 at approximately 3:45 pm.  We are hoping that with this it will resolve or help resolve a lot of issues that so many people across the state are in.  Please watch the news and our website for any further development on this case.  

    My question is how long will this class action take, and when will we finally start to see things happen around here in Michigan. She wouldn’t answer my question about suing Michigan for damages.

  42. mike r

    Updated my site with all the new filings and link to Pacer which will tell us the moment the judge files decisions. Kind of cool. People can know as soon as I do any decisions or filings in my case. This is going to get interesting real fast as soon as the district judge Mendez issues his decision on the Partial Motion to Dismiss in my case…..Okay, back to physics. ; )

    • Witts End

      mike r,

      if one leaves the state and tells the state they are moving out of state and don’t know where but the state requires you to tell them your new address even though you may not have found one or if you don’t register in your new state how can the state you left arrest you for failure to register when your no longer under their jurisdiction? how can the state demand to know your new address when you haven’t even found a home but are looking? isn’t it extremely similar to being on probation/parole?

      • GRR

        US Marshall. When you cross state lines the feds take over if one is on the lam per say. Even if you are homeless you need to report to the local law enforcement in each state. IE every state is different but you need to report within 3 to 10 days (depending on the different state laws) upon arriving into the state. Once you do not report your new address to the state where you were registered in they notify the feds.

  43. mike r

    Updated my site with all the new filings and link to Pacer which will tell us the moment the judge files decisions. Kind of cool. People can know as soon as I do any decisions or filings in my case. This is going to get interesting real fast as soon as the district judge Mendez issues his decision on the Partial Motion to Dismiss in my case…..Okay, back to physics. ; )

  44. mike r

    I really like the ongoing conversations on the site lately. It is nice to see some great debating on some of the real issues and conversations with real substance happening. This kind of collaboration is what will help others fight this atrocity they call the registry and the status quo of always falling back on “save the children” cries. These political hacks always fall back on that lame a^$%$ exploitation of kids to further their agendas regardless of whether it is in the public interest or not.

  45. WTF?

    Here’s something to ponder……

    You file a SAILING plan with harbor master. Once you are in international waters, it seems to me you are free to port at any harbor. If they question, then take on supplies and head out to next destination. An ocean going craft is way cheaper than a house( $50- $200,000, depending on length and amenities) and you can hire a sailing master to teach you (my service buddy did it) for around $3000, And you can anchor in international waters and not be hassled. Most sailboats are electronic and one person can easily handle them. It is a nomadic life, but if you have S.S. it can be done. At least I suppose it could.

    • Mike G

      Sailing sounds like an interesting and exciting lifestyle, but…

      I read a story about the Coast Guard coming across an empty craft bobbing in the ocean. They determined that it belonged to a family of four, but the only thing found on deck was a bloody tampon belonging to the young teenage daughter. This was probably fiction, but how the heck would you defend yourselves against pirates or a group of horney drug runners?

      • WTF?

        Most sailors carry protection. You would also stay clear of areas of piracy, like east african coast. But the sailing community has the same types as land based. Criminals are everywhere, but the odds of running into them if you live a good life are slim.

    • mike r

      I thought about doing exactly that my friend. Could not do a damn thing. just sail around the gulf port wherever you want. Like you said what are they going to do? Nice sail boat is way cheaper then a house like you said. If I was single I probably would have already done it. Have to have a nice nest egg to live off of though or find odd jobs or learn how to catch tuna like them guys on TV who make a living doing it LOL….Sounds like a great way of life to me….

      • WTF?

        You can actually work from your craft. You can do an internet business from anywhere, and most harbors have wifi. Also, social security can be deposited in your acct., if eligible. I have been investigating doing an ebay style business.
        Another option is crewing on yacht, although that would probably require you to be off registry.
        I am throwing these ideas out there for singles or married without kids. A chance to take back your life and find peace.

  46. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    As a reminder, Michele Dauber is a professor at the Stanford Law School and successfully led the “Recall Judge Aaron Persky” movement. To erase any doubt about her level of rabidness, here is a Tweet from her yesterday: “Welp. Hope KC is ready for some protests in the stands pointed at the TV cameras when the white child rapist is on the mound. ” She is, of course, referring to Luke Heimlich who, at fifteen, fondled his six-year-old niece. I’d love to see a movement to chase her out of Stanford. It’s also interesting that she thinks his race is also pertinent but, apparently, not his age at the time. /

    • TS

      Yahoo cannot get it right either. He no longer has to register if I understand correctly because he has completed the sentence. They want to hang the moniker on him still. Dumbasses

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 *