ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

Registration Laws for all 50 States

General News

Overseas Registrant Wins Battle with Angel Watch Center

A registrant who has lived overseas for more than two years recently won a battle with the Angel Watch Center after the Center falsely notified the State Department that he was currently required to register as a sex offender. As a result of that notification, the registrant’s U.S. passport was revoked because it lacked a “unique identifier”.

The registrant, who was traveling on business, learned that his passport had been revoked after a letter was sent to the home of a relative where he had previously resided prior to departing the U.S. Because his passport was revoked, the registrant could not return home from the country where he was conducting business.

The Angel Watch Center’s determination was based upon an incorrect interpretation of a state’s registration laws. In order to correct that determination, a letter was obtained from the state police which clarified that the registrant is not required to register in that state because he had properly notified the state of his move overseas and that he is not a current resident of that state.

After receipt of the state police letter, the Angel Watch Center notified the State Department of its error and the State Department eventually issued the registrant a new passport without the “unique identifier” at no cost. This process took about six weeks and resulted in the registrant’s inability to return to his family as well as significant hotel and other related costs. The registrant is now reviewing his legal options due to harm caused by the Angel Watch Center’s errors.

Join the discussion

  1. Will Allen

    F the Satan Watch Center. This guy should sue them of course.

  2. Nicholas Maietta

    Could this go to Federal court, so this could help everybody out? I would hate to see this as a one off thing, “settled” and private. Small wins for the individual only don’t fix the problems that caused it, thus allowing further harm to fellow registrants and their families.

    • CR

      Angel Watch made an error that had profound effects on the former registrant, and he should sue them for damages if he can. But when confronted with confirmation from the state that the former registrant was no longer required to register there, they reported their error to the State Department. That suggests that their policy is to report to the State Department only those who are currently required to register. Apart from a possible suit by the former registrant for damages, what is left to take to court?

      • Will Allen

        As someone else on here said, I think it ought to be branded “Satan Watch”. If those scum bags are angels then I’m a freaking unicorn.

        • CR

          I always thought the “angel” in Angel Watch was a euphemism for the innocent children they claim to protect by their unflagging persecution of us. They would see us as the “satan”. So instead of watching out for the angels, they could just as well be watching the satans. Either way works, I guess.

        • Will Allen

          CR (October 17, 2018 at 11:00 am):

          Yep. I wondered the same thing and briefly tried to figure that out. Don’t have the time or inclination for that right now.

          I was taking “Angel Watch” to mean that they are angels watching out for the innocent children (as actual angels would do!). Which is enough to make any informed person laugh and then puke, of course.

          Even if “Angel Watch” is supposed to mean that they are angels watching out, I do think plenty of people would not interpret “Satan Watch” correctly. So if I feel motivated some day, I’ll have to think about how to brand them less ambiguously. We wouldn’t want anyone to mistakenly think they are decent people.

      • Will Allen

        I think I will refer to them as “Satan Watch (often incorrectly referred to as ‘Angel Watch’)”. Then if people search for “Angel Watch”, they can get “Satan Watch”.

        Branding and PR are important, just ask our lying Nanny Big Governments.

      • NY won't let go

        I’m still wondering how the hell this works for those of us stuck on NYs shit but don’t live in the US since under jurisdiction nothing is listed and on the national registry it’s shows a bunch of blanks that say out of country

  3. Eric

    …and in the infamous quote by chief justice Roberts that led to this disaster, “Registering as a SO isn’t any more inconvenient than getting a Price Club card. Uh, yeah, I think the SCOTUS needs to revisit this, and maybe let Roberts go shopping that day.

  4. TS

    But will Tort law prevent a suit against the USG and AWC? I hope not.

  5. ron burton

    I am in the same boat. – I have been an expat for 10 years now. – I have been wondering if my passport will be revoked as I am on the Florida list, but I am not required to register. Mail can take up to 6 months to get to me, if it does. I have no way of knowing if my passport is good or not, unless I ask. But, I thought it better not to ask.

    • CR

      I agree, it is better not to ask.

      That said, this case suggests to me that you are probably not subject to the unique identifier since you are not “required to register in any jurisdiction” currently.

      It implies that anyone who is able to eliminate their requirement to register by any legal means, whether by completing their registration term, utilizing their state’s process for being removed from the registry, or by moving someplace that doesn’t require them to register, would not be subject to the unique identifier. Even if listed on a state’s registry because of former residence, they no longer are required to register there, so IML wouldn’t apply.

      That’s speculation, but it seems to be what the events in this former registrant’s situation implies.

      • AJ

        @CR:
        That’s what I gleaned from this too. Of course, offer void in WI and NY…

        • JM from wi

          It’s nice to feel loved

        • E @ JM

          That just made me laugh out loud. EXACTLY… for those of us caught and flopping in WI’s net

    • R M

      @ron: Even if you did ask, you probably won’t get an answer. As far as I know, the only to know if a passport is revoked is when it is used or after it is used.

  6. mike r

    We all know he can sue, lucky him though. So he was able to escape the registry by moving to another country. Hmm, wonder how thst works when he returns. Does he have the typical 5or 3 days or whatever in the US before he must once again register? is his obligations now null and void? this is interesting. Since he is no longer required to register in any state than it seems as though no registry laws could apply and he is free to move about the US with no obligations. This is real interesting as it maybe a loophole in their system. Move to another country, get relieved of your duty to register, then return anytime for any amount of time and be free of obligations to register. Think about it, you are only required to register if you are on a states registry. Probably crazy talk, but this needs more research…

    • Jon

      Each state has their own requirement about how long you can be in their state before registering.

      If he returns to the US, he has to register if he is in a state for a certain period of time. Theoretically, as long as he keeps moving before the minimum time periods kick in, no registration is required.

    • Joe

      Moving to a different country does not erase a US conviction. Which is the basis for the registration requirement (at least California and Federal, and most likely all other states (I got tired after checking AL and AK)), triggered by physical presence in a state, territory or tribal area.

      “Move to another country, get relieved of your duty to register, then return anytime for any amount of time and be free of obligations to register.”

      Leaving the country does not relieve you from registering in the US upon return. That is crazy talk, I’ll say. From the great legal mind who thinks all lawyers are inept….

    • PK

      “Move to another country, get relieved of your duty to register, then return anytime for any amount of time and be free of obligations to register. Think about it, you are only required to register if you are on a states registry. Probably crazy talk”

      Yes that is definitely crazy thinking there.
      Even if one were to mange to get removed from the registry where they previously resided, because of the fact that they went to a different country, they would still need to re-register and probably start all over again upon their return to the United States.

      Moral of the story? If you were successful in being DE-listed from the registry, good grief don’t come back to the United States for more than the minimum time required by law before having to register. Who in their right mind would want to go through such a thing again?

      • Joe123

        Interesting topic. The only way to really know would be to: get de-registered by moving overseas for a period of time. Then when you come back to the states, see if you get pulled aside for a ‘secondary inspection’, if not then that’s already a good sign. Then after that, get pulled over for some minor traffic violation and see what happens. This is all theoretical. I think this could possibly work if you’re a low-level offender to begin with. I don’t think any lawyer out there will honestly tell you the answer to this because nobody wants to be held accountable for such experimentation.

        The question would be: what statue asks for you to re-register after being de-registered? If there is none, then the only way to really check would be what I said above. If your stage is SORNA compliant then this may also complicate matters, possibly. However, the main point is still de-registration, regardless of SORNA or not. What I said above still applies as far as the option questions.

        • E

          I believe courts would rule on the INTENT of the legislature when passing the law: which is that anyone with a conviction (phrasing in many states) who’s a resident is required to register.

        • CR

          My guess is that most or all states base the requirement to register on a violation of their own laws or the laws of another state that are substantially similar to one of their own laws for which registration would be required. It may not matter whether or not a person moving to that state is registered wherever they are coming from.

          That is how it works Texas. Anyone anywhere who manages to get relieved of the requirement to register by moving out of the country or by moving to a state that does not require them to register would still have to register in Texas if they came to live here and they met certain conditions. Those conditions are spelled out in the Texas registration statutes. Regardless of where they were convicted, or where they are coming from, and regardless of whether or not they were registered in their former place of residence, a person who has a “[r]eportable conviction or adjudication … based on” a long list of violations of Texas statutes, OR who meets the following criteria would have to register:

          ============
          (H) a violation of the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice for or based on the violation of an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed under Paragraph (A), (B), (B-1), (C), (D), (E), (G), (J), (K), or (L), but not if the violation results in a deferred adjudication;

          (I) the second violation of the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice for or based on the violation of an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of the offense of indecent exposure, but not if the second violation results in a deferred adjudication;
          ============

          If you read the registration statutes of every state, you may find one or more that you could move to without having to register there. But eliminating your requirement to register in one state will almost certainly not eliminate your requirement to register in some other states, whether you are moving there, or just visiting.

          Let’s take an example of a formerly registered person moving to Texas. Let’s say that you live in a state where you had a duty to register for 10 years. After 10 years, your state removed you from the registry and relieved you of your obligation to register. Now you decide to move to Texas. If you read the entire Texas registration statute ( Chapter 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.62.htm ), you will find that your registration status in the state you are coming from is never mentioned. It is irrelevant to the state of Texas. If you have a reportable conviction or adjudication that meets the criteria spelled out in Chapter 62, you will have to register.

          I’m pretty confident that Texas is not alone in this regard. You might have your liberty and freedom restored in one place or another, but it will not apply everywhere. In other words, it is unlikely that you’ll ever be completely free as long as the states and the federal government have sex offender registration laws on the books.

          So no, moving out of the country is not a magic “get your life back” card. If you come back, you will have to register if you meet the requirements of the state you move to.

        • Will Allen

          CR (October 18, 2018):

          That is how some other states work for sure. In fact, you could be relieved of having to Register in any state you live in, move to any other state, and many years later that state can simply decide that you must Register there. Because it’s all “civil”, you know.

          The way to get a magic “get your life back” card is to get out of the control of any oppressive, criminal regime. That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to leave Amerika though.

  7. mike r

    Sorry Jon, but we do not know all that for a fact. This man is no longer required to register in any state, that may very well change the game. I know for a fact that there are many states that do not require individuals not subject to another states registry to register when they enter their state. Many of the laws state specifically that “if” you have to register in “any” other state then you must register in their state. The fact of the matter then is how this man not being required to register in any state effects whether he has to in any particular circumstances. No one can know that for a fact without further research. This is a unique circumstance that this man is under. Look, he does not have to have a IML badge of shame, only because of the language in the statutes, which is exactly what I am stating. We do not know the exact language of the law in this situation when a citizen moves to another country, is relieved of his duty to register in his home state, and then returns to either visit, or move. If you have a citation to the actual language addressing this exact issue then we do not know. We have to use the letter and exact language of the laws against them as they do us.

    • mike r

      actually let me restate this since I am going to be accused of being some lame.
      I do not know for a fact what states require for out of state individuals that are no longer under their home state’s registration requirements. I just assume that like IML if you are not required to register in any state then you are not subject to IML.
      This in no way makes my inquiries any less relevant. There is much more to this case than just what is mentioned in the post. Just as Robert states, what about the push notifications?
      And if you have citations to state or federal statutes that state an individual that moves from the country has this or that registration obligations if they return, please cite. Also, if you are so sure that one must register in other states if they are no longer required to register in their home states, please cite any and all states so that I can address this issue in my case. But of course that would be helping Mike r get something done and we cannot have that can we, much better to try to knock his ego down a peg and prove him wrong. LMFAO…..

    • PK

      “In order to correct that determination, a letter was obtained from the state police which clarified that the registrant is not required to register in that state because he had properly notified the state of his move overseas and that he is not a current resident of that state.”

      I think it would be helpful to know which state he is no longer required to register?

      I live outside of the United States also, but I’m still required to register in my state of conviction NY.
      Haven’t been there in 8 years.

      • CR

        I’ve never researched it, but I believe I’ve only seen NY and WI mentioned as states that require non-residents to continue to register. I’m not saying that’s all, just none others that I recall reading about. Certainly there are a lot of states (22, I think) that do not remove people from the registry after they move out of state or out of the country, or even after they die. But that’s a different matter.

      • NY won't let go

        This is exactly the thing I’m afraid of because I don’t live in the US either but NY still has me on their registry also.

        Luckily I had my trip and got to and from without issue. But this still haunts what might happen

  8. mike r

    “This process took about six weeks and resulted in the registrant’s inability to return to his family as well as significant hotel and other related costs.”
    What happened during this six weeks? Did he have to re-register? Does not sound like it. I am sure we would of heard about that with the story.

    • CR

      It sounds like he wasn’t in the US, mike r, so of course he did not have to register during that six weeks.

      “… the registrant could not return home from the country where he was conducting business.”

      He lives outside of the US. He was conducting business in yet another country.

  9. Ron

    The last time I was in the states, I had a few days before I was told I must register (county sheriff’s office) of course I did not want to risk this so, I made sure I didn’t stay that long. If I overstay my welcome I may never be able to return to my home in my new country.

    • E @ Ron

      Ron, in what state? This is helpful to hear you’re actually doing this (coming back to US but not staying longer than registration required). Must be a reasonable state like CA or CO where you can be 14 days in a row or 30 days cumulative??

  10. Robert

    That’s the harm from the passport……they will still send a notification alert to the country and try to to get the country to blacklist him from entering.

  11. mike r

    Here we go again with the personal attacks. Joe you have some serious issues. Why are you so quick to attack one of the only individuals willing to step up and fight? Whatever dude, you are not even worth defending myself against as I did very well last time, and proved my skills. You and NPS need to go file since you are some great legal minds and want to sit on some high horse when it comes to anything I state. If you spent as much time researching and drafting a complaint as you do researching and trying to knock me down you might be a contender. Until you file and just sit around and complain and try to break me down, whatever you state is worthless. You absolutely do not know for a fact how the states treats a registrant that has moved to another country and that returns. If so cite it. If not, blow it out your a^%^%$$%$# because that is all your statements are worth. Just as NPS thought “dicta” was something to do with precedent and that “precedence” was something to do with precedent you people do not know everything. You guys are to much. What the hell is your problem? Do you not like my political views so you attack the character and claim racist and misogynistic and all that other lame crap like the radicals do? I am not arguing anymore with someone that is not willing to step up to the plate and fight his/her on fight and then wants to crap on someone that is fighting. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect others but you deserve neither at this point. Like I stated before, I really wish there was some way to prevent people like you from benefiting off of mine and others research and work. Betch your ass as soon as I win you will be jumping on the band wagon then, probably still trying to bash on me for some crap. If you have a statute with the exact language that if an individual moves to another country and returns, either for business or whatever, what the registration requirements are. Not just some citation to some irrelevant statutes either. I mean specifically addressing this EXACT issue. Also, can you tell me and cite what this individual was subject to for the 6 weeks that he was in the states?
    “This process took about six weeks and resulted in the registrant’s inability to return to his family as well as significant hotel and other related costs.” Do not see nothing in the post about that aspect….Wow, some people…

    • Joe

      Personal attacks? What personal attacks. You continually dismiss lawyers as stupid and lazy. On this, lawyer owned and operated web site, no less. You consider yourself better than those lawyers. True or false? If I were to attack you (who has time for that), it would not be “great legal mind” – believe me.

      I am not worth your time but you go on ranting and raving about your political views (could not care less, tbh) and “claim racist and misogynistic” and other crap? Lost me, sorry.

      “You absolutely do not know for a fact how the states treats a registrant that has moved to another country and that returns.” Uhmmmm, but I think I do. It is right here in PC 290:

      290 (b) (b) Every person described in subdivision (c), for the period specified in subdivision (d) while residing in California, or while attending school or working in California, as described in Sections 290.002 and 290.01, shall register with the chief of police of the city in which he or she is residing, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is residing in an unincorporated area or city that has no police department, and, additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of the University of California, the California State University, or community college if he or she is residing upon the campus or in any of its facilities, ===within five working days of coming into, or changing his or her residence within, any city, county, or city and county===, or campus in which he or she temporarily resides, and shall register thereafter in accordance with the Act, unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5 or as otherwise provided by law. ===note: NOT by moving out of state or country===
      (c) The following persons shall register:
      Every person who, since July 1, 1944, ===has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court=== of a violation of …

      That should about settle it. Unless you call that some lame cite and prefer some anecdote. The thought that a prior move to a foreign country should extinguish the registration requirement whilst residing back in the US is cute at best.

      And if you do not want “people like me” benefitting from your research and work – fear not. Your research is unreliable – as in this example. In court you have won nothing yet (I sincerely hope you prevail, don’t get me wrong), but even so it won’t be of any benefit to me, if that puts your mind at rest. Bet your ass I won’t be doing any jumping of any sort. Of course, might one make room for the possibility that your case may not only not win, but also cement a detrimental precedent? Nahhhhhh…..

      “Also, can you tell me and cite what this individual was subject to for the 6 weeks that he was in the states?” No, I cannot not, because nowhere does it say that this individual was in the US of A for the 6 weeks during which he incurred the aforementioned expenses while being unable to return to his current home country / country of residence. Reading is fun!

      No one cares what I would have told him or you. The State of California would have told him that he was subject to registration after 5 days (see above). And if he hadn’t done so, would have arrested him for Failure to Register making a 6 week hotel bill his second biggest problem.

      And no, I won’t be filing any case. I am supporting the professionals (whose web site I am writing on) who have a track record of actually getting results. Don’t confuse activity with achievement.

    • Steve @ Miker

      Mike try and stop taking everything so personally. Just because you have taken steps to help yourself (and maybe orhers) doesn’t mean people can’t disagree with you. Let it go dude.
      You don’t have to answer to anybody here.

  12. mike r

    There we go, now we are getting somewhere. So Ron, it appears you stated the sheriff told you that you must register? Did they send you a letter? Did they come to your location? Did they tell you while entering the country? And most importantly, did they CITE a statue with the exact language addressing this exact issue? Unlike others on here who seem to be experts and know everything, I am in no way stating I know anything about this, what I am saying is that something went down where this individual did not have to have the badge of shame on his passport as well as he was in the states for six weeks, apparently, without no explanation on what registration requirements he was obligated to for that six weeks, if he was in fact in the US for those six weeks. It took this guy a six week battle to get his rights straight. And these domestic terrorist do not go by the law unless forced to, and they would have continued to run roughshod over this individual if he just stated. “it is the law so OKAY.” like others would have you believe.
    “The Angel Watch Center’s determination was based upon an incorrect interpretation of a state’s registration laws.”

  13. mike r7

    Hell, I am not even sure if this guy was stuck in the US or somewhere else while all this went down. There is ambiguity to that question to me when all it states is,
    “The registrant, who was traveling on business, learned that his passport had been revoked after a letter was sent to the home of a relative where he had previously resided prior to departing the U.S. Because his passport was revoked, the registrant could not return home from the country where he was conducting business.”
    It sounded to me like he was stuck in the US for six weeks, but it just states “the country where he was conducting business” Could be anywhere I suppose and the guy still has to use a US passport since he is, or was, a US citizen. Lots of unanswered questions here.

  14. mike r

    And yes it is crazy talk, but I am sure this guy heard it was crazy talk that he would not be subject to the IML passport from the enemy. Just as it was crazy talk that I was entitled to half time while every CO, sargent, captain, and even my own attorney was telling me I was crazy and that I was subject to 85%. So I like when someone states something like that or proves me wrong, it is the personal attacks that is unwarranted and just plain sad…. You know I would really like to see if Joe, or other critics of mine, how they would act when they entered the courtroom like I have had to do, would you guys buckle? how about cave every time the AG or the judge states you are wrong (which has not happened yet by the way) when you know for a fact you are not? Would you speak up? Would you even have the gonads to enter the enemies lair. If so, could you explain why you have not?

  15. mike r

    Is there anyone on here that likes hearing what I have to say? If not, maybe I will not even bother anymore, as it seems that every time I open my mouth I get crapped on by this Joe character or a few others…. No I have had my dissenters before on here and will continue to have them I am sure. I bet I could say that water runs downhill and these guys would try and tell me that I am wrong because it goes both ways under pressure or some crap. You just build my ego because I prevail on every argument, and if not then I may actually learn something (not learned anything new from Joe yet, but hey, who knows, right?). Even from people that I do not like or have issues with, everyone can learn something from everyone else….

  16. mike r

    So damn smart there are you Joe. Damn and I thought i had an ego. That was my exact point, no one knows if he was stuck in the good O’l US of AAAAa. Was he required to register if he was? You do not know and are talking out your A%$% like I stated. And furthermore I am not saying that you can terminate by moving out of the country I am merely asking questions because I like to here from others. Furthermore,
    “unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5 >>>>>>or as otherwise provided by law.<<<< I see some ambiguity there to me. You see, I read every single word of a law and look for weaknesses like that.. You are the one going around stating this is fact or that is fact when in fact you do not know some of the things you are stating as fact.
    "No one cares what I would have told him or you. The State of California would have told him that he was subject to registration after 5 days (see above). And if he hadn’t done so, would have arrested him for Failure to Register making a 6 week hotel bill his second biggest problem." You even stated yourself you have no idea if the guy was in the US or not and you just cannot know unless you are LE, and even then you might have to just turn around and let him go if you were wrong just as the watch org did. I think it is really un cool that you try and run rough shod over people on this site and act like you are some great legal mind but you refuse to fight your own fight.

  17. mike r

    I am in no way stating that leaving the country relinquishes your duty to register as I would not know without specific research on the subject, and I am in fact sure they have some kind of mechanism in place for just a case. I was clear on my point and wanted some collaboration and some productive intelligent conversation, not some insulting %^#$% laying into me every time I post. Whatever, by your other post I see, without me even in the conversation, you make people know what is up. Man your ego is almost as bad as mine, not.
    But your rudeness surpasses mine by far….

  18. mike r

    And as a matter of fact, i do not believe by the language of the statute that you are required to register in CA if you have been lawfully relieved of your duty to register in any state or sense. I would not bet my ass on it but It could very well be the case with the language of the statute,
    “unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5 >>>or as otherwise provided by law.”
    That “or otherwise as provided by law” seems pretty straight forward actually…

  19. mike r

    Furthermore, no where in that cited statute does it actually state “in any other state” if you want to get particular (which is exactly what attorneys do). Actually, this language could be used to challenge out of state convictions all together. Really doubt if you would prevail on that exact issue, but being relieved of the duty to register in another state is a whole different story. Like I stated though, I am sure they have something in place for individuals that move out of the country, but I am not going to search for it right now as that is irrelevant to me at this point, that does not definitively resolve the issue one way or the other. But as of yet, nowhere in any cited material has it specifically addressed the issue of out of the country and relieved of the duty and what the requirements are required once you re-enter the country. That was my original point. Yes it is asinine to think that there would not be, but I have seen some asinine statutes and language before, so it would not be the first time. This is the full text of that cited section though. Nothing about out of the country or other states… Remember language is supposed to be construed as written. In actuality I see no clearly expressed legislative intent about out of state convictions like you see in other state statutes. Like I stated, that would be a hard argument that would most likely not prevail, but you never know. I am sure that an out of state registrant that has been relieved of their duty to register, especially with the language that I cite, would win and not have to register here if they moved here after they are de-registered in another state. I could sure as hell argue that point and technicalities win cases.
    “Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:” Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). “[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.'” 503 U.S. 249, 254.
    “(c) The following persons shall register:
    Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in >>>”any court in this state”< or in any "federal or military court" <<< of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, subdivision (b) and (c) of Section 236.1, Section 243.4, Section 261, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b) of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, or 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses.
    I would say that last part would be more consequential, but that is still only talking about CA and does not mention other states.
    So I see no ambiguity in that statute.
    At least we are getting some collaboration, even if it confrontational. I see PK came up with a question as to his current situation. All knowledgeable Joe, can you answer Pk's question?

  20. mike r

    I take this as a jab at me personally, whether you are smart enough to see it or not. “From the great legal mind who thinks all lawyers are inept”…. If not then I do not know what to tell you. I never stated all lawyers either, another fallacy. I stated “most” lawyers are inept, which is a fact. And I guarantee you I am not the only one on here that thinks like that….I would bet that almost everyone on here thinks most of them are worthless and will sell their first born if it benefited them.

    • JM from wi

      @ mike r
      I agree that your ego makes for fine fodder for some. For me most discussions provide color to arguments. On the topic of attorneys; some cases have been presented badly and have taken our cause backwards. Obviously the frightening and high from Alaska has been quoted all over the US. Attacking us with new rules, regulations and laws. Bad cases and bad lawyers make bad case law. I recall Mike r asking for legal help over the years. Lawyers are prohibitively expensive for most registrants. Had Mike r had hired an attorney to put together his case, imagine the cost. He and several others from this site have much more than 1000 hours invested. In the end mike r’s effort speaks for itself. If he helps our cause thanks in advance. If he hurts our cause, it can hardly hurt us more than some of the professionals have these past 20 years. Not all attorneys are as knowledgeable as Janice. Even top notch attorneys only know their very narrow specialty. Hiring most lawyers for something specific, and complicated costs a lot of learning at $350/ hour. (Cheap WI. Rates)

  21. mike r

    @ E “Must be a reasonable state like CA or CO where you can be 14 days in a row or 30 days cumulative??”
    Is this in some statute somewhere? if so please cite. I know that out of state rules have been on here before, but I have never seen anything about how long someone from out of the country can be here. I did not see if out of state in CA has 14 or 30 days. Since we have been discussing this I would like to know the exact statutes and language if at all possible…
    Thanks…

    • E @ mike r

      CA (I realize this is a sub statute UNDER the 5 day rule “after entering a jurisdiction” is stated but it’s certainly arguable; attorneys tell you to be “on the safe side” and use the 5 day rule)
      Statute: 290.002.
      Persons required to register in their state of residence who are out-of-state residents employed, or carrying on a vocation in California on a full-time or part-time basis, with or without compensation, for more than 14 days, or for an aggregate period exceeding 30 days in a calendar year, shall register in accordance with the Act.
      Megan’s Law site:
      Registration of Sex Offenders Who Come to School or Work in California. Students and employees who reside out of state but go to school or work in California must register as sex offenders here if they are required to register in their state of residence (Pen. Code § 290.002.). An employee is defined as a person who is employed in California on a full or part-time basis, with or without compensation, for more than 14 days, or for an aggregate period exceeding 30 days in a calendar year. A student is defined as a person who is registered in an educational institution, as defined in Education Code section 22129, on a full or part-time basis. The student/employee must register in the jurisdiction where he or she attends school or is employed.
      other laws: https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/Docs/additional_laws.pdf
      online courses: https://oag.ca.gov/sex-offender-reg/forms

      CO
      https://apps.colorado.gov/apps/dps/sor/information.jsf (click Who Has to Register)
      “Temporary Resident” is any person who is employed in Colorado on a full-time or part-time basis, with or without compensation, for more than 14 consecutive business days or for an aggregate period of more than 30 days in any calendar year; enrolled in any type of educational institution in Colorado on a full-time or part-time basis; or present in Colorado for more than 14 consecutive business days or for an aggregate period of more than 30 days in any calendar year for any purpose, including but not limited to vacation, travel, or retirement. Temporary residents shall register within five business days of arrival in Colorado. A sex offender is required to register in any state in which he/she is a temporary resident.

      In CO some attorneys will also say to be ‘on the safe side’ and use the 5 day rule. (I’ve looked up their actual statute; link to it on the site above, too)

      BUT, I think the statutes in these states–and a bunch of others–those written more than 10 years ago (usually) have these “reasonable” provisions for travel/temp residents. It’s the states who have passed laws in the last 5 years that are getting crazier and crazier (like IL: which is now CUMULATIVE 3 DAYS IN A YEAR anywhere in the state. That’s insane and prevents almost all legitimate business travel)

  22. NPS

    Joe,
    Just want to give you a thumbs up. (I miss those little thumbs up/down that this site used to have.)
    Regards,
    n.

  23. Agamemnon

    Did the Nazis try to force Jewish people who fled to other countries to still wear their Stars of David patches?

    • Will Allen

      Seems like Amerika would.

      I wonder if a person couldn’t flee to some country and ask for asylum from Amerika there. You would think a benevolent country would let a person go there and renounce their U.S. citizenship.

      It would be nice to live in a better country however I don’t like the idea of running from the anti-Americans. I more prefer to turn my country into something decent and force them to crawl under rocks or run. So I’ll do it like the Chinese and just keep buying this country up.

  24. mike r

    Thank you @ E. Yeah , I like this part that is repeated a couple of times.
    “must register as sex offenders here >>>if they are required to register in their state of residence<<>>or as otherwise provided by law.”
    It does not state “or as otherwise provided by CA law” either. Provided by law, I believe by the preponderance of the evidence and language, may also include any other state, or federal laws as well.

  25. mike r

    The language in the statutes seem unambiguous. The CA legislature has repeatably stated who is required to register and unlike some other statutes, CA specifically states several times,
    “(c) The following persons shall register:
    Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in >>>”any court in this state”< or in any "federal or military court" and,
    "Persons required to register in their state of residence"
    Yeah unless someone can cite another section of CA code sections refuting this unambiguous language, I would fight like hell if they tried to make me register if I am not registered in any other state.
    The legislature has had many opportunities to narrow this language and detail the intent to register people whom are not required by any other state to register.
    I understand this is crazy talk, but if you follow the actual language of the law, they do not mention if convicted in another state at all. there has to be some other section of the statute addressing this very issue or I would say it could be fought for any conviction in any other state and only applies to those required to register in their home state, or was convicted in CA or in military or federal court. I really doubt if you would convince a judge that the legislature intended to preclude those convicted in other states but the law as far as I have seen so far does not indicate "a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary" (“Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:” Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980).) that the legislature intended the registration law to apply to anyone, or any conviction, out of state unless they are required to register in their place of residence. For the court to add language or interpret a law where their is no ambiguity and there is not "a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary" would be usurping the legislative processes, in violation of separation of powers. Like I stated, can anyone cite language in a statutes the clearly express legislative intent to the contrary of the actual language of the statutes I have cited or addressed???? I am just thinking out loud here, and this is extremely interesting.

  26. mike r

    I was a little unclear on this part as I broke it down and did not show the entire section language as one unit, which did not put the language in context.
    “shall register thereafter in accordance with the Act, unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5 or as otherwise provided by law.”

  27. Feeling sad

    Im just gonna say this one thing and leave it at that….why are we arguing?! Why are there jabs being thrown?! Arent we all here for the same cause?! Who cares what mike r thinks about lawyers or doesnt think about them??? Who cares whos wrong or whos right?! Or whos misinformed?! Cant we inform people of things without being so negative?! Like i said were all here for the same thing…equal rights. So why shoot down other people?! I think Mike rs work is really something to be admired and rooted for. Anyones work on these subjects should be. So lets stop with the hate and nonsense. Arent we all trying to stop the hate with the registry and it bs laws? How can we do that if we cant even work together?! Just bc people see things differently or think differently doesnt mean we need to fight or argue. We need to unite together and fight this. If we cant come together everyone is doomed to fail. Just my take on this.

  28. Joe123

    After giving this further thought, this situation may apply in certain states:

    You were registered in state 1, you give notice that you’re living overseas and they de-register you because they have no authority to register you. You come back to state 2 now, and setup residency there via driver’s license change. The law states that if you were registered in another state then you need to register in the new state. However, you are NOT registered in state 1 anymore, thus you would not need to be registered in state #2.

    This would vary from state to state according to their specific language. However, unless someone can show otherwise, this looks workable.

    • Civil Rights First

      If I’m not mistaken… Most of the States laws read… “If you’ve been convicted of…..” That is their catch all… And if you move, do business, go to school, etc…. And you get stopped by the police for even a minor reason and they run any kind of background check you’re screwed.

      • E

        Are you saying you’re screwed even if you are following the 3 or 5 day regulation, depending on the state? Has this happened to you? I have not seen a case where someone traveling briefly for business was charged with FTR; but I’ve wondered what the questioning would be if I got pulled over on a business trip. That’s why I have their own laws in mind when traveling…

  29. mike r

    Yep, I will not argue on personal beliefs or attacks again. Like others have stated, I do not have to prove anything to anybody and I know I have people out there truly rooting for me.
    So Joe123, you are seeing this as well!!
    I know it is crazy but the law is the law and must be interpreted in the language of that law unless there is clear legislative intent that is contrary to what the language states. Like I stated, CA has had many chances to describe in more detail if they wanted to register out of state (or country) convictions and explicitly states several times that CA registration only applies to those that are convicted in this state, military or federal courts, or are on another state’s registry.

    • Joe123

      Exactly ^ that’s basically what we’ve deduced. At this point it would be more beneficial for a lawyer to chime in on this matter than average people who are going to take a ‘guess’ and claim that this is just ‘crazy talk’.

      • mike r

        Unfortunately and sad to say, but “no” lawyers are going to chime in on this unless they are getting paid some way or some how !!!!!!!!!!!

  30. Deregistered

    Well

    I de registered. I left the US and returned using a passport from the country I visited under a new name! Fake passports are easily accessible in the country I visited! I’ve been living in (blank) for 2 years now without any issues! I’m presently in the process of writing a book on how to de register legally! Yes, there is a way! Good luck

    • Joe123

      This is probably the most fascinating comment I’ve seen in the past 6 months. However, if you come back into the US with a password from another country, they’ll obviously match up your face/fingerprints etc with their existing database, also would you be considered a foreign traveler in a Visa since you’re coming in as a new foreigner under a new name?

  31. mike r

    De registered that is awesome, better be careful about stating what you stated on a public forum though. This is not an anonymous site, none are unless you have special software I believe. You have an IP address that can be traced…. So, I guess this great legal mind was not all alone on his breaking and cutting edge deductions and the possibilities…:) Thank you Joe as this has opened up a entirely new discourse on these de-regerstartion processes and the possibilities out there. I am in no way encouraging unlawful solutions, I was merely pointing out the legal possibilities and fallacies in the language of the laws that are out there. Especially in CA….

  32. mike r

    @ de registered, I am not exactly sure that getting a fake passport in another country with a new name, and then entering back into the states with that fake passport, would be considered legal. I may be wrong as I am no legal scholar, but that sounds pretty sketchy to me… But then again, technicalities win cases and can make illegal acts perfectly legal in certain instances, much harder now days, but still possible… It is a big gamble when you are talking about serious prison time though….Interesting though, to say the least.

  33. mike r

    What about your SS #? Were you able to get a drivers license-ID card with that passport? What happens if you happen to get recognized by someone, or someone that may have a beef with you sells you out? What about if some how some way you end up in a hospital, for instance, and you are out and they run your prints or check DNA to find out who you are? What if cops arrest you for mistaking identity and print you? There are many instances where your true identity could be exposed. Not sure if there is actually any law on the books against this, but it sure seems sketchy like I stated…. Like to hear more though….

  34. mike r

    One other thing about de registered’s comment. WOW, what if you were some kind of terrorist, mass murderer wanted in another country, or just about anyone that was a real threat to our country? So much for any kind of border security, and so much for our vetting process. Scary shit right there…. Of course there must be thousands if not millions in this country if what you state in indeed fact, which I have reason to doubt you. Is it a US passport? Or from the country in which you came back from? Many questions on this….

  35. Mike

    I am looking at becoming an expat if anyone has some pointers? Graduating soon with an MBA and feeling desperate…

    • Joe123

      “Mike R”, are you on the public registry indefinitely? Yeah I would also be desperate for a way out of that slavery scheme if given that kind of punishment.

      Without Due Process given to each citizen before being placed on any registry, the current system should be Illegal.

      I don’t know if the member above, ‘Deregistered’, uses methods that work without starting over with a new identity (which is how his comment sounded), but at the very least, what happened with the guy in this article through Angel Watch and getting deregistered seems relatively achievable. I assume it can be done in most states because:

      The state you were convicted in requires you to register for X amount of time for your ‘heinous crime’ while you reside there. However, they also have a clause that if you’ve moved out of the country, you must notify them and they are *supposed to* remove you from the registry, based on their own wording of the law.

      Now according to laws in all other states, if you are Currently registered in another state, then you must notify the New state that you’re moving to that you need to register. HOWEVER, since in this case you are De-registered in the 1st state, then the requirement of re-registering in a New state has no applicability. I don’t see anything else to the contrary, and nobody has been able to present anything solid either as an argument.

      One person above quoted the statue for California, and they do have a point, assuming you move back into the same state that you left. I believe the key is to not return to the same state which you were deregistered from.

      Anyway, this is just a personal understanding based on the language written on these laws and I am NOT ADVOCATING anyone doing anything illegal, just to be 100% clear on here.

      The only way to really know is to do the above and then see if you get stopped for secondary inspection or if another authority during a traffic stop asks anything about this. It is unclear if they would even find any issue with this, or if they would have any jurisdiction to act on it.

      • CR

        @Joe123 — “The state you were convicted in requires you to register for X amount of time for your ‘heinous crime’ while you reside there. However, they also have a clause that if you’ve moved out of the country, you must notify them and they are *supposed to* remove you from the registry, based on their own wording of the law.”

        Not necessarily. There are at least 22 states that list you on the registry forever. Most do not require you to continue to register with them if you move out of state, but WI and NY do.

        @Joe123 — “Now according to laws in all other states, if you are Currently registered in another state, then you must notify the New state that you’re moving to that you need to register. HOWEVER, since in this case you are De-registered in the 1st state, then the requirement of re-registering in a New state has no applicability. I don’t see anything else to the contrary, and nobody has been able to present anything solid either as an argument.”

        It is not true across the board that being de-registered in one state relieves you of the requirement to register when you move to another state. That might be the case for some states, but it is definitely not the case in others. In this topic, I gave the example of Texas. If a former registrant from one state moves to Texas, the duty to register has nothing to do with current registration status in the state the person is moving from. It is based on whether you have what Texas refers to as a “reportable conviction or adjudication” based on “… a violation of the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice for or based on the violation of an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed…” in the Texas Penal code.

        • Joe123

          You’re right; it comes down to the language used in the individual state’s law regarding registration.

  36. Derigistered

    Hello

    I can’t provide all of my details. I’m presently residing in LA! I’m in the process of writing my book which will and can provide every detail involved. It’s all rather simple.

  37. mike r

    This is so funny considering I was refered to as crazy when I even mentioned this and now de reg is saying he actually did it, and it was easy at that. Lmfao BIG time. This is to much, you would think this would have to be me using a different name to vindicate myself it is so classic….Its actually not though….;) 🤣😲… De reg sure you are not just trying to sell this book your talking about???

  38. mike r

    You guys are both right, each state has its own language in the statutes. Just as if I deregistered after moving out of the country I could not come back to CA without registering since CA states specifically that anyone ever convicted of such or such crime “in CA or a federal or military court must register” so I was convicted in CA court so it would apply still regardless. And as stated by CR, there are many states with different language stating if you have ever been convicted of an offense equivalent to one of their respective state statutes in any state, regardless if another state has you on a list, requires you to register in that state. This I have challenged and will continue to bring up in court when I win and CA is ordered to deregister me. I have already explained in my complaint that just deregistering me in CA alone will not suffice and that the court must order all states within the courts jurisdiction to cease and desist any registration obligations that they may have on me in there statutes. As far as states outside the district’s jurisdiction, this is going to have to come from a higher court i.e. SCOTUS….Or I am sure I would have to sue in each of the 12 regional circuits across the country in order for it to be binding on every state. I do not think that the federal appeals courts can force other state out of their jurisdiction to comply with one of their orders.
    Now as far as moving back from out of the country to another state, unless there is exact language as described requiring registration for such and such offense or the equivalent then I should theoretically be able to return to one of the other states that do not have such language and not be required to register. CA does not state that I have to register in any other states as WI and NY requires, as CR points out……..
    This is a good thread, it could be proven to be a viable option for many. The thing of it is, we have to remember federal AWA. What is their exact language in their statutes pertaining to all this. IDK, I have not researched it….The AWA may actually have the safeguarded language prohibiting this. Like i stated, I do not know without research…

  39. mike r

    @Joe123, Yes i am on the CA registry which as of now is for life. The state is actually moving to a tiered sysytems in 2021, but if the language stays the same I will be in a tier three because of pc 288.2 for talking about sex with an underage girl on the internet, the court claimed that was “harmful material” for a violation of 288.2. It states as harmful matter as defined in pc 313,
    As used in this chapter:
    (a) “Harmful matter” means matter, taken as a whole, which to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, and is matter which, taken as a whole, depicts or >>>describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct<<<< and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
    The court and DA used the "describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct" for the conviction and the language in the new tiered bill as is puts that in tier three, there worst of the worst with lifetime registration and I am sure right after the law goes into effect they will be upping the ante requiring more reporting, more compliance checks, more etc…
    I am not sure if you are aware but I am in federal court right now. the entire case is on Pacer or at my site http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
    The DA offered me 8 months of work project and probation for a 664/288(a), but since I fought it they gave me 5.4 years in state prison and added two new charges, one of which was the 288.2. Believe me this would not have happened if I was not threatened and coerced out of representing myself as my PD literally did and said absolutely nothing during trial or in briefs other than insufficiency of the evidence and rested her entire defense on that alone when there was an astounding amount of exonerating evidence and questionable elements that were not met….

    • AnotherAnon

      @mike r,

      I have trouble following this as to where it stands. The last entry seems to be a discovery conference on 5/16/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC)

      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 26(f) on or before 4/25/2018. (Kastilahn, A)

      That is to do this:

      (f) Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery.
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

      There doesn’t seem to be an entry under “opinions” after that, so I’m lost as to where it stands. Did that discovery conference happen?

      Also, on your website, does the timeline sequence go down the page? I have trouble following the sequence since there are no dates. I found the above by clicking on the “Pacer Complete Docket” button.

      • mike r

        Yes there has been 5 opinions which were all technical pretty much except the MFR. There is no scheduling order as of yet so therefore no discovery cuttoff dates. Discovery is ongoing with no discovery hearings or such since discovery is in it infancy still. Every doc filed is on Pacer in order, but unless you jave subscription all you can do is see what and when things have been filed, and they update every week day at 11:59 am. As far as my site, yes they are in order and I believe everything is there except a couple of discovery docs I believe concerning the RFAs mostly. It’s all there though, and deregistered, instead of emailibg create a site as u did and provide a link. That would be great to read what you have…

        • AnotherAnon

          @mike r,

          I’m not sure I follow your last sentence there, but all I did was copy and google this line from the “Opinions” tab in Pacer:

          Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 26(f)

      • AnotherAnon

        I get it now. The current argument is over what can be admitted. Is there a ruling? Is that what is holding it up?

        Your response to objections is very good and detailed.

  40. DRob

    Thank you all for most of the comments. To @Deregisterd, I applaud you. I am ready to leave.

    I currently live in CA and have tried really hard to live a good life. Went back to school, done a lot of great things at both schools I graduate from, endured some major media years after my case and still thrived. Got involved with a nonprofit building them up to the highest success they have ever seen and raised over $100k for them. Now I will be out of a job because one person wanted my job and is making it difficult for me and the organization. So, I’ll be out of a job at the end of December and I’m just tired of having to relive all of the trauma from the past.

    I would really like to move to another country and start over. How can I do this? Which country is the best to do this at? I have a lot of skills and experience that I can thrive in either the business or nonprofit sector or event start my own business. But that is not going to be possible in the US.

    @deregistered – if you can help, I will be the first to buy your book, but want to make a move in January. I was even thinking of applying to an MBA program in Barcelona, Spain and finding a way to stay there.

    Anyone – please help

  41. Deregistered

    Hello

    Sorry to hear such stories. I know the feeling. I’m still in the process of completing my memoir under an assumed name. I’m thinking I might simply take pre orders to cover the copyright info. I obviously don’t want any issues etc. Thereafter, I might simply send the memoir out via email to avoid all of the issues involved. It’s not as simple as 1, 2 3 to publish this. I’ll keep you posted

  42. mike r

    Yeah, and the Cornell does not have everything, you must go on actual Pacer for all filings..

    • HopingforHope

      @mike r. Help me understand this, for those of us who are legally challenged. Assume it is 2021. Assume under the new tiers in Calif, I am no longer required to register in Calif. Let’s say 6 years later, I visit a state, stay past the 3 day limit, and get arrested for failing to register because that state requires registration for anyone entering the state with a prior conviction, regardless of when or where it occurred. How would that work? How long would I be on their registry? If I had been required to register in California for 25 years, does that mean they would then put me on THEIR registration list for ANOTHER 25 years, even if I don’t live there??

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 *