ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Feb 8 – Los Angeles, Mar 7 – Berkeley details

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General 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.

Join the discussion

  1. Lake County

    New Arizona Law Just Passed:

    H.B. 2466 extends the amount of time victims have to take civil action against perpetrators of child abuse from two years to 12 years, allowing victims to pursue justice up to the age of 30. The bill also allows victims who did not have the opportunity to take civil action for their abuse due to the previous two-year limit to bring a claim against their perpetrator until December 31, 2020. In addition, the bill allows civil action to be taken against an organization that knew or had notice of the sexual conduct (Like a church).

  2. Peter

    Hey so I just wanted to give a quick update I was caught in an online sting were I was on an adult website and when I got to the hotel they dropped the age to a 17 year old. I already took my deal went to jail ect. I was looking at getting early termination of probation and expungement and many lawyers I submitted my file told me that my lawyer did absolutely nothing on my file and that I got f*cked by my lawyer. I asked my original layer to file motions and I found the video of my arrest online on YouTube because I was apart of a tv show when I got arrested and the police lied on the police report and my lawyer kept telling me that the police are allowed to lie on police reports. My lawyer never filed any motions on my behalf. My new lawyer told me to file a complaint with the bar which I did, today I got a letter from the bar stating that my complaint got bumped up to the next level and now there is a full investigation against the lawyer. I am wondering if anyone has filled a complaint against there lawyers? I also want to know if the bar comes back and says that my lawyer didn’t do his job what actions do I have now? Can I use that to reopen my case? Any info would be greatly appreciated thank you so much.

    • TS


      If the bar association comes back in your favor, you may have the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim in court and maybe a reopening of your criminal case. It wouldn’t be the first time that has happened. You’ll want to look at the due process clauses of the Constitution, procedural and substantive, to see their applicability to your situation.

      You’re looking at a long road to go possibly. A good lawyer could help you as could folks here to use as resources.

    • TS


      I’m certainly interested in your deal and how it goes if you’re willing to share here.

  3. TS

    Who says minors can’t think for themselves when it comes to sexual relations?

    Louisiana lawmakers opt against setting minimum age for marriage

  4. Timmmy

    This is HUGE News!

    A bill making it a crime to falsely accuse someone of a sexual crime was first read in the Alabama House of Representatives last week. They should also make a registry!

    • Eric Knight

      You mean the same legislature that mandated castration for registrants before they could be paroled?

  5. Peter


    I was on the hotel was across the street from my office. There was no actual minors involved it was a police sting. I said no 4 times threw text about sex but then they called me and the lady in real life is 45 years old. I answered 1 question about sex and I was arrested at my car. They were filming a tv show so my arrest was on tv. The police lied on the police report. They gave me a misdemeanor 90 days in jail I did 40 days in jail. 3 years probation and 10 years on the registry. The DA didn’t think I needed to take classes they didn’t order me to stay away from minors. The restrictions they gave me were not to pay for sex dont have sex in a car dont be in a hotel room that’s not under my name and dont loiter in a bathroom. My lawyer didn’t file 1 document for me I requested to see the contract between the police and the TV show, I wanted to know whose equipment was used, I wanted to see the operation manual that the police had to follow during the sting ect nothing was given to me. On the police report it said when the news guy interviewed me that I admitted to the crime and said I was horny, I found the tape on YouTube and it shows the opposite. Why wasn’t that tape given to me during discovery? How can I get a fair trial if my name was in 8 newspapers and on TV? The video was uploaded to YouTube 3 days after my arrest but didn’t have my first court appearance for 30 days it should of been with discovery. Probation recommended 2 years in prison but they never interviewed me like they were supposed to. This whole experience seems shady. I lost my house and job. I am in the entertainment business I had an artist on a big TV show I got fired when I got arrested. I had an investor that was going to give me 10 million for my company but pulled the offer after my arrest. What else can they take from me all this for trying to have sex with an escort?

    • TS


      Thanks for sharing that. Someone didn’t do their job it appears. It could get very interesting in the near future with this for you.

      • Peter


        The bar called me yesterday I have a phone interview with an investigator Friday at 9am. I agree things are going to be interesting. I hear that the cops that arrested me are under investigation also. My new lawyer had a talk with the head DA in the sex crime unit saying that there cops are entrapping innocent men which lead to the investigation. I hope I get to expose this unjust system we have. I have a gut feeling that my old lawyer made a deal with the DA on my case like we will throw this sex crime case under the bus but let this other client I have get off easy. I was arrested with 4 other people and everyone got they case dismissed but me. Like my new lawyer keeps saying the police cant break the law to enforce the law and that’s what they did.

        • TS


          This is a step in the right direction hopefully for you. Friday will be interesting.

  6. Bo

    I was reading about el chap and his request for bottled water, earplugs, commissary access and outdoor time. No outdoor time I understand but the rest I dont. What I really dont get is the Judges response.
    “I agree with defendant that his conduct was and remains exemplary, but that conduct is a direct consequence of the strict conditions of confinement in which he finds himself,” Cogan wrote. “His continued good behavior is not a reason to modify them. It is a reason to keep them in place.”
    So, on that thinking, under what conditions would it show they arent needed? I can imagine a lot of registered people falling in under similar thinking.

    • Tim L

      Good point,
      Runs similar to the distorted judicial review whereby Judge Matsch stated that a viable 14th due process concern rises out of district courts placing the burden on the registrant to prove what it is not possible to prove during removal requests. Essentially a guarantee of non aggression is unattainable beyond reason to doubt.
      MAKE FELONS OF THOSE NOT! The people can in no way benefit from making felons wrongly, yet we know it does occur! How? DNA exoneration. If actual evidence of guilt were necessary to convict no DNA exoneration cases could flow.

      Chatting up folks online even kids is SPEECH! Unlawful speech is a sticky wicket. Former prosecutors are, and have been getting elected, for decades so they’ve changed the rules to a more favorable position. A position whereby fair trials in sex cases can only be had by those with cash.

      BTW is a hand job bought n paid for an “attack” or ” assault”. He’ll it’s no way ” deviant” in itself.

    • Facts should matter

      You know damn well it’s about retaliatory vengeance and unwavering hatred. Full stop.

  7. Ruben Herrera

    Hi everyone,

    I just found out yesterday that my father was tortured, killed and left naked on a road in Mexico by the group called “Los Zetas”, not sure if it is true. However, my wife called the DA in Mexico to verify if it really was my father and to my surprise, it was. They sent us the picture of his passport and the pictures of his tattoos to confirm. I never had a relationship with him but in many ways I’m in pain, and I am confused. I called Homeland security to so about how do I go about the proceedings of traveling to Guatemala where my father will be transitioned to( he’s from Guatemala). Knowing that I have to inform them about traveling 21 days prior, but this is an emergency. Does any one have n idea before I called them?

    • Timmmy

      If I was you, I would not worry about it. There is a thing called “due process” which means they just cannot arbitrarily put restrictions on you at will.

    • Ali

      @Ruben Herrera

      Emergency travel must be reported as soon as travel is scheduled.

      You report to your local jurisdiction of your intent of travel.

      Guatemala is on the safe list for travels for SO

      If you are concern about getting turned away from Guatemala. Then I would seek an immigration lawyer.

      Also recommend documenting everything during your travels.

      • TS


        Sorry for your loss.

        @Ali is right. Notify your LE registration office as soon as you have all travel details since this is one of the less than 21 travel day notification exceptions as you can read about in the 2011 SORNA Guidelines on website or look online for “2011 SORNA guidelines federal register”.

        Document everything as @Ali says.

        Carry copy of travel and notification docs on you, in your bag, and on a cloud based email for quick retrieval if needed.

        Also, please advise here of your travel experiences there and back. Also, your travel notification experiences too, with who, etc.

        Peace be with you and yours.

        • Ruben Herrera

          Thank you so much as well TS, hope to se you guys at the ACSOL Conference.

        • anonymouse

          Ruben, I would also proceed as instructed by the US Marshal’s web site (thanks, Ali).

          However, I would do so in the knowledge that even the US Marshals have no legal basis for offering such an exception. If anyone sees it in current law, please cite it.

          The 2011 Guidelines offering flexibility to states, tribes and territories when amending their state laws in order to still be considered SORNA compliant is not it. It is not applicable to a 2016 federal law for individuals. No matter how many times it is posted.

          Best Wishes to you.

        • TS


          Your misunderstanding comes through again. USMS work for the AG and the DOJ with the notification exception coming from their boss with the states applying it as they see fit.

          You really should go back and read what I posted under International Travel 2019 since that’s what’s on the books. IML 2016 refers back to the 2011 and 2008 guidances posted as directed by Congress in the AWA law as I told you but you refuse to understand. There’s the applicability.

    • General Bean

      Sorry for your lost, Ruben. Good luck and safe travels.

  8. mike r

    For all those that have been following,
    “ORDER ADOPTING 46 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 06/03/19 GRANTING 37 Motion for Judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth causes of action. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)”

    Off to the 9th………..

    • Ruben Herrera

      Thank you so much
      I didn’t even know that Guatemala was one of the counties that we can travel to. I’ll be able to go then with no issues then right?

      • TS


        No issues? Even the non-travel notification person can’t say that. One never knows. With what you have to deal with, we can only hope you don’t have any much like those who go to Europe don’t have any either. Look forward to hearing about your positive travel experiences.

    • Interested Party

      @ mike r

      Sorry that it end with out much light … hope for better results at the 9th

  9. mike r

    Never use a magistrate.. It gives a real judge to easy of an out. You know what is kind of peculiar? the court did not state with or without prejudice.

  10. mike r

    See Final Judgement @
    Frigging 2 1/2 years and all the judge states is he accepts the recommendations…. Whatever….

    • E @ mike r

      I’m very sorry to see this, Mike… but it was going to the 9th anyway, I suppose. Still, a win would have been encouraging!

  11. Mike

    Has anyone traveled to Europe recently? If so where? How did it go? Where did you stay away from?


    • TS


      WRT to your travel questions, please see the International Travel 2019 and International Travel sections of this forum to see experiences in addition to reviewing the last 100-200 comments here where more current details on such travel have been shared.

  12. ReadyToFight

    Anyone else here take a plea 20 yrs ago because they said
    “you can still have a normal life”
    Yet 20 yrs later it’s anything but. And you literally feel like you must have murdered a family in cold blood to be treated the way society does? Can’t find a fucking job, can’t find a place to fucking rent, can’t hold a professional license to feed our family, can’t go here, can’t fly there, can’t stand there, can’t attend this, can’t refuse that, denied assistance, pushed out, broken up…..what’s it going to take to push back. I’m thinking.

    • Exhausted

      I’m with ya. The prime of my life has been stolen from me for “1 to 3 images” that may or may not have ever been on my hard drive at 19 years old. I’m 29 now. I was told I would have a suspended sentence. My judge handling the case had brain cancer and literally forgot about the plea deal discussed with my lawyer. Needless to say I was convicted and made to register for life. I am so tired of the arbitrary disabilities place on my life. It’s so hard to have any sense of normalcy. Any second I’m not distracting myself I start to want to cry thinking of the injustice we all face and the pain this has caused my entire family.

      I finally found my first long term relationship a few years ago but I’m now single again. And alone. My depression, anxiety and anguish I go through daily was too much strain and he had to leave. (I have been diagnosed with PTSD from the whole legal ordeal) It’s hard enough being gay in the south, let alone on the registry. Now it’s back home with the parents since I can’t afford to buy and have so much difficulty renting.

      I wish one case would go to the Supreme Court and blatantly challenge the constitutionality of the entire registry.

      What’s it going to take?

      • someone who cares

        Exhausted ~ I understand your frustration, and I want to think that this injustice makes us stronger, but it only makes me more angry. They found a scapegoat, and they can’t let go and just admit that sex offenses are far less serious than most other crimes. Many of us are on the registry for “crimes” that are not as serious as the public might think. We live in a condo complex, and the other day, our neighbor’s car got raided by a handful of undercover cops. We would have never thought these neighbors had anything to hide. But, I guess, we all have skeletons. It made me feel better to see that even those we don’t suspect might have been in trouble at some point. Nobody should judge, ever. I sure don’t.

    • General Bean

      30+ years ago for me and I feel, we all feel your pain. People are working so hard on our behalf. Let’s hope our concerted effort pay off. If it gets worse and I’ve got nothing to lose, however, the time for words will be over.

    • Lake County

      Yes, my attorney said this would be easy for me since someone would need to go down to the police department to find out if I was a registrant. When the Online list went up, I was still not included in that public list. None of my new friends knew anything about my conviction and my life was good (other than compliance checks). However, in 2010 my life went to hell when they suddenly added me the the public website. It didn’t take long before I lost my job and most of my friends. I would have fought my case much harder and differently if I had known I would be forever publicly shamed.

  13. mike r

    Yeah honestly, I do not see it going anywhere in the 9th either. I know I’m usaully optimistic about it, but I am also not naive. If the district court used the cases it cited then the 9th probably will too. IDK, will not be holding my breath for damn sure. I’m going in state court next anyway.

  14. mike r

    You never know though as the 9th has more leway to intervene on their own conflicting cases.

    • Chris f

      Definatley worth fighting in the 9th.

      I seem to recall many of the cited cases from the magistrate, when traced further to the cases they cited, being either unrelated to the issue you brought up or just citing the Smith v Doe stuff that you already demonstrated were no longer relevant or instead they were actually helping your case.

      You can also fight the earlier dismissed 6 to 9 stuff right?

      I think it will take a balance of keeping your arguments short and impactful but not leave anything out to demonstrate the absurdity of it all. Tough balance.

  15. mike r

    Absolutely can argue every claim on appeal Chris. Thanks for everyone’s support, I know a lot of the old schoolers on here have been following my case and we are not done yet, that is for sure. I think we kind of all expected it to fail in the lower courts as they are well, just the corrupted lower courts. It takes a brave soul to uphold justice and not just follow the status quo… You would like to think that each and every judge is supposed to use common sense and the constitution when deciding a case, but it apparently does not work that way.

    • TS


      Keep it going and fighting until no more steps are possible. Not every justice can be a Judge Matsch, but sure would be nice if they were. On to the 9th!

  16. mike r @ Feeling Sad

    @Feeling Sad??? Hey I cannot find you email it is buried way back somewhere so hit me up, I can tell you details and I just want to hear how you are as last time we talked it was not going very good for you guys.

  17. Steveo

    Per Gundy before the Supreme Court…. Apparently if Gundy wins democracy will die, everyone will starve, nukes will go off, time will stop, and the universe will explode into a trillion little pieces. The article doesn’t actuially say all that, but you get the point. It’s the latest apocalyptic predictions surrounding a progressive sacred cow, the sweeping interpretive power of the executive branch. This is how they get stuff done in a limited power government, they interpret things in a way that allows them to do whatever they want from the executive branch. To hell with separation of powers, unless they can enact their agenda we’re all gonna die. This is the America we live in now, it’s corrupt and everyone is moved by whatever Pavlovian-bell the media tells us is the latest imperative that MUST happen, or in this case MUST-NOT-HAPPEN! Gundy can not win or else the evil separation of powers and limited government that is the America that half Americans hate might continue to exist in some form. That America must go away if we are to have our utopia… Utopia is just around the corner everyone… If only you’ll elect this or that person….

  18. Tired of this

    I got laid off from my job with a trucking company after the local route I was on was canceled by the company we were contracting with, and there weren’t any other routes in my area. I was pretty much told “good luck” by my driver manager. I didn’t think it would be so hard to find another job in an industry that is supposedly experiencing a driver shortage, especially having a CDL and a few years of experience. But I have gotten nothing but rejection after rejection so far and it’s really killing my morale. One company specifically stated over the phone that they couldn’t hire me as long as I had to register. I fail to understand how my conviction and status is in any way relevant to the job of hauling cargo, a job I am otherwise well-qualified for and have PROVEN that I can do. It’s not like I’m trying to drive a damn school bus. I’m glad I had some money put away, or I’d be pretty much hosed. With my bills, though, it’ll be gone in months unless I manage to find another driving job soon. Trucking is about all I’m qualified for, since I never obtained a degree of any kind nor do I have other relevant work experience to do something else that isn’t low-paying labor.

    I live alone so I have no moral support at home and I have too much time to contemplate how meaningless and empty my life seems. No real social life either, unless the occasional meetup counts, which rarely results in making any connections despite my efforts. Trying to build a social life at 40 seems nearly impossible, but the alternative is more soul-crushing loneliness. My emotional state is very tenuous and I can only distract myself so much and I’m probably drinking too much.

    Not really sure where I’m going here; just needed to vent. I’m just getting tired of it all and increasingly wondering if it’s all worthwhile.

    • norman

      @Tired of this, 40 is nothing. Try doing this at 62. I too live alone and have a class A and make my living with my license. I did a six month stint at my county jail and upon release as part of my probation I had to get a job. It wasnt easy finding a job but I did find one @ $7.00 an hour less of what I was used to. Instead of $27.40 an hour I now make $20.60 an hour. The company I went to work for has an extremely hard time finding qualified drivers willing to work at a starting wage of $18.00 an hour. So when they hired me knowing my background I busted my ass every day, worked 10-12 hour days, never took a lunch break and in 3 1/2 years only requested one day off. So I could go to Janices West Sacto. meeting. Other than that I have never requested a day off. I drive a 20 year old truck that needs a lot of work and I get stopped regularly by the CHP for inspections. Before all this I always drove a brand new or close to new truck with all the bells and whistles. So I have had to lower my standards because of my first time felony and registration. That is my new normal.

      I wish you the best of luck and encourage you to continue working hard at going after the company that has a hard time finding drivers..

      You will find one that won’t be so picky..

  19. steve @tired of this

    Do you think there would be a difference if you were an owner operator? I asked this because I thought if anything ever happened with my job I would buy a truck and be an OO.

    • Tired of this

      @steve: This is something I am seriously considering if I still don’t have something within a few more weeks. It seems a viable alternative for people in our boat. Working for oneself seems to be the way to go. I’d probably lease or finance a truck (with some help from family) and use load board apps to bid on loads and stay western regional. I’ve heard of OOs making low 6 figures.

  20. Roger

    I thought this was a cool petition from a desperate family: Unregister a Sex Offender that deserves a 2nd chance. Only 3 have signed. Care to make it 4?

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      Roger, well, apparently I’m the fourth. It’s kind of a sad webpage, isn’t it? I appear to be the only non-familial signer. Oh, that does sound provocative, doesn’t it? We’ll have to make it a crime. Let’s see, could be: a sign language interpreter who insists upon signing exclusively for the unrelated hearing-impaired. Penalty: gouge out their eyes and pick their pockets!

      So Roger, unless you are one of those familial signers (and a female) it doesn’t appear that you have signed it:)

      • E

        Better go register that new internet identifier (eye roll… and commentary on the ridiculousness that would keep many of us from signing).

  21. Searching...

    So I recently obtained an MBA and now I’m in the hunt of a job…which has become somewhat stressful. Trying to find a job that wouldn’t really put me in the “spotlight” is hard and only brings up more anxiety and depression when I think too much about it. If ANYONE has any ideas…I’m all ears.


  22. Chris f

    Not registration related, but interesting legal issues:

    I am a huge supporter for gay rights…however, on this one issue I would have to side with the florist.

    This issue is not simply an artist refusing to provide their created work to someone that is gay. This is about an artist being asked to create something new specificly for a gay wedding. A wedding is usually a religious event. You cant force someone to create something to assist with another religions beliefs that is against and in conflict with your own religion. If this ruling stands then that means you should also be able to force a Muslim cartoonist to draw a cartoon of Mohamed. Does that sound like an extreme exaggeration? Well, it sounds extreme to me to force an artist of a particular religion that may vehemently deny a same sex marriage right to create something supporting the opposite of their belief and the ceremony for it.

    If it get to SCOTUS, I am sure they can narrowly tailor a decision to allowing an artist to refuse to create new content aimed at supporting a conflicting religious ceremony without setting a precident that allows any other acts of discrimination.

    • AJ

      @Chris f:
      “If it get[s] to SCOTUS…”
      I believe I saw a cert. petition mentioned the same day the ruling came out. This will be its second trip to SCOTUS, as they kicked it back to WA SC on the heels of the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. However, given the narrow reason SCOTUS mandated reconsideration (religious hostility), it probably didn’t take long for WA SC to say, “all’s good with our previous ruling. Buh bye now.”

      There’s another cert. petition pending for next Term out of Oregon with another bake shop ( SCOTUS may have kicked the can with Masterpiece, but eventually they’re going to have to rule on this.

      I have some thoughts on the argument of constitutionally enumerated fundamental rights vs. federal and/or state enacted ones, but I will spare everyone that.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        AJ, re: “I have some thoughts on the argument of constitutionally enumerated fundamental rights vs. federal and/or state enacted ones, but I will spare everyone that.” Please, don’t spare us! I would like to hear them.

      • CR

        @AJ, I would also like to hear your thoughts on constitutionally enumerated fundamental rights vs rights or privileges granted by legislatures.

        As I’m sure you know, there are fundamental rights that have been recognized by SCOTUS that are not constitutionally enumerated. A few examples are marriage, privacy, and interstate travel.

      • Chris f (@AJ)

        I give a 3rd vote wanting your opinion. 🙂

      • AJ

        Sorry folks, ain’t happenin’. It’d be a long dissertation I’m not willing to put to text. Were we sitting around having a beer, it would be a different situation. I do believe we have rights well above and beyond anything enumerated or legislated. See: Ninth Amendment.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          AJ, well then we’re just going to have to sit around someday with a beer and lament the forgotten 9th, the amendment least likely to be considered by SCOTUS in any matter defining the limits of government authority and overreach. The Ninth is my favorite amendment although, arguably, the most moribund, proving that liberty can be killed through malign neglect, like a disfavored stepchild. Ultimately, by just pretending that it doesn’t exist, our rights can simply evaporate.

    • Fuzzy

      Why wouldn’t they just go find a different florist? Instead they have nothing better to do than waste a bunch of time and money. Nothing should compel a business owner to do anything against their will. It’s just absolutely ridiculous to me.

  23. Tim in WI


    BOY! This fact says a ton! That is precisely why law existed in WI to prevent ” unauthorized information disclosure “. (174.45)93. These privacy protection assisted and benefited ALL PARTIES, thus they were originally enacted!

    For the domestic flow of information to the benefit of big data brokers to flourish all laws ( in every state) restricting or criminalized( personal information flow) had to be obliterated. ALL federalist activities operate in this fashion. Thereby in effect creating a fiat situation in a state’s right to self determination in statutes soverignty! SCOTUS pointed to this issue via Norma Grace Constanteneau.

    While the record shows each state adopted the act in a self determined means – via legislative act AND admin. promulgation; It was still an inverse to formally adopted constitutional disposition. A fiat!
    The Wetterling Family again pays a price for that which was already protected prior to the 94OMNIBUS containing the act that solicited her private information to begin with. Ironically the FBI & SURVEILLANCE saints are also parties named in the article. Remember child murder investigation ALWAYS BEGINS WITH FAMILY!

    SOR was never about family it was about ” database USES by state actors. “

    • AJ

      Re: Wetterlings.

      “[Wetterling attorney] Wolter said the U.S. Constitution and other states do recognize privacy protections to crime victims.”
      Really, counselor? I don’t recall reading anything about victims, let alone their rights, in the U.S. Constitution. Note, too, that he says “other” States have privacy protections. That’s all well and good, kind sir, but apparently MN does not have that, so tough cookies. Further, and not trying to be cold, it seems to me they technically are not the victims of the crime. Only Jacob is/was. They are relatives of the victim and were absolutely affected by it. Otherwise, exactly how far does this “victim right” extend? Is it set in stone, or does some wise bureaucrat get to decide? If I have an uncle who’s murdered, am I a victim? Why or why not?

      At first the article didn’t really interest me much, but those lines at the end sure pricked my ears up:
      “It all came out of a place of fear in the beginning, so nobody trusted anybody, and people turned in information that was very personal and private. And I don’t think anybody expected that was all going to become public.”
      What sorts of things did they admit or confess? Were they swingers? Did they let the kids run around naked? What sort of facts–truth–could be so harmful as to be kept secret? Was pappa next door nailing the hubby? Was momma dancing on a pole? I’m sure the parents were suspects numbers 1 & 2, but what sort of “very personal and private” and “intensely personal information” would be so damaging?

  24. mike r

    So this is kind of cool thing about my case though, it is on my site and an example of a complete case from start to end pro se in the federal district court system. Frigging 2 1/2 years and many filings.
    I still think it was presented as best as it could possibly be in the end there. Mainly both the Objections to the MFRs were really spot on. That is where the meat of my appeal will come from. Been a hard long ride I can tell you that.

    • E

      Excellent work, Mike. Many of us are hoping and rooting for you still, even if we are clueless when it comes to helping (unlike the few smart ones on here like AJ and Chris)!

  25. TS

    LA reverses course here, says if you’re three years or older, you’re a predator.

    Louisiana will have a minimum marriage age after all

  26. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    “Congress is taking on YouTube’s pedophilia problem. At least one lawmaker has proposed a bill to ban content with children”

    Yes, really. Can you imagine? Banning all content on YouTube with children? That’s just how insane the hysterics have become. There is a powerful Democrat, along with the usual Republicans waist-deep in Jesus, pushing for just such a ban: Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. He should serve as a reminder that this isn’t just a problem with Republicans that will go away when their party finally dies a just death.

    Meanwhile, this country has no other problems for the good Senators and Representatives to tackle. This is, apparently, the most important thing they could be doing right now, i.e. routing-out “illicit” content which is, nevertheless, not illegal.

    • Normal Bean

      “Republicans that will go away when their party finally dies a just death.”

      Ah, the tolerant left. If only Republicans would do as much for RCs as the enlightened Democrats have.

      Give me an effing break.

  27. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    “Sex offender who kissed 9-year-old girl at Codorus State Park to serve up to 12 years” Yes, that’ “kissing” on the neck. What’s more, under Pennsylvania law, this makes him eligible for “sexually violent predator” status. I’ve been saying this for years: there are many behind bars today for simply kissing a kid just as I have also been saying for years that “violent” means nothing of the sort.

    • General Bean

      Who knows what this guys intentions were, but no matter, if it was only a kiss any punishment at all is insane.

      Many years ago I’d taken my daughter to swimming lessons and we were sitting poolside waiting for her class to begin. As a teacher celebrated some accomplishment (blowing bubbles or something) with a toddler, I noticed a little girl underwater sinking and making no effort to swim. The teacher had committed a cardinal sin and left her student unattended. The sinking girl’s mother stood up in a panic and pointed, the instructor was oblivious – from her vantage point in the pool she could not see below the surface.
      Without thinking I jumped in, fully clothed, and scooped the little one up. She had a look of terror on her face and, being a dad, I kissed her cheek and gave her words of comfort. I handed her up to the mom, who thanked me profusely. My own daughter, who thought I jumped in for fun, said, “Daddy, why did you do that?”
      Anyway, reading that story you linked, I can imagine some busy body parent seeing only my kiss, taking it completely out of context and having me locked up for sexual assault.
      “But I just saved the kid’s life!”
      “Yeah right. You did it just so you could cop a feel, you sicko pervert.”

  28. General Bean

    Does anyone keep a boat in Marina Del Rey, Channel Islands or other local harbor? I want to buy a boat and am wondering what the slip transfer process is like – is there a background check like apartment rentals? Could they deny me because I’m a 290?
    Thanks for your input.

    • Lake County

      Each harbor is going to have their own rules. Are you thinking of a house boat situation where you will be living in your boat? If you’re wanting to live in your boat, then yes, it could be a problem like any rental residence could be. Most private boat slips don’t care who they rent to. If you don’t pay, no problem, you’ll find your boat floating downstream. I’ve rented many boat slips on a monthly basis and find that very little information is asked.

  29. ReadyToFight

    The ACLU- Founded in 1920, their stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
    ACLU…tf you at dog? Prolly out cherry pick’n another politically correct win.

  30. TS

    Don’t smile for surveillance: Why airport face scans are a privacy trap

    “But at an e-gate, your face gets captured by the airline and then compared with a face database run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which reports back whether you’re cleared to board.

    The system needs photos of travelers to compare against the people at the gate. Where do those come from? From the State Department, which gathers the shots from passports and visa applications. (That’s one reason, for now, airport facial recognition is limited to international travelers.)”

    — Only Dept of State? Why do I not believe that and believe updated state info feed to the national database could be used too for those impacted by the registry?

    • AJ

      What’s heartening is that this seems to be a concern on both sides of the aisle (the congressional one, not the one on your flight…). WaPo is no conservative bastion, so it’s good to see this write up there–especially with Bezos’ AWS being deep into facial recognition.

      Also from that article:
      Quizzing TSA during last week’s hearing, Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.) said, “You’re saying voluntarily. But I can imagine like you’ve done with Pre Check. You can either surrender your right to anonymity and wait in the long line, or you can give up your Fourth Amendment rights and go in the quick line.”
      OMG. A congressman who actually knows there’s a 4th Amendment? To top that, he’s a Democrat…from MA! They don’t get much more liberal and big-government-loving than that. For him to cry foul shows me the broad concern there is for all this. Now the yoo-hoos in the Big House in D.C. just need to get going on stopping the runaway bureaucracies from forging ahead on it all.

      • TS


        It is good to see that both sides of the aisle are paying attention to this. Glad the good Congressman from the state of Massachusetts gets the entire picture whether it’s virtually at the airport or not.

        If I get this straight, a person impacted by the registry now has to hope they’re cleared by local law enforcement, United States Marshal Service, Interpol, the destination country, and now customs & border patrol to travel? That begins to sound like a bad episode of cops where you’ve got every agency in a local hundred-mile radius deciding to participate on a weekend sweep.

        Here’s another one to add to your reading list if you have nothing else better to do:

        CU Colorado Springs students secretly photographed for government-backed facial-recognition research

        At the same time, I would encourage you to look up “cnet Amazon Ring surveillance network” June 2019 article to show how an entire neighborhood of Ring doorbells can be used as a surveillance network for the local popo. I find that to be highly troubling because people who are impacted by the registry already have their photographs in the public domain. If somebody is grumpy and it’s noticed through the doorbell that the person impacted by the registry happens to be in the area minding their own business and walking by, then it can open up all sorts of issues for everybody being misused.

        Lastly, I’m good for a half rack of brew if you’re espousing rights and the Ninth Amendment.

    • E

      But at least database hacks into the feds must be impossible…


      • AJ

        License plates are chump change:

        Included in the OPM breach were IDs of covert agents of the spook agencies and military. The fallout? Two bureaucrats resigned. Oh yeah, and China exploited it for espionage.

        • TS


          And those who are on the data breach victim list (ahem) get free credit and name monitoring for an extended period of time to ensure the data is not nefariously used. This monitoring also includes, wait for it, those who are impacted by the registry moving into your neighborhood to ensure they did not use your data to move!! It is true this notification happens and for the reason stated (as shared by the rep on the phone call who answered “Why?”).

        • Will Allen

          TS (June 11, 2019):

          ROTFLMAO!! That CANNOT be true, LOL!!! Truly, can these harassers get any more stupid? Can they?

          They have bought the entire pile of stinking nonsense that their Nanny Big Governments have been force feeding them. What a bunch of morons. I hope they worry about this BS every single second of their lives. So well deserved.

          Today, I will continue to ensure that the Registries are worthless. But not just worthless, much worse. I will retaliate for the existence of the Registries today and harm criminal regimes that have them. No peace.

        • TS

          @Will Allen

          But it is true, sadly, it is true. There was shaking of the head after this reply had been provided. I thought it was bad enough when LifeLock was doing the same thing, but for these folks to do it is beyond incredulous in my opinion.

        • AJ

          Following up on @E’s post about the LPR company getting it’s programs stolen, it appears loss of the source code wasn’t the worst of it. All sorts of CBP data hacked and on the Dark Web already.

  31. kind of living

    Coming up on my birthday and its another year down , still not any buddies going with me to the prize club . matter of fact I have zero friends other than my wife and she has as most left me many times because of this registry . And zero life and after this many years can only say that I have grown old on this unjust registry , and I just dont see why I should live this hellish crap stain of a life right along with the prison hell . I mean face it I will never get off of tis registry Ever . at first it was not that big of a deal because the registry was to LE only and I was free to go out in the woods and not ever be around people that hate me that don’t even know me . I am disabled and getting to the point I would be hard pressed to protect myself from some thug looking to gain some stripe’s . what family I do have are in danger as well and if it was not for me and my 30+ year past my family they would be safe somewhere else and not having to live my shame as well as fear’s . I want them to be happy as well as living somewhere safe and out of this crap hole . sometimes all I want to do is die . if I was not such a coward I would just jump off a dang cliff , and don’t forget selfish for allowing my family to go though all this not to mention of course I also did the crime to begin with, maybe not all that crap they piled on top of it to get that plea . all the same my stupid ass was there and ever since everything I touch or care about turn to crap and not just for me , for my family damn it ! I watch them living this hell and they are better than this . I don’t want to do this life anymore because of a stupid piece of crap I was back then and I cant even try to leave it behind because its in my face everyday right along with the foolish dream of living a nice peaceful life . who have I been kidding all this time thinking that some day if I was a good person long enough that I would one day not be on the some stinking website marking me for ever , hell when I started out there was no website , I changed my life was working my ass off , and then thud ! here come’s my passed and had know way of knowing that was going to happen before I met the best wife ever , I told her everything anyway but it was the website I never seen coming after we got together , and everyone one we knew turned against us , my family did nothing wrong yet here they are living this hell , and now here I am coming up on this birthday yet one more year getting ready for the big prize club day and give these cop’s my info that they are going to post for the haters to scoff at . I am just an old man that’s still not real bright as you can see buy my stupid writing , it would be great if this year to just go rest forever and no longer be the stain on my family and set them free as well as cheat these witch hunters of their favorite pass time , I have more than paid for my crime , I am no good for anything or anybody

    • guest

      No idea where you are but you (and your wife) should consider attending the conference this week. Cannot speak for them but they have scholarships for people who volunteer to help. You be amazed what difference it makes to know that you are not alone and that there is hope. Just saying.

  32. Illinois Contact

    Anyone hear any news on the Gundy decision?

    • AJ

      @Illinois Contact:
      “Anyone hear any news on the Gundy decision?”
      Still awaiting SCOTUS to release its Opinion. I still think there’s an outside chance they kick it to the next October Term to break a 4-4 tie (Kav didn’t sit for oral argument).

      As a gentle reminder, as it stands Gundy has lost and the courts have ruled there’s no non-delegation violation.

  33. NPS

    That this happened to a cop makes it poetic justice. However, I think this is something to be concerned about as this is clearly an act of vigilantism.

  34. AJ

    @Chris f:
    Here’s your Bill of Attainder case: Doe v. Anderson, 108 A.3d 378 (Me. 2015) ( According to RossIntelligence, it was positively cited twice (United States v. Goguen, 218 F.Supp.3d 111 (D. Me. 2016), Guardianship of Sebastien Chamberlain, 118 A.3d 229, 2015 ME 76 (2015)) and never negatively cited. I didn’t dig into the two cases to see how it was used.

    BTW, as usual the government ends up being the best research library a guy can have. I found the references as footnotes in the March 2018 SMART Case Law update. So kind of those mindless bureaucrats to compile all the wins and losses for us as they do.

  35. Matthew

    Hey, just an update.
    I got a 311.11(a) expunged (conviction in 2012. It wasn’t reduced but oh well) here recently in January and sent the DOJ proof with an application to be taken off Megan’s law Website citing the law says felony (just to give it a try). I stated that it was expunged and it should no longer be on the website. They sent me a letter yesterday that said I was denied BUT it was because the offense I was convicted of was not disclosed on the website. Once the DOJ received the expungement from the court, they had taken me off the website and the letter confirmed it was no longer seen as a felony. Previously, I was listed. Just to give a little hope to anyone

    • NotEasilyOffended

      Was your 311 a state conviction or federal? Mine was federal (in 2002) and I have been unsuccessful in finding any means to expunge it (a presidential pardon is unlikely).

      • Matthew

        It was state

        • SR @ Matthew

          I didn’t think an expungement played a roll in someone being on the public registry. Since you weren’t able to get it reduced, I’d think it would still be a “felony” for the purpose of things looking for a felony. I guess that’s not the case for at least expunged records? This bit of news actually gives quite a bit of hope for when the tiered registry kicks in as many codes state “felony” in regards to tier placement. If they work in a similar way as your expungement and getting off the website, this should get way more people into T1 that would’ve otherwise been placed into T2 or T3 (your 311.11 being one such code with currently Felony being the difference between T1 and T3 placement).

        • Matthew

          I was honestly shocked but wanted to mail the information to the DOJ. They denied just based on the crime that I was convicted of is not disclosed on the website is what the letter said. Just being on the public registry and then taken off, not because of the letter I sent with proof but the actual expungement is hopefully good news for anyone with a state 311.11(a) that got it expunged.

  36. Lake County

    Jury says county violated a state’s criminal records law. The total payout could be almost $67 million. Mugshots, dates of birth and other data from the arrests of nearly 67,000 people in a Pennsylvania county were available publicly online for two years. Even if their records had been expunged.

    Now, after a class-action lawsuit objecting to the dissemination of the data, a federal jury on Tuesday found Bucks County had “willfully violated” a state law protecting individuals’ criminal history data and awarded $1,000 to each member of the class action lawsuit.
    The total payout could be almost $67 million.

    In 2011, Plaintiff discovered his criminal history record had been circulated to a company operating as “,” which published individuals’ criminal records, including their date of birth and physical description. Users were also able to comment on the photographs, according to the complaint.

    Taha’s record had been ordered to be expunged over 10 years previously, court records show.

    Court Docs:

    • AJ

      “Users were also able to comment on the photographs, according to the complaint.”
      This seems to shoot a(nother) hole in what SCOTUS said in Smith regarding shaming:
      “The State’s Web site does not provide the public with means to shame the offender by, say, posting comments underneath his record.”
      While not a State website, it’s directly and actively fed by the State. I wonder if one can apply the logic in Rankin regarding private actors on behalf of the State.

      Continuing in Smtih…
      “An individual seeking the information must take the initial step of going to the Department of Public Safety’s Web site, proceed to the sex offender registry, and then look up the desired information. The process is more analogous to a visit to an official archive of criminal records than it is to a scheme forcing an offender to appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality. The Internet makes the document search more efficient, cost effective, and convenient for Alaska’s citizenry.”
      Au contraire, mon frère. No longer does anyone need to take any steps, as the State issues notifications to various members and groups of the public (neighbors, schools, etc). So it’s no longer simply a “more efficient, cost effective, and convenient” “visit to an official archive of criminal records.” Now the records come to you, right on your smartphone, if so desired.

      And let’s take a look at the concept of “forcing an offender to appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality.” Just what, do you suppose, marked DLs are? What do you suppose a marked passport is? The passport marking outright states one was convicted!

      • Chris f

        Great points, and in addition, cities often list a new registrant in local media and sometimes mail notices to those in a radius. Local schools and daycares are notified. “Compliance” checks embarass you in front of neighbors that didnt know or have a reason to look at the registry. Areas that have laws allowing criminal background checks to only go back 7 years don’t protect someone that is on the registry after their judicially determined period of government supervision.

        It has become the biggest circumvention by legislature of the judicial branch since the creation of the Constitution.

  37. Chris f (@AJ)

    Thanks AJ!

    I like this part:
    “looks to the legislature’s subjective purpose in enacting the challenged measure, its ‘objective’ purpose in terms of proportionality and history, and the measure’s effects”); Doe v. Kelley, 961 F.Supp. 1105, 1108

    The case also talks about how bill of attainder and ex post facto both rely on being determined to be punitive using the Mendoza martinez factors.

    I have no idea how a modern challenge survives not being determined both punishment and circumventing the judicial process.

    Somehow, Smith V Doe needs to be over ruled. It checks off all the factors indicating a punitive nature and looking at the measured effects shows no actual civil benefit and actually is a detriment to public safety.

    • steve

      “frightening and high”, “80% recidivism” is how they justified ALL of it. IMO that needs to be feverishly fought in new cases.

      • Facts should matter

        They want us all either dead or in prison until the day we die. Even though the registry is the real prison sentence and most register until the day they die.

  38. 290 air

    Instead of referring to us as “sex offenders” or “registrants” why not refer to us as persecuted citizens (PCs) or harassed individuals (HIs)? That is a more accurate description.

  39. The Persecuted

    What we need is a real estate investor that would like to use our services to buy cheap properties. If we had somebody that could buy say 5 homes on a block and rent them out to 5 of us we could really drive down property prices on that block making it cheaper to buy for our investor. We could live there for free for our services while the investor makes a ton of cash on cheap properties. Keep doing that in neighborhoods around the country. I bet that would get some real negative reactions to the public registry.

  40. General Bean

    Geez, one of the few bennies of being a 290 is not having jury duty and now the bastards want to take this away from us, too!? Have we not suffered enough!?

    • Lake County

      Not having to serve on jury duty is the only thing I liked about having a felony conviction.

      New York Senate has already just passed a similar bill.

    • TS

      In reference to felons serving on a jury…

      This is good because it could be used as a step to restoring felony voting rights.

      You being able to serve on one and actually serving are two different things. If you don’t want to serve on it, give them a reason why to excuse you. Also, quit whining because in some parts of the world, there are no juries, just a judge and execution after that.

      Lastly, as someone who wore the uniform, I want every US CITIZEN to be able to serve on one regardless if they have a felony in their life, as well as vote, since I was willing to sacrifice mine for their ability to do both.

    • CR

      I would be happy to serve on a jury. I’m eligible in Texas because I got deferred adjudication, therefore no conviction. I get summoned to the jury pool now and then, but I never get selected for a jury.

    • NPS

      Interesting. I’ve already been summoned twice for jury duty. The first time was less than a month after having my record expunged. Both times I declined because I no longer lived in the county that summoned me.

    • David

      Jury duty?! Pick me! Pick me! Oh, oh, put me of a CP or L&L Romeo & Julio case! I’ll make that prosecutor work himself to death trying to get my “guilty” vote. )Of course, that would only occur after doing a exhaustingly relentless jury nullification battle.) 😆😆😆😆😆

    • kind of living

      I have seen people judged tougher here on this site than any court , even after the persons they where judging had long since did there time and been clean for years , so I have mixed feelings about this because bootlickers are bootlickers are bootlickers, no matter ex cons in many case’s are willing to do anything to make themselves look better and hate us even if the are an RC , their is more than one person we all know on this site that have came right out and said they where down for the registry , (even RC’s that are threes should be for life) no one should be on a registry , and I don’t care what any court says the registry in unconstitutional on so every level

  41. Matthew

    Check out this story and read what supporters of this bill are saying…. Its ironic that do not think this way about the registry…

    “Right now, if you serve your time you still can’t get housing, you still can’t get work, you still get treated like a criminal,” said San Francisco Assemblyman Phil Ting, who authored one of the bills.

    Every right should be restored,” said state Sen. Nancy Skinner of Berkeley. “Once you’ve done your time, that’s enough.


    • Chris f

      Brilliant idea!

      This allows the judge to determine whatever is needed to protect the public during and after the period of government supervision on an individual basis instead of legislature doing it arbitrarily in a one size fits none approach. It gives a way to appeal through the courts if circumstances change. It allows a finality instead of always wondering if another deprivation of liberty will be applied retroactively.

      The concern about repeat offending should be addressed by more lengthy sentences for those that repeat.

      The concern for someone being incorrectly put into a position of trust they should not be in could be addressed by narrowly taylored laws that are already on the books in most places. Laws such as those convicted of very specific sex crimes against children cannot work in a daycare and someone convicted of bank fraud cannot work as a banker. However, it would be better if going forward those restrictions could be removed by a judge if an individual circumstance justified it. I dont like legislature having complete control over anything related to the criminal justice system as that should violate separation of powers. They can give judges tools to use at their discretion, but shouldnt dictate any absolute requirement or duration.

    • JesusH

      I read about this yesterday. It’s for making the expungement process automatic if you’re eligible (not on probation, served your time, etc).

      I thought great, that’s how it should be. Then I searched the text of the bill for ‘290’ and sure enough, it excludes 290 registrants.

      So if you’re a 290 registrant you can’t benefit from this bill. If you’re a 290 and qualify for an expungement you have to file the paperwork yourself, go to court, etc. Or pay a lawyer to do it.

      Just one more example to add to the pile that the entire scheme is unconstitutional.

      • NPS

        Really? Because I contacted Rep Ting’s office and they told me that even for 290s, it’s automatic as long as the offense qualifies. Regardless, it’s not that hard to file in pro per. It also costs nothing.

        • Matthew

          If they told you that, they lied. How it is written:

          SEC. 2. Section 1203.425 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 1203.42, to read:
          1203.425. (a) (1) On a weekly basis, the Department of Justice shall review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases, and based on information in the Automated Criminal History System and the Supervised Release File, shall identify persons with convictions that meet the criteria set forth in paragraph (2) and are eligible for automatic conviction record relief.
          (2) A person is eligible for automatic conviction relief pursuant to this section if they meet all of the following conditions:
          (A) The person is not required to register pursuant to Section 290.

  42. General Bean

    I’d hate to live aboard, one never knows. For now I just want a boat in the marina for easy weekend getaways. Thanks for your input.


    In an opinion releases today from Alaska Supreme Court, a 3-2 opinion found Asora SO registration laws violated due process! Great new!

    • CR

      “We also conclude that ASORA violates due process, but its defect may be cured by providing a procedure for offenders to establish their non-dangerousness.”

      Wouldn’t such a procedure be exactly the same as proving a negative? How is one to do that? The state could come up with a procedure that is impossible for anyone to meet, because you can’t prove a negative, and pretend to have cured the defect. Would the courts then agree that the procedure serves due process?

  44. Fedup

    So I just experienced a compliance check, maybe the Ventura County Sheriffs were doing a sweep, but more likely that were checking because I moved here at the beginning of the year.

    These checks are actually community notifications, or at least residential notifications. They came on a Saturday so that everyone in the house and the neighborhood would know they came. The home owners where I’m renting a room knew I was registered, so that wasn’t a problem. They wanted my phone number. I refused after asking if it was required in 290. They took my picture out on the porch. They apologized for the trouble. Right. I hate this.

    • Lake County

      It’s even more fun when they are using federal grant money and the U.S. Marshall’s are with them in full tactical uniforms. Twice (several years ago) I’ve had a multi-jurisdictional team (8-10) officers show up in full swat uniforms just to verify registration. I wasn’t on the public list at that time, but I’m sure my neighborhood were all aware that a large team of fully armed cops were surrounding my home. That’s why I no longer cooperate with compliance checks.

      • Fedup

        Yeah, I was targeted in one of those sweeps once, fortunately not seen on the news. This time they asked me to come out on the porch. I said I didn’t have anything to say and that I’m here (at the residence) and that is all they should need. They talked me into going out. Afterwards, I realized they wanted me on the porch so the neighbors could see who specifically they had in mind. More community notification. Taking my photo on the porch probably wasn’t legal either. Doing that is not mentioned in 290.

        • AJ

          “They talked me into going out.”
          Never ever step outside across the threshold, nor should they ever be allowed across it. As SCOTUS has said, you are perfectly within your rights to ignore them and not engage with them. You’re likewise perfectly within your rights to terminate any discussion at any time for any reason (assuming, of course, they don’t have you detained based on reasonable suspicion). Personally I wouldn’t even acknowledge them on my stoop, but if I did, I would loudly talk through the door directing them to leave the premises promptly and directly.
          “Taking my photo on the porch probably wasn’t legal either. Doing that is not mentioned in 290.”
          It is legal and has nothing to do with 290. Once you stepped out of your house you were in the public domain and lost your right to privacy.

        • Fedup

          @ AJ:

          I didn’t want to create a scene with the family present, which is probably why they come on a weekend. Yesterday afternoon I went out front and there was what looked like an unmarked police car on the wrong side of the road talking to a kitty-corner neighbor, who was looking in my direction with a sincere look of horror. It was almost comical. My point is that the legislature deemed that my address not be listed and that was important to the homeowner where I rent a room. She was worried about vigilantes and that was her prime concern because at her previous residence there was a neighbor who was a fanatic. I assured her my address would not be listed. I feel the authorities violated that.

        • TS


          So, return the same and photograph the unmarked or video or both talking with your neighbor. Document it all for a running record of the LE behavior while in your area.

        • AJ

          I’m with @TS on this. Since the Thin Blue Liars (TBLs) are apprently trying to “out” you with the neighborhood, consider taking it to them. Maybe next time you see the chit-chat going on, meander over yourself as a likewise-concerned neighbor to see what the fuss is all about. I also agree with @TS regarding taking pictures and/or videos. Though the TBL may give a crap about being filmed (though many still dislike it, esp. the unmarked ones), the neighbor may well feel a little uncomfortable and shy away from future chit-chats with the Liars.

          It’s a tough risk-reward proposition, to be sure. After all, at some point the TBLs will find someone else to harass and out, and they’ll let you be. Being a model, friendly neighbor may overcome whatever bogeyman story the TBLs tell.

        • TS


          As @AJ and I have advised others previously in this form about visual documentation through photography or videography, please remember it is within your legal right that you have the ability to film law enforcement while performing their duties which includes discussing whatever with neighbors.

          If they do not like being visually documented, then they could ask you to cease and desist upon which you can reply it’s within your legal right to do so. I certainly understand renting a room in a house upon which your landlord wanted no troubles due to previous experiences and potentially having neighbors look at you cross-eyed. It is uncomfortable but you do have the right to protect yourself as you see fit through visual documentation.

    • kind of living

      Fedup . They came to my place a few months back , 5 of them but were not all goon looking , and i never went out side , but they were respectful compared me to a picture and said good by and left

  45. Fedup

    On America’s Civil Death Penalty: The Sexual Offense Registry
    By Guy Hamilton-Smith

    Oscar Wilde, writing from his cell in the Reading Gaol where he was imprisoned for homosexuality at the end of the nineteenth century, observed that “society reserves for itself the right to inflict appalling punishments on the individual, but it also has the supreme vice of shallowness, and fails to realise what it has done. When the man’s punishment is over, it leaves him to himself; that is to say, it abandons him at the very moment when its highest duty towards him begins.”

    In America, few aspects of law and policy so perfectly embody Wilde’s observation of punishment in nineteenth century England as sex offense registries.

    • CR

      Thanks for the link to that article. It sums up very succinctly what the registry is, what life on it is like, and why it is misguided, counterproductive, and unjust.

      • Fedup

        Yes, it is good, very well written to boot. It probably made the rounds here already but it is worth a second look.

        • kind of living

          thank you for posting this article , and CR is right about how unjust it truly is . It is so sad the people don’t snap to this fact of history , but plain and simple too many people just want to hate on someone , and the gov’t provides a way to feed this hate to control more people to feed to the big dollar prison insanity , its turning from the free thinker to the thought crime as we try to unravel their wrong doing

  46. TS

    For those watching SCOTUSBlog or other SCOTUS related websites following today’s decision drops, they decided on Gamble where “This Court declines to overturn the longstanding dual-sovereignty doctrine”. (Pp. 3–31)

    In one vein, it was being asked to overturn double jeopardy for military members from being prosecuted in state and fed courts, which is a nasty ploy for the Feds when they state does not give them what they want, especially when it comes to alleged sex related incidents and cases.

    For civilians, that means when a crime is committed, it can be charged with a state crime AND a federal crime too since it is two separate sovereigns.

    7-2: ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting opinions.

    • TS

      My thoughts:

      1) This opinion reiterates via Stare Decisis big government can have their way if the smaller government does not do it right in their eyes and this decision continues to perpetuate that with one certain Associate Justice surely being happy with the outcome with big ramifications.

      2) Gorsuch and Ginsburg are spot on with their dissents.

      3) Thomas gives the court a reminder on Stare Decisis which is a good read on its own even when he concurs with the majority

      4) @AJ – if you find the time to read the 88 pages and four thoughts making up this opinion, I’d be interested in reading what you think on it. This is also open to others here in this forum too of course.

      • AJ


        I agree with you across the board on your itemized observations.

        To me this case smacks of SCOTUS yet again worshiping at the altar of stare decisis, despite evidence beyond what Gamble presented (courtesy of RBG and Gorsuch) that for many years pre- and post-Fifth Amdt., it was considered wrong to try someone twice. Period. Has it ever occurred to them that the dearth or lack of case law is because the common sense (i.e. common law) of the times meant it just didn’t happen? Why would the Framers include language that was already something everyone knew to be just and right since the history of man? It’s not like the Bill of Rights, where some thought them necessary and some thought them superfluous. Here, either ALL of them thought it superfluous, or it failed to register to ANY of them as ever coming into question. Good thing we’re more enlightened now…

        SCOTUS doesn’t seem to get that stare decisis could be exacerbating what at the time was a missed or minor error. Instead of checking the validity of the path it’s on or getting a birds-eye view, SCOTUS merely looks back to confirm it’s on the path it came down. “Let’s keep going this way because this is the way we’ve come for 170 years.” So if a mistake was made 170 years ago, it’s no longer a mistake? *smh*

        While reading the Opinion, it kept occurring to me that but for SCOTUS thoroughly F’ing up the Commerce Clause (read: carte blanche authority for Congress to dig into intra-State matters), there probably wouldn’t even have been an opportunity for the Feds to take a chance on Gamble (pun intended). I at first thought Thomas was going to dive into that, but aside from his footnote, he was more interested in (bless him) his continued attack on stare decisis. He truly sees it for the messed up policy it can be–not necessarily is, but can be. But since a gun can only be created and bullets only bought, through interstate commerce, then of COURSE the Feds get to jump in and of COURSE the entire Union is harmed.

        I stridently disagree that a crime taking place wholly within one State offends the whole nation. Among the States, perhaps, but only perhaps. So if Gamble sticks up someone with the gun, is the victim doubly traumatized? Did he get 200% of the money they had on them? The ACT is the offense, not the breaking of some words. But here SCOTUS has affirmed–and Gamble essentially received–that the State can try you, then hand it off to the Feds. Said Feds then simply make a pen-and-ink change to the paperwork, and zingo-bingo another conviction awaits. How could anyone think that simply making editorial changes to charging documents, moving the venue to a Federal court room, etc., is another offense? BS. This is nothing but oppressive police power and this Opinion, while not entirely unexpected, is another sad step down the wrong path.

        Gorsuch has again shown his wonderful colors and stripes, that being someone who has a healthy skepticism of the Federal Government and its use (and abuse) of power. We could use a few more people who have lived west of the Appalachians. Kavanaugh’s silence on this Opinion strengthens my feelings that he’s a milquetoast Easterner. Though he may tend conservative, he’s hardly a friend to libertarianism. RBG I’m liking more and more. She sees the excess of the State crushing the citizen…however, I wonder how much she supports Commerce Clause tricks. I really hope Thomas holds true to his words at confirmation about being put on the bench at 42 (43?) years and wanting to serve 42 (43?) years. That means about 15 more with him there.

        I wonder if Alito begged and pleaded with the Chief to let him write this one. It was right in goosestep with his beliefs and ways. I could practically hear a smarmy, dismissive tone in his words. BTW, an anagram for “Samuel Alito” is “Malaise Lout.” He gives me the former, and is absolutely the latter.

        • TS


          Thank you for that. Much appreciated. I’m in full agreement with your thoughts.

  47. Fedup

    I don’t support anyone who doesn’t support one Innocence Project or another in some fashion.

    When We Kill

    Everything you think you know about the death penalty is wrong.

  48. Chris f

    We need some alternate opinion from our group on this pro police web article:

    Its mostly self righteous comment posts about high recidivism and how people chose to commit a crime and should be punished for life for it.

  49. CR

    SCOTUS decided another case today that has been discussed on this board, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. SCOTUS held that “Petitioner, a private nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate the public access channels on the Manhattan cable system owned by Time Warner (now Charter), is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.”

    The discussion here around this case was that if MCAC was found to be subject to the First Amendment, it would strengthen arguments that Twitter, FB, and others who provide a public forum could be sued on similar grounds for censoring or banning their users.

    Here is an article from last October that explains the implications:

    This was a 5-4 vote. The opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined.

    Kavanaugh emphasizes that the First Amendment’s prohibitions apply only to state (governmental) actors and concludes that the threshold requirement of state action is missing here.

    • Chris f

      Exactly the right decision. Businesses should protect their image and product how they see fit and if people dont like it they are free not to give money to that business and protest it. The exceptions are just for protected classes but even then I would say they are given more latitude than government actors.

      The true government actors offending free speech of registeted citizens are the legislatures putting us on lists that infer dangerousness without adequate due process to cover the extent of liberty deprivation, like free speech, that go hand in hand with being on the list.

      I havent read the opinion yet but I wonder if there is anything to use from it to support our cause.

      • Chris f

        I take it back.

        Wrong decision. In this very particular case, the company was set up by the government to regulate a free public tv service that was provided by free by the cable company due to government regulations stating they must provide those public channels for free.

        The government could have run it themselves and be subject to 1st amendment requirements, but instead chose to create a company to do it. That is just the government trying to create its own loophole to wash its hands of violating the constitution and that company is clearly a government actor that couldnt exist without the government controlling the laws and creating it.

        Wow…big miss here by 5 justices to call a spade a spade.

        This result isnt really relevant to Facebook no matter what the decision was. It is clear that Facebook would never qualify as a government actor based on numerous precidents and there is no way for us to sue Facebook for banning us. None. Wont happen.

        Only thing we can do is sue the government for putting us on a list that infers we are dangerous and thus leaving companies no choice but to ban us or be liable. Now this is a fight I think we could win.

    • AJ

      @CR & @Chris F:
      I had high hopes surrounding Manhattan Community Access Corp. when it was accepted, but those hopes dashed once I read the details and the transcripts of oral argument. After reading it, I could see it was probably going to be a flop. I don’t know that this case really says too much about FB, et al. Interestingly, that aspect was specifically disavowed regarding this case. (I forget where exactly, but it was in the papers somewhere.)

      It is, to some extent, another example of Government offloading its duties to a contractor in order to avoid oversight and responsibility (Blackwater in Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone?).

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 *