ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

General Comments September 2018

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

Join the discussion

  1. Illinois Contact

    David’s story about Paris is distressing. Brings back horrifying memories of being pulled aside at Heathrow and interrogated and then sent back to the US on the next flight. But I thought from all previous reports that Schengen/European entry was no problem. Did you have a marked passport (but it sounds like that didn’t trigger it)? Do you live in a SORNA compliant state and did you give the 21-day notice? Are you on probation or parole? Why was this different? I am planning on several European visits so now I’m shaken.

  2. David Kennerly is Frightening and High

    The following story is significant as it comes from the corporate conservative paper of record, The Wall Street Journal. In the case of Kavanaugh, I hope that he doesn’t get seated on the Supreme Court but having nothing to do with his highschool hijinks but everything to do with his views on government authority and what I fear would be a far-less salutary regard for our rights as, say, Gorsuch who is, nevertheless, still to prove that to us. I’ve excerpted some of the article because it is behind a paywall. “The Presumption of Guilt: The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.” By The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal

    “Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed.”

    —Sen. Maize Hirono (D., Hawaii)

    The last-minute accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is an ugly spectacle by any measure. But if there is a silver lining, it is that the episode is providing an education for Americans on the new liberal standard of legal and political due process.

    As Ms. Hill and Sen. Hirono aver, the Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court.

    This turns American justice and due process upside down. The core tenet of Anglo-American law is that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the accusation. An accuser can’t doom someone’s freedom or career merely by making a charge.

    The accuser has to prove the allegation in a court of law or in some other venue where the accused can challenge the facts. Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which “J’accuse” becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta.

    Another core tenet of due process is that an accusation isn’t any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion or ethnicity of who makes it. A woman can lie, as the Duke lacrosse players will tell you. Ms. Hirono’s standard of credibility by gender would have appalled the civil-rights campaigners of a half century ago who marched in part against Southern courts that treated the testimony of black Americans as inherently less credible than that of whites. Yet now the liberal heirs of those marchers want to impose a double standard of credibility by gender.

    A third tenet of due process is the right to cross-examine an accuser. The point is to test an accuser’s facts and credibility, which is why we have an adversarial system. The denial of cross-examination is a major reason that campus panels adjudicating sexual-assault claims have become kangaroo courts.

    It’s worth quoting from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling this month in Doe v. Baumon a sexual-assault case at the University of Michigan.

    “Due process requires cross-examination in circumstances like these because it is ‘the greatest legal engine ever invented’ for uncovering the truth,” wrote Judge Amul Thapar. “Not only does cross-examination allow the accused to identify inconsistencies in the other side’s story, but it also gives the fact-finder an opportunity to assess a witness’s demeanor and determine who can be trusted. So if a university is faced with competing narratives about potential misconduct, the administration must facilitate some form of cross-examination in order to satisfy due process.”

    Consider the limited facts of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. It concerns an event some 36 years ago that she recalls in only partial detail. She remembers the alleged assault and rooms she entered with some specificity, but not the home where it occurred. She doesn’t know how she traveled to or from the home that evening.

    She told no one about the incident for 30 years until a couples therapy session with her husband. Her therapist’s notes say there were four assailants but she says there were only two. Two of the three other people she says were at the drinking party that night say they know nothing about the party or the assault, and Mr. Kavanaugh denies it categorically.

    Democrats claim that even asking questions about these facts is somehow an unfair attack on her as a woman. Her lawyer is demanding that Ms. Ford testify after Mr. Kavanaugh, and that only Senators ask questions—no doubt to bar Republicans from having a female special counsel ask those questions.

    We’re told Ms. Ford even wants to bar any questions about why she waited so long to recall the alleged assault and who she consulted in finally going public this year. Such a process is designed to obscure the truth, not to discover it. None of these demands should be tolerable to Senators who care about finding the truth about a serious accusation.

    We don’t doubt that Ms. Ford believes what she claims. But the set of facts she currently provides wouldn’t pass even the “preponderance of evidence”—or 50.01% evidence of guilt—test that prevails today on college campuses. If this is the extent of her evidence and it is allowed to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, a charge of sexual assault will become a killer political weapon regardless of facts. And the new American standard of due process will be the presumption of guilt.

    • Tim Moore

      I think when you strip away all the hype, the issue becomes one of whether a nominee to the Supreme court is lying to the public. It is the same reasoning Kavanaugh via Starr used against Clinton. Sounds like poetic justice. Anyway, an accuser must always feel safe enough to make accusations without retribution. Like it or not, when you desire one of the highest positions in the government, accusations come withnthe territory. Great leaders and fools know how to weather them. If there were severe consequenses for things like whistle blowing no one would ever expose corruption or crime, well almost no one. Enter today and the result of Obama’s past (and Trump’s present) prosecutions and sever punishments for whistleblowers. It has little to do with meetoo or feminists but those in power shielding their own. There is a free speach issue with speaking up against another. And that has been hindered by the side which holds the power of the state. One can’t just criminalize accusations, because one doesn’t like the accuser. Same is true of families of sexual abusers. When the consequences of exposing the abuser become an invitation to share the hardships of the registry by family association, one takes the chances with the abuse of the devil you know or what is viewed as the minor demon or the greater devil of social stigma. Therefore the question of “why didn’t you come forward sooner” becomes one of social conditions. Due process must in part come with a belief in both sides until an independent investigation, via FBI in this case, is in process and finds details leaning one way or another.

  3. Steveo

    Not sure where to post this, but some people asked for a report. I have a 25 year old deferred adjudication record for sexual assault of a minor.

    Me, my wife and adult daughter flew out of Houston on the 4th to Budapest Hungary (through the Netherlands) via KLM airlines.
    I live in Texas so after trying to contact the officer in the county where I register about 3 or 4 times, I just sent him a certified letter informing him of my travel plans. We flew from there to Prague Czech Republic, then down to Bucharest, Romania all without incident. Then back home 17 days later, all without incident. When I got back into Houston, I was flagged for something they called a hard flag, or something like that, and had to wait in a room with a bunch of border patrol officers, who were mostly just doing nothing, along with about 20 other people. It reminded me of DPS. They had plastered all over the place, No Cell Phones, No Cameras. They were unpleasant people. I got called up to speak with one of the guys about 10 minutes later, and asked where I had been, and where I was headed. He never smiled, or showed any emotion except a frown, then he handed me my passport and said “you can go”, and that was it.

    • E

      Steveo, glad you had a good trip. Let us know if you get a revocation letter. I’ve sat in that room in Houston many many times!! Only the last time did they go a step further and check my luggage and my phone. I permitted it/unlocked it. He scrolled through it for 2-3 minutes and then gave it back to me. From what I could tell he was looking at Internet history.

      • Will Allen

        Why did you allow the person to go through your phone? Is that required? What would happen if you did not? Why talk to the people at all? I’m really asking. Why not simply don’t talk to them?

        • CR

          There is a border exception to 4th amendment privacy rights based on United States v Ramsey, 1977, and United States v Montoya de Hernandez, 1985. CBP can conduct border searches of electronic devices. Up until January of this year, CBP maintained that they did not need either probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to do a search. In January they clarified that the don’t need probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do a “basic” search, and only reasonable suspicion to do an “advanced” search.

          A basic search is one where they paw through your device in order to “review and analyze” information contained thereon. In an advanced search, they can hook up your device to equipment that can review, analyze, and copy its content.

          CBP always has at least reasonable suspicion that any registered sex offender has committed, or is planning to commit, a crime. The fact that we have committed a crime before, are on a watch-list (registry), and are entering the country upon return from international travel is sufficient to warrant that level of suspicion.

          So yes, they can go through your phone, and you can’t refuse them.

          I believe anyone can refuse to talk to them, or talk only with an attorney present. It’s probably not going to help you get home any sooner.

        • Will Allen

          CR (September 26, 2018):

          Thanks for the information. I worded my questions poorly. What I was really asking about was why did the person unlock the phone as opposed to just handing it to them and saying something like, “I do not want you to look through my phone so I’m not giving consent for anything that I’m not forced to.” It was the unlocking part that I was curious about. And what if you had all of the important stuff on the phone actually encrypted? I could easily see a person having all sorts of encrypted files on their phone and just simply saying, “Those are just some files and I have no comment whatsoever about them or their contents.”

          I recall a conversation somewhere (perhaps here) where people were saying that if you were returning to the U.S. that you would be better off simply shipping any key electronic devices back to your home (or wherever). I assume that customs could inspect those as well but it would be very easy to negate the fact that they belonged to a Registered Person. So they wouldn’t be able to do their normal harassment.

          But I was questioning about how much a person had to talk to them. I would keep any conversation to the absolute minimum possible. Because that is always a good idea and because I have a very hard time keeping my smartass mouth shut usually. I was returning to the U.S. Virgin Islands one time back before this “Angel Watch” stupidity started and the guy didn’t speak English very well. He said something like, “Do you have a problem with justice?” I thought at the time, and still do, that he was asking if I had some outstanding legal issues or requirements. But I answered, “Yes, I think the people in it suck and they are f***ing idiots.” He didn’t seem perturbed at all by my comment and looked fairly agreeable with it. He just walked off, came back 5 minutes later, returned my documents, and I left.

        • David

          (Please see my comment under “International Travel after IML”.)

    • steve @ steveo

      This is good information. Texas is a non Sorna state I believe like California. So you just sent a letter no official form correct? It appears Dave who is from California also a non Sorna state did an official form and he had to deal with a lot more it seems. I think the way to go is how you did it.

  4. David

    🤔 Hmm, perhaps the next time the French officials pull me aside, I will remind them about France’s WWII Vichy government’s collaboration with the Nazis and ask if they wish to repeat such deplorable collaborating with the facist regime of America …. you know, the one that officially marks the passports of some of its own citizens??

  5. K

    This comment is referring to reduction from felony to misdemeanor, and then expungement. Has anyone done this using Thoughts and opinions… I have 311.11(a). Convicted March of 2010. Received a few months in jail and five years probation. I had to turn myself in a month after conviction. During that 30 day period I got a violation of probation. Caught a little extra time for that,but all jail time. I have been off probation since March of 2015. No prior convictions or anything. I’m thinking about hiring recordgone but wanted to check opinions first. Thanks guys.

    • someone who cares

      K ~ If your offense was a wobbler, and is eligible for expungement, recordgone will always try to reduce it to a misdemeanor first and then expunge it. I would contact them for a free consultation to make sure your offenses is a wobbler and not an offense excluded from being eligible.

  6. MatthewLL

    Article about Alaska governor pushing for changes. This article should have it own caption and link I think.

    • AJ

      “The punishment in this case in no way matched the severity of the crime,” Governor Walker said.
      Hey Gov, someone should tell you the registry isn’t punishment.

  7. NY won't let go

    I can see a lot of people going to jail over something like this.

    Woman after consensual intercourse: “I told you not to finish on my face!” calls cops
    Or god forbid it gets on their clothes. This could be applied to so many explicit videos also when the girl says not to finish in them and the guy does it anyway.

    Not trying to make light of him strangling the lady. But unwanted contact of bodily fluids should go both ways as feminist protesters have thrown period blood on men and other women without having been charged of a crime such as this.

  8. David

    @ “Steve @David” and “Illinois Contact”:
    1. No, I am not on parole or probation or any type of community or corrections supervision.
    2. No, my 5-year old U.S. Passort is not marked. It does not contain the IML’s “Scarlet Letter”.
    3. I have a felony conviction from 1996 for L&L with a teenager.
    4. I was traveling by myself.
    5. I live in a non-SORNA compliant State.
    6. I submitted the Advance Notification of Travel form approximately 24 days prior to my departure. It was submitted – with receipt acknowledgement – to the Police Specialist who handles all the 290 Registrant matters in my city.

    1. I used the State Attorney General’s Advance Notification of Travel form this time, not the Angel Watch/IML’s Advance Notification of Travel form (which I had used for past trips abroad).
    2. I provided all of the information I had available at the time I submitted the form. I still had not identified a few of the vacation rentals where I would be staying. (This had been the same situation as previous trips – late identification of rental addresses – and no hassles on those trips.)

    I think the Advance Notification forms are ill-conceived and impractical. What if I arrive at my stay-rental apartment and it has flooded, collapsed, burnt down, or been infested by rats? Am I supposed to NOT find an alternate place to stay?? And, besides, who really cares about where exactly I am staying while out of the country on vacation? Or what if I miss my outgoing flight and won’t actually arrive in the foreign country until a day later??
    I am unaware of French law enforcement documenting/recording any of the rental locations. Nor does foreign LE follow-up with some ridiculous version of a “vacation residency compliance check”.
    The Advance Notification form is just government harassment, nothing more. (Besides when was the last time France suffered the scourge of “sex tourism” [which is purportedly the reason for the Advance Notification]??)

    Next trip, I will anticipate this foolishness and ask for a copy of whatever notification they received from the U.S. government that lead them to detain and question me.

    • steve @David

      Thank you very much for being thourough in your responses. I thought about the same thing as far as obtaining a copy at the very least I am going to ask to take a picture of it.
      My conviction is the same as yours and believe I will departing from the same airport as you. I put my family and a couple of my daughters friends on a different flight to avoid stressing them out. I’m glad I did. My trip is not until next June so a lot could change either way.

      • David

        @Steve: Don’t sweat it too much, Steve. The French are civilized, cultured people and, unlike our government, they are not hysterical, punitive, fear-mongers.
        Here’s my recommendation to you (and this is certainly what I intend to do next time): Prepare a complete travel itinerary with your flight information, and
        addresses and dates of where you’ll be staying.
        I also plan to prepare, in French, answers to some of their routine question. Not all French people speak perfect English, so it will help them and help you to ensure that – as much as possible – mistakes in translation are avoided. I plan to print this and hand them a copy.
        (A final note: the Google Translation app has been enormously helpful for communicating in French. I use it all the time in shops, restaurants, etc. I just ask a question and show the screen’s translation to the waiter, shop clerk, etc.)
        Bon chance!

        • David Kennerly est sceptique

          “The French are civilized, cultured people and, unlike our government, they are not hysterical, punitive, fear-mongers.” Well… the French are no longer all that “French”, it would seem. And yes, they have become hysterical and punitive even if not to the extent of Americans (yet) but that’s really not saying much. I can understand the language and listen daily to French radio and read the French press and they are pretty obsessed about, and unhinged by, “les pédophiles.” I think things really started to change with the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium a number of years ago. I was in Europe when that really became a huge story and remember the palpable shift in tone among the French, the Belgians, and the Dutch. A Belgian who I was working with said that he would no longer allow his kids outside to play unsupervised, etc. It was really pretty frightening to see that pall cast over Europe. Their media is hardly less infused with stranger danger, from what I have seen, than our own. I don’t know anywhere that hasn’t changed significantly – and I’ve been to a lot of places – as a result of sex hysteria, except perhaps for Myanmar (although I call it “Burma”).

    • AnotherAnon

      Sauer told investigators he searched the sex offender registry and chose two men whose acts he was “particularly disgusted by” and wanted to get justice.

      A lot of people don’t take the time to understand the underlying conviction code.

      • David Kennerly is Frightening and High

        “A lot of people don’t take the time to understand the underlying conviction code.” Even so, the code hardly tells the whole story either.

        • AnotherAnon

          How true that is. It would be necessary to read a few appellate decisions of CA’s 647.6 code to realize that annoying or molesting a child could be saying the wrong thing to a 17-year-old, or could be some other non-contact behavior. When this code was enacted, “molesting” did not have the same meaning it has today. In fact, both words are synonyms. Who is going to bother going to that trouble after finding it on the public registry?

    • Will Allen

      Looks like the Registries continue to work just as intended.

      Stories such as this should convince everyone that your property needs to be completely walled off. If anyone comes inside the walls, they need to be murdered. Cowards like this guy will continue to attack Registered Citizens who are not protected. We need them to be attacking people who are protected and who will murder them. Heck with getting them imprisoned, they are clearly a danger to society.

      F all people who support the Registries. They are not Americans and no one need have any concern for them. Wage war against them.

      • CR

        @Will Allen, the concept of free speech holds that mere utterances are not a crime and should not be prosecuted. Overt acts or attempted acts in violation of the law constitute crime. So too, does incitement to such acts.

        Clearly in this case you are expressing an idea only, but your expression seems to be growing increasingly violent. I am sure all registrants and almost everyone else would agree that we have a right to defend ourselves against attackers, but the way you put it is going to be misunderstood and is not likely to achieve anything good. It’s only likely to foster a negative response.

        For your own sake and for that of your fellow registrants, please dial it back a notch.

        • AnotherAnon

          While I agree that Will Allen’s tone will not convince any voter who happens by, he does not specify any individual person and act that crosses the free speech line. Sure it may be close at times but he seems to think it worth the risk.

          Far more interesting perhaps is rebellion in general. I would be surprised if all RCs simply comply without rebelling somehow. Human nature. At least I hope most would not get on the Nazi trains to their deaths if for no other reason that would just be the beginning for the government. Again, I invoke Paragraph 175.

          I rebel in ways and especially try to single out vigilantes to waste as much of their time as possible (without victimizing and getting arrested, of course). I refuse to condone the government continuing to lie and cheat and apply ex post facto laws while it expects a different result. That’s my little rebellious twist on the definition of insanity. As long as the government continues hitting its head on the wall, I will gladly try to make the wall do damage.

          Indeed, I suspect some of the most shocking cases are forms of terrorism, and terrorism is meant to shock a community with fear. As Janice has said, a case like that would kill the tiered registry. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

        • AJ

          Thanks for saying what I’ve long thought. My solution has been simply to skip over some posters’ comments.

        • Will Allen

          AnotherAnon (September 24, 2018):

          I’d like to be clear that I think it is important that people do not minimize any harm that they have done against an innocent person. So if you’ve harmed someone, you do owe that person a lot of amends. You deserve appropriate punishment as well.

          Beyond that, the Registries aren’t acceptable. We know their primary purpose has nothing to do with protecting anyone. Completely known. And there are no legitimate excuses for the Registries and especially the complete BS that they have enabled and promoted. So that said, it is completely appropriate, moral, and American to retaliate for the mere existence of the Registries.

          I think the key, given, constant retaliation has to be that the Registries are rendered even more useless than they naturally are. For me personally, I have found that it is completely trivial to have close relationships with people, families, and children where none of them know I am Registered. The Registries are not valid so I don’t ever worry about telling anyone about them. If someone finds out later and doesn’t like, I don’t have any problem telling them to go F themselves. That has worked great for over 2 decades. Not caring about Registry Terrorists (RTs) or their opinions has freed me.

          Beyond that, I have a long list of ways that I actively retaliate. I think one of the best ways to retaliate is to live better than the RTs. I think being wealthy is one of the best ways to drive all kinds of retaliation. You can control all kinds of people. Get businesses that are infiltrated in government. If you don’t want to start one and get it in (which is no small feat), buy one or more. If you have the money, it’s easy. And keep your ownership hidden. You should also infiltrate government via politicians and other ways. Once you done that, you can reduce their ability to commit their crimes.

          It’s like about everything else in life – if you want good results you have to put significant effort into it. Make it a vendetta. Or just a hobby.

          I do wonder what affect terrorism would have on the Registries. I haven’t really thought about it much. But I have been surprised that more people who are listed on the Registries have not violently retaliated. Every time I hear that some place has been shot up I do wonder if it was a person who was Registered.

          What effect do you think it would have if there was another Oklahoma City bombing and it was preceded with the message “Here is your gift for your Registries”? I’ll have to think about that. What bearing does retaliation have on “if it saves one child”? I have thought little about that and I don’t have time to do so now. But I will later.

        • Will Allen

          AJ (September 24, 2018):

          I can understand the sentiment that it is better to just avoid people who make you angry. But I don’t think that is a great strategy. The Registry Terrorists stick their heads up their rear ends and then pretend that their Registries “work” and that they are “gittin them there $EX offenders!” They pretend that there are not people like me. Or that the Registries would be awesome if only the “people who deserve to be on them were on them” or “if we just had Tiers”. But all that is just being ignorant and uninformed and ignoring actual reality. RTs aren’t big on facts or reality so I guess ignoring is best for them. But if they ACTUALLY cared about protecting anyone, contrary to their non-stop lies, they would pay attention.

        • Trish

          Pls don’t speak silly wimpy delagatory, negotiating bs when RCs are targeted and killed while lies and fear spread throughout the world ! Don’t be a idiaot pls !

        • Will Allen

          CR (September 24, 2018):

          I posted a response to you yesterday but apparently ACSOL did not like it. So I can’t respond how I really wanted to. But I’ll try to respond close enough.

          Thank you for your feedback. I do appreciate well considered and honest feedback. But my original comments should hopefully do at least a few good things – the key of those being just to remind and encourage Registered People that they need to have their homes fully enclosed and protected. Just like in other third world, cesspool countries. It is maybe not extremely likely that someone might try to burn your home down or murder your family, but obviously we have seen that people have used the Nanny Big Government hit lists exactly for hitting people, as intended.

          I will have to disagree with you that anyone should “dial it back a notch”. I think the opposite should be done, one hundred fold. Have you noticed that with regard to the Registries and its BS, that being nice has NEVER worked at all? Have you noticed that you cannot be reasonable with truly stupid, unreasonable people? The wins that have come about in this war have been by force – in court, by taking money, elections, or some other forced means. There is NO reason to be nice to anyone who support the Registries. They aren’t going to be doing you any favors.

          People need to speak up, in the most forceful way possible, that the Registries are simply unacceptable and that they will only exist at the greatest possible cost.

    • R M


      “Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-39-201, members of the public are not allowed to use information from the registry to inflict retribution or additional punishment to offenders. Harassment, stalking, or threats against offenders or members of their families are prohibited and doing so may violate both Tennessee criminal and civil laws.”

      I wonder what the actual sentence could be for I guess destruction of private property and attempted murder?

  9. David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

    The reason Cody Wilson was just extradited to the U.S. from Taiwan? Because the U.S. revoked his passport while he was there. It turns out that having your passport revoked constitutes an illegal presence in, at least in this case, Taiwan. I have not encountered this argument before. I suspect that we will see more like it as the U.S. continues to project its extraterritorial authority over our lives.

    • David Kennerly

      Also, there’s this: “US approves $330m arms sale to Taiwan.” That certainly helps to put things into perspective. I’m a big fan of Taiwan, btw. I root for them vigorously in their struggle against Chinese hegemony.

    • NY won't let go

      This is the kind of thing I have been afraid of happening, but they issued a felony arrest warrant first and then revoked his passport.

      I still don’t understand why not knowing someone’s age because they portrayed someone older automatically puts the male at fault when he had no idea of the actual age….

  10. David

    Now anyone – including those convicted of violent assaults and firearms offenses – can purchase a
    3-D printer and print themselves a gun. So will LE be doing regular (10, 20, 30 years-after-the-conviction) compliance checks of those “offenders”? Will the offenders be barred from owning 3-D printers under penalty of felony conviction? I’m just thinking that if LE so enjoys showing us love, maybe they should start spreading that love to those with higher recidivism rates who pose greater threats to society? (Oh, that’s right, in America, you can shoot up an entire school of teenagers …. just don’t get caught peeking at a picture of one.) 🤯🔫🤷‍♂️

  11. Frustrated

    Reported on News radio:

    A cell provider gave a # to a woman for new phone service. The phone was meant for her daughter. The # had been recycled from an online prostitute and the daughter was getting messages asking for services. The woman freaked, and the # was permanently trashed by provider.
    Now, if she had reported this to police, would the unknowing “client” have been arrested?
    I bet that Johnny Law would have tried to get him for some juvenile sex crime.

  12. mike r

    This Kavanaugh issue is soooo important for this country it cannot be stressed enough. This is the best opportunity, with the perfect candidate such as would be the case with Frank Lindsey for attacking the Registry, but that is a different story, to set the record straight on what constitutes a credible and legal sexual assault accusation and how it should be handled. The incredibly credible, accomplished, and impeccable record from this Justice should have never even been tarnished by these accusations and unless there was a conviction for a crime should never even been introduced into the equation in any setting let alone in such a setting as the senate conformation hearings. These women, and I mean all women that accuse individuals and go public with these accusations, or even brings them up at all in any way, with absolutely no corroboration or evidence, should be prosecuted and should serve prison terms that mirror the sentences for the crimes that they are alleging. I bet that would stop these character assassinations and put justice and the rule of law back into place when it comes to these type of issue. Innocent until proven guilty by evidence and facts, not unsubstantiated accusations is the foundation of our country and I can only imagine what the founders would think. This is defamation in the most extreme extent and if I was any of these people that are being targeted I would go after them in civil court with everything I had and unless they can show by the pro-ponderous of the evidence, which is the standard for civil court I believe which she be demolished and require the same as a criminal court, then these accusers need to be destroyed in every sense, financially, socially, politically if they are in public office. Such claims, despite what the left wing radicals think or say, do not even rise to level that should even be considered by any LE or DA as requiring even an investigation. They should be completely dismissed as hearsay and once again, the false accusations should be punishable by the same criminal liability that the accused would face if true. Also, these unsubstantiated accusations do an incredible disservice to actual sexual assault victims. You know these Dems keep stating the credibility of these women and there accusations are one and the same. They are not. I do not care how credible the person is the accusations are only credible if there is actually evidence……….

    • steve @miker

      Not so sure now he would be our ally with this allegation if anything, as we have seen, he could go completely the other way to hide his demons now that his past is exposed. Doubt he will be sympathetic now at all.

    • NPS

      I believe these women. You have no idea what a woman goes through when she is sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, or raped. It is beyond the physical trauma; in fact, it pales in comparison to the psychological and emotional trauma. I know this because I was forcibly raped on June 28, 2007, and I did not report it. And it is because I didn’t report it that I am on the registry today. I will not go into specifics on my case because it is my business. What I will say is that the DA and my own attorney said, “you allowed yourself to be taken advantage of.” The ultimate victim blaming and shaming. When I transferred my probation from OC to SF, the SF authorities said, “had it happened in our jurisdiction, we would’ve gone after HIM.” My therapist at Sharper Future elected not to provide sex offender therapy because she knew I did not need it; she knew I was factually the victim.

      MANY women don’t report because we are afraid of the repercussions. I know many women who have been victims of some type of sexual assault. Most never reported it because they did not want to go through the humiliation. Those who tried were told by law enforcement that it was their fault.

      I have no doubt that Kavanaugh, like every other swinging d**k with a too high sense of entitlement, probably did the things he is accused of. I’m glad this is coming out. I hope more women come out. I hope, too, that those against him say that he cannot be trusted for the things he did in his youth. I’m not going to buy the argument that he’s a changed man.

      BEFORE YOU HARP ON ME, LET ME EXPLAIN WHY. Politicians and Judges to love to say “once a predator, always a predator.” In that case, this same logic must apply to one of their own; this should apply to Kavanaugh. They can’t have it both ways. If they truly believe that he is not that person today, that he was just immature and made a stupid choice, then they better get rid of the registry because how are nearly 1,000,000 people on the registry any different?

      Just like during the Salem Witch Trials, it took people in power to be accused before logic and reason started setting in. That’s what it will take for the registry. Not a person in the entertainment industry, but a well respected person who holds the highest office. That isn’t the presidency. It is a seat on the Supreme Court.

      • David Kennerly

        Agreed. People are on the Registry for lots of different reasons. Kavanaugh is highly unlikely to be our friend on the Court. I would rather that he had been taken down on the issues of accommodation of government overreach and scant regard (from what I can tell) for criminal justice reform. Still, I’ll take it if, indeed, he is out of the game. Fingers crossed.

    • David

      @ mike r: 🤔 …. our [country’s] “founding fathers”?? … hmmm, you would turn to slave-owning child-rapists for moral clarity?
      Thomas Jefferson’s slave Sally Hemings was around 14 years old when he started having sex with her. He owned her and she had no freedom to give consent even if she wanted to do so.
      (Personally, I’m in no position to suggest a moral high ground here, but I think my point bears consideration.)

      • David Kennerly

        Thomas Jefferson was not “a child-rapist” by the standards of his time. And the only reason why you call him a “rapist” is that you are applying contemporary laws of “statutory rape” (not actual “rape” – this used to be very clearly understood just a few decades ago) as defined by these modern statutes which also define “consent” in ways which would not have been recognized in the Eighteenth Century when fourteen-year-olds were considered sufficiently mature to have sex. Yes, he was a slave-owner, to his genuine discredit (and also to his personal consternation) but this was also not inconsistent with the values of his time. By calling him a “child-rapist”, and succumbing to the modern-day social-justice indulgence of proclaiming oneself morally superior to all previous generations, and dismissing out-of-hand all historical context, you overlook an incredibly influential and brilliant man to whom we owe a very great deal. Yes, not only would I turn to him for “moral clarity” but you would be wise to do so, yourself. Your point is considered and soundly rejected.

        • NY won't let go

          The laws changed a lot in the US over the last century. When I had talked to my great aunt she had told me that she had her wedding in Michigan when she turned 13(this was in the 40s or 50s)

        • mike r

          OMG, this is exactly another thing that is wrong with this country. People want to bash our founding fathers and have no respect for our country’s history or the legacy of the creators and fighters that established this great country. If you do not like our country’s history, including the founding fathers, war heroes, etc. and stand by your unpatriotic disgust for our founding fathers go live in Canada or whatever world is perfect for you. I have class in a few so I will get back to this disgusting statement by David………….David Kennerly>thank you I will comment later but thank you for your patriotism……………..

        • AO

          @David Kennerly, age of consent laws aside, I highly doubt Sally Hemings was a completely willing participant. She was a young woman. She was a slave. It’s not like she could’ve realistically said no and rebuked his advances. At the very least, I’m sure it was a Weinstein situation where he used his influence and power to coerce Hemings into bed. And, because times were different back then as you said, he likely never saw anything wrong with doing so. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong. It’s like saying women not being able to vote and slavery were fine because those were the times.

        • James

          Dear AO:

          “@David Kennerly, age of consent laws aside, I highly doubt Sally Hemings was a completely willing participant.”

          Why would you say this? It is entirely possible that Ms. Hemings was the instigator and Thomas Jefferson was truthfully the reluctant participant.

          This seems as probable, actually more probable, than your version.

          Now it is true that this was at the extreme end of the power relationship curve, and yet it would be exactly this imbalance that caused Sally to pursue the relationship….great benefits would and did flow to her from this relationship…(not saying this is good, I am saying this is just true).

          I might also add that…sex it weird, beyond the relative power of the parties, all kind of factor play into, compel and mitigate and facilitate…this difficult magic we call sex.

          Just sayin`….all kinds of stuff goes on, some conscious, much subconscious…strange be we human beings.

          Best Wishes, James

        • AO

          @James – “It is entirely possible that Ms. Hemings was the instigator and Thomas Jefferson was truthfully the reluctant participant. This seems as probable, actually more probable, than your version.”

          Did you write this with a straight face? Thomas Jefferson, a General of a revolution, President of the United States, a Master of his slaves, was a reluctant sexual participant in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 14-year-old slave? Not only possible but more probable than Jefferson using his power over her?

          I mean, it’s certainly one of many possibilities. The same possibility that my yet unchecked Power Bowl ticket is currently worth $300 million.

        • James

          Dear AO

          Of course I meant this seriously.

          And the probabilities are not as you describe them.

          For the sake of discretion I will not go further on this…we will just have to agree to disagree on the vagaries of human nature, the vast possibilities of human interaction.

          But yes, one more time….It is more than just possible that Ms. Hemings initiated the relationship, for a whole bunch of reasons, or maybe not. We will never know the truth of this and we will just have to agree to disagree where the probabilities fall on this.

          Best Wishes, James

          Best Wishes, James

      • mike r

        @David and NPR, not Kennerly either loved your response, I already stated my opinion, go live in another country……You are probably one of those who would tear down Lincoln’s and Washington’s etc statutes because you have no patriotism. Disgusting in the highest degree………I am not even saying anything to you again. You are stomping on every great American that has shed blood to respect and preserve this country and the Founding Fathers visions. A lot of people may not agree with this but I am stating it. In their time it was legal and it was normal and in my opinion there was nothing wrong with it in the first place. From time beginning young women would be introduced to their sexuality with older men as soon as they became sexually mature. Maybe if we went back to older men initiating young women into their sexual experiences instead of terrifying them and making them think sex is evil and bad at such a young age then maybe a lot of these women would not be such puritans and hate men so much. Of course I am not advocating that for one reason, it is illegal in our society. That is the problem women like you NPR hate men. Bottom line, you were wronged by a man and now you hate men and want all men to suffer for your unfortunate incident. You may, and I am sure all the left wing radicals, which appears to be all Dems now days, will think what I am saying is disgusting but your attitudes and ideologies are the disgusting ones and your kind are ruining what should be the greatest country on Earth, If you do not respect the constitution, our country, and the heroes, founders, and warriors that have fought to preserve that vision then Canada or Mexico are right around the corner. That’s it, no more defending the country and founding fathers and our great country from people with your attitude, at least not on here it is not worth it since there is no convincing irrational minds and a waste of time on you people. We have to have Kavanaugh and hopefully Ginsberg is out soon as well and another conservative constitionalist on the bench to stop your ideological madness. I do not even care if they all shoot down a challenge to the registry at this point, I want rational minds at SCOTUS for my son and grandchildren to counter the lefts absolutely insane agendas of erasing history, defaming our great founders and warriors whom have died to preserve this vision, and abolishing our constitution…………Disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • NY won't let go

          “best Kanye impression of all time”

          Yo Mike I’m really happy for you and imma let you finish but America as it is now is so far from what the founding fathers wanted. (this part to be read with a light attitude)

          I left the country not out of lack of patriotism but due to the fact that it had become an unlivable mess due to the constant ex-post facto laws coming up, the new laws being put in place that just replace previous laws that were just found unconstitutional, and the racism, my God the racism.

          I have never been called a chink so many times in my life as my last 10 years of my life. So aside from being shot, having my house set on fire, getting run off the road

        • CR

          You accuse NPS of being a man hater, but while you may not sense it, some of your posts come off as misogynistic. Like this one, for example.

          On another note, I think that having respect for the ideas of the founding fathers and the principles of representative government is admirable and wise. But patriotism, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, is fundamentally the conviction that your country is the best in the world because you were born in it.

          It has been clear to me since I was a young teenager that the implementation of government in the US, though it purports to follow the principles and design of the founding fathers, is in reality nowhere close to those ideals in practice.

        • mike r

          Beautifully stated up there James. You are absolutely right that she may very well have pursued him just as many young women now pursue older men.

        • Tim Moore

          Young women of 14 years like Sally H are now pursuing older men? OMG. We better put them on a registry — fast! I want to know who they are, so I can protect myself!

  13. mike r @ Steve

    Steve, I hear what you are saying but that issue is not even part of my equation. This is a way bigger issue than the mere registry, even though the registry is our big issue, this is going to set the standard by which each and everyone of us Americans are going to have to live with. Our registry issue is the same thing but it only affects, and I am not down playing our issue in the least but, a fraction of the country. Kavanaugh and the character assassination attempt based on a mere allegation without any evidence is the synonymous to how men are being railroaded thru the criminal justice system in sex offense cases and this will help put a dent, for or against, this mob mentality coming from the radical left. I try not to be partisan but this is it appears. How can no Dems come out against this insane, not even a kangaroo court level, style of justice. I personally think Kavanaugh is the best we are going to get for us in particular because he is a constitutionalist and does not appear to mind going against precedent if he feels it was not decided correctly. Now that could be bad for Roe v Wade but I really do not think so. I think the Dems are just blowing smoke because Roe is well settled law and if he follows the constitution it will be upheld. Although now he might be so pissed off at the dems that he rules against it just because of what they are doing to him ( and his family) and I would not blame but I expect more from him. His record is impeccable and I have read some of his opinions and they are sound. Like I said, this is bigger then even the registry and will decide if we allow a mob rule society such as what we face now. If this is allowed to derail this man then I would think the judges whom are on the fence on this and have no character enough to take a stand, which could destroy them in the court of public opinion, are going to think twice before applying real justice such as the case with the ousted judge Persky here in CA. Do we want SCOTUS to be influenced by public opinion? NO we do not want any judge to be influenced in such a way and in CA where judges are elected there goes any type of republic.

  14. AJ

    My $0.02: FAC is trying to raise money to fight FL’s keeping out-of-state RCs on its rolls. Given it’s on a FL support site and addresses an issue for non-FL RCs, it’s slow to get funded. For the sake of court precedent that could be leveraged elsewhere, I encourage contributing any amount to the cause. WI, NY, ex-FL, MS, LA, etc, RCs should all be keen to chip in, IMO.

    I won’t post a link to it out of respect to ACSOL, but it’s easily found via the “Donate” link on their site.

    • NY won't let go

      I would donate, but currently funds are nonexistent 😅 on top of trying to save for my own suit against NY for keeping me on when I don’t live in the country.

    • concerned

      I have donated in the past but will no longer as they had collected funds for an ex-post suit and they were saying it will be filled soon, when asked about it 3 months ago it will be filled in the week well still is not filled and will not answer questions about it and censor comments asking about it. I will, however, continue to donate and support this site

      • PK

        So you’re saying that FAC is collecting money based on false pretenses?

        • concerned


          i did not say that!
          i said we/i was told almost a year ago that the expost would be filed then again about 3 months ago was told it would be filed that week still hasnt, no reply from them when asked about it and comments censored! i will continue to support this site i will no longer donate to FAC and it breaks my heart to say that!

      • AJ

        Thanks for the info about your experience and their reply and actions. Certainly food for thought regarding any future contributions.

        • Muriel

          Please just go to the FAC website and there is a link to the Ex-post facto filing(s).
          They are proceeding as quickly as possible, however, dockets are something they cannot control. Thank you

  15. Lake County

    B___ C____, welcome to the price club! Remember, it’s not punishment.

  16. PK

    I guess everyone has heard about Cosby by now.

    I think the Judge took about 1 hour to determine whether to label him a Sexually Violent Predator.

    This blind this 81 year old could not be violent with ANYYYY-ONEEEE

    These Registration Schemas are SOOOO F****** OUT OF CONTROL in this country!!

    Who in their right mind would want to continue to live in this country as a Registered Sex Offender.

  17. PK

    I’ve been watching the breaking news on Fox News.

    Nearly every single Reporter covering this story, cannot stop throwing around the words Sexually Violent Predator- like about how vile and disgusting Sex Offenders are considered in the United States.

    The media is getting-off replaying and replaying the video of this 81 year old being led out in handcuffs.

    Being here in the U.S. ? MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH

  18. R M

    YouTube video: Rozzi: Hold Child Sex Abusers Accountable

    Rozzi said: “We are victims of doctors, coaches, scout leaders, teachers, ministers, neighbors, and even our own family members.”

    My comment on the video: He never mentioned registered sex offenders. Why? Because 95+% of registered sex offenders NEVER commit another sex crime. So why are registered sex offenders even registered? Not for safety, for sure. Why are they checked on continuously and made to follow 100’s of restrictions? Why can’t they sponsor someone from another country? Why are their passports marked as they were by the Germans? Why are they targeted and sometimes murdered by vigilantes? Political and monetary reasons, that’s why! End the registries; they only cost taxpayers unnecessary money… lots of money. Money that could be used for actually protecting children.

  19. R M

    Judge facing controversy over light sentence:

    Yep, another judge probably gonna be outed.

  20. mike r

    I hope to god Cosby makes it to SCOTUS because the precedent that has been set by all of them Nassar, Weinstein, Charlie Rose, O’Riely, and now Cosby should scare the hell out of any man out there. As long as there is corroborating witnesses then your toast, regardless of evidence. This crap has got to stop, under the constitution and the rule of law there is absolutely no way this is constitutional. I guess they never heard of insufficient evidence claim. This is a big BS+ convictions with NO evidence. I am not privy to any evidence but if there is no EVIDENCE NO CONVICTION. End of story…………………………..Disgusting, and I really hope one of these cases makes it to SCOTUS and they put a stop to this BS+++++……. I do not know if anyone can tell but I AM OUTRAGED over this crap. These Kangaroo courts are scary. AJ, is there SCOTUS precedent allowing these types of convictions that you know about?

  21. NPs


    When did I ever criticize or even mention anything about the founding fathers?
    Women like me? Have you ever met me? Or are you too chicken sh*t to come to any of the NorCal meetings that I attend? Say that to my face next time. I guarantee you wouldn’t have the cajones to do so; and let me tell you, there are plenty of fellow RCs I’ve met that are willing to stand behind me against you. Believe you me, I KNOW how to stand my ground.

    And really? I hate men? That’s the conclusion you come, to? You don’t know how I live or how I think. Speak only for yourself instead of trying to project…yes you project…your feelings onto me.

    Yes, please do ignore me. Not once had I ever responded to your rants before yesterday nor had any other interaction with you. Now I know why I should continue scrolling past your nonsense.

    Geez. It’s too bad we can’t employ a block button.

    • mike r

      NPR I never said you were bashing the Founding fathers, I was very specific about that. I really do have empathy for your harm that has happened to you and I cannot say that I believe or dis believe what you state has happened to you as I do not know you like you stated. But I can tend to believe it more because your situation has not been weaponized to destroy any one it does not sound like to me. These statements are what I have a problem with.
      “BEFORE YOU HARP ON ME, LET ME EXPLAIN WHY. >>I have no doubt<>”probably”<>this should apply to Kavanaugh. <<"
      Enough said…..Those statements support my claim against you.

      I agree CR, I really think the guy is big D, especially compared to Gorsuch, but if his confirmation is shot down on mere allegations what kind of standard is that going to set. This "I have no doubt" and he "should be considered a sexual predator" is a major problem and these types of attitudes are what has turned our country into the cesspool that it is today. This I said he did it so "HE DID IT" has to stop. Same with the minority report type of mentality and kangaroo justice in the registry. Ex Post Facto has got to stop. These are the flaws in our country and has tarnished the Founding Fathers vision. I do not have time to go into this any further, but just remember, SCOTUS has not been confronted with the fact that they were duped in McKune v Lile which rolled over in Smith and Conn. Lets wait until these facts are presented to SCOTUS before we totally condemn the court and the country as lost forever…..

      • mike r

        Let me be clearer about what statements I had a problem with, you stated “I have no doubt that he probably did this” major oxymoron statement there but whatever. and ” that he should be considered a SVP like others.” Absolutely insane……….

  22. mike r

    So I am confused on the Cosby case, and all of them for that matter, was there DNA involved, how about teeth marks, scratches from being fought off, any eye witnesses, how about a weapon that may have been used, any evidence in the accusers possesion like, rope-duct tape-gags of some kind that match what Cosby had in his possesion? I believe those used to be the types of evidence for a conviction but now it’s he did this to me and all my freinds say he did it to them so he GUILTY, prison time SVP status, oh and who cares that he is blind, as old as dirt can barely lift a pickle jar, he is a danger to society and must pay retribution to these accusers. What the hell happened to reasonable doubt? I can name a million doubts about this case dependent upon the limited knowledge I have about his case or evidence. From what I understand though it is a he said she said no physical evidence or eye witnesses to the crime. Man I have to stop watching news….

  23. David Kennerly Avoids Leaving Home

    “Texas Laws Extend Sex Offender Registry Beyond 100K” “The number of registered sex offenders in Texas climbs by nearly a dozen every day.”

  24. C

    How is everyone feeling about Kavanaugh? If he’s confirmed, will his near-burning at the stake make him more sympathetic to those accused of sex crimes, or will he instead seek demonstrate how supportive he is of women and their claims, taking their side in any case that makes it’s way to SCOTUS?

    As for me, up til the hearings I’ve been cautiously optimistic toward him, but after all this BS I pray to God he’s confirmed just to see the looks on the faces of Feinstein and Harris, not to mention the the pussy hat-wearing horde. It will be like Election Night 2016 all over again. Utter bliss.

    • CR

      Kavanaugh’s judicial record reveals that he is a primarily a friend and supporter of the State. He favors the government’s position more often than not, and has a poor record on righting the wrongs in the criminal justice system.

      I do not believe that Kavanaugh is cut from the same cloth as Gorsuch. He reminds me more of Alito and Thomas. I do not think that he will help our cause, and I hope he will not be confirmed.

      About Gorsuch, I would say that it is still too early to conclude whether he will be good for us or not. Time will tell. For now, I remain warily watchful.

      • Fess Wagner

        If Kavenaugh is not confirmed, then increasingly the new standard will be guilty until proven innocent and another at least as bad and probably even worse Republican will probably be confirmed instead. Politically, nothing is gained for us if the next likely nominee Amy Coney Barrett joins SCOTUS. She is probably worse than Kavenaugh being a devout Evangelical.

        If Kavenaugh is confirmed, at least the innocent until proven guilty standard will not be taken aback. Registrants have to deal with false accusations quite often so broadly speaking, the presumption of innocence is very important.

        • mike r

          Yeah you would think every RC when be on board with that conclusion but apparently not…And facts should matter you state that as some how fact, lets expect the worst and hope for the best is what I always try to keep in mind and nothing is set in stone, who knows this guy might just be a real constitutionalist and may even be sympathetic to our plight since he is going thru this and help shoot this crap down. You never know, and besides, with the proper articulation and the facts SCOTUS will not really be able to shoot down the argument very easily without setting some pretty bad precedent for other similar issues that the Repubs very well would not like to have happen. That is the thing precedent does not just effect one statute or law, it applies to all laws. That is exactly why I say Taylor out of CA is so frigging big, it set the standards for rational basis review that has never had a hard line like that. Now in CA Supreme Court the standard is if there is Gov reports that the court can take judicial notice of that state that laws are counterproductive then they are unconstitutional. People do not understand this but it is a fact. The registry would have to be shot down or they would be overturning their own precedent. And that is a fact since there are exact same reports as Taylor had stating the same thing about the registry.

        • TS


          That standard is already very much prevalent in the DoD UCMJ court system where guilt is presumed and innocence has to be proven despite being reinforced it really is the other way. This started almost ten years ago with Congress holding DoD accountable through their budget money in addition to promotions from being moved forward. DoD capitulated and started sacrificing its members through witch hunt tactics for the greater good of the service.

      • AJ

        Yeah, we already have one too many Alitos. Thomas has moderated some in the last few years. He’s called into some question both stare decisis and Chevron Deference. I guess and hope we will one day find out their thoughts on all things RC, once given proper social science data.

        • David Kennerly

          I’m glad if Thomas is moderating. It’s hard to tell since he never actually speaks but yeah, the decisions are what matter. Did you ever see my spreadsheet of every single SCOTUS case having to do with sex (going back decades) and how the Justices landed on each? It was a real eye-opener for me. Alito is a horror show. I need to study Joan Larsen. You think she’s promising for us?

        • AJ

          It’s not so much that I think Joan Larsen is friendly to us; it’s more that I feel she’d be slightly more reasonable than Kavanaugh will be (yes, I believe he will be confirmed by a narrow margin). She has a thin resume, and I have some concern for her activities in W’s White House. I also think her statement on Lawrence is mixed, though I agree that reliance on international laws to determine and adjudicate ours is a no-no. I suspect she and Amy Coney Barrett will be short-list to replace Notorious RBG if she goes under Trump–which will almost assuredly have to be via pine box. Both Larsen and ACB are too wet behind the ears at the Federal level to come up right away, but if Trump makes Act II, they’ll be prime candidates. (Though Trump loves Ivy Leaguers.)

        • Notorious DIK (formerly, Kennerly)

          AJ, Geez, I hope you’re wrong about Kav’s appointment. That would be a huge disappointment. Much as I don’t like the Dems you can kind of understand them being totally driven about the Merrick Garland shit the Repubs pulled, not that I’m at all sorry he didn’t make it. You didn’t answer my question about the spreadsheet.

        • AJ

          @Notorious DIK:
          “You didn’t answer my question about the spreadsheet.”
          Ooops, sorry: No.

          BTW, I’m liking the new moniker.

    • Facts should matter

      Kavanaugh, (if seated), will be a pacifist for case precedent and the established status quo surrounding sex laws. Your hope is misguided if you think things will change. If anything, he will throw us under the bus to ameliorate his past transgressions in an attempt to redeem his credibility and trust. .

    • Favor or loyalty repayment?

      If what people here are saying about Kavanaugh being a person who prefers the state over the person and would be a pacifist when it came to cases where the status quo is best, then, IMO, it really could have been a favor granted (loyalty repayment perhaps?) to the recently retired Justice to nominate a protege of his. He was a clerk for him. Who knows who for how long and well?? You decide.

      On his legal record, which should be the driving factor, he is not an ally of the registrant or anyone else on the street, but an ally of the machine.

    • Started in the womb...

      I find it interesting that two of the last three SCOTUS nominees are from the DC Appellate Court, which is not a slouch of a court when you consider what it has to decide on, see for more info.

      My big question is where were these people when President GWB nominated Kavanaugh for the aforementioned court? It is not like Anita Hill had not been recorded and was lost to the records, the topic was not new (see the movie 9 to 5?), or the internet had not been invented by Al Gore (HA!) by then. Is it the opportunity to present itself in a big top with a huge center ring that shines brightly? Is it the clinical psychologist who teaches @ Stanford wasn’t asked then to provide a possible event to her own CA senator (up for re-election no less and not doing well in the polls)? How is it she gets to dictate terms on which she is to provide testimony anyway? Is it others, e.g. elected officials and their researchers, who are trying to make names for themselves at the cost of others regardless of the toll it takes?

      Will they find he tried to hold hands with the cute girl on the playground in the second grade who thought boys were gross after he gave her a valentine card?

      Maybe they will find he is guilty of gender selection in the womb too by choosing to be a male…

    • TS

      If he does get confirmed, then it could 1) be a very a icy reception by the others on the court and others within the court’s working structure when he first steps into a meeting with them and 2) still impact mid-term elections (both parties possibly) and maybe again in two-four years for those who confirmed him.

      If he is not confirmed, then it could be an interesting return to the DC Appellate Court where one Chief Justice Garland was not even given the chance to be heard by the SJC and voted on by the full Senate.

      However, as I read in the WaPo later today, he may not be able to teach at Harvard again or even coach his girl’s basketball regardless of the confirmation.

  25. David Kennerly

    “Now #MeToo is coming for your thought crimes” “In a new front for the mob, it’s not enough to target the perpetrator of the misdeed. They are now targeting those who offer them a platform like Buruma did, or say anything warm about them at all.”

  26. mike r

    One last thing for now, to say I do not have the gonads to say this to face, ha what a joke. I have the gonads and then some, just as I have the gonads to take my case directly to the courts and fight for my rights, do you, apparently not because all I see you doing is coming on here bashing the system and men………..I try to never bash people for not fighting their own battles thru the courts because I understand how hard it is and how humiliating and and uncomfortable it is to air your own skeletons in front of these highly respected individuals in our court system whom I figured most likely look at me with disgust, but even the judge complimented my courage to do what I am doing. I am using my own name as well, no pseudonym. So to say I have not the gonads is another joke. Why don’t you step up and fight your own battles like you should have done when your alleged assault happened and then we would not even be having this discussion would we? No because your abuser would be in prison because LE would have the real evidence to convict them. I understand the difficulties and the situations where the blame you and all that, especially for young women, but stop encouraging others to not step forward at the time it happens regardless of what others think of you or what they may say. That is exactly what you are inadvertently doing rather you believe it or not……………

  27. mike r

    Another thing, this scewed vision that the left has of due process is completely erroneous. I know how do process works and has worked for for the most part, at least the last century. An individual is accused of a crime, the police investigate and if the evidence shows a reasonable suspicion that the crime has occured that make an arrest, then the accused, after bail or search warrents and so forth all based on probable cause, goes in front of a judge in a preliminary heari g where a judge decides if there is enough evidence that the csse moves forward. That is it, this crap of he has due process because he gets to defend himself against some accusations that the court has not considered the evidence in a preliminary hearing and has a judge determine there is sufficient evidence of a crime is horse shi#$$. That is NOT due process or how our system is supposed to work….

  28. mike r

    I am in no way saying that using a pseudonym is weak or not credible, I completely understand the repercussions thst can result from such exposure to individuals and their family members. My point is that there is no way you should question my “gonads” when I am putting myself out there on front street fighting for my rights. I want everyone to know not all of us are intimidated by the mobs. NPR, if you think you are so brave and feel that you have been wronged, step up and fight for you beliefs as you are here in this anonymous forum then you can talk about my “gonads” until then go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself how brave you are and if you are really standing your ground as stated. I am not saying this to disparage you or shame you, I am saying this in hope that you will seriously consider bringing your claims against the wrongs that have been commited against you, but if you are talking sexual assualt you better bring some evidence or expect to hit block walls as you have with me…If you have any evidence I would be more than happy to assist you in any way possible to bring your case in front of a court of law and avoid completely a kangaroo court of public opinion.

  29. R M

    I’m not sure what to think about this video.

    Attorney: sex offender killed in self defense

    • Lake County

      I’d like to have his attorney. I tend to believe that his attorney came up with that creative defense. If the judge allows this “Stand Your Ground” defense, it may be enough to raise doubt to at least 1 juror.

  30. mike r

    NY won’t let go, I completely hear you, I hate the state of the country as well and if I had a chance I may have very well just split. But I have children and grandchildren that are going to have to lie in this country and although our country’s past since its creation has been way short of admirable, the only way to make it the vision that the Founders wanted is for the people to fight for it. One day if enough of us fight as all generations have done, I actually believe that this will ultimately be the best country on earth, as of now, no it is a cesspool of corruption and injustice but I will fight to change it in any way possible and if many others would follow this lead we would make our country the best in the world. Especially the more talented and educated people than I am.

  31. mike r

    Oh by the way, now I am misogynistic, you forgot racist white supremacist, sexist, and a bigot, and what else do the Dems call people that they do not agree with. I suppose I am also white privileged also even though I have been on the verge of being poor all my life? What a joke. Man I have to stop, this is beyond ridiculous…….This something that even the twilight zone writers could not of even come up with.

  32. mike r

    How funny Kavanaugh even stated the same thing I did that this is like the twilight zone………..

  33. mike r

    You can already see how these weirdos are using Cosby and all the others as some how precedent to go after others when in fact none of them should of been convicted or even charged unless there was actual physical evidence. Scary state of affairs we are living in and I hope this puts a dent in there ultimate goal of seek and destroy and divide and conquer that these weirdos are using in order to maintain their power……

    • steve

      Why would sooooo many women lie? There is nothing to gain for them.

      • Will Allen

        Is that true? Will they not sue for money now?

        I have no idea if Cosby is guilty or not. I haven’t paid enough attention to it to even have an opinion. But I have no doubt at all that they easily could have convicted an innocent person.

        A main effect of the Nanny Big Government “$EX offender” witch hunt is that they, and all the idiots in the U.S., cannot be trusted with any legal proceedings that involve $EX. They lost their moral high road.

        • steve

          “Is that true? Will they not sue for money now?”

          As they should the man admitted to drugging them for sex. I would.

          “I have no idea if Cosby is guilty or not.”

          I really don’t get it the man admitted he did it. I feel like I’m talking to Kelly Anne Conway…”alternative facts”

        • Will Allen

          steve (September 27, 2018):

          Got it. I would likely sue Cosby as well. But we know that saying “there is nothing to gain for them” is wrong.

          I guess he’s guilty. I really don’t care much so I haven’t taken the time to read and digest what he said and I doubt I ever will.

          You aren’t talking to someone who deals in “alternative facts”. You might be confusing me with other people. Which is exactly why I have said that I don’t know about his guilt or not. Because I don’t. Other people do deal in alternative facts which is why people like me trust pretty much no one (except for vetted sources), ESPECIALLY and ALWAYS when it involves the $EX witch hunt. That is one stance I think every informed person can agree on.

  34. steve @mike r

    “Bill Cosby Admits to Drugging Women for Sex” Variety headline

    How much more evidence do you need?

    • mike r

      Oh, did not even notice this, so now he’s guilty because “Variety headline” states something that may or may not be true? Did you here him say “I drugged women so I could have sex with them”? I do not believe he would be that stupid to admit something like that. What he actually stated I believe if I remember right is that they were all popping pills in a partying scenario as I outlined to put the record straight. I will repeat, NO way did he specifically staye I drugged these women so I can date rape them. I really doubt that. Shit I had drunking sex many of times with women I would not if I was not drunk, does that make those women rapist? I am sure lots of men have gotten drunk or drugged out and had sex with women that they never would have if not for the fact they were drunk or drugged out, and many women have taking advantage of men in those sittuations, once again are all them rapist? I just named all kinds of scenarios that can cast reasonable doubt. Remember, it is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Just ss in my case there was a reasonable doubt in the fact that I was not even at the scene at the time I was supposed to meet with the alleged victim because I left of my own volition before the meeting was to take place and the cops arrested me more then two miles away from the meeting place. There was reasonable doubt that I would of went thru with it but my public pretender did not push the issue at trial and just let a cop state that I “must” of seen him hiding behind some bushes a mile away in the pitch black night. That “must” of is the same as ” I believe them or they probably did it so it must be true. Blows the standard beyond a reasonable doubt out the window.

      • steve

        Jesus Christ it’s in HIS deposition that HE gave. Who gives a crap who’s reporting it.

  35. mike r

    @Steve there is plenty to gain. How about civil suits, what if he was just a Big Dic@$$ to all these women and they want revenge, what if these are all man haters, what if they all want their 15 seconds of fame so they decide to jump onboard,. Those are just some of the reasons that could reasonably cast doubt. You say what do they have to gain, what do they have to lose is another perspective, nothing, you could not prove they were lying unless they buckle under pressure and admit. I just refuted with all kinds of scenarios. Now the fact that you state that he admitted to drugging them and having sex then lock him up, he can reasonably be guilty because of that fact (evidence) which backs the women’s accusations. His case can be debatable as to how much evidence and what kind of evidence is required for a conviction but at least if what you say is true there is some kind of evidence. If all he stated was that they were all partying and taking drugs like I thought he stated then that’s another story, bring on more evidence or forget it, a whole lot of people partied and took pills back then so who’s to say that they were willing at the time because they were willingly popping pills and totally regretted afterwards for a variety of reasons. I know a lot of women that did stuff like that that they regret. Hell I did with my best friends GF when I was like 17 and I came to after partying all night with her on top of me, should she be charged and thrown in prison, I was not really a willing partner and I regretted it badly the next day as soon as o sobered up and it had a major negative effect on me and my best friend forever after. I was mad as hell at her for years after that, what if I seen her on tv making millions $ and other guys saying she did the samething to them while my life was forever changed or even ruined and I was still mad enough to go to the cops knowing I would be believed no matter what and she would go to jail. Hows that scenario sound? Alot of people will say no that can’t happen but it does all the time I am sure. What if these women all thought they were going to be his gf and he just used them for sex and crushed their hearts, there is another plausible scenario. There are to many variables, especially from the 70s and 80s, that can be exculpatory. heard a quote from someone that stated “better to let ten guilty men go free then to convict an innocent man and send them to prison” or something like that. Beyond a reasonable doubt standard has been so severely eroded we are sending way to innocent men to prison now days, not saying either way if Cosby is or is not guilty because I was not on the jury, I am just stating facts here.

    • steve

      Ok so Cosby ADMITS he drugged women for sex. Let me say that again Cosby admits he drugs women to have sex….no you’re right how could he be guilty?

    • steve

      I’m sorry I don’t do conspiracy theories…

  36. frustrated

    The verdict is not my point of interest. The way the media pundits report and discuss his charges are what sways public opinion. One “expert” on MSNBC stated the “high recidivism rates of sex offenders” as a factor in his verdict. Now all that watch and hear that comment will feel justified supporting laws that push this narrative. it’s the classic one negative comment over shadowing 1000 positive facts.

  37. JM from wi

    “Kavanaugh was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress, released in September 1998, on the Monica Lewinsky–Bill Clinton sex scandal; the report called for the impeachment of President Clinton.[40] Kavanaugh had urged Starr to ask the president sexually graphic questions and argued on broad grounds for the impeachment of Bill Clinton,[48][49] describing Clinton as being involved in “a conspiracy to obstruct justice”, having “disgraced his office” and “lied to the American people”.[50] The report provided extensive and explicit descriptions of each of the President’s sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky, a level of detail which the authors described as “essential” to the case against Clinton.[51][52]”

    Character assault
    Let he who throws the first stone
    Poetic justice

    • David Kennerly's Words May Or May Not Be Printed

      Agreed. I don’t think that we are missing out on a good Justice if his confirmation falls through.

      • NPS

        I hope the confirmation does fall through. The more I listen to this hearing, the more I realize what a disgusting pig Kavanaugh is. Already 3 women have bravely come forward. God bless these women. I hope and pray more follow. Note that he doesn’t respond to the accusation; it’s all a partisan play with the attack of the media and Democrats. He is just deflecting, and it’s clear he cannot be an impartial justice. He definitely is hiding his skeletons deep in his closet. If he gets confirmed (and I pray he doesn’t) this experience is only going to make it more difficult for the registry to be overturned.

        • David Kennerly

          Mike, I understand your position but I don’t agree that he would be a Justice who will challenge the government on issues of criminal justice reform generally or sex offender issues before the court, in particular. He’s no Gorsuch (who may not even be in our corner, but we’re hoping). His track record is far less encouraging as it relates to criminal justice than is Gorsuch’s, thin although that is, too. This is my only real concern and not the drama surrounding the allegations about him decades ago of which I am quite agnostic. I don’t know who is telling the truth but, frankly, it doesn’t change my evaluation of him as a judge. However, his performance today, full of righteous anger and quaking with emotion, may have been cathartic for him but is not very promising in a Supreme Court Justice who must have exemplary dispassion and complete control over his emotions. Even if one can appreciate the theatrics of Trump as a President (although I do not and find him to be truly frightening) they are very definitely wrong in a Justice or any judge, for that matter. I’m unencumbered by party affinity and have no use for either political party. They can savage each other and I will say “A pox on both of their houses!” What we must hope for, in a Justice, is someone who can rise above party affiliation and partisanship and truly exercise judgment based on a reverence for doing justice. I don’t think Kavanaugh can do that.

        • C

          “Already 3 women have bravely come forward. God bless these women. I hope and pray more follow.”

          I just threw up a little in my mouth. You’re now officially part of the problem, the Orwellan, Twilight Zone, Body Snatcher mob that wants to destroy lives through mere accusations because sex crimes are so terrible, innocence is no defense.

      • AJ

        @David Kennerly:
        “I don’t think that we are missing out on a good Justice if his confirmation falls through.”
        I’m right there with you, brother. He may be a great guy and all (though I think he’s a wallflower who becomes an angry drunk–like a college roommate of mine was), but I’m wary of his judicial philosophies. He’ll make it out of committee, but what happens in the full Senate will come down to the wire, I think.

        I’d be quite happy Joan Larsen (6th CoA) taking his place!

        • mike r

          AJ, your are pretty sharp and I respect your cognitive abilities, now you have me thinking about this in a different perspective. Do you think this will set a bad precedent if he gets shot down? I do not really like the guy or some of his rulings but maybe I am just jumping for his defense in a biased way because I was convicted on insufficient evidence. I don’t know man. I really think all these guys getting shafted on an allegations with no evidence is wrong and bad precedent even though I agree that the guy does appear to be what you say and he may have actually done it. IDK man the evidence just is not there to support that conclusion and all these convictions and ruined lives scares me for my son, grandson etc.

    • David

      1998 – 2018: Exactly 20 years ago …. and now his glorious dog has returned home to bite him in the b@lls!!! Haha!! 😆

  38. mike r

    Steve can you cite that deposition? and not just Variety stated it, I mean the actual deposition. I really doubt that he stated he drugged women to have sex with them, no one is that stupid. If he did, guilty as charged but I find that hard to believe that he stated that exact statement as you are claiming. All i am saying is if the women willingly took the drugs then there is no way you can say for or against if they were willing partners in that case. Just as the drunken sex scenario that I explained. If you willing drink until you are pass out drunk and do not remember if you actually consented or not who’s fault is that, especially if you are both that drunk. I am just saying how in the hell are they supposed to know who consented or not if they cannot even remember because they were so drunk. Whatever, who cares that is what I am saying. I am done arguing for something like this. I have stated multiple scenarios that could of acquitted Cosby unless he straight stated I drugged them so I could have sex with them. Let me repeat, If they took the drugs willingly and knowing that they were not going to be in control of themselves and they have sex with someone there is reasonable doubt that they did consent to that sex. Who is to say unless there was an eyewitness that was not out of their mind wasted. Regrettable consensual sex is not rape.

    • steve @mike r

      Google it…50 000 articles come up about it

    • someone who cares

      Mike R ~ I hear you and agree with what you are saying. These were women, not children, went to someone’s house (who was married) and took 3 blue pills and drinks. I don’t think I would ever take 3 blue pills, not knowing what they are. One woman said she was supposedly drugged and when she woke up, she did not have her Pajamas on. What was she doing at his place in Pajamas in the first place? All these women are so drugged and under the influence of alcohol, but they can clearly say they were raped? They were too comatose to remember anything, including knowing if they consented or not. All parties involved were too intoxicated to make any rational decisions, and then it’s one word against the other. Who is to say who is right or wrong when nobody else was there to witness what was going on? My advice. Don’t go to a married person’s mansion, get drunk, take pills, pass out and then make up stories that even you don’t remember.

  39. mike r

    Everyone on her must watch Kavanaugh and take his cue and stand your ground such as he is doing. We are so lucky that this guy has the “gonads” to stand up, speak up, and show up to defend his life and integrity…………..

  40. Lake County

    I’m not vegan, but I support anyone’s right to not eat meat. Here is some good news for CA prison inmates.

    On Sept. 18, Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 1138, which states that public institutions that provide food have a “particular responsibility” to provide a diversity of healthy meals, effective Jan. 1, 2019. Under existing law, hospitals and prisons are not specifically mandated to fully provide these plant-based meal options.

    • David Kennerly

      Wow! That is amazing if too late for me. I am a vegetarian although not a vegan and five years of state prison were absolute hell for me. My health went all to hell and I ended up trading meat for some of the other dreck on other people’s trays, mostly dessert. It was a terrible, terrible diet.

  41. AJ

    For those hoping for a high-placed person’s family member being placed on the registry, you may have hope. The 59-year-old son of LA’s longest serving State Supreme Court Chief Justice was arrested for sex trafficking a 14 y.o. girl. Given the details (including his having hosted at least one encounter in his own home), it may be quite tough for him to escape conviction and registration–even if Daddy tries to help.

    P.S. I’ve not attached the URL and have kept the names out of this post to appease posting guidelines. It shouldn’t be too hard to find, given the details above.

    • Will Allen

      Nice. We need millions and millions convicted. We also need the national, public, lifetime Gun Offender Registry and 100+ other Registries. If it saves one child, it’s worth it. Even if it gets hundreds of thousands murdered.

  42. ReadyToFight

    Can someone please answer.
    I need my Sellers License to accept a job offer. It requires a Live Scan.
    Has anyone successfully been through this process? Thank you for any input.
    P.S From the bottom of my heart, Fu@k the Registry and any and All who support it.

    • Will Allen

      I’m sorry that I cannot help you with your question. But I love your “P.S.”. THAT needs to be repeated every day to everyone. Do not worry about being nice to Registry Terrorists. And you can be polite and kind to LE but also tell them that same message. I have told many LEOs that EXACT thing and more. It is a great message to repeat over and over and over again to the point of making people ill. They deserve no peace.

  43. mike r

    Damn, I was really on a rant today. lmao. whatever, I just know how it feels to have someone state that you are a sexual predator over and over again in front of a jury when you know you are not and the DA is just making shit up or twisting the facts to fit her narrative and presenting it as fact to a jury while my PD sits there and says nothing, I wanted stand up a scream my head off and was extremely angry like Kavanaugh so I can understand his rage if he is innocent or at least did not happen as they say it went down. If it was an act, he is a damn good actor. Like I said I trust AJs opinion and if he says this guys probabaly no good for us or the country then lets hope he gets shot down and hope it does not set any worse of a precedent that we already have in the justice system, this guilty untill proven innocent crap and covictions on allegations is scary and should worry us all. I am optimistic that our coubtry will turn around and be great again at some point, just hopefully sooner than later. Hopefully I can make a dent in that with my case.

  44. mike r

    I still admire the hell out of the guy for coming in there and standing his ground though.and what Lindsey Grahm stated I have to agree with, he reamed the senators about what a outrage and circus this is, this guy was fighting for his reputation, his families reputation, kind of like I am doing, and he slammed them with exonerating evidence galore, any rational mind looking objectively has to rule on the evidence, this is a public trial where the entire country is the jury, at least tens of millions of people probabaly. I would be mad as hell if I was him to, after his impeccable record both professional and character. I think he will follow the constitution regardless how hes ruled in the past. This I bet pissed him off so bad he might just listen much closer and seriously consider our case and cause once it gets to SCOTUS.
    AJ, you read some of his rulings some background on the dude I bet, has he actually followed the constitution?

  45. mike r

    I did not like his crying crap but his forceful and beautiful rebuttal was solid. if this was a preliminary hearing no way would a rational judge even consider letting this go thru court, not if the court was objective. objectivity is like math, there is a formula and it’s
    called evidence. LE probabaly wouldn’t even consider charges.

  46. JesusH


    Quick question about updating your registration in California. I’m about to buy a house and will move before the end of October. My annual isn’t due until December.

    Am I correct in that I have 5 days from the date I move to update my registration? I’ve always just done the annual, never an update.

    Also, is the ‘update for moving’ a simple address update or more like the annual where they ask all sorts of questions, fingerprint you and take your picture?


    • Will Allen

      I’ll let the knowledgeable CA people answer your questions.

      But, I have a question – how do they “ask all sorts of questions”? Do you mean via a form that you fill out or how exactly? Thanks in advance.

      • JesusH

        “all sorts of questions”… yeah it’s a form they sent in advance of my annual. Had to fill it out and bring with me.

        They ask dumb questions like VIN number of all my cars, my children’s info and spouse information, etc.

    • NPS

      Congratulations on your new home!
      You have to update within 5 working days of the move. It’s exactly the same as doing an annual, unfortunately. When I bought my house, I didn’t officially move in until the week of my birthday, so 2 birds, 1 stone. However, in my previous relocations, it was always the same as an annual.
      By the way, if you’re changing jurisdictions, you have to register out of the city first, and THAT is exactly the same as doing an annual, too. You can tell by the officers’ faces that it’s a total waste of time for them.

    • michael w

      You will be doing an address change they have two forms of this one of which is move from a different jurisdiction that requires you to deregister from where you live now and report where you are moving first then go register in the new area and then there is the moving within your registering jurisdiction where you just go in and do the address change update. I’ve done many of them in my now 2 decades of forced servitude to this state.

    • C

      Congrats on the new home.
      I’m pretty sure you’ll want to update that address right away with the po-po.

      I’ve been in my house 18 years as a 290, but we really need a bigger house for the kids. Though it’s hardly a buyer’s market, financially a larger home is not a problem, it’s the 290 thing and potential awkwardness with new neighbors that’s daunting. If it was just me it would be one thing, but I don’t want to out my family through any difficulties, especially my little ones who don’t know about my past.
      Just venting. Thanks for listening. 🙂

      • Will Allen

        F any “new neighbors”. Decent people don’t support the Registries. You don’t want anything to do with people who do. So if you find out that any new neighbors or anyone else supports the Registries, understand that they are dangerous people who deserve to be neutralized, marginalized, and ostracized. There is no reason at all to have any concern for them and especially not for their idiotic opinions. F them.

    • michael w

      just a side note remember that you will need to do the annual too, when I had to relocate I would try my best to make it coincide with my annual, though I get that is not always a option, thereby eliminating the disruption that this causes in my life, so if you could adjust the move-in by even a few weeks do so, I have had the officers help with that where they delayed submitting the forms to DOJ a few days to allow for what I was told to remove a need for redundant paperwork within a 30 day window, but as always CYA and do what you thing is best for you.

  47. D

    Just had my annual price club membership appointment, and was told that I was required to fill out all of the information on the state’s form, with a threat that if I didn’t, they would inform DOJ that I was not in compliance. I told the clerk that was asking for the information that I didn’t think it was required by the law, so she then had the detective come to the window. I explained to the detective that I will do it if it is really required, but I don’t see where the law requires it. I ended up filling out the info, and the then had the clerk come back out followed by a very large officer (I can only assume for her “protection”), where I was asked to give the thumbprints as usual.

    As far as I can see by reading PC 290, I am not required to give them my phone number, and social security number, among other things that are on the form. Can someone please tell me what exactly is required to be filled out on the state’s form?

    • Will Allen

      Got to tell you that the stupidity of LE rarely surprises me. In the state where I live, forever and ever (I expect well over a decade), the state did not have a single form that each of the 159 counties could use. So they all made up their own! And they were all sued and/or harassed for it. That alone should win an award for insane stupidity and typical, incompetent Nanny Big Government. They can’t even get the basic, simplest things correct. Why people think they could ever “monitor” anyone is beyond me.

      But anyway, the law was surprisingly clear about what information had to be given to the criminal regime. Yet, I did see a single county that was able to operate within the law! I didn’t really look around but at least 10 of the very largest counties with millions of people in them, operated outside of the law all of the time. Really, really ridiculous. And outrageous that none of them seemed to think it was a big deal at all. Which just goes to show you what kind of criminal mindset they have.

      I had great success at simply sending them, and the county’s attorneys, certified letters that stated what the law said versus what they would doing and requesting that they correct it. Only one time did I have to get an attorney involved and simply only to send the letter that I wrote. So just write to them and tell them the information that you don’t think is required, request that they tell you the exact law and location that authorizes it, and ask them to correct it. They will likely respond. If they don’t, have an attorney send it.

      If they don’t fix it, sue them for breaking the law. I mean, they can ASK for anything they like. They just can’t make it look like the law requires it.

      Lastly, these criminal regimes just can’t seem to understand that if they didn’t constantly act like such lying, tough guy scumbags, then that alone would go a long way toward making the Registries more acceptable. But I don’t think they are capable of being decent actually. After all, most of them are active criminals or borderline at least.

    • AnotherAnon

      There is a little clause in there that goes something like “and anything else the DOJ thinks (deems?) relevant.” IOW, whatever the DOJ wants, the DOJ gets, unless a court rules otherwise (like Internet identifiers). The form should be a standard DOJ form for all jurisdictions all over the state. I don’t believe individual jurisdictions can add to it without violating state law.

      So to verify the form you fill out is the state qualified one, you could compare it to forms found at the DOJ’s site. There are also a DOJ revision numbers on the forms. I’m betting there is no way to refuse to give the information on a valid DOJ form and still remain compliant. You’d be arrested after the 5 days are up.

      There was a discussion recently with Timmmy about refusing to fill out some of it by invoking the right to remain silent, but that would probably result in arrest after the 5 days are up and we don’t know how it would survive in the courts. Best to have a firm plan with a lawyer with you. No need to be reckless with registration. They have the guns and the law on their side until we win challenges.

  48. AJ

    Argh. How is one to believe States will abide by any ruling in favor of RCs when they blatantly violate a longstanding (75 years), clear-cut SCOTUS ruling regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and the First Amendment? (

    “Schoolchildren cannot unilaterally refuse to participate in the pledge,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said[.]
    I hate to break it to Mr. Paxton but yes they can. TX will be, in the words of comedian Dennis Miller, “stomped like a narc at a biker rally,” in court, and Mr. Paxton is going to have to eat some words and/or crow.

  49. B.Wat.

    Just did my annual price club membership for the 31st. time this morning. This is a pain in the ass, it took 3 fucking hrs.and they say this BS is not punitive. I can’t wait until January 2021 when SB-421 kicks in, I just wish to hell they would get off there ass and implement this law after all uncle Jerry has signed it! The DOJ didn’t waste any time putting me on “ the hit list” but they say they need 3 years to take me off, once again BS !

    • Lake County

      The new law does not automatically remove you from having to register. The law just gives you the right to petition the court to stop registering if your crime qualifies you to be removed.

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 *