ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  May 25, June 22, July 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

Action ItemsCaliforniaMeetings / Events

ACSOL Meeting in Berkeley on Saturday, Feb 23

Please mark your calendars for ACSOL’s upcoming meeting in Berkeley:
Saturday, Feb 23
10 a.m.
Finnish Hall (upstairs meeting room)
1970 Chestnut Street
Berkeley

Attendance is limited to individuals required to register, family members, and friends.

Media, law enforcement, parole, etc. are not allowed to attend meetings.

The meetings start at 10 am and last about 2-3 hours. Topics of conversation include information about ACSOL’s advocacy as well as current topics and pending legal action.

Please Show up, Stand up, and Speak up!

Join the discussion

  1. Bay Area RSO

    Were there law enforcement and media coverage the last few meetings?

    • Janice Bellucci

      Media, law enforcement, parole, etc. are not allowed to attend meetings. Attendance is limited to individuals required to register, family members, and friends.

      • BM

        Everyone wants to know what is going on with the fight of the international law?

      • mike r

        This is a mistake if you ask me, of course no one has asked me and we know what they say about opinions. Lol. To me certain screened law enforcement representatives and screened parole representatives should be allowed in limited circumstances as it may very well educate them and may even turn them to our side. No media though….

        • mike r

          Yeah, it is probably best that no law enforcement, parole, or media attend anyways. No telling what would happen and who may not show up because they are there.

        • Will Allen

          One of my favorite things to do is get in the face of a law enforcement criminal or similar psycho and making fun of them mercilessly for their lame, colossal failure that is the Registries. I just really, really enjoy it. They have no defense at all and are just weak. It is like confronting a stupid, helpless child. I love it but I certainly do think they could get in the way of having good, productive meetings.

        • RegistrantNotAnOffender

          If you want people to talk freely, not having law enforcement and politicians there is preferred.

      • R M

        Media, law enforcement, parole, etc do not care as long as they receive a paycheck or until one of them is affected.

  2. BM

    What is going on with the worst International law which effects so many people in the whole country, not only in CA?

    • Janice Bellucci

      We have unsuccessfully challenged the International Megan’s Law twice in California. We are now looking for other locations where we might be able to find a more rational answer. We are encouraged by the recent decision in Alabama and need to see if it is affirmed by the 11th Circuit.

      • David Kennerly

        Janice, yes, the Alabama decision would seem to make quick work of the passport marking. What about the notification of foreign governments through Angel Watch, et al?

        • TS

          @NDIK, et al,

          Could this ruling (or an appealed and upheld ruling of this ruling) then be possibly applied to a state DL/ID marking scheme in a state where the scheme (there is that word again) was challenged already but from a different angle perhaps, e.g. say OK, FL, or other marked DL/ID state (or maybe at the same time to create a possible circuit split)? Just thinking for other applications (and applying lessons @AJ has taught us here)

        • David

          @ TS: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has jurisdiction over federal cases originating in the states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia.
          I believe, therefore, that a decision before the 11th Judicial Court would apply equally to all three of those States (Alabama, Florida and Georgia) regardless of from which State the case originated.

        • TS

          @David

          You missed the point. The District decision is binding in that district and could be in the 11 CCoA if upheld there. However, in the meantime, this District decision could possibly be used, much the 6th CCoA, Muniz in PA, and CO District decisions are referenced, in other DL/ID cases unless designated otherwise. It is about gathering as much that is applicable and using it which I believe this case could do at this time even at this level; hence my question. If the 11th CCoA upholds it, then all the more power to the decision and applicability.

        • David

          @ TS: Thanks for the clarification. I really hope that you are correct so maybe the decisions can be used to bolster a lawsuit against the IML identifiers being placed on US passports.

        • TS

          @AJ

          Would you please chime in here for clarity?

        • AJ

          @TS:
          I’m not sure I’m “clarity guy” but I certainly have thoughts. To me, the AL decision absolutely will help in other places. The AL decision used long, repeated SCOTUS decisions regarding First Amendment issues surrounding compelled speech and Free Speech and will be tough for the State to overcome. I personally don’t think they can, given Becerra v. NIFLA re-affirming the rules behind compelled speech–even factual speech.

          In the OK case, the RC failed to raise the 1st Amendment issue in a timely manner (see: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1881022.html). In the original suit, he only raised claims based on the 8th and 14th Amdts. Given the 10th CCoA denied his attempt to add in the 1st Amdt. claim, the OK case fails comparison (and is ripe for re-file with the AL decision).

          I’ll need a refresher on any FL case(s) that may be out there on marked DLs/IDs. In short, if they went the punitive angle, it’s a lost cause. Going after the 1st Amdt. angle, however, automatically means the court uses heightened scrutiny and the burden is on the State not only to justify the law, but (depending on level of scrutiny used) to show it’s properly tailored and/or restricted. Obviously if the 11th affirms this decision, FL’s marked licenses are at risk. I say “at risk” because the judge wavered a little bit and downplayed the speech on the FL licenses in his examples. However, given even something non-linguistic such as art is considered speech, I believe one could argue that no matter what the State puts on a license, it’s compelled speech. That nobody may understand what that speech of a Statute or the letter “Y” may mean is, to my understanding, immaterial. The harm is the Government compelling the citizen to speak, *not* whether the speech is “heard” by anyone. In Wooley v. Maynard, the harm was that the license plate conveyed a message with which the owner disagreed; it made no difference whether anyone *else* ever saw the message, let alone disagree with it.

          As for IML, I think in time this case will be helpful to challenge the PP marking. A “lowly” District Court ruling, however proper, will probably be an inadequate weapon to challenge IML. Better to wait until its been through the 11th and bounced off or through SCOTUS. Sadly, that means a few more years. Then again, someone in this same AL District could launch an IML challenge, relying upon this decision. That could perhaps short-circuit the process of waiting on the higher Courts to rule on this case. Instead running serially, this one would run in parallel dependence.

        • TS

          Thank you @AJ for the info WRT AL District Court decision. Very helpful.

      • Anonymouse

        Oh. I was under the impression the first (substantive) law suit was dismissed due to non-standing. That was a long time ago. That was before the actual revocation of passports, before the Alabama case, before the public rewarding of other countries for turning away travelers due to active notification by the US, before people getting arrested for not giving 21 day notice. Etc etc.

        Times have changed. The lawsuit is written. One assumes it was, at the time, the best effort by the best attorney on this subject.

        Why not simply take it out of the moth balls – with a few additions?

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          I believe that the thinking is that we got slapped-down twice so instead we would just let the adverse consequences continue to build and, hopefully, favorable rulings in registry-related cases accumulate until we have a solid case against them and then re-file when our case is completely solid. Perhaps then we will also have a broader coalition of civil liberties organizations to help. Yes, it’s bitterly disappointing for me personally as I was effectively grounded and my livelihood ended as a result of IML which really started in a more modest form several years before the law finally passed. My passport lapsed more than a year ago and I have no plans to apply for a new one. One thing that caught my eye in the recent story about the U.S. State Department awarding The Philippines brownie points for refusing registrants was their statement that they would add refused visitors to a “blacklist” so that they could never re-enter The Phils. That’s exactly why I never tried to travel after I became aware that we were being ratted-out by our own government, knowing that refusals would result in such blacklists.

        • Anonymouse

          @NDIK – The first lawsuit I did not understand “got slapped down”. I understood “you may have a point, but you are hasty, so come back when your complaint is real”. Seems that time has come.

          That is what I understand the difference between “not ripe” and “rejected on merits” to be. But maybe it is a good thing in showing how punitive the whole thing is.

  3. Opressed

    Hello;
    I am fresh out of incarceration and my Probation officer says that I am disallowed attending an ACSOL meeting because it would violate the conditions of my probation by “hanging out with other sex offenders”. Is this true? We have to forego our first amendment rights to peacefully gather? Or is this just while on Probation? Thanks in advance…

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      It’s just while you’re on probation. It’s unfair but you are pretty much at their mercy while you’re on paper.

    • E

      Might I suggest participating in the Phone mtg. if you feel that is beneficial to you.
      May I add, welcome to the next chapter of your life. Do your best to leave the past in the past.

  4. Opressed

    Thanks guys. I figured that was the case. But yet we can go to treatment with other SO’s. Doesnt help that I have 10 years supervised release. I can’t believe this nightmare we are all living. And sadly it looks like any releif is going to be long fought/hard won. I feel like I’m living in George Orwells 1984 nightmare and its not far from the truth. The stories on here- heartbreaking and I want so badly to stand up and fight for this ridiculous injustice. I met SO many others- normal people who lost their lives because they clicked the wrong thing or were entrapped by over-zealous police stings. Its completely bonkers!!! How did we get here?!?! I would say I’m angry but I got over that after the first couple of years. Now I want to act! I refuse to let this become my reality! I will be donating to ACSOL regularly so that they can fight for me since I cant be present… And when I’m off probation I will volunteer any way I can. To everyone: hang in there and fight! Thanks for your posts – they have helped me so much.

    • Will Allen

      Glad you are out of jail.

      I would tell your probation officer that ACSOL is not about “hanging out” with anyone. I would tell him/her that it is actually a political action group. It is no different than a pro-life, anti-abortion, or any other political group. So I think I’d frame it differently by asking my probation officer if I am allowed to participate in politics or not. Because that’s what it is really about. Then if you really care, you might take it in front of a judge one day and frame it like that.

      But also, I wouldn’t minimize the crimes that people who are listed on the Registries have committed. I would say that most listed people have committed some serious crime. Don’t know, but I wouldn’t minimize it. The fact is that Registries are stupid and useless even for repeat child molesters. They just are.

      I really, really believe that if I had a repeat child molester that I wanted to molest children again, that listing that person on the Registries is a good way to help achieve that. I’m sure that’s true. In fact, I’ve often wondered if that is not the real purpose of the Registries – to get the people who are listed on them to commit crimes in order to imprison them as much as possible. In that case, Registries make some sense to me.

      Lastly, I wouldn’t call people “sex offenders”. That is what people want to call you. It’s inaccurate. Don’t allow it and don’t do it.

      Good luck!

      • TS

        Political action group? ACSOL is more like an advocacy organization that does many things for those impacted by sex offender laws including political, legal, and humanitarian actions.

    • RegistrantNotAnOffender

      Glad you’re out. I got out in November and it gets better. My PO is awful but she usually leaves me alone, shes visited my house once

  5. Robert Curtis

    An interesting way to find freedom if you as a registrant have no anchors to speak of…why not just buy a van, truck w/camper or small RV and travel? To be real stealth at it get a mini van or just have a shell on our truck for our situation is best. I was at the 2019 RTR -Rubber Tramp Rondeview (YouTube it)…. While in NV. a cop told me their 48 hour requirement was applied county by county not state wide. These are things to considered. In AZ. It’s a 10 day requirement which was nice bc I could stay a while without having to register. Florida I believe is state-wide. I was a commercial truck driver for a short time…wonder how that works for cross country drivers in Florida? Knowing how the laws are enforced and applied is important.

Leave a Reply

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

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

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

.