ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

CaliforniaGeneral News

20th Century Fox pulls scene after director casts a registered sex offender

Twentieth Century Fox was just days away from locking picture on “The Predator” when an urgent note came in: Delete the scene featuring ____ ____ ____.

____, 47, didn’t have a big role in his longtime friend Shane Black’s reboot of the sci-fi thriller — just a three-page scene shared with actress Olivia Munn.

But last month, Munn learned that ____ is a registered sex offender who pleaded guilty in 2010 after facing allegations that he attempted to lure a 14-year-old female into a sexual relationship via the internet. When Munn shared the information with Fox on Aug. 15, studio executives quickly decided to excise him from the movie. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Bill

    More political correctness and hypocrisy from Hollywood, I wonder what’s in her closet or toy box?.

  2. AnonMom

    For those with social media,mainly Instagram, please flood Olivia Mann with stats and info- I know a lot you don’t have it, but maybe your family can do it for you. There some people there defending the man she got fired, and while she may not read them herself there are a lot of comments so people are reading them!

  3. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    Many years ago, I had the unfortunate experience of coming across Amy Phenix. My experience is that she will put her mechanical Static-99R “science” before taking a humanistic approach to “evaluating” people. It’s sad that Phenix still has a platform. My hunch is that Phenix is being propped by government funding enabled by corruption. Also, why does Phenix believe that sex offenders are obligated to advertise their registrant status to all “they’re working with?”

    —–

    “People who aren’t experienced in risk assessment find out about these things and get upset. It’s human nature,” added Amy Phenix, a forensic psychologist. “It’s understandable that people would be concerned and not trust the person that they’re working with because that person wasn’t open about the situation. When you inform people, you can educate people — and oftentimes, when people have a better understanding of what they’re dealing with, it’s not so scary.”

    —–

    1. Firstly, Phenix continues to push her “risk assessments” even many years later. For those who are unaware, Phenix is a co-developer to Karl Hanson and his Static-99R. Phenix is routinely cited in non-transparent “studies,” pushing the Static-99R, when said studies are riddled with conflicts of interests.

    2. Secondly, why does Phenix imply that RSO’s are supposed to advertise to everyone who “they’re working with” that one is a registered sex offender, even many years after conviction? Advertising that you’re a registered sex offender only perpetuates the unjust label itself. Sex offenders who are not incarcerated — and who are not on parole or probation — have paid their punishment. When we are done with punishment, then it’s time to move on with life. Openly ‘advertising’ that we’re sex offenders not only validates the government’s oppression; but it also generally leads to awkward social scenarios and self-ostracization. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot. Sure there might be appropriate scenarios of saying that you’re a registered sex offender (i.e. in a civil rights meeting, perhaps in a protest, perhaps in a 12-step recovery program, counseling, or if you are getting involved in a serious relationship with another person). But in general, Phenix’s “advice” as an “expert” will lead a person to unemployment and further ostracization. This is terrible advice by a so-called “psychologist” / “doctor.”

    Not to mention, disclosing that you are a registered sex offender with those who you are “working with” is no where specified in state or federal law. In fact, discrimination based on your registrant status, as it relates to employment, is technically barred by state law. This declaration by Amy Phenix is exactly representative of the Static-99R developers’ disregard for law and humanity in general. (BTW, the “presentation” by Phenix to why the Static-99R is “science” — of which I had to sit through a few years ago — was a complete joke. She made the same argument that the Scam-99R is akin to automobile insurance risk assessments.)

  4. New Person

    This incident should be another piece of evidence to Colorado Judge Matsch’s decision that the public has made the registry punitive.

    This man paid his dues, but is on the registry. That’s how Munn can discover more about him. So now this man cannot hold a job that he has earned solely because he’s on the registry AFTER paying his debt to society.

    Every other criminal is okay to be on set, but not a registered sex offender. This is proof of the registry being an accomplice to ostracizing an individual solely due to the registry.

    • AnotherAnon

      Agreed. I think he should sue. If there was no risk to public safety, and we know there wasn’t because filming was already done, it was a violation of 290.

      Use of Website Information Is Authorized Only to Protect a Person at Risk
      A person is authorized to use information disclosed on this website only to protect a person at risk. Except to protect a person at risk or as authorized under any other law, use of any information disclosed on this website for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:

      Health insurance
      Insurance
      Loans
      Credit
      Employment
      Education, scholarships or fellowships
      Housing or accommodations
      Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment
      Use of information on this website for purposes other than to protect a person at risk or for a prohibited purpose as described above, shall make the user liable for the actual damages caused, and any amount that may be determined by a jury or a court, not exceeding three times the amount of actual damages, and not less than $250, plus attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding $25,000. (Penal Code § 290.46, subd. (l).)

      This prohibition on use of the website information shall not affect authorized access to, or use of information pursuant to, §§ 11105, 11105.3, or 8808 of the Family Code; §§ 777.5 and 14409.2 of the Financial Code; §§ 1522.01 and 1596.871 of the Health and Safety Code; and § 432.7 of the Labor Code.

      https://meganslaw.ca.gov/About_Penalties.aspx

      • The Static-99R Is A Scam

        Good Morning,

        The Megan’s Law website is incredibly misleading. It leads one to believe that discrimination related to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, employment housing, etc. is only prohibited if it is based on the information derived from only the Megan’s Law website. However, if you were to read the actual text, in 290.4(d)(2), it is clear that ANY discrimination against a registrant — not just information based from the Megan’s Law website — is *prohibited* if it relates to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, employment, education, scholarships, fellowships, housing or accommodations, benefits, privileges, or services by any business establishment.

        The information on the Megan’s Law website is presented in a way that is highly misleading. It’s also laughable that on the homepage [https://meganslaw.ca.gov/Default.aspx], there is a photograph of an Asian family with two children. Little do most people know that the scam artists at the California Department of “Justice” had also failed to mention a very ironic fact: “[Y]our child is more likely to end up on the registry than to be molested by someone on it.”

        https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/09/there-are-too-many-kids-on-the

      • norman

        Yet he will quietly go away and allow Olivia Munn to spew her ignorant, vitriolic hatred towards any man that does not fit her idealistic ideal of what should be..wonder whats in her closet..

      • BA

        This is a form of blacklisting the man did his time/now he is being punished again, I would sue her and the studio and the director hows that! Keep there name associated with registrants as long as possible?

      • D

        I am interested in finding out more about people being punished by businesses. I was removed from an app called Nextdoor because my husband is a RSO. He paid his dues. He is no longer on paper, but I am CONSTANTLY exiled from our community because my husband is deemed a ‘monster’ I would LOVE to sue them, but I have been told I have no grounds to do so. 🙁

        • TS

          @D

          Go over to the Florida Action Committee website (https://floridaactioncommittee.org/) since they are taking on Nextdoor, swapping letter jabs right now, but could get serious soon.

        • Tim Moore

          This banning of registered citizens from certain platforms really illustrates the absurdity of the registry. On the one hand the rational for the registry is that “we know where the known “sex offenders” are and can take appropriate actions to protect ourselves”; the reaction from companies like Next door and Facebook is that “now we know where the “sex offenders” are, we must banish them from the arena and hide them from our view”. After all what they really want to protect is their reputation and their bottom line.
          If the word “sex” didn’t always cause conniptions, maybe a forward looking institution could develop some rational policies to protect people and help former offenders and the community seek reconciliation through moderated interaction. But this probably won’t really happen anyway as long as the community is seen as a mere commodity to the company.

        • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

          Tim, you’re right. One other factor, undoubtedly, is the role of insurance companies who are identifying Registrants as unacceptable “risks” against which companies or organizations must take policy initiatives. Facilitating all of this is ready information about Registrants. This is the consequence of having a publicly available Registry: if you give people this information they will act upon it and in ways which the government may, or may not, have anticipated. Certainly, they can no longer control those consequences. As for the language of the 290 statutes forbidding certain actions being taken as a result of the Registry, I think that they’re probably not enforceable. It’s all very well and good to say that it can’t be used for making employment decisions, for example, but there will still be rights and legitimate processes that employers retain which will render those claims unenforceable. Those supposed limitations were added to 290 to provide the illusion of good faith and due process. There is, and there will be, none. But sure, go ahead and try to sue them. I don’t see that it would do any harm.

  5. ab

    Olivia Munn continues getting herself into more trouble:

    https://variety.com/2018/film/news/olivia-munn-says-fox-didnt-return-her-call-initially-after-reporting-predator-sex-offender-exclusive-interview-1202933315

    This particular train of thought will end up doing far more damage to her career than she is aware of yet:

    She added: “When you have somebody on a big screen, no matter how small – we’ve all done little parts in movies – that little grain of fame is just enough to reach out and influence somebody who is impressionable and if you have somebody that has a history of using that to abuse children, that’s not OK in my book. And I do believe people deserve second chances, but I do have a hard line when it comes to people who hurt children or animals. You deserve to go make money, but not alongside me in a film. You can go work in a lot of other places or like make an Etsy store or something.”

    In time she will say the wrong thing about someone and receive a hard lesson on the importance of facts. If she pushes too far there could be a slander and/or libel suit in her future.

  6. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    The good thing is that at least there are people actually *defending* RSOs and the actor on Twitter. Not most, but some. On average, it looks like MAYBE 25% of people are defending the actor, depending on the OP posting original source. Those in support emphasize that the actor had already paid for his crime, that it’s been about eight years since, no other offense since, and the fact that how is he supposed to make a living??

    I generally identify myself as a Democrat; but it’s incredibly disheartening when these Hollywood types use the #MeToo movement and conflate it so that it trumps rehabilitation and reintegration. It’s also a bit annoying in how Olivia Munn works hard to portray herself as “well spoken” in her interview (something a vast majority seem to share) when she says that she has a “hard line when it comes to people who hurt children or animals.” Yet to me, Munn’s interview came off as largely shallow. Munn speaks in the present tense — as if the actor is *currently* hurting children or animals. What the actor did was eight years ago! He has since long-ago paid in terms of a conviction and sentence.

    At least Munn’s other castmates shunned her — which most seem to also be upset about. But yet, imagine having spent many hours “on set,” only to have your efforts grossly overshadowed by the “main star” of the film. I feel that Munn putting the actor “on blast” had nothing to do with #MeToo — and more about Olivia Munn wanting more attention and publicity for taking a “higher” and more “noble” cause.

    But again, at least the actor seems to have his share of supporters (including most of the cast itself).

    In the end, do you all feel that these types of scandals help or hurt our cause? On one hand, I feel that they might help because it leads people to discuss an issue — the labeling of “sex offenders” — otherwise swept under the rug. On the other hand, I feel that these discussions hurt because not only is the actor unemployable; but movie and television studios will no longer “take a chance” on employing a person labeled as a sex offender. This type of attention also seems to bring out and reignite more anger and animosity against labeled sex offenders in general.

    I’m thinking they tend to hurt more? Which is why I am getting tired of the mainstream media (MSM) and Hollywood spin. It’s almost like the MSM and Hollywood impose on us what to think, instead of letting us think for our own.

  7. Tim Moore

    They are not enforceable, like the speed laws are really not enforceable if enough people agree to break them . Sure, a few can get tickets for going way over the speed limits on freeways, but it has to be really fast, and that has almost no impact on the general flow of traffic. 85 mph seems to be the norm in a 65 zone here. The government is the people whether they admit it or not, defined by their actions and non actions. They like registries, even though most don’t use them, because everyone else likes them, or so they think, and those who don’t like them must be pedophiles or hate children.
    The culture can be changed through education and changing the dialogue. That’s just my idea, for what it’s worth. Maybe that happens in the court, but it can happen anywhere and needs to happen everywhere to be effective and lasting. I was just thinking how few people smoke anymore. People used to view it as normal, sexy, or at worst an almost insurmountable addiction most people can’t fight. Smoking didn’t even need to be made completely illegal, just undesirable and a threat. That’s what needs to happen to make registration laws undesirable and a threat. How?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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