ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley, August 17 – San Diego, September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings: Los Angeles – July 27

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

Join the discussion

  1. Bill

    What’s in Olivia Munn’s closet?

    • AnotherAnon

      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

      https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/the-california-supreme-court-s-new-limitation-on-an-expert-s-ability-to-rely-on-hearsay-evidence

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

      • mike r

        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…

      • AnotherAnon

        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

        http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-jane-doe-20180912-story.html

        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 some skepticism is warranted. A second thought was is employment termination really necessary to accomplish this healing? Are there no other alternatives? What of the article posted above? Is that all wrong now because the victims speaks up with compelling words?

        So my gut reaction was for her, but it took effort to read it again and allow some skepticism to take hold, which I think, it the crux of what we are facing and has been all along.

        No Easy Answers Sex Offender Laws in the US – Human Rights Watch
        https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-offender-laws-us

    • BA

      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

      • WC_TN

        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 storm like Hurricane Florence. There were no public shelters available for registered citizens in North Carolina. In Brunswick County every shelter was located at a school.

        Think back to the 2017-2018 winter when it was so bitterly cold in the Northeast. During that lethal cold spell where temperatures were below zero, a law was passed that would limit the number of registered sex offenders at the one homeless shelter who could take them in to just 11 offenders. That means every other homeless offender was forced to be exposed to lethally cold temperatures.

        http://www.housingworksri.org/About/News-and-Events/All-News-Events/ArticleId/89/projo-lawsuit-to-block-ri-limit-on-sex-offenders-in-shelters-goes-to-court

    • Will Allen

      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.

    • Tim

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

  2. Joe

    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.

  3. Will Allen

    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.

  4. mike r

    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 sex offender registration. It is an enhancement applied to already statutory maximums which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts and elements for such an enhancement……….This is what I have been saying for years now, and just like all my other predictions, this is the case and you will hear those words come out of a court’s mouth in due time….Thank you for providing the specific case.

    • AnotherAnon

      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 him. At trial, they relied upon probation reports, police reports, the defendant’s mental health history, and behavior reports from the institution where he had been housed. The court found reversible error due to admission of the testimony. (People v. Burroughs, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th 378, 407-412.) Burroughs is important for the fact that the Court applied Sanchez even though it was not a criminal case, stating that the intention of Sanchez was to “‘clarify the proper application of Evidence Code sections 801 and 802, relating to the scope of expert testimony.’ [Citation.] (Burroughs, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 405, fn. 6.)

      http://www.sdap.org/downloads/research/criminal/laq17.pdf

  5. mike r

    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 to Dismiss, and for subsequent review on all Plaintiff’s other claims in his Complaint, as well as for subsequent review on appeal.

    Reports concerning alleged under-reporting:
    The following are governmental reports conducted concerning only alleged high rates of under reported of sex crimes, and even though not relevant to recidivism rates, they are relevant in that the authors concede the fallacies in such research because the methodologies use anecdotal and conclusory self-reporting for their statistics. These reports are relevant since the proponents of these laws often use under-reporting as somehow justification for these laws.
    Michael Planty et al., Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2013).
    “The data in this report were drawn from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police from a nationally representative sample of persons age 12 or older who live in U.S. households.” Pp 2.
    “Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based on the results presented” pp 10. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf [visited on April 7, 2018].

    David Finkelhor et al., Sexually Assaulted Children: National Estimates & Characteristics, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN 8 (Aug. 2008).
    “Using proxy interviews to obtain information on crime victimization and other sensitive topics has never been a preferred methodology and has sometimes yielded poor results” pp 10 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/214383.pdf [visited on April 7,2018].

  6. Tim Moore

    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.

  7. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    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 information disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes other than those provided by paragraph (1) or in violation of paragraph (2) shall make the user liable for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury, not exceeding three times the amount of actual damage, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), and attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).”

    So why does this actor not sue to show that Registered Citizens are, at least in one way, somewhat of a protected class? Sue 20th Century Fox and Olivia Munn. Show people that Registered Citizens have a RIGHT to move on with their lives. They certainly have the money…

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      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, I’m barely making it with my job. If I am fired — or laid-off then refused employment — because of my registrant status, then I might be forced to live “on the streets.” Again, this actor needs to file a lawsuit against 20th Century Fox and Olivia Munn ASAP!

      Send the message that once we have been sentenced and served our punishment — whether jail/prison or probation/parole — we all have a RIGHT to move on from the past! Sue 20th Century Fox and Olivia Munn!!

      • CR

        “… 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. It’s human nature. Think about those of whom you disapprove. Because of your own experience, you may be better than the average person about not judging and giving the benefit of doubt, or giving a second chance, to people who have committed grave crimes. But is that absolute, or are there still some that even you would shun?

        • The Lawsuit

          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.

        • CR

          @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.

        • The Lawsuit

          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.

      • moviebuff

        -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?

        • Hmmm...

          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.

        • AnotherAnon

          @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 may not specify potential damages available in a lawsuit like Calif. does.

          The real danger of the #metoo movement is its destruction of the statutes of limitations, innocent until proven guilty and a whole host of other constitutional protections meant to protect the innocent. It’s is ironic that the various Innocence Projects were gaining so much ground and now this. Of course, #metoo isn’t a court of law but the laws are based on public mores.

          Megyn Kelly explains the complexities in the Kavanaugh scandal.

          https://www.today.com/video/megyn-kelly-panel-discusses-kavanaugh-accuser-and-controversy-1322234947552?v=railb&

        • Will Allen

          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 for anything possible, as often as possible. Harassers should be sued. Always.

          Everyone in the U.S. needs to see that if they act like idiots, they will be sued. Or worse.

        • moviebuff

          @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 final depiction in this film.

          Future employment – that is a different story. But you are going to sue an individual for repeating a fact that the government of this State and this Country has deemed vital to public safety and expressing her personal feelings? Good luck with that!

          If the Megan’s Law web site indeed violates the Right to Privacy as enumerated in the CA Constitution, that sounds like a different and more viable avenue.

          IMO, your only recourse here is to never pay a single penny on anything OM is associated with and call her out on public discussion forums as the hysterical ninny she is.

        • moviebuff

          @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 Amendment Rights under the US Constitution trump PC 290 any day.

          Good luck suing her. Your beef is with the CA DOJ.

        • AnotherAnon

          @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 more, though, because being murdered after found on the registry doesn’t dent it.

        • Sue the studio

          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.

    • Will Allen

      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. Munn is probably one of them, now or in the future.

      If we want to be a country that forever punishes a person for anything wrong that they have done in the past, then we need to get on with it. We need to stop with our obsession with $EX and punish everyone that we can. I literally cannot support anyone who has a grievance about a $EX crime unless it involves violence. These #metoo people want to whine and whine that it is worse and more damaging if a guy like this one sends “awful”, life-altering TEXT MESSAGES (!!!!) to a person than if he took a hammer and smashed her in the face. I can’t support that nonsense.

      • C

        +1

        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.

  8. mike r

    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.
    “nor does anyone have a right to be forgiven”
    Once again, we have a constitutionally protected right to rehabilitation and reintegration back into society, although we may not have a constitutionally protected right to be personally forgiving by the public we do have one to be forgiving by our gov.
    “or a right not to be shunned by those who disapprove of them or dislike them”
    Constitutionally protected right to not be targeted and ostracized by our fellow citizens.
    “or a right to force anyone else to associate with them.”
    Finally, constitutionally protected right to travel freely, associate with whom we want wherever we want, so yes the populace is obligated by law to associate with us in many settings. The one thing that no one has a constitutionally protected right to is the illusionary “right to know” that the terrorists and the ones who want to be life long victims or champions of moral codes claim they have. Will Allen hits it almost on the head when he states we have to stand up for our rights or no one is going to listen or respect any of us…This is the trend and foundation of our country, if you are not willing to make a stand and battle your enemies in the name of justice then you will never earn your way back to full citizenry and respect from your fellow man. And stop claiming we do not have rights when we absolutely do…I apologize if I am being to critical of wording here but it drives me crazy to see people just give in and give the domestic terrorist some kind of legitimacy when they are in fact enemies of the country…

    • CR

      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 is no constitutional right to be forgiven; not by individuals, nor by government (i.e., pardoned). Neither rehabilitation nor reintegration into society are rights, either. It is beneficial to the rehabilitated individual and to society when it occurs, but it is not a right.

      What part of the constitution do you believe supports a right to rehabilitation and reintegration into society?

      3) Again, everyone has an individual right to shun (avoid, ignore, reject) anyone they don’t like or wish to associate with. That’s not to say that a business may not be subject to public accommodation laws or other laws meant to bar certain types of discrimination. But I was speaking of individuals, not the nebulous “society”, nor government (the State).

      What part of the constitution do you believe supports a right not to be ostracized?

      4) Your right to associate with whomever you wish necessarily includes your right not to associate. If it is true for you, it is true for everyone. There are some public accommodation laws that apply to businesses and forbid certain types of discrimination, but no law that obligates any individual to associate with any other individual.

      You haven’t rebutted anything I said. If I were to give you the benefit of doubt, I’d say that it seemed like you were just using my comments as a springbroad to express your thoughts on almost completely unrelated concepts.

      So you know, I may decide not to respond to any further comments on this topic, as I am not interested in devoting much time to arguing with people.

      • mike r

        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 as in public places, inevitably people have to associate with otbers and respect others rights, which is a form of association on a societal scale. So no technically a person can isolate themselves but if they wish to associate in public places we have a right to association, just as every other citizen. And this one really gets me.
        Neither rehabilitation nor reintegration into society are rights, either. I was not sure how to respond so I will just refer you to In Re Taylor out of CA and reiterate we do have a constitutionality protected right to rehabilitation, why do you think they added the “R” in CAs CDCR. Also, under CAs seven year background limit law, expungment, pardons, reinstating civil rights thru courts, ect., we have multiple rights to be forgiving by our go. Like I stated, I was very specific about what I meant, I understand you were refering to how we cannot force individuals in their private spheres, such as in their opinions or their homes and personal properties, to forgive or employ us, but we all have rights that I outlined. Oh and Anonymous, I apreciate the heads up but I am a strong believer in transparency and nothing I say on here is prjvate or confidential and in no way will o present anything that can be used against me brcausr there is nothing that is not already in the public sphere. Thank you though but have faith my friend “we” will prevail, it is just a waiting game now. No reasonable, rational, mind could rule against my arguments and especially not against my evidence.

  9. Anonymous

    @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.

  10. John

    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 truly feel in danger.

    You could totally spin a lawsuit so that ACSOL could gain some political momentum—as well as serve as a deterrent for those that wish to discriminate against one who had long ago served their punishment. Look at Blacks, look at LGBTQ. They all sued to get equality. Of course, Registrants are of a different category. But we—like every other oppressed group—are people too.

    SUE OLIVIA MANN AND FOX!!

  11. John

    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 supporters—people who support a second chance—too.

    • The Static-99R Is A SCAM

      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 past offense. Now that Munn outed Streiger, thousands of Google searches show him. So if Streiger were to apply to even the most meager paying jobs, an employer would do a simple Google search and say “no way… we’re not taking a chance with him.”

      Sue Munn for ruining any chance Mr. Striegel had at earning a second chance. Shame Olivia Munn for trying to gain notoriety for punishing a person, for a second time, eight years later. She didn’t do this for #MeToo. She did it to give the illusion of pursuing a “higher cause,” increasing her publicity, as well as throwing Striegel — and her fellow co-stars (and their efforts put toward the production of their film) — under the bus. You mention that community service, offense-free time, and doctor opinions should be introduced into any lawsuit that may be filed. Additionally, I say add all the acting and employment that Mr. Streigel has done, following years of his conviction, without any incident, to any lawsuit. Show the loss of earning potential caused by Munn and 20th Century Fox.

      Also, the comments section seem about split. Again, many of critical of Munn:

      https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/olivia-munn-says-she-feels-184200543.html

      ACSOL would have little to lose, and a lot to gain, in suing Munn. If the lawsuit is properly argued, and a thoughtful media campaign were to accompany it, a lawsuit would certainly create discourse — and show the futility in having a “sex offender” registry.

      Someone from ACSOL should reach out to Steven Wilder Striegel. Many of us know what it’s like to be “put on blast.” #UsToo

      • RegistrantNotAnOffender

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

  12. mike r

    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….

    • mike r

      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 are public records but that is not our current photo, current addresses, current vehicles, tattoos, etc. I believe any background checks by non-LE requires a persons permission, i.e. rental applications, employment applications, we have to give permission. I Vehemently believe our current photos, and most of our current info, are also constitutionally protect liberty interest just as our medical records, DMV info, tax info, birth certificate info, SSI info, etc.

  13. Will Allen

    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 a thing?!!

    And it always surprises me that people in the media, who at least know enough to read and write, very rarely call the stupid people out. The lemmings just eat it all up.

    As far as saying people who are Registered do not have certain rights, I don’t accept that. The criminal regimes that have enabled and promoted that are not legitimate. They are no more legitimate than any other war criminals have been in the past. No more legitimate that the “legitimate Nazi government” telling Jewish people where they could live or if they could live. Just for the main extreme example of surely thousands+.

    People who support the Registries are war criminals. This country belongs to me and I am going to keep my rights and take more, at their expense. Today, lots of them depend on me and they are keeping my family well off. That is their use. They need to enjoy their Registries, they are paying dearly for them. The Registries are like the meth they use – they will “enjoy” both of them but it’s going to hurt them.

    • mike r

      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.” https://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/record-review

      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 the face the assumption that our info is easily accessible and non-private. The only place that a general population individual can find any records about our convictions is thru court records. Good luck finding any records that have not went to appeal or above. Incredibly hard to find if not impossible to find superior court records either civil or criminal. The most I have ever found of my case was the appeal decision. I have searched and searched for the superior court records with no luck. Hell AJ knows more about this but even thru PACER and other court case programs you have to pay money and I still think it would be hard as hell to find these superior court records, especially those that were just pled out….This is interesting the more I think about it. I am going to have to digest this more for sure….I need to know those code sections. Apparently there are more laws than just the 7 year background limit laws….

      • AnotherAnon

        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 it was dated at about the same time if memory serves.

      • CR

        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?

  14. mike r

    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.

    • AnotherAnon

      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 copy.

      Appellants contend the judgment must be reversed because it violates the state constitutional right of privacy and Penal Code section 13300. Amicus curiae, the Appellate Committee of the California District Attorneys Association, joins in these contentions. Appellants also contend the judgment must be reversed because it exceeds the relief sought by respondent.

      https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/27/157.html

      See also:

      Judicial Records: Can Privacy Concerns Co-exist with Public Access?

      California communities have begun to wrestle with a major public policy problem that pits traditional concepts of access to court records against individuals’ rights to privacy.
      by Harry Hammitt / April 30, 1996

      http://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/Judicial-Records-Can-Privacy-Concerns-Co-exist.html

      • mike r

        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 in privacy now. HM…I think I tried looking this stuff up before but never did I get into all this…I like this little statement also… These people are actually obligated to be the custodians of our records and we, according to the court, are entitled to expect that these agency will assert that right.

        The state constitutional right of privacy extends to protect defendants from unauthorized disclosure of criminal history records. (Craig v. [27 Cal. App. 4th 166] Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal. App. 3d 69, 76-77 [161 Cal. Rptr. 19].) These records are compiled without the consent of the subjects and disseminated without their knowledge. Therefore, appellants, as custodians of the records, have a duty to “resist attempts at unauthorized disclosure and the person who is the subject of the record is entitled to expect that his right will be thus asserted.” (Id. at p. 77.)

  15. mike r

    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 that the court should recognize a new exception because “[t]he public interest in detecting and eradicating child abuse is so strong that under California state law, malicious acts or acts taken without probable cause by investigators such as [the Child Protective Services employee] are immunized.” Id. at 1121. The court explained that “Congress enacted the Privacy Act as a limitation on the sharing of private information among government agencies to further what it determined was an important public policy” and stated that “[t]he Court cannot create an exception to a federal statute based on state policy.” Id.
    That last phrase seems pretty relevant….

    “In light of Reporters Comm., personal information of the sort protected by the Privacy Act is less likely to be “required” to be disclosed under the FOIA, within the meaning of subsection (b)(2). Specifically, where an agency determines that the only “public interest” that would be furthered by a disclosure is a nonqualifying one under Reporters Comm. (even where it believes that disclosure would be in furtherance of good public policy generally), it may not balance in favor of disclosure under the FOIA and therefore disclosure will be prohibited under the Privacy Act – unless authorized by another Privacy Act exception or by written consent. See, e.g., DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. at 497-502 (declining to “import the policy considerations that are made explicit in the Labor Statute into the FOIA Exemption 6 balancing analysis” and, following the principles of Reporters Comm., holding that home addresses of bargaining unit employees are covered by FOIA Exemption 6 and thus that Privacy Act “prohibits their release to the unions”); Schwarz v. INTERPOL, No. 94-4111, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 3987, at *4-7 & n.2 (10th Cir. Feb. 28, 1995) (balancing under Reporters Comm. and holding that individual clearly has protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of his whereabouts to third parties; disclosure of this information would not “contribute anything to the public’s understanding of the operations or activities of the government”; and thus any information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(C) and does not fall within Privacy Act exception (b)(2)).”

    Hey there is also mention of the elusive “need to know” term but it only applies to intra-agency situations….No exceptions for mass dissemination yet….

    These cases and laws seem pretty unambiguous to me…

  16. mike r

    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.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a
    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 person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—
    (1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;
    (2) required under section 552 of this title;
    (3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section;
    (4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of title 13;
    (5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable;
    (6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value;
    (7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;
    (8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;
    (9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee;
    (10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the Government Accountability Office;
    (11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or
    (12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of title 31.

    That privacy issue, wherever it was argued, if it really has been meaningfully challenged, must not have been very good because everything that I am reading states they cannot do this. SCOTUS and the majority of federal district courts have stated specifically, especially in the CA and 9th courts specifically addressing child abuse justification is of no merit, that public policy regardless of it’s purpose is not relevant and has absolutely no bearing on a privacy act violation….This seems pretty huge to me but I have been wrong before…

  17. Joe

    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.

    • RegistrantNotAnOffender

      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.

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 *

.