ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at


General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments July 2018

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I sent email to PBS weekend newshour and suggested doing a report on the registry and it’s effects on individuals, families, and communities. I have offered to be the subject of an interview if they decide to move on my idea.
I will post any response here. Along those lines, and without knowing any possible parameters, let me know if anyone is willing to step forward and allow their story to be told.
I might be blowing in the wind, but considering we live in a hurricane anyway, what could it hurt.

Thank you,

Damn that is a long read I have to go through AJ…Definitely a good resource for when it comes time for appeal though that is for sure…So I was hitting up lawyers on AVVO and they are all telling me a judge has as long as they wish to respond to a motion to dismiss. They say the longer it takes the closer the case must be. Well it has been nearly two months now in my case and nearly four months since I filed my objections to the Magistrates F and D. Interesting…. ;l

I stumbled across a pending case in the Middle District of Alabama (Doe v. Marshall) that provides some help to anyone wishing to challenge marked ID/DL laws and/or reporting internet/email IDs. The document is an Opinion from the judge for the case, and he does a fantastic job of detailing how and why marked ID/DLs are compelled speech and how and why reporting Internet IDs is a 1st Amdt. issue. He nicely shreds the State’s arguments. I downloaded it from PACER* and posted it here:

*I discovered that while most things on PACER are $0.10/page (max $3.00/doc), Opinions are free!

Why isn’t. 1 amnd used to fight IML.?

Wow! Great find! It’s like a new fire has been lit under you lately with your new tools of research. Bravo!

The potential wins in this one are great. I love the stuff on identifiers, impeding family relationships, and right to free speech.

I am really disappointed though in the ruling granting dismissal of the irrebuttable-presumption argument and citing the horrid Connecticut DPS V Doe (2003). That DPS V Doe decision left wide open, and begged for a Substantive Due Process challenge that this defendant (unlike DPS V Doe) did not give up on. This judge should have left open the Substantive questions and not merely dismissed that it didn’t require procedural protection. Also, the plaintiff correctly argued that this is not similar to DPS V Doe because DPS V Doe had the only consequence being listing on a web site that reported no decision on dangerousness or inference that anyone was dangerous was being made. That is the opposite of what is happening in modern schemes where registration triggers restrictions that would only occur to someone that is dangerous. Big miss by the judge here.

One other interesting thing to point out after re-reading DPS V Doe again…one of the Justices filed a seperate opinion not only admitting it needed a substantive challenge, but also that it probably violated equal protection because the state did allow certain people to petition to get off of it but not others. That in itself demonstrates that those not on the exceptions list are inflicted with an irrebuttable-presumption while others aren’t.

For those interested in Doe v. Marshall, here’s the “Doc. # 51” that gets referenced a number of times in the document I linked above: (Once again, being an Opinion, it was free to download from PACER…though it did cost $0.10 to run a query to find the case.)

I have not read it, save for two paragraphs referenced in the later document. Enjoy!

Another interesting case, this time out of Maine. A RC sued saying SORA is a Bill of Attainder, which the lower court dismissed. On appeal, the ME Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration. In its Opinion, ME SC found ruled in Doe’s favor regarding two (inflicts punishment; without a judicial trial) of the three elements that decide a law is a BoA. What’s odd is they left the “easy” one for the inferior court to determine: applies specifically to named individuals or to identifiable members of a group. This would seem a no-brainer, and I suspect this case may end up being a win on the Bill of Attainder angle. Another first?

The case is Doe XLVI v. Anderson ( Doe XLVI! These Doe cases sure are piling up, aren’t they??

Thank you, AJ!!

Yep AJ, the registry has it’s numbered days and it is coming down my friend….One court after another and to think they have not even been hit with our reports and challenge to the Smith “frightening and high” recidivism rates. I bet Mendez is really putting some serious thought into what we have presented him.. That last objections were perfect and the judicial notice was icing on the cake………..No reasonable mind would come to any other conclusion that the registry is everything we said it was in my suit and BoA, punishment, substantive due process, frigging list goes on and on…..I bet involuntary servitude may even be a winner….We will see people, it will not be long now. It has been over two months since I filed my objections to the magistrates MTD and from all indications the longer it takes the closer and harder the case is to decide………….Two months is a long time for a MTD, especially that has already received a recommendation from a magistrate to grant…..

Mike r
Are you prose or do you have an attorney? Also were they suposed to remove you from the hate list based on the magistrates order? I’m just asking because I will be in court soon , just wandering how it could possibly play out for me as well.

You are just on fire with these finds lately!

I am particularly interested in this case it is referring to, but I cannot find it to read further:

The imposition of punishment without trial “violates fundamental constitutional principles” because it allows the legislature to “circumvent[] the judicial process.” Doe v. Weld, 954 F.Supp. 425, 430 (D. Mass. 1996)

Can you find that and provide it by chance?

I am curious how the entire registration scheme does not “circumvent the judicial process” not just by retroactively increasing burdens, but also by taking the power away from the judge to determine its need and duration, especially when that need and duration exceed the length of the judicially decided sentence, are not tailored to the individual, and are never review-able by the courts for modification.

@Chris F:
Doe v. Weld (

I haven’t read it, merely found it for you.

Thanks AJ!

It is an interesting read, even though only an opinion denying an injunction prior to a real hearing.

The quote “circumvent[] the judicial process.” which was the entire reason I wanted to see it, is of course not even from this text, but just re-quoted from another earlier court text. I am not sure why they don’t just give the real original origin and instead just another case that uses it.

Here is the section of the Doe V Weld that actually has the original reference:

2. Bills of Attainder
The prohibition against Bills of Attainder, Art I, sec. 10 cl. 1, forbids “[l]egislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a trial.” United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49, 85 S. Ct. 1707, 1714-15, 14 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1965). The assignment of a penalty to certain persons without trial violates fundamental constitutional principles because, in so doing, “the legislature … circumvent[s] the judicial process.” Artway *431 v. Attorney Gen. of New Jersey, 81 F.3d 1235, 1253 n. 15 (3rd Cir.1996); accord DeVeau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 160, 80 S. Ct. 1146, 1155, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1109 (1960); see also Nixon v. Admin. of Gen. Serv. et al., 433 U.S. 425, 480, 97 S. Ct. 2777, 2809, 53 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1977) (finding that the Bill of Attainder clause was prompted by “the fear that the legislature, in seeking to pander to the inflamed popular constituency, will find it expedient openly to assume the mantle of judge or worse still, lynch mob”).

So now I need to read this:

Oh, and after reading that case you linked for me, it is yet again a great example of how judges initially used the excuse that the “list” was only for police purpose and had many hoops to go through for a public person to see it on a need to know bases. A far far cry from where we are now and yet they won’t revisit this issue. Why make those observations at all if they weren’t a major determining factor in the judgement? Ugh.

(finding that the Bill of Attainder clause was prompted by “the fear that the legislature, in seeking to pander to the inflamed popular constituency, will find it expedient openly to assume the mantle of judge or worse still, lynch mob”).


That perfectly describes the driving motivation behind the continually escalating legislative efforts against former sex offenders. These laws are clearly Bills of Attainder, masquerading as civil regulatory laws by virtue of their false attribution of non-punitive intent, blessed with a dissembling wink and a nod by Kennedy and his fellow baboons in black pajamas.

@Chris F:
I am not sure why they don’t just give the real original origin and instead just another case that uses it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s done to make the cited case law “stronger” by showing it remains valid and and in use. Each case builds upon the earlier pieces used…kind of like “frightening and high.” 🙁 Indeed, few quote the original case (McKune v. Lile) where Kennedy said that, instead citing Smith, for greater effect.

This is a personal health question.

1st, no previous history of anxiety or depression (at least not diagnosed). Now, pretty much daily depression and quit often at least 1 anxiety attack( mild) a day. It centers around my inability to progress in my self employment. I gave up answering offers and applying, since you all know what happens in the course of that. Especially since my profession puts me in front of people.
It is a day to day struggle that is getting worse. I often have suicidal thoughts 3 – 4 times a day. I struggle to make rent and pay even basic bills.
It has been 4 yrs of this and it has worn me down to a point where I wake up shaking and find myself wanting to cry.
I some how pull myself through the day, but don’t know how much longer I can do this.
I work out in my apartment, am a vegitarian so my diet is o.k , and I take a rescue dog for long walks in hills, watch ALOT of t..v. , and meditate.
I want to get past this because I know in my heart life has some plan for me. I am better than this. I isolate only because no money to go out, even to drive somewhere close.
I remember every time I have had a conversation with someone I used to know. Twice in 4 yrs, and it was same person for maybe 3 minutes in passing.
I have talents, am very intelligent with a high I.Q., and want to succeed in the life I have left.
What can I do? I am not equipped mentally at this point to be homeless. I will give up completely.
Any input is appreciated. This is an honest cry for help. I have helped so many people throughout my life, it is difficult to reach out for my own needs.


Hey! Wtf I’m here for you ! Don’t let these things in life get to you ! Ive been homeless ! And some billionaires too ! Your life has meaning and value ! Major thing I found out about life is ironic e.g..such as born alone die alone but on the other hand we are never alone, for all our human brothers/sisters go through trials also ! Well, we all need a friend now and then ! People love and have thoughts about us we never realize all the time ! Let greater spiritual bread/truth and enlightenment fill you up with life and energy…. draw life strength from new and unknown sources ok ! Let the world be your family! Many people are in much worse situations and conditions and pain and sorrow! Now I’m not dismissing or ignoring etc. Your problems…. just want to empower you and make you see bigger picture ! Be strong and courageous! Take heart ! No matter what ! we can face tomorrow! We are the real salt of the earth and life ! Its

@ “WTF?”: Friend, please listen because I think it will help you: my number one suggestion is for you to go to a local clinic or mental health department, make an appointment, talk to someone and get on meds. Yes, really. They will help a lot. I don’t know where you are, but here in Southern California, probably 25% of folks are on something for depression, anxiety, etc. Meds have improved a great deal in the past 20 years and some have no negative side effects at all. I work in a social services field and I know what I’m talking about. Also, you can’t always pick yourself up just by sheer force of will. It doesn’t work that way and can make things worse. Please find a counselor/therapist to talk to and get yiurself on some meds (even mild ones like Wellbutrin can help a lot). Even if you are not keen on meds, try them. If you don’t like them, just stop taking them. But at least try them before you say “No”.
Yes, you are right, you ARE better than this [crap they have dumped on all of us].
As for employment, when I first got out of prison, I made use of my State’s Employment Development Department to find a job. There was a woman there who specialized in “tough cases” (primarily, former
Incarcerated people) and eventually, after a couple notable rejections and 4 – 5 months of looking, I got a decent job with a great small company. The company’s management treated me very fairly and never once asked about my background. (The company was a wholesaler, so I did not deal with the public at all – only with retail customers who only wanted good service, accurate order taking, timely deliveries and good prices. If I could provide those things, I could have been bright purple with three eyes and they wouldn’t have cared!)
It will also help your mood just to get out and interact with people. Go to the local library and ask the librarian to help you find information on 6th Century Chinese pottery …. or whatever may interest you. But the information is secondary – your primary goal is just to chat with someone, whether it’s the local reference librarian, the cashier at Target, or whoever. Hell, go to a local diner in the slow mid-afternoon and strike up a friendly conversation with a bored waitress! Interview her: “Have you lived here long?”, “Do you like the area?”, “I’m new to the area, can you recommend …. a good car mechanic…barber shop…. shoe repair store?” Just to get out and be around people. Maybe attend a City Council meetings or check out the Meet-Up” app for local interest groups like chess, politics, movie nights, etc. Just being out and around people really helps my mood. You might also consider volunteering at your local animal shelter. While working with the animals, you can also chat with other volunteers and shelter personnel. They frequently “hate humans”, but if you’re one of them, you’re the okay sort. (It’s neglectful and abusive pet-owners they hate.)
So I hope this helps. Please try these things – I know they will help.

David and WTF
Such great advice even though a bit harsh sounding but I completely agree! Go out, see a doctor and get some form of antidepressant/mood stabilizer. The best revenge is not letting them destroy your life because that is what they want to do and under this Trump regime it is a trickle down effect so you are NOT alone.
Ask yourself how do you think all these people like Michael Cohen etc feel? Look how one by one the mighty fall to a level below ours. The higher you are the greater the pain.
I foster animals so I don’t over-dwell on my own misfortune which is due to Dean Skelos and Laura Ahearne’s defunct Suffolk County PMFL. Skelos is going to jail for 5 very nice years and PMFL has changed it’s name due to a possible bad publicity fall out of her close ties to a Felon Dean Skelos.

Just saw that Republicans are going for Impeachment of Rod Rosenstein. We are in a Fascist state run by the Trump Party. Hang on it’ll get worse but then much better.

“Ask yourself how do you think all these people like Michael Cohen etc feel? Look how one by one the mighty fall to a level below ours.”

I don’t think there is a level below ours.

Question for the day

if the registry is civil and not like probation then why does the length of registration follow you across state lines from the original state you were sentenced in? (every state is different).

how is that even legal

and they can’t say that’s what you were sentenced to cause they change that at the whim

has there ever been a case at the high courts or men wearing fancy black dresses where the length of time on registration changed after the plea agreement? I’m thinking there was

Hey ! WTF….. be strong and courageous! We are the salt of the earth ! You are loved and thought of more than you realize ! Life is not always to the strongest or fastest , but to those that endure ! Everyone has trials ! You know many in this world suffer greater and are worse than us ! We can show the world ….! We are the REAL SURVIVORS ! There is a greater plan and purpose for all our lives ! We must believe in the greater good to humanity ! We are a part of life ! Everyone has a role to play ! Feel free to say hi anytime! Sincerely……


Things can be tough, and stress over things that you have no control over is draining. One thing that I have recently been trying to work on in my own life is this idea that happiness is to be found if I can just get this or that thing. If I can just get off this registry, or move to a place where I’m not considered a 2nd class citizen, then I’ll be happy. I think that’s a wrong way to look at life. I think that even people who are not on the registry spend their lives thinking that happiness is just around the next corner if they can just get X. You fill in whatever in the X. I have been trying to concentrate on being thankful now for what I do have, and for my life where it is right now. Contentment is a hard thing. I’m not saying you should be satisfied, or never reach forward for a solution, or to better yourself, but I think we’re lying to ourselves if we think that getting what we want is a solution to our entire life’s problems. One thing you can console yourself with is that suffering is only for a season. That at some point you’ll feel better, just as each day sometimes we feel better and sometimes we feel worse, life if just like that. I have though of ending it all several times before too, but later after that has passed I have realized how stupid it was to think that.

Honestly I don’t think you’re alone in feeling lonely and isolated in this world. Even people not on the registry are experiencing that more that ever. We live in a very detached and divided nation. I think it’s helpful to not watch too much news or get involved in too much political stuff. One thing you might do is get a bible and start reading and praying asking and seeking God to guide you in how to look at life. At least that’s my advice for you, take it or leave it.

Amen, Steveo. Thanks for that post. You are spot on.

Check it out, this is what I am hitting the CA AG up with tomorrow…She is going to like this I can tell you that.. Make her work a little….

That will be great to get in advance, since there isn’t anything out there he can use other than the stuff that has been debunked or refers to Canada stuff that isn’t remotely similar.

I guess once you have it, do you create some sort of document in advance of the hearing asking the judge not to allow such and such for X number of reasons?

Well Chris, if she comes up with anything she is going to have a high hurdle once again based on the following RFAs that I am about to be asking as well. She will be contradiction the statements in her own supporting doc. And yes, whatever she brings I can object to. I will object to any negative academia and especially if she tries to claim under reporting and comparative recidivism rates which I will claim is all irrelevant since the state does not use any of that info before placing a individual on the registry. Any under reporting is hearsay, stats by proxy interviews, and rely completely on self reporting so none of it can be reasonably relied upon by the court.
5. that Defendant does not have any specific information to contradict the statements in the Defendant’s own supporting declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (see, ECF No. 8) page 16 which states that, “A closer look at the scholarly research reveals that almost all studies show a relatively low recidivism rate for sex offenses as opposed to other crimes”;

What the h)(*&*^ is this statement in that case?
“Although we agreed in State v. Letalien that the constitutionality of the retroactive application of
SORNA “depends on a facial examination of the statute, and not on an as applied analysis,”
They still struck it but that statement in a footnote is disturbing….

I like this. Courts are finally doing their jobs and not just deferring to the incompetent and demagoguery of the legislators…
[¶14] A law imposes punishment for bill of attainder purposes if it is
motivated by a legislative intent to punish, does not serve any legitimate
nonpunitive purpose, or results in a deprivation of protected liberties that falls
within the historical meaning of legislative punishment.

That statement “does not serve any legitimate non-punitive purpose.” I wonder what was presented in that case as evidence for such a conclusion or if they are just going off of what the court already ruled. That is a powerful statement right there, and it is fact….Love it so far…

I suspect the issue here is very narrow in the sense that the legislature passed a law after the fact aimed specifically at him because he fell through the cracks, as they say. Since the court had already decided the registry was punishment, then the bill of attainder was trying to punish him. But let’s not confuse that with their current registry, which is not punishment after it was fixed by the legislature. That’s my reading, anyway. Could be wrong.

“Virginia man sentenced to 23 years in prison for traveling to Haiti and engaging in illicit sexual conduct” “Arbaugh admitted that in 2016, while in Haiti, he engaged in illicit sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12 by touching the minor’s genitals under the minor’s clothing.” “This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse…”

It never ceases to amaze me that you can get more time for touching someone than killing someone. I have a relative who was sentenced to less than half of that for driving drunk and killing someone.

This is exactly the kind of case that instills fear in ignorant people and ruins travel (for the most part) of all us.

When America telegraphs her intentions through the performance art (that is what it is, right?) of Alex Jones who threatens to shoot “pedophile” Robert Mueller… “Jones’ nearly 3-hour July 23 InfoWars broadcast ranged from rants about Hollywood pedophilia to social media “shadow bans” (and apparently he shares our dislike of Mark Zuckerberg) to outlandish allegations Mueller was personally involved in a child sex ring composed of left-leaning political figures. “”It’s going to happen, we’re going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he’s going to find out whether he makes a move, man make the move first, and then it’s going to happen,” Jones said as he pantomimed shooting at Mueller.

“It’s not a joke. It’s not a game. It’s the real world. Politically. You’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We’re going to bang heads,” Jones continued, pretending to fire a gun at Mueller.” Shoot, I guess, just embrace the new discourse, I suppose.

Here’s a New Jersey court case about a 14 year old boy “Alex” accused of sexual assault of 7 year old “John”. The case shows how idiotic NJ prosecutors are.

New Jersey in the Interest of A.R.

Interesting article from Reason on requiring Government permission to live our lives. Tell me about it 🙄.

So the government made a law targeting an easily identifiable group of people, those in debt for a particular issue, and puts a liability on them (denial of some license) that is unrelated to the license.

That’s the definition of Bill of Attainder as far as I can tell. Not constitutional.

For those that like to read cases with solid arguments against registration, I recommend this one that I mentioned above after following some cases AJ helped me find:

It is from 1995, so way before Smith V Doe and Connecticut DPS V Doe became the new precedent.

It is interesting to read not only because it is mostly rational, but also because it does a good job of explaining law and the reasoning behind decisions as well as defining some legal jargon that most of us would otherwise not understand.

It is a good resource of the cases prior to Smith V Doe that should probably be referenced in any chances to overturn it. It also touches on recidivism and the claims on both sides, but unfortunately fails to look into any of it as it deems it unnecessary as it already reaches the conclusion that public registration is punishment any way you look at it. It even goes over the martinez-mendoza factors and shows how overwhelming they are toward proving the registry punitive both regardless of intent, and spells out how it is even somewhat intentionally punitive.

It’s a good read for how to fight future and present demons using past logic. It is just a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the registration requirement of Megan’s Law in the NJ US District federal court, but still very relevant.

So just wondering if anyone has any advice. I have tried calling and emailing Janice but I am sure she is extremely busy. So someone has taken my Megan’s law page, taken a screenshot of it and posted it all over facebook. He has stated the wrong information about the details of the case. Also, has said what I do for work, I am self-employed. He has also posted my mother in laws name, where she works, and where she can be found. He has also stated that I have wife and kids and that we are all one sick family. He has encouraged ones to get me out of the neighborhood. Some of the comments even say that since they have the address they are going to find me and murder me, stab me etc. This is very concerning since my photo and address are posted in plain view. He also talks about our church and where I can be found. He states that everyone is hiding it and letting me be around children which is the furthest thing from the truth. I tried reporting it to facebook as well as some other family. I have also filed a police report. Anything else that I can do. It shocks me to think that citizens, elected officials, cannot see how the registry promotes violence and vigilante justice. How can I protect my wife and two small children from persons like this that have the upper hand? The fact that this goes on, and I am sure I am not the only one, is truly gut-wrenching. We believe we know who it is since he is able to know details about other family members that is in no way linked to the registry. I have printed out and saved all the posts so at least I have proof. If something does happen maybe my wife can be taken care of from some settlement from a legal case brought for Facebooks negligence and promotion of violence…… Thanks for any encouragement or advice on further steps.

” How can I protect my wife and two small children from persons like this that have the upper hand?”

First, be sure to get full screen shots of everything you are talking about before it is deleted. Get the URL and time and dates in the screenshot whenever possible. You don’t say what your Megan’s law page is, but if you have copyrighted material there, your own original writings or pictures, then you can request a take down with the Internet Provider host where the copycat posted you stuff. There are web sites that explain how to do this. Point out the threats, too. If you do a whois of the sites where your stuff and the threats are posted, there should be an abuse email address you can email to. Again, Google is your friend for the howto.

If you only have misdemeanor convictions and aren’t on probation, buy a gun.

Hey if they physically threatened you something needs to happen more than a simple police report in this day and age. Call the FBI, this is no joke if someones makes basically terrorist threats it sounds like to me. Threaten everyone of the officials that do not want to do their jobs that if something happens to you or your family they are in a world of shit….What the hell did the cops say. That is all we can do is make a report??? No No I do not care who you are someone is threatening your life there is an issue that has to be addressed. Remind them of the vigilante attacks around the country, I bet they do something then….They can certainly track the person by the ISP or whatever i am sure…

You may want to contact Zucerburg the Facebook owner, you can also report his information as abusive, also I would contact the law enforcement agencies that handle your reg in your area, i remember when Facebook first came out, there were software engines you could download to get someone’s Facebook password and stuff, it’s not hacking so it’s not illegal of corse this guy is doing something illegal, just do a wed search and see what you come up with, I would delete his account lol

I did report him on facebook. They emailed me back this afternoon and said they reviewed everything and it does not conflict with their standards so they are leaving it alone. I am sorry but allowing someone to flood the Facebook realm with someone’s information inciting violence with threats of stabbing me and listing my wife, kids, and mother in law………how can that be acceptable. Also, I did file a police report. Supposedly they will call with 4 days. On do day 3 tomorrow. He is still posting saw another one today that he did last night. And they say the registration isn’t punishment. They haven’t lived it.

Dear JC:

I wrote this yesterday evening…it got marked as spam for some reason…or that’s what it said when I tried to edit it…since I did put some work into this…I’ll try to post again, (editing out one link I had inserted for you)


Are you in California? The laws in CA might allow you to get a restraining order…though prior restraint on speech is always difficult…but an order keeping him one hundred yards away from you and your kids and your mother in law might be helpful.

Since this is all already pretty public…dragging his sorry ass into court on a restraining order might be useful and/or fun regardless of the outcome…make him explain himself to the court.

Lastly, what you are describing to us, to me, seriously, seriously, sounds like terrorist threats, again useful for a restraining order, but also for criminal prosecution…I would push this with the police hard.

I found through a quick Google this website, (I’m not endorsing, this is just for informational purposes):

(edited out)

Further for your reference:

PC 422. Unlawful threat to commit crime

(a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
(b) For purposes of this section, “immediate family” means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
(c) “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.


I would, again, press this with the police…then the civil courts on your own, then your local prosecutor or DA, then, maybe your local public defenders office.

Your problem is quite serious…one caution, this criminal that your are having trouble with may well derive joy and satisfaction from you going after him…he gets noticed, he gets personal validation for his sorry, sick life….but I still think you’ve got to do something about this.

Good luck,

Best Wishes, James

I think these RFAs are going to be interesting in how the AG plays it. I think this can be devastating for the AG if she has to admit or deny with evidence. If she admits it is not going to look to good for their side….
1. that the California legislature did not specifically consider any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sex offender recidivism rate data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290.46;
2. that the California legislature did not specifically consider the efficacy (the term efficacy used here is defined as the ability to produce a desired or intended result) of the California Megan’s Law Website during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290.46;
3. that the California legislature did not specifically consider any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sex offender recidivism rate data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290 et. seq.;
4. that the California legislature did not specifically consider the efficacy (the term efficacy used here is defined as the ability to produce a desired or intended result) of public notification of sex offender registration data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290 et. seq.;

“that the California legislature did not specifically consider”

I think the AG will simply respond that what legislation did or didn’t do for research or debate is something he/she has no idea about and was not involved with so can’t comment on.

Probably right Chris…..Although she did include a legislative report in support of her MTD so I really see no reason or excuse for her to not be able to have her minions research the asked questions and make an informative statement. Listen to what her supporting doc starts out with.

“I am a librarian for the California Office of the Attorney General in Sacramento. I have been trained and am familiar with our offices methods for researching and compiling legislative histories. My job duties regularly include collecting legislative history material for attorneys in this office. I am also custodian of the records retained in the libraries files, including legislative histories compiled by our office’s trained librarians.”

Trained librarians in our office regularly compile legislative histories when requested 2 to do so by attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office. These librarians compile legislative 3 histories of California statutes from the entire history pertaining to the statute as presented, 4 chaptered, and archived by the California Secretary of State, California Legislative Counsel, and 5 other sources of legislative history. After a legislative history has been complied, we add it to our 6 collection of legislative histories, and retain it in the library’s files. 7 4. The legislative histories are compiled from the entire archival history pertaining to the 8 statute as presented and chaptered.

Kind of hard to claim you cannot answer my questions with a supporting doc like that…..

Yeah after thinking about it a little more she has no choice but to answer and either admit or deny with supporting evidence. I cannot see the judge not forcing her to answer if I have to file a motion to compel, and I bet the judge will not be happy that she has wasted the courts time and mine. She can be sanctioned and I am sure other stuff if she is uncooperative and elusive in her answers.

If she admits and this is correct it only bolsters if not seals the arbitrary issue, also it will kind of look as though the legislature had other reasons in mind for enacting these laws besides public safety………That is how I am seeing it and how I will argue it…I wonder how many laws are passed without the legislature considering fact finding at all?

Does anyone have an opinion on if the new law classifies one a Tier 2 or Tier 1 does that mean at this time the registrant is still currently considered a registrant for life until the DOJ issues the Tiers?

To answer my own question, it is for life until that section is repealed on Jan 1, 2021.

It’s still for life. The tier won’t matter. A judge has to let you go. How many judges do you think will take a chance on allowing relief from this cash cow/torture scheme/lie? Here’s a clue: Ask Judge Persky. Don’t get your hopes up. Your odds of relief are extremely low. The whole entire tiered registry was a complete scam.

Does anyone know anything about what’s going on in Nevada — specifically, is the enactment of the AWA being challenged?

Brick Turner’s lawyer is appealing the sex assualt conviction on the basis that it was outercourse, not intercourse. Essentially saying that he was attempting the assault while fully clothed, ergo penetration was impossible, ergo no rape. I wish I could have afforded this guy for my legal defense. Money goes along way and his appeal can keep him off registry for many years.

Two amici curiae were filed today in the Millard case. They can be accessed at the following links:
17 scholars who study sex offenses:

One line from “17 scholars” made me chuckle: “even a properly computed average re-offense risk across all registrants is no more likely to fit the individual registrant than would a shoe of the group’s average size.” How true and spot on!

Later in the same document, they mention, “Minnesota’s website lists only 3.1% of its registrants.” Sounds like anyone wanting to escape public listing should be moving to the Great White North. Of course those in FL, NY, etc. won’t get relief since they’ll still be trapped on their former states’ registries.

I like it. Kind of weak with all the academia but still powerful I guess. This will be a good addition to cite if need arises…At least they touch on under reporting and studies use of only high risk offenders to skew the actual rates. Overall better than any other case has brought to date that I know of….

Which one are you saying is weak?

@mike r:
I respectfully disagree as to weakness, at least in regards to the 17 Scholars paper. They did a very good job of essentially saying, “SCOTUS F’d up big time.” I’m especially glad to see Dr. Hanson (yes, he does have a Ph.D., contrary to what others on here have said) himself as one of the scholars. Regardless of what one thinks of the Static 99R, it’s the standard the States all use, so having its creator chime in on things can only help. It’s a wide, varied panel of scholars, including “fan favorites” Catherine Carpenter, Ira Ellman, Jill Levenson, and Wayne Logan.

Your right, it is nice to finally see someone using the Gov’s own sources against them. Hanson specifically and how he states we are less likely to offend than others at a certain date. It does definitely bolsters the argument and it is really great to see someone finally challenging the FU from SCOTUS.

This is my third time to try to comment on this. I just want to say thanks to AJ for posting the briefs. I’ve read them both. I think the 17 Scholars brief is particularly valuable.

Karl Hanson having a PhD has never been in dispute. From WHERE exactly Hanson was conferred his PhD… who know? No public resumé (at least from a simple Google search) shows what institution conferred Hanson’s degree.

It is the fact that Karl Hanson *isn’t* a licensed psychologist in the United States that has people worried. Repeat: Karl Harnson is *not* a licensed psychologist in the United States. Add to that, the fact that Karl Hanson is not bound by APA Code of Ethics, requiring him to release the Static-99R’s “secret” data, that has some people worried. How can these “fan favorite experts” trust a “tool” that, not only lacks sample representativeness but, has little transparency?

The Static-99R is insanity — pushed by Kool Aid drinkers, conflicts of interests, questionable statistical methodology — veiled under “trade secret.” If it doesn’t even seem to work well with SVPs… why use it on *all* RSOs? This is logically flawed. And quite simply, foolish.

…Karl Hanson *isn’t* a licensed psychologist in the United States…
His not being licensed with the APA doesn’t matter one bit…to the APA, of all groups and people. (Were he to try to practice psychology in the US, it would be a whole different story.)
I suggest you visit and pay particular attention to Part A, paragraphs 3 and 6.
From WHERE exactly Hanson was conferred his PhD… who know? No public resumé (at least from a simple Google search) shows what institution conferred Hanson’s degree.
You really need to improve your search-engine skills. In my “simple Google search” I managed to find his LinkedIn profile showing his Ph.D. was conferred by the University of Waterloo, and prior to that his B.A. was from Simon Fraser University.

That same search yielded a link to a document on the EFF’s website. Said document is a declaration to the District Court for the Northern District of California (case number 3:12-cv-05713, “Doe v. Harris”), where Dr. Hanson states, under penalty of perjury, that, “I earned my Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Waterloo in 1986, and my B.A. with honors in Psychology from Simon Fraser University in 1981.” He also mentions in this declaration that at the time (11/3/2012) he was “serving as the advisor to the DSM-V Sexual Disorders Workgroup of the American Psychiatric Association (2009-present).” (How *dare* the APA use a non-APA-licensed psychologist as an advisor!) Later in the declaration, he states he “completed a one-year post-doctoral A.P.A./C.P.A. approved internship at the Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba in 85/86.” (Catch that? APA approved.)

In short, I say good luck impeaching him, or his work, in any court in the United States.
If it doesn’t even seem to work well with SVPs… why use it on *all* RSOs? This is logically flawed. And quite simply, foolish.
Because the Government doesn’t give one flying f*ck how well it works or how many it ensnares.
Given the public’s hysteria over all things RC, the more they catch, they better. This should not be a surprise. Are you really so naive as to think the Government is going to apply logic when a “big hammer” suits their desires?
As to the rest of your post…

First, I have no opinion one way or the other about the Static 99R, as I’ve not been subjected to it.
Regardless of one’s thoughts or feelings about it, it’s the rules by which the Government plays.

Indulge me a little bit, please. What good does ranting and raving about Dr. Hanson’s qualifications and testing methods do if all your opponents and potential supporters rely upon it as useful and valid?
Personally, I would rather take him and his info–even if he and it are total BS–and leverage it against my opponents and let my potential supporters use it as leverage as well.

Picture this: you go into court and manage to get Dr. Hanson and the S99R declared useless. Now what? How does that in any way help you against the State and its “regulatory scheme”? However, if one can instead say to a court that Dr. Hanson and his S99R data are the bee’s knees and get the court to agree, his data showing the precipitous drop in recidivism–for even high scoring offenders–*does* have potential to help against the State and its “regulatory scheme.” (“Your honor, the State is absolutely correct to rely on Dr. Hanson and his data….*all* his data. I now direct your attention to the chart showing I am below the “out of the blue” rate.”)

Furthermore, even if Dr. Hanson never releases any data about the S99R, it has survived cross-validation. That alone makes it acceptable among psychologists worldwide…including ones licensed in U.S.

So go ahead and fight Dr. Hanson, the APA, the States, the courts, and every entity in the U.S. that uses Dr. Hanson’s data. Meanwhile, I’ll be elsewhere trying to apply jiu jitsu to it.

I’m sure you’ll rant again in reply with the same, tired lines…

“(“Your honor, the State is absolutely correct to rely on Dr. Hanson and his data….*all* his data. I now direct your attention to the chart showing I am below the “out of the blue” rate.”) ”

The risk assessment table on the California Megan’s Law website gives the current risk levels associated with score and years clean. The Coding Rules say years clean and score is to be used for risk assessment.


“Procedural Justice and Risk-Assessment Algorithms”

The title of this post is the title of this article recently posted to SSRN and authored by A.J. Wang. Here is the abstract:

Statistical algorithms are increasingly used in the criminal justice system. Much of the recent scholarship on the use of these algorithms have focused on their “fairness,” typically defined as accuracy across groups like race or gender. This project draws on the procedural justice literature to raise a separate concern: does the use of algorithms damage the perceived fairness and legitimacy of the criminal justice system?

Through three original survey experiments on a nationally-representative sample, it shows that the public strongly disfavors algorithms as a matter of fairness, policy, and legitimacy. While respondents generally believe algorithms to be less accurate than either psychologists or statutory guidelines, accuracy alone does not explain their preferences. Creating “transparent” algorithms helps but is not enough to make algorithms desirable in their own right. Both surprising and troubling, members of the public seem more willing to tolerate disparate outcomes when they stem from an algorithm than a psychologist.

Firstly, good job on finding where Karl Hanson went to school. I concede that I was not able to find Hanson’s alma mater.

So Karl Hanson went to school at University of Waterloo and Simon Fraser University. As of recent, Karl Hanson did his Static-99R “research” from a Canadian school called “Carelton University” (not to be confused with Minnesota’s top-ranked Carleton College).

Second, your implication that individual psychologists and researchers are “licensed with the APA” told me all I need to know. Individual psychologists are licensed by each state (not the APA), with the APA Ethics Code governing each psychologist’s conduct. Furthermore, the First Street Accord refers to accreditation of doctoral and internship programs. Specifically, the First Street Accord addresses “mutual recognition of accreditation and quality assurance for psychology doctoral and internship programs” between the United States and Canada. The First Street Accord does *not* specifically address APA Ethics Code reciprocity.

But even IF the First Street Accord addresses reciprocity of the APA’s Code of Ethics, then why are there documented cases of Hanson not releasing the Static-99R’s underlying data from which the 10 “risk factors” were originally derived? Why all the road blocks, stall tactics, and dishonesty from Karl Hanson’s Static-99 team? I read from another post that the exporting of government-funded research to Canada might have been intentional. Did the government specifically choose to export its sex offender Static-99R “research” to circumvent Code of Ethics, Section 8.14 that requires data transparency?

In case you missed the other recent post, the original Static-99 exaggerated SVP recidivism by 500% to 600%. Is even a 500% exaggeration acceptable to you when so many “experts” have declared the Static-99 tests to be accurate? Are you telling me that an “age at release” adjustment in the “revised” version, not an adjustment for *current age*, will yield significantly better results? Are you telling me that even when the original Static-99 failed miserably with SVPs, that the revised version — in light of a -3 to 1 point “adjustment” — is going to be any better when used on regular, arguably less serious, RSOs? If so, then I have some Arizona beachfront property to sell you.

As for your inquiry to “[w]hat good does ranting and raving about Dr. Hanson’s qualifications and testing methods do:” I think you answered it in your own post — “the Government doesn’t give one flying f*ck how well it works or how many it ensnares … [a]re you really so naive as to think the Government is going to apply logic when a ‘big hammer’ suits their desires?”

My answer: We could all be fighting for complete truth. Truth is a disinfectant. When “fan favorite experts” push the Static-99R, do you not see the irony (and hypocrisy) that the very same people who attack SCOTUS’ fictitious Smith v. Doe statistic are using bogus sets of highly misleading “static” statistics to villainize another group (in this case “high” risk sex offenders)?

Sadly, everyone but a few smart people seem to be missing the obvious point. People are not “static.” The Static-99R’s risk factors are focused on 10 questions collected at time of release. The Static-99R is not dynamic. And even IF the Static-99R were dynamic, it does not specify dangerousness. Nor does the Static-99R even claim to predict the type and/or severity of crime that MIGHT be committed in the future. Even at its best, the Static-99R is literally 50% chance at the “highest” score levels. Everyone, as well as their *past* crime, is just lumped into a big pile of shit. This is literally a textbook example of “garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO). And the 10 risk factors? They were originally derived from a “particularly violent” group of UK and Canadian (not American) offenders from the 1970s! This is probably why the data is kept secret.

I’ll leave you with one George Orwell quote: “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

Open your eyes!! Open your minds!! We are being duped once again!!

BTW, here is the complete text of the First Street Accord that addresses recognition of Doctoral and Internship programs; it does not address APA Ethics Code:

good job on finding where Karl Hanson went to school. I concede that I was not able to find Hanson’s alma mater.
I’m stumped how you couldn’t have found it with your own “simple Google search.” I used “R. Karl Hanson” (unquoted) as my search criteria. The LinkedIn result was the sixth one listed on page 1, and the EFF document was the eighth one listed on page 2.
your implication that individual psychologists and researchers are “licensed with the APA” told me all I need to know.
Then why did you continue your post? I implied nothing, but admit that I did misspeak. I have been, and am, fully aware that licensing is done by State bodies. But tell me, what does it matter whether a research psychologist is licensed for clinical practice in the U.S.? Does that all of the sudden make his research and knowledge useless or worthless? (The APA apparently doesn’t think so, since they enlisted him for DSM-V work.) If so, I suggest being careful whenever encountering a motor vehicle with a Canadian license plate, because the operater probably is not licensed in the U.S.! I guess you’d also better not ever fly in an airplane other than a Boeing, as Airbus and Embraer engineers are not licensed in the U.S.
the First Street Accord refers to accreditation of doctoral and internship programs.
I know what the First Street Accord addresses…I’m the one who referred you to it, remember? But explain to me why the APA would engage in such an accord if they felt another country’s standards aren’t up to snuff? If the APA feels the training Dr. Hanson got was worth accreditation, who am I to disagree? I must not be one of the “few smart people.”
We could all be fighting for complete truth.
We sure could be. Good luck with that happening. Would you have 100% of us suffer under this horrible scheme until 100% of us are of it? If so, I sure hope you’re not in charge if I’m ever in a burning building or sinking ship. You go ahead and wait for everything to be 100% in place. Me, I’ll chip away at 80% of it, then 80% of the remainder, then 80% of that remainder, etc.

Since you seem to like quotes, here’s one from Donald Rumsfeld: “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
In case you missed the other recent post, the original Static-99 exaggerated SVP recidivism by 500% to 600%.
Nope, didn’t miss it. I read it. There are definitely some interesting data and findings. Unfortunately, the data and methods cannot be studied or peer-reviewed, nor can it be. It may–or may not–have proven to be incredibly useful.
What’s funny is you’re willing to take a paper about a study (which supports your “side”), for which the data has been lost/destroyed, as gospel, yet refuse to accept a peer-reviewed testing method (which supports the “other side”). Nothing like being subjectively biased.
everyone but a few smart people seem to be missing the obvious point.
Who are these “few smart people”? Please enlighten me with a short list of examples. Given it’s only a “few”, you may well be able to provide the whole list. Does this group of few include you by chance?
I am more than willing to agree States are misusing the Static 99R and its data–and am also on board they may be doing so maliciously. However, that in no way means the Static 99R itself is worthless or useless, anymore than trying to use a hammer on a screw means a hammer is useless. This brings me to a point you glossed over: the Static 99R has been cross validated. His keeping his research and data secret may be odd or frowned upon, but apparently the results are such that it and he are accepted as valid. By the way, if they’re secret, how can you state with absolute certainty that it’s comprised of “bogus sets of highly misleading “static” statistics”? Why not submit your non-bogus sets of statistics to the world for review and cross-validation so the Static 99R can be taken down once and for all? Also, do you really think an opposing party in a court case would just let some Canuck researcher shrink testify in court if he were impeachable by bringing in a rep from the APA or a state-licensed psychologist? Yet, to my knowledge, it’s never happened. If you know otherwise, please share.
In sum, you can rightly attack the Government’s misuse of the Static 99R all day long. Heck, I’ll even be right there with you. But Government misapplication of a peer-validated psychology tool does not render that tool globally useless, nor does it render its creator a quack. Don’t blame Craftsman when your hammer won’t drive a screw…

“By the way, if they’re secret, how can you state with absolute certainty that it’s comprised of ‘bogus’ sets of highly misleading ‘static’ statistics?”


The Static-99R is bogus because at the end of the day, no matter the argument you put forward, 10 questions cannot predict the future. Not especially on an individualized basis. And certainly not five+ years into the future. People are much more complex than 10 simple “risk factors.” 10 “test” questions cannot define your destiny. Humans have free will — and this is a fact that the “static” completely ignores. With the Static-99R, you are quite literally reducing people to a number. It doesn’t take one of the “fan favorite experts” to see this bs.

If you look at the “reviews and cross-validations” of the Static-99R, with particular attention to all footnotes and cited references, you’d note that they overwhelmingly rely on citation of Karl Hanson – and/or one (or more) of his fellow Static-99 developers – as source(s) for “validating” the Static-99R. The other developers whose names appear as primary/secondary/tertiary sources are Amy Phenix, Yolanda Fernandez, Andrew Harris, Maaike Helmus, and David Thornton. More recent “cross-validations” include Hanson’s PhD students from a “Carleton University,” including Seung C. Lee. In other words, Static-99R “peer reviews” are corrupt with conflict of interest. There have been some amusing analogies on this site; but my personal one is that this is like relying on a Yelp review written by a restaurant’s owner (or one of the waiters or waitresses).

* With the original data being held “secret” – for example, to how the eight to ten original “risk factors” were derived (and the 1970s “particularly violent” Canadian and UK sample to which Hanson based his “research” and risk factors) – there can never be a true validation. *

As for some of the smart people (a group that I do *not* proclaim to be a part of), I do think it’s interesting that the experts who have spoken out against the Static-99R are largely ignored. For example, here is a published analysis, cowritten by authors whom include *the DSM Chair* (the DSM is also known as the “Bible of Psychiatry”), that questions the methodology, as well as points out a few flaws, of the Static-99R. The other authors to this paper include professors and a researcher from top American universities:

Some notable quotes from the four professors and researchers:

– “Several concerns are raised about this domination of the Static-99/Static-99R in sexual recidivism risk assessments, not the least of which is the applicability of group norms to individuals differing from the samples on which the risk values were derived. Apart from the dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications, the validity of the risk scores themselves is dubious, given different definitions of recidivism in the norming samples, lack of clarity in statistical methods, and an overreliance on unpublished manuscripts and presentations to document methods.”

– “Despite its limitations, this approach remains robust, largely because of the lure of quantification. Unlike other arenas in mental health that seek to address potential risk of harm (e.g., risk for suicide) where individual factors are weighted into the assessment, sexual recidivism risk seems to be stalled in ‘actuarial-land’ with the veneer of ‘quantification’ belied by shifting ‘norms.’”

– “Although they purport to be empirically based, the current Static-99 and its newer iteration, the Static-99R, violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual. Two core elements must be present to apply an actuarial risk model to a specific individual: sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome. Both of these elements are lacking in Static-99 and Static-99R research reviews.”

Also, regarding your comparison to Boeing vs. Airbus, I think that you bring up an interesting analogy. The Airbus is more reliant on automation (algorithms), whereas Boeing is more reliant on the pilot. Also, the Airbus planes are literally glued together, whereas Boeing uses rivets. Further, the Boeing fly-by-wire system provides flight envelope protection and asymmetric thrust compensation but will not autotrim the aircraft – essentially keeping the handling characteristics of a conventional control system without the weight of the hydraulic lines, as well as the increased safety of the envelope protections.

“AnotherAnon,” a user who appears above, posted a paper, by a researcher of Yale Law School (A.J. Wang), that warns of “dangerous” and “troubling” statistical algorithms like the Static-99R. If you look at the top of the paper, there are a few quotes from survey respondents:

– “An algorithm cannot take into account factors such as human emotion and need. It is stupid to allow a mathematical equation, the value of which is only as useful as the data it utilizes to operate, to determine the fate of a being that possesses free will. That’s outright absurd, stupid, and dangerous.”

– “I think using the human element is most fair and humane. Guidelines would be second best, but seem to lack some humanity. An algorithm is the most cold. People are not statistics.”

– “Someone’s fate shouldn’t be determined by an algorithm.”

This sentiment was largely echoed by then-Attorney General Eric Holder:

– “In 2014, Eric Holder, then the U.S. attorney general, articulated the uncertainty swirling around these tools in a speech given to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ 57th Annual Meeting. ‘Although these [risk assessment] measures were crafted with the best of intentions, I am concerned that they may inadvertently undermine our efforts to ensure individualized and equal justice,’ he said. ‘They may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.’”

As for you countering my Orwell quote with Donald Rumsfeld: Rumsfeld has been at least partly responsible for many wars, as well as the loss of many lives. Rumsfeld’s opinion, based on faulty “intelligence,” was partly to blame for invading Iraq on a false premise of Iraq having WMDs. There is an interesting documentary regarding Rumsfeld, titled “The Unknown Known.” In the documentary, you’d see at how Rumsfeld is completedly unphased at the fact so many military and civilian deaths occurred because of an unneeded war, largely because of Rumsfeld’s “expert” opinion as then-Secretary of Defense. Also, Colbert interview with Rumsfeld:

Little-Known Fact: If you are still interested in Rumsfeld, you should Google “Donald Rumsfeld Aspartame” – and see how this man introduced a potentially cancer-causing substance into the market.

I have to agree. Hanson is an academic not even recognized in the US as a legitimate licensed physiologist or under US standards. It is all good to use his own statements such as the ones provided in the CA case declaration it is still academia. These are not hard facts and are always fraught with methodological challenges and obscurities. These are not the type of studies that can be reasonable relied upon by a US court in respect to sat judicial notice in particular. They are fodder but not binding or even reasonably reliable as a court standards….I still believe that judicial notice is going to be the key in debunking these lies and myths. We will see how much water judicial notice and “Gov:” reports from CDCRs across the country hold in my case…

Not exactly I love all that. You are dead on and that is saved for my arsenal…..I will not push the issue yet as I am using Hanson’s declaration against the academic crap. If need arises I can most assuredly show just how dubious Hanson’s his risk assessments tools are and they are totally refuted by his own declarations and admissions.

Hanson doesn’t have to be licensed to be an academic in the USA. If he’s not practicing his craft on people where a license is required, he can study and research all he wants. Wish people understood that.

True that Karl Hanson doesn’t have to be licensed to practice his “craft” and conduct his “research.” But the point is that because Hanson is not a licensed psychologist in the United States (is he even licensed in Canada?), there is question to whether Hanson is bound by APA Ethics Code requiring his Static-99R to be completely transparent. Why is Hanson keeping the Static-99R a “trade secret?” This is especially important given the immensely enormous powers that the Static-99R is increasingly given in law.

Section 8.14 of the Ethics Code specifically requires “sharing research data for verification,” and requires that “psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis[.]”

Did the United States, particularly California, export its Static-99R “research” to Canada specifically to circumvent transparancy and data sharing requirements?

It just doesn’t make sense that 10 questions can predict human behavior, especially for such a diverse group of “sex offenders,” with a varying range of underlying crime and crime severity. Given the blatant conflicts of interests in the Static-99R’s “validation,” as well as the sudden emergence of “experts” backing an obviously flawed “test” that ignores human free will, there are a lot of things that don’t make sense here.

It all just seems very fishy.

@not exactly

With interest, I’m reading your argument.

Is Hanson even an APA member? Can you look up APA members as a non-member (APA members can)?

If not, then he doesn’t have to follow APA guidelines.

If so, which you hope he is for credibility, then he does have to follow their guidelines.

You’re should articulate an argument with your concerns to the APA citing their applicable sections to see if they’ll share how he does what he does or if they’ll refer you to him.

From what I see online, he has work within APA’s website, so it’d appear he is member.

Found this too:


You are mistaken because “Research Gate” is not an “APA website.” But no doubt, there are a lot of Kool Aid drinkers to Karl Hanson’s work. Most of Karl Hanson’s fans seem enveloped in the trade of “forensic psychology.” Personally, I agree that Hanson is a master of self-promotion. In my opinion, Hanson is a great writer and strategic thinker for furthering his Static-99 schemes (just read his “studies” and “coding rules”). But at the end of the day, no matter what arguments you put forward, you can’t simplify people to 10 questions. Simplifying people to 10 “test” questions doesn’t make sense.

Nonetheless, the APA Ethics Code does not govern “APA members” per se. Anyone with a PhD can pay the $99 to $247 for annual APA membership. When not in the context of being codified into state law or regulation, the APA’s Ethics Code is nothing more than “aspirational goals.”

HOWEVER, you are missing the main point: The APA Ethics Code is codified into California law. The APA Ethics Code has specific authority over LICENSED PSYCHOLOGISTS in California. The cold and hard fact is that Karl Hanson is *not* licensed in California. So in effect, Karl Hanson is operating without scrutiny — even though Hanson’s “science” is being given enormous powers by California’s government. If Hanson’s “research” were being used for less serious matter, like perhaps prison triage (which was what the Static-99 was originally created for), then OK. Maybe little or no scrutiny is needed. But the fact is that the Static-99R is being given increasingly more legal powers to “regulate” and “classify” sex offenders.

APA Ethics Code’s specific authority is clearly outlined in the California Board of Psychology Laws and Regulations. See § 2936 [“The board shall establish as its standards of ethical conduct relating to the practice of psychology, the ‘Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct’ published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Those standards shall be applied by the board as the accepted standard of care in all licensing examination development and in all board enforcement policies and disciplinary case evaluations.”]; § 1387.1 [“…ensuring that all SPE including record keeping is conducted in compliance with the Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association…”].

To see how the Board of Psychology, verbatim, implemented the APA Code of Ethics into its regulation for licensed psychologist, refer to page 721. At page 731 of the California Board of Psychology’s Laws and Regulations, note Section 8.14 requiring “sharing research data for verification.” Specifically, IF Karl Hanson were licensed in California, Hanson would be required that he “do not withhold the data on which [his] conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose.”

Most states have adopted the APA Ethics Code as part of governing state licensure for licensed psychologists. The fact that Karl Hanson does *not appear to be a licensed psychologist* anywhere in the United States, and certainly not California, is particularly troubling because he seems evasive of complete transparency for his “craft” and “data” that would otherwise be required of a licensed professional. Again, the main point is: IF Karl Hanson were licensed in California, he would be subject to the APA Ethics Code – and his Static-99R would be subject to the appropriate FULL scrutiny. Again, the Static-99R being subject to scrutiny is especially important, given the immensely enormous powers that the Static-99R is increasingly given in law.

The fact that Hanson has not been transparent in other court cases, in failing to meet Frye and Daubert standards, is even more evidence that Karl Hanson’s “science” is hogwash. Why has Hanson and his Static-99R partners (including David Thornton) played games, stall tactics, and deception in failing to release the Static-99R’s “secret” data? What exactly are they hiding? And once again: How can 10 questions predict something as complex as human behavior? The Static-99R completely ignores free will and reduces people to a number.

Here is just one Court order that rejects the Static-99R, courtesy of Karen Franklin’s Blog:

(FYI, Karen Franklin is one of *many* licensed psychologists and licensed psychiatrists who *reject* the Static-99R. But I don’t think a person needs to be a PhD or MD to understand that you simply cannot reduce human beings to a number based on 10 questions. Furthermore, though I have never met Dr. Franklin, I am very appreciative of her work. There are also some other great Static-99R opponents, such as Dr. Richard Wollert.)

I would just like to follow up and say I’m with @AJ on this. Hanson on our side during the 10th circuit appeal is better than him not being on our side. If he was an established quack and doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then I would be concerned about him providing documentation. However, he’s with well-established and respected members of the community in providing this document for the 10th circuit appeal on our side.

I also would like to say that I am for transparency of methodology being used to come to scientific conclusions. I believe it is important to show people how you got from the start to the finish using your chosen methodology and data points for your outcomes. Algorithms are only as good as the methodology used and the variables known for inputs. if you’re going to hide the method(s) then you’re going to be confused with smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand at best.

I do not believe 10 questions can predict someone’s future any more than someone can read you from across the room and tell you your life story and future with intimate detail having never met you before.

Hanson on our side during the 10th circuit appeal is better than him not being on our side. If he was an established quack and doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then I would be concerned about him providing documentation. However, he’s with well-established and respected members of the community in providing this document for the 10th circuit appeal on our side.



There are many experts who would argue that Karl Hanson’s Static-99R schemes are a load of bullshit. It’s amazing that those who support Hanson are simply taking his word for it, without calling him out for the non-transparency. How can “experts” defend a “test” when they have never reviewed it from A to Z? How can “experts” defend a “static” test that has “validiations” plagued with conflict of interest?

IF Karl Hanson were not “an established quack,” as you say, then why has Hanson put so much effort into keeping his Static-99R a “trade secret?” This doesn’t make sense.

You also say you are for “transparency” and “do not believe 10 questions can predict someone’s future.” Yet the Static-99R is non-transparent. The Static-99R also relies on 10 questions to predict someone’s future.

For those not familiar, here is a copy of the Coding Form (aka “10 questions”) used to predict human behavior:

Based on these 10 questions, do you really think Karl Hanson can predict human behavior? I say bullshit.

@not exactly

Articulate your argument with the state who may listen to you and decide to do something about it. Arguing here on your points does absolutely no good.

Hanson’s listed with those who submitted the document in the 10th. Nothing can be done about it now.

By the way, I never was making the connection between the research gate website and APA, but was showing another online source which details his doctorate degree when I put his name into a search engine. I wasn’t mistaken. Thank you.

“Articulate your argument with the state who may listen to you and decide to do something about it.”



Because Karl Hanson is not a licensed psychologist in California, Hanson cannot be sanctioned by the Board of Psychology for withholding data.

@not exactly

Licensing is irrelevant.

Articulating your “non-transparent” argument with the state should be about getting the state to change their “less than transparent” method when using his “non-transparent” method. The state can’t be fully transparent when they use Hanson’s method.

They’d argue they are transparent because they’ll tell you what they’re using while your issue is with him and his system which they rely on, not them. A vicious cycle there of who to articulate transparency with.

Recommend the better methods you suggest to the state for replacing Hanson’s to increase the transparency sought. Then your wish of Hanson altogether is gone possibly from the state’s use.

If you cannot get to the NARSOL brief filed in support of Millard’s team and the Tenth Circuit appeal via the website @AJ used, NARSOL has an article on it and the link to it on their website:


What are the rules for how many days you have until you need to register when traveling in California? I am a California resident but a relative is getting married in Fresno and need to know how long I can stay there until it triggers the registering process.

Also, would be nice to know in general for the future. I want to take opportunities to travel with the kids within the state before they get too old.


5 working days.

@JesusH – to my knowledge if you’re not going to be going on vacation an inordinate amount of time and are not on parole or probation there are not any requirements for you to register at the cities that you vacation to. This of course is assuming that you live in California and are vacationing in California.

5 days then… cool. Really wish I was a free man though so I wouldn’t have to ask this question. Just got off probation, I thought that meant I was a free man?

Anyways, thanks guys!

Um, really?

TEDx speaker argues that pedophilia should be accepted as “an unchangeable sexual orientation”

⚠️ Yes, really. The TED speaker’s arguments make sense*. I am sorry if it offends some people, but it is, in fact, very similar to arguments about the “normalization” of homosexuality. One of the strongest arguments in favor of not stigmatizing homosexuality is quite simply this: with all of society’s stigma and hatred attached to homosexuality, why would anyone wiilingly “choose” to be homosexual? The same applies in this situation, but even more so: With all of society’s virulent hatred and severe legal consequences attached to any behavior, why would anyone “choose” to have pedophilic attractions?? Clearly, it is NOT a choice.
As for the APA designating it a disorder, for decades, the APA designated homosexuality to be a mental illness….. then, eventually, removed it from the list of mental disorders.
I happen to agree with the speaker: don’t mock or banish those with pedophilic attractions – that will only push them towards isolation and make them more likely to act upon their attractions.
The U.S., like Germany, should offer anonymous counseling for those who are feeling ANY illegal sexual attractions, in order to address those feelings BEFORE they turn into actions and end up hurting people. Frankly, it’s time for the U.S. to grow up, face reality and address social problems in a mature, intelligent manner.
*NOTE: I am NOT defending any illegal behaviors or actions of any sort!! I am saying that pedophilic attraction exists and needs to be addressed in a realistic and effective manner in order to make society safer for everyone, ESPECIALLY children. ⚠️

It makes people uncomfortable to use the term “sexual preference” or “sexual orientation” in regards to anything seen to be less-laudatory than gay rights which was the impetus for thinking in terms of “sexual preference” in the first place. Both those on the left, who see such an expansive use of the term as a threat to social progress and those on the right who see it as a continuation of the erosion of “traditional values,” are loathe to cede the application of the term to those whose sexual preferences transgress their moral projects. It’s where both are willing to deny what is so patently, and scientifically, obvious in order to advance their own agendas.

But it is, of course, the definition of “sexual preference.” Whether is is “unchanging” or not is a far more contentious and legitimately debatable issue.

Pardon my cinicism but
Mark Zuckerberg losing $15 billion out of his pocket just lifted my spririt!

I can’t control what happens but this looks like Kaptain Karma taking a big
Chunk of wind out of his sails!

With the depraved indifference and hostility generated by him and a
Huge amount of extremely powerful cyberbullying he orchestrated using
A monolithic and impersonal machine of his own creation,
We can all gloat for a hollywood minute on what appears to be a just reward.

Of course he will continue to use registrants to gain more steam in his recovery efforts,
Maybe he will find the varrogance innhimself when he searches his soul,
And thats a stretch, for answers.

I believe God is working behind the scene for us and He will SHOUT some of these self-righteous sins from the roof tops.

Amen. (See: Romans 12:19.)

Man I just heard that judge in the Nassar Olympic trainer guy where she states “it is my privilege and honor to sentence you” Wow um objective???? Not, how can she get away with so blatant bias? That should be reversed immediately. Definitely the sentencing part after she stated that. “After hearing the testimonies of the ladies it is my honor and privilege to sentence you today”??? There is no way the dude would get a fair sentencing process from a judge ho states it is there honor and privilege, no it is your unfortunate duty to have to sentence anyone for anything and has nothing to do with any kind of honor. That is like stating, “hey it is an honor to stand here and watch you get electrocuted or shot by the firing squad.” That is just plain mental man on top of being what should be a heavy burden not taking lightly or glorified and joyful for anyone involved, except for maybe for the girls if he really did it and I do not think it should be for them either…..I do not believe in vengeance for the sake of vengeance for anything, Objective Justice, that is what I believe in…..

Oh wait, since he got beat up in prison now they want a new sentencing hearing because of the judges statements about signing his death sentence.

Man that judge looks just like the witch or whatever she was from the 101 Dalmatians cartoon movie. Cruella de Vil….Exactly….God she looks evil….Wow now people on Fox news are praising that there is a pecking order in prison and that he deserves it basically…

What a frigging barbaric society we still live in where a man, for whatever he may have did, can be thrown into a hellish environment and then subjected to torment and beatings from animalistic gladiators trained and conditioned to kill basically. Barbaric!!!! is the only way to express that…….

Oh and I take that back, that judge looks way more evil than Cruella de Vil

There is a statement I heard made about another subject that applies to the registry.

” the truth doesn’t matter and will never be regarded or accepted if people would rather believe the lie.”

In an age where false information is easier to disciminate than the truth because people are more willing to accept it, no amount of studies, historical data, or correct info will ever matter. The American consumer of is just too ignorant to sort fact and fiction. It isn’t worth their time. This is the whole basis of our political system. Inundate the voter with as much misleading info as you can get out, and they won’t take the time to investigate it.
Sad, but nothing can be done about it.

I disagree that nothing can be done about it…..There is always something each and everyone of can do about anything. I agree the whole country is out of their frigging mind right now but there are cool-heads out there that are fighting to put this country back to its former glory. This is still the greatest country in the world and even though our founding fathers were hypocritical and bigots, of course the times called for such an individual in those days to succeed really, they were all very intelligent and James Madison and Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, they were all pretty brilliant men. The constitution will prevail and our country will be better for it. This is just a phase just like the rest of the civil rights battles and it is going to take some hardy, strong willed, and courageous “individuals” to make change come about just as it has for every other fight our grandfathers and their grandfathers and etc. have had to make in the history of this great nation. Now, we as Americans and our generation is no different then every other generation, it is up to each and everyone of us to stand up, speak up, and show up, and do something that may be outside our comfort zones and there will be many who oppose us, ridicule us, and even threaten and do everything they can to discourage or impede us. Think about it, this is nothing compared to what our ancestors have had to fight thru for their freedoms…….So buck up and pull up the big boy pants and at least cheer the fighters on and jump in and help any chance you get………….Change is a coming, this is about to come to a head and it has never looked good for the gov when the people whom are being persecuted have had enough, well I have had enough and I will make it or break it in my case. Believe me next time I get in front of a judge with the AG on the other side I am going to wail in on how screwed up our elected officials are. specifically including their less then 5% approval ratings, and also wail on how the DOJ was supposed to protect rights against the criminal justice systems overreach and not be another arm of it to deprive the people of their constitutional liberties………..

In the political realm and social justice,
Information is used as warfare to seek and destroy. The Registry falls inline with this analogy.

Imagine what a statement it would make if each and everyone of us did what I am doing. Just imagine even 30, 40 thousand filing suits in courts all across the state. I guarantee someone would stand up and pay attention and I even bet that the civil rights orgs would take notice and be much more willing to jump in as well…Man that would be a beautiful thing to see. Frigging clogging the courts with suits is one of the ways statutes are struck down. It is a matter of course that if a statute causes the courts to be overburdened with suits the court has to take action and rectify the situation in any way they can. That includes forcing the legislature to rewrite the laws or just straight striking them down in order to force legislative fixes. I do not know where I read that ff hand but I know it is fact because when I read it I researched it and it is true. Laws cannot be written in a way that they create an opportunity to challenges by the masses. If they did the court system would have been done a long time ago as they would cease to operate…..

Hey Mike R. Can others take your case as written, such as taking large pieces of your suit without edits? I have no idea about Federal protocol, but wondering whether they scan suits to be sure we’re not just filing the exact same suit in various circuits? Many of your documents are amazing. Thanks for sharing what you’re doing.

I am sure you can. I took a lot of my original complaint from other suits and just manipulated and collaborated, and revised revised revised to fit my narrative and situation. Yes take it and run with it but be prepared to do some work. You have to be somewhat literate, punctual, and a will to win. Confidence man, I can not say it enough. People have to be confident, not necessarily cocky like I am most of the time, that is just me, LOL, but confident at minimum. Prison humbled my cockiness ten fold but it never broke me or my confidence in myself. After I get past this first stage of the suit, to the appeals court and beyond, I believe my case gets much easier as I will be past all this backroom garbage that I have to deal with in discovery and status reports. It is all on my site so you can see it is a bit of work at this crucial stage. It really is not very hard to learn but you have to learn the rules and follow them. It is very intimidating at first but after a while it is not so much. Especially when you have the professional AG having to be schooled by the judge on things that I already knew and was about to bring up in court. That was classic. Soon as I sad “your honor, about this multiple motions to dismiss that th” and that is as far as I got and the judge just started unloading on the AG telling her how I was more prepared and knowledgeable about the case law and telling her you cannot file or this or this until you answer his complaint in full and just reeming her. I found it extremely comical when I sent her my status conference statements about how I intended to file motions in limine against any irrelevant evidence she may want to bring and she turned around and stated she was going to maybe file one as well. Stupid, like she had no clue what it even was. I said it before and I will say it again, this entire suit has already been more then worth it just from the two hearings and the filings I have been in so far where the AG gets to get it from me and the judge instead of the other way around. Feels soooooo good to take it to them and sort of put the shoe on her feet see how they like it. It is pretty important to this lady to not let me win. What kind of reactions and ridicule do you think she will experience for the rest of her career??? S*(^ she would probably be thru as an attorney really. Hate to ruin her like that but hey, collateral consequences, just like we have to deal with right? Ok I have to go study…..L8

Just remember no matter how much the sentiment in the public changes, how many people we turn our way of thinking, that is all great just like with the civil rights back in the day. But in the end what changed the laws? Courts and Thurgood Marshal, that is what and the only place that we can change these laws as well….
That man is one hell of an inspiration to us all, or should be. I would love to do what he did and go around the country knocking all these unconstitutional crap laws down. All it takes is one Marshal to change the country just as he did….Sure there was Marin Luther King preaching in the streets and churches but it was Marshal who changed the laws thru the courts…………

Hi mike r,

You obviously have a lot of legal savvy, so maybe you can tell me:

Why can’t we all get together in a Class Action lawsuit? There must be a reason why ACSOL or NARSOL hasn’t spearheaded something like that. Just wondering why that wouldn’t work or can’t be done.

Keep up the good work!

@Mike G

As discussed here before and seen in the results, class action suits don’t work. Facial challenges are what work.


Okay, thanks. My bad. I have been around this website for a few years but I don’t recall seeing anything mentioned about class action suits. I guess I’ve spent too much time in the other threads and not enough here in General Comments.

mike r suggested that we all keep the legal system tied up by filing individual lawsuits. To me, that seems inefficient and costly, but he (and apparently everyone else) knows a lot more about this stuff than I do.

No worries. MI ACLU is using a class action now, but only after having WON the Snyder Case, which featured individuals. Now they are suing MISP (I think) for ignoring the ruling, and suing on behalf of all “similarly situated” RCs.

Much discussion has happened here on this site about class action suits. Maybe the search field would bring them up, though the search function is pretty weak on this site. Bottom line: they don’t work. “As Applied” are the only suits making any headway.


Sorry, my bad for missing previous comments.

But, can you tell me what is meant by “As Applied”? Does that mean individual lawsuits addressing individual situations?


@Mike G

No worries.

“In U.S. constitutional law, a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional.”

mike r is individually challenging the system as it’s applied to him. That method has a history of success and is why he recommends it. Everyone’s experiences are different even if they seem the same as an RC; thus, individual challenges.

@Not Exactly…
(Starting new thread for convenience.)
In case you’re wondering why I’ve fallen silent, it’s because I see no end to the back-and-forth. I definitely have plenty more thoughts, but to what end? I have to say, I don’t understand what your endgame looks like.

Suppose tomorrow we all wake up and Dr. Hanson and his Static 99R have been declared fraudulent and banned from the United States. (I know, your dream, right!?? 🙂 ) What then? How does abolishing Hanson and his work do anything to chip away at registry laws and court cases? As far as I see, it would do nothing. A State could simply change to another assessment tool, or it could decide against using any assessment tool (offense-based tiers anyone?).

Please help me understand (truly, not being sarcastic or snarky) how destruction of the Static 99R does anything to the “regulatory scheme” we all love so much. I see it as a non-load-bearing beam.

How does abolishing Hanson and his work do anything to chip away at registry laws and court cases? As far as I see, it would do nothing. A State could simply change to another assessment tool, or it could decide against using any assessment tool (offense-based tiers anyone?).



Why must the only two options be assessment OR offense-based tiers? Why do you make it seem a predicament between only two options? In case you haven’t noticed, California’s Tiered Law is *still* very much “offense-based” with the added burdens of the Static-99R. Where is the data that shows any type of registry prevents crime? What will using a “tool” to focus on those with a “high” score accomplish but destabilize and increase chances for homelessness, unemployment, and ostracization? In reality, Hanson’s schemes are sideshow that adds the veneer of “evidence-based.”

IF Karl Hanson’s Static-99R schemes were truly as good as Hanson — and his “static” disciples — sells it to be, then why make people who score low register at all?

Regardless of your “risk” or past offense, I simply do not see the point of a registry for anyone at all. I don’t see the point in giving any credibility to a “test” that is plagued with flaws. The Static-99R is a “test” that is literally the embodiment of “The Minority Report” come to life. Too many things do not make sense regarding the sudden support for the Static-99R.

@Not Exactly…
Thank you for the reply, but either you didn’t answer my question or I somehow missed it. I get your animosity towards the test and its creator; that’s not what I’m addressing. Forget my mention of offense-based tiers and everything else. Given your passion, I feel I’m missing something, but for the life of me can’t figure out what.

Again, so I may better understand, please answer this question: how does removing Static 99R and Hanson from the RC equation do anything to chip away at the registry schemes?

Answer: it does not.

What it does is take @Not Exactly (aka @Karl-Hansen-makes-50-cents-an-hour or some such, aka any number of names) out of Tier III and eligible for relief. Until such time, until @Not Exactly finds a spot on the life boat, s/he is content to see everyone else go down with the ship. Kind of understandable, but not terribly attractive.

Joe, how does wanting to tweak the system to eliminate the Static part, take everyone already on a lifeboat off the lifeboat and put them back on the sinking ship? Baffling…

Huh, nothing but crickets from @Not Exactly…. Perhaps my question Baf…er..baffled.

AJ, you are exactly right. If not Hanson then some other quack. That static 99R may even be pretty accurate for the first two or three years after release but after that even Hanson and every other professional states and knows it is crap. I know the non contact and gay issues are messed up and I belong in the non contact but still, it is not going away until the registry gets overhauled which is coming. We have to use these quacks own words and evidence against them every chance we get.

You’re correct. I see STATIC-99 as an opportunity along the path of what is, unavoidably, a long game (and the only game in town, for our purposes). When it is integrated into law then those laws become more vulnerable to eventual challenge through its discrediting. This is known as “chipping away.” We build on strengths and imagine strategies that allow us to build on those strengths and try not to get hung up on bloody-minded, sensibility-offending details that don’t advance that strategic process. Perfection is the enemy of the good, a thief of our lives and an obsessive’s self-sabotage.

@David Kennerly:
Perfection is the enemy of the good, a thief of our lives and an obsessive’s self-sabotage.
I’ve been up all night trying to figure out what this statement means, and it’s killing me… 😉

In all seriousness, you’re exactly right. The Pareto principle comes to mind, too.

🛫 Any bets how long it will take this sh*t to roll down hill to us?🛬 :

I went back and found this post on airlines from June 18 on this site as it’s very apropos to your post:

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.

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

Agreed, but that would be common sense. In this country, it only takes one crime against one person (Megan Kanka) to totally screw up the lives of close to 1 Million other persons.

My hunch is that the passport marker will be irrelevant as soon as airlines scan their manifests and deny flights to RCs, as cruise lines do. International Or domestic flights. This would be another “outrage” that nobody would stop, another “they could never do that” that they would go ahead and do. Just as Kennedy in Smith v Doe intended, I’m sure.


International Airline flights are the main mode of transportation overseas nowadays, not cruise lines like they once were before airline travel became the norm. Airlines banning people from a mode of transportation, especially if they’re American-based airlines, would be fought in court.

Cruise Lines today are not a normal mode of transportation overseas anymore like airlines but more of recreation and entertainment.

Cruise Lines today are not a normal mode of transportation overseas anymore like airlines but more of recreation and entertainment.
You forgot a prepositional phrase at the end of your sentence: “for the newly wed, overfed, and almost dead.” 🙂 (I apologize to those who enjoy cruises. I find it an amusing summation of clientele. I belong to at least one of those groups myself, FWIW.)

TS, i don’t disagree with your logic. I just know we’ve crossed a whole lot of “they cannot DO that’s” in the last 10 years. At this point I believe they CAN do anything they want; then it’s up to us to start filing law suits and complying for years until it might be overturned. My freedom of international travel needed for work is now extremely chilled based on something many people opined was impossible/“they never could do” (passport marker). My favorite was when my registration clerk heard about the passport marker (from me) and said, “How in the world is THAT constitutional??”


Oooops! My bad! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 “Join us now on the lido deck for the shuttleboard tournament!”

🛫 Flying??🛬 Wow! WTF!? I have no doubt that they are watching registrants! :

Like I said, WTF!?

@David: From the article: “All US citizens who enter the country are automatically screened for inclusion in Quiet Skies — their travel patterns and affiliations are checked and their names run against a terrorist watch list **and other databases**, according to agency documents.”

I’m sure you are right! They are watching and waiting…

Land of the free, baby!

Of course, we no longer are the land of the free. When it comes to personal freedom, Other nations took that mantle from us a while ago.

We are prisoners of a system we created. Technology evolved to the point where they will continue to try new things in every aspect of our lives to control, manipulate, and interfere with our lives. In a way, terrorists (what ever that means anymore!) have won. They have created a paranoid government and a distrusting public.
They watch our phones, vehicles, viewing and listening patterns. There is no more privacy. It will come crashing down sooner or later. I hope everyday for a national power grid failure. The complete break down of the ability to function would be fun to see.

“We are prisoners of a system we created.”

I’ve never wanted to control, manipulate, or interfere with the lives of others. I’ve been no friend of the state at any time in my life. Live and let live, is my motto.

While I am certainly subject to the police and surveillance state you refer to, I am not part of the “we” whom you say created it. I don’t count myself as “the state”.

From the article: “…the program wastes taxpayer dollars and makes the country less safe because attention and resources are diverted away from legitimate, potential threats.”

Sound familiar?

@TS: “Airlines banning people from a mode of transportation, especially if they’re American-based airlines, would be fought in court. ”

By who? A bunch of poor RCs?

Everything that has happened to us in the last 10, 20, 30, years was, or should have been, “fought in court”. Aside from Janice’s success with some residency restrictions and Halloween, what have we successfully “fought in court”?

@Mike G

It’s sad you don’t see the successes of late on the behalf of RCs, e.g. Muniz, Snyder in the 6th, Packingham, etc.

RCs could fight it as transportation has been discussed here as well as anyone else who may be banned.

I think @AJ has a tally of victories to date as well as the Constitutional grounds for travel.

The right to travel is actually very limited. No one has a right to travel by any means. People often think this right is unlimited, but the court has put many limits on those rights. Like in many cases you need a license to operate many types of vehicles (cars, trains, airplanes) that promote travel. There is no right for any private carrier to transport you anywhere. Private carriers can pick and choose who they want to transport. If the government owned the taxi, airline or train, then you might have a Right to Travel issue. The right to travel only means that once you find a legal mode of transportation, the government cannot step in and ban you from traveling if you are not on parole or probation.

I’m with Lake County on this. It’s important not to equate the right to travel with the right to transportation. Yes, one has the right to migrate freely among the States (Roe v. Saenz), but under very few circumstances is another party obligated to assist. (The only one that comes to mind right now is innkeepers. They typically must accept travelers, unless having reason not to.) So would an airline be required to transport a RC, or anyone for that matter? Would a railroad be required to transport you back in the day? Would a river ferry? Would a stagecoach company? I don’t come anywhere near claiming to know the answer(s), but I lean towards no, there’s no requirement. I could see an exception being as Lake County mentioned where the common carrier is funded or subsidized with public funds (such as happens in providing air service to small towns across the country).

I think it depends on whether the transportation is licensed for commercial or private use. Since the government approves and regulates commercial means such as taxis and airlines, it has a responsibility to promote free travel. It wouldn’t require you to pick up that hitchhiker in your private sedan.

I was probably equating right to transportation with right to travel and vice versa in my mind then.

Unless and until airlines add some sort of disclaimer to their Contracts of Carriage, a denied person should be able to sue for breach of contract. (Easier than one would think, based on a relative who’s pursued it. Few airlines want to show up in some small-claims court somewhere.) Of course the first time this happens, the airlines will change their Contracts of Carriage to deny RCs, if legally allowed.

Out of curiosity to see if anything currently exists, I checked out United’s Contract (eff. July 29, 2018). The closest I found, after searching for “felon”, “sex”, “crime”, “criminal”, “offense”, and “offender” was this:

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
H. Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
1. Passengers, Passengers’ Service Animals, or Passengers’ Emotional Support/ Psychiatric Service Animals whose conduct is unlawful, indecent or sexual in nature, harassing, disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent[.]

That conduct disclaimer would not be enough for denial of services, IMO. (I chuckled at the thought of someone being denied because of their Service Animal’s conduct that is sexual in nature. Hopefully your boy doesn’t start humping someone!)

There’s also Rule 30 (“Consent to use of Personal Data”) which mentions they will release data to third parties, “to provide for the prevention or detection of imminent criminal acts or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders[,]” but that’s nothing of consequence.

I also did a search of Delta’s Contract for the same words. The results were even less impressive, with nothing meriting detail.

This is beating a dead horse, but have been reading a lot of articles and am wondering,

At what point did touching another human being become the worst sin on Earth.

I do not condone invading another’s personal space for any reason, at any age. But this has been going on in one form or another for thousands of yrs. There has never been a law made that stopped a person from doing anything! The very politicians that propose the laws break them. Do they really think that hounding a person for the rest of their lives will change ANYTHING? I have read 100s of articles on the penalties of sex offenses, and the vast majority don’t support post conviction penalties at all. In fact the few that do support registries and restrictions are either law enforcement(and we all know how pure they are!) or misinformed zealots that spout hate and false data.
I am building a file of articles that don’t make it here and am considering doing a mass email to as many pro registry politicians and advocates as I can find.
I know in current climate many only believe what they choose to believe. But just maybe pounding the truth down their throats can make a difference.

“Stacey Dooley Investigates: Second Chance Sex Offenders (BBC One) ”

I’ve never liked her and still don’t. I do have a bit of a prejudice against the glottal-stops that afflict the speech of some Brits and which seems to be generationally-trendy and are a marker for mass-market opinions and attitudes. The other part is her ignorance and total unquestioning buy-in on the victimological narrative. She’s the Millennial and female equivalent of Louis Theroux. However, this is a sporadically critical look at the insanity of Florida laws and Ron Book, in particular but you will have to endure a heap of virtue-signaling and tsk-tsking. You will need a VPN (and one which the BBC can’t detect as such) in order to watch the BBC.

“Stacey Dooley Investigates: Second Chance Sex Offenders (BBC One) ”

I’ve never liked her and still don’t. I do have a bit of a prejudice against the glottal-stops that afflict the speech of some Brits and which seems to be generationally-trendy and an unambiguous marker for mass-market opinions and attitudes. The other part is her ignorance and total unquestioning buy-in on the victimological narrative. She’s the Millennial and female equivalent of Louis Theroux. However, this is a sporadically critical look at the insanity of Florida laws and Ron Book, in particular but you will have to endure a heap of virtue-signaling and tsk-tsking. You will also need a VPN (and one which the BBC can’t detect as such [you might try VPN Unlimited set to their “BBC IP” address]) in order to watch the BBC since the BBC doesn’t like non-Brits watching their t.v. even if it’s about we Yanks.

Makes sense. NY has the person bring all the proof they can and it still gets ignored and the judge does what the prosecutor/board want.

I don’t follow the site much anymore. Seems to trigger a lot of depressing emotions and memories. But yesterday was my Birthday, and one of the only persons that sent a “happy b’day” was from a person I met through this site. The others were from my family and friends in Thailand.
I made it this far , 5 yrs from arrest. It has been a struggle in every way. I hope to have my reduction soon ( hearing in 1 month). From there I hope I can obtain better job opportunities and then find better living arrangements. I pray every day to find strength to move forward. I see my family in my dreams, and hope to see them again before I die. I do this because it was my wife’s wish to me.
To those here who keep the rest of us hoping and pushing, a heart felt thank you.🙏💓

Happy Birthday! – It’s been almost 20 years for me since conviction for non-contact crime. Years often pass without birthday wishes. It sucks to no longer have the large number of friends I previously had. Although, some of it comes from getting older and friends passing away. – We all have to hang on to the little hope that we have. There is always the possibility that things will get better.

Indeed! 🎊 Happy Birthday!! 🎉 🎂🎁

Happy birthday, my friend!

“To Reclassify Sex Offenders, Mass. SJC Says Sex Offender Registry Board Has Burden Of Proof” This is certainly a positive! If this standard were to be applied here in California, then those committed to CSH Coalinga might have their right to a commitment trial expanded beyond their initial (and only) commitment which now holds for perpetuity.

We’ll see how this helps. I’m
Going through the classification process now and I can tell you with 3 psychiatrists reports saying I’m no cognizable risk, full time employed in a good job, and a plethora of character witnesses they still gave me a preliminary classification as a two. My crime? A 1 single messaged, nothing else, that said how’s your boyfriend in bed I bet you have fun, to a 17.5 year old, when the ages of concent is 16. I have no faith in this process.

So just wanted to check-in and say this years fires are the worse for Lake County, CA. This is year 4 in a row of major fires. Half of the (wealthy) part of the county is now evacuated to the (poorest) half of the county. Basically, most people have no other option but to sleep in their car or camp in tents. Not many homes have burned here yet but evacuations and smoky air is getting to everyone. I’m safe and not in an evacuated area. I’ve been locked inside with my two dogs for 3 days now. The air is too bad for people and animals to be outside. Unfortunately for most evacuees and their pets, they cannot avoid the dangerous air. And once again, I cannot attend any of the information town meetings that are held in the High School. This is expected to last a few more days at minimum.

Thought I would post this even though it’s boring info. I always wondered what impact a natural disaster emergency would have on the court system and a defendant’s rights. This is how Lake County, CA is handling the situation: