ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


WA: Several more injunctions hit sex offender request

Curtis Hart is scheduled to receive the names of most of Cowlitz County’s 570 level 1 sex offenders Wednesday, but a few names likely will be withheld.

One offender was granted a temporary injunction Sept. 11, and requests for injunctions to block the release of at least four other names were filed Monday on behalf of individual offenders. They are each represented by Vancouver attorney Elijah Marchbanks, and all are referred to as “John Does” in court documents. Full Article

Also see:

WA: Man plans to publish names of level 1 sex offenders

Join the discussion

  1. AnotherAnon

    I posted this is another thread, but in case someone tries this in California, and maybe Washington has similar laws.

    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.

    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

  2. Matthewll

    Someone should make a FOI request for this guy’s address and phone number he gave the county sheriiff when requesting all the SO names. That information would be publicly available too, and should be posted on the Internet. Any and all personnel information this guy gave to sheriff when making the request should be posted as well.

    I would not advocate he be harassed at all, and never would. It should be posted with a disclaimer that no one should call this guy late at night, overload his voice mail, send him nasty emails and filling his inbox, protest in Front of his home. No, no one should do that.

    • AnotherAnon

      He probably had to give his address when running for office and it is probably online or easy to get. Those of you in Washington should take on this mission.

  3. cool CA RC

    good! RSO made it harder for him
    People needs to understand RSO are not to be toyed with .

  4. C

    This guy, Hart, is monumental steaming POS. Here he is wearing a Gadsden flag on his hat. Oh, the irony.

    This mother blanker better sleep w/ one eye open.

  5. Two States East

    Washington was my State of Conviction, so I follow stuff happening there. Regarding this vigilante, what he is doing isn’t new; it was “pioneered” by an even more monstrous vigilante ! Backin 2016, D—— Z—- published 21,000 names, which included the Level one people. Just Google “Former Mesa mayor posts 21,000 sex offender names after long legal battle” from the Tri City Herald, Nov 26, 2016.

    • Will Allen

      No, of course it is not new. And likely a million people have wanted to do it. The U.S. is completely full of idiots and douche bags. Always has been. They are a problem. They live too easily and they need something real to be concerned about – a huge world war is what they deserve. If they had missiles landing in their front yards they would probably have to focus more on minding their own business. People who support the Registries need more personal, immediate problems.

  6. Nicholas Maietta

    The primary reasons for the names NOT to be published is because of Charles D Gilson aka Chuck Rodrick and Brent Oesterblad. These two rear-end wipes have terrorized registered and non-registered citizens for many years now.

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 *