ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


WA: Sex offender records request raises safety, First Amendment questions

Attorneys fighting a request to release the names of all level 1 sex offenders in Cowlitz County are making a novel — and perhaps long-shot — legal argument to the state Court of Appeals.

Judges should take into account the motives of Kelso resident Curtis Hart, a sex offender vigilante who filed a state public records request for the list of offenders’ names months ago, a motion to the Washington Court of Appeals argues. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Should the public’s right to know information that could affect its safety be impinged if the person requesting it has objectionable motives?”
Could affect its safety? Maybe Hart should seek out and harass everyone who HASN’T committed a sex crime, that would help society.
“He’s [Hart] acknowledged he intends to publish the names and has said that “sex predators deserve scorn.” “Hart is a controversial figure himself, especially with police.”
THAT is his intent… he should face criminal charges if the records are released and someone is harmed in any way.
“And even if Hart’s request was denied, “I would imagine he’s got a lot of sympathetic mothers in the county that would ask (on his behalf),” Thompson said.”
A lot of ignorant sympathetic mothers. They most likely already know the whereabouts of the offender in their case.
“You have to commit the supposed crime, and then you can go and punish them if that’s the case.” said Michelle Earl-Hubbard, a Seattle-based media law attorney.
Then why the hell do we even registries at all Ms. media attorney? Oh yeah, for thr the safety of the children, sigh.
There are so many people in this world who don’t even know what the 1st amendment states let alone now how it affects them. I only hope that Mr. Hart doesn’t ever cross the line and find himself on the defense side of criminal law.

This guy is following the footsteps of Donna Zink in Mesa, WA who wanted to do the same thing with Tier 1 people back in 2016. You can read it online. Two nutcases, one from each side of the Cascade Mtns.

Read more here:

And here:

@R M:
“There are so many people in this world who don’t even know what the 1st amendment states let alone now how it affects them.”
Be very, very afraid for our future:

There’s a “healthy” dose of moral relativism from the people in the video. Curtailing “offensive” (who gets to define that?!?) speech is where it starts, then just like everything else it creeps further as more words, thoughts, and deeds get deemed “offensive.” Very scary, IMO.

If, WA State a law that do not published level 1 RC. He may the right to get info, however, may lack the authority to publish.

@Harry….and everyone else. Mr. Hart only needs SECONDS to photo the info he has asked for, and I doubt that he will care much about the “authority to publish”. Mr. vigilante…. I mean Mr. Hart will face at best a slap on the pinky if he publishes the level 1 info without permission, and they haven’t made a bell yet that be un-rung…..once its out there, its out there for all to see and act upon. I also believe that even if this request (for vengeance) is denied others will follow and use their voting strength to force the issue. Welcome to the fourth riche…….. We are only a step away from the new Gestapo raiding our houses at night and taking us to the showers.

Very interesting article! This man clearly has issues! Nobody would do this without a reason. It’s not normal. I bet 1000000000/1 this guy watches porn, has sexual issues and wants to feel vindicated by focusing upon others! It’s not normal and the guy clearly has issues. If he was so concerned and caring, he would reach out and look for ways to help those in needs. He has issues! No doubt!

Reminds me of the guys in jails who threaten to beat up SOs and RapeOhs yet they are one too

Yeah this can be an important ruling. If the court denies access then it obviously points to some type of privacy interest in the info, if the court allows disclosure it does not mean crap, unless the attorneys for the offenders are claiming a privacy interest such as mine with home address, current photo +description, compilation of pieces of a pubic record combined with the latter. Home addresses have been considered a privacy right and cannot be disclosed without your permission. The continuous updated current likeness along with the stigmatizing status from past crime implicates a privacy issue. These are not public records but compilations by the state of compulsory collected current info with selective pieces of past public records. This is unconstitutional. At least we will see in my case.

Hart has admitted Tier 1 people deserve scorn. The Judge and attys are concerned he will misuse the data in childish and immature ways. So, if something happens to just one of the Tier 1 people he lists and it is proven it was because the list of Tier 1 people was published, can Hart be charged as an accessory to that crime for publishing what was once not public info and misusing the info against the T&Cs of it? If he publishes it, is it considered public info then since no one has gone in and requested to see it through the proper way to request it?

I think that his image of a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire, a la “The Walking Dead” goes to the heart of what he imagines the goal of publishing this data to be. If that isn’t taken into consideration by judges then it will only be due to their flagrant indifference to “sex offenders.”

@NDIK/Kennerly/@AJ –

Then, using the image you note from the article, is that an implied threat by him using such language and the physical weapon reference or merely freedom of speech? Could a white hooded person with a burning cross or noose get away with the same sentiment if they addressed certain people they’re not in favor of?

See R.A.V. vs. City of St. Paul ( Note also the reference to “fighting words” from Chaplinsky vs. NH (

Thanks @AJ for those two cases. Bottom line, he can get away with it because what he has said is not related to race, religion, or gender which are exceptions to the First Amendment as written here and which could incite retribution of some possible sort.

I’d still like to know if Hart could be charged as an accessory to a crime committed by others if he published the Tier 1 people or would it fall under public info which is available upon request even though not published. Having said that, I bet the latter.

I think calling someone “$EX offender” is fighting words that ought to get someone punched in the face and worse. It is definitely a weapon of war. So if we are policing words that might cause a breach of public peace, that definitely ought to be some of them.

The barbed wire encircled baseball bat image certainly goes to the heart of the question of what he imagines to be the desired outcome of publicly disseminated and previously unpublished criminal history records. I would find it hard to believe that his assurances to the contrary could not be challenged by this violence-infused and fully-rendered visualization of what we can only assume is his idealized goal. This clearly goes to intent.

AJ, I assume that you, like me, and as a fellow libertarian, am appalled that this guy sees himself as a “libertarian” and wraps himself thickly in its mantle. This phenomenon is all-too-common and is one of the biggest problems facing the libertarian movement today, i.e. the concept of libertarianism misapplied to decidedly un-libertarian ideas and people and denigrating libertarians in the minds of the public.

I believe one would need to argue he was inciting violence, though an “immediate breach of the peace” would probably be missing.

What gets me more about this case is that it highlights that, contrary to any statement, WA does make some sort of determination of dangerousness: Tier I is deemed sufficiently “safe” to be held back from public view; not so Tier II and Tier III which are deemed public safety risks for which the public must be notified. Holding back some POTRs while broadcasting others means the State has made some sort of determination of SOMEthing. If not dangerousness and/or risk, then what?

Based on that angle alone, I fear the names getting released. It may set a troubling precedent regarding all POTR records being publicly available.

I’m a little fuzzy on what element of the First Amdt. the dude thinks he has for a suit. He perhaps has a Sunshine law claim or an Equal Protection issue: some citizens are given the info, others are not. His First Amdt. claim would only seem to kick in once he decides to publish the info. Nobody is telling him he cannot publish it. In fact, nobody is telling him he can’t have the info. He’s more being told he cannot have the State’s work product of compiling existing public records. Nothing prevents Mr. Hart from making his own compilation. That it’s onerous should be of little consequence.

“You don’t presume that someone’s going to commit a crime with them and … preempt access to them getting them,” Hubbard said. “You have to commit the supposed crime, and then you can go and punish them if that’s the case.” REALLY/!!!!!!!! Isn’t that what the registry, and all the current laws in this wonderful country do now???? The registry PRESUMES that we will commit a crime in the future, and what about the “You have to commit the supposed crime, and then you can go and punish them if that’s the case.”…….but isn’t just a little TOO LATE by then! How many have to be harmed or MURDERED before “you can go and punish them”….if you punish them all all?????

Loser Corey Hart posted a comment there. Loser Donna Zink has joined him. I posted the comment below (and some others) but it might not appear. I can’t say but I know what I’d love see happen to both of those “people”.

The comment:

I know feels like you little baby, big government-dependent harassers need to be protected so I can’t say what you need to hear. Too bad, I guess. I’ll try to be nice enough for the babies.

You are a liar (first paragraph, imagine that!). Experts never did support the $EX Offender Registries ($ORs) and never will. Further, I truly do not think there are ANY people in America today who are actually serious about public safety or protecting children who support the $ORs. Informed people know that not only are the $ORs not needed, but that they are much, much worse than merely worthless. They are idiotic social policy.

But meh, I doubt you geniuses could even understand why so I won’t bother trying to explain. Smart people can actually figure it out. Especially anyone who takes even a tiny, casual look at the $ORs.

So you can have your Nanny Big Government (NBG) Registries. I PROMISE you that they will continue to do jack squat. But they are going to lead to plenty of problems. I promise. And the families that are listed on your hit hist will continue to be around all kinds of people all the time, completely anonymously. Meh, facts.

American has never been a great country. Still isn’t. Full of lazy, clueless, self-entitled, self-rigtheous d-bags like Loser Hart. It will continue to devolve and “people” like Loser Hart will just keep losing. These types of “do-gooder” activities are the highlight of his “life”. LOL, funnnnnny.

Enjoy your hate. Loser Hart – you need to get working on the rest of your NBG Registries. Don’t you care about children?

@Will Allen

U missed Hart’s last comment from this morning.

Maybe, but I think I’ve seen them all. The comment that I gave above was in response to Hart’s “Dec 20, 2018 1:43am” comment. They may not post my response though because it is not very nice. They do seem to be quite slow at checking new comments though, so maybe. I posted a nice response to another person at around the same time though so I’ll see if that response goes through and others don’t.

It sure would be nice if 1,000+ people posted comments on articles such as these. These losers need to see that there is actual serious opposition to harassment. And just as importantly, I think people who write these articles certainly see the comments and I think it would be beneficial that they know there are hundreds of thousands of people opposed to the Registries. I think it would affect their writings and opinions.

No one should refer to Hart as “Mr. Hart”. The loser doesn’t deserve respect. Need to clean it up. I am fairly sure when I first saw this article, the caption under his ugly, redneck face said, “Vigilante Hart”. Which is obviously accurate of course, and funny as well.

I wonder if Harasser Hart has a job? Or perhaps he depends on big government to keep himself fed. If he has an employer, they should be avoided at all costs. If I feel like thinking about this loser any longer, I might find out and contact them. People need to know that if they associate with harassers, it will cost them.

You are absolutely right….! No one should call Hart “Mr.”….. I have seen the picture….. vigilante Hart looks like just another red-neck, walk his dog and use the same tree, tractor-pulling with a mouth full of chew, mowed the lawn and found a car LOSER…..! How a judge, ANY JUDGE could possibly side with such a low-born individuals’ request to OBVIOUSLY seek vengeance is more than disturbing.

@Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
AJ, I assume that you, like me, and as a fellow libertarian, am appalled that this guy sees himself as a “libertarian” and wraps himself thickly in its mantle.
Yes. It seems too many think libertarian means “not Democrat or Republican.” Umm no, it means your rights extend until they infringe on mine, and vice versa. (Kinda how we typically treat one another in everyday life.) Where is that dividing line? Therein lies the difficult answer courts need to balance or determine.


Sir I will have you know that I happen to be red-neck loser myself, so please cut us from the south some slack.

I tried to reply to this comment back when you made it. But I guess the reply was not approved for some odd reason. Anyway …

I come from rednecks myself. Nothing wrong with those people so I probably shouldn’t use the term in a denigrating way. I always just mean the stereotypical, awful “redneck” “person”.

If you are a good person, you are not a loser. That is the end of the definition for me. I’m quite wealthy but that has nothing to do with defining me as a loser or not.

Seems to me that a half ass hacker could turn him into a lev 1 , if not he will run in to the wrong RC or RC family member and end up gumming his food or worse , because everyone knows what he looks like, cant be hard to find this Big Time Hero . Seen this Hart freak on a video some time ago trying to set some guy up . I remember thinking back then that sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted . Be awesome to see his next picture toothless as a lev 1 . all about how dose it feel hero ?

some times the hunter becomes the hunted , and this Hart guy seems to be begging to end up set up as a lev 1 himself , everyone knows what he looks like up there now , seen this lame video some time back him and some other guy trying to set some guy up , its amazing he still has his grill lol

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x