ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

Emotional Support Group Meetings: Los Angeles – July 27

General News

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.

Join the discussion

  1. AJ

    Another case SCOTUS has taken that every single citizen should care about is Gamble v. US ( The case is about whether SCOTUS should overturn its Dual Sovereignty (DS) ruling. DS is what allows someone to be charged at both the State and Federal levels for what the average person (though not SCOTUS) sees as the same offense.

    The usual suspects line up on each side as amici, but there’s one that’s a refreshing change: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who filed in support of Gamble (i.e. for overturning DS). He makes some really good points.

    Argument is set for December 5. I cannot wait to see how the new kids on the bench handle this case, as it could point to how strong their Originalism and Federalism is. I’m sure good old hang-em-high Alito will vote to uphold DS.

    • TS


      Many many thanks for bringing this to light here. I was ready to shut down for the evening when I did a last check here, only to see this nugget, which is more like a bloody rock in my experience. There is one particular Amicus brief that has drawn my attention though the entire topic is interesting. I need to get through the entire set of briefings here and related materials, but the one brief I read and shared with legal professionals who will have an interest in the topic is quite interesting. I believe I may have more to add to this particular thread such as who is pro/con on this particular case.

      • TS

        I have counted nine for overturning the 11th Circuit on dual-sovereignty/separate-sovereignty with four (good size grouping for those involved) for affirming the 11th Circuit on this topic. This will be an interesting hearing, especially if the states get their wish to expand the oral argument time as requested. With the recent adds of Kav and Gorsuch to the bench will certainly add some character to the discussion and opinion I believe.

    • TS

      It is particularly interesting that Sen Hatch submitted a brief in Gamble v US because tonight is the night the election results may be known who will replace him in the Senate from UT. He seems to me to be very active with SCOTUS related issues this last year of his service but maybe I am confusing his activity overall with SCOTUS matters.

    • Facts should matter

      Orrin Hatch was one of the main architects of drafting the AWA.

      “We made it tough on the them,” – said while gloating to the cameras.

      • AJ

        @Facts should matter:
        I’m certainly not a fan of Orrin, which is why I saw it as a refreshing change. I suspect he only filed the amicus because he’s on the way to retirement. Filing it as a sitting Senator probably helped to get it accepted, whereas as “former Senator” he would have been a little less impressive and perhaps ignored. (Similarly, I think Sen. McCain leveraged being a sitting Senator in preparation for his funeral services. There was little or no other reason to continue holding the seat when he knew he wouldn’t ever be back in DC. Hardly what a statesman would do….)

        I’m glad you found it as interesting, if not more so, as I. I look forward to whatever thoughts you and/or any of your legal-beagle associates and acquaintances have to say.

        • TS

          As for Sen Hatch’s brief for Gamble v US where he is in favor of overturning the 11th Circuit’s ruling, it would appear that federalization of state law’s is predicated upon the politicians who know no better. Take the state laws, make them federal laws, and presto chango I do great work for you in WDC!! What is good for the goose is good for the gander (e.g. the state for the country), especially since the last major review in 1959. Sen Hatch was part of this, so is he trying to undo some of his own work over the years? Could be.

          Given he was the Chairman SJC, he would know well what has happened and thus his brief is actually a good one and one the court should seriously consider. With no one really knowing the federal criminal laws count, as seen by the various numbers within, he makes a great brief to recommend overturning this. Let the fed powers be limited and the states regain some standing again.

    • TS

      If you read the brief provided by the Appellate Divs of each of the military services and USCG arguing separate-sovereignty should be overturned in Gamble v US, you will read that only OR, LA, and DOD have less than unanimous jury verdicts allowed.

      As of last night, LA had voted to do away with that (which was in their constitution as a power play against Black Americans and can be read further here: ‘Jim Crow’s Last Stand’ In Louisiana May Fall To Ballot Measure: NPR, with only a few folks actually against overturning it using the in the name of “justice” thinking. LA is almost to the 20th century in their thinking, even as the rest of the country is trying to get more into the 21st century.

      • TS

        For those who have other interest on this Gamble v US case with many briefs submitted for consideration, the brief submitted by the Appellate Divisions of the military services and USCG is particularly interesting and disturbing.

        It shows the states could be in cahoots with the services to get what they both want in the end, a conviction, when the state may not get the conviction where the military service could through their inferior court system protections. I believe this is more prevalent than folks are willing to admit. At the same time, you may or may not be aware of this, but DoD does not have a unanimous case verdict policy unless it is a capital case, e.g. spying or death penalty related. You would think the military member would be given the same as the citizen of the country (minus OR and LA, through end of 2018) with a unanimous verdict required regardless of the charge. Between these two, the service member can really be hosed rather quickly in the UCMJ system. Bet they did not tell them that when they inquired to be a part of the all volunteer force.

        With the recent UCMJ changes implemented or yet to be implemented, the UCMJ is becoming more of a mirror of the federal system overall where anything can be charged that could construed against “good order and discipline”. Sad, very sad. Recommend folks read this brief to see some of the behind the curtain things that normally are not shared. Those who have served probably are well versed in their knowledge already.

        • BlueWall

          Anything out of the USMJ is basically a federal offense … and the only hope in get to get that struck off the record is having a president’s pardon or through the associated branches clemency boards… and your proven quilty
          already once it reaches military court level

        • TS


          A POTUS pardon does not remove the conviction from their record but only restores rights for the military member. That info can be found online under military presidential pardons.

          The military courts is the only way as you state.

    • AJ

      SCOTUS updated Gamble v. US today, expanding oral argument to 40′ for appellee and giving amici curiae TX, et al., getting 10′ on the Respondent side.

      This case still strikes me as odd. What constitutional issue does SCOTUS see in need of change or repair? All I can see is its limiting, but not abandoning, dual sovereignty. Perhaps it will limit DS to cases where there is a discernible difference between laws? So if State and Federal are exact in form and function, DS will not be allowed. Or maybe it will beat back Congress’ SCOTUS-enabled abuse of the Commerce Clause, which is the go-to way of federalizing State offenses. I’d be quite fine with that.

  2. JesusH

    So I moved last week and had an appointment for the day before the move to go in and update the registration with the local PD. I was renting and bought a house in the same city here in California.

    It was the first time doing an address update. I went in and asked for the person I was told to ask for. He came out a few minutes later and asked for my ID and address proof. I gave that to him. He went back inside and came out a few minutes later with paperwork. It was the same paperwork I had to fill out for the annual. Asked about employment, VIN numbers, license plates of any vehicles owned or driven by me. I left that blank and explained to them I didn’t know I was going to need this and of course I don’t have it memorized. They were fine with that and took the paperwork back inside.

    Then I waited… and waited and waited. I couldn’t go anywhere or do anything. They had my drivers license and I was stuck there. Finally 2 hours later the guy came out and said ok let’s go.

    We went into a little room right off the lobby. I’ve been in this room before for the annual. He took my picture and took a full suite of fingerprints, palm prints and side hand prints. Don’t remember this many fingerprinting from last year.

    Then the kicker… he asked for a cheek swab for dna. That definitely hasn’t happened for the annual. I said “why? That’s not required for the registration.” He said “the detective wants it. ” Then it seemed he changed and said “it’s a new thing the state needs”.

    I said “what if I refuse?” And he said it would make his life more difficult. I then asked if it would make my life more difficult but before he could answer I just said “fine, I don’t want any trouble, I’ll do it but it is definitely BS.”

    Did I mention that this little room is right off the lobby of the PD station? And people are walking by, watching me get fingerprinted, photographed, and cheek swabbed? It’s like being booked all over again.

    Was all this necessary? What if I had refused the cheek swab? At the same time I realize we have no power. I have a family and kids, I can’t afford to pick a fight with the local PD or tempt the legal system.

    Demoralizing, dehumanizing, degrading, and just plain wrong. I am not on probation, parole, or anything. I (and the rest of us) should all be the same as the general public.

    I want off this train.

    • wonderin

      Bummer, I know from experience. Year before last on my annual after a couple of hours of registering the officer wanted me to come in the next day for a swab. I explained how difficult that was for me to rent another car and etc. but he seemed to care less. Finally he said I could return after lunch and get it done. What an extra hassle for a 10 minute procedure.

      • Will Allen

        Does the law say that DNA has to be collected every year? Because the DNA is changing, lol? If it is not required by law every time, I think I would skip it. If DNA was collected when a person was initially arrested, why would they ever need it again? For positive I.D.? If they needed it for that, how the F do they expect their nonsense public Registry to work?!

        JesusH, you can afford to pick fights with LE and you should. It doesn’t have to be in direct response to anything specific. But join local “watchdog” groups that monitor LE and attempt to keep them from committing crimes. I like groups that continually work to keep money and other resources away from them. LE is always either committing some crime or trying to. These groups work to keep them legal. They also tend to point out non-stop that LE is actually quite overpaid. They need to compete in the free market like everyone else. It’s a good thing. I know LE loves it when I tell them that they can keep me on a hit list if they like but I’m definitely going to get their salaries reduced because of it. And I have.

        Personally, I chose to fight. My family’s life belongs to us and it is unacceptable that assholes, that have no business even looking my direction, ever try to negatively affect it. They are invaders, harassers, enemy combatants, and I decided long ago that they were not going to harm my family without paying dearly for it.

        • Dustin

          Agree with Will. We need to start standing up to LE and POs. Whenever one of them tells me the law says something outrageous or there is a new one, I tell them to give me a statute. More often than not, they reply that they don’t have time, then I’ll remind them they’d have to find the statute to arrest or cite me for it.

          When I first went to register in this county, I had this circumstance happen when the ass clown Lieutenant told me I had to pay a $25 “public notification fee”, basically buying the ad they wanted to take out in the paper. He claimed it was the law. I asked specifically which law, because this was the 4th county I had registered in and had never heard of that requirement. He then claimed it a county ordinance. Again, I asked which one and pulled my phone out. After that, he said if I didn’t pay it by the following Friday he’d just arrest me. I replied at least then I’ll know what ordinance he was talking about.

          I checked the county ordinances when I got home; there is none. Of course, that Friday came and went and I’m still here. Saw him again this Halloween (all probationers had to go to the Sheriff’s Department) and he didn’t say anything. Unfortunate, I was hoping he would.

          Regarding DNA samples, I’m sure the law is different in each state. In Georgia, one is collected at the classification prison when we first get put into the system. DNA collected at crime scenes is always compared to those on that database and if they get a hit. They’ll seek the person out to get another sample to confirm. You can always refuse that on 5th Amendment grounds, even if on paper, though the court can (and probably will) compel one. Pretty sure LE doesn’t have the authority (or need) to get a swab “just because.”

        • Will Allen


          You might have more cojones than I do. I will definitely get directly in their face (usually politely) about anything BUT if there is a possibility that I might be arrested, I will comply and then attack them afterward. I probably would’ve told this guy that I would really like to see the law but if he didn’t know it, I would pay the fine but that I was going to follow up with the county’s attorneys and if he was wrong, I was going to sue him. That should seem fair to everyone. And obviously it would be best to have it on undisputable record that you asked and were clearly told something that he just made up. They would surely have to refund your money and ought to have to pay damages as well.

          The other thing about being arrested is that I can’t let that happen because if it did then I would really have to expend just piles of effort to retaliate. That would take a lot of work. So I’m not very interested in that. I already exert enough energy on the criminal regimes as it is, no need to have to do more.

          I’m sure that LE does not have the authority to get DNA just because they want it. But I could see that encoded in some Registries law, legal or not. People also have to remember that if they really want DNA, they will just follow you around until they find it somehow. Keep in mind, they can get your DNA, your phone locations, your license plate locations, etc.

    • TS

      Never volunteer to give your DNA via a swab or any other method if you’re off paper. I cannot speak to being on paper and requirements, but off paper you do not have to consent to that request without a court order. Felony charge arrests will request DNA swabs.

      By giving a DNA swab you are not only giving your DNA but you’re giving the DNA for your children and other family members to a National Database that will be used to investigate crimes where your family could be potentially matched.

      This is not to scare you, but to give you the truth because the way technology is going with DNA swabs and the genetic matchings that are happening. You can research this for yourself online with current events. Law enforcement will use any tactic they can to get more data from you freely because they know that you’re going to not want to make a fuss.

      By the way, this includes any DNA material that is provided by military members. Military members are not told their DNA is also submitted to the National criminal database because they think it’s just for potential matching in a combat zone or otherwise where they need DNA match to their bodies for ID. You can thank “W” for that.

      • Will Allen

        Absolutely. And everyone needs to remember that LE is unethical. I’ve said it many times but where I live it is well-defined what information is required by “law”. Every LE that I’ve seen always tries to get more information than that. Always. I’ve seen them ask (in writing) people for their family members’ names. I’ve seen them ask people if they drink or smoke, again, in writing. They simply have little ethics and will do about anything they think they can get away with.

      • wonderin

        According to the list of requirements I must check and initial on my annual it States:
        I understand I am required to submit DNA Samples, as well as fingerprints and full palm prints. (PC -296,296.2) ie Any felony offense specified in Section 290 or attempt to commit any felony offense described in Section 290, or any felony offense that imposes upon a person the duty to register in California as a sex offender under Section 290.
        I’ve been initialing this for years but two years ago was the first time they wanted a sample?

        • TS


          Felony is the catch crime level here (which I think you already now) and questioning now why they want it is reasonable considering the knowledge of it for so long preceding the first actual sample provided (two years ago for you specifically).

          Also, this particular reply is after another post here I provided that has not shown up yet, but you answer the line about directives for registrants under 290.

          I just want people to understand what they are doing and why the citizen has the ability to question directions when they should.

        • Will Allen

          In the state where I live they “ask” (i.e. force) each Registrant to read several pages of listed requirements/rules/harassment and initial each individual requirement. That sounds like your list. In the state where I live, the list has never matched what actual law is. Not ever. I have written at the top, “I am only initializing these because I’ve been told to do so and I do not believe that this list represents actual law.”

        • AJ

          The big question is the definition and use of “submit*.” Is that an ongoing requirement or one time? The law says one must submit, which has happened for all felons and those RCs post enactment. Nowhere in my perfunctory scan did I see where it says anything about repeated or annual submissions. If you’ve had it taken once, you have submitted. Case closed, it would seem.

          *This hearkens back to the Clinton-ism of “it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.” He was legally parsing, but was actually correct. For example, a law in a Midwest State says expungement is not allowed for a crime where registration is required. Does that mean required ever, or just currently?

        • JesusH

          I hadn’t really read the requirements I initialed… I have been very naive about this entire thing. In denial maybe.

          Part of me figured there was no way this whole thing could be so blatantly wrong like this. Isn’t collecting DNA like a perpetual blank check for collecting evidence? How is that even possible? No warrant, no probably cause, just hand over your dna. Right now (or soon enough) my dna is being processed in some lab somewhere and will soon be run through the system to find potential matches in unsolved cases. WTF.

          The whole registry thing is wrong. It goes against everything that’s supposed to mean to be an American citizen. I don’t understand how it can be allowed to stand.

          I admit I was misinformed about what being on the registry meant. I accepted the plea deal because I was scared for the future of my kids and family.

          I thank everyone for your help. Sorry for the dumb questions.

        • Will Allen


          Isn’t DNA collected from all people arrested for serious crimes (and kept for convicted)? So I would guess that most people who are Registered have their DNA in our wonderful Nanny Big Government databases. So it wouldn’t really matter for those people if they collected it every year. Although I do think it would be hilarious if they lost the DNA and couldn’t get it back. The criminal regime scum deserve everything like that.

          I guess it would only matter to someone who was added to the Registries later and who had not been forced to give DNA (except for any inconvenience and annoyance at giving it every year).

          I think that not only will your DNA be run for “unsolved cases” but that it will be for all future crimes as well (or as many as feasible). Cool, huh?

          Regarding those “requirements” checklists, it surely seems to me that a person could simply tell them they weren’t going to do them. I know in the state where I live it only says that certain information has to be given. It does not say that a person has to read the laws or any type of summary of the laws and acknowledge that they have. If the criminal regimes want that, they should be forced to say so in their “laws”.

          I oppose the Registries 100% and don’t think they should exist in any way. However, it would not upset me if a good, legitimate federal government kept the DNA of every single person in our country. It could be taken at birth. I personally would not have a problem with that. Registry Terrorists fantasize that their Registries help keep people from committing crimes. I don’t think that is the case AT ALL. However, I do think that DNA does.

      • TS

        I am just going to put this out there: Golden State Killer, former LEO, DNA match

        Again, a person in a position of trust possibly abused their position of trust and it possibly finally caught up with them, but it has actually taken science to get there. At this time, there are only charges, no conviction in this particular case.

        Also, you need to be aware, anyone needs to be aware, unless you need to provide a sample under verified legal direction, e.g. the law or court order, don’t provide DNA. The adage, “well, I have nothing to hide” is not the point. It is about your liberty and freedoms that you and your family have now that could be removed once your DNA is provided because you are giving away you and your family (out to the third cousin from the article) with no possibility of getting it back. That family tree just got a lot bigger from which they could ID members.

        A felony arrest with no conviction has the ability to request to get a DNA sample removed from the database, e.g. military members have that option, but do you really think they are going to do that beyond giving lip service saying they did remove it from the database while keeping it?

        If requested to provide DNA, always ask under whose authority, what is the written directive which I must follow to provide the sample, and ask for a current copy of the directive to ensure they are not trying to enforce a law that does not exist or is being misinterpreted (which they can legally get away with as stated by SCOTUS). However, no one can stop you from providing the sample, but don’t complain afterward if you do and don’t like how it was done or for unknown purposes.

        Enough said on this topic I believe…

  3. Eric

    Gavin Newsom will be the next governor of CA. I hope he continues on in the tradition of Brown. Brown sure helped people on the registry with the tiered system and vetoing numerous new laws attacking people on the registry. Unfortunately it looks like Gonzales-Fletcher is getting re-elected to the state assembly. It is strange that she is a democrat and advocate for minorities except for people on the registry. She continues to attack them and try to draft blanket abusive laws to further make their life more difficult. Maybe since her past attempts have failed and the mid-terms are over she will stop. It may have all been politically motivated and she will see it didn’t work. If she does win it will have been very close. There are over 100,000 people on the registry in CA, most are not violent and terrible people, they are humans, they vote, and they deserve rights since their debts have been paid. I think most people are seeing the registry as excessive and not effective. She needs to let up on her hatred and discrimination or it will come back to bite her.


    So….. now that the US Attorney General is “out” (Fired) by Trump.
    I wonder how this may affect the Federal SORNA; ……and the whole ordeal being fought in Court, over the Attorney General enacting Registration for everyone Pre-Sorna ?
    MAYBE, it could be a “good thing” ……and the replacement has a different “perspective”.

    • Worried in Wisconsin

      I wish your supposition was correct, but based on past events I doubt it would be. We now have a divided government where not much in the way of legislation is likely to be approved by both houses. It seems that in times like this they can only agree on a few things, and one of those things is strengthening laws against sex offenders. Every time there is gridlock, I look for them to use sex offender restrictions as a unifying point, to our detriment.

  5. USA

    What just happened? I think people in Ca should really wake up! We just had a new Governor elected to office (probably the most liberal Governor Ca has seen/open to new bills in our favor!). Furthermore, the District Attorney (dishonest/win at all cost/investigations) of OC is no more! Todd Spitzer is far more honest and fair! He has promised to even work closer with the ACLU! So, I believe people will now be treated more fair! He isn’t perfect, but far better than Tony!!

    • steve

      Didn’t Spitzer want to send all sex offenders to an island?

      • C

        An island getaway? Cool! Where?

        Spitzer is the most level-headed politician I’ve encountered in ages, but sadly, they get co-opted quickly once in office and succomb to NPC-think all too easily.

        • ocguy

          Spitzer? Level-headed? The same guy who detained with a weapon (retrieved from his parked car) a (mildly disturbed) preacher man at a fast food restaurant because he did not like the way the way this man of God was looking at him, and the fact that he had a (butter) knife on his table? In a restaurant, no less. Yes, that is level-headed. If by that you mean unhinged.

          As far as this web site’s topic is concerned, Spitzer prides himself ad nauseum for authoring AB 488, which put Megan’s Law on the Internet. Thanks a lot! I trust you really appreciate that.

          Further, in OC’s heated debate over county homeless shelters, Spitzer is the biggest proponent of banning 290 registrants from these facilities. Although there appears to be not a single incident of a registrant at these shelters. No matter…. Toddles will just tell you some basic probation numbers to support his ban. Looks like he has never seen a registrant who does not support his agenda.

          This election truly was choosing between a rock and a hard place. But Rackaukas and his minions were at least kicked into shape by the courts with his stupid parks ban and, to no small extent, Janice and her crew.

          It boggles the mind to realize that there could be a worse DA than T-Rack. But by golly, it looks like he has been found.

          Buckle up, Orange County 290s – it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

  6. Mike

    Anyone hear of any movement on a challenge to IML? Or has that ship sailed?
    Followup question: Has anyone traveled abroad yet with the new passport? If so, where to and were there any issues?
    I’d like the chance to one day move to the EU, anyone make that move while registered here?
    Any help would be awesome!

    • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

      “Anyone hear of any movement on a challenge to IML?” No, I’ve heard nothing more about that. I’m not even sure that we’re still in the appeal window. I think that most of us despair of a positive outcome on any challenge in the near-term. Most of the lawyers are not at all encouraging. “Has anyone traveled abroad yet with the new passport?” Yes, a number of people have. No problems getting into Europe, so far though not all of the countries, especially the East, have been reported back. Almost all of Asia (Hong Kong may be the only exception? Maybe Burma?) and most of Central and South America are a no-go with, or without, the special markings. “I’d like the chance to one day move to the EU.” You and me both but I’m not at all encouraged by the realities of serious felony immigration into any country, let alone the EU. As I’ve discussed here many times, the challenge is enormous.

  7. someone who cares

    Has anyone ever heard of Title 15 for Paroles? What is that about? It is supposed to have something do with monies received once released on Parole? I found the PDF, but it is HUGE and I am not sure where to start looking. A lot of you guys on this site are far more knowledgeable in this area than I will ever be.

  8. David

    ⭐⭐⭐ This Registry-related case has been distributed to the SCOTUS Justices for consideration at the November 30, 2018 conference:

    Boyd v. Washington argues
    that registration is punishment when applied retroactively. (Of course, we know that registration is ALWAYS punishment!) Let’s hope SCOTUS decides to “grant it certiorari” (accept it for hearing). 🤞

    • Matthew

      Oh wow, if they take it on, the eyes of RC will definitely be on this case.

    • CR

      The question presented is:

      Issue: Whether the requirement of frequent, in-person reporting renders an offender-registration law punitive, such that applying the law retroactively violates the ex post facto clause.

      Boyd is having to report weekly because he is transient. That is frequent in-person reporting, without question. From reading his response brief, he has had 3 FTRs over the years, and each time he is convicted of failure to register, his 10 year sentence starts anew. Or perhaps it’s a new sentence from that point. That seems more likely.

      It’s a good case. Smith v Doe did not address in-person reporting. Courts around the country have ruled differently on whether “frequent in-person reporting” is punitive.

      Assuming this case has no technical issue rendering it unsuitable for review, then if SCOTUS doesn’t grant certiorari, I think we can all forget about end to the registry in the foreseeable future, or any impediment to legislatures passing plainly punitive laws disguised as civil regulatory measures.

    • txso4life

      So the Boyd v. Washington case has a conference date of November 30 of this year and 5 days later (December 5) the Bethea v. North Carolina case has a response due date requested from scotus, this is getting interesting! Two SO registry cases back to back waiting for conference.

  9. Humor for the day

    What prize will the government give to the 1,000,000th registrant?

  10. USA

    Great comments OCguy! If you continue to think this way, why don’t we close this site! Nobody gets anywhere being so negative!

    • ocguy

      I will assume that your appreciation for my structured and well documented comment is sincere 🙂 What negativity do you speak of? Are any of TS’s prior and cited actions not true? Yes we can hope that he had an epiphany of epic proportions.

      I fail to see on what what you base your optimism, but as always the proof is in the pudding. If you wish to believe that things in OC will improve one iota – despite Spitzer’s documented mental instability and animus towards registrants – that certainly is your choice. We are also free to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Such delusion I find hardly helpful.

      I am mildly confused, however, why this organization would shut down this site because someone disagrees with your unsubstantiated opinion. ????

    • steve

      I see nothing negative at all in OC’s post. He’s starting FACTS! Spitzer IS NOT GOOD.

  11. USA

    Ohhhhh, I see! You guys must be neighbors? You know him personally? Did he prosecute you? Or, did you (don’t tell me) read something about him via the media???????? So, if it’s online or media written, it must be true? Remember who he ran against? Great attitude guys! You can fail to see what I base my optimism on all day, but if you haven’t forgotten, this is a public forum? I really don’t think I care what your views are! You don’t matter. The world doesn’t revolve around you or your views. See, we live in a free world/unlike China and you seem to put a great deal of importance on what you or your views are? You don’t matter! If we (we) continue to have negative or narcistic views, we would still be banned from parks and have to hope! I suggest (I) people stay focused and optimistic! Yet, that’s just my opinion and everyone can do as they like. Please don’t forget people change and working with the ACLU (he agreed to this) is a huge step forward? Someone stated he made a citizens arrest! Very true. Big mistake! Should we continue to hold this against him forever (sound familiar/bite your lip yet), or forgive him and let him live his life? I might recommend withholding judgement and not (sound familiar) believing the media all the time. You (you guys can’t help yourself/spend 10 hours thinking of a good comeback/it’s ok/if it makes you feel comfortable), but I won’t respond!

    • mike r

      I hate to say it(lol) but I kind of agree with USA for a change. Everyone on here wants to cry, snivel and complain about everyone and everything but when I ask for help finding case law, or anything for that matter that may help “OUR” case, it just gets passed upon with no responses or comments and definitely no help, except for AJ, Chris and a few others. USA is wrong in his assessment that you do not matter and that your opinions do not matter (everyone matters and any and everyone can make a difference) but is right that people need to be positive in a many ways and to use that positivity in a productive manner. But whatever, with all the research already done by the few of us, I got this anyways….:)

      • steve

        Mike I refuse to be positive about a moron like Spitzer who wanted to round us all up and put us on an island. It’s that simple. This discussion had nothing to do with your case, but then again everything seems to be about you.

    • ocguy

      So one must be a neighbor, or know personally or be prosecuted by a publicly elected official in order to have an opinion about him / her. Okay… that is news to me, but yay, learned something new. Clearly you are his neighbor, know him personally or were prosecuted by him, since you are allowed to render such an opinion. Right?

      He certainly may live his life – that is none of my business. But when he is the publicly elected top law enforcement official in my county I reserve the right to formulate an opinion about his election and a prediction based on his past conduct. Tryna stop me.

      And I “don’t matter”? Perhaps not, but clearly to you, as you get all bent out of shape over my views (which you don’t care about).

      I hope I am wrong but he has made a living on exploiting registrants and has not been put in his place as T-Rack was over the parks ban, and delightfully so. Dear God – to think that I would ever vote for Rackaukas. The horror. I had to step outside to see if hell had, indeed, frozen over.

      ps. here is his “citizen’s arrest” in his own words. The steak knife was a butter knife, per a OCSD sheriff deputy (this was at Wahoos, not at Morton’s)

      pps. the parks ban was defeated by a bunch of courageous people, this organization included, and my allegedly narcistic (sic) views had absolutely no bearing on this.

    • mike r

      There you go again USA, attacking people on personal levels and going on a rant like I used to,(used to, lol), and this time defending a wacko that wanted to put us on an island. That was a fact that he stated that.

  12. mike r

    For those whom took plea deals. So I was looking at what the AG cited in her brief and immediately this jumped out at me….
    “Were we to conclude that AB 579 does impair plea bargain contracts, which we do not, we would nevertheless conclude that the impairment is permitted under the Constitution. We would do so for the same reasons previously articulated and because of the importance of this law to the protection of the general welfare of people in Nevada against sexually motivated crimes. Nevada’s police power to promote public safety is entitled to respect. A State’s law in this context is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. Smith, 528 U.S. at 110 (Thomas, J., concurring).”
    The following was en banc in 2006. That means that all the judges of the appellant court (not just a panel of three) considered this and ruled in this way. Unless SCOTUS has reversed this somewhere this states anyone’s plea deal that specifically stated certain dates for expiration of, or anything with respect to the length or application of registration, can be fully enforced.
    Although the three panel judges state only an outright exemption, this seems to totally contradict what the en banc panel stated. where anything that was promised was enforceable. Those types of word manipulation is exactly how bad precedent starts and just continues as somehow authoritative when they are in fact not. The en banc court never stated with respect to exemptions. Any promise in a plea agreement is enforceable according to the en banc decision.
    “However, we do note that in individual cases where the state has made an explicit promise to a defendant that the defendant would be exempt from registration as a condition of his guilty plea, that promise—whether memorialized in the terms of the written plea agreement or otherwise proven—is entitled to be enforced against the State. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971) (“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.”); see also Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc).”

  13. mike r

    Just thought I would throw this out there. Just a quick snippet of my beginning argument for substantive due process.
    The Defendant cites Doe v. Tandeske,361 F.3d 594, 596-597 (9thCir. 2004) as somehow authoritative for a substantive due process claim that is controlling on this court that states,
    “Under Glucksberg, we are forced to conclude that persons who have been convicted of serious sex offenses do not have a fundamental right to be free from the registration and notification requirements set forth in the Alaska statute.
    While fundamental liberty interests require that any state infringement of these rights be “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest,” state actions that implicate anything less than a fundamental right require only that the government demonstrate “a reasonable relation to a legitimate state interest to justify the action.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 722, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (emphasis added). As the Court has already determined in Smith, the statute’s provisions serve “a legitimate nonpunitive purpose of `public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community.'” Smith, 538 U.S. at 102-03, 123 S.Ct. 1140. Moreover, the Court held, the “broad categories” of offenses differentiated in the Act and the “corresponding length of the reporting requirement, are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.” Id. at 102, 123 S.Ct. 1140. Thus, although the Does possess liberty interests that are indeed important, Smith precludes our granting them relief.”
    This case is not a challenge to whether the Plaintiff has such a fundamental liberty interest to be free from registration obligation but is in fact a challenge that sex offender registration is not only a violation to Plaintiff’s reputational liberty interest, which may or may not be a fundamental right, but as outlined in Plaintiff’s complaint, these registration statutes are violating Plaintiff’s fundamental rights as outlined below.
    Which I start with bodily integrity (free from harm caused by government actions, which has been determined by SCOTUS, and the 9th, as a fundamental right ), privacy (to my current home address, which has been determined by SCOTUS, and the 9th, as a fundamental right ), and occupational (which has also been determined by SCOTUS, and the 9th, as a fundamental right). And I will cite each case…

    • Registration Is Punishment

      “Under Glucksberg, we are forced to conclude that persons who have been convicted of serious sex offenses do not have a fundamental right to be free from the registration and notification requirements set forth in the Alaska statute.”

      A lot of registrants are not convicted of “serious sex offenses.” From exhibitionism, voyeurism… all the way down to three-year age difference in sexual relations, there are many registrants lumped into the sex offender registry who are treated with an equal ‘civil’ penalty to people convicted with much more serious crimes.

      • mike r

        Missing the mark man. You have to read it carefully and take it literally word for word and meaning for meaning.
        “do not have a fundamental right to be free from the registration and notification requirements”

        It is not stating that you do not have fundamental right privacy, bodily integrity, occupation, or a multitude of other rights. It is a fact that nowhere in the constitution does it state that the state cannot compile and disseminate a public record. That is just crazy talk.
        Look even the article that I am using as my starting point states that the Whalen court extended that right.
        “The Whalen Court implicitly extended the right to privacy to encompass the right not to have governmental actors disseminate personal and private information to the public.”
        That means that the right did exist it just was not argued correctly. It is called the “heightened pleadings standard” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)

        No the court did not extend the right, the court never addressed that right in Paul. You see personal and private information encompasses much more than just a criminal history record but also includes such a public records as criminal history records. You see you cannot just say “hey that hurts my reputation” and not describe exactly how and what it affects. There has to be more than mere reputation alone. There is no right to mere reputation (or to be free from registration as the cited case by the AG, or from state publicizing or distributing public records) but there are many fundamental rights that are effected by reputational harm. That is where you enter the “privacy sphere.”
        Just as multiple suits and attorneys have either purposely missed the mark or just did not see exactly what was happening with the case law.
        (c) Kentucky law does not extend to respondent any legal guarantee of present enjoyment of reputation that has been altered by petitioners’ actions, and the interest in reputation alone is thus quite different from the “liberty” or “property” recognized in such decisions as Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 , and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , where the guarantee of due process required certain procedural safeguards before the State could alter the status of the complainants. Pp. 710-712.
        2. Respondent’s contention that petitioners’ defamatory flyer deprived him of his constitutional right to privacy is without [424 U.S. 693, 694] merit, being based not upon any challenge to the State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be “private” but on a claim that the State may not publicize a record of an official act like an arrest. Pp. 712-713.

        AJ, Chris, or anyone else see what I am stating? Yeah i am sure I am reading this correctly….

  14. mike r

    “Cities and counties need to be able to defend our families from sex predators when California law fails to properly protect local communities.” said Orange County Supervisor Todd Spitzer. “When I was in the Assembly, I authored the laws putting Megan’s Law on the internet and creating the Sex Offender Management Board. Now that I am a County Supervisor, I see firsthand that law enforcement and local government need every possible weapon to restrict people who prey on our children.”

    There is already a sex offender island as well.

  15. E

    The Millard v Rankin Case (Appeal from Matsch’s court in CO) has oral arguments THIS Thursday. See page 12 at
    And just to relive the glory of Matsch’s opinion, here it is for reference.

    Fingers crossed and praying. Anyone have any insight on the panel of judges? Hartz, Seymour, and Eid

  16. E

    Regarding 10th circuit panel for Millard appeal:

    Judge Harris Hartz. George W appointee. Longtime prosecutor.
    Senior Judge Stephanie Seymour. Jimmy Carter appointee. No wiki available.
    Judge Allison Eid. Trump appointee to replace Gorsuch. Not finding her history but she’s married to the US attorney for CO. Ugh

  17. AJ

    The last few days I’ve seen a story about a cable-news host who was doxed and harassed. The media (rightly) pointed out how wrong this is and how it put both him and his family at risk. While I find such behavior abhorrent, I also think, “hmmm…what’s the big deal?”

    Isn’t doxing merely, “the dissemination of accurate information…most of which is already public”? (Smith v Doe, at 86.) (I always bristle that SCOTUS is okay with some private, non-crime-related data being released.) I mean it’s not like they, “held the person up before his fellow citizens for face-to-face shaming or expelled him from the community.” (Id., at 98.) So again, what’s the big deal?

    Too bad any contrast and comparison between him and us would fall on deaf ears. Funny how doxing by the State is public safety, but by individuals its a offensive, and perhaps an offense–even though the media host is statistically more likely to offend a first time than I am a second time.

  18. Bruce

    Yesterday I was called by a SUPPOSED SHERIFF telling Me I was out of compliance and a warrent was issued and I needed to post bond via telephone..I Reported it to the SO Registration and they told Me they have had several reports of this active SCAM to target RSO’s Financially….REPORT AND RECORD ALL ACTIVITY OF THIS NATURE TO THE SEX CRIMES DIV> in Your area…I REPEAT THIS IS A SCAM DO NOT COOPERATE. The authorities will Never call You and ask You to Bond over the Phone For Anything.. They Just Show UP! Be Aware Be Safe.
    Respectfully, Bruce F.

  19. cool CA RC

    the proposed rule says. “The act requires the secretary to make determinations based ‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data.’ ”

    How can we force the Judge to make decision based ‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data.’ ”

    We need to challenge that “common knowledge ” that all sex offender will re offend again.

    I ll post this in

    • TS

      @cool CA RC

      You cannot make a judge make a decision on anything, even the facts, stats, or data, just as you cannot make elected officials to do the same, e.g. see IL state and fed court results of late or CA legislature. All one can do is present it the best way for them to see it from all of the credible sources one can find, e.g. as @miker has, and hope the deciding officials are astute enough to realize what the facts, stats, or data truly are before making a decision, e.g. see other victories around the country where facts are used in good decisions. If they don’t and the decision can be proven otherwise to be bad, then the long road to overturning just has started. This is where we believe election pandering happens to the masses who walk the streets with torches and pitchforks and will vote the disbelieving officials into office.

  20. mike r

    look at this, I was just reading carefully the start of my brief and noticed something i never noticed before about the Paul court. Read what I wrote carefully because I did not notice it until just now. This type of specificity is incredibly important.

    In holding that the dissemination of this information did not violate the offender’s right to privacy, the Paul Court stated:
    Respondent’s claim is far afield from this line of decisions. He claims constitutional protections against the disclosure of his arrest on a shoplifting charge. His claim is based, not upon any challenge to the State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be “private,” but instead on a claim that the State may not publicize a record of an official act such as an arrest. None of our substantive privacy decisions hold this or anything like this, and we decline to enlarge them in this manner.

    In Paul the Court specifically addressed not whether the accused had some privacy interest in the information but whether the government could publicize that information, “His claim is based, not upon any challenge to the State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be “private,” but instead on a claim that the State may not publicize a record of an official act such as an arrest.” Plaintiff is directly challenging the “State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be private.””
    Interesting… Of course you cannot restrict the state’s ability to publicize an official act. Every state and government entity are in fact required by statute to publicize an official act. That is unchallengable. The challenged claim must be asserted properly and precisely..

  21. USA

    Mike, geez! Nobody wants to read these books you post! It’s nuts. Unless your an Attorney, you can’t present your case! You did your act, plead to a charge and that’s it! The only thing (if you did it before the laws changed) you should have done was get your plea reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged! OC guy, your an idiot as well. Nobody cares what you think! You can complain/make negative comments all day long, but that will get you no where other than living on the river bed and gray hair! You guys need to start thinking out of the box! Stop already!

    • Frustrated

      Second your comment. Let’s try to keep comments around 1000 characters. They take up time and space.
      Also , for those vets out there, we have been through worse than this, so hang in there.

  22. mike r

    Personal character attacks again, blow it out your ass USA, what you stated earlier really applies in you, YOU DO NOT MATTER. Still waiting to hear of one thing USA has done to help anyone but himself and not just cry about his expungment this or reduction that, how does this or that apply to him. Then try to tell people on here what others here want hear or do not want to hear. Worthless garbage. That’s it, say you personal attacks and insults some more. That’s what you do best, and whine about your expun this or reduced that, always worthless comments attacking people. Get a life dide. Stop trolling people on here and get back under your bridge. SAD….

  23. mike r

    Why do you even come on here USA? Serious question. Why do you post at all? No one matters, nothing anyone says matters, no matter who you are or what happened in a court you tell everyone to suck it up and take it up the as%& and like it, you tell them there is nothing anyone can do about anything or their situation that they should not have done pre-conviction, everyone is burnt unless they do what you supposedly did by getting a sexual battery reduced or expunged (ridiculous as sexual battery is way worse than what many on here have done who just by technicality cannot get their crap reduced or expunged), and acting like you know everything and are almighty overseer of the website and know what others on here want to hear. Seriously, why do you come on here and post at all?

  24. @USA (hypocritical much?)

    Whatever happened to…”Nobody gets anywhere being so negative!” That is what you said, isn’t it? Yet here you are calling people names right after you say, “You can complain/make negative comments all day long, but that will get you no where (sic) …” Perhaps you should start taking your own advice.

  25. Steveo

    It’s hard for me to believe that random people on here get so personally offended by any perceived slight by any other random person on here who might have a different thought a different idea about what is significant, or ought to be prioritized or not. Weak people can’t control themselves and ignore or overlook people or things they don’t like.

  26. mike r

    Lets see if we can actually get some productive intelligent collaboration here and maybe get some “different thought a different idea about what is significant.” instead of your an idiot or you are weak people or people do not want hear this or that….

    The Defendant cites Doe v. Tandeske, Litmon v. Harris as somehow authoritative for a substantive due process claim and claims that those cases are controlling on this court. To be sure, it is evident that every case that Defendant has cited is inclusively dealing with either the claim of a right to procedural due process, a right to be free from registration, or a right to be free from reputational harm, as the prerequisite for the decisions rendered. Plaintiff has provided a “”careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” involved in this case herein, and throughout his complaint, that distinguish this case from any cited cases that Defendant has asserted and provided. Any assertion that Smith v. Doe somehow controls here, is also missing the mark, as explained already and herein the Smith court expressly left open such a substantive due process challenge, and an equal protection challenge as well was even hinted at.
    This case is not a challenge to whether the Plaintiff has such a fundamental liberty interest to be free from registration obligation, or to Plaintiff’s reputational liberty interest alone (which may or may not be a fundamental right) but is in fact a challenge that sex offender registration is in violation of the multitude of fundamental rights as asserted herein and throughout Plaintiff’s complaint. Although not outlined specifically in our Constitution or Bill of Rights, nowhere in any record or history has it been established that the asserted rights herein are not considered to be exactly that, fundamental. Unlike in Glucksberg, the case that the Tendenske court cited, each and everyone one of the asserted rights herein are thoroughly “grounded in the Nation’s history and traditions” These fundamental rights, as asserted herein , and throughout Plaintiff’s complaint, are also thoroughly grounded in the traditions and case law of the courts as discussed throughout this brief.
    Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has stated, “Were due process merely a procedural safeguard it would fail to reach those situations where the deprivation of life, liberty or property was accomplished by legislation which by operating in the future could, given even the fairest possible procedure in application to individuals, nevertheless destroy the enjoyment of all three.”

  27. mike r

    Man look at this from a lower court in Nevada on the AB 579,
    Logan contends that A.B. 579 denies him procedural due process because it deprives him of a protected privacy interest without procedural protections. We disagree. A.B. 579 imposes registration and community notification requirements on all juveniles age 14 and older who are adjudicated for certain crimes; no additional facts are relevant to the statutory scheme. Even assuming A.B. 579 infringes on a liberty interest, Logan is not entitled to procedural due process to prove a fact that is irrelevant under the statute. See Connecticut Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 7, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003) (” [E]ven assuming, arguendo, that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the … statute.” ).

    This next part in the same para is the maet,

    But see State v. Guidry, 105 Hawai‘i 222, 96 P.3d 242, 251-52 (2004) (concluding that due process clause of state constitution required a hearing to determine risk of future dangerousness because, although statute required imposition of registration on all sex offenders, future dangerousness was relevant to the statutory scheme because its purpose was to protect the public); In re W.Z., 194 Ohio App.3d 610, 957 N.E.2d 367, 377-80 (2011) (concluding that fundamental fairness requires a hearing to determine whether a juvenile sex offender has been rehabilitated before he may be subjected to registration and community notification where statute was based solely on the offense committed).

    • Chris f

      Nice find!

      The reasoning in that case mimics what I always say about how connecticut dps v doe doesnt apply now because the current scheme does imply dangerousness based on all the restrictions now tied to registration…IML, housing assistance denial, shelters, Facebook and nextdoor bans, variety of durations and reporting requirements, residency restrictions…etc…

      • steve

        Exactly what I was trying to convey with IML and Green notices. They US has to imply we are dangerous or Interpol will not issue them according to their rules.

  28. Double A

    Just wanted to share with everyone that I finally got a job. It’s with a non profit. I’m working as a paralegal. It’s nice to finally have money in my bank account and benefits. It’s only a two month contract, but it’s a start. Maybe at the end of the two months they’ll extend my contract.

    I was never asked for a background check. Also when I was signing paperwork it would always mention the organization is an equal opportunity employer. But in the back of my head I’m still waiting to be told I’m fired because of my conviction.

    I’m just going to cross that bridge when I come to it. I’m going to enjoy this for how ever long I can.

    • mike r

      @Double A, Good for you. It is always great to hear others getting ahead..

    • C

      Congrats on the gig – I hope it converts to full-time and your past will truly be a thing of the past, the not so great part, anyway. 🙂

    • Double A

      Thanks you guys. It would be awesome if it did turn into permanent employment.

      On another positive note, the supervising attorney at my office was talking to another volunteer about people convicted of a sex crime and their treatment by law enforcement during Halloween. She said people make mistakes and it isn’t right that they are continually punished. When I heard her personal views it made me even more hopeful for our future as registrants. I hope more people I know share her opinion.

  29. mike r

    @CR, I am assuming you meant that last quote? I wrote the argument there but that last quote is from Poe, 367 U.S., at 541, 81 S.Ct., at 1775.
    If that is not what you meant let me know.
    This is for someone who will know what I am talking so disregard this little part in parenthesis (looks as though lots of people like to hear what I have to say, for not being an attorney I can sure comprehend what judges are stating where others do not, LMAO)
    Chris, yes that is exactly right, but you know what? that is saying a whole lot more if you digest the two quotes together. That is also stating that any facts within the statute that are materiel to the statute is fair game. Words matter and you to state specifically what you are trying to convey. You see nothing in the statute states that it had anything to do with dangerousness so therefore there was no material fact to challenge in that way. But, although the courts do not state specifically under substantive due process (so it may very well exist in procedural due process as well), as the lower courts there suggest, dangerousness is in the statute at minimum substantively because it is relevant to the statutory scheme. In other words, there is no mention in the statute of danagerousness, hence no material fact in the statute for a challenge, but dangerousness is a material fact concerning the statutory scheme, so therefore it is a material fact in that sense, I think they mean substantively. Make sense?
    Guess what? so is recidivism rates and efficacy, just as I have stated…
    Those two little statements say alot… This is what I am saying about “heightened pleadings standard.” (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).
    This is great as I have challenged the AG on exactly this issue in the exact same way as the lower courts are explaining there. Do not ask me how but I knew I was onto it. Common sense maybe…
    It was that argument that the state cannot keep and publicize official records, which is insane since they are statutorily and constitutionally required to keep and publicize public records, that is why the court in Paul considered the argument absurd,
    “Respondent’s claim is far afield from this line of decisions. He claims constitutional protections against the disclosure of his arrest on a shoplifting charge. His claim is based, not upon any challenge to the State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be “private,” but instead on a claim that the State may not publicize a record of an official act such as an arrest. None of our substantive privacy decisions hold this or anything like this, and we decline to enlarge them in this manner.”
    And then the quote in Conn about how dangerousness is not a material fact in the statute.
    IDK how I even found that lower court Nevada case on AB 579 where the court stated that but that is one of those 4 am searches. LMAO….I know it was something to do with the Hawaii v Bana case somehow…Which has never been overruled or reversed and has actually been cited like 45 times as good law according to EVA.

    • CR

      @mike r — I was asking about the post where you said …

      “The Defendant cites Doe v. Tandeske, Litmon v. Harris as somehow authoritative for a substantive due process claim and claims that those cases are controlling on this court. To be sure, it is evident that every case that Defendant has cited is inclusively dealing with either the claim of a right to procedural due process, a right to be free from registration, or a right to be free from reputational harm, as the prerequisite for the decisions rendered. Plaintiff has provided a “”careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” involved in this case herein, and throughout his complaint, that distinguish this case from any cited cases that Defendant has asserted and provided. Any assertion that Smith v. Doe somehow controls here, is also missing the mark, as explained already and herein the Smith court expressly left open such a substantive due process challenge, and an equal protection challenge as well was even hinted at.”

      In that post, you didn’t say what case you were pulling that from, or if you did, I missed it. So I couldn’t tell from your answer if that was the one you thought I meant. Sorry, and thanks.

  30. mike r

    So, State v Guidry cited 27 times as good law, In re W.Z., 194 Ohio cited 7 times as good law….

  31. mike r

    Man these lines of cases are enlightening. So initial registration is not the culprit either. It is the continued registration that is the problem. It all makes perfect sense as well… This is what I mean again about the heightened pleadings standards.
    “In Bani, this court held that “Bani has established that the public notification provisions of HRS chapter 846E implicate a liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the Hawaii Constitution.” 97 Hawai’i at 294, 36 P.3d at 1264. This court concluded that Bani demonstrated that the public notification provisions of HRS chapter 846E will likely cause harm to his reputation, and to “tangible interests” in his personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing. Id. As these interests are not implicated by mere initial registration alone, we must analyze registration anew.”

  32. mike r

    @CR, that argument was entirely mine from what I am drafting. If you meant “”careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” That was cited from Washington v Glucksberg

  33. matthew

    I wonder how the tier system or even current system sees the charges if they were 1203.4 dismissal. While we still have to register, I wonder if it changes the status/exposure on Megan’s Law website

    • AO

      @Matthew – At the moment, the current system and the tier system does not take 1203.4 into consideration (though currently it’s a stepping stone towards the Certificate of Rehab)

  34. Tim Moore

    I haven’t been here in awhile. Anyone figure out how the end the registry yet?

    • Tim Moore

      “To”. Don’t look at me. I can’t even even proofread my comments good.

    • Lake County

      Timmr, Didn’t you hear? California has completely burned out and our registry is over. Well, the first part of that is true. I’m 100 miles from the new “Camp Fire” and I’m tired of breathing smoke and coughing all the time. I feel very bad for all the people on the registry that have died or lost their homes. It will be so much harder for registrants to start over and find jobs and housing.

  35. AJ

    Something has been swirling in my head for a few months and I cannot find the answer/source (again). For some reason, I vaguely recall reading some Gov’t document that talked about misdemeanor CP possession being an example of something that may not merit a Green Notice. I’ve long wondered if it was a dream I had, but it has stuck in my craw. Has anyone come across such a thing? Has anyone with a misdemeanor CP Poss. checked into their Interpol data or visited a country that would otherwise send back?

    It’s on and off driving me batty that I cannot find this document or reference…which makes me wonder if it indeed was some dream stuff and not reality.

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      It may have been a dream. We did kick-around what we imagined would be qualifying offenses apart from the obvious ones and c.p. came up, as one might imagine. I tend to think that possession is a qualifying offense simply because under the rules of spectral evidence that now prevails in what is considered to be a system of justice, it makes sense to the modern and aggressively offended sensibility.

      • AJ

        @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
        I fear it was merely a dream, but it keeps coming back into my head…and I *rarely* remember even having dreams, let alone their content. I’ve sat on this nagging thing for months in the hope of finding it (again?).

        Anyway, I vaguely recall it being about how certain lower level offenses (misd. CP poss. being the example given) may not result in notification being sent. I may have to do some digging again into GAO, CRS, and DOJ documents.

        Wasn’t there someone on here from MN or WI with misdemeanor possession who recently traveled? It’d be nice if s/he hit up Interpol and DOJ to see what they have and know.

        Here’s to it being real and my finding it…!

  36. AJ

    Totally off any topic, but kind of funny is a case pending before SCOTUS that may well set a new record for use of the F-word: It’s a challenge regarding the Patent & Trademark Office’s denial of FUCT.

    • Chris f

      I see the prior court ruled “fuct” as a corporate trademark should be allowed as protected speech.

      At first I was thinking its a stretch and we probably need limits on what can be trademarked. But, after reading the judge’s reasoning I changed my mind and agree. There is no valid government reason to decline a name in a database that offers protections to the requestor. To deny it does deny that person and his company from expressing themselves.


    Interesting new case coming out of Tennessee court of appeal concerning expos facto challenge on $ex offender registration…

    • Chris f

      Nice find!

      Mike r needs to read that to see what worked and didn’t for him to help with his claim.

      I find the denial of the due process claim most interesting. It says he didnt state the protected liberty interests. Yet, in other places in his challnge he clearly stated how his family, job, and privacy were affected. I guess he literally has to spell it all out again under the due process claim and the judge wont do it for him.

      Luckily, I think Mike R was very thorough in restating the same things over and over again in each of his constitutional challenges to avoid this.

      Look forward to seeing how this plays out.

  38. TS

    Cañon City (CO) Council mulls new sex offender residency restrictions

    The national office is working on this but others who want to share comments with the council, mayor, et al couldn’t hurt.

  39. David Kennerly

    Janice has confirmed on the phone conference just now that ACSOL’s lawsuit against IML is dead and that there are no plans now for further challenges.

    • Chris f


      Is another district mounting a more likely to succeed challenge? It’s so unconstitional I would hope someone challenges it.

      If legitimate groups with resources dont challenge it we risk a bad pro se setting bad precident first.

      I guess the good news about no challenge is it makes constitutional challenges against inclusion on the registry easier. Like aj pointed out about green notices, this blows connecticut dps v doe and Smith v doe out of the water to attach such a clear disability to a list that was only constitional because it infered no dangerousness and applied no disability.

    • E

      I’ve been stewing on this since reading it yesterday. So maddening we are giving up and giving in on IML. For some of us, it it is life changing and career shattering. The fact it doesn’t affect all POTRs (people on the registry) doesn’t prevent it from being one of the most egregious violations in the whole Byzantine scheme.

      • David Kennerly's Aborted Itinerary

        TS & E: I share your frustrations. I had hoped that I could, once again, explore the world, re-visit favorite destinations and discover new ones. It appears increasingly unlikely that that will happen in my own lifetime (I’m giving that another ten-to-twenty years). Perhaps the challenge is dead only for the moment pending an accumulation of adverse consequences that might demonstrate to the courts the sheer depravity of such laws if, indeed, they are capable of recognizing them as such. I’ve also considered that the dismantlement of the registry edifice might serve to jettison the IML, too but have to then consider that the Feds have empowered themselves to issue notices whether or not someone is still on the registry. The attorneys to which we have access have not been hopeful in tearing apart IML. The perceived authority of governments to exchange adverse information about their own citizens with one another has come to be seen as an essential function of government. To me, this is clearly illegitimate but the world is becoming ever-more accommodating of the idea that the rights of citizenship is of less importance than perceived threat mitigation. It is this perception and tolerance for government overreach which lies between us and the reclaiming of our right to travel. That and, I would say, the apparent unwillingness of Registrants to take to the streets in protest. Organizations such as this one and NARSOL are essential in lobbying the state houses, launching court challenges and persuading the media but what has been missing is a concerted, public display of protest by Registrants, ourselves. I can’t help but think that this is itself an essential component in our struggle as they have always been essential components in any previous struggles for freedom.

        • CR

          @David K, — “… but what has been missing is a concerted, public display of protest by Registrants, ourselves. I can’t help but think that this is itself an essential component in our struggle as they have always been essential components in any previous struggles for freedom.”

          Who’s sympathies do you think we could trigger through public protest? Who do you think will be swayed in a positive way by seeing a bunch of sex predators, perverts, and child molesters protesting for their rights in the street? Because, even though that would be a grossly inaccurate characterization of registrants as a whole, that is how the public will see it, and how much of the media will pitch it.

          I think public demonstrations by registrants will be viewed about as positively by the general public as it views demonstrations by the KKK, white supremacists, anarchists, or members of NAMBLA.

        • David Kennerly's Aborted Itinerary

          CR, everything you said could have been said about “homosexuals” at one time. They once had no more sympathy than we do now and I’m old enough to remember when that was true. In some places, they still have less. But I’m not really looking for sympathy from others but demanding respect for my rights. And our demonstrations have to be less a plea for sympathy than the assurance that their continued oppression of us will exact a price. So, I again ask “when have we ever seen a movement for civil liberty that didn’t have an angry, outspoken public component?” If you can’t imagine gay rights, women’s rights or black rights without public protest then I would suggest to you that we should not imagine that we could be without it, either. The KKK and the white supremacists, by the way, were never struggling for liberty, by the way, but a mob bent on destroying it.

        • Notorious DIK (said to be Kennerly)

          CR, I’d like to add to my previous comment: Public protest and demonstration also serves a vital public information function. The point is not that the public in its entirety is receptive to our message or even particularly educable but that changing some of their attitudes – and those are in great a need of change – is an essential function of protest. In other words, moral suasion and rational discernment is an important component of protest. There is also the great variety of “sex offenders” of which they are clearly not aware. We are not an amorphous mass and hearing our voices is an important means to advance public understanding of the many different issues which accompany our status and which truly differentiates us as individuals.

        • CR


          Those who marched and demonstrated for gay rights, women’s rights, and black rights did not share a common characteristic that all registrants share: a criminal conviction or guilty plea to a criminal sexual offense. Some members of those groups doubtless had criminal convictions of one sort or another, and some were unfairly prosecuted for things that should not have been criminal in the first place, but it wasn’t an essential, defining characteristic of their group. With us, it is. I think that makes a difference.

          I don’t think hearing our voices in the context of public demonstration will advance public understanding of the issues that affect our status, and I doubt many of them will come to see us as individuals. More likely, we’ll just be painting a bigger, brighter target on our backs.

          If our lot improves, and if we eventually “win” and regain our civil rights, I think it will happen in the courts of law, not the court of public opinion, nor in the legislatures.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          CR, I would suggest to you that, as a result of growing information about “sex offenders,” there has already been positive change in public attitudes. Providing more information, especially from us directly, will continue to have a positive effect. Further, we know that the courts respond to public pressure and evolving social evolution, probably more than any other single influence. I do not see the “painting a target on our backs” at all. We have been demonized primarily due to our isolation and passivity, not our willingness to stand up for our rights and to educate the public.

        • Will Allen

          Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly (November 19, 2018):

          I agree.

          I am sure that I have improved a lot of people’s attitudes in real life (I expect over a thousand). I do think the best way to do it is to simply live as a good, normal person. People may disagree, but I really think that people respect hard work, success, and wealth. When I first started Registering decades ago, the Registries were nothing. Most people hadn’t even heard of them. They lied to me that I would be listed on them for 10 years. Didn’t seem like a huge deal at all.

          Then the nonsense started ratcheting up very quickly. So I had decided within just a few years that I was going to have to be in complete control of my life in order to be sane and keep the harassers away from me. I decided that I needed to be wealthy and that I couldn’t be subject to the whims of landlords, employers, or Registry Harassers. I had to be in control. So I focused.

          I’m not bragging, I just want to convey what I think works – when people look at me today they see success. Even though I have been tempted in many, many situations, I never tell people that I am Registered. I don’t think it is correct to tell people. I think that gives credibility and control to the Registries and none is deserved. So I don’t play their game.

          People have found out enough times. And I think it is a good thing. Because what they find out is that they know someone who is 100% normal and is a good, successful, family man. Yet he is listed on the big government hit list. Most people continue on as usual and realize even more than the Registries are horse manure. Many have joined my fight.

          There have been some people who have freaked out. I have also found that to be very useful because I want those people away from me. So that is good. I send them on their way and they get no more benefits. From that point on, I will harm them when and where I legally am able. Everyone must accept consequences for their actions. It’s only fair.

          I have had some people whine that I should have told them. But they are wrong. Big government provides hit lists for the whiners who “need” them. It is 100% THEIR responsibility to read their lists. NONE of that responsibility is mine.

          I think we change the public’s perception by being better than they are. In spite of their harassment.

        • Tim Moore

          For what it is worth, I think we just need to dialogue with the public more and engage them in debate. I don’t know if protesting would be helpful or not, but no one knows what will work, until it is tried. Really. You have to try things out. No group of convicted people has ever mobilized to protest their punishment, except inmates. We are not inmates, at least not in the traditional sense. Our situation is something new. We better fight it before it becomes more legitimized. It may already be too late. The only thing, when we speak up, we must present ourselves as the good people we are. Fascists, hate groups, they speak of hateful things. We must speak with empathy, compassion for our victims, if we have them, questions for our accusers and respect for our enemies. Who is not for rehabilitation, forgiveness, fairness and healing? If we are not for these, I don’t think there is a chance of winning anything but scorn from the public.

  40. mike r

    Yeah, why has this not been posted on here? It does not matter I am challenging it on equal protection anyways. Anytime someone has some right altered that others do not it is an equal protection issue. The courts have already stated that an equal protection issue arises even in state to state where one group in one state gets relief while others in other states with the exact same charges do not. That is exactly what is happening and I am going to hit it hard…. Same with EEOC and Federal housing. Like Chris F has pointed out, pleadings must state exactly what is being harmed and how it is being harmed. The courts are not going to spell it out for us….

  41. mike r

    Look at what I pulled up in just a quick search after reading the AGs cited case in that Millard brief,

    “See Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 588-90 (9th Cir.1989) (plaintiff could sue government when state officer affirmatively placed her in dangerous situation), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938, 111 S.Ct. 341, 112 L.Ed.2d 305 (1990);  see also L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1992) (generally citizens may not sue state employees who fail to protect them from harm committed by private parties unless there is a special relationship between the plaintiff or the state places the plaintiff in danger), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2442, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1993).”

    There is both a special relationship with the state thru SORA as well as the state is putting me in dangerous situations by disseminating my address information along with the sex offender designation on the Megan’s Law website. Once again, the nexus is undeniable.
    Thus, because California does little to protect offenders from vigilantism despite making their information readily available to the public, California’s laws likely violate Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights.

  42. mike r

    I like this as it puts the news articles on vigilantism into the judicial notice realm… Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 (9th Cir. 1999) (taking judicial notice of information contained in news articles).

    I am going to just slam the court again with a request for judicial notice and just keep slamming it if I have to until the court responds. Even the AVVO attorneys tell me this is part of the discovery process and the court has to take judicial notice if it is formatted correctly and the court is supplied with the proper info, which I am printing out everything this time and attaching them to it. This is going to cost like two hundred bucks or more but whatever, has to be done…

  43. MarcH

    Recent events at Paradise, Ca with the Camp Fire bring up a situation with facebook that can have legal hooks to change something. The Television stations are only making some information available on their Facebook page that goes as well with the Sheriffs Department and so many others the remove critical information from the public domain.
    It seems a legal challenge to public officials using facebook for posting public information can be challenged. I wonder if Facebook would keep their position on sex offenders if they began losing government accounts.

    • Chris f

      The last thing we want to do is challenge the government using Facebook as a public forum. After the packingham ruling acknowledging social media as the new town square anyway, it would be far better for our cause to challenge the lack of Due Process to put someone on a list for an arbitrary length of time that bans them from social media.

      Add in all the other automatic restrictions and violations of liberty interests and we have something exponentially more repressive than the registry from the Smith v doe ruling that in itself was based on grossly incorrect data and assumptions.

    • AJ

      Most FB pages of public agencies and/or officials are available for viewing without having a FB account. Even if they aren’t, that’s a fast remedy FB (or the account holder) could make without skipping a beat.

      As for FB wanting to avoid losing all those public sites, I doubt FB really cares. Remember, FB is a datamining company, so what they want are the habits and demographics of private citizens and other humans. I’m guessing if push came to shove, they’d surrender a few hundred thousand or so government pages in order to keep a few billion other ones.

      As to @Chris F’s point, I think patience regarding the public forum issue can only get better for us. Let’s see what happens with M.C.A.C. v. Halleck (; IMO, if SCOTUS still believes in the Packingham parenthetical it’s going to be the day FB loses its ability to block us. (Hand in hand with that should be the destruction of 34 U.S.C. 20917.)

      • MarcH

        @Chris f
        Thank you both for the reply. I have family I’m not in touch with I can only find out about them ie: are they even still alive, with someone else checking.
        Violating terms of service seems so easy to morph into, accessing a computer system without permission
        I don’t dare fake an account.

        • AJ

          If you’re not required to submit Internet info, you can probably sneak aboard FB and find out what you need. Even if you do need to report, don’t you have 48 hours or 3 days or something? That, too, would give you a fair amount of time to try to get info. Then you could either go ahead and supply the info. At some point it’ll be uploaded to the Feds and available to social media for bouncing you. I’m guessing there’s probably a day or two delay there, too.

          In short, I think you could probably eke out 3-5 days of access in an ID-reporting State, longer in a non-reporting State. And what’s the loss if they bounce you? You’re not on there now, you won’t be after that! 🙂

      • MarcH

        Thanks for that.

        Due to all the Liability social media is the only hopes I have for any form of community. The Registry has had a very detrimental effect on my care for humanity.
        I used to be different. Now, I just don’t want to die in prison.

      • CR

        Today, SCOTUS held in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck that “Petitioner, a private nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate the public access channels on the Manhattan cable system owned by Time Warner (now Charter), is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.”

        Sad that it didn’t go the way we thought it might. I’m not sure if that says anything about the Packingham parenthetical, though.

    • Tim Moore

      You can still get a Twitter account. CalFire and local sheriffs post timely data on there. I used it when a fire was near me. You’re right, news web sites aren’t the greatest for timely news. Come join many other registrants there and don’t feel powerless. You may even find other registrants in your area and help each other.

  44. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    Some good push-back against Volokh’s Paul Cassell amicus brief and earlier Reason piece. To its credit, Volokh posted David Post’s rebuttal: “Denying Bail” “The Arizona Supreme Court got it right: categorical denials of bail to persons charged with sexual assault violates the Constitution.”

    • TS

      You mean an individual assessment is required for a bail hearing?! NO! Say it is not so!!

      Also, the comment about giving someone ice cream as punishment is not cruel punishment is not correct. If the person is lactose intolerant or even allergic to an ice cream component, e.g. milk, peanuts, chocolate, etc, then it could be cruel and even deadly, but I digress. That includes soft serve…

      I don’t know how this does not fall under “profiling” either (which is illegal) after being detained for bail.

  45. Two States East

    Anyone know if the Farm Bill Conference Committee has gotten rid of the Holding Amendment on the House version of the SNAP part ? It’s the one that prohibits sex offenders from getting food stamps. And it is fully retroactive; doesn’t matter when you got convicted. There is some ACSOL archived data on the older version from last time in 2013; just put “Vitter” in to recall the CARSOL posting.

  46. David

    ⚠️Colorado⚠️ 🇺🇸 UnConstitutional 🇺🇸

    Hello friends,
    Below is a link to the recent oral arguments in the Millard v. Colorado case in which Honorable Judge Matsch found Colorado’s Registry to be Unconstitutional by both Colorado’s State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

    (Unfortunately, the State Attorney presents her arguments in a very polished and practiced manner while Millard’s attorney is verbally awkward, lacking polish and, IMHO, convincing effectiveness.) ☹
    *Fingers crossed nonetheless*

  47. Two States East

    AJ: Thank you for answering me. Moreno was about an unrelated person in a household. But this Republican House Representative Mr. Holding is just out to save $millions in SNAP benefits by denying sex offenders from eligibility based on conviction. However, many sex offenders and their families are certainly going to be needy in many circumstances.

    I’m just trying to build awareness that there is a problem. I just don’t understand why advocacy organizations aren’t all over this. On the other hand, the Farm Bill hopefully will go into next year so we’ll have more time. But if somehow the lame duck Congress gets it through this year it may already be too late.

    • AJ

      @Two States East:
      On its face, Moreno was just about unrelated people in a household. In truth, USG was trying to harm a disfavored class of people (hippies) through regulation change. SCOTUS’ holding is a bit broader than just unrelated people.
      Held: The legislative classification here involved cannot be sustained, the classification being clearly irrelevant to the stated purposes of the Act and not rationally furthering any other legitimate governmental interest. In practical operation, the Act excludes not those who are “likely to abuse the program,” but, rather, only those who so desperately need aid that they cannot even afford to alter their living arrangements so as to retain their eligibility.
      How does that holding not apply to RCs? What “legitimate government interest” is furthered by excluding this class of citizens?


      “I’m just trying to build awareness that there is a problem. I just don’t understand why advocacy organizations aren’t all over this.”
      Because it doesn’t hurt anyone for whom they advocate. The only ones who see it as a problem are 1) RCs and 2) their dependents.

      • Facts should matter

        If they’re successful in banning SNAP, they’ll go after SSI next.

        It’s just a matter of time before someone on the list goes on an end game rampage. Not everyone required to register is a meek and passive coward that will continue to be the Government’s doormat.

    • David

      Apparently, Mr. Holding will be happiest if “frightening and high” becames “starving and desperate”.😡

  48. Two States East

    Thank you AJ and David for addressing my concern over anyone who ever has certain sex offense convictions may be barred from being eligible for food stamps. That SCOTUS decision you refer to is a perfect example to confront those Congressmen with !

    There is a huge push right now to get the Farm Bill passed before the end of the year. Unfortunately, a lot of the goings on are behind closed doors in the Conference Committee, so we don’t know if they will get rid of Holding (Or perhaps already have as a compromise, but I can’t see anyone fighting for us).

    The only ray of light is Senator Grassley, who is pushing to extend the whole existing Farm allocation out one more year. The existing bill is from 2013 on a 5 year cycle and does not have a Holding type amendment in it other than the fleeing felon clause.

    • Lake County

      I’m not sure how I’d survive without food stamps. This is the first time I’ve heard about this issue. Can someone please post the most recent link on this issue.

      • mike r

        @ foodstamps. zyeah I had no problem back a few years ago with getting foodstamps, I guess it has been at least 4-5 years at least but the only people that were barred were people whim were caught,selling frugs while on foodstamps. Same with student loans, if you get caught selling drugs your ineligible for so many years but can get them back after so many years. What about this justice Roberts crap chiming in on what Trump said about the 9th, which was and is true. Is Roberts just gone in the head stating there are no Obama or Trump judges? that’s just insane and the epitome of niavite or just a blatent lie trying to get publicity and trying to make himsrlf famous when he is in fact one of the least consequential lead justice ever probabaly. Him opining just shows he’s biased and a political hack aling with the rest of them. How can anyone think it was the legislature’s intent to let illegal immigrants just jump the border anywhere anytime and claim assylum? That’s just insane and they are supposed to look to intent when considering statutes and use common sense, which is severely lacking in the judiciary.

    • Tim Moore

      We have to fight for ourselves. Contact the committee members directly and tell them you want the amendment scrapped. I have a list of their contacts. Maybe should post it here and make this an action item.

Leave a Reply

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

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

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