ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org


General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments January 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of January 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think some of you might find this federal case interesting:

People suing Google over facial geometry scans of photos must prove real harm, not just ‘feel aggrieved’

@Lake County:
That’s an awfully long document just for the court to say it doesn’t have jurisdiction. Goodness.

Hopefully this is one more brick used to build some sort of federal privacy legislation. (I do think that will be the long-term result of FB’s and G00gle’s activities.)

You trying to become the King of Branding, LOL? “Thin Blue Liars”. Now “G00gle”. I assume the 00 are glasses to signify G00gle spying on everyone??

Consistent and constant branding is important and key to vilifying. I will certainly continue to use it to attack Registry Harassers.

Not sure about these G00gle attacks though, I need to see how much money I have tied in with them. I expect a lot more than I think. And they are likely part of a lot of Mutual or Index Funds that I won’t want to get out of. Hmmmm. Maybe I should emulate the Registry Harassers and incessantly brag about my great morals and grandstand, all the way up until, and only until, it messes with my money?! Then forget about morals.

For those caring or paying attention, I was excused from Grand Jury duty. Apparently I’m guilty of an “infamous crime.” Given the duration of service and the caseload mentioned, I am quite happy to have been booted!

I would like to be on a jury just so I could ensure that the criminal regime could convict the person. I’m not sure I would have any other goals beyond that. So at least I can say the criminals regimes are smart enough to keep me off of their juries. But, I do have to pay far more than my fair share for those juries and EVERYTHING around it, so I’m not so sure it is too cool to be forced to pay for literally everything that I can’t be a part of. That’s not “taxation without representation” but there must be some similar, catchy phrase for it. Maybe just “theft”. “Taxation without participation”? Nah, need something better.

But if the criminal regimes were truly smart, they would’ve taken me off of their hit list over a decade ago. Every day that goes by continues to prove just how dumb they are. And how they will cut off their noses to spite their faces. War is ugly. America would be a much better country if it didn’t have to exist.

I will have to say though that I have always viewed not having to be a good, contributing citizen as one of the features and gifts of the Registries. It is freeing to have no obligations and not have to worry about other people.

@Will: “I would like to be on a jury just so I could ensure that the criminal regime could convict the person. I’m not sure I would have any other goals beyond that.” Could or couldn’t? I would love to be in a jury too, just so I could question, question, question and protect our freedoms (what’s left of them).

I have never responded to a jury summons since my conviction. I suspect many people don’t. The court does not have time to prosecute everyone who doesn’t respond. Some counties report that only 1/3 of the people respond to a summons.

I kind of wish they would prosecute me for that. I would love to hear a prosecutor argue that I should be on a jury.

NY tried to give me jury duty once and wanted me to prove I had a criminal record so I wouldn’t have to go, I pulled up my picture on the registry and asked them if it was enough.
The lady got snarky and said I was lucky that she didn’t get me locked up and all the other normal expletives that are said about people on the registry. Wasted a day of work because they threaten to send a warrant for not attending jury duty even though I’m exempt.

If anyone hears anything on Snyder V Doe from MI. Please post it on here, suppose to be back in Federal court Jan. 9 th Have a good day!

There is no hearing on January 9th….the aclu and the state have been “negotiating”….the hearing was called off and monthly status updates via telephone are scheduled…essentially, judge Cleland is only going to get involved if negotiations break down…..some of us have been in contact with the Aclu and have been told that nothing is going to be settled for months…shocker right? More waiting….

thanks for the info, sold out again, sad

1994 – 2019

25 years of Megan’s Law and don’t think for a second that Mr. Smith and Mr. Kanka won’t let this go unnoticed. I predict local interviews with the “there’s still a lot to be done” nonsensical fear mongering. Don’t be surprised if they try to add even MORE quicksand to the moat. I swear, how in the hell do they even sleep at night, much less feel good about themselves?

Why should we let a significant anniversary go by without pointing it out ourselves?

“25 years of big government waste doing nothing useful. Congratulations, immoral, un-American idiots.”

I’m serious, BTW. People should take every opportunity to point out what a colossal failure it all is. The fact that there is no national, public, lifetime Gun Offender Registry has proven that the $EX Offender Registries do nothing useful. Easy. Smart, informed people know Registries are stupid so we don’t have them all. But just give the big government people time, you know they want to grow big government and take more of your money.


Because once their cause has been continually highlighted, right, wrong, or indifferent, the prideful narcissistic way about it is powerful, intoxicating, and hard to let go even when proven otherwise, e.g. Walsh, John; Book, Ron, et al. Who needs to sleep when they have that?

They could learn from Jacob Wetterling’s mom who has realized and said the law in her sons’s name has gone too far beyond the initial intent.

DEEPFAKES this seems to be a way to put anyone’s face on anyone’s body and post it anywhere. What does this do for cases of CP once this technique is revealed. Seems that Hollywood types are having this done to them. When will / can this be used as a defense for CP?

Twenty years ago, when I was incarcerated, there was an inmate who got “busted” for having a nude photo of an adult male on which he’d pasted a child’s face/head. Apparantly, no one seemed to know if it was a chargeable offense. Of course. Nowadays, most laws appear to be taking the widest possible “liberties” as to what LE and prosecutors can consider CP.

I got advertisement from an attorney today in the mail claiming and promising to get off the megans list for a fee of $3,500 but here’s what’s upsetting, it has my picture, my charge, now what if that would of went to a neighbor (other address) I have no problems where I live *thank the lord* but what if.

Please tell us the name of the firm that sent this to you. They must be stopped immeduately.

Please tell me the name of the law firm. What state city are you in?

I shredded everything the same day, I honestly didn’t even look where it came from, i received 2 others but never with my pic and charge, and I’m in los angeles california, sorry C & Pete.

Its cool I am in Los Angeles to and I am so frustrated with all these lawyers promising to get me off the registry. I think we need to start sueing these law firms trying to steel money from us. I literally cant get a job so I opened up my own company and I just got a call from an investor and they said they cant do business with me because I am on the registry. I dont know what to do any more and it is driving me crazy. I have a misdemeanor my fine was only $100 but my life was taken away from me. If anyone have any ideas of how to get off the registry please help.

there is not a single percent when a person hires an attorney to get relieved from registration *from what i know or heard of* from what I’ve been reading the best guarantee is for that tiered system, in 2021 i will already have 24 years.

It’s academically regulatory and allowed, but not shaming or punishment. Uh huh…. Neither is a marked passport, a registry, or a marked DL. Whatever… they read the Scarlet Letter in high school most likely and understand this!

ACLU accuses Arizona high school of making students wear ‘scarlet badge’ of shame

Man sues Burger King after they rescind free meals for life settlement because he was locked in the bathroom for an hour and cut himself in the process of trying to get out.

Later in the story it comes out he’s a registered offender… hmmm. I hope that’s not why they rescinded the agreement.

That last part they added about his registry status appears to be to discredit the man for having a conviction from 25 years ago.

I am need of some fairly quick info about Georgia (specifically Liberty county if possible) registration system. My wife is about to graduate from her Army training and she has been assigned to Ft Stewart starting March 9th, I have been doing this here in California for 20 years so I know only here, and if it matters or helps to get the right info my charge involves a minor that I did state time for and I also have a misdemeanor 647.6. The basics I already seen on the lists here, I am trying to find out if they are one of the states that blast it on your ID cards am I going to have to go around to my neighbors to inform them or like arizona have to take out a full page ad in the newspaper? Don’t know if anyone on here is from or has lived in Georgia but any accurate info is greatly appreciated.

my email is

**yes moderator I know that giving my information is not recommended**

I was also convicted of misdemeanor 647.6, but I did not get convicted until I had already moved to Georgia. It took me 2 years to get removed from Georgia’s registry and that was finally granted because I was a resident at the time of conviction. Georgia statute that pertain to you is 42-1-12(e)(6) – they will likely require you to register merely because California requires you to register. You might need to have an attorney fight your case specifically to get a ruling that out of state misdemeanors convicted prior to moving to Georgia should also be exempt from the registry based on Owens vs Urbina.

You can also attempt to petition for removal – you might want to work with an attorney on that as well as you would need to get a “level” and would likely want a psych analysis to show you aren’t a danger to society.

Georgia doesn’t brand the Drivers License, but does have some extensive residency restrictions. They’ll list you on the public registry, and will notify anybody in your neighborhood who has requested notification.

Good luck.

I also have a felony, served 36mo on the original and 40mo on parole violations, my conviction stems from a crime date of june 2000, I read somewhere here that some case law has exempted us from certain provisions of residence and internet reporting is this correct? In Georgia specifically

Also am I reading it correctly that its $250 to register in Georgia

@michael w:
I moved to Ga from NJ; I am still on supervision so all of this may not be accurate for you.
1. There was a small ad placed in the local newspaper with my pic and some info when I first moved here.
2. Once a year, the sherrif lists every RC on a list put out on the internet.
3. All, save misdemeanors and juveniles, are listed on the public website.
4. No marking on the drivers license.
5. I and think all didn’t have to make visits to any neighbors.
6. Residential/employment/loitering restrictions vary by when you committed the offense: prior to June 4, 2004… no restrictions; after that, restrictions increase in several time frame steps.
7. For some time I couldn’t have internet or even a smart phone. That changed somewhere along the line. I can now have both but require my PO permission as my NJ conditions restrict this ( I have to abide by BOTH NJ and Ga conditions per my Interstate Compact transfer doc.
8. I don’t pay a registration fee (I register at sheriffs once/year or within 72 hours when changes like where I live, what I drive, ect. occur. I do however pay NJ $30/month for… I really don’t know as I’m in Ga.
9. See the OCGA statutes 42-1-12

Other questions?

@R M:
“I do however pay NJ $30/month for… I really don’t know as I’m in Ga.”
This may be worth looking into. Under ICOTS, the Transferring State (NJ) cannot continue to collect supervision fees once you’ve transferred. They can charge a transfer fee, but then any subsequent supervision fees are charged and collected by the Receiving State. I doubt NJ charges $30/month for ML stuff, so methinks you’re getting screwed by NJ DOC.

It’s been a while since I dove into it, but I can probably find the ICOTS references if you wish. If NJ is in violation of ICOTS, it’s you who gets/has to sue them in Federal Court. There’s no ICOTS-internal process to compel compliance. I’m sure you can find it yourself if you dig around in the ICOTS documents.

@AJ: Thanks. I t looks like you are referring to section 3.3.4 of

I will have to find out exactly what the $30 fee is for and also see who it goes to. I have questioned this in the past and was told it goes to NJ. DCS provides the form to pay through Jpay. If it is a supervision fee and it goes to NJ and I get it stopped, I wonder if Ga will pick up the supervision fee which will be a net gain of zero minus any court/lawyer fee to get it stopped in NJ. In other words, I lose money.

@R M:
“If it is a supervision fee and it goes to NJ and I get it stopped, I wonder if Ga will pick up the supervision fee which will be a net gain of zero minus any court/lawyer fee to get it stopped in NJ. In other words, I lose money.”
Some fights aren’t worth taking up. GA is shorting itself of money for no reason, but if that’s how they want to play it, so be it. Just filing in Federal Court will run you something like $400, so if it’s virtually revenue-neutral, you may be best served by being quiet and compliant.

@JW and @RM

Thank you for giving me some personal experience on the ways of Georgia.
I guess my next move is to start interviewing attorneys to begin laying the groundwork for requesting to end my requirement to register. For all it’s screwed up ignorant civil servants it seems that there was some logic and sensibility written into the laws, as I read it there is a clause to be removed if you have been declared disabled under Georgia social services code, basically it resembles the requirements of SSI and I have been deemed disabled under Federal Disability rules.
Now all I have to do is convince the court that its in the interest of justice and since California is also going to a tiered system all might be able to finally allow me to quietly melt back into anonymity.
Who would have thought that its a state saddled in by the worst (as I see it) states to be in or visit is an island of refuge, for some at least.

Has anyone heard anything recently about traveling to Guatemala or Spain successfully? I was happy spending my vacations in Colombia and Ecuador, but they are refusing me entry now. So, I am looking for a new inexpensive paradise. I have money saved and am ready to go. I just have some major anxiety now after what I have been through trying to travel recently and I want to find a country that will just let me in without hassle.

Thanks much. Best to you all.

@ America’s Most Hated: You should have no problems entering Spain as it is one of the Schengen Area countries.

“What is the Information Quality Act (aka Data Quality Act)?” I had not heard of this before. Is this something that should be in our quiver of legal arrows? “The Information Quality Act (“IQA” aka DQA) requires federal government agencies to employ sound science in making regulations and disseminating information. It also provides a mechanism for people and companies to challenge government information they believe to be inaccurate. Business, consumer, environmental and conservation groups have all used it to pursue changes in government policies.”

Visited Spain last year with family. Flew into Barcelona, stayed a few days and then we drove to Malaga and Seville, just to name a few cities we visited in Spain. Also visited Portugal, Morocco, Gibraltar, Andorra and France on that trip. Going through customs was a breeze (Barcelona). When they do ask questions, it’s the typical questions most all folks get. Safe travels.

Warren, thank you so much! It is nice to hear a first hand account. I can’t find much on the internet.

I would like to try either Spain or Guatemala next month and stay for 3 months. Guatemala is less expensive in tickets and cost of living, but I saw news where they have started some sex database which doesn’t sound friendly. The RTAG website still shows Guatemala as being “No” for turning away registrants, but I just can’t go through what happened to me with Colombia last year and Ecuador last month again. It’s heartbreaking.

So I saw that Spain isn’t too very expensive either. It’s more pricey than Latin America, but at this point I just want to go somewhere else a while without hassle. I am super unhappy in the US and the only time I feel happy again and like the man I once was is when I am somewhere else seeing waterfalls and mountains and eating new foods.

I wish we had a forum for registrants to discuss travel.

@America’s MH

Click on the “International Travel after IML Survey” link near the top of this page on the right. There is a lot more discussion about travel there than here in the General Comments.

I am actually afraid to travel for different reasons. I am afraid I will kill myself rather than board a plane back to prison. I loved to travel. Went all over the world. Saw so many amazing things and met awesome people.

The SCOTUS has denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorai in all three cases for POTRs: Bethea, Vasquez and Prison Legal News according to FLA Action Committee.

My fears came true. 🙁 Ugh. Though not necessarily a huge setback, it *is* a huge step ahead lost. It’s looking more and more like the battle will have to be fought in the State Courts of Last Resort and the Appeals Courts. One would hope eventually there are enough divergent opinions for SCOTUS to finally fix the mess it’s created and allowed.

It’ll be interesting, @AJ, to see what NCRSOL said about this decision on their website when I get around to it. Must move onto watching other cases now…

That is so disappointing

We’ve discussed this here before:

Politicians cannot block social media foes: U.S. appeals court

“Circuit Judge James Wynn rejected Randall’s argument that her Facebook page was a private website, saying the “interactive component” was a public forum and that she engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination.”

Interactive component = Public forum…hmmm

Those websites that delete comments may have troubles now if I read this right. I didn’t read the decision but @AJ might before I can.

I haven’t read the opinion (yet), but if it’s the same case I recall from District court, it doesn’t surprise me. My question is: what does that mean if FB is interfering with my right to this forum by preventing my interacting? It’s okay for the host of the public forum to exclude me, but not the speaker at the forum? So the Staples Center can kick me out “just because” if a public official is holding a town hall meeting there? I suppose the Twitter lawsuit will help with this. Personally I see the ubiquity of social media putting the platforms into a corner they will not like.


I agree. These aren’t newspaper and magazine published letter only times anymore (obviously). SM will be cornered here and forced to change in the USA and comply to be more inclusive even when a private company. JM2C

Solution to me is possibly: 1) the public forum needs to have same access via other means, e.g. disqus (which FB doesn’t have) or 2) the public forum needs to be carried elsewhere (on their own website?) to avoid the entire situation (which the politician should do and avoid the FB data mining issue)

This good, at least it is another district court calling these platforms public forums. This says nothing about a private corp like Facebook denying access though. Kind of an oxymoron.

Interesting and informative CA case law Re: Warrentless Search and Expectation of Privacy

I wanted to know your thoughts about this excerpt, and if/how it would/could apply to GPS monitoring while on Parole.

On the other side of the balance are the substantial privacy interests of those affected by parole searches:  “The United States Supreme Court has ․ recognized that ‘the liberty of a parolee ․ includes many of the core values of unqualified liberty,’ and that his ‘condition is very different from that of confinement in a prison.’ ” (Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 530, 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251, quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593.)

  The Burgener court observed that a parolee’s expectation of privacy “is not diminished by the surveillance which is a concomitant of confinement in prison.”  (Burgener, supra, at p. 530, 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251.)

I just read this story and it kinda turned my stomach

She murdered and robbed the guy who paid her to have sex. She claimed she was afraid of him and that’s why she did it. If she killed her pimp I could see that as a reason to gr clemency, but she killed the John who as far as we know just hired a hooker.

How can someone who in cold blood murders a guy by shooting him in the head while his sleeping be free to live her life but those of us on the registry must pay for the rest of ours? I will laugh if she goes to turning tricks and gets arrested for it as she has no work skills.

She was a minor forced into sex-trafficking under a penalty of death. She wasn’t a self-employed sex worker who randomly decided to kill someone. She served 15 years and will have another 10 years of parole when she’s released later this August.

I understand that her pimp has forced her into the life, but does that give her the right to murder a person who isn’t the pimp? I still don’t understand it to be honest.

She shot a sleeping guy in the head then took guns, money and his car. I understand she was trying to escape the pimp, but she could have done the same thing without killing the guy in his sleep.

With the whole celebrity backing she is being made out to be a folk hero to women. I dunno bout you, but at least in Michigan you couldn’t get a degree while locked up. At most you could take GED classes.

I just find it unfair that she murdered someone but was given all of the resources to “rehabilitate” meanwhile anyone on the registry is getting blocked from almost every chance afforded to career criminals who are in and out of jail/prison for some pretty messed up stuff.

The whole system just makes no sense.

Putting a 16-year-old in prison for 15 years is something that wouldn’t happen in any other country in the world I get it a lot of us can probably relate to this guy that doesn’t mean she deserves a chance to do the right thing and learn from this.

I hate the registry but mass incarceration is BS in itself

In other countries you’re also still considered a minor until you’re 19-21.

The US is special in that a 9 year old can be tried as an adult in some states.

Here if it’s for drug trafficking or murder it doesn’t matter the age, you are still sentenced to death. They are trying to change that to life in prison currently though.

Not anymore

“It’s not delaying it — the people spoke on it,” Mr. DeSantis told reporters in Tallahassee, the state capital, on Monday. “But I think it’s got to be implemented the way that the people intended. And I don’t think that they wanted to see any sex offenders fall through the cracks.”

Because she was underage, was “forced” into the life of prostitution, and he was by definition a sex offender. Don’t expect any sympathy for the man.
We are hated, looked upon with contempt, and used to justify every form of abuse by the government.
This will not change, but will get slowly worse. You can kill a family while robbing them and be understood ,” they had a rough childhood”. But look at a picture, pay for sex, trust someone that lies about their age, and forget it. No amount of logic, previous abusive history, while be accepted. We are the witches burned at the stake. Until something more “horrible” comes along, we will be the scum that everyone spits on.
You can fight it, but to me that’s energy wasted.if it changes, great, if it doesn’t , oh well. When it gets worse, fuck it. Just be glad the avg life span is 75 yrs. most of us don’t have too much longer to deal with it. Could you imagine if we lived for over 100 yrs and had to put up with this crap.

Hopefully you’re right about the age thing, 😂😂😂 I never wanna be old enough to have to wear diapers in case of wet fart.

RSOs aren’t allowed to wear adult diapers, part of the non punishment !

Well, this should present a fun new set of challenges.

I’m imagining herding my family through the turnstiles at Wally World only to have it lock on me and rotate in the opposite direction, ejecting me from the park as my kids cry out.

Alexa: Why do Americans so willingly accept these invasions of privacy?

Well it’s a whole host of issues, but we are also subject to “de-platforming” whereby we are removed from ubiquitous free services. Facebook is a good example, but it could be anything. Until we are a protected class any company at any time could simply delete us or refuse us service…

Just thought I would throw this out there,

The state already has in place their own mechanisms for risk assessments and have been conducting them through the Department of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO). The State will not be burdened and will not incur any negative public safety or fiscal impacts by adopting the DAPO regulations that are already in place in determining the likelihood that any individual is susceptible or predisposed to the risk of a sexual re-offense.
PC Sections 290.03 and 290.04, require DAPO to use evidence-based risk assessments and supplemental risk assessments to determine the likelihood of sex offenders to commit a new sex crime, and specifically requires CDCR to use the Static-99 risk assessment tool for adult males; incorporated by reference into the CCR is the Static-99R and the supplemental tools LS/CMI to measure risk of future violence and the STABLE- 2007/ACUTE-2007 to measure dynamic risk factors.

So much for “Ex Post Facto law.” Just call it civil and states have imposed increasingly retroactive penalties on convicted sex offenders under the guise of civil regulatory laws, even after offenders have paid their debts to society. For Mr. Bethea, that means the 10 years he had to originally register as a sex offender is now 30 years. This is so wrong in so may ways!!!

I am not sure what else can be done, so I am going to start writing letters to the SCOTUS justices to bring to their attention that sex offender registration laws affect nearly a million people in the United States and that restrictions/regulations are becoming increasingly PUNITIVE.
We need to make our voices heard!

I think we need to skip scotus and write to the POTUS. He is in desperate need of 5.7billion dollars and we have the place to get it and more. Just need to show the uselessness of the system and the costing and I think he may bite and get rid of all funding for it because it’s a waste of money

Here’s one I sent to Trump back in August 2018. It was in regards to him wanting to parade our military around at some event/something, I forgot.

Mr. President,
It is not necessary to parade our worth to this country or another. Save the money or spend it on something worthwhile.
One thing I am concerned with is the money we spend on keeping track of people who have committed a sex offense. Let me explain.
Originally, the registries were to be used by law enforcement ONLY but has evolved into a shameless “lose federal funding if they don’t succumb” monetary contribution to States, non-rehabilitating counselors, polygraph “technicians” (we all know the polygraphs are useless), and many other organizations profiting from the useless laws.
Originally and to this day, these laws were to “protect children”. It has been proven that registered sex offenders DO NOT commit 95+% of the NEW sex crimes yet they are subject to additional punishment way beyond their sentence (no other criminal is subject to this).
Millions, if not billions, of tax payers money is spent supervising and controlling 95+% of a class of people who will NEVER offend again.
Take this ill-spent money and use it better this Country back to what it used to be… FREE.

Sincerely and with concerns for this Country which is following in Nazi footsteps by isolating and degrading a class of individuals who will never offend again,

What we really need is to use reverse psychology on SCOTUS.

Some needs to file a friend of the court brief to the next sex offender case with something like this:

We demand that writ of Certiorari be denied to this sex offender case. To do otherwise would draw attention to the complete failure of the 9 justices and their 25+ aids to question the false 80% recidivism rate from the trio of 2002 to 2003 sex offender cases including Smith v Doe that Scotus ruled on that has lead to thousands of bad rulings and unconstitional laws against almost a million people. Also, to undue this grave error could lead to the judiciary regaining its role to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public tailored to the individual and circumstances in regards to criminal matters. Certainly the judiciary would rather continue the practice of letting the legislature fill this role with a wide and arbitrary brush and leave us with just 2 effective branches of government.

I mean, how much is the filing fee lol I’m with Chris. File it, make a bunch of hard copies for mail direct to SCOTUS and the help, mass mail to every media outlet you can buy/find a data dump for. I really do like your letter, thanks for Sharing

I cant help but wonder about Gundy v. United States. Nothing has been decided yet, it has been well over a year, and that case does involve some aspect of “Ex Post Facto.” Perhaps they are leaning on the idea that Congress’ delegation of authority to the U.S. attorney general to interpret SORNA violates the nondelegation doctrine. As a result they side stepping other cases that has some connection to it? Just wondering…


Gundy was argued at the start of the most recent term (Oct 2, 2018) and can be followed here:

@July, in my opinion, the central issue in Gundy that SCOTUS chose to focus on is whether Congress properly delegated authority to an executive agency. The decision that SCOTUS eventually renders may or may not affect SORNA, but the happenstance that SORNA is involved at all or that the AG is the executive agent is incidental to the question. In other words, I don’t believe that SCOTUS chose this case because it is a sex offender case or because of the ex post facto issue that Gundy raised. I think they chose it to clarify or further develop something about the non-delegation doctrine.

Regardless, it is unlikely that Bethea or any other sex offender case that SCOTUS has recently denied cert to has anything to do with Gundy. A decision in Gundy would not address anything in Bethea. Besides, when SCOTUS has already granted cert to one case, it is more common for subsequent similar cases that deal with the same issue to be consolidated with the first, or to be relisted repeatedly until the granted case is decided, after which those similar cases are disposed of in accordance with the decided case.

Sorry if that wasn’t the answer you hoped for, but remember, it’s just my opinion, and as likely to be wrong as not.

I just watched Registry Matters 58 on NARSOL and this case interested me:

It’s about challenging conditions of supervision. This case was in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Can the decision be used in other circuits?

@R M:
“This case was in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Can the decision be used in other circuits?”
Without even seeing the case, the answer is: Yes, though its strength depends on the venue. For any Federal (not State) court at or below the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, it’s binding and must be followed. For any other court, it’s persuasive only. That means they can accept or reject it as they see fit, the latter resulting in a possible Circuit split.

Thank you AJ

Decisions in other circuits can always be uses as “persuasive” to influence a similar decision be reached.

Most circuits probably already have similar rulings though. Most agree that conditions of supervised release have to be for good reason and narrowly tailored to the individual. I imagine 99% dont bother challenging bad conditions and just deal with them.

What I find interesting is the judiciary whos major role in government is to deal with the determination of guilt and taylor the sentence to punish, rehab, and protect the public has such restrictions on it but legislators can do whatever they want.

Thanks Chris f

I wonder what the AG has in mind with a five day trial. What is to try for five days????

“For any Federal (not State) court at or below the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, it’s binding and must be followed.”
What’s the exceptions? Are there any exceptions?
That jogged my memory on something, hey AJ do you recall the cases where you stated when the facts of a case change, or there is no longer an emergency, I think it was? the court has to notice or change or whatever.

Do you think I can get by Tandeske and Litmon respectively?

Hopefully AJ has that stuff.

It sounds like you will have to point out that you aren’t a svp, are pointing out issues that are fundamental rights, are making additional challenges that enhance the constitional violation, and there is new evidence that recidivism claims that infected all previous decisions were grossly unfounded and exaggerated and in sharp contrast to California’s own government findings and recommendations. Also point out that issues against a politically powerless and hated group cannot be addressed through a legislature that wants to keep their publicly elected jobs.

Mike r, one of the claims in those cases is that keeping the guy from getting a particular job is not a fundamental right to challenge substantive due process. They reference this:,44&as_vis=1

First, they applied that incorrectly because he did not challenge a particular rational regulation that keeps him from one line of work being a truck driver, he is challenging a broad issue that should have gotten extra scrutiny because it impacts any job requiring travel. In your case, this case is not relevant because you are challenging the fundamental right to work in any job. If you read that case I linked there are good examples of the fundamental right to work.

I hate when they try to use a case as an example hoping the judge will agree and rubber stamp it when all it takes is reading the case to see it is BS and should be grounds for contempt of court for deceptively trying to trick the judge.

@mike r:
1. The AG has to give an estimate on the length of trial. I seriously doubt five days are actually envisioned, but is instead padding for contingencies and unexpected events. It probably won’t take more than a day or two. As with most things governmental, better to pad and yield time than underestimate and tick off the judge for backing up his docket.

2. There are no exceptions to which courts are binding on which. See page 5 of for a cheat-sheet.

3. Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543 (1924),

Look in EVA, too, for cases that have used it. From what I see, CA last cited it in 2008 and the 9th last cited it in 2003. It’s still in use as recently as 2017, so it does carry force. Is the wording of it applicable here? I don’t know, but I bet you get a judge’s attention with the concept…especially if a sympathetic judge who isn’t such a fan of Smith. The beauty of this case is the crucial words are in the Holding itself, not in later dicta, so the AG cannot dismiss its validity as was done with Weems. Also, given there is no dissenting opinion, only partial concurrence, the case has to have been a majority decision (I’ve looked around, but cannot find a headcount on the handful of sites I tried). A possible weakness of the case is it may only apply to commercial regulation. There doesn’t appear any such limitation in the Opinion, just my gut feeling.

I can guarantee the AG will say the circumstances still exist…some POTRs do re-offend. I think your argument needs to be that the “facts” of “frightening and high” recidivism, if it ever existed, does not exist…as CASOMB data consistently demonstrates. As well, the recidivism is actually *below* “out of the blue” offense rates. Whether that’s enough to overcome rubber-stamp (i.e. rational basis) review, who knows.

4. I’m not sure what you mean with “get by” those two cases. I don’t recall what they say, but if you explain your question, I’ll see if I can manage an opinion.

My kids and I started reading Divergent together and last night this passage stood out for me,

“What if they tell me that I’m not cut out for any faction? I would have to live on the streets, with the factionless. I can’t do that. To live factionless is not just to live in poverty and discomfort; it is to live divorced from society, separated from the most important thing in life: community.”

Society will never equate sex offenders as an equal. They will always look down on them and think less of them. No amount of contrition or atonement will matter because they will never trust or respect “those people.”

It doesn’t matter if you think (or know) you’re a good person and your family can attest to this. The cops and public will simply claim they are in denial.

all I can say is ,he who is without sin, cast the first stone

Using a biblical passage to a bunch of bible thumpers to explain their hypocracy is amusing to say the least.

This part of that case is disturbing, claims the privacy act is only enforceable against federal agencies.

The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning applies squarely to the present case, and we are persuaded by it. Although the prohibitions of § 7(a)(1) apply to all governmental entities, including state and local governments, by limiting the scope of the Privacy Act’s civil remedy provision, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g), Congress clearly intended to “foreclose private enforcement” against any entity other than federal agencies. Admittedly, this reasoning leaves individuals, such as Plaintiff, without a means of enforcing § 7(a)(1) against state and local officials. However, were we to hold that Plaintiff could pursue a Privacy Act claim under § 1983, we would circumvent the intent of Congress that the rights secured by the Privacy Act be enforceable only against federal agencies.

I think the following brings the issue out of just federal agencies and into the private areas, so I overcome this on different grounds in the following. This is also a later statute, so according to the court, this later section, if it conflicts with the older version, this section rules. And yes, this is a bar on any and all occupations at the discretion of the employers.

California statute unconstitutionally permits Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies (ICRA), and any employers, to use Registry information “to protect a person at risk” This is wholly subjective and leaves employers and ICRAs unfettered discretion to use the registry to deny Plaintiff employment solely because he is a “registered” sex offender.
California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) follows the Federal Consumer Reporting Act’s general seven-year rule as the limit for reporting most negative information on an employment background check.

I believe this is no longer true, correct anyone?????????

“Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Nielsen’s actions violated the Privacy Act. As discussed, “[t]he civil remedy provisions of the [Privacy Act] do not apply against private individuals, state agencies, private entities, or state and local officials.” Unt, 765 F.2d at 1447 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Privacy Act provides Plaintiff with no private cause of action against Nielsen in either her personal or her official capacity.”

I just had a really cheeky idea. The website for the whitehouse and a section to email the president. Maybe we can start emailing and snail mailing him a solution to his financing problem and suggest that the government prove without a shadow of a doubt that the registry is worth keeping. Along with all the costing for the registry.

I have emailed the white house every week since oct 1st. Saying how wrong the adam walsh act and the registry is unconstitutional. Ive also been putting complains in with the attorney general. I have even stated i will not stop writing until they listen. Probably a waste of time but it makes me feel better

Can ANYONE tell me why a misdemeanor non contact internet offense cannot be expunged. It makes absolutely no sense! Drug dealers get it, gang members get it, yet a person with a college degree, no previous criminal history, and no probation issues can’t.

If it involved $EX in any way, that is the answer.

Sure, and how many drug dealers use sex as payment for drug payment! How come pimps aren’t classified as sex offenders……..
and you are wrong. Because mine involved no sex, no contact (verbal or physical), simply looking at a photograph is cause enough.

Listen neither Will nor I are registry defenders but you lookng at CP is a crime. It always annoys me when someone with a non contact offense justifies their behavior with well hey I didnt touch anyone.

My conviction was for an inappropriate conversation, no pictures, no contact but that doesnt mean I didnt break the law.

Like will said if it had to do with sexthey will cook you. I am in washington State and if you have two convictions for promoting prostitution aka pimping you have to register as a sex offender too

Burnt Out ~ Unfortunately, nobody will be able to answer that question for you since nothing that has to do with “sex” offenses ever made sense or will ever make sense. Per the law, if you went to prison, you can’t get the offense expunged and would need to apply for a COR. For certain offenses, you went to jail for and got probation, you still can’t get them expunged, and those offenses are listed somewhere. I agree, it makes no sense. Maybe, you can try for a COR?

Wow, look at this, apparently it is the onerous of the court to formulate a substantive due process claim on the basis of the language of the complaint and the language of the statute at issue if the claim is not sufficiently formulated. At least that is what I am understanding with this case. Look at the paragraph immediately following that statement and it spells it out with no ambiguity, it is just to much to post here I think. The court has to formulate the claim for you if not narrowly and precisely stated, this could go either way I think. IDK still reading this. Interesting.

“The Supreme Court “require[s] in substantive-due-process
cases a ‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental
liberty interest.” Id. at 721. Accordingly, we must formulate
the asserted right by carefully consulting both the scope of the
challenged regulation and the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations.
See, e.g., id. at 723–24 (consulting the text of the challenged
state statute in reformulating the asserted right); Collins v.
City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (“It is
important, therefore, to focus on the allegations in the
complaint to determine how petitioner describes the
constitutional right at stake . . . .”).”

Here is just one following para,

“For example, in Flores, 507 U.S. at 297, a class of
juvenile detainees challenged a regulation that permitted their
release to a parent, close relative, or legal guardian generally
but permitted their release to others only in certain
circumstances. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’
characterization of the right to “freedom from physical
restraint” as too broad and concluded that “the right at issue
is the alleged right of a child who has no available parent,
close relative, or legal guardian, and for whom the
government is responsible, to be placed in the custody of a
willing-and-able private custodian rather than of a
government-operated or government-selected child-care
institution.” Id. at 302”

Yeah it is exactly how I stated. Maybe that is why the court was so frustrated in Conn v because they could not even formulate any claim under substantive process since the claimants denied specifically, for some lame reason, any substantive claim… That was an interesting case for sure…

Seems to me that Every Citizens Address should be “protected” not made public. Anyone else will tell you it puts them and their families in danger if their Address were to be made public.
I think it would be a significant blow to the Registry.
I also think that blanket law of Felons not allowed to own firearms is Horse Shit and Unconstitutional. I’d really like the opportunity to protect my kids and myself from psychopaths.

Did you forget? We are less than citizens and Barely human😂😂😂

Actually, our votes will never matter in Florida (or anywhere else) anyway. Why? Both parties don’t care about us because we’re used exclusively to garner votes and catapult the fear propaganda. They claim the registry is a “valuable public safety too” which is fraudulent statement and the lie sold to the public. It’s actually nothing more than a reelection campaign tool.

I no longer have any love for country or community.

I’ve long thought that politicians who say “$EX offender” are not going to get any votes because of it (because, who isn’t against “$EX offenders”?!). It won’t help them but it can definitely hurt them. I have voted against people exclusively because of it. I have also gotten heavily involved in some political races and I’m sure I affected them. I got an incumbent mayor of a local city voted out. After the election I told him exactly how I did it and that it was exclusively because of his “$EX offender” lies. THAT was extremely satisfying.

I definitely would encourage people who are listed on the Registries to find ways to make people pay for the Registries. I cause these politicians trouble a lot. I work to keep money away from law enforcement all the time. Based on the platform that they are overpaid and never compete in the free market. They are ALWAYS looking for too much. And running their drug businesses.

You said, “I no longer have any love for country or community.” Personally, I think that is actually the main effect of the Registries. The harassers who support the Registries might try to say that’s not a big deal but they are wrong, as they usually are.

Need help or clarification

I am filing for reduction of a 311.1(a) in Santa Clara Co.
I rec’d form from clerk, and there are two sections that seem incorrect. Section 7 says even though If I am granted reduction, I can never own ,possess, operate firearm. I thought that was reserved for violent offenses.
The second is that it says anyone that is 290 can not receive a reduction.
I personally know of others that have received reduction with same conviction.
Is this an old form/wrong form?

I downloaded from county site.

@Readytofight, agreed, we will see if our addresses are a private interest. I am also going after my gun rights after this….

“In Paul, the Court did not address whether the accused’s home address was a privacy interest. An individual’s domicile holds, “special consideration in our Constitution, laws. and traditions.”” United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 U.S. 487 (1994)

“If Plaintiff is found to have a protectable privacy interest with respect to his current address information and to the non-disclosure of scattered pieces of a public records and personal information, then Plaintiff likely can prevail that his interest in privacy is greater than the state’s interest in dissemination.” It is in the State’s interest to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional liberties, Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012).

@AJ, Litmon is irrelevant sorry, I mean the AG thought it is relevant but it is not…
This is basically the only thing the Tandeske court stated, the decision was like two or three paragraphs.
“Because we do not believe that Glucksberg and Smith permit us to reach any other result in this case, we conclude that the Alaska law does not violate the Does’ rights to substantive due process.”

Weak decision to say the least. I think I have it handled pretty well.
You know Obergefell really turned the fundamental right principle upside down. It used to be it was a bottom up approach, in other words, starting with whether the narrow circumstance violated any fundamental rights according to the Glucksberg standard. This foreclosed anything that Glucksberg precluded. In the top down approach that Kennedy used in Obergefell, the starting point was the broadest meaning of a fundamental right, in other words, can the issue be considered even in the realm of a fundamental right, then if it is, the court then looks at the broadest meaning of that right in the constitution, and if the statute interferes or conflicts with that broader meaning then it is suspect, and all this determines the level of scrutiny and deference to the legislature.

It is kind of complex but not really. Kennedy’s methodology defined at a relatively higher level of generality what are fundamental rights, therefore expanding those rights considerably. He basically said that everyone has a right to marry regardless who it is or what the circumstances were. This put the onus on the state to prove that the law was needed and justified first off, and if it was, then that it was narrowly tailored. The court did not even need to reach the second question because the state could not even justify the law to begin with…. Interesting…

The original New Jersey case Doe v Poritz is a really good read, long but extremely good. Suggested reading for sure. I know I should have already read it, but I just scanned through it before. It really takes a careful reading to understand and appreciate the claims.

This CASOMB pamphlet states exactly practically verbatim what the Taylor court said was the most significant factor in determining the irrationality of the residency restrictions. And CASOMB represents “every” state and private authorities and agencies connected as compared to the limited CDCR task force and crap. This is the entity specifically and statutorily created for the sole purpose of recommendations to CA state legislature and any other state agency that may use the info. This on top of everything else.
Done deal. This is perfect for CA court anyone???? This pamphlet is going to be great to pass out to jurors if I get that far, along with a very detailed PowerPoint presentation. It s going to be interesting when I present just the following to the court just like laid out here the next chance I get.

CASOMB Pamphlet,
“a) Spending money on lifetime registration for low risk offenders takes away essential law enforcement resources that could keep communities safer from high risk offenders.
b) Data shows public notifications an extremely cost-ineffective way to reduce future sex offenses.
c) Resources that fail to enhance public safety take funding away from other rehabilitation and reintegration programs, as well as from victim services and prevention initiatives, that may better protect communities.”
Creating barriers or preventing offenders from obtaining housing, employment and services actually increases the risk of reoffending. When reentering the community, sex offenders face many challenges that can cause their lives to be unstable, including:
a) inability to create prosocial peer networks
b) being ostracized
c) being the targets of violence
d) difficulties finding jobs or housing
Instability can put them at greater risk to reoffend.
These laws were intended to help protect our communities – but we now know these laws do not actually do what they were intended to do. Instead, registration and notification may have unintended consequences that actually reduce our safety.

The increased incidence of homelessness has in turn hampered the surveillance
and supervision of such parolees, thereby thwarting the legitimate governmental
objective behind the registration statute (§ 290) to which the residency restrictions attach;
that of protecting the public from sex offenders. (See Wright v. Superior Court (1997)
15 Cal.4th 521, 527.) The Task Force‟s final report concluded that the Jessica‟s Law‟s residency restrictions failed to improve public safety, and instead compromised the effective monitoring and supervision of sex offender parolees, placing the public at greater risk. A specific finding was made that “[h]omeless sex offenders put the public at risk. These offenders are unstable and more difficult to
supervise for a myriad of reasons.” (Task Force, Rep., supra, p. 17.) The report further
found that homelessness among sex offender parolees weakens GPS tracking, making it
more difficult to monitor such parolees and less effective overall. CDCR has conceded in
its briefs before this court that “[t]he evidence . . . demonstrated that the dramatic
increase in homelessness has a profound impact on public safety,” and that “there is no
dispute that the residency restriction[s] [have] significant and serious consequences that
were not foreseen when it was enacted.”

“Trump signs law to pump $430 million into anti-human trafficking efforts” “Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act allows $430 million in federal funds for trafficking prevention and education, victim protection and stronger government prosecution of traffickers through 2022.” This was another law brought to us by Chris Smith, House Republican, New Jersey.

“Since the International Megan’s Law was passed, 3,442 people have been denied entry into the U.S. or other countries, according to Smith’s office.”

Chris Smith probably has a big neon sign with flashing numbers on the wall of his office “3442 denied and counting”. I’m really not happy that I am one of them.

We shouldn’t HAVE to prove in court “actual harm cause” by being listed on the registry. Just being listed ONLINE is an act of aggression and a threatening gesture. It’s a wanton act of malice because those whose names and addresses that are listed Online (all occupants of said domicile) is self-proving of actual harm by making ALL inhabitants sitting ducks and soft targets for random acts of violence. It’s an assault on human rights AND common sense. It’s a blatant disregard for human life.

Yep. It is an act of war carried out by a criminal regime. Enemies of all good Americans.

Yes, it’s call “reckless disregard” and “deliberate indifference.” Look it up, it is a doctrine…

I heard on a public radio news program where the U.S. government has approved over 300 requests for visas to bring adolescents to the U.S. for purposes of marriage. A 49 yr old man was allowed to bring a 15 yr old girl to U.S.

How can this be? Where is the consistency. I ask this of Janice. Why can’t info like this be used to show the hypocrisy of the laws in place.

There is a disgusting video of an officer punching a registrants brother in florida thinking he was the registrant. Look it up on google city of stillwater. Thankfully the ring doorbell caught it and the family haa the grounds for a nice lawsuit

“Fraidy Reiss, who campaigns against coerced marriage as head of a group called Unchained at Last, researched data from her home state of New Jersey. She determined that nearly 4,000 minors, mostly girls, were married in the state from 1995 to 2012, including 178 who were under 15.”

I have not read the following yet, but once again, WTF,

“Leader of global child porn ring killed in prison beating” [Michigan]
” At his sentencing, a female victim forecasted Maire’s demise, the Detroit News reported.

“He’s gonna get the hell beat out of him,” the now-20-year-old seethed.” “It’s a horrible tragedy and it seems something like this should have been able to be avoided,” Maire’s lawyer Mark Kriger told the Detroit News.” Yes, there is a way to avoid it. That’s precisely why it wasn’t taken.

And people call this a civilized country, yeah right. Barbaric prison industry still. You know they probably set this guy up in the first place. Just as they tried to do to me back in reception by putting a big ass 300 pound monster in my cell who that just beat the shit out of his last celly. Then they left me standing outside at 3 am at Wasco for three hours in the middle of the winter at 20 degrees or less in a paper jumpsuit while everyone else went inside. I had to start yelling and screaming and pounding on doors before i froze to death before they finally let me in and got me a cell. Barbaric I tell you.

My poor wife is doing her occasional panic about her colleagues, or kids, or our kid’s classmates finding out about my past. Ugh. I know it’s hard on her, but this stress is really killing me, too. Like anyone else, RC or not, she hates that it’s so easy to find out virtually anything about anyone., White, etc. list all your family, past addresses and more for free. The more you pay, the more info you get. My wife and I don’t share the same name and she’s especially bothered by her name being listed with mine on these sites ( we are after all, married). So, she has me filling out the opt-out forms on all these sites that offer one.
Has anyone else taken steps to control the amount of personal info online? Have you had success?
Have you flooded your personal and professional socials with good info to suppress the bad?
This article outlines some helpful steps, but we’ll see if the web sites honor my requests to be forgotten.

Man, if it weren’t for our kids, I’d be gone and let her move on with her life, but we both know that I’m a good dad and our little ones are better off with me in their lives and that a divorce would do way more harm to their young psyches than any measurable amount if good.

A free guide to removal from online databases. He also has information on being more private.

Thanks, Bo.

Your family will come out stronger from this. Plus they are learning compassion for others. I wish then the brst of luck.

I live in Orange County (CA). Trying to move to another apartment when my lease runs out and keep running into Realtors who are “listing agents” for rental apartments. They all seem to use the CAR’s Application to Rent/Screening forms. On the form is a question that says “Has applicant or any proposed occupant ever been convicted of or pleaded no contest to a felony?”. Is that even legal? I haven’t filled one out yet because I figure it’s a sure “no” and they charge $35 to even apply. And, I’ve been out for 8 years but I’m on lifetime supervision (for a CP charge). Currently trying to get off supervision but was just in court requesting early release and told to wait two more years. I know they can’t ask about felony’s on job applications but didn’t realize they could ask on housing applications?

Good luck with that. I’d suggest finding a place well in advance. And plan on spending $$$ on denied application fees.
Last time I got in out that way, I let them know up front that I had a felony from at the time 15 yrs ago. The manager laughed and said no problem 🤷🏼‍♂️ but it really comes down to the company they use for background checks…..I really wish it was illegal to use someone’s record against them.

Housing ~ I would stay away from apartments and rather look on Craigslist for a condo that is rented by an owner. Condos are often cheaper than apartments. Would your current landlord give you a recommendation, and do you have a credit report? We had just requested a credit report and I told our landlord they can use that one rather than running a new and showed them the rental references. They never ran a background check and often don’t even look at the rental application where the felony question is.

Here in Seattle landlords cannot ask about your criminal history.

Sadly they can deny you if you are a sex offender but 65% of our registrants are level ones and non public so they wouldn’t know and would have some trouble to go through.


I’m an RC in California, not on the public site…

I’m considering taking a vacation with the family (wife and 2 teenage kids) this summer and wanted to confirm any requirements at my destination. I want to spend about a week total in New York city with a side trip into New Jersey.

I took a look at the travel matrix and I think it’s saying that with my time frame I don’t need to worry about either of those 2 states. Don’t need to do anything and can just go there like normal. Is that correct?

I want to go show the family my old alma mater in Jersey and the sights in NYC. My oldest will graduate high school next year so this summer is the last chance.

Any insight is appreciated. Need to know what I’d be in for before I start making plans.


Hello friend. That is correct, you only would need to notify CA if you traveled out of country. Since you are in Ny less than 10 days, you’re good. Enjoy Your trip

Fudge… My concern was if I was going to trip any registration requirements in NJ or NY. I never considered that I might need to notify CA I was leaving. Thankfully it seems that I don’t. But still… fudge that crap.

It sickens me that this is even something we have to think about. How is this not unconstitutional? Even after we’ve served any sentence we still have to worry about things like this. Nobody else does.

A core principal of American justice was that once you have served your time, completed your punishment, you were back to a normal citizen again. What happened to that? Is there no way back?

Exactly. Any “requirement” to do anything is unacceptable. To any American. War must be waged on anyone who supports that. The worst thing that we can do is allow them to live in peace. It is undeserved.

Make sure you don’t go over that grace period in NY… otherwise you will have to register in two states yearly, getting you a level on the tier system in New York could take about a year though. So not even sure how that would work. I’m still trying to figure out how to get removed after moving out of the country.

If you cross a state line you come under federal jurisdiction under Adam Walsh Act. You need to research that, but even calling I had no definitive answer.

Those persons who have been convicted of state sex offenses do not become liable for the failure to register unless they cross state lines, thereby becoming “instrumentalities” of interstate commerce making use of the interstate transportation routes which are the “channels” of such commerce. Vasquez, 611 F.3d at 330 (citing Ambert, 561 F.3d at

Not every state is compliant with AWA. I told my sheriffs office im going next state and they said they didnt need to know

The only thing you should do is notify your local registration office that you’ll be out for whatever period of time and then again when you return. You shouldn’t have to do anything when you actually visit either of the mentioned states.

By CA, you actually need to notify your local office anytime you’ll be away from your registered address for more than 5 consecutive days, even if you’re still in the state the entire time.

Is this in 290? Never seen it. Do you have a link to the section?

AO ~ I have never heard of anything stating that you have to notify LE if you will be gone for longer than 5 days, and we are also in CA. To my knowledge, there is nothing in 290 stating this, and there surely isn’t anything on the annual registration form that is signed. If you have any valid information that confirms what you are stating, please share it with the rest, but I just can’t see this being true.

My registration officer said I must notify them if I am away more than 5 days. I think I have that on one of the form, I’ll look and see. I certainly don’t remember anything saying that in 290PC. It just says if you change residences, you must notify them in 5 days.

Don’t rely on the word of the registering officer. One told me I had two weeks, another said one week. The latest is that the office is open 4 days a week, that means a week has 4 business days, so you got a calendar week and a day into the next week to register. It is like they believe if they make it so confusing, the bad guys will be like so not knowing what the cops are going to do, and they will just give up and not molest anyone. They don’t call that office SMART for nothing.

The 93% of someone who knows the child is still making its way around as read in the article below. I say tell that to a parent or someone else who is in the 93% during a town hall and watch them flip.

How to Teach ‘Stranger Danger’ With Facts Instead of Fear (

I’m sorry for asking each month, but has anyone traveled to Germany or Austria recently? I am finishing probation and will be graduating from grad school in May of this year and would like to go on a vacation. I know that if i can get in, I can stay within the Schengen counties for 90 days. Has anyone stayed longer? Any issues with a visa? Any info would be much appreciated.


Another win for privacy…

What say you @AJ?

Feds Can’t Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules

1 2 3