ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
10/20 – Los Angeles, 11/17- Phone, 12/08 – San Diego

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

Registration Laws for all 50 States

General News

General Comments October 2018

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

Join the discussion

  1. mike r

    Show me a more recent case actually overturning Lewis and I will concede, and you need to read the case and make sure it is relevant and not just some tenuous connection, at best, such as what was cited.. LMAO…

    • NPS

      I gave you a case. People v. Lewis, which you hold so dear, does not set precedence which is what “not followed as Dicta” means. Sure, go ahead, use it in your attempt to file a 1203.4. The DA will bring up People v. Mgebrov, where the court stated that Lewis is inconclusive dicta for a 288 case. Lewis is an ATTEMPTED 288 case which can still, even today, qualify for 1203.4, but you are talking about a straight 288. The DA will also bring up Penal Code 1203.4b in that 288 is ineligible for an expungement.

      But go ahead, continue LMAOing.

    • Feeling sad

      @mike r
      What advise do you have to help fight this nonsense?? My fiancee was a tier 1 this whole time and with the adam walsh act has now made him a teir 3. He messed up on parole bc his gf at the time was pregnany with his kid and had other kids of her own and the po came to his house when the kids were there. So they violated him. Then he was forced into taking a plea deal. Not only did he lose his freedom but he lost his first child as well. We now have a kid together and this whole tier 3 thing is complete bullshit. We filed with the ACLU and are waiting to hear from them. We also spoke to his lawyer and all he said was tbey are doing everything they can to fight it. Is there anythibg else we can do??

  2. mike r @MOT

    @ MOT, you actually were on the right case there so go with your gut and research, You will be fine. Have to watch what you hear on sites like this, including whatever I state as well. I am no lawyer and have limited experience but I know enough to tell you that you are on the right track. That Ross intelligence site and the AVVO lawyers are a big help, would not depend on just the one by themselves but when they are both corroborating evidence, hey there is that word (corroborating evidence), then you can at least feel that you are on the right track if not on it.

    Well I see no corrections or challenge to my arguments on the 1203.4 issue there or any “huh” SMH” by Joe either. LMAO….

  3. mike r

    Now I can honestly tell you they are full of BS. It is not going to happen. Never in the history of CA has a governor ever pardoned an RC. If you get your case dismissed you will still be on the list but by CA law if your conviction was older than 7 years it should not be on your criminal background checks (not positive on that as I have not done a actual background check on myself yet) so all that crap is BS. The problem is that you will still be on the Megan’s Law list and publicly disclosed so anytime someone googles your name homefacts.com, or others, display your profile or they create their own. Anyone that tells you they can get you pardoned is out of their minds, I can tell you very confidently….

  4. AJ

    I won’t post a URL, but I see MI’s registry managed to stop a serial rapist in Flint. (End of sarcasm.) There are apparently hundreds of videos, reaching back into the 1990s, each believed to be of an assault. Do a web search for “Michigan man 500 videos” for details.

    Gotta love when a solid law like ML/AWA/SORNA stops crimes. (Sorry…end of more sarcasm.)

  5. mike r

    Serious sarcasm, hell took me minute to see where the sarcasm was at, thought for sure there was at least some connection to the registry, imagine that, years and years of this, shit even if he was originally on the registry still would not have helped. People are dumb-asses AJ. I just hope they are the minority and we will find out coming soon I think.
    Feeling sad what state are you in? (why you asking me? according to Joe I am some lame, lol, more sarcasm). Anyways just kidding, really what state are you in? is it federal? the feds have parole for some crimes.

  6. mike r

    This is all I seen at the time of my posting and I made it clear that I was talking about attempts.
    @B.Wat,
    Laws change. It may have been possible 27 years ago, but it isn’t today. The law, PC 1203.4, specifically states that all sections of 288 are ineligible. Here is the paragraph effective January 1, 2014:
    NPS, Mot’s entire question was asking about an attempt.
    @ MOT >>1203.4 I am starting to look into getting my attempted 288(a) reduced using People v Todd Lewis and want to find out how many in CA have used this and been successful?
    You guys are just so ready to jump on me that you could not have just said that you were aware of the fact, and were talking about the attempt difference, instead of letting me go on and on about it and waste my time.
    You guys are the ones that went on some tangent about a straight 288(a) since I was not clear in one of my statements about attempt. Seems that I made it clear in every other post. I never even seen your other statements about the attempts at that time. All I seen was that you were stating no 288 could get relief.
    I do not read every post, especially ones that certain people post. I guess I was a little to quick to jump as well. But whatever…As you guys can see, I was obviously discussing attempts and even stated I knew about attempts because I had one…Whatever…

  7. mike r

    @NPS
    “I gave you a case. People v. Lewis, which you hold so dear, does not set precedence which is what “not followed as Dicta” means.”

    Dicta Law and Legal Definition. The Latin term “dicta” is generally used as an abbreviated form of obiter dicta, a term >>describing those portions of a judicial opinion incidental or not necessary to resolution of the specific question before the court.<<
    Dicta has nothing to do with precedent. It is exactly what I stated, irrelevant to a case. Obviously a Court of Appeal of California decision is not precedent. Precedent to whom, it maybe be persuasive in superior courts in the same district or itself maybe? The precedent issue is so obvious it goes without stating the case sets no precedent…

  8. Sunny

    Just an update for those of you planning to register as a county poll worker for voting day: I received my packet in the mail, including my poll worker ID card, and I have been scheduled for training and my specific post on voting day in Orange County. OC has the same prohibition on registrants working as poll workers as does LA County, so we’ll see if things go smoothly. I’m looking forward to the experience (and it pays better than my regular full-time job). Less than one month to go!

    I hope all of you who can vote, will vote. I’ve never missed a vote since I turned 18 (I was convicted in Maine, a state that does not revoke voting rights for criminal convictions). My first presidential election that I could vote in was in 2008. I was 20 years old and voted absentee from county jail. Unfortunately, despite his otherwise progressive views, Obama gave us the IML. I still believe we must remain actively engaged in the civil process and practice our rights whenever possible.

    • Lake County

      What will you do if you’re assigned to a polling place at a school?

      • Sunny

        There is no ban on registrants from entering schools in OC to my knowledge (I’m not on probation or parole). I have already been assigned to a polling place across from a high school. I live next to a park / playground and I’ve never had any issues. It’s my understanding that nearly all the residency, etc. restrictions have been repealed in California except for some situations where it’s a condition of probation or parole.

        • NPS

          @Guest,

          Did you miss these key words?
          “without lawful business”

          Clearly, Sunny has a lawful business. Voting would be a lawful civic duty. Attending college/university is a lawful business.

        • guest

          @NPS,

          did you miss these key words?

          “written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school”

          Clearly, Sunny, though having lawful business at the school, has no such written permission, as he is under the impression no ban exists for those not on parole or probation.

          While Sunny is correct that residency and general presence restrictions have been repealed, the ban to enter any school ground without lawful purpose and written permission remains state law.

          Attending college / university has nothing to do with entering a K-12 school (where many polling places are). Attending college / university (apparently even for online courses) triggers the requirement to register with campus police.

        • NPS

          No I didn’t. I especially didn’t miss the key word “and” (which you clearly did in your response). If I didn’t have lawful business, then I would need written permission. I certainly didn’t need nor get permission to attend graduate school. I didn’t need or get permission to volunteer teaching senior citizens or tutoring university students (and getting paid for it). And all that was while I was on probation. My PO knew but because I was there on lawful business, she didn’t require me to have permission from the official. Why not? Because I was present on lawful business.

        • guest

          @NPS –

          Why do you keep talking about graduate school or university? The question is about entering a “school”.

          A school, in PC 626 is defined as

          (4) “School” means any public or private elementary school, junior high school, four-year high school, senior high school, adult school or any branch thereof, opportunity school, continuation high school, regional occupational center, evening high school, or technical school or any public right-of-way situated immediately adjacent to school property or any other place if a teacher and one or more pupils are required to be at that place in connection with assigned school activities. https://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.html

          And, per 626.81 a 290 registrant needs both a lawful purpose “and” written permission. That a lawful purpose would eliminate the written permission part is a strange logic leap. Dangerous, really.

          So, no, a 290 registrant may not enter a school without written permission. Ever. Not to pick up their own child, not to vote or volunteer in the process, not to drop off old electronics in the parking lot during a city sponsored recycling event on Saturday, not to smoke behind the athletic field bleachers at midnight.

          Back to university…. no one said you need permission to enter a university. No one said you need permission to volunteer teach senior citizens (how is that relevant?) or tutor university students – paid or unpaid. No one said you need permission to attend graduate school. But if you attend graduate school / university you must register with campus police or the law enforcement agency in charge of the campus. That’s all.

          But that was not the question.

        • NPS

          So a university isn’t a school. Okay. I guess that will exclude churches, too, even though they have elementary schools onsite. I taught senior citizens at an adult school, so THAT is how it’s relevant. And I finished my volunteering with a glowing recommendation from the staff (but that’s not the issue).

          But why not mention Universities? It fits the definition in 626 of “or any other place if a teacher and one or more pupils are required to be at that place in connection with assigned school activities.” I’ve seen lots of high school and middle school students touring university grounds. There are even pre-schools located on university campus. Summer schools from K-12 are housed in some universities (they are at SF State). As for my registering with campus police, that does not constitute permission to attend school.

          But back to the original question. Voting IS a lawful business. Picking up your child is a lawful business, dropping off old electronics in the parking lot during a city sponsored recycling event on Saturday IS a lawful business. Smoking behind the athletic field bleachers at midnight constitutes loitering, and therefore IS NOT a lawful business.

          The law may be on the books, but it won’t be long that this will be on the chopping block much like presence and residency restrictions.

        • Lake County

          I must agree with “guest” on this. You must always have written permission to be on school property. That is the very reason I could not evacuate to the only available emergency shelters in our last major Northern CA fires.

        • guest

          @NPS –

          “And I finished my volunteering with a glowing recommendation from the staff (but that’s not the issue).” Yet you mention it because… ????

          Why not mention universities? Because they do not fit the definition of a school per PC 626. Regardless of any incidental activities that may go on there. Thusly they are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

          If a church has an elementary school on its site? Not sure a church can “have” a K-12 school on its site. Because then it “is” a school.

          And yes, smoking behind the bleachers at midnight is NOT a lawful purpose. That is why I mentioned it. And also to illustrate that picking up your own child or voting or dropping off your old CRT Monitor on Saturday (all lawful purposes) is just as illegal without written permission from the chief administrative official of that school as smoking behind the bleachers.

          This law was part of Prop 83 and has been on the books since 2006. Not sure on what basis you predict its impending demise. The elimination of presence restrictions is irrelevant as the presence restrictions were municipal ordinances and were found to be trumped by (their absence in) state law. This “is” state law. Residency restrictions were found to be an overbroad blanket restriction not tied to a real public safety purpose.

          Nothing would please me more than you being right (you haven’t been so far about any of this) about this prediction. Because parental involvement is a major factor in student success. Depriving children thereof not only re-punishes the parent, it also directly harms the children – who should have thought about the consequences of their parent’s actions before being born to them 🙂

        • Sunny

          @Guest – Thank you for the information. I wasn’t aware of that state law as I have only lived in California just over a year. As I said, the polling place is across from a high school but not on the school’s property, so I’m all set. But it’s nonetheless good to know about that law. Do we know if this law is enforced or one of those symbolic laws like registrants being prohibited from using the Megan’s Law website?

        • wonderin

          @NPS, If you must register you will more than likely be required to initial that you understand the “written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school”.
          It was on my form this year and it seems unlikely there’s much we can do to get around it.

        • mike r

          LMFAO, guest, I see no ambiguity in the law:
          “CA Penal Code § 626.81 (2017)
          (a) A person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, who comes into any school building or upon any school ground without lawful business thereon and written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
          Absolutely states you must have permission as well as the dates and lawful business and all that.
          I see I have no response on the “dicta” or “precedence” (lol) issues I stated. I have to admit though I was impressed that NPS, Joe etc. knew the differences between 664/288(a) and straight 288(a). Most people do not know that. I still think was very uncalled for how you guys attacked me, especially that Joe character. It was a simple misunderstanding and my typo that did not include the 664 before the 288 and instead of just stating that you were aware that 664/288(a) was dismiss-able under 1203.4 and there would have been no argument and I would have actually told you what I just told you, that I am impressed that you guys were aware of that fact. Anyways lets try and work together and who cares if you are proven wrong anyways, it all helps all of us once we get it right. And Joe, I was absolutely right in every word I stated by the way. But yes, there is no ambiguity in that code section, you must have lawful business “and” writing permission, school is generally defined as k-12. Has nothing to do with colleges or universities or any of the other things mentioned….

        • NotEasilyOffended

          On one hand, this whole argument is moot because Sunny said he is working at a polling site ACROSS FROM a high school. My limited and flawed knowledge is that he is within the law to be there.

          There were some interesting questions raised:

          1) Is this enforced or symbolic? One could easily stroll on and off school campuses daily without any problems. However, there could be that day where another parent who “knows” about you makes it an issue. Where I live many (if not most) campuses have onsite police officers, who would be within their jurisdiction and right to make this an issue. I have written permission to be at my child’s school but the principal has told me that my presence has not gone unnoticed but he was able to assure the “well-intentioned” parents that the law was being followed. However, my child is involved in activities that sometimes take place at other schools; I have asked for permission to attend those events and, when denied, I stay away.

          2) Churches with schools. TBH I never considered this. My church has a K-8 school on the grounds. There is, however, a fence that completely encircles the school campus which one could argue creates a school boundary vs church/public area. I can see how one might argue that simply entering the grounds could be a violation. As we already know, common sense is never applied to the benefit of a registered citizen.

          3) University/College. Yes, you must register with the campus police or local PD if no campus PD. However, I would be very cautious if there are dual-use areas of the campus that are for juveniles: summer school for kids, daycare, etc. Stay clear of them. Remember: you are assumed to be the worst of the worst and always on the lookout for new prey. It would give someone great pleasure to see you in trouble for this.

          Yes, the registry is out of control and it’s a wonder we can even leave our houses. Be careful when you do. It just isn’t worth testing to see if you’re right.

  9. mike r

    One more little thing here since you guys want to be so petty. Since you already git dicta wrong it is precedent not precedence as you stated>>>

    “The nouns precedence and precedents are homophones and, like many similar-sounding words before them, have inevitably been confused.

    alt-5ace4274d3479
    Allow us to set a precedent on dealing with them.

    Originally, this wasn’t an issue because the words were used synonymously. It’s suspected that precedence may have come about as an error for the plural of the earlier noun precedent, meaning “something done or said that serves as an example or rule.” In modern use, however, each word has distinct meaning, and each is often found in distinct collocations. Knowing what words are arranged with each homophone is useful in making sure you’re choosing the right one.

    Perhaps partly influenced by French précédence, meaning “priority” or “pre-eminence,” English precedence began being used in the late 1500s in senses relating to order and rank. Specifically, it came to denote priority of importance, or the superiority of rank at a ceremonial or formal social gathering—for example, guests at a banquet might be introduced or seated “in order of precedence.” Idiomatically, precedence is often used with the verbs take, have, or give. Family matters can be said to “take/have precedence” over one’s job, for instance; or a piece of legislation might “give precedence” to big business.

    On the other hand, the noun precedent is frequently used in the phrase “to set a precedent,” meaning “to set an example or rule to be followed.” The word is often used in legal contexts, where it denotes a judicial decision that should be followed by a judge when deciding a later similar case. When something contradicts an established precedent or prevailing custom or practice, it is said to “break with precedent” or “go against precedent.” Another common collocation is “without precedent” in reference to something not supported by a prior example or ruling. More commonly, something said to be “without precedent” is unprecedented. Both unprecedented and precedented appear in the English language in the 17th century.”

  10. mike r

    @ Feeling sad, I hear ya. Nevada has gotten out of control, almost as bad as Floiduh. Nevada is in the 9th circuit just as my case will be. I would say sit tight until that Washington case gets denied, accepted, or taken and SCOTUS decides on it. That is both of our’s federal appellant jurisdictions so it could have major implications on cases here in CA, and Nevada. Not to mention around the country. Even if SCOTUS takes the case and claims it is punishment it could be on a very narrow ruling such as specifically applying to that petitioner and those set of facts, I do not know what was originally argued in that case as I will have to see the original complaint and the appeals and all that. I think that is what SCOTUS will do when it comes to these laws, at least until a case like mine comes before them with all the issues and facts. I imagine it would definitely be narrowed to the retroactive part. But on the other hand they may very well say it is punishment and that all the laws are punishment and can only be applied after considerable due process like was the case in the Hendricks civil commitment case. That is going to blow up the system and I just have a feeling SCOTUS may figure a way to keep it narrowly tailored to specific requirements once the do finally decide it is punishment. They are going to give some kind of guidance to the legislatures, as they usually do, so that they can tailor the statutes to conform with their decisions. So my opinion is that you wait this case out see what happens before making a move. If they say it cannot be retroactively applied to anyone then that would be all you would need to bring really if it is retroactive to you. But on the other hand if they shoot the case down then you know not to even go there and challenge on other issues like substantive due process and steer away from the punishment issue. I think it will be pretty damn hard to get them to take another punishment question unless someone can show some serious and major meaningful differences between your case and the one they shoot down. It would be extremely hard because that Washington statute as applied to that individual is extreme in-person reporting so like I said it would be difficult if not impossible to look at it again for a while at least. IDK though I think all the facts that I presented may very well make them take another look regardless.

    • Feeling sad

      @Mike R
      This whole thing is just so discouraging!!! We had a normal life…my fiancee could have been off the registry in 3 years. We wanted to move. Now it seems that we are stuck here bc he is a teir 3 now and has to register forever for a stupid ATTEMPT lewdness charge!!!!! This girl that accused him has put 2 other men in jail for the same acccusation…even her own grandfather!!!!! And now we have to be punished no matter how good hes been. These court proceedings can take years…i dont know if he can wait years…hes upset enough as it is over this whole thing. He so afraid of losing his job or our place to live or our neighbors finding out. He was fine living out his life on a tier 1 simply bc he knows he violated probation and wasnt smart enough at the time to fight instead of taking that plea deal. He wishes he was never forced into taking that deal. That deal cost him his freedom, his first born daughter and his peace of mind. I just feel like there has to be something that can be done bc this is unconstitutional!!! Hes being punished over and over for the same crime, there has to be some lawyer out there that will fight for him….for god sakes they used “love letters” that were supposedly writen by him in court even though they werent supposed to that didnt even match his handwritting but bc he didnt have a good defense lawyer no one would even listen. He was guilty until proven innocent. And now this. Now they make him a tier 3 without any warning or due cause simply bc of the awa. This is just unfair. Thank you for letting me vent and any advice you have that could get us in front of a judge or anything is beyind helpful.

  11. mike r

    @ Feeling sad. Man email me….mikeys20122012@yahoo.com. Sounds like a good TRO issue to me.
    What do you mean lost his daughter? Did the court put her in foster care or did the mother take her and he cannot get custody? Email me. I really really hate to say this, but nobody is going to help you out there. He is going to have to do it himself, wait it out, or pay a attorney that probably will not do crap…

  12. mike r

    Can anyone find this case they are talking about? It is apparently in the fed court right now or has very recently been decided.
    “We’re still fighting the case in district court,” attorney Margaret McLetchie said in an interview last week. “A mistake can’t be undone if you end up on the registry.”
    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/nevada/articles/2018-06-25/names-of-most-nevada-sex-offenders-to-be-posted-oct-1

  13. mike r

    Yeah this went into effect so I see your situation. Has your husband’s info already been made public?
    “While AB 579 is in effect, the State of Nevada’s, Department of Public Safety is implementing AB 579 on October 1, 2018.”
    I do not know what their subjective criteria was but this system does not sound like it will cut, at least this has been an issue in other courts. This is still offense based they are just trying to get around those rulings by adding an age to the alleged victim to the offense. Still offense based not tailored at all.
    AB 579 eliminates the use of subjective criteria to assign an offender’s tier. Rather, tier levels are established by the offender’s conviction and age of the victim. In general, if there was sexual contact and the victim was younger than 13 years of age or if the offender was convicted of a sexually violent offense, regardless of the victim’s age, an offender is placed into tier 3. Offenders convicted of a crime in which the victim was at least 13 years of age but less than 18 years of age is placed into tier 2. All other offenders are placed into tier 1.”
    Yeah they need to apply for another TRO from the district court…

  14. Rich

    Has anyone traveled to Europe recently with the new passport? Just trying to plan a trip.

  15. ReadyToFight

    random thought here,
    But I think right befor our annual we should cut up our previous registration card/receipt or whatever into the shape of the Star used by Nazi Germany and pin it to us for the photos in protest.
    And maybe put together a collage of our personal experiences and post it in a Public place and give the public a view of the things we and our family have and continue to suffer?

    • CR

      Did you mean to say that he wasn’t an RC?

      • Will Allen

        Exactly what I thought. I would go even further and would’ve instead said, “Surprise! This guy was not listed on any Nanny Big Government (NBG) Registry. Too bad that NBG concentrates on its Registries instead of preventing crimes.”

        However, pointing these things out isn’t really very helpful. It almost shows that the Registries are “working”. Because people who are listed on the Registries are not committing crimes.

        WE all know that the Registries do not work but the stupid people who support the Registries don’t. I personally know that the Registries do nothing to hinder crimes. I know the Registries make people WANT to commit crimes. I know the Registries would really help any person who is listed on them to be really motivated and knowledgeable about how to commit a crime and NOT be caught. I know the Registries are not just worthless, but that they are counterproductive. I know all of that. But Registry Terrorists don’t.

      • Facts should matter

        Correct. Which fully illustrates the phony “safety measures” in place during storms at those shelters. They deny entry for those on the registry, yet those NOT on Megan’s law list (like the John Q. Public “law-abiding citizen” in that article) are not profiled, turned away and are free to enter. It just shows the absurdity of these restrictions and the registry in general.

  16. Jerry

    I posted a week or so ago but can’t find the post. My family and I have been evicted because my landlord discovered my 290 registration. We have to be out by the end of the month. She gave us good recommendation letter though is seems to be genuinely upset. She said she has to protect her tenants because it’s and apartment. I have bee feverishly looking with no luck. We spent 2 years going from one hotel to another every 28 days before this rental. Due to my arrest both my wife’s and my credit tanked. We are fighting multiple barriers. I am hoping that a home owner will see this and be willing to rent. We pay our rent on time every month as my current landlord will attest. We can pay up to $2400.00 per month. There is of us and we really need 3 bed but can do 2 as we are currently in a 2. I have steady employment as Technical manager and my wife works at hospital.

    If you can, please reach out to us and help. You can email me at jayallan1969@gmail.com.

    Thank you so much in advance.

    ***Moderator*** Edit – Original comment here:
    https://all4consolaws.org/2018/10/general-comments-october-2018/comment-page-1/#comment-215050

  17. mike r

    Yes that article is much more comprehensive. Okay, so they have went back to the state courts after losing in the federal district courts then. Must be challenging on state grounds then as well. Still, I thought TROs were supposed to stay in play until a decision by a court on the actual merits of the case. The 9th really turned around since Smith back in the day when they originally shot it down. Now they apparently are just going to uphold any and all laws, no matter how strict and unconstitutional. Lets hope the state court sees it differently.
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1594069.html
    The 9th circuit gave a scathing decision on AB 579 back in 2012 that is not good at all. It actually concerns me for my case as they addressed the in-person requirements and multiple issues. IDK, a different panel with a different case such as mine may very well achieve different results, but the 9th in that case was pretty clear on where they stood on that particular law. O’well, I will just keep pushing no matter what. I am not going to get discouraged by anything.

  18. Gypsy Wolf

    I just wanted to say that I enjoyed the meeting in West Sacramento today. It was a good blend of the normal legal updates that I expect to hear from you, plus the supportive information that got shared – i.e. employers.

    Also, I’d did mention to one individual there – but I’ll add it here.

    But exploring the possibility of getting a meeting somewhere up here in the northern parts of the State. Santa Rosa, Eureka, Redding/Red Bluff, Chico?
    So those of us who are outlying aren’t as isolated from the rest of the conversation?
    And, I am mentioning the larger communities as there is probably a better chance of finding a suitable venue. Then trying for the smaller towns..

  19. E

    80 years ago this month:

    “On October 5, 1938, the Reich Ministry of the Interior invalidates all German passports held by Jews. Jews must surrender their old passports, which will become valid only after the letter “J” has been stamped on them.

    The government required Jews to identify themselves in ways that would permanently separate them from the rest of the German population.”

    https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1933-1938/reich-ministry-of-the-interior-invalidates-all-german-passports-held-by-jew

  20. mike r

    There are still residency restrictions as well. Just not a state law like guest referred to, local municipalities, because they all do not seem to get the message yet. I have researched them and challenged a few of the remaining ones in my complaint. Janice I believe is in the process of challenging another right now as well. In OC believe. But all that is irrelevant to the school issue, and I bet they would enforce the hell out of it if they know you are a registrant and you enter the property, especially in this day and age, they would flip the hell out on you and give you the maximum penalty allowed by law. I sure as hell would not do it when my grandkids get that age, but then again, God be willing and I win my case, I am going to be off this crap by then anyways. I could just see a registrant going on campus and other parents or school officials know their status. Like I said, All hell would probably break loose. Hell, might even make the news and all kinds of crap… I can just see the headlines, ‘RC stopped while on campus at blah blah school. Saved the children just in the nick of time’…

  21. JesusH

    Another question about updating registration in California when moving…

    I called the local PD to make the appointment. I asked if I needed to bring anything showing the new address. We’re buying the house so all I really have at this point is escrow, etc paperwork with the new address. Told them that it would be awhile before I actually had any of the usual utility bills mailed to the new place.

    They said that I needed to go the DMV and do a change of address and bring in the ‘brown card’ they would give me. So now I have to find time to go to the DMV? Argh.

    I told them I’m not sure I’d be able to find time and they said “that’s ok, if we have to reschedule your appointment we’ll do it.” I said “but the law says it has to be within 5 days”. Then they said “but it’s ok, we’ll see you’re trying and if it goes beyond the 5 days we won’t violate you.”

    So at this point I’m thinking… wtf? violate me? I’m not on probation or parole or anything. What power does the PD or the Government have over me at this point? I should be a normal citizen now! That’s not right.

    Of course I didn’t say anything and will try and go to the DMV for that ‘brown card’.

    Those of you who have moved though, what documentation have you used?

    • someone who cares

      Hi Jesus ~ From what I understand about registration in California, you have 5 days to report an address change but you have 30 days to provide actual proof if you don’t have any paperwork the time you go in. Maybe, someone else can confirm this. We always do a change of address on the United States Post Office website, and they send you a card with your new address within a couple of days. That has been sufficient for us. Also, if you sign up for any utilities, won’t you get a confirmation at least? I am not taking about an actual bill yet, just a confirmation that the address was changed?

    • Kiwi

      Jesus – I went through the whole buying-and-registration experience a little over a year ago, and I work in the Real Estate industry, so this is (probably) the easiest solution: have the escrow company provide you with a copy of the property deed that the seller signs on the day of closing. You have to ask for this specifically, otherwise you won’t get a copy for two weeks or more after the closing. It doesn’t technically prove residence, but it proves you own the place, and typically shows the new property as your mailing address on the face of the document. When I registered in for the new jurisdiction, they accepted that as proof, so I didn’t need to go to the DMV or come back a month later with a bill from the utilities.

      Hope this helps,

      Kiwi

  22. someone who cares

    Jesus ~ It is actually in the 290 paperwork you sign and initial each year. Per 290.015, this is what is says: “If the person claims that he or she has a residence but does not have any proof of residence, he or she shall be allowed to register but shall furnish proof of residence within 30 days of the date he or she is allowed to register.”

  23. TS

    I am posting this article below for all to read and consider how it could be possibly applied to registrant legal cases on appeal. It is basically all about statistics and how it is applied to the WA State death penalty WRT to cigarette stats, which were initially dismissed, but since then have been believed. I believe it is a possible method how the stats we are all aware could be used going forward in registrant cases. I could be off in my thinking here.

    I realize stats are sometimes positively and successfully used on behalf of registrants and many times ignored regardless. If the argument could be shaped to show how what once was dismissed can be used because it is believed empirically, such as the scholars are showing now, then there could be a door to open WRT registrant stats. There is interesting SCOTUS info in this article too in how one justice wished he could change his vote after deciding the case (and retiring).

    Look forward to hearing anyone’s take on this, e.g. @AJ, CR, PK, etc

    How Statistics Doomed Washington State’s Death Penalty
    A half-century after Justice Lewis Powell applied the logic of tobacco manufacturers to dismiss empirical studies, a state supreme court decided to accept their findings.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/how-statistics-doomed-washington-states-death-penalty/572968/

  24. AnotherAnon

    Some interesting Nazi law and camp Price Club revelations.

    “Specifically, Hitler feared that Roehm was attempting to turn the SA (at this time, over 2 million strong) into a militia and was planning a military challenge to Hitler. While there is no evidence that such a plan existed, Hitler ordered a purge. On June 30, 1934, Roehm, many of his supporters, and over 1,000 of Hitler’s political and personal enemies, were murdered in the famous “Night of the Long Knives.” While the purge was politically motivated, the justification given for it was the homosexuality of Roehm and several of his associates in the SS command.”

    “In the wake of the Roehm execution, Hitler ordered the registration of homosexuals and the Gestapo was charged with the responsibility of creating dossiers on homosexuals and other “asocials” in the Third Reich.”

    “Precise figures on the number of homosexuals exterminated in Nazi Death camps have never been established. Estimates range from 10,000 to 15,000. It does not appear that the Nazis ever set it as their goal to completely eradicate all homosexuals. Rather, it seems, the official policy was to either re-educate those homosexuals who were “behaviorally” and only occasionally homosexual and to block those who were “incurable” homosexuals through castration, extreme intimidation, or both.”

    “Those who wore the pink triangle were brutally treated by camp guards and other categories of inmates, particularly those who wore the green (criminals), red (political criminals) and black (asocials) triangles. The following testimony by survivor, Heinz Heger, provides a dramatic illustration:”

    “…While in 1934 766 males were convicted and imprisoned, in 1936 the figure exceeded 4,000, and in 1938 8,000. Moreover, from 1937 onwards many of those involved were sent to concentration camps after they had served their “regular” prison sentence…”

    ” After likening the homosexual who was killed and thrown into a peat bog to the weeding process in a garden, Himmler continued his tirade:

    ” …In the SS, today, we still have about one case of homosexuality a month. In a whole year, about eight to ten cases occur in the entire SS. I have now decided upon the following: in each case, these people will naturally be publicly degraded, expelled, and handed over to the courts. Following completion of the punishment imposed by the court, they will be sent, by my order, to a concentration camp, and they will be shot in the concentration camp, while attempting to escape. I will make that known by order to the unit to which the person so infected belonged. Thereby, I hope finally to have done with persons of this type in the SS, and the increasingly healthy blood which we are cultivating for Germany, will be kept pure.

    “Over the next two years, an intricate network of informants was developed. School children were encouraged to inform on teachers they suspected of homosexuality, employers on employees and vice versa. Homosexuals who were arrested were used to create lists of homosexuals or suspected homosexuals. The clear intention was to identify every homosexual in Germany and move them to concentration camps.”

    These are only snippets. There is much more.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-homosexuals-in-the-holocaust

Leave a Reply

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

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

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