ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments June 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of June 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 relevant comment.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Question… isn’t the Registry a form of Doxing?
With all the talk about how harmful Doxing is, it begs the question is the States intent to cause harm to its citizens? Wikipedia defines it as a tool for Law Enforcement but then goes on to say it’s used for Vigilantism, Online Shaming, Extortion, Coercion, Harassment, and Inflicting Harm….I’d say we as a group can check every single one of those boxes. But is there a way to fight this? Seems to me the Bad outweighs the Good.

I think anything beyond a persons orignal conviction is. Obvisouly my orignal mugshot, crime, address, etc are a matter of public record. But I would argue my current information is not in the public domain. And that we should have a right to privacy for anything not in our dockets.

For those keeping score at home, the cases posted today brought a mix of strange bedfellows when it came to voting:

Supreme Court Justices Split Along Unexpected Lines In 3 Cases

Kinda shows the unpredictable nature. Let’s all done this again on Thursday, shall we?

I have a question about, if I was found to be a low risk sex reoffender in a psychosocial evaluation in Florida after I pled guilty to unauthorized sex with a 16-17 year old minor and travelling to meet a 16-17 year old minor for unauthorized sex, and completed two years of sex offender therapy and six years of felony sex offender probation with GPS ankle monitor for entire probation served, and 3 years of incarceration, why do I have to register four times per year in the state of Nebraska where I moved to? Is there any way to get the lifetime registration requirement amended. I only had to register two times per year in Florida, so why do I have to register 4 times per year here in Nebraska? Does anyone here know of any attorneys that would work for and with me to get my registration requirement amended? Why, if my charges would only require me to register for 15 years in Nebraska, but because Florida has only a lifetime registrant for sex offenses, the state of Nebraska recognizes the state of Florida’s requirement and makes me register for life here in their state and makes me register twice as often as I did when I was on probation for the charge I pled guilty to in Florida.

Most States follow the guidelines of the State you were convicted in or the State which you have now moved, whichever has the strictest requirements. No state wants offenders to move to their state because registration requirements are more desirable in their state. I’m sure there will be a few lawyers willing to take your money, but it would likely just be a waste of money. If it was reversed and you were convicted in a 15 year registration State and then moved to a lifetime registration State, then perhaps you would have a way to challenge that issue.

Since ML is considered a regulatory scheme, each State is free to craft the terms as it sees fit. So NE is free to have you register more, the same, or less than somewhere else. There is zero traction on that part of your question. As to your having to register for life versus someone in NE being off for 15 years for a similar offense, it can be slippery. At first blush it would appear to be a 14th Amdt. violation for the State treating a migrant differently than a native. However a crafty lawyer and/or an unwilling judge could easily say that just by the fact you offense is out-of-state vs in-state, they are apples and oranges. Of course this is essentially arguing, “heads I win, tails you lose” because if if’s similar enough to establish the registration requirement, how can it not be similar enough to determine registration duration (15 v. life)?

Were I you, I’d keep tabs on “Hope v. Indiana” in the IN Federal District Court, Southern District, Indianapolis Division (case number 1:16-cv-02865-RLY-TAB). A fresh status check on PACER shows no movement since January 2019. Last told, the RCs were winning their case that IN was treating them unfairly by giving them harsher registration than those who had never left IN.

Norm Pattis is defending Alex Jones…yes, that Alex Jones…with regard to his forwarding email discovery in a court case that happens to contain attachments of child porn.

While most people here may have a certain opinion on Alex Jones, Norm Pattis is rightfully ensuring that onerous charges are not filed for an obvious setup by an outside instigator. Jones may occasionally be hit with false flag allegations, but creating one with material that would get most men thrown into jail for decades is not something even he would risk, and Norm Pattis is one who apparently agrees. Had Pattis had any indication that Jones was false flagging, Pattis would not touch the Jones case with a ten-parsec* pole.

*One parsec = 101,246,720,000,000 feet

Looking for information on housing in Sacramento

Well, seems this group’s heroine of the devious and BS tiers, Los Angeles DA Jackie Lacey, is being targeted for ouster by various progressive groups, who are supporting San Francisco DA George Gascon to run against Lacey in her re-election campaign. The progressive groups have been very unhappy with how hard core Lacey has been as DA.

Gee, I know I warned about her as that when the tiers were being pushed, and how devious a proposal she was slipping through, appearing to be much more than it was and connivingly undermining chances for a decent plan instead, co-opting the entire effort. Well, I’m not the only one who did and does see through her. Too bad this group is blind and would not listen, too bad this group is NOT progressive, is merely BS moderate and completely accepting of registration even though we have already met the legal test to show we have reformed, the standard of parole or probation. Moderate will never fix or stop this horror of registration. Increasing the registration period from 7 years to 10 years for three of the misdemeanors (meeting the same standard as a COR under the tier proposal, but the COR was 7 years, not 10 years) is not going to help — instead, all misdemeanors should have been dropped from registration, a misdemeanor by law is just poor demeanor, something offensive, not something dangerous.

From today’s Los Angeles Times:

Gascon has already said he is not running for re-election on San Francisco. He does have Los Angeles roots, in fact was an assistant chief with LAPD before he went to San Francisco. He is law enforcement background, but he has shown a notably more liberal bent than most prosecutors, and definitely more so than Lacey, who is always playing devious smoke and mirrors games with everything. A liberal prosecutor would not still be filing death penalty charges after the governor has put a moratorium an all executions for at least the duration of his time as governor, potentially eight years more. She has all the political cover she needs to not file for the death penalty, but she is continuing to do so anyway – this is this group’s heroine. She could have promoted a tier plan, or even serious scale back of who must registering the first place, but she chose not to, instead co-opted and undermined any such effort — to the point that this BS group wasn’t even allowed in the discussion about a final proposal.

When I saw the name change for this group, I feared it had pulled away from the idea of ending registration some day, had gone moderate and ACCEPTING of registration as being OK, just limit it some. And all it is doing is seeking to limit some here and there. Same with the federal effort to block international travel by registrants, going only after a marker on the passport, not against the record being sent anyway, which will get you nixed just the same unless you get very lucky, and you can’t rely on luck when booking travel that will run you thousands and thousands of dollars and coordinating with other people or groups on the other side.

For now, I take pleasure in this push by actual progressives to get rid of BS Jackie Lacey. I don’t know where Gascon stands on registration, but he still is far better than devious Lacey, who made fools of this group and undermined any effort to eliminate all registration beyond that required by the federal government.

To start that elimination of unrequired registration, this group should at minimum push very hard to eliminate all registration for misdemeanors, at least after successful end of probation as it used to be. If this group thinks it is too much to demand an end to registration for misdemeanors, then this group should dissolve, especially in light or supporting a tier proposal that lengthened the time for registering for 3 misdemeanors!

I’m posting this here to those who may not be aware of what CBP secondary can really be like upon return to the US of A from overseas travel. Yes, we have discussed details like this before in this forum, but not to this extreme to my recollection.

This is not a political posting or one meant to evoke any political discussion, which one could get from the words written in the article, but merely to show in raw detail what secondary can be like for those who are US citizens, especially those who are impacted by the registry and provided travel notification, when they return.

I am not posting it to chastise the journalist either and his actions, but it does show what we have discussed here about going through CBP being simplified by mailing devices, etc back before departure is prudent advice if you travel with them. I think his point of consider everything that is on your phone now, including logged in apps, when you go through CBP is spot on. In my mind, it makes an international burner smartphone a way to go so it can be disposed upon return and using my regular smart phone safer.

I’m a Journalist but I Didn’t Fully Realize the Terrible Power of U.S. Border Officials Until They Violated My Rights and Privacy

Travel safe, travel smart…

Well if this don’t take the cake. Mark me speechless. FL Action Committee just posted a letter the mayor of Houston wrote welcoming delegates to NARSOL’s conference. I recognize they operate in the same space as ACSOL, but this may be worth linking to. His attitude and language are commendable and worth highlighting.

Wow! That is quite novel and refreshing. Thanks for posting that link.

California Megan’s Law website now post how they derive scores with graphics to show how after years pass the risk of reoffence drops.And it quotes Once a sex offender, not always a sex offender.

I’m curious if California treats people as far as tiers based on the scoring system. After all, if that was the case, many tier 3’s would score as in some of the lowest ratings when enough time passed.

Article on politico today quoted CJ Roberts (we’ve all seen it), and as I read it again I wondered whether it could be used in an RC case:

‘Last November, when President Donald Trump made derisive comments about “Obama judges,” Roberts shot back with a statement declaring “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. … What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”’

I’d love to see the quote “doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them” used in an RC case to emphasize due process and that ANY impact (including punishment and collateral impacts) must be tailored (level best to do equal right) to each defendant. Just a thought.

@Will Allen, et al

As we recently discussed here, those who were affected by the OPM data breach were given the credit monitoring services for a number of years which has been extended. Included in the etc of the credit monitoring is notifications of those who are on the registry when they move into your local area.

I got another notification of one of those individuals from this entity watching my credit in addition to those on the registry who move in which I did not realize was part of the pkg. I’m so shaking my head in disbelief about this. Your government tax dollars at work beyond the initial credit monitoring.

I am sure the local group will be all over this like stink from a cow pie on a hot Summer’s Day. Of course, I can’t verify that because I’m not allowed to participate in that illustrious elite select group of people.

Do you happen to know the web site of the monitoring service? Perhaps they try to explain there why Registries are related to credit monitoring? Or at the very least, they should have a way to easily contact them and ask them WTF they are doing. If I were a client of theirs, I’m about 100% sure that I would send them a nasty communication that demanded to know why that information was included. Might say something like, “I am your client so why are you telling people about where I move and when?” F them.

I am a member on the P.O.S. I think I was able to join because someone directly invited me. If I try to join anyone else in my home, it rejects it because the address matches an address targeted for harassment by U.S. criminal regimes. So I don’t know it their software was supposed to let me join or not.

And of course, they are plenty of total t*ats on There hasn’t be a lot of freak-outs about Registered People but they do talk about them occasionally. I very, very, very badly want to tell them to go F themselves but I expect that would get me kicked off quickly and then I’d have to access and use it by less convenient means. The people who do the talking are the people who are just a**holes on there all the time, regardless of anything. Scumbags support Registries.

@Will Allen

You can search for OPM and MyIDCare for the website and FAQs etc if you are interested. They are doing the work for the USG and OPM after the data breach, but they did not give me a reason for it when I asked before.


I looked around a little bit but I sure don’t feel like wasting any more time today worrying about it. I’ve got to go celebrate being free! Go hang around a bunch of people who don’t have any idea that I’m listed on a Nanny Big Government Registry. I’ll make sure the Registries are worse than just worthless.

You probably know but MyIDCare is also to protect your “identity” in addition to credit. They say they monitor arrest records, court records, and such. I expect so they see your identity doesn’t pop up there unexpectedly. So I could see the same reasoning being applied to the Registry. However, I cannot figure out why they would notify you about Registered People just moving near you. I cannot fathom how they think that makes sense.

But I do think they’d TRY to use that fear-mongering to try to sell their products to people. I looked on their website and was a little surprised to not find any bragging on there about that bit of stupidity. Perhaps they realize it makes them look like idiots? Looking like idiots scares away customers.

I did look on and found the question “Can sex offender alerts be ceased?” So I expect some people didn’t like the stupidity.

The answer is – “Yes, the sex offender alerts can be ceased. Please call the service provider at 800-750-3004 and a representative will be able to assist you. Please note that the removal of these alerts will take 24 to 48 hours and the removal will not impact the credit monitoring features of your membership. Once you cease the sex offender alerts, it cannot be undone.”

I called that number and went through the voice prompts (said “I am enrolled” and “I have received a notice I have a question about”) to get a live person. Told the person that I received a notice about a “$EX offender” moving in near me and wondered what it was about. Went through a whole thing about how I thought they monitored credit and identity theft and was just wondering how that tied in. The person told me it didn’t. But, meh, obviously that’s just one of their people (that likely makes minimum wage and doesn’t really know or care). But it would be pretty funny if a million people called them and asked what is up. Maybe they’d reconsider just doing random, stupid sh*t.

FYI update on Millard. The State’s replies to the two supplemental filings were posted on June 28. They shoot them both down, no surprise. For the AK case, they say it has no bearing because it’s wholly AK-based and centric, that AK has different and greater privacy protections than the federal constitution, etc. For the CO case, they say it has no bearing because that was to do with a juvenile subject to lifetime registration, not adults and not a (former) juvenile who has an unpursued appeal process. They also point out there’s another juvenile case from the CO CoA that is exactly opposite the one cited (and mentioned here on ACSOL).

While that all may be factual and true, it’s unsurprising they didn’t delve into the reasoning the judges used, which is where the meat and value lie. That all said, I don’t foresee the 10th giving much, if any, consideration to the AK case (it IS very AK-focused and specific), and may discount the CO case due to conflicting rulings and further litigation pending on it (remanded to the district court).

Do we really assume Hartz, Seymour, and Eid haven’t already voted on this? I don’t know how such decisions work, but wouldn’t they hear oral arguments, vote, and assign the writing? #JustWondering

I have neither idea nor opinion one way or the other. For all I know, they were awaiting some other SCOTUS or CCoA ruling to help with this case. Through repeated and painful misses, I’ve learned to shy away from trying to read the tea leaves of the courts. At any rate, I now try to focus on the courts’ outputs to see how they may work to our advantage or disadvantage. That all said, I would *hope* they’ve at least voted, given it’s been 6-8 months since argument.

It seems AL has another problem with how it treats some of its citizens vis a vis DLs:

Though the case is about transgender individuals, many of the problems and complaints match our problems. IDK if or how it could ever be useful for us, but they certainly lean on “cv606”, the RC DL case AL lost.

A SCOTUS ruling from way back (Chastleton v. Sinclair) that I’ve mentioned on here before has been swirling in my head again lately. In doing a little more digging (thank you ROSS), this case is not only still valid, it has been cited almost 200 times in cases over the years. The pertinent statement from the Chastleton holding is: “A law depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change.”

Another SCOTUS case in which it was mentioned was Leary v. US. Of particular interest from that case is Footnote 68: “A statute based upon a legislative declaration of facts is subject to constitutional attack on the ground that the facts no longer exist; in ruling upon such a challenge, a court must, of course, be free to reexamine the factual declaration. See Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154-155 (1921); Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U.S. 1, 110-114 (1961).”

What that all seems to mean is that when facts change, not only do (IIRC, the 9th CCoA said “must”) courts consider the new facts, but they are also “free to reexamine the factual declaration.” Think about this in our situation. The courts could go back and look at the facts behind any statute based on “frightening and high.” As we all know, those facts are bunkum. Also part of this footnote is that the *new* facts must be considered. Those facts would be the many governmental and academic studies to our benefit.

I hate to get to spooled up about this, but it sure seems this angle could have some traction to dispel “f & h” and perhaps even undermine Smith through destruction of this hoax of a phrase.

@AJ, those are interesting observations. I am going to find the time to read the cases you mentioned.

Do you know if any of the 200+ cases that cited Chastleton v Sinclair were registry challenges? I suppose one would have to read at least the summary of each one to know.

Another thing to examine would be the extent to which any ruling upholding registry laws depended on ‘f & h’ or a putative ’emergency’ to reach it. In other words, could the holding have been reached without it?

From my quick scan of the cases, none involves a RC challenge. However, they do mostly (if not all) seem to challenge and/or implicate some sort of regulatory scheme. That would seem to play to our favor. I plan to read a few more of these cases, concentrating on any SCOTUS or CCoAs ones. I’ll also dig into any cited cases (such as those mentioned in Leahy’s footnote) to see what fruit they may bear.

Chastleton says, “emergency or other certain state of facts.” An emergency is not required. Assuming, arguendo, “f &h” (or similar phrasing) was legit, the “certain state of facts” has changed and we have numerous and repeated studies and reports to prove it. Whether a court will listen is a whole other story.

You do such great research, AJ, I hate to have to be the devil’s advocate, but here goes:
Frightening & high was never legit, as you know The author of the report from which it came has recanted it, or says he was misunderstood. Whatever. Even in light of this, the powers-that-be will claim that the existence of the registries has resulted in a recidivism rate lower than before they were created. What needs to be shown, therefore, is that the registries have had virtually no impact on recidivism among the already-convicted. And it’s going to be tough to find those figures, because I doubt anyone was really looking for them. Someone on this board once presented data from the 1930s, I think, that showed that recidivism rates really haven’t changed since them. [I will never be able to find that post; maybe someone else can. ] That’s good data, and more like it would be needed. But then, there is the public-awareness factor — how letting people know about the convicted allows them to take preventive measures. That’s going to be even tougher to refute. Not impossible — maybe on the grounds of internet privacy, which seems to be gaining traction with the public, or not having a constitutional right to know — but tough. Don’t get me wrong; I like this argument. It has real merit. I think with fabulous data, it might have a chance. Without it, I think it’s going to be a really tough sell in the courts, however much legal precedent is in its favor.

@Kat along those lines. While are conviction is a matter of public record, I would argue our current photos arent. Nor our current addresses. Or job. None of that is a public record and maybe privacy laws will come to a point that it means something.

@AJ, @MikeR I need advice on filing a pro se motion. I was wrongfully convicted of two counts of dissemination of matter harmful to a minor and the appeals issued a decision overturning the convictions. Unfortunately, every attorney I’ve spoken tosays I’m not liable for wrongful conviction compensation with the exception of getting my probation fees back. I don’t want to have to pay my attorney to file a motion to get the probation fees back (I know I’m entitled due to CO v Nelson and Commonwealth v Martinez, Commonwealth v Green). Do you have any advice on how to file a motion to get my probation fees back?

“Frightening & high was never legit, as you know The author of the report from which it came has recanted it, or says he was misunderstood.”
I know f&h is never legit, but that only plays into our hands. Indeed, had the real recidivism data been used back then, we’d be screwed because there would be no demonstrable improvement–just the same old <5% rate. However if we assume it was the sky-is-falling rates cited by SCOTUS and legislatures, then look at what we now find…<5% rates!"

"…the powers-that-be will claim that the existence of the registries has resulted in a recidivism rate lower than before they were created. What needs to be shown, therefore, is that the registries have had virtually no impact on recidivism among the already-convicted. And it’s going to be tough to find those figures, because I doubt anyone was really looking for them."
Quite to the contrary. NJ did a 21-year study spanning ten years before and ten years after enactment of ML and found no reliable statistical differences. (NJ is of course the home-state of Megan for whom the law is named. Just a bit of irony.) As well, MN did a study of all of its offenders who recidivated and found residency and/or presence restrictions would have had zero preventive effect. (Side note: MN only publicly publishes Tier IIIs. Tier Is are LE only, Tier IIs are limited LE and places like schools and nursing homes.) So we do indeed have the data. Yes, the chuckleheads will try to show the registries do magic, but the two above studies, not to mention comparing recidivism among limited-release-ML States and ape-sh!t-crazy States, can readily prove to a (true) jurist that it's a bunch of BS.

That all said, I *know* it will be a tough, perhaps impossible, argument in the courts. But if it even has a hint of traction, it would seem prudent to try it in the proper venue (read: NOT the 5th or 11th Circuits).

The argument would need to be very well crafted, as the fight against rational-basis review is a steep uphill one. Rational-basis review was birthed in the most famous footnote in U.S. legal history: Footnote 4 of U.S. vs. Carolene Products ( However, this same footnote also says a higher level of scrutiny is warranted when there is, "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities." Not only are RCs discrete and insular, society is doing everything it can to insulate itself from us (read: banish)! What's also interesting about Carolene is this quote, which relied upon Chastleton and other cases (citations removed):
Where the existence of a rational basis for legislation whose constitutionality is attacked depends upon facts beyond the sphere of judicial notice, such facts may properly be male (sic) the subject of judicial inquiry, and the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist. Similarly we recognize that the constitutionality of a statute, valid on its face, may be assailed by proof of facts tending to show that the statute as applied to a particular article is without support in reason because the article, although within the prohibited class, is so different from others of the class as to be without the reason for the prohibition[.]"
Again, I don't want to get too spooled up about the prospects of this, but it would seem to me we'd be able to show the particular state of "f & h" has ceased to exist (though we all know it never existed to start). I don't foresee a facial challenge working, but I wonder if it could be shown the statute as applied to a "particular article" (read: RC) is "so different" as to be without reason. IOW, again assuming "f&h" is/was true, digging into the data that supported "f&h" should allow many RCs to show they are "so different" from those members of the class.

I realize that's all a bunch of suppositions and thin possibilities, but I still wonder to its effectiveness. It would seem to me that if "f&h" can get debunked, the whole one-size-fits-all ML crumbles. Do I think it would mean the end of them? No, not really. I do, however, think it would put the onus on the State in some manner, perhaps individual assessments…?

Long posting longer: I think it's a very tricky argument that would require lots of digging into cases that have relied on Chastleton and progeny. I also think a "willing" judicary would perhaps give it a shot. Then again, I could be wholly off base.

P.S. Thanks for the kudos. Please don't ever stop being a devil's advocate to my ramblings. I yearn for those from anyone and everyone so I can try to close holes. 🙂

I saw this and thought, “Wow, how have P.O.S. lawmmakers failed to use this on us PCOSO*s??”

Seriously, we are already banned from Facebook, Airbnb, NextDoor, etc. Often, we cannot comment on news article or opinion pieces which directly affect us because the only means of response is through a Facebook account. So why are they waiting? Why not just go all out and impose this on all PCOSOs?

*PCOSO = Person Convicted of a Sex Offense/s.

(Yes, I am aware that Facebook, Airbnb, NextDoor, etc. are private corporations, but my point stands.)

Just got off the phone with Richard Gladden. For those of you who don’t know, he is an attorney here in Texas that has won some registry restriction cases for the side of registered citizens here in Texas, and other things. Richard explained to me about the Hearn case pending in August, and how he expects to win it. You can look that case up here: If won, it will send it to the 5th circuit which will take about another year. If it’s won there about 3500-3700 defendants (myself included) will be relieved of their duty to register. At that point Texas will either relieve those people or should be prepared to be sued about 3500 times for relief.

From my understanding there was a registry started in Texas about 1993, however if the terms of your probation state that your registration ends after your probation is up then those are the people who are in this list of 3500 who will be relieved.

My deferred adjudication plea agreement in 1992 doesn’t mention registration, as that wasn’t even a thing at the time.

Steveo how/where did you find out many defendants there are with plea deals that limited the registration term limit?

(I pulled your posting out of the other, nested conversation and re-started it here for ease in replies.)
@AJ, @MikeR I need advice on filing a pro se motion. I was wrongfully convicted of two counts of dissemination of matter harmful to a minor and the appeals issued a decision overturning the convictions. Unfortunately, every attorney I’ve spoken tosays I’m not liable for wrongful conviction compensation with the exception of getting my probation fees back. I don’t want to have to pay my attorney to file a motion to get the probation fees back (I know I’m entitled due to CO v Nelson and Commonwealth v Martinez, Commonwealth v Green). Do you have any advice on how to file a motion to get my probation fees back?
IIRC, you were hit on State, not Federal, charges. This can make things cheaper and perhaps faster, but not necessarily any easier. I suggest getting a copy of your State’s rules of civil procedure and read through the applicable parts (skip things like bankruptcy). Also, I would contact the local clerk of court and find out what the filing fees are (it may not be worth the money to fight to get the money) and if they offer a pro se guide to the courts. A basic search for “[your State] pro se guidelines” may help. Here’s an example of what I got from searching for “MA pro se guidelines”:

Beyond that, finding precedents (such as you’ve posted) and finding how and how well they mesh with your situation will be key. Be sure to hunt down any case law mentioned in those precedents, as they sometimes contain hidden gems.

This should give you a good start and keep you busy for a little bit. 🙂 Oh, also be sure to check if there’s any sort of time limit on getting your monies back. There may be none, or there may be 60 days, or 6 months, or 1 year, or 2 years, etc. Some of that info may be able to be gleaned from the Commonwealth cases you cited.

You may want to try avvo, too, though I would avoid mentioning you’re interested in help with pro se. Many of the peeps on there are only trolling for clients and won’t give much help if they don’t see the possibility of money.

@AJ thanks yes they were state charges. It’s not about the money, it’s about the point of it. I’m blessed to have a good job and am even willing to pay an attorney just to get a refund back because of the principle of the thing, however, id rather do it pro se just to get the satisfaction.

Who do I file it against or do I need to file it against someone? Do I file against the DA? Probation department? The commonwealth?

Just read through commonwealth v martinez and they outline a procedure on how to file the motion, how kind of them!

“It’s not about the money, it’s about the point of it. I’m blessed to have a good job and am even willing to pay an attorney just to get a refund back because of the principle of the thing, however, id rather do it pro se just to get the satisfaction.”
You’re a man after my own heart! That’s what often drives me. I know you’re smart enough (quant) to figure it out.

I’m glad you discovered a template case you can use. IMO, that’s how much of law is done, mimicry. Sadly, that’s also why things like challenging RC laws fail. It takes a LOT of work and strategy to come up with something new and yet within the constraints of case law.

I’ll offer whatever help, support and direction I can. I suspect you’ll do quite fine. 🙂

For those naysayers on here who said J3ffrey Epst3in would never be brought to justice and will live his life out on his private island, I suggest you do a search for his name. He was arrested on sex trafficking charges Saturday night. Given the rumors and names that swirled both when he was originally charged and with the re-opening of the case in NY, there are sure to be some anxious rich men out there right now.

With this arrest, I’m guessing more victims will step forward and things will only get worse for this man.

Here’s a bit more about J.E.’s case and friends. From the sounds of it, this may be a much bigger case than “just” sex trafficking. Given his ability to jet here or there it shouldn’t be too hard to convince a judge he’s a flight risk. I wouldn’t be surprised if bail is denied.

“With J______ E______ locked up, these are nervous times for his friends, enablers”

Hmm. Interesting. Since he has been an RC since 2008, I wonder if he gave his 21 day notice before traveling internationally. If he didn’t, was this the just cause in obtaining a warrant.

I doubt IML violations would trigger the sort of investigation and response that’s apparently occurred. If Christine Pelosi (yes, Nancy’s daughter) proves correct, this could well be a scandal unlike any this country has ever seen. Her quote: “It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated” ( Faves? Like who? Maybe Slick Willie, who flew some two dozen times on the (grossly-nicknamed) “Lolita Express” private jet of J.E.? Maybe the third child England’s sovereign? Maybe everyone’s favorite talking-head-lawyer-for-hire? (For the record, Dersh wants court records unsealed, claiming they will prove his innocence.)

Nothing too much is going to happen on this anytime soon, but I wonder what the effect will be long-term on MLs and such. If some bigwigs are suddenly subjected to the “non-punitive regulatory scheme,” perhaps individualized assessments become a great idea and all the rage. Perhaps some serious money goes on the offensive against Smith, CT DPS, and progeny. Ahhh, a guy can dream and hope, right?

Epstein’s US homes are in Manhattan, New York, Palm Beach, Florida, Stanley, New Mexico, and the private island of Little Saint James in the US Virgin Islands. I wonder if he has to register in all four locations, how often, and whether he has to go in person? Also, is he subject to any residency restrictions at any of his properties. For example, is he allowed to spend the night in his Palm Beach, Florida home?

I just wonder if being mega-wealthy enables even a “registered sex offender” to get preferential treatment, or if he is treated like any of us would be.

According to the national repository (I searched “Jeff Epstein” at not only is he registered in FL, NY, NM, and USVI (twice- residential and business), but France too. It will be some time before he sees any of those places again.

As a side note, I see nsopw now offers a mobile app to show where RCs are. Isn’t this (again and still) contrary to Kennedy’s words in Smith about people having to make an effort and seek out the info, akin to a Courthouse e-visit? Now it’s no longer private actors (N3xtD00r, etc) doing it, it’s the US Gov’t…that means a whole lot more legally, I would think. It appears the app still requires the “work” of having one’s GPS turned on and entering a search radius, but that’s a shade different than what was painted in Smith.

I’m very surprised that he hasn’t yet put millions into fighting against the registry. I doubt he will be allowed bail since he could find a way out of the USA without having a valid passport. He could get the best makeup artists to make him look completely different (do you have to use a fingerprint at US Customs?). If I was him right now and I was granted bail, I’d drop millions into some foreign dictator to allow entry and residency to avoid life in prison here. He is the exact definition of a flight risk.

@AJ, Thanks for that research, and especially the mention of the mobile app. You are right, that goes leagues beyond anything contemplated in Smith v Doe. I agree that because it is the government doing it, it makes it especially meaningful.

I don’t know exactly how it can be leveraged most effectively, but I suspect it would help most if used in concert with many other indicators, such as presence and residence restrictions, reporting and travel restrictions, employment restrictions, government-facilitated banning by private actors from online communities and forums, and so on, that demonstrate how the registry effectively serves to shame and to facilitate banning and shunning.

I am a bit reluctant to try that app myself, as I don’t want to support it, but if it shows precisely where we live, or even if it only identifies the approximate location, it would seem to be the best tool out there for painting a target on our backs, and marking us as dangerous social lepers and outcasts.

It is clearly all government created and promoted apartheid. Smart people know how wrong, dangerous, immoral, and anti-American that is. Dumb people have no clue and can’t be bothered to learn anything. It makes them feel good and gets them off.

Out of curiosity, I installed the NSOPW app. It’s not overly popular, with only 100k+ downloads from G00gle Play. It also isn’t very good, since it didn’t even find me! The app defaults to searching 1/4 mi from your GPS location. Yet while sitting in the middle of my house, the app didn’t show me. I expanded out to 1 mi and it found one person (who I’ve long known lives down the road)…but still not me. I wonder if this thing is that crappy, or if I need to be off “ground zero” for it to see me. I’ll never find out, as I’ve uninstalled it and don’t care to futz with it again.

To all of us registered citizens here we will be watching how the arrest of influential millionaire Jeffrey Epstein who was already been convicted and a registered citizen . Now arrested on more charges he is perhaps envious of Roman Polanski who escaped . I am hoping in some way that this trial will benefit our cause

I’m sure he will be touted as a recidivist and why we need crazy registered offender laws.

But I thought he was Registered? How could he possibly be a recidivist when everyone was being protected by the Registries?

@Will Allen:
My thoughts exactly. And he’s a Level III in NY (though only a Level I in USVI), so the whole world should have been safe!

“I am hoping in some way that this trial will benefit our cause.”

It will actually do the opposite and leave us all more scrutinized and reviled. This story is heavy in the news cycles (obviously), and I personally feel the DOJ is using this guy as a parade float to claim: “You see, not even the elite, mega-rich predators can elude capture, prosecution and justice on serious crimes against our most vulnerable.”

I despise these hypocritical L.E. jerks who go to all ends of the Earth to protect the “Constitutional rights” of, for example, gun ownership. And yet, I guarantee they don’t give a damn about violating our constitutional rights. In fact, they’ll be the very first ones to violate our rights as people convicted of sex offenses. I listened to this story on MSNBC and you could almost hear the proud sheriff polishing his badge while babbling on about constitutional rights.

@Facts should matter:
I tend to agree with you on this, at least in the short term. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if DoJ finds “extra” money to kick out to the States and we all get increased compliance checks. That’s the governmental way: overreact when a f*ck up happens so it looks like something’s being done.

I’m always hoping that the criminal regimes where I live would try to do more compliance checks. I LOVE seeing them waste time and money instead of actually trying to prevent or solve crimes. I LOVE to watch their frustration and incompetence. I think that is great.

It is especially satisfying to see them fail so spectacularly at such a basic, mundane, easy task as “verifying” that a person lives where he/she has told them. I always hope they would drag a news crew around with them so many more people can watch them fail. The general public needs to see the Registries for the gigantic, useless failure that they are.

And, I wonder if he files (with whom?) a 21-day notice of travel out of the country every time he hops over to Paris on his private jet from private Teterboro airport where he no doubt breezes through CBP. Does he just walk the underage girls right through CBP along with him? How does he get them visas, etc. There had to be an enormous legal/administrative apparatus supporting his deviant behavior.

Only good news is the obvious fact that his being on at least four state registries for 10+ years certainly didn’t slow down his outrageous ongoing sex offending. He’s the poster boy for the ineffectiveness of sex offender registries.

PS: Did you see the description of the trove of CP tapes/discs the Feds discovered in a safe in the NY house, with labels like “nude young girls?” Just shows that these rich guys think they can get away with anything.

@Illinois Contact:
“I wonder if he files (with whom?)”…

Since his primary address is in the USVI, he would file it with them.

…”a 21-day notice of travel out of the country every time he hops over to Paris on his private jet from private Teterboro airport”…
Teterboro is not a private airport. It receives Federal funding, which makes it a public airport. Just because it doesn’t have scheduled carrier service doesn’t mean it’s private. It is, however, the absolutely most convenient airport for anyone heading into NYC.

…”where he no doubt breezes through CBP.”
I doubt it. CBP loves to flex its muscles. I can only imagine they like to do so even more because 1) they are NJ/NY people and 2) they like to mess with rich, entitled pricks.


What I would, in this case, like to see is USMS go back and do a records search. Perhaps there are some FTRs awaiting him regarding IML. Personally I doubt it; I suspect he has (had? 😉 ) a personal assistant take care of it for him.

Probably referring to the FBO’s at Teterboro which are private. FBO’s are the terminals used for private and corporate jets and their hotshot passengers. I know that they often claim that one can clear Customs more quickly at an FBO but have no experience (unfortunately) to indicate whether or not that is true.

Cert of Rehab 664-288(a) I submitted my paperwork this week to the LA County Public Defenders Office Cert of Rehab department. It was a four page form and 4 character reference letters. My offense was back in 2000 as part of a sting. I will keep this site posted on the progress. I have been told the judge only reviews one day a week so looks like it might be months to get on the calendar. Thanks to those on this site who gave me the lead to the Public Defenders Office.

Has anyone noticed the amendment to the New Hampshire constitution that was passed last year? Maybe we need to focus our efforts in that state to take down the registry altogether. This is the text of the amendment that was passed by New Hampshire voters:

“[Art.] 2-b. [Right of Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.”

If that passed, and NH still has a registry, then the state apparently doesn’t believe that the registry violates [Art.] 2-b. [Right of Privacy.] Maybe because of a “compelling governmental interest”?

Or because nobody has challenged it under the new amendment.

Apparently you can renew your passport in 24 hours; that is, if you’re willing to pay extra.