ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments November 2018

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Question???? Does the AG have qualified immunity or can the AG can be held responsible for federal law or local ordinances since the AG is the party responsible for the Megan’s law website and CSAR data base?

Google ”good faith”. Excuses most everything the government does.

@ Mike R,

I thought the recent NC decision of Meredit v Stein paved a way for that.


The one of the defendants is NC’s AG. In the pdf (page 5):
‘Plaintiff seeks not to remedy the fact that he was placed on the sex offender registry, but the fact that he could be placed on it again tomorrow, next month, or next year-without any process whatsoever, let alone adequate process under the Constitution. “Plaintiff seeks protection from the enforcement of criminal laws applicable solely to registrants.” ‘

Plaintiff seeks protection from the enforcement of criminal laws applicable solely to registrants. Actually, I’d like to use this in a suit. 1203.4 allowed registrants to stop registering. Then PC290.007 forced them back on it, unconstitutionally. I recall Hofsheier permitted a way off the registry, and then years later reneged and they’re back on the registry.

According to AJ, Kelly v Municipal (in CA) is still a standing case.

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has granted 38 pardons and 70 commutations.

Pardons include convictions for in/voluntary manslaughter, robbery, child cruelty. Commutations include life without parole and decades in prison for murder.

True to form, not a single 290 registrant worthy of the Governor’s mercy.

Happy Thanksgiving!

@ocguy…..let’s all make sure we send Brown Christmas Cards on behalf of us and our families.

This appears to be a first. It’s worth noting and to ask if this is the beginning of something we have not previously seen. “Sex offender may have torched cars over inclusion on registry”

Great article. But retaliation is not new. Children have been murdered in direct retaliation. I know for certain of at least a couple of cases. I’m sure there are more.

A guy in Georgia was put on probation for a completely BS FTR conviction and just a few days after that he murdered 6 yo Christopher Barrios. Direct retaliation.

The moron Georgia legislator, criminal Jerry Keen, who pushed through the “residency restrictions” then came out and said that the murder was proof that Keen’s “restrictions” were needed!!! When in fact, Keen was directly responsible for the murder! The gall of these lying legislators is shocking. And a large percentage of people are stupid enough to listen to them.

The only comment on the article is mine. I guess people don’t read the web site much or they don’t care about this article. Bummer.

I do think the Registries are here to stay, barring like a WW3 or some other huge upheaval. At least for another decade. Personally, I have to continue to ensure that the Registries are worthless and also causing as much harm as legally possible.

I hope you weren’t thankful yesterday. More and more municipalities are passing “Anti-thankfulness statutes” for sex offenders. Sex offenders are no longer permitted to be thankful within 1000 feet of home, work, church, or anywhere, actually. Mens rea is not required for indictment and conviction leads to a mandatory death sentence, immediately carried out.

But screw them. I’m thankful for Janice, ACSOL, and others willing to wade into what has become a literally unbelievable fight for BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. May this next year bring more pleasant surprises than new shocks to the conscience of anyone who understands (formerly) American principals.

Those “laws” are not targeting “$EX offenders”. They are targeting Registered People. Good people who will tell them where to shove their “laws”.

You’re missing the irony.

Whatever the message was I don’t think you should’ve said “$EX offender”. That’s all.

What locations are you talking about??


Warning. The post above is SARCASTIC.

(I thought obviously so!)

Yeah are you guys missing the mark here. Obviously this was someone on the list or with a close family member on it. This is great if you ask me. I am sorry for whomever this effected but you know what? they are lucky more people are not going off the deep end about the registries and there effects. Wait until they start getting someone crazy enough to start shooting people up over this BS. I do not encourage this kind of vandalism or attacks on anyone but we have suffered the same so lets see how they like it…

Man this state v Guirdy is an absolute must read for anyone interested in the constitution and sex offender registration.
Even though it is a state case it absolutely nails every issue and plots out exactly what and how to challenge these laws. Beautiful case….

Would love to see this, but it appears you have to sign up for their service to do so.
Any other place to access it?

Sorry, did not realize Ross was asking you to sign up to read that case. I will post a different link.

I wish there was some type of sex offender community type of wiki web site listing each potential federal constitutional challenge to the registry and linking valid past cases to quote from. It would have to have a seperate section for each district. That way you would know which cases were dicta from your district but could still use cases from other districts as influential.

There is no way I could take that on as I can only get internet on my phone right now. Just brainstorming.

A site like that would not only make it easier for pro se and lawyers, but also for judges to find excuses to rule on our behalf without too much work.


State files Motion to Dismiss in Ex Post Facto

Here we go. It is pretty interesting…

Does anyone have an idea where Governor Gavin Neusome stands on many of our issues. He seemed to be a citizen’s rights mayor in SF. But higher office can change people.

This is undeniable,
Furthermore, the state and Defendant are acting with “deliberate indifference” and “reckless disregard” in the publication of Plaintiff’s information on the Megan’s Law website knowing that there is a real and present potential for vigilantism that can result in serious bodily injury or even death.

The Ninth Circuit found that the government could be held liable if it could be shown that its officers’ conduct was deliberately indifferent, that it was reckless. Lewis v. Sacramento County, 98 F.3d 434, 441 (9th Cir. 1996). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that in “an emergency situation,” like a high-speed chase, the government can be held liable only if its officers’ behavior “shocks the conscience.” (emphasis added).
In the non-emergency context, the lower courts have consistently held that deliberate indifference or recklessness is sufficient to show liability if there is a state-created danger.
Similar to the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits adopted the “deliberate indifference” or “reckless disregard” standards. See Foy v. City of Berea, 58 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1995); Magdziak v. Byrd, 96 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 1996); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994).”

Hookscar, maybe you should email at so we can collaborate a little. If not it’s cool as I will keep posting links to my finished docs when I am done. Just thought I would give you that option because I will help you in any way I can if I can find time. It is crazy right now… My brief has to be filed by Jan 16, but it comes fast and this is some real shit. I think I want to express my view in my docs somewhere that it is incredibly unfair and I am at an extreme disadvantage compared to the AG’s unlimited resources doing case searches and research… IDK, it will not do anything or matter so I probably will not even bother.

Cañon City Council mulls new sex offender residency restrictions

The national office has an article, “The power of the written word” (, written up on this where it discusses their efforts with the city to not institute residential restrictions. Through their article, one can find a way to contact the newspaper article author and members of the city staff who have sway on this to help them understand what they may not be aware of when thinking of this issue.

Since this forum gets wide reading, maybe others could help them to understand the issue.

So December will be the first month of reregistering as a transient. The registry officer said the thirty days required registering on the same date as initial transiant registration. So it goes from the 10th to the 10th or the 1st to the 1st or whatever the date might be. But months are not always 30 days, and maybe, like regular registration, only business days are counted. What a confusing mess. What is places I frequent? How many visits does it require in a day, in a month? Does it include the usual store I buy groceries at. Would that protect the lettuce?

@brand new transiant:

I’d be very careful listening to anything the LEOs tell you. If the law says thirty days, it’s thirty days. If it says monthly, it may mean the same date every month, or it could mean sometime during the calendar month. In fact, it’s due to this ambiguity that “30 days” is normally used. Even if the current LEO says that’s the way s/he will play it with you, what happens if s/he dies/quits/transfers/gets hit by a bus? Next LEO may nail you when you show up on on August 12, 31 days after your July 12 registration.

Just remember, you have everything if there’s a slip up, they have nothing to lose (not to mention that LEOs are allowed to lie).

@brand new transient

I echo what @AJ said and add this:. Have the LEO provide you in writing the next date you report in so there is no doubt what you need to do to protect yourself and give them no reason to argue otherwise. There’s usually a box or space on your form for them write it in and initial it. If not, then have them write it somewhere on the form so it can’t be disputed.

Thanks. Will do.

Thanks for the comment. I had similar thoughts and am still trying to understand the law. It’s a mine field. I should go back and get something in writing to prove there is no intent to violate. Or maybe my luck will change and I’ll find a room or driveway to rent before then.

Thank you for the response New Person, but this is a specific question,
“Question???? Does the AG have Eleventh Amendment immunity or can the AG can be held liable for the effects of federal law such as IML or local ordinances (residency and presence restrictions) since the AG is the party responsible for the Megan’s law website and CSAR data base so there is a direct connection as those laws would not be giving effect but for the Megan’s Law website and the CSAR data base that is operated and maintained by the AG?”

I am trying to make the CA AG the party responsible for federal law and local ordinance application to me. Residency or presences restrictions are not in CA statutes and neither is IML, or HUD or EEOC for that matter. There is a direct connection to those federal laws and statutes and local ordinances thru the Megan’s Law website. If I can not convince the court that they have subject matter jurisdiction because the AG has eleventh amendment immunity from those then it really lessens the effects from the AG’s actions. Here is my latest readings on how I may link them. IDK yet as I am looking for anything that may be viable. IDK about this though as I already have standing so i do not know man, I have been researching this for days now trying to find something on it. Any help would be great. It is a very specific question though…

“To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a sufficient personal stake in the outcome to justify invocation of the judicial process. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). The “case or controversy” requirement of Article III precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by a federal court unless the plaintiff has suffered some actual injury or faces a threatened injury fairly traceable to the action challenged and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts, rather than mere allegations, that if true would suffice to establish standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, — U.S. —-, —-, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2137, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

“There is no constant value for a human life,”

“The value of a single life diminishes against the backdrop of a larger tragedy.”

^This is exactly how easily Megan’s Law and the AWA came about.

Yet, the image of one transient person (regardless of gender) will spur action possibly unless they are caveated as a registrant, drug user, felon, etc which then no action will happen because judgement will come into play by those who cannot relate to that.

Good Vox article into the insight of the human, especially now with large scale natural events, e.g. fires, hurricanes, flooding, rains, etc.

Just goes to show that humans have selective empathy and compassion based upon what affects them personally, emotionally and financially.

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. – Stalin

Ok Everyone,, This is a Survey that asks Opinions about the Registry and what You Think About It, how it affects people. NOW IS Your Chance to have a Impact Potentially to Change something for the Better in the Long Run.The Survey IS anonymous and Multiple Choice.Be Heard

To put this survey into context, it is a senior level course, e.g. 401, under the curriculum of Human Development and Family Studies program of a university. Massive survey submittals could help down the line.

If that’s true, the state of higher education at that university is sad.

Depending on what the results of the survey are and the intention to be used, it could be sad. However, having taken the survey, which I encourage others to do also (it is short and covers topics we have discussed here), looking at the questions brings up viable items for reform and insight into thinking, much like the Fresno State survey.

Banned from Facebook? Well, look who’s soon going to get banned!

Bye Bye Suckerberg

We’ve discussed this here before. It could get interesting:

Supreme Court Appears Ready To Make It Harder For States To Confiscate Property

I’ve been half-following this, and have wondered how SCOTUS is going to decide. I guess “excessive fines”, unlike the C&U portion of the 8th, applies to civil suits? I was under the impression it did not.

I think IN’s argument and case collapsed during this exchange:
Justice Stephen Breyer hypothesized about the limits of [IN Solicitor General] Fisher’s argument. Could the state, he asked, seize a “Bugatti, Mercedes or a special Ferrari, or even jalopy” if the driver was speeding 5 miles an hour over the limit?”

The answer,” the pained-looking Fisher replied, “is yes.”

In another case, it sounds as though eastern OK may become a rather large Indian Reservation. To me the transcript reads as though most (perhaps not Roberts or Kav) are on the Tribe’s side. Importantly, Gorsuch sat this one out, so if it falls on partisan lines to 4-4, the Tribe still wins (for now), as the 10th ruled in its favor. (

Is it wrong for me to enjoy seeing States get their butts handed to them in Court? I sure do!


RE: East Oklahoma – or still is depending on how viewed. I read that case article recently. Very interesting.

CalCrim section 1170 (the official jury instuction) for failure to register includes language about having to register when changing residence or becoming homeless.

The annotations to that instruction reflect People v. McCleod (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th, 1205, 1209 ruling that there is no duty for the court to provide a definition of “residence”. That leaves defining residence, as well as homelessness, up to the jury. The jury would presumably consider any substantial ties to the residence and time spent there (versus just spending the night or having minimal ties to the residence.)

Sweet. You know you violated the law when the jury says so.

@Jack: Thanks for posting this link.
I found the second paragraph of the piece to be especially amusing/ confounding. The legislature changed the law. So, with that change, an 18 year old having “consensual” sex with a 16 or 17 year old is not rape …. but it’s also not “consensual”, because according to the law, it can’t be – the individual has to be 18 to “consent”.
Therefore, the mutually-agreed-upon and mutually-engaged-in sex is non-consensual. And isn’t non-consensual sex – by the very definition of “non-consensual” – rape??
Or what the hell is it?? 😖😬🤯😵

(I pity the judge who would actually have to write his/her ruling and attempt for it to make sense!)

Starbucks block porn, she stated that “By breaking its commitment, Starbucks is keeping the doors wide open for convicted sex offenders and others to fly under the radar from law enforcement and use free, public Wi-Fi services to access illegal child porn and hard-core pornography,”

Whatever lady, I’m in Starbucks 4 days out of the week to use the WiFi and conduct meetings because it’s a great atmosphere, and the coffee is awesome! Not once have I’ve used the free WiFi for porn! SMH!

I didn’t see the comment that you quoted. Maybe I’m dumb.

However, when I see something like that my immediate thought is “fuck LE and all people who use ‘$EX offenders’ as a pathetic excuse to advance their fake do-gooder agendas. Mind your own damn business.” Makes me really want to harm them. And I also fully expect that it is not very hard at all to access illegal content without LE being able to trace you. I guess anonymous networks would make that a tiny bit easier. But still. Pretty sure there are international organizations in places that hate America that would facilitate it, just because.

But I have to say if I were Starbucks, I wouldn’t want anyone to be able to watch any kind of porn in my stores. Same with loud music. Have some respect for other people. Or let’s just keep making America sh*ttier and not give a flip about each other! Yep, apparently “scorched earth” is the way to go.

I’m transient and so I register every month. This month when I registered, I was asked to sign a form called Notice of Sex Offender Registration Requirement, (CJIS 8047). I had a similar form when I first started registering in 2007, so I don’t know why they had me sign another one. Has anyone else had this happen?

Yes. About 2 years ago the police actually called me back after my annual update to sign the thing. Said it was some federal requirement. I think she said it was only required once every 10 years

So it’s more bureaucracy that is completely pointless…why am I not surprised?

If they get enough registrants to sign enough forms, there will be no more sex crimes.

I just read this nonsense. You want to ban porn access on your public WiFi? Fine go ahead. But to use sex offenders as the excuse???? Ridiculous. I’m never stepping foot in a Starbucks again.

The author is based in Delhi. Hmmm, shouldn’t he be more concerned with Indian affairs of the same sort given their sorid history and at the same time publish data that corroborates his theory of those supposedly doing this in the US? Two words – click bait

WOW, sad RC’s story in Maryland and how his family will be homeless because of the registry.

Richmond, Virginia, not Maryland, is where this takes place. The conviction was from MD.

Wonder when Mary DeVoy from Virginia will jump in here since this is in her area?

So what would a case about frogs have to with sex offenders? Well, it shows in a unanimous opinion that it isnt afraid to apply common sense and stand up against state’s and their agencies that try to bully people without real evidence it accomplishes anything. I can imagine so good quotes can be taken from this.

@Chris f:
This was an exceptional case, as USFWS was completely out on a limb (no pun intended) with its understanding of the word “habitat.” I wouldn’t hang too much weight on this hook.
I do, however, think this is another dent in Chevron Deference, and I hope it’s a hint of how Gundy may come out (though a ‘shutout’ would be stunning). The Roberts Court has been a very First Amendment one, and I believe, and hope, it’s incrementally adding “separation of powers” to its resume.

Thanks @chris f for that article, from George Will no less! It’s sad commentary though when Roberts has to manage 5-4 decisions more than others. To me, shows the political bent in play more than judicial mindset needed, IMO.

Well I was trying to give people heads up on this but I will try just posting the codes since I cannot seem to be able to post anything else anymore so I guess I will see if this is acceptable. These are the residency and presence restriction codes that I have been trying to post. I am going over everyone of the municipalities and counties on the following site,
Orange County, California Municipality Code Division 18-Registered Sex Offenders
Sec. 3-18-3. – Prohibitions.
Bell, California Municipality Code Title 9 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE

While it is indeed puzzling that a major jurisdiction like Orange County has not updated their online Municipal Code, surely you are aware of Godinez and Nguyen. Out of Orange County, no less. Courtesy of the OC Public Defender and to some degree, California RSOL / ACSOL – which attended every meeting and spoke in opposition during that time of madness.

However, it does say in “Sec. 3-18-6. – If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this article is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed severable and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.”

Because of Godinez and Nguyen doing just that, presence restrictions are unconstitutional and non-existent in the State of California and certainly in OC. Regardless of what the online code says.

Just a heads up….

Question, scholars: When receiving a jury summons and responding to the court with the full knowledge that a Registrant will never see service on their jury, can one assert the following as a disqualifying reason? “I have been convicted of a felony and my civil rights have not been restored.” So, the person is long off-paper but a lifetime Registrant. I would argue that his civil rights have NOT been restored given his placement on the Registry. What say you? Personally, and as a fan of jury nullification, I would love to serve on a jury if the criminal case before it was for what I would consider a victimless crime, especially given the savagery of penalties today. Sadly, I will never get this opportunity. Therefore, why waste our time?

Jury eligibility rules and disqualifying reasons vary by state. In Texas, one can also be excused from Jury duty for certain reasons.

I would also like to serve on a jury in certain types of cases for the purpose of nullification. In Texas, a conviction for a felony or for misdemeanor theft disqualifies one from jury service. I have a deferred adjudication, which does not disqualify. I’ve been called for jury duty 4 times since I completed my probation, but I’ve not yet been selected. I doubt I ever will be. The juror information form that you have to return to the court asks whether you’ve ever been charged with a crime and tried in court, and for what offenses. I suspect they use that info to weed out people like me, perhaps based on a presumed lack of good moral character (see item 5 below).

Here are the rules for Texas.

To be qualified to serve as a juror you must:

1. be at least 18 years of age;
2. be a citizen of the United States;
3. be a resident of this state and of the county in which you are to serve as a juror;
4. be qualified under the Constitution and laws to vote in the county in which you are to serve as a juror (Note: You do not have to be registered to vote to be qualified to vote);
5. be of sound mind and good moral character;
6. be able to read and write;
7. not have served as a juror for six days during the preceding three months in the county court or during the preceding six months in the district court; and
8. not have been convicted of, or be under indictment or other legal accusation for, misdemeanor theft or a felony.

*Note that the completion of deferred adjudication is not a disqualifying “conviction”.

(Texas Government Code § 62.102. General Qualifications for Jury Service. Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 35.16 et. seq.)

CR, I am also in Texas and also completed def ajudication with no conviction. I actually was selected in a group of 12 for a minor civil case, so you can get picked. Now in my case there were no attorneys involved in the selection process, and if there had been, I am sure I would have been not picked to serve in the jury. In this case, the judge was able to get another judge to hear the case as he recused himself as he was mad that the plaintiff would not even attempt a settlement before trail even though the defendant made some concessions. So I was told I had done my duty even though the case was moved to another court. I do agree, if attorneys involved in the jury selection process I would have not chosen.

Thank you Joe, definitely appreciate it as I cannot keep up with every case and what county they were in. I will remove that one and look more carefully at others. I will still bring the ones still in effect up as the counties have been fighting these decisions as seen in Janice’s suits, not all have relented. I will rethink my approach though. If you can think of any state statutes, local ordinaces or federal statutes-regulations that are directly related to the CA registry please post. I need all the help I can get.

New Jersey Politician Would Rather Legalize Prostitution Than Marijuana

I don’t even know how to comment to this article…. SMH! Several emojis. I wonder what Chris Smith is thinking?!