ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

Olivia Munn and Punishment for Sex Offenders

It was recently revealed that the upcoming film ‘The Predator’ had a scene removed because it was discovered that one of the actors n the scene was a registered sex offender. Full op-ed piece

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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What’s in Olivia Munn’s closet?

Ever notice how the expert (the media) can repeat hearsay evidence (the police report) as fact when in fact it is triple hearsay?

The California Supreme Court’s new limitation on an expert’s ability to rely on hearsay evidence
People v. Sanchez created new and significant challenges to dealing with hearsay evidence

While Connecticut is different, of course, it is likely the same in many ways and has its own hearsay rules.

This is exactly what I am going to use when the AG starts laminating about under reporting or any relevant inadmissible evidence. Under reporting “IS” hearsay and inadmissible and any attempt to use any expert witnesses in my case that attempts to supply opinion instead of facts will be thoroughly debunked and denied on the record. Admissions by proxy are hearsay………Bottom line and CA has it on record in the case of Sanchez…

It is no longer all hearsay even if some elements of the hearsay laws are still missing. Jane Doe at center of ‘The Predator’ sex offender case speaks out On the first reading, my gut reaction was that ends it and at least some good comes of the scandal since it empowers her. Maybe the issue gives her some closure she was missing before. Maybe some needed healing was taking place. The second reading was a little more skeptical. First off, she wouldn’t be able to sit on a jury in a similar case because she is biased. So… Read more »

I find it horrible as this guy will never get paid acting again because you have a fellow actress deciding she is not comfortable with his PAST which he paid for already. I person can decide your fate? obviously the director wanted to give him a chance? EXPOST FACTO BY SOCIETY

What you described as “ex post facto” punishment by society is the foundational argument that prevailed when a Colorado federal appeals judge ruled the state’s sex offender registry unconstitutional on 8th Amendment grounds (cruel and unusual punishment). The judge recognized that the registry enables citizens to impose vigilante punishments against registered citizens that go way beyond any penalties handed down by a court of law. As we just witnessed in North Carolina, the registry is even used by the government as a tool of discrimination when it comes to the safety of the citizenry in the face of a catastrophic… Read more »

I don’t know but obviously I have a right to know. And Nanny Big Government is obligated to tell me. I have children after all.

Olivia dated Aaron Rodgers for a minute, his female family members rejected her as a gold digger and social climber.

It is interesting to note that…

a) this registrant professional actor playing his role (“lusting” after her) made professional actress Ms. Munn so uncomfortable that she felt compelled to speak out long after the scene was shot, and

b) I have not seen any language condemning her galpal Asia Argento for her alleged contact sex crime. Perhaps I have missed it…. after all…. Ms. Munn has stated that she has nothing(!) but contempt for those who hurt children and animals. Up to and including off color conversation.

Here’s the thing – if this did not involve $EX then no one would know anything about it or care. The guy could’ve knocked the child’s teeth out with a hammer and that would be just fine. That alone makes Munn’s behavior unacceptable.

I think Munn should probably just do her job and mind her own business. I will boycott anything she is involved with. In the future, I will be successful at getting others to do the same. I will not forget to do it for the rest of her life.

From Sanchez…. We hold that the case-specific statements related by the prosecution expert concerning defendant’s gang membership constituted inadmissible hearsay under California law. They were recited by the expert, who presented them as true statements of fact, without the requisite independent proof. Some of those hearsay statements were also testimonial and therefore should have been excluded under Crawford. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the jury findings on the street gang enhancements. That is exactly right, for any kind of enhancement there is a beyond a reasonable doubt requirement, such is the case with… Read more »

Exactly, mike r, hearsay is the grease that keeps the registry axle spinning, and every time we don’t fight against hearsay, rumors or fake science news, we feed the registry terrorist trolls and help them maintain power. It is this bumblebee hearsay that is the mouth and legs of the registry (hat tip to Frank). You’ll probably like this and it is much easier to follow: B. People v. Burroughs (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 378 The defendant was found by a jury to be a sexually violent predator. He had refused to meet with clinical psychologists who were supposed to evaluate… Read more »

Just on under reporting….I have an entire argument dedicated to this exact issue…And yes any hearsay is now hearsay as it should, so any proxy interviews on any subject are crap regardless who brings it. I wonder how a expert witness would try and weasel his way out of answering the real questions and refuting him on these proxy interviews. You know they are going to try and bring this up as usual… Plaintiff wishes judicial notice of each one of the following government citations that were all incorporated into Plaintiff’s Complaint for consideration by the Court concerning Defendant’s Motion… Read more »

I doubt that Munn supports Duterte’s extra judicial killing of suspected drug users and dealers. Yet the basic premise is here, punish those who you perceive have damaged society and do it outside the courts. Of course, killing one’s body is worse than making someone unemployable. Or is it?. It is acceptable to cause a type of social death to registrants. This is lifelong and many times leads to actual death by vigilante or suicide.

I just wanted to point out that by 20th Century Fox and Olivia Munn having discriminated against the actor, they seemed to have violated Section 290.4(d)(E). Specifically: “(2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited: (A) Health insurance. (B) Insurance. (C) Loans. (D) Credit. (E) EMPLOYMENT. (F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships. (G) Housing or accommodations. (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.” According to this section: “(4) (A) Any use of… Read more »

I bring up a lawsuit against 20th Century Fox and Olivia Munn because until we start pushing our Rights in the majority’s faces, they will continue to “bulldoze” over our right to move on from our past mistake! FFS, this actor has been offense-free over eight years — which is about the time I committed my first-time offense. If this actor doesn’t file a lawsuit against 20th Century Fox and Olivia Munn, then this could start a very bad precedent in which may of us will be refused employment and/or fired on the only basis of our registrant status. Personally,… Read more »

“… we all have a RIGHT to move on from the past!” That is true, but no one has a right to be employed, nor does anyone have a right to be forgiven, or a right not to be shunned by those who disapprove of them or dislike them, or a right to force anyone else to associate with them. We all hope that others will judge us for the person we are now and how we behave today, and not for who we were in the past, or for our past actions. Maybe some will do that; most won’t.… Read more »

It’s not about if anyone has the right to be employed. It’s about if they were discriminated against in the context of employment for being in a protected class.

@The Lawsuit — No, my comments were indeed about whether or not anyone has a right to be employed. If you read my comment again, you will see that I was responding to a statement made by the previous poster that I quoted there. It was not about employment discrimination or protected classes.

I wrote “its not about”. If I meant ‘its’ to mean your comments and wanted to explain to you the meaning of your comments , I would have wrote ‘they are not about” such and such. By ‘its’ I meant what the OP, Static-99(R) is a Scam, alluded to which is what the lawsuit would logically be based on, which would be the right to move on from your past in the context of not being discriminated against in matters of employment.

-The registrant was not fired
-The registrant was not not hired
-The registrant was not not paid
-OM repeated a fact (however irrelevant)
-OM expressed her personal feelings (however hysterical)
-A scene in a movie ended up on the cutting floor

Exactly what are you going to sue OM for?

So you’re saying that the information on the registry was not used for purposes of employment? The man’s WORK was not used solely because of his “sex offender” status. His future work is clearly hindered because of his sex offender status.

@moviebuff, that depends on if the registrant was registered in Calif. because Calif. has laws that direct how the registry can be used, and it cannot be used for harassment or to sabotage employment or for political gain. The purpose is for public safety, and it is difficult to see how cutting that scene served public safety. What was the risk to OM or to anyone else involved at that point? So I think the objection is to how the registry was misused, but there is an article that stated he was registered in Connecticut (?) and the laws there… Read more »

I started to wonder about that question right after I posted that he should sue Munn, lol. It is a good question. Are you sure the guy was not paid however? That seems a bit unlikely but I can’t care enough to look it up. However, Munn certainly did use the Registries to affect this guy’s employment potential. I’m not an attorney but that seems like plenty of grounds to sue. Even if there is zero chance the guy could win, he should sue as long as his potential downside is minimal. Everyone who uses the Registries should be sued… Read more »

@Hmmm… that is what I am saying. From everything I have read he was hired, did the job to completion, got paid. Moved on, as a movie is a project of limited time. In spite of his record. If there is something to the contrary of that, please correct me. That his scene ended up on the cutting floor is an artistic / editing decision by the editor / studio that has nothing to do with the registrant’s on that employment movie set. I doubt he – or any actor – has a clause in his contract that guaranteed a… Read more »

@AnotherAnon – of course the registrant is registered in California. He worked in California. You can find his listing (at your own risk) on the Megan’s Law web site. No photo, but full address in Marina del Rey. For all that want to drop him a note encouraging him to sue OM. And again, he got the job and did the job and moved on. Without discrimination. Later saw his scene deleted. Oh well. OM stated a fact that the State of California considers so vital that it must be public, and expressed her feelings. I would imagine her First… Read more »

@moviebuff, you may be right. As far as I know no one has tried to sue for damages under section 290. There is no way of knowing when the suit would succeed or not. But it is possible just bringing the suit could have a punch, win or lose. This would be in addition to calling her out “as the hysterical ninny she is.” As to her free speech, she could argue that but section 290 by design limits free speech. The more of these there are, the more likely the public registry will die. It would take a lot… Read more »

Couldn’t the actor sue the studio and name OM in the suit as she was a contract employee as far as I know? Maybe also name whoever made the decision to cut the scene too. The studio would be on the hook for the 25000 USD not OM possibly. Then sue away for damages of lost earnings from appearances at conventions and autograph signings that now he won’t be able to do after they cut his scene.

Harasser Munn did get the information from the Registries, didn’t she? Seems like a pretty clear lawsuit to me. That is the MAIN problem I have with all of this. Unless Nanny Big Government is prepared to give me a dossier, on EVERY SINGLE PERSON that I may come into contact with, that details anything that they may have done wrong in the past, then the Registries are unacceptable. I want to know about people who emotionally, verbally, and physically abuse their own children. THOSE are the people who I think are ruining lives and I want to target them.… Read more »


You nailed it. Send a suggestive text message to a minor and you’re ruined for life. Kill a minor and, once paroled, life begins anew. What a world.

This is all wrong in many ways and drives me batty everytime I hear it. “no one has a right to be employed, nor does anyone have a right to be forgiven, or a right not to be shunned by those who disapprove of them or dislike them, or a right to force anyone else to associate with them.” Lets hit this one at a time. “no one has a right to be employed” Um a matter of fact, each and everyone of us have a constitutionally protected right to property and prosperity including the right to earn a living.… Read more »

1) A right to life, liberty, and property does not equate to a right to be employed. There is no right to prosperity, only a right to seek it. It’s a natural right that comes from being human. But you do not have a right to compel someone to employ you. 2) Your response is confusing because you are saying we have a right to be forgiving. Certainly, anyone is free to offer or withhold forgiveness to others. But that isn’t what I said. I said you have no right to be forgiven. You can’t make someone forgive you. There… Read more »

I was very specific in my assertions. I don’t even know why I bother on this site any more. Anyways, I’m not arguing every point that was already well articulated. But I will touch on a couple. I never said you had a rjght to a particular employer highering you, what I stated are constitutional rights, the constitution states you have a right to life, liberty, and property, which includes the right to earn a living ( prosperity I think can be reasonably included there ) and a right to reputation. Every “but” you stated was my exact point. Just… Read more »

@mike r. The “authorities” are probably monitoring you here, don’t discount that. Maybe they are working on a plan that takes out your case in one fell swoop.

I’m with Static 99R scam. The actor should sue. ACSOL could reach out to the actor so that he can at least get a few thousand in damages. Fact is Olivia Munn and Fox didn’t take the actor’s current risk into account. This would be somewhat of a risky strategy; but reading some of the comments in the articles, even though the media gives a spin against the Registrant, people seem about 50-50 for/against the actor (which is surprising to our benefit). ACSOL—with a well-reasoned lawsuit—could make the case that the actor was beyond rehabilitated. And that Munn did not… Read more »

I’m afraid that there are no grounds for a lawsuit in the present regime. It could easily be argued that his exclusion from the acting profession on the basis of a past conviction is the desired outcome, along with all manner of other forms of discrimination, which consequentially flow from one’s presence on the Registry.

McCarthyism ring a bell here?

By “current risk,” I’m saying that you should put forward the fact that the actor has been offense-free almost a decade, any community service, doctor opinions. To be clear, none of that Static 99 bullshit. Again, my opinion is that ACSOL could spin this to our benefit with a well-argued lawsuit—as well as proper spin by Janice and Chance. Janice has done a good job making her case to the media before. Why not this time in standing up for an actor that was clearly on “the right track.” Read the comments in the articles. We have a lot of… Read more »

True that the media tells us what to think. The comments section, however, tend to show more of a split in opinion. Many seem to support Olivia Munn. BUT it seems that maybe half either show dislike for Munn -OR- support for rehabilitation and second chances. Fact is this actor, Steven Wilder Striegel, is unemployable after Munn having put him on blast. This is clearly unfair to Streigel, as Munn as served as judge, jury, and executioner, for the second time, eight years later. Prior to Munn “outing” Streigel, a Google search would have shown essentially zero results for Streigel’s… Read more »

Lawsuit would go nowhere
It is not libel or slander since her comments were not false.

You know CR I am not looking to argue with anyone, I just hate it when people push that false narrative that we do not have rights. I understand your premise and agree for the most part, but nonetheless we do have all the rights I stated and then some and I believe we should always push that fact and never let our guards down and admit in “ANY” way that we some how do not have rights…That is all i am saying….

OH, and believe me when I get the chance I am going to specifically ask the court if there is some constitutional “right to know” a persons criminal background. I am very interested in this elusive term “right to know” that the opposition seems to love to throw around…. If anyone can find that in the constitution or case law please provide as I do not want to look like an idiot if there is such a constitutional right………I understand court records and case law and all that with our names and personal info is available thru due processes and… Read more »

How could there be a “right to know” that justifies the Registries? If there were such a right then we would have to have millions of people listed on national, public, lifetime Registries. Frankly, when I see a law enforcement criminal or other harasser talk about a “right to know” to justify the Registries, I think they have an I.Q. of perhaps around 80 to 90. Really, that is what I believe. How could they be so stupid to believe there is a “right to know” only for $EX crimes and/or that people would believe them if they said such… Read more »

No, my specific question is>>Is there a constitutional “right to know” someones criminal background??? And guess what? there is absolutely not apparently according to the CA DOJ… “Access to criminal history summary records maintained by the DOJ is restricted by law to legitimate law enforcement purposes and authorized applicant agencies.” I want to know what the specific code section is. Still searching…WOW though, this is big I believe. Never even thought about looking this question up until now….So not only are our current addresses and photos ect. protected so are our criminal records by law. This completely blows in… Read more »

That is because privacy is written into the CA Constitution. There is a specific right to privacy and that included criminal history records. That is why the DOJ won’t release our own rap sheets to us without a fingerprint scan (and some bucks). Maybe that changed for the registry. There was also a CA appellate court case that barred a newspaper, I think it was, from publishing criminal records, though I think limited mugshots could be used. The case centered on mass publishing rather than individual newsworthy cases, I think. I lost the link a couple of years ago, but… Read more »

Does it explain what “criminal history summary records” consist of? Is that all criminal history information about a person, or just portions that have been deemed non-public, such as names and addresses of victims and witnesses, investigative records, etc?

It’s the rap sheet.

How to read a DOJ rap sheet

Bammmm…. They are completely violating precedent and statutory law…….WTF….I am just starting too…

The Supreme Court’s decision in DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S 749, 762-71 (1989), held that a privacy interest can exist, under the FOIA, in publicly available – but “practically obscure” – information, such as a criminal history record.

Found it. The case is Westbrook v. County of Los Angeles (1994). The trial court expressed concern over the loss of privacy which would result from giving private companies access to this information, but found appellants’ position (agreeing that respondent could have some information on computer tape and other information only by traveling to each individual court to obtain it) nonsensical. After taking the matter under submission, the trial court ruled that respondent was entitled to copies of the entire MCI on computer tape not more than one time per month upon payment of a reasonable amount for each such… Read more »

That’s nice, even the cited case cites the case that I was referencing.. “The United States Supreme Court has concluded that a third party’s request for law enforcement records of a private citizen “can reasonably be expected to invade that citizen’s privacy, and that when the request seeks no ‘official information’ about a Government agency, but merely records that the Government happens to be storing, the invasion of privacy is ‘unwarranted.”.’ ” (U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee (1989) 489 U.S. 749, 780 [103 L. Ed. 2d 774, 800, 109 S. Ct. 1468].) Man I am getting seriously schooled… Read more »

One district court has declined to “recognize a new exception to [subsection (b) of the Privacy Act] based on California public policy to protect persons investigating acts of child abuse.” Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2006). In Stafford, a Social Security Administration employee disclosed to California Child Protective Services “the precise diagnosis of mental illness on which the SSA had made its determination that [the suspected child abuser] was disabled and thus eligible for benefits.” Id. at 1116. The suspect brought a subsection (b)/(g)(1)(D) claim against the agency. Id. at 1114. The agency argued… Read more »

Yeah and here is the actual code section and conditions for public disclosure and I do not see any exceptions. Of course this is not out of the Privacy Act of 1975, this is just federal code. Privacy Act creates no exceptions for public dissemination at all, only intra-agency and barely that in many cases. Hell, the way i am reading it, it completely precludes the court from even considering public policy as an exception. 552(b) (b)Conditions of Disclosure.—No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any… Read more »

Someone reach out to this guy and sue for damages under 290.4(d)(2)(E), at minimum. Also, what about defamation, slander, libel? Did Olivia Munn take the actor’s current danger level into account when she made her comments? From what I’ve seen and heard, Munn wasn’t harassed, threatened or even mildly offended for any other reason(s) than the actor’s bogus “sex offender” label. If not for the dumb and stupid registry, everyone would have been on their merry way.

The problem about those conditions is the comments have to be untrue. The fact that he is an offender there is not really grounds to sue her. Any lawsuit would be quickly dismissed.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x