ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 16 – Sacramento, Dec 14 – Phone | details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

General Comments April 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of April 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional comment.

Join the discussion

  1. bill

    anyone have new updates on recent Mi, Snyder II or any info on a time frame on a decision, or anything as to how long before something happens with this mess!??? Thanks.

    • Bobby

      @Bill, I asked the same thing on the Michigan page yesterday. Josh said so far everything is quite on the home front. I have even tried contacting the ACLU, but I guess they are tired if hearing from me, because all they keep saying is, we understand your frustration, but we are still working with the legislature to get everyone a better deal. My thing is the ore- sorna people have already won. So let’s fix our situation first then worry about people that are post-sorna. In my opinion I think we have waited long enough, its time to stop talking and taking action against Michigan and the Michigan State Police, by using USC 42 1983. I will be 50 June 2nd and I’ve been doing this crap since I was 23, according by registration start date. I think it’s time for them to shit up and start doing something about it, even Michigan’s Supremes, said the State of Michigan is violating the the Constitution and as court order by the 6th Circuit.

      • bill

        Thanks Bobby, I’ve called them myself and that’s the same thing they keep telling me, and if I take legal action myself I wouldn’t be part of the ongoing cases(that doesn’t seem right to me)??? I talk to a lawyer a few times and he said $5000, but maybe some kind of class ?? With more, but he hasn’t called me back?? You may want to try calling him? David Herskovic 1 248 356 2010 said he has worked on this case?

        • Josh

          I don’t think taking action and filing something on your own or having an attorney do it would disqualify you from the class action. I have a attorney working on my behalf and I haven’t been removed from Does II lawsuit. If you are financially able, then I would suggest getting a lawyer and filing in federal all reports that is where real results can be had…the prevailing thought conveyed to me was that no judge at the district state level will do anything to help us until Does II is decided..obviously for election reasons…it’s really strange though, just how quiet everything has been the last couple of weeks

      • mike r

        “by using USC 42 1983”
        Amen to that, Why this is not happening is beyond logic. Even the state prosecutor stated they have no defense against such a claim. Hate to say it, but stupid or ignorant sheeple or something. Even pro bono lawyers should be jumping on this, major monetary damages for every day on the reg. illegally, and legal fees…

        • Josh

          @Mike r
          I don’t know why people aren’t lining up for this either other than it’s got to be a money issue. Given that many of us have a nearly impossible time finding meaningful or lucrative jobs it kinda stands to reason…most lawyers want 5-10 grand for retainers and most people don’t have that just laying around. I think that the other reason is that people are waiting for the Aclu to do it for free for us and we’ve all seen how that’s playing out almost 20 months later…as to pro-bono lawyers I got nothing on that…I have had a quality attorney for 3 years that is willing to take on sex offender cases and has gotten several people off Michigan’s registry. I can only afford this attorney because of generous relatives….it took a lot of research to find a attorney because for some reason even lawyers don’t want much to do with people of our “ilk”….we have filings in the works right now and I will let people know how they turn out..

    • Shuan Hladki

      This is the response I got today

      “At this point of course we are asking for shorter registration terms and many other changes. I am not in a position to say what the final outcome will be”

  2. Bo

    So, in my exploration of CPRA, I have found that my record of registration in California is actually part of my arrest record, which as far as california is concerned, I dont have any arrests in.

    If registration is part of a civil regulatory scheme, how can they place my registrations under an arrest record. What would we need to do, to remove law enforcement from being in control of a civil matter?

    I think most people here would say it’s not merely administrative, but I’m not sure the above changes the situation. If the government had to create a civil authority to manage this, they wouldn’t be exempt from CPRA inquiries and it would be more clear to legislators how much money is being spent (wasted) since it would have to be justified in a budget.

    • JesusH

      Bo, I think you’re on to something here.

      If this is a civil matter, why do we have to go to the police station to register every year? This should be handled by another civil authority like you said, even maybe a new agency. Law enforcement shouldn’t be involved.

      • AJ

        Police can handle civil matters too. Besides, who would you expect to enforce violations of civil matters? They’re called Law Enforcement Officers, not Criminal-law Enforcement Officers (though some would say they are Criminal Law-enforcement Officers. Ah, I so love the hyphen!). In some cities, they handle bicycle licensing, which is a civil matter. In some cities, they issue fine-only citations for violating watering restrictions/bans, or noise curfews, or pet licensing violations. None of those is a criminal offense.

        That said, it’s certainly an item that can be added to others if one were challenging the laws. This would probably have greater leverage if the registry laws are placed inside the State’s criminal code. One or the other gets a bit of a wave-off by the courts (as SCOTUS did in Smith). IMO, put together they start to point to something more. But even then they won’t stand strongly enough on their own to declare things punitive.

        • Will Allen

          They like to be called LEOs so I call them LECs. Doesn’t quite roll off the tongue so nicely but it is the best branding.

  3. TS

    We have discussed here before those impacted by the registry who are forced to show their phones, computers, etc upon return from international travel at CBP checkpoints for inspections. An Apple employee has taken exception to that and has filed suit with the NoCal ACLU: Apple employee detained by U.S. customs agents after declining to unlock phone, laptop

    Even those who have the new passport marker may be more susceptible to this, it doesn’t make it right to do because you still have rights regardless of what others may think or say.

  4. Facts should matter

    Let’s all just stop paying annual registration “fees” and financially choke them. Make each state’s local tax payers fund this pie-in-the-sky safety fantasy boondoggle.

    • R M

      @Facts should matter: I, as one, do not have a registration fee per se, but none-the-less, any violation could land me in prison locked up for up to 30 years… so NTY… I can not risk that unless of course, the other 900,000+ also do the same.

    • Will Allen

      You might have a hard time not paying their Registration theft. But, you should definitely cost them a lot more money than you ever give them. My goal has always been to cost them 12x any amount that they steal from me OR cause me to not receive for any reason. For example, if I think I could have made $1,000 if I were not Registered, then I’ve got to cost them $12,000. It is easier to do than you might think.

      And overall, the millions of people who are affected by Registries in the U.S. should stop supporting the law enforcement criminals (LECs). That CAN be the largest overall effect of the Registries. And it matters. Millions of people need to stop supporting LECs and try to take all resources from them. That can be done in thousands of ways. For example, you can monitor their budgets and ride the people who set it constantly. Or you can support laws that keep the LECs from running their drug businesses and gaining from it (e.g. eliminate “civil forfeitures”).

      Let the LECs know that they are not supported and that millions are going to choke the life out of them. The Registries are harming them and that will continue.

      I have a large number of children. Every one of them has grown into high-functioning adults with very good jobs or owning businesses. One of them is a high level teacher. They all know that LECs cannot be trusted. They don’t interact with them or allow them to get near their families. They operate their lives like that. They are teaching their children that. They are teaching other children that. The cancer of the Registries will spread.

      • Facts should matter

        The courts alone are not gonna save us..(especially seeing how Trump is hell-bent on padding them with far-right Evangelical ideologues).

        No movement has ever successful gained traction without SOME form of resistance and/or defiance at some point towards achieving it’s goal. We’re fighting fear, ignorance and hate. That is one helluva social barrier.

        • TS


          Don’t hold too much stock in that. The two SCOTUS justices just voted in have not necessarily been in line with what people think they should be or want to be.

        • Will Allen

          I agree completely. Personally, I think literal war should be waged. The war should be on many, many levels. I can’t even talk about some of them here.

          The war obviously should involve government, including the courts. But I think a huge, non-stop PR campaign should be run that shows the reality that smart people don’t support Registries and that only lemmings do. If America can evolve any longer (I’m not sure it can), one day it will be known that supporting Registries is just as pathetic and awful as supporting segregation was/is. And I really do think that most of the people who support the Registries are hateful, stupid people. I believe that. I believe politicians love that and cater to it.

          What I know is happening with the Registries, as least in my case, is that every day they exist and do nothing useful in any way, yet they bring grave harm. The vast majority of people who support the Registries get nothing from them every day (most other people get nothing except for a pathetic government job). Yet I’ll make people pay every day and I will talk about them and berate them as often as possible to the point that it makes those people literally ill. They’ll have no peace and they’ll gain nothing.

    • mike r

      Man that is like debtors prison on steroids. So if you do not pay this $50 or $100 dollars or whatever the fees are you go to prison not for days or months, but for years with a new felony offense even.

    • Lake County

      Fortunately we in CA don’t have registration fees. Fees should not be allowed in any state. However, I have noticed that in most states with yearly fees, they do have a way for these fees to be waved if you don’t have enough income. Arresting someone who tried to register and was denied because they didn’t have the required money due to poverty sounds to me like a good constitutional challenge. I’ve also noticed that some of these jurisdictions don’t really bother making any effort to have anyone pay the fees as it’s an additional administrative accounting burden for them. It costs more than $100 to collect and account for the fees, so it really is a loss to them. Government accounting requirements are usually very intensive with lots of paperwork and yearly audits of the money. The legislators that made these fees have no idea of how much it cost to account for this money. It sounds politically great to charge offenders for the cost of registration, but really in most states it is not cost effective.

  5. Bo

    Does the new tier registration in ca coming 2021 require everyone to submit their internet identifiers?

  6. mike r @AJ and ???

    @AJ or whoever, what do you think about this line of cases when it comes to consequences from third parties and results that are outside the four corners of the challenged statute? Do you think this can overcome the immunity issues? Are these cases solid?

    This is further supported in Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U.S. 87, 100 (1982),
    “Here, the District Court, in upholding appellees’ challenge to the constitutionality of the Ohio disclosure provisions [albeit under a different statute, but is apropos here], properly concluded that the evidence of private and Government hostility toward the SWP and its members establishes a reasonable probability that disclosing the names of contributors and recipients will subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals. Pp. 98-101.” (emphasis added).

    This assertion is further supported by Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2017),
    “‘The challenged action need not immediately or directly cause the harm as a first order effect. “[T]hat the potential injury would be the result of a chain of events need not doom the standing claim.” Idaho Conservation League, 956 F.2d at 1515. “The relevant inquiry . . . is whether there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the challenged procedural violation will harm the plaintiffs’ concrete interests, not how many steps must occur before such harm occurs.” Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 975 (internal citations omitted).’”

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      I haven’t read the cases you cite, but I think the big difference is our “regulation” is a collateral consequence of a conviction. In the other situations it’s “normal” people receiving selective scrutiny. Once you’re a con, all the rules change, and “collateral consequence” seems to be the rubber stamp that makes nearly anything possible…and legal in the eyes of the courts.

      • Chris f

        Ah yes…collateral consequence s.

        I once did a deep research dive into where that came from. Like most things, what originally started as one narrow exception has ballooned into all encompassing BS.

        If memory serves, it originated in being a narrowly tailored and UNAVOIDABLE consequence of having committed a particular crime. Such as, a crooked stock broker being banned from the stock trading industry or a convicted child molester being banned from daycare employment.

        I do not think it was ever supposed to be used to give legislation the unfettered ability to retroactively restrict a person’s freedom from innocent conduct.

        Good luck though, trying to get the judiciary to reign in the legislature as it continues to make the judiciary nothing more than a servant to its agenda of control by the fired up and uneducated public whim of the day, decade, or century.

        • AJ

          @Chris f:
          “I do not think it was ever supposed to be used to give legislation the unfettered ability to retroactively restrict a person’s freedom from innocent conduct.”
          What!?!? Next thing you know, they’ll take a LE-only database and go crazy with it in the name of civil regulation with no punitive intent.

  7. mike r @ Josh?

    @Josh “we have filings in the works right now and I will let people know how they turn out..”

    So is this a monetary suit? or a suit for relief from registration?

    I believe it needs to be both filed separately. One for declaratory and injunction relief, and the other as a USC 42 1983 monetary suit for deprivation of rights “under color of law.”

    “The purpose of punitive damages is deterrence and retribution; they punish a defendant’s unlawful conduct and deter its repetition. In Smith v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that Section 1983 authorizes the award of punitive damages against state or local officials in their individual capacity. The Court suggested that punitive damages may be awarded when an official’s conduct is malicious, intentional, or recklessly or callously indifferent to protected rights.”

    Interesting article and there are plenty more. And that would be sweet to be able to use a “Smith” citation for monetary awards for being kept on a registry unlawfully. Irony at its finest….

    This fits all these definitions,
    “intentional, or recklessly or callously indifferent to protected rights.”

    If this is not a “under color of law” suit I sure as hell would not know one if it bit me in the ass then.

    I absolutely love that statement, “in their individual capacity”
    Frigging sue them individually, not officially so out of their personal bank accounts, into homelessness and destitution.

    • Josh

      @Mike r
      The main goal has always been removal from the registry and monetary damages are a distant second…if we are successful, I will lay out in detail everything that was filed as hopefully, it can be used as a blueprint for others who aren’t interested in waiting on the Aclu…

      • mike r

        There you go. Yeah people need to slam the courts, forget that waiting crap. Been enough of that going on for way to long.

  8. mike r

    Damn, so this would have to include the head of the DOJ usually the AG, the individual agent that actually takes and keys in your information to the data base, if the AG or DOJ is using a different gov. entity to maintain or publish the keyed info the individual in charge of that operation and the actual person that enters your info are all liable. I am sure I could think of a few more.

    This is the only thing these domestic terrorist understand or deserve. It would have to be pro se because every lawyer out there are scared to death of doing this type of suit. Especially if it concerns the label “sex offender” any where near it. You would have to demand a jury as well and let them decide what kind of damages you should be awarded. You would have to cite other cases where monetary damages were awarded for other deprivation of rights even if not related to any registry. Sure they are out there. I only wish I was out there where you are at, it would already be in the courts. You literally as a matter of law cannot lose. It is just what amount of $$$$ award you will get.

  9. RegistrantNotAnOffender

    My state has no reg fees and the registry is going strong

    • Will Allen

      There should not be any “fees”. If big government wants to force any “civil” requirement onto just some part of the population, big government should have to pay for it from their general funds. It’s not like it’s their money. They can just try to steal more. Registration “fees” are just yet another way for them to steal more money. Their desire for more money for whatever will never slow down.

      An interesting thing that I’ve thought about is that if they felt like it, they could be very, very broke and just still allow the Registries to exist and barely support them. They’ve always run them incompetently, they would just do it worse. People might cry about that and the criminal regimes could just say they need more money.

  10. Steveo

    In Texas they don’t charge fees, but what they do is expire your drivers license every year, so you have to go pay for a new one and take it to your registration officer.

  11. mike r

    Right, but then you have the Harris case,
    Doe v. Harris, No. 13-15263 (9th Cir. 2014) clearly demonstrates the Court’s consideration of some of the same consequences the Magistrate Judge asserts the Court could not consider.
    “But sex offenders’ fear of disclosure in and of itself chills their speech. If their identity is exposed, their speech, even on topics of public importance, could subject them to harassment, retaliation, and intimidation. See McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341–42 (“The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.”)”

  12. mike r

    “could subject them to harassment, retaliation, and intimidation.”

    Doe v Harris seems to undermine the idea that collateral consequences are not to be considered right? How can they say they consider collateral consequences in a first amendment speech issue but not in any other constitutional issue?

    Couple that with the private and Gov hostility and the chain of events does not kill standing cases, seems pretty solid to me.
    Maybe wrong, but it just seems the only logical train of reasoning. Then you top it off with the Taylor case from CA SC and it seems like a done deal.

    Then you throw this in there,

    “The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause “ ‘forbids the government to infringe . . . “fundamental” liberty interests’ ” in any manner “ ‘unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest [i.e., strict scrutiny review].’ ” (Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) 521 U.S. 702, 721 (Glucksberg), quoting Reno v. Flores (1993) 507 U.S. 292, 302 (Reno).) (emphasis added).

    Remember just because it is a chain of events does not kill standing.
    The term “in any matter” is significant in this case as this statement expands the scope of review of a statute to outside the four corners of the statute being challenged with regards to fundamental rights.

  13. mike r

    Regardless of everything else, at bare minimum bodily integrity is a well established fundamental right so,

    Then this set of cases come in play,

    See Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 588-90 (9th Cir.1989) (plaintiff could sue government when state officer affirmatively placed her in dangerous situation), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938, 111 S.Ct. 341, 112 L.Ed.2d 305 (1990); L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1992) (generally citizens may not sue state employees who fail to protect them from harm committed by private parties unless there is a special relationship between the plaintiff or the state places the plaintiff in danger), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2442, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1993); “a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating the danger.” DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200; “If the state puts a man in a position of danger from private persons and then fails to protect him . . . it is as much an active tortfeasor as if it had thrown him into a snake pit.” Bowers v. DeVito 686 F. 2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

    In the non-emergency context, the lower courts have consistently held that deliberate indifference or recklessness is sufficient to show liability if there is a state-created danger.
    Similar to the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits adopted the “deliberate indifference” or “reckless disregard” standards. Foy v. City of Berea, 58 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1995); Magdziak v. Byrd, 96 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 1996); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994).

    Arguments have been posited, and quite rightfully so, that these laws do not provide offenders adequate protection, and vigilantism against-sex offenders following community notification has been well-documented (judicial notice vigilante attacks leading to great bodily harm and even death), and indeed vigilantism has already occurred to Plaintiff and his family members (documented).

    I really cannot see where this quote could be more analogous,
    ““If the state puts a man in a position of danger from private persons and then fails to protect him . . . it is as much an active tortfeasor as if it had thrown him into a snake pit.” Bowers v. DeVito 686 F. 2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).”

  14. mike r

    This seems to be analogous as well in that there is a special relationship with registration and the Megan’s Law Website (i.e. DOJ, AG and myself) and the state is putting me in danger on top of it.

    “L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1992) (generally citizens may not sue state employees who fail to protect them from harm committed by private parties unless there is a special relationship between the plaintiff or the state places the plaintiff in danger), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2442, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1993)”

    Guess we will see….

  15. mike r @AJ and ROSS

    @ AJ, Wow, am I missing something? Does ROSS no longer offer case search? I see that it does a relevant passage search now but no more case search.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      You can search directly by case name if you select “Citation or Name” at the top where it says, “Search using…”

  16. mike r

    Yeah this no doubt applies,

    “It is likewise well established that a due process violation may occur where ” state action affirmatively places the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced.” Id. (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197, 201, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989); Wood, 879 F.2d at 589-90) (quotation and alteration omitted).”

    State action is both creating and exposing me to dangers that I would not otherwise face. There is no way that you can tell me that my neighbor, the guy down the street, or the guy from another town, would go and get my conviction history and then use that information to assault me without the Megan’s Law website publishing my convictions.
    These well established exceptions undeniably apply. I am finding a million cases stating this too.
    In order for the 9th to not rule in my favor they are going to have to overturn well settled case law out of SCOTUS and a long list of 9th cases.

  17. mike r

    One more and I will stop since I know someone will complain (we know who, lol), let me know if you guys think this reasoning is sound. Look this even states unambiguously the the AG should have known that their actions violated my fundamental bodily integrity right.

    “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S. Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed. 2d 666 (2002). ” For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. (quotation omitted). ” [T]he specific, alleged conduct . . . need not have been previously and explicitly deemed unconstitutional, but existing case law must have made it clear that the conduct violated constitutional norms.” Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F. 3d 1055, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2006).”

    “It is well established that the Constitution protects a citizen’s liberty interest in her own bodily security.” Id. at 1061 (citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 673-74, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed. 2d 711 (1977); Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F. 2d 583, 589 (9th Cir. 1989)). It is likewise well established that a due process violation may occur where ” state action affirmatively places the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced.” Id. (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197, 201, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed. 2d 249 (1989); Wood, 879 F. 2d at 589-90) (quotation and alteration omitted).”
    Gund v. County of Trinity, 624 F. App’x. 519 (9th Cir. 2015)

    I just CANNOT, no matter how you twist it or try and work it, see how these lines of cases would not apply.

  18. mike r

    Collateral consequence of a conviction? Well then the state can force me to wear a jumpsuit states sex offender or animal abuser, or child abuser all over it and make me wear it constantly because it is a collateral consequence of a conviction? No there are just to many examples where the state cannot just have unfettered leeway to do as they please because someone is convicted of a crime but no longer under state supervision. Even under state supervision they are bound to standards set by law and cases.

    I think this part is extremely relevant as well,
    “or exposes an individual to a danger”

    So they state does not even have to create the danger.

  19. mike r

    Sorry I know I said one more up there but I had to throw these in there.
    This statement out of the Magistrate’s mouth is just beyond reason and so not at all founded in any case law. She cannot even cite anything but some way out crap from some lower court and some ID even K crap. Can anyone tell me what this even cites to? The only citation to these that I can find are in my case.

    “Public safety provides a rational basis for California’s Megan’s Law and SORA, See, e,g,, James v. Gastello,
    No. 17-cv-1570-H (NLS), 2018 WL 3546312, at *8 (S.D, Cal, July 24,2018), report and
    recommendation adopted, No. 3:17-CV-01570-H-NLS, 2018 WL 6018030 (S,D, Cal. Nov. 16, 2018).”

    Man that MFR is a joke. All of it.

    • New Person

      @Mike R,

      It’s an uphill battle, for sure. The usual fall back is “Public Safety” and the fact the registry is not considered “Punishment”. Because of this the State can manipulate laws. Yes, you’ve cited how the State has been found doing unconstitutional things under the guise of “Public Safety” with presence restrictions, living restrictions (Re: Taylor), and the first amendment chilling effect. The State also bent over backwards to make “compulsory in-person re-registration” from a form of punishment as it was quasi-criminal to not punishment. The State wants both sides of the argument such as the Jim Crow Laws.

      The State will not abide by CASOMB’s findings that the recidivism rates are below 1%. Although it is part of the state, it is not an official state capacity to enter its research work into CA legal canon. This is how CA courts can continue to manipulate the system by omitting necessary research to debunk this “Public Safety Scam”. CA was the first state to implement a sex registry, but it has not conducted any official capacity of research recidivism such as New Jersey, which conducted a 21-year study of 10-years before the implementation of the registry and 10-years after the implementation of the registry.

      The State of CA is being willfully ignorant of science and the consistency of its implementation of laws. A sex offender can only partake in “some Constitutional laws” despite being no longer under custody – which is what you’re identifying. It seems as though the only recourse here is to query why hasn’t the State of California formally and officially conducted research on recidivism rates? Some states have conducted lengthy research such as New Jersey, but the state of CA was the first to implement the registry and there is no CA research work done in any official capacity to be logged into CA law canon. The new tiered registry was not constructed on whole research as the duration of registry is arbitrary as opposed to following Dr. Hanson’s research work of duration of surveillance.

      Is there actual science being done or is this being done by retribution? No other sets of convicts share the same “regulatory scheme”. If there are sets of convicts whose recidivism rates that are higher than sex offenders, then all those convicts should also be on the registry since it is for “Public Safety”. The best way to break a terrible law is to uphold it to its utmost.

      • David

        @ New Person: I was wondering about those individuals who are convicted of arson. They are also 290 registrants. What is their recidivism rate? And if it is about recidivism and the seriousness of the crime, why is there not yet a DUI Registry? Pink license plates? DUI stamped on Drivers Licences? Oh because that would personally affect legislators, their family members, friends and campaign donors, right? Every single argument in favor of sex offense registries work equally well – if not better – for DUI offenses. 😡

    • Facts should matter

      Bottom line… Megan’s Law CIRCUMVENTS life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It reverse engineers you to be sexually dangerous, and an on-going threat.

      I think it’s very sad that we have to fight these idiots day in and day out to feel safe in our own homes in AMERiCaH..

  20. mike r

    Hang with me a minute,
    “An employer has a duty to keep the workplace free of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination under state law.

    Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer can face significant liability if it knowingly employs a sex offender and >fails to take actions< to protect its other employees from unlawful behavior by that person."

    The AG stated that it would have to be the employer bringing suit for a vague standing, but this is more than that. This is leaving the employer the enforcer of a state law against a free citizen and is vague to them but yet this effects me, How do I know what action is going to disqualify me? Can they make this law subjective? I thought laws were supposed to be clear in their meaning's, especially on key elements of the statute.

    So I was just thinking and can this be done? Can the state create a code section and just let the employer decide what "actions" to take to "protect a person at risk" or face "significant liability."

    This leaves the employer "undefined actions" to enforce this statute or face "significant liability" AND leaves me no defined actions to know if I am violating it.. So this is a vague statute for both of us. I believe I have standing with that claim.

    This is potentially extreme consequences for the employer,
    (4) (A) Any use of information disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes other than those provided by paragraph (1) or in violation of paragraph (2) (long list of reasons) shall make the user liable for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury, not exceeding three times the amount of actual damage, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), and attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

    (1) A person is authorized to use information disclosed pursuant to this section only to "protect a person at risk." a term not defined by the Penal Code.

    Also, then it goes on to state paragraph (2) except as authorized under paragraph (1) use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
    So it is defining the statute unambiguously for para (2), but (1) has no definition.
    I would think that the law on the face looking at the text alone would be vague. They cannot write a statute using undefined terms as the main elements. What is this an APP act violation as well?

    (2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
    (A) Health insurance.
    (B) Insurance.
    (C) Loans.
    (D) Credit.
    (E) Employment.
    (F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
    (G) Housing or accommodations.(H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment..

  21. Feeling sad

    Ughhhh I need to vent. Ever since the AWA got enacted here in NV my fiancee cant find any work. Were barely getting by right now. Idk how much longer I can keep us afloat on my own. And if we lose our house no one will rent to him so we will be homeless with a 2 year old
    I know everyone says moving is our best option but that is not an option for us. You need money to move and we now have none. I have written countless letters to all the state reps to beg for the to repeal this stupid act. My fiancee has never reoffened. Hes not a danger to his community and now even though he has been good and stayed out of trouble we face losing everything. worried and upset. This is so unfair. Everything was so good before the stupid AWA. Now it feels like everything is ruined. We cant be homeless with our son. I cant put him through that. I just dont know what to do anymore. I can only keep us above water for so long until we drown. And no one cares. The emails and letters I right go unanswered. No one cares about redemption or good behavior. I’m just so very at a loss.

    • RegistrantNotAnOffender

      Cant find work or not able to find the job he wants?. There are so many 21 and up establishments in Nevada I know some places that would hire him

      • Feeling sad

        Litteraly cannot find work. What places do you know of.

        • David

          @ Feeling Sad: Where are you located? What City or County? And which State? Hopefully, someone on here can assist you if we know where we should look.

        • registerednotanoffender

          I work for a national organization that does not background check because it is a 21 and up establishment. They have a Vegas location, if there’s somewhere I can email you I would be happy to give your husband some tips.

          I wallowed in the sorrow of no one will hire me but if your husband (NOT YOU) is desperate enough, he can work. That’s what it took for me

        • Feeling sad

          We are in Henderson NV.

        • David

          Thank you, “Feeling Sad”. And thank you “registerednotanoffender” for stepping in to help.
          (I am in Cali, so I doubt that I can be of much help to the good folks of NV.)

    • Feeling sad

      My email is
      Any help is greatly appreciated

  22. Bob

    I have been reading up on case law as to what qualifies as a residence. In. People v. Gonzales, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 11 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) it states “We reject this contention. In McCleod, supra, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1205, the court stated that the term “residence,” as used in section 290, was a commonly understood term, without technical meaning, that did not have to be defined by the court. The McCleod court concluded the term was easily understood by persons of common intelligence as connoting “`more than a passing through or presence for a limited visit.'” (55 Cal.App.4th at p. 1218.)”

    What I haven’t found is any case addressing the line between limited visit and residing.

    Residing being according to the jury instructions, ” As used in the instruction, the term `reside’ or `residence’ means a temporary or permanent place, which one keeps and to which one intends to return, as opposed to a place where one rests or shelters during a trip or a transient visit. Depending upon the circumstances, one may have a single place of residence or more than one place of residence.”

    So, for instance, how many minutes can I spend at a family members house during the year before i reside there. If I regularly attend holidays? How many?

    Of course i dont see any cases that have been litigated so perhaps they arent being charged for visiting family.

    2) what about a place of employment. Do people reside at employment? (As defined by law)

  23. NotEasilyOffended

    I had heard rumor about AirBnB excluding RSOs and in researching this I learned it it true and that the popular neighborhood-networking site also prohibits RSOs (and ANYONE from their household!) from joining the site.

    As all of here are disappointed at the litany of restrictions placed on us, we could probably see how the uneducated public could be duped into believing how some of these are necessary safeguards (schools, volunteering at a library, etc). However, now we’re just getting silly and petty (and, yes, PUNITIVE!). It saddens me that so many in our society are so anxious to have someone to put down and continue to “extract a pound of flesh” wherever possible. What possible, far-fetched harm could possibly come from being part of an online network ( that is intended to foster information sharing among close neighbors? Looking out for a lost dog; recommending a good sushi restaurant; selling a used couch.

    There will always be those that want everyone convicted of a sex offense stranded on a desert island, castrated, or hung (or all 3!). But maybe as more and more restrictions are levied, reasonable citizens will begin to see the futility of the entire process and help to bring it down.

    • Anonymaus

      I used AirBnB for about 2 years before receiving their email notifying me that they had rescinded my membership/account. 🤷‍♂️

      • NY won’t let go

        That happened to me not that long ago, right before my check in they canceled my booking. Luckily I had the owners number, so I paid cash and made a new friend.

      • Anonymaus

        🏡 I use a different (Europe-based) vacation stay service now and have had no problems.

        • James

          Dear Anonymaus:

          Would you feel free to identify the (Europe-based) vacation stay service you are using?

          There are not really that many of us going to Europe, or anywhere for that matter, (sigh),
          so it is not like we might overwhelm them…but knowing an alternative might be helpful.

          If you are comfortable doing this then good, if not, equally fine, no problem.

          Best Wishes, James

        • AJ

          I did a search for “european vacation stay services” and “european vacation rentals company” and found a handful of results.

        • E

          I suggest we NOT name them. AirBnB has lots of competitors. I googled their terms of service. Once on the page I searched the page for “offender” and immediately was taken to AirBnb’s RC rules. Then I looked at terms of service of several of their competitors. And did NOT find rules about RCs. Not that you still don’t need to be appropriately careful but not all these apps have denial of RCs in their terms, especially non-US corporations/apps, even with listings in the US. Bless their hearts.

    • RegistrantNotAnOffender

      Then you have this jerk

      If you can I use airbnb by booking in my wifes name. No issues for those of you who can book via a loved one.

      • Will Allen

        Better yet, use a competitor that is better. No need to be helping un-American, P.O.S. companies. And do what you can to participate in any political or other processes that harm Airbnb. I have been active near where I live to help ensure that people cannot rent their homes via Airbnb. We should do what we can to harm businesses and people who support Registries. Help freedom loving Americans instead.

        I have found properties for rent via Airbnb and then contacted the owners directly about renting them and simply skipped Airbnb. It is easy to do. Many owners won’t want to do that but plenty will.

  24. someone who cares

    Just out of curiosity, why are they talking about Nipsey Hussle for a week, celebrating and praising him, when he is an EX gang member, who killed, saying he turned his life around? So, how come we can’t have turned our lives around after years of being crime free, having families, friends, etc?

  25. AJ

    The last couple years, doxxing has become a “thing,” to the point there either has been or is legislation pending here and there attempting to outlaw it. It’s stalking and cyber-bullying, donchaknow? But hang on a sec…. Isn’t doxxing simply, “dissemination of accurate information [] most of which is already public”? And isn’t any, “stigma [the] result[] not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination,” of that info? Huh. So it’s legal for the State to do it with RCs, but not for private citizens to do it themselves.

    • TS


      State sanctioned doxxing of RC v public – do as I say, not as I do.

  26. mike r@AJ or ????

    @AJ or whoever, do you know where I might get the Commonwealth v. Torsilieri case briefs challenging the PA law prospectively?

    • TS @miker

      @AJ didn’t find them either from Penn online. Something sealed.

  27. mike r

    But wait I thought SCOTUS stated court records are easily accessible documents. My ass they are. Appellant cases maybe, not lower court cases. Guess we will have to wait to see the briefs then. Glad someone is stepping up and challenging the crap prospectively. This ought to be interesting since the elements of the statute have to be proving violated beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury since the statute is now been declared punishment. I doubt if the current cases are going to bring that challenge because ets face it, they really do not care and never look outside the box or at the obvious. Think about t, since recidivism is the element of the statute then a prosecutor is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is going to re-offend. I do not see them getting around centuries of law and case history when it comes to guilt and punishment tied to elements of a statute. They got away with it when the statute was not punishment, but that classification changes the entire game. If it is punishment it is no longer just a separate offense that gets a jury trial to prove you violated the actual elements of the statute such as failure to register and that crap, now it is part of a punitive sentence triggering all the normal protections and due processes afforded an individual before being able to apply. This is going to be interesting as I cannot really think of any other statute that the elements are based upon prescience.

  28. ike r

    Whoa, whoa, I did not even realize what was being stated in some of these rulings out of the 9th and probably in many many cases that was right in front of everyone’s eyes.
    United States v. Juvenile Ma1e, 670 F.3d 999, 7072 (9th Cir, 2012),
    “The requirement that juveniles register in a sex offender database for at least 25 years because they committed the equivalent of aggravated sexual abuse is not a disproportionate punishment.”

    I am going to have to go back and re-read these cases, but is the court calling it punishment? Sure seems as though they are, “is not a disproportionate punishment.” This conjures the binary opposite of proportionate punishment, point being if it is not disproportionate then it must be proportionate PUNISHMENT…..

    • TS @(m)ike r

      You mean twice in one week from the left coast, the registry has been called punishment by the 9th CCOA (from 2012 no less) and CA Assywoman Melendrez? Is there a running tab of how many docs and which ones from various sources that are actually calling the $ORs what they really are, i.e. punishment? There has to be a collection somewhere. If not, start one. That is a true CA gold nugget set there.

  29. AJ

    The Jeffery Epstein saga continues. There’s some splainin’ to do in NY, it would seem:

    Contrary to some on here, this story is NOT going away. The stench is growing.

    • NY won’t let go

      So for the DA to ask for you to be a level 1 you have to be a millionaire.

      I had one incident almost 13 years ago have not even gotten a parking ticket since and they tried pushing for tier 3 when I disagreed with tier 2? I was one point away from tier 1!

  30. Bobby @Josh @Bill

    Hello Everyone,

    I heard from Mrs Aukerman last night about what is going on with Does 2 Lawsuit and this is what she wrote back to me. There is now a draft bill.  The legislators are working on it.  The bill language is pretty good, but we don’t know what will ultimately pass. That’s her response, my question is would that effect people like myself Bill and Josh, and other’s of course who are in the same boat as us.

    We should of been removed 3 years ago in my opinion, or will this bill if passed effect us (pre-sorna people) at all, I’m probably wrong , but it shouldn’t effect us at all just the post-sorna people in my opinion. I mean since we already won, anyone have any thoughts on what she stated . Thanks in advance.

    • AJ

      It sounds like she’s being cautious and waiting to see what comes of it all. Something as toxic as this almost assuredly will face amendments from people hoping to neuter or kill it. She is still watching her words…as a shrewd attorney must and should.

      Nobody will know the outcome until it reaches the Governor’s desk.

      • Josh

        I don’t disagree with AJ at all…’ve got to realize how careful she needs to be. If you can read between the lines a little bit with what she said or didn’t say, you’ll realize that whatever is in that draft of a bill has to pass constitutional muster to correct the issues that were addressed in Does I. That being said, whatever is presented to Michigan’s house & senate is going to face a uphill battle. AJ is absolutely correct that everybody will try to add, subtract, or change the language of the bill…it could look entirely different by the time it gets to the Governor’s desk. Best advice: hire an attorney, find some pro bono help, or file something pro se on your own behalf…I’m not trying to be pessimistic with what I’m saying to you but if you’re going to depend on the legislature then prepare to keep waiting. I’m hoping myself that it could be introduced and voted on this legislative session but I think that’s asking a lot..

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      This is America. Even when you win, you lose.

  31. mike r@Bobby

    “We should of been removed 3 years ago in my opinion”
    If you are one of the ones that the PA SC or the district court for Michigan I would be go to hell if I would wait for anyone to be able to do a work around those decisions. If you are entitled to relief you better get it while the getting is good as they say.
    Just my opinion, we all have one though so better go with your gut.

  32. mike r

    Man what is up with the courts stating if a statute is aimed at “preventing danger to the community” it satisfies rational basis review?

    “The Supreme Court has also held that “there is no doubt that preventing danger to the community is a legitimate regulatory goal.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). Thus, SORNA’s requirements satisfy rational basis review and do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.”

    This was Juvenile Male. If this was the case than any law they passed would pass. Man the 9th is twisting SCOTUS language so far from the reality it is dumbfounding.

  33. mike r

    Reading United States v. Salerno is pretty interesting. Even the determination whether to detain those charged with a serious offense during a bail hearing requires clear and convincing evidence and the bail hearing before doing so. And the bail reform act was considered a regulatory statute as well.

    Like I stated, it is real interesting to see how the courts are manipulating language and case law in ways that are not analogous to sex offender laws.

  34. mike r

    Really amazing how these justices think and do pull shit out of their asses and just cite any statement from cases that have any similarity at all and apply that statement to a fact that their is no cognizable nexus to the fact the are claiming it relates to. I really do not believe this was really happening before sex offender challenges (IDK because I have not really delved into that part) but it sure as hell is happening now.
    Tat Salerno case is stating the state cannot do whet it is doing without a hearing and clear and convincing evidence. And it sure as hell is NOT stating that since public safety is a legitimate regulatory goal it satisfies rational basis review. Far from it.

  35. Bobby @ Concerning Michigans Registry

    Hello, everyone

    Well I heard back from Ms Aukerman again, and explain things a little clearer I guess you might say, here isone thing she wrote back to me .The current bill shortens registration times a great deal.  Anyone who has completed that time period would come off entirely.  We don’t yet know how long those time periods will be, but they are likely to be much shorter than current law. Then she wrote this back to me this morning with this explanation. This concerns my situation and others who are in the same boat as me.

    The MSP says 25 years starts when the registry started.  But I am pretty confident that a minimum we will get folks like you back to 25 years, which would likely then end in 2020. 

    Now that is where I get confused because my registration start date is my conviction date which would make it 27 years in June, but if they went back to the original registration start date that would be 11-22-2020. Since when does the MSP call the shots, just because they run the stupid registry doesn’t give them the authority to determine when registration start dates begin.

    I was always told and made to believe that your registration start date beginsat time of conviction, not when you get off parole, because would that technically extend your parole sentence? Anyone with any thoughts on thisand whatshe said about the legislation and the fact that MSP has control over registration start dates . Thanks in advance.

    • Fuzzy


      Start dates don’t make any sense. They were supposed to change with the 2011 amendment to when parole/probation was completed, but yet my start date is my original arraignment date. I’m not going to complain much because that takes 2 years off my registration term. I’m really looking forward to hearing the changes to SORNA in Michigan. I’ll be happier than hell if Tier 2’s drop down to 10 years because that means I’m off for good. I guess my real question is if I’m off the state registry, what does that mean for me at the federal level when I apply for a passport and am I still on some secret federal registry? Hopefully people dropping off the registry also paves the way for expungement as I have no criminal record besides the one charge I actually plead to. Fingers crossed…

      • Bobby @Fuzzy

        Well, form going from 25 years to life, if the registration start dates stay as is, I will be removed automatically , since I will have 27 years on the registry in June, but if they turn the clock back to the original start date that was created in 1995, then I will have to wait until 11-22-2020.

        So hopefully it stays as is and I get removedautomatically, fingers crossed,

        • Josh

          After some checking…I think I was wrong about the legislative sessions…Michigan is one 10 states that have year round sessions but long periods of recess…it’s a long process though and the more I look at it, I have a hard time seeing this get done by June

      • Josh

        I’m not sure what to think about all that. I am encouraged that they(Aclu) are making some progress and it sounds like they’re being more free with their information. As I stated a couple days ago, I really hope they can fit it into this legislative session…if not, then we wait until the fall session…thanks for the update either way bud!

  36. TS

    NC wants to usurp SCOTUS in their latest legislative efforts. This is crazy!

    NC House Bill 596 Doesn’t Protect Children. It Injects Fear.

    “This is a blatant action by the state to reclaim its stinging loss in the United State Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina. It is nothing more than creating a constructive action against registrants creating confusion and intimidation tactics.”

  37. AJ

    Hey SCOTUS, still think Third Party Doctrine is good case law? “Google faces surge in police requests for mobile location data” (

  38. Chris f

    I have a question that perhaps someone could ask on the April 20th conf call. It would be even better if someone could answer here.

    Why have the laws against those on the registry or against those with previous convictions for sex type crimes not been properly challenged against the combination of separation of powers, due process, and equal protection?

    By “properly challenged”, I mean in reference to how no law should be written targeting someone due to a past offense unless it is narrowly tailored, unavoidable, and couldnt have reasonably been part of the sentence imposed by the judge during trial to protect the public?

    An example of acceptable laws against past crimes would be the laws saying someone with past crimes against children cant be hired at a daycare, or someone that engaged in investment fraud cant be a stock broker.

    Any other restrictions not reaching that difficult standard should have been decided by the judge during the fair sentencing phase of the trial. That is the only way “ordered liberty” can exist.

    If such a court challenge were to fail, then that would set a catastrophic precident that shouldnt last long. It would mean that any city could do the same thing to those convicted of non sex crimes. Imagine if someone with a drunk driving conviction 30 years ago could be arrested for driving through a town that makes it illegal for him to use their roads or go to their bars? Everyone that was ever convicted of any crime would have to research the laws of any city they pass through, every time they do, or risk being in violation of some rediculous law.

    What we need is a high court precident to have the balls to state that laws can’t single out a particular past crime or group of people unless it is absolutely unavoidable. The restrictions placed on someone for committing a crime and the duration of those restrictions must be determined by the judge and jury during trial and tailored to the individual. To do otherwise not only leads to the chaos I stated above, but also:

    Judges and prosecutors pleading down crimes to avoid putting someone on a registry that shouldnt be (rare, but happens more than you would think in plea agreements).

    Judges having to weigh legislature’s collateral consequences into their sentence, like the judge that only gave someone a short jail sentence knowing they would be on the registry for life.

    Victims not coming forward due to the consequences to the family member or friend that assaulted them.

    Defendants unwilling to accept a plea because of the registration, and then subjecting the victim to testifying.

    The list goes on and on…so does anyone know why a proper legal challenge can’t be done?

    Is it because most legal fights are done using old existing precident and this issue is too rare in our history to draw frim? Is any attorney willing to start from scratch only armed with the Constitution and common sense?

    I cant attend the conference call but would appreciate if someone could raise this.

  39. mike r

    Chris, refine that argument into a good legal argument for when I go to file my appeal. Remember I have and am bringing that challenge. I am going to be very precise in my appeal to where they cannot get away without addressing the question. I know a attorney should have long ago, but we know how that goes.

    • Chris f (@Mike R)

      I am pretty sure I got you to put most of that argument in your original case. We probably have enough new info and extra quotes from recent cases to add to it though.

      Time to boldly go where no lawyer has gone before. The judiciary doesnt even realize how much they have turned into legislature’s lackey.

      • Rob

        When we are approaching anyone, state, federal, judges, or prosecutors, we must stick to facts. When statements are made blatenly, without merit, yet are not opposed or questioned, they become fact quickly in the public eye. This is wrong, however if we allow it to happen by doing nothing, we are as guilty as the person stating the myths. There are tons of facts that have been accumulated, which squash the myths, however our voices need to be heard from the mountain tops. When a written statement is made, the person who made the statement should be accountable. When a laywer, council person, mayor, or any public entity, begins to make false statements, we need to pounce on the lies and the myths quickly. We need to use every resource our minds can muster and get this info out to disqualify the information and that person, because if they lie, or tell myths about us, they are probably doing it in other matters to give them an advantage.

        We should begin to develop a plan in each state when these statements are made to retract the statement, put the facts in place of the lies, and keep pushing the issue until we get the message out. When states impose (Colordao) where a person cannot live because they make a blanket statement of “safety for children”, lets make them quantify what that means. Does this screening make it safer because anyone who had a sex offense in the past a safer place? No, because facts and statistics show otherwise. However, when we allow Colorado or any other state to impose restrictions because of hysteria without merit, we are only going to hurt ourselves. We need to gather information like this, come back with facts, and get this into hands of other past offenders in that state who will stand up, speak, and let the facts brew into the minds of people. Facts don’t lie. They don’t have an opinion. Facts are facts and now that we have over 25 years behind us, the DOJ proving much of wha is stated isn wrong. Loose assumptions are wrong, and we need to continuely update people from all over the country. We can do this if and when we are pro-active in every state. Just because we don’t live in a state doesn’t mean we can’t research, write and share information, and help make the changes necessary. If several states are making great arguments on our behalf, apply what they did to change or make a law better. I’m paying much more attention to everything that is getting out there. We must be dligent everyday. We need to pull our research, our thoughts and new creative ideas, and place them in words, video, and pictures to help us change the processes. I love all the comments here, because I am learning. I don’t know much, however as we learn, we can take the successes and apply them to other parts that are weak until we strengthen them. Let’s start building the army of people, let’s start building the army of facts, and let’s hold everyone accountable for lies, misconceptions and myths. I’m nto putting up with the garbage anymore. I may be only one, but by God, I’m gonna fight! We can win, but it takes all of us!

    • B'nai Chaim

      @ mike r

      You stated “when I go to file my appeal.”

      From what lose, are you appealing to be made whole once again?

  40. mike r

    Just out of the blue here, plea bargains should be unconstitutional. Plea bargains have helped ruin our equality in justice and our justice system in whole. The courts and the legislature have abdicated their duties to prosecutors being claimed justifiable because of the efficacy of the court system. The legislative branch writing criminal laws are useless as it is the prosecutor who determines that they can abdicate the system and apply the law as they see fit. How can this continue? This makes the innocent plead guilty in many cases and the guilty receive lesser charges than the legislature put forth and also gives the prosecutors the ability to skew the system towards the advantage of the wealthy.
    I was just thinking about this with the university scams and the Smollett case.

  41. mike r

    They say that the courts could not function without the plea deal, but maybe the legislature should stop creating asinine laws that clog up the courts and put in policies where they have to actually come up with solutions to societal problems instead of just throwing punitive laws at every problem thinking that mass incarceration will solve everything. Scary idea huh ???? Might have to use a brain cell or something….

    • Chris f (@Mike R)

      Its true. Removing a lot of the punitive crap would lead to less plea deals and more justice for the remaining laws.

      The registry and mandatory minumums do tie up a prosecutor and judge’s ability to make a plea deal. Sex offences therefor reach plea deals less often. This balances out by them having to make more plea deals for drug dealers, physical assaults, and scammers. So now we have the guy selling drugs to high school kids getting back to business with a plea while the sexting high school kid that didnt hurt anyone gets an expensive trial, jail time, and life on a registry to keep him from the work force.

      Yep…that’s the system legislators created because stupid people buy into the fear mongering tactics over common sense.

      • Dwayne D

        Hello all! I’m new to this site. First post ever on here. I like what I read! Very good stuff from everyone! Hopefully, my Ph.D. research will allow me more time to chime in when I can? I’m usually on Twitter at dwaynedaughtry.

        As for the suggestion of “removing plea deals?” That is a critical question within justice reforms. To some (mainly prosecutors) it saves the court time and money. To others (mainly defense) it provides an opening as to how strong the prosecution pursue. To the rest, it will always seem like a win-win for both sides than victims or the accused.

        I would propose, to meet in the middle and slowly chip away at prosecutorial leverages, is if there is a plea deal that the prosecution isn’t allowed to use any lesser charge that would require offender registration. In essence, its somewhat like playing the “prayer for judgment” (PJC) but in a constructive method to allow a one-time redemption from the state. Essentially, the argument is “the state is willing to forego and ammend the original charge to a lesser charge.” It is openly admitting its willing to lessen the burden to the state. If the registry is managed by the state and court fees are assessed then its still a profitablity to the state as a whole; not the prosecutor. The prosecutor is using the opportunity to leverage that the respondent will be on the registry no matter what the plea. That isn’t a plea on par or alignment with other codified laws and procedural outcomes. That is contemptuous prejudice of law by an agent of the state (prosecutor) to amend a charge (interpreted by the state) using a particular method punishment, such as the registry (controlled by the state) and the court collects fees (distributed by the state). Any other charge without registry requirements would merely become administrative and a fine. It’s still a win-win for both sides but levels the playing field.

        Sure, it may be a long stretch of the law with some wishful thinking. But it may allow some ethical rules in determining how plea deals have become weaponized and heavily weighted by the prosecution. Always remember. “The state has unlimited resources. The defense is pay-as-you-go.”

        • TS

          The same Dwayne Daughtry that is DS Daughtry on WordPress with articles that discuss the registry, marked licenses, and NC’s thinking of late to scare people and injure children?

        • Dwayne D

          TJ – The same person. 🙂

          Sorry. for some reason I couldn’t click reply to your specific box area?

        • TS

          Welcome aboard Dewayne. Read many of your postings the other day and recommend others do the same.

        • Dwayne D


          Thank you very much! I try very hard not to inject too much emotion into my writings. Instead, I try to offer as much fact as possible. However, in the closing statements of my blogs, I often try to suggest a “call to action” which can be emotionally charged. Overall, it’s fun writing!

    • Chris f (@Mike R)

      Mike R, I was thinking about your case last night.

      Your case is driven mostly toward fighting the registry as a whole and Megans law and not about attacking the individual laws. Yours says, hey, I understand these laws may be needed against someone, but it isnt me and it lacked the due process to subject me to it. It also attacks the cumulative affects. To some extent, what I talked about above is covered, but not directly since you cant attack an individual law in your case. It is best that way as the way your case is worded is foccussed on what it needs to be go win your particular argument.

      To challenge head on what I mentioned above would take a separate challenge against a single stupid law aimed at registrants. It is possible you could file a separate case like that, but probably better to keep your focus for now.

      The correct challenge would have to ignore the easier ways to strike down a law and go specifically after separation of powers in order for it to have the needed affect on all laws against sex offenders. Otherwise, a judge can just strike down a law under something like cruel and unusual and that ruling wouldnt apply to all the other bad laws. We need precident that kills all of them. We need it written down that laws against previous crimes must be narrowly tailored AND has to have good reasons why it wasnt/isnt something the judge can decide a duration and need for during the original fair trial.

      Something needs to keep the legislation out of the judge’s duty to protect the public from someone convicted of a crime and it needs to be tailored go the individual and circumstances. Period.

  42. Rob

    Since attending the meeting in Sacramento, I have spent time brewing over what took place; where we are presently, and where we could be in the future. The most important lesson learned is everyone one of us need to be involved. I am new to being involved and I haven’t written much before because I was one of those that were dead wrong, because I felt it didn’t matter. Sacramento changed my mind, because it does MATTER, and we are not ALONE.

    I am probably not bringing up anything new, but I read thru this article (40 pages) This article really goes into depth of where we have been, how we have gotten where we are and it left me wondering if we are utilizing this material to further our cause? If so, I would apprciate someone updating me, because if we are moving forward on this thinking, what are we doing and is there anything all of us can do to accelerate it.

    It caused me to think, can we come up with a creative venue to appeal again? When words can be manipulated and myths that are turned into facts because law makers get it wrong, and they are not questioned on the validity of their statements, it does us a great injustice. As I read this article, it really attacked each one of these things.

    It made me think about is my freedom worth letting others suffer because we (the past offenders) allow others to make rules for us, and even when they are wrong we don’t stand up for ourselves because we know some of the negative impact it has. I have seen this in my own life; however this can’t be about me and it can’t be about you. It has to be about us. It has to be about what is right.

    As I read thru this article, thought about Sacramento, what Janice and the board of directors are doing to make sure we move forward, I wonered if this article is something we all ought to almost memorize and start using this article but more then this….I WANT TO DO SOMETHING PRO ACTIVE. It is time to forget fear, it is time forget about reprecussions, it is time to make enough noise that the appelate will listen to us. Get the facts straight and not allow “fancy dialogue and words” to dictate policy. The law, ex post facto law”, “Civil concerns”, etc are being trampled on because we haven’t done our job yet. ( I don’t believe just because we lose one or two battles we have the right to give up, but rather if something is not right you keep fighting until you win.

    i am new here and I know many of you have sacrifieced your time, your money, all your energy, but somehow I feel when I attended Sacramento to stand up for our rights, there seemed to be a shift. Yes, some still disappointed, but there has to be something we can do to get this right. It is not right what we are gong thru and if we don’t fight, we deserve what we get.

    I apologize for taking this long before getting involved. Please let me know how I can help. I know this has to change, and I want to be a part of that solution.

    • Chris f

      Welcome Rob!

      You are off to a great start by showing up, researching, and posting.

      Everyone has there strong points, so as far as what you can do, do everything you can and focus on your strong points. Are you smart enough to research and provide well researched and logical opinions like you appear to be? Then keep doing that, and engage in the discussions on here. That includes encouraging people as well as poking holes in false data or hopes.

      Post the truth on other sites and in news articles backed up with links.

      They say if a butterfly flaps its wings it could have been that act that causes a hurricane on the other side of the world. Be the butterfly. Maybe your post could reach the cleaning lady of a sister of a SCOTUS justice and suddenly swing a vote to end all this crap.

      Lets do this.

      • Rob

        Chris f,

        Thanks for the encouragement and I hope as time moves forward, I will be able to be more of an asset to everyone else here. I do believe change is coming in a positive way, and I want to be a part of that process. As I have moments during my day, I will explore this website, read the information coming forth, and most important of all dig hard to find ways to get to people who help us make changes. It may not always move as fast as we want, however one step at a time will get us to our destination…So we will press on and I have a few talents that may come in handy here; however I need to learn a lot from everyone here, especially those of you that have been so dligent to fight. I’ve got a fire under me, because of everything everyone has done. I’m not about to give up now. I could care less about how it will affect me, but I do care about the process of making the wrong RIGHT. So I would appreciate any guidance, and together we can make a difference. It’s an exciting time. I like the statement from the Chinese….A crisis is nothing more than troubled times on the winds of opportunities. Like you said before, maybe the winds of the butterfly will give us the freedom are all pressing for.

  43. mike r

    “It is not right what we are gong thru and if we don’t fight, we deserve what we get.”
    I love this guy already… Lol… Freedom is not free…..
    One way to fight is in the courts, ; but anyway you fight is great.

  44. Chris f (@dwayne d)

    @ dwayne d


    It would be great to get another intelligent person on here that can research and comment.

    Please let me know what you think about my above suggestions to challenge the registry from a violation of separation of powers perspective. It just makes no sense to me that it isnin the code that judges determine length of time and what is needed to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public based on individual and circumstances and do it one time in a fair court proceeding…yet legislature decided it can also “protect the public” with no individualized consideration and change those laws daily and be different city by city. It also sticks registrants on a list that allows businesses and other countries to deny entry or services because they cant afford to look at the individual and it is easiest to just ban them all.

    There has to be something unconstitional about that. Otherwise, we need to take over the voting majority in some little city and create every law we can think of against previous convictions until we can get a proper precident set.

    • Dwayne D


      Thank you for the welcoming to the blog. I will further research the separations of powers a bit more. From an immediate flip side observation (acting if I were the state presenting its argument) I would say, “Democracy is dependent by embracing the trias politica model. However, there is no democracy with an absolute proven separation of powers. Two of the branches of power are freely elected while the other is appointed based upon merit and experience to apply the outcome of law based on facts, evidence, and impartiality to both sides.” It then becomes a matter to cite precedent where separation of powers was absolute AND an absolute lack of separation of powers. It will be a hard nut to crack.

      However, I would suggest a tactic that will require “volunteering by select registrants.” There is a large amount of rhetoric exclaiming “registrants cannot be cured. It’s a disease, sickness, it can’t be helped”. Why not use that part of the argument to the advantage of how to attack the registry? It would require registrants volunteering to create “John Doe” cases where Child-Related Sexual Offenses align with a medically assessed Paraphilic Disorders (DSM-6 Catagory). The reason is simple. HIPPA and The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be challenged upon the premise a protected disabled group is listed on the registry. If past cases involved African-Americans arrested for being “black” or Muslims discriminated or detained for questioning immediately after 9/11 with a threat of “Muslim lists,” then the argument is plausible. The registry couldn’t possibly be allowed to openly disclose threats or risks of public information because a protected class of persons has a permanent disability? The registry is at fault because it doesn’t provide safety to the offender in the sense of proven effective sexually based treatment. If a registrant is listed for a lifetime, isn’t that an implication of something permanently incapable of remedy? Are law enforcement officers medically licensed to provide psychological based counseling for the lifetime of a registrant? If not, then why a compliance visit from a police officer if he/she cannot provide any reasonable accommodation other than a bed-check every so many months? Instead, offer an effective treatment program to research and determine proven strategies of success for a disabled class.

      Sure, it’s a long shot and may extend severely laced rhetoric increasing the labeling effect of registrants. But it should be tested for someone that genuinely has an untreatably based DMS condition. Physicians, professionals, and naturally mental health advocates would begin to raise their concerns about the registry in general. This would be a professionally based advocacy that could take to the airwaves representing registrants without having to be a part of the registrant organization. It would be an opportunity for medical professionals to reign in the public and political misdiagnosis that all sex offenders are the same.

      • Chris f

        @Dwayne D, thanks for the quick reply!

        Unfortunately, I believe those methods would be counter to most fights against the registry and more likely to undermine them. The state has no problem having there cake and eating it to. They would simply use the real facts of low recidivism we have been providing for that fight, but then leave those facts out when justifying the registry. Getting a person to claim they are an incurable pedophile is unlikely, and could subject them to indefinate civil commitment or bolster support for more civil commitment laws.

        To see more about the potential to fight using separation of powers, look up the booker case. Also look up the other fights against mandatory minimums. While there is overlap in the 3 branches, there is also untoucheable responsibilities. There are also plenty of quotes in the federalist papers that show the need to keep the voted in legislators seperate from court related issues because of how easily they are swayed by public opinion over what is right to do.

        The legislature should be free to provide tools to the judiciary, but not interfere with them doing their job.

        • Dwayne D


          I completely agree! As I said, it is a “hail mary” tactic and “extends severely laced rhetoric.” But, if an opportunity arises for a registrant that genuinely falls into that particular DSM category or registrants forced to disclose information pertaining to the sex offender score assessment, it will be critically important that the medical community arrives there first to present the legal argument. Otherwise, for example, a crazed-Florida politician sneaks and steamrolls an amendment mandating a “score tool for the likelihood of sexually reoffending.” That information creates a mandate to label all registrants as quasi-DSM categories. It is happening in most states using risk assessments where data is uploaded for internal use only by law enforcement, courts, and/or prosecutors to determine levels not based on criminal code or law, but an assessment tool. Mostly, sex offender risk assessments are a manufactured law enforcement document used with the implied purpose of forensic mental health screening by documentation and ambiguous questions by a member of, or that reports to all levels of the judicial community. Essentially, that same form becomes, in essence, is a medical record but established as voluntary police evidence to assign a category of risk. Because the information pertains specifically to mental health evaluations, there is no possible way a person may refuse the assessment with police or share with medical providers. This is because the law, depending on the state, often requires licensed practitioners to immediately report to authorities issue arising in pre or post harm to another person. It is often referred to as the “duty to warn” rule that supersedes breach of client confidentiality between patient/therapist. This is where the executive powers begin to overlap where a representation of government health services should be advocating equally for mental health and victims health services equally and impartially.

          And yes, I will continue my public policy pursuits into the separation of powers. I ran it by my governmental department professors this morning, and we plan on perhaps mock trials to test later in the semester. It will allow separation of powers to be challenged within social policies and provide valuable insight with lots of data, cases, and potential dilemmas to exploit.

          However, several law professors chimed in with something very unique and tactful used in anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, and now used in doxing cases. It allows people to file a federal complaint (18 U.S.C. § 2261A (2015)) against media, social apps, websites, and organizations that gather and release data for the purpose that could bring harm or intimidation of a person. It is becoming a bit more successful in prosecutions on the federal level. The professors suggested that a sex registry is a tool where organizations may be illegally collecting data (violating search conditions) from a state or Dru Sjodin websites to bring attention to a particular cause or issue. Social media, organizations, and people could be criminally charged if there is or was no new crime, but a news agency reports, based on the information gathered and used placing a person or family in dangerous or intimidating conditions.

          The scenario presented to me was: A news reporter has a lead that a sex offender is in a neighborhood where lots of families reside. The school bus that picks and drops kids is adjacent to the where the registrant lives. A parent wants the school to move the stop location but cannot for a multitude of reasons. So this becomes a “community issue” and target to find answers. Next, a reporting camera crew arrives on the scene based on the information it gathered from either public searches, public records, or other means in the name of First Amendment protections disregarding the terms and conditions where the information originated. The news shares the story along with several different registrant addresses and apex point street addresses along with photos from sex registries and past crimes. It’s blasted all over the airwaves creating a stir and panic. However, the registrant has children living in the home with his/her spouse. Now the family is in danger at work, school, home, or anywhere without committing any crimes what so ever. From the professor’s viewpoint, it is cleaver forms of registry-doxing that should be challenged at the federal level. It was suggested non-registrant spouses file a federal standing claim where media reporting crosses over state lines. It is rather unique and perhaps an opening to crack registry information being habitually used or shared in media contexts.

  45. mike r

    Here is a link to some cited facts for anyone that wants to spread them and educate people.

  46. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    “Registered sex offenders would be barred from ‘Beloved Community Village'” On the other hand, we’re perfectly welcome at the “Loathed and Despised gated community” of Greater Coalinga. So, we do have options.

    • Facts shuld matter

      Shocker! I expected more from the progressive state of Colorado, but with “this topic” nothing surprises me anymore. I’ve actually become desensitized to the disenfranchisement and weaponized hate..

  47. AJ

    More smoke coming from the Jeffrey Epstein stuff…this time with good ol’ Dersh in the crosshairs as defendant: I think there’s little chance this will go away as it did before, though it may take a number of years (more).

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      As a frequent participant in “lawyers who go on television,” that Dershowitz is getting some of the bad-touches spotlight now is a delight to the senses, especially given his excoriations of Woody Allen as a “pedophile” way back when Mia hired him to help her vent her hellacious fury having been scorned by the hapless comedian. Just desserts.

  48. Notorious List-Maker

    You see, the thing about the registry is that its part of my “healing process.”

    “The meeting went over the basics of the sex offender registry list and how sex offenders are monitored in the community. There are 476 registered sex offenders in Marathon County.

    Jessica Lind, a representative from the Women’s Community in Wausau said that having access to the list is often part of the healing process for victims.

    “It’s important that the victims know they can find out about what has happened with their case. When the offender is released from jail, how they’re going to be supervised. That’s really another important part of the healing journey for victims,” Lind said.”

    • E

      Turns out Wisconsin has extraordinary rules and laws around protecting victims. It’s a part of how they justify keeping anyone who ever committed an offense in WI ACTIVELY REGISTERING ANNUALLY on their registry for life regardless of where the person now lives… not justified by public safety, as RSO laws usually are, but by victims rights arguments… your victim has a right to always be able to look you up, even if you leave WI. Craziness. I wish there was a stronger affiliate in WI to take this on.

      • NY won’t let go

        At least in WI it’s if they committed their crime in WI. Im stuck on NYs for something that happened in MI. It has nothing to do with public safety or victims rights. I’m not coming back to the states. So who are they protecting? Their jobs. That is all that is getting protected. Get paid to do nothing 👍

    • Facts should matter

      “having access to the list is often part of the healing process for victims.”

      Yeah, riiighhhttt… What a load of CRAP.

      That sounds like an insane amount of entitlement and privilege just so they can garner a trivial amount of fleeting psychological comfort.

      Actually, what they don’t know won’t hurt them. Further, It doesn’t matter if a sex conviction is already public records because the registry is all about MONETIZING MISERY.. but the registry is being framed and spun as crucial and vital to “public safety.” Which of course is an intellectually dishonest statement and a specious argument. Especially to someone that only has a CP possession charge.

  49. RegistrantNotAnOffender

    Check out this awful law they are trying to pass in FLA

    On April 10th, The Florida House of Representatives amended House Bill 987: Public Lodging Establishments, to require Persons required to register as sex offenders report to the Sheriff’s office where they will be staying, 48 hours before an intended stay at a Public Lodging Establishment, regardless of how long they will stay at the location!

    In addition, operators of a Public Lodging Establishment who have a Person required to register as a sex offender staying at or within 1000 feet of their establishment, must notify all guests staying there.

    • Katharine

      The first part of this sounds like something you’d need a time machine to accomplish.
      “Honey, I have to go to Florida for a business trip. Can you fire up the Tardis for me?”

    • Will Allen

      No one should be giving any business to Floriduh anyway. I’d pray that they sink into the ocean today but then those scumbags would invade the rest of the country. If we want a wall, that is where it should be built.

      Floriduh is always looking for federal “assistance”. Vote to keep them broke. F*ck them. I’ll be happy to keep my business ventures out of their cesspool.

    • e

      @ Registrant

      It is hard to believe that as messed up as it is in California, I am glad I am not in most other states.
      It would be interesting to try this:

      Find as many registrants that have the resources, create a corporation, and buy one of those towns That you read about that are for sale. Then create a set of ordinances that bans all law enforcement from entering city limits except that which is hired by the corporation. Also have ordinances that let any live there without registering. Similar to a reservation. Just spitballing!

  50. Chris f (@dwayne d)

    @dwayne d

    That’s a really good point. I can see where (18 U.S.C. § 2261A (2015)) could be used in instances where the reasons for disclosure or trumpetting to the masses tge info on a sex offender could rise to violating. Just the existence of that law could be persuasive in other cases or added to an equal protection argument.

    I look forward to hearing about any mock court scenarios and how they play out.

    Here is a suggested mock scenario:

    The 5 year old son of a prominent local business owner is killed by an out of town drunk driver. The town adopts ordinances making it illegal for anyone with a past alcohol related conviction like drunk driving or public intoxication to enter any business that sells alcohol. The next year they add a 500 foot proximity restriction. A neighboring town does the same but makes it 1000 feet. The original town raises it to 1500 feet in response because they dont want to make it any easier for alcoholics.

    Now you have a few people that have many generations of family living in this town that dont want to leave, but due to a long past drunk driving conviction from their youth they are feeling pushed out of their own town.

    The town knows this will pass rational basis review because it is to protect the public.

    How do you fight that?

    How do you get a ruling that will declare the legislature can’t add restrictions onto someone for past crimes?

    There are plenty of court decisions stating a judge can’t put extra restrictions on someone convicted of a crime unless it is taylored to the individual and the crime and the duration is appropriate.

    There are plenty of decisions stating restrictions or laws must be clearly understood and not vague, but somehow restrictions changed daily by any town are expected to be followed?

    There are plenty of decisions regarding an expectation of finality to a legal issue, yet these restrictions can change and be added to indefinitely?

    I just dont understand how judges can rule that other judges have to treat those convicted a certain way to be fair and constitional yet allow the legislature to do as they wish and severly complicate their judicial duty.

Leave a Reply

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

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

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