ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 16 – Sacramento, Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

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

General News

General Comments September 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of September 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. norman

    Let us say a prayer for our brothers and sisters in Florida who will be denied emergency assistance (because of their registration status) in one of the shelters because of Hurricane Dorian…Hopefully they will be able to ride this cat 5 Hurricane out..I am sure that dui daddy and his snowflake daughter will be more than ok….

    • Anonymous

      “DUI daddy” LOL. Probably plead to a “Lesser charge”.
      “Favorable” judge preserves Book legacy. Good luck to everyone else in Florida.

  2. Tim in WI

    Three years and a mandamus later the crux of the general issue is on full display. The people in the State of Michigan are blatantly ignoring judicial impetus but why? The unpopularity of acting constitutionally?

    What farmer or rancher opts to advertise the worst of his crop or flock on a world wide scale?
    Certainly not not the one who stays in business for long. That is plain logic. Yet that was the choice made in 1994 by American politicians AND approved of by Supreme Court Majority.

    The unfettered and unconstitutional use of the database machine where humans are enslaved by law to maintain them even as they work anti- liberty against the whole of the people.

  3. Jun

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/politics/terrorism-watchlist-constitution.html#click=https://t.co/rVnqZZ8cT7

    FBI secret Muslim registry database was just found unconstitutional! Judge said it impeded Constitutional Rights of Americans. Keeping them from traveling, etc. 1.2 million people were on the list being turned back or told they couldn’t get on a plane, etc. Sound familiar?? Those put on list included people who were acquitted of terror-related offenses or had charges dropped! Judge found this registry banned Americans(!) from international traveling, which is unconstitutional! THIS is step to right direction regarding IML?

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      It’s certainly good precedent. I’d like to read the opinion. And I would like to know A.J.’s opinion on the opinion. We’ll see if we “sex offenders” must remain on our own “terrorism no-fly list.”

    • Tim in WI

      Jun,
      Yes certain uses of the gov database are ignorant, intolerable and unconstitutional!
      The two parties are only interested in political security.

    • Chris f

      I just read the opinion.

      It’s got great stuff with lots of case law to back it up.

      Most of us are familiar with a similar Scotus sex offender challenge from 2003 called Connecticut DPS v Doe. We lost that because potential dangerousness was not part of the scheme and it was merely an easy to access list of those convicted of certain crimes with data that was publicly available.

      Now that being on the list denies us travel and government housing as well as the thousands of other restrictions and jobs, they can no longer claim the list doesnt infer dangerousness. Also, the compelling governement interest was based on a false 80% recidivism rate instead of the less than 1% it actually is. It needs to be properly challenged again.

  4. David

    But, as many know, the problem is that the US is not banning registrants from traveling or entering other countries – it is the countries themselves that refused us entry.
    The lawmakers were very crafty in writing IML this way. It’s still an uphill battle to argue that IML is unconstitutional.

    • TS

      @David

      Interesting. With that, then is the USG enabling the either countries to refuse entry by choice through notifying them of public information and potential inferred danger without assessment that otherwise wouldn’t have necessarily been known prior to arrival?

  5. Chris f

    A good read to underatand where Gorsuch stands:

    https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-gorsuch-why-originalism-is-the-best-approach-to-the-constitution/

    I think he will be on our side if we can ever get good cases in front of him.

    • CR

      Thanks for the article link @Chris f. That was a good read. Apparently it is an excerpt from Gorsuch’s new book, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”. I’m going to buy that book and read it.

      I liked this bit from the article:

      “Like United States v. Carloss, where I ruled that the police violated a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by entering the curtilage of his home without a warrant despite four conspicuously posted no trespassing signs.”

      It was a dissent, actually, that Goresuch wrote in that 10th circuit case.

      It must be time for some conspicuous posting! Maybe even some variation from the too often ignored “No Trespassing” or “Keep Out” signs. Goresuch says in his dissent, “Or how about this?”

      THE IMPLIED LICENSE DISCUSSED
      BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
      IN BREARD v. ALEXANDRIA, 341 U.S. 622 (1951)
      AND FLORIDA v. JARDINES, 133 S. CT. 1409 (2013)
      IS HEREBY REVOKED

      • AJ

        @CR:
        I posted something about this a month or two ago. There are some law professors who’ve leveraged the whole idea into “LAWn signs”:

        https://fourthamendmentsecurity.com/lawn-signs/ (take note of the embedded URL in the word “here”).

        • @ AJ and others

          After looking at your 4th amendment link I have a question: Does being a RC (or any prior conviction) provide reasonable suspicion to detain for the police? (Certainly doesn’t provide probable cause, right?) I’m unclear on that, for example, if I were driving my own car in a different state. Does a prior conviction alone allow police to detain me/my family and begin investigating? I have a piece of paper saying my constitutional rights were restored to me (excepting carrying a hand gun). I’ve assumed that was actually true but I wonder.

        • AJ

          @[unknown]:
          “Does being a RC (or any prior conviction) provide reasonable suspicion to detain for the police?”
          —–
          Standing on its own, almost assuredly not. Reasonable suspicion is something more than a hunch, but less than concrete proof. It’s based on a set of specific and articulable facts (behaviors, sights, sounds, prior convictions) based on a TBL’s training, experience, and intuition…but if the TBL can walk someone through the thought process, it’s probably legal.

          Note that this does NOT apply to CBP. CBP can and does use convictions as reasonable suspicion. However, I’m sure if push came to shove they’d whip up some other “facts” so it’s not just prior conviction when asked by a court.
          =====

          “(Certainly doesn’t provide probable cause, right?)”
          —–
          Absolutely not. Probable Cause is the legal standard for warrants and arrests, as well as Grand Jury indictments. HAVING a previous conviction is not a crime, so no judge will issue a warrant based solely on that; no arrest will be valid based solely on that; and no prosecutor will present it to a Grand Jury based solely on that.
          =====

          “…for example, if I were driving my own car in a different state. Does a prior conviction alone allow police to detain me/my family and begin investigating?”
          —–
          Conviction *alone*? No. However it’s absolutely a solid “foot in the door” for the TBL to create reasonable suspicion. Suppose s/he sees someone “young looking” in the car with you. That, coupled with your conviction, I believe could easily constitute reasonable suspicion.

          Even if it were a basis, it would probably only be one to investigate *you*. Investigating those with whom you associate based on your history wouldn’t fly.
          =====

          “I have a piece of paper saying my constitutional rights were restored to me (excepting carrying a hand gun). I’ve assumed that was actually true but I wonder.”
          —–
          Don’t conflate restoration of rights with removal of heightened suspicion. IMO, a criminal record will *always* mean more scrutiny from TBLs. Always. Whether pardoned, expunged, old, or new, it’s always a reason they’ll use to poke a little more with you than with John Q. Public.

        • E @ AJ

          Thanks for this detailed response! Really helpful perspective.

        • E @ AJ

          Thanks for this detailed response! Really helpful perspective. I’ve told you before I’d buy you a beer… anytime and anyplace :).

          Let me add another hypothetical. What if I try to pull the “I don’t answer questions” stunt that 1st amendment instigators like to practice when they get pulled over or are filming federal courthouses (not sure whether you’ve ever seen the videos of those guys?). Point being, what’s my response to that LEO who pulls my family car over out of state because the cameras on his cruiser automatically ran my plate (hit!) and he sees kids in the car (my kids!).

          Can I (kindly) tell him to get lost (we don’t answer questions) unless I have a broken taillight or was speeding? What if I was going 2 mph over or rear ended someone?

          I know you cannot give legal advice here, nobody can! But this very practical situation is one I’m terrified of because it’s (1) very possible, and (2) an absolute unknown, resulting in me not traveling as freely as I otherwise would. Thank you so much for your hypothetical answers

        • AJ

          @E:
          “What if I try to pull the “I don’t answer questions” stunt that 1st amendment instigators like to practice when they get pulled over or are filming federal courthouses[?]”
          —–
          You can certainly do that, since your First Amendment rights have been fully restored. Just keep in mind that you’ll get a similar, if not stronger, response from TBLs than do those (I assume) people who are conviction free.
          =====

          “what’s my response to that LEO who pulls my family car over out of state because the cameras on his cruiser automatically ran my plate (hit!) and he sees kids in the car (my kids!).

          “Can I (kindly) tell him to get lost (we don’t answer questions) unless I have a broken taillight or was speeding? What if I was going 2 mph over or rear ended someone?”
          —–
          I’ll repeat what a number of actual attorneys say on YT: “Never talk to police without an attorney present.*” Talking with TBLs is always a risky maneuver, as they can say you were belligerent, or uncooperative, or your voice cracked, or whatever they feel like inventing. The less said, the safer it is for ANY citizen–RCs all the more so. Also never, ever, ever admit to going even 1 MPH over the speed limit, as speeding is speeding, and the TBL could then say you admitted to breaking the law, and s/he has more accurate info (radar/lidar) than your speedometer or your testimony.**

          Being kind and saying as little as possible to end the traffic stop would be what I would do. I suppose one way to try to corner the TBL a little bit would be to decline to answer questions, and then turn to your children and tell them not to answer questions either. You could then tell the TBL that as their parent, the TBL does not have your consent to question your minor children. The TBL would then either have to believe they’re your kids and not question them (which would greatly undermine any further “reasonable” suspicion), or s/he could doubt you and try to question them without your consent. Though this would in time be a problem for the TBL, it would probably take time and legal assistance to get the TBL properly spanked. But as long as your kids listen to you, the TBL is stymied.

          Remember the two questions a TBL must answer honestly: “Am I free to go?” and “Am I being detained?” If the answer to the first question is “no”, ask the second. If the answer to the second question is “no”, ask the first. Keep going until the answer to the first is “yes.” “Advanced students” may even opt to engage a bit if told they’re being detained: “What articulable reasonable suspicion or probable cause do you have that a law or statute has been violated? What law or statute?” But expect push back on that sort of stance.

          Also keep in mind SCOTUS’ landmark Opinion in Rodriguez v. US (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/13-9972/ and/or https://www.twifordlaw.com/criminal-defense/2017/05/15/police-dog-drug-sniffs-traffic-stops-new-time-limits/). Side note: anyone who thinks Kennedy was a moderate when it came to policing powers should take note he (and Thomas and Alito) dissented.

          *Some states require positive identification when asked by a TBL. Since s/he already will have your license–with your picture–they have already ID’d you, so there’s still no reason to interact with them.

          **I ALWAYS challenge in court any and all tickets. Since 95% of tickets go unchallenged, TBLs are pretty bad at showing up (could be a day off, could be in court elsewhere, or could be–as happened with someone I know–the TBL is killed in an accident). In fact 50% of the time the TBL will not appear, and the ticket is dismissed, so just for showing up you have a 50-50 shot at getting the ticket dropped. I also request a continuance as the initial court date appears. Most courts will grant one without asking for justification, but getting a second one is tough. I was once facing a pre-trial hearing with the DA and the judge over my second request (the DA wouldn’t release patrol-car records I was by statute entitled to receive–she told me they weren’t pertinent to my case! I was ready to request dismissal for misconduct and violation of my statutory rights), but the TBL didn’t show so the DA found me in the gallery and moved for dismissal. Anyway, the benefit of a continuance to you is the case becomes fuzzier in the TBL’s mind–and during that time they may change jobs, retire, die, etc.

        • E @ AJ

          Thanks so much… extremely helpful to think through, and understanding the jeopardy I’m in just for existing, especially in a different state driving a car that is registered.

        • Will Allen

          @AJ, E, etc.:

          AJ, lots of great advice there.

          I drive in other states a lot. Most often it is in rental cars so I don’t worry about law enforcement criminals (LECs) much. But I’m just waiting for the criminal regimes to figure out that “loophole” in their stupidity and harassment and try to create “laws” that require rental companies to report all RP rentals immediately. They could then put the license plates in their automatic readers or whatever. If that were the case, I’d probably just have someone else rent the car, but whatever. The criminal regimes would enjoy being able to harass more people more often.

          I have been Registered for over 2 decades and I’ve driven my own vehicles a LOT in other states. I don’t think I’ve gotten any extra harassment. I’ve had children with me plenty of times as well. But I have been pulled over maybe 10ish times for speeding or whatever. I’ve never had ANY issue at all and never had anyone even ask me about Registering.

          But, I don’t speak to LECs AT ALL. They might say something like, “So where are you heading?” and I’ll either have told them politely that I don’t talk to LECs or I will just say “down the road” or something equally useless. It is very easy to make even the dumbest of LECs understand that you are not going to be speaking to them. BTW, doing that is not a “stunt” as E called it. There is no reason to talk to LECs. They are a danger.

          The biggest problem that I’ve had actually is traveling with other people. I’ve made it clear to other people that they cannot ride with me unless they agree that they will NEVER, under any circumstances, talk to LECs about the trip. And I have had LECs try to talk to other adults in my vehicle. But nobody is ever dumb enough to speak to them.

          I wouldn’t worry about just driving around interstate. Just assume though that the LECs know that you are there. Always. So you just have to worry about their nonsense, Jim Crow, illegal Registration “laws”.

        • TS

          I am going add to what @AJ said and reiterate you are allowed to record the TBL while doing their job even during a traffic stop. Courts have said so. I have seen it recommended in several places to use an app (or other camera if you have one installed) if you can to surreptitiously record the stop thus allowing you to record you are asking questions #1 and #2 above, etc. If they want to throw around you were being difficult, etc, do what the video media has allowed us to do, let’s go to the film for a replay (even if you don’t actually get a video recording of the stop showing faces, but audio only). I’m sure then the DA, etc will not want any part of the court case once you have that to show.

          Also, don’t forget to get a business card from them showing their department, office, name, badge #, and other contact info for later that can read since penmanship is lacking these days.

          You can also ask for radar cert records on the spot too if you like. I have had them presented upon request during a stop.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          “I have seen it recommended in several places to use an app (or other camera if you have one installed) if you can to surreptitiously record the stop thus allowing you to record you are asking questions #1 and #2 above, etc.”
          —–
          Yes, and you want to have an app or camera that automatically and (nearly) instantaneously uploads to the cloud. TBLs have been known to re-aim, cover, turn off, etc., cameras and recording devices the notice. As with any human being, TBLs act differently when they know they are being recorded.
          =====

          “Also, don’t forget to get a business card from them showing their department, office, name, badge #, and other contact info for later that can read since penmanship is lacking these days.

          “You can also ask for radar cert records on the spot too if you like. I have had them presented upon request during a stop.”
          —–
          Those these can be useful, they also tend to show your hand. You want to blend in with every other person the TBL pulls over that day. Asking for these will almost certainly result in the TBL making notes on the back of his/her copy of the ticket for future use. IOW, they will have heightened expectation of a court challenge. I’d rather request or subpoena the info later–and you should see the falsified and/or sloppy docs they sometimes send! (“Is the how you were trained to complete these forms, officer? Do you feel these procedures are important, or are they just something that waste your time?”)

        • AJ

          @TS, et alia:
          And from down/out/over in Mississippi, the local yokels are facing a Federal lawsuit (1st, 4th, 14th Amdts.) for how they handled two guys who were filming here and there around town–not even TBLs, from what I gather in the article! One thing the Plaintiff may want to consider next time: don’t do it when you have an outstanding warrant. D’oh! 😖

          According to Wikipedia(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes#Obligation_to_identify), they weren’t even required to give their identities to the TBLs. And yet the Plaintiff was given a ticket under the claim of “disorderly conduct”, which they later (and apparently illegally) changed to “disturbing the public peace.” I’d love to see the State’s defense of either of these claims based on the facts presented in the article. The guys didn’t disturb ANYthing until the TBLs poked around, nor were they apparently being disorderly…or is exercising the First Amdt. now consider disorderly? Methinks the good ol’ boys of MS, where they’re “the Law”, may find themselves getting some education on the Constitution.

          https://www.djournal.com/itawamba/sheriff-judge-deputy-sued-for-alleged-rights-violations/article_233157bb-913a-5229-ae1d-215f3241f965.html

        • TS

          @AJ

          Minor warrant issue, but what where the Sheriff, Deputy, and Judge thinking?! That’s crazy! I wonder if they’ll use phonics to teach the Constitution lessons? 😆

    • Jun

      Thanks for this. Just ordered a copy. I’ve mentioned our return to being a constitutional republic in other posts. Always have been, but previous administrations (last 2 – 3 decades) have brainwashed the people into calling our country a democracy. Which is a devilish trick, because we PRACTICE (verb) our democracy as a Constitutional Republic. Not, we ARE a democracy (in noun form). See. As “a democracy” we have registries. We also have the victimhood culture that is given nearly all of the rights to take AWAY the rights of Americans who offend them. A Constitutional Republic does not and must not allow that. As human beings and Americans, we each are of INHERENT VALUE (Gorsuch’s philosophy in his other book on euthanasia).
      This brainwashing about this country BEING a democracy is perpetuated in all television “programming”, music industry, 99.9% of the news networks, magazines, etc. Our previous administrations (both sides of politics) got the media’s help to perpetuate this lie/propaganda. Let’s keep in mind our supposed Constitutional law graduate, 44, allowed IML. Because, you know, democracy (supposed majority with brainwashed thought-forms) won. Over constitutional law.
      Again, thanks for sharing this article. It supports what I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. I am quite excited about our country and where it’s headed. And my love for it never went away, as much as I’d thought it had.

      • @ Jun

        I am quite excited about our country and where it’s headed. And my love for it never went away, as much as I’d thought it had.
        ——————————
        What gives you your sense of optimism? I read your post and was thinking, “ya, there’s no way to get our republic back.” Not with so many forces arrayed against it. The most powerful being one you didn’t mention: brainwashing kids for the last 30-40 years in public school, which has taken us exactly to where we are in this debate about republic vs democracy (which you laid out eloquently). But I don’t see grounds for optimism…

    • AJ

      @Chris f:
      “I think he will [Gorsuch] on our side if we can ever get good cases in front of him.”
      —–
      I 100% agree. He really seems to see how far off course our country has gone with so many SCOTUS interpretations over the decades. Unlike most his colleagues, he doesn’t automatically spout stare decisis. If we can get a few more like him on the bench, there may be hope for this republic after all.

      I got a copy of his book on release date (9/10), but have yet to crack it open. I hope it’s a good read; I suspect it will be.

  6. ReadyToFight

    Maybe we should be pushing to all be declared “Disabled” since we can’t find decent jobs, housing, or peace and be covered under a protective class status.
    The Registry is State to State “administrative”
    Pretty sure as long as that word remains in there they don’t have to abide by the Federal Laws or the Constitution apparently.
    And IML is Harassment, plain and simple.
    Hopefully someday we’ll see Law Makers stick to the truth as well as calling a spade a spade.

  7. AJ

    *sigh* Another week of nothing out of the 10th on Millard. That’s now 295 days since argument on 11/15/2018. Wow, that’s slow! Is it excessive case load that’s slowing them? Is it a tough call to make? Is there in-fighting? It sure would be nice to have a decision one way or the other.

    • CR

      AJ, here is a link to some stats for federal courts for the past year ending in June 2019:

      https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-court-management-statistics-june-2019

      The summary table for US Courts of Appeals shows that the median time from filing an appeal to disposition for the 10th circuit is 9.0 months. That’s a median. They’ve already exceeded that for Millard. I didn’t notice a range.

      The table shows 2014 through 2019, and that median time has grown longer over the years.

      Bummer, but we just have to wait it out.

  8. Chris f

    Another interesting article on Gorsuch with RBG and their opposing views.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/10/politics/rbg-neil-gorsuch-welcome/index.html

    I love his response to her examples. Really defeats any argument about justices thinking they can take it on themselves to re interpret the constition to the temporary or permanent whims of the people. If it is a permanent change in the thinking of the people then it will be added to the constitution and justices shouldnt take it on themselves to bend it…like in 2003 when retroactively punishing sex offenders seemed like a good idea.

  9. Mot

    CERTIFICATE OF REHAB…I have a court date next month is Los Angeles Superior Court for my application for a COR and since I worked with the Public Defenders Office I do not know what to expect in Court? I was told just show up on time. I need to find out from someone who has gone through this and learn what to expect my offense is 664/288(a) . Any insight on that day and then afterwards will make me feel more relaxed
    Thanks

  10. mike r

    Well people you do not see me on here much lately as I am extremely busy with college, work, and family, but here is my latest going to the 9th Circuit.
    https://ufile.io/cu0ownce
    Fight it till the end…………

    • Jason

      https://apple.news/AoVht0BxiTIiuBxr0wq_V4Q

      The Judge in the Brock Turner case is being treated as a SO, can’t even hold a job after being recalled.

    • TS

      Go @miker Go

    • Chris f

      Best of luck with this appeal!

      I don’t think people realize how your one Pro Se case could be the catalyst that takes down the registry. You cover all of the Constitional violations and use all of the arguments that have been posted here that dont get touched by regular attorneys with no skin in the game.

      It is obvious why nobody else makes it this far after seeing what you have gone through. First, every argument you make gets ignored because they just cite irrelevant other lost sex offender cases and dismiss your case. Then, when you go to appeal they threaten you with their legal fees if you continue. No wonder everyone else drops the fight.

      Let’s hope the appeals judge at least can pass a 3rd grade reading test and understands basic logic.

      Go Mike R!

  11. MKay

    A.B. 1215, a three year ban on police body cam face surveillance technology, needs our support. Later we can continue the fight for a permanent ban on this dangerous technology. Imagine what a simple traffic stop might be like if there were a school or park either up or downstream of the road we were on, not to mention what could happen with officers having issues with sex crimes.

    https://www.activistpost.com/2019/09/victory-california-senate-votes-against-face-surveillance-on-police-body-cams.html

  12. Chris f

    So sex offenders aren’t the only ones the government puts in a position of not being able to make a living to rise up out of a hole?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/09/13/supreme-court-traffic-stop-case-could-drastically-limit-drivers-fourth-amendment-rights/amp/

    Even if the case prevails it will only scratch the surface of the issue. It won’t do anything to stop states from revoking licenses from poor people that can’t pay fines and thus get deeper in debt.

    • R M

      From the article: “Rallying behind the state, the U.S. Department of Justice, 17 state attorneys general, and several law enforcement groups have all penned amicus briefs that largely echo Kansas’s arguments.”… ie, all monetary recipients.
      “The National Fraternal Order of Police claimed the Kansas Supreme Court decision “jeopardizes police officer and public safety.””… ie, all monetary recipients. And how does it “jeopardize[] police officer and public safety.” Because they have parking tickets?

    • TS

      The premise of someone driving a registrant’s car by a school sounds familiar when LE stops people under the same thinking without further infraction needed to process a stop.

    • AJ

      @Chris f:
      Thanks for posting this. I read this case a month or two ago and am waiting with not-quite bated breath for oral arguments. I don’t see how KS can overcome the reasonable suspicion standard, as it truly was a hunch. I would even say it was purely on a hunch that the TBL even ran the plate, since apparently the vehicle was doing nothing wrong.

      This case has important outcomes for RCs and those with whom they share vehicles. People on here have reported being pulled over in CA for nothing other than an ALPR hit for being a RC-owned vehicle. Just as in this case, that is absolutely zilch on the reasonable suspicion meter.

      I’m rather sure where J. Gorsuch will fall on this, what with his views on the Fourth Amdt. I’m curious where Reichsminister Alito will fall, though were I forced to bet I’d say he rules for KS. Heaven forbid TBLs get reined in at all.

      =====

      I sat up in my chair when I read this tidbit:
      *****
      [T]he National Defense Attorney Association argued that the ruling “threatens Kansas’s interest in prosecuting wrongdoing” and even claimed that “license suspension or revocation are not penalties for the casual traffic infraction.”
      *****
      It turns out Forbes has horrible fact-checkers. It’s the National DISTRICT Attorney Association that said this in its brief (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-556/103711/20190621122731043_18-556tsacNationalDistrictAttorneysAssociation.pdf). Think about it for two seconds, Forbes staff, why the heck would DEFENSE attorneys argue on behalf of the State?!? Nice job by a “Senior Contributor.” (I’ve already notified Forbes of the error.)

      BTW, what’s going on in KS? They have 3 cases pending with SCOTUS (Kahler v. KS, KS v. Garcia, KS v. Glover), topped only by the US with 4 cases.

      @R M:
      Expanding on your question, how does it jeopardize TBLs by their NOT pulling someone over based on nothing more than a hunch (and sometimes one data point from their ALPR magic 8-ball)?

  13. Try me

    After reading about the brutal attack on the Medesto man falsely fingered as being a registrant, I contacted a source and bought a hand gun. So I’m a felon. So it’s illegal. So what!
    As an outcast, I figure I am on my own for protection and preservation. As former military that has seen combat, I have no issue with taking a life.

    • AJ

      @Try me:
      The funny part is the Government cannot compel you to register; SCOTUS ruled it a Fifth Amdt. self-incrimination violation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States). Some changes were made to the law to try to fix things, but the underlying problem with the Fifth remains. From the URL:
      *****
      The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
      *****

    • C

      As long as it’s just for last resort defense I support your decision.

      I also hope you are posting from an anonymized IP.

  14. Lake County

    Gov. Newsom grants executive clemency to 21 individuals, many of these people had very serious crimes.

    http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php/news/62605-gov-newsom-grants-executive-clemency-to-21-individuals

    • R M

      Interesting. The great majority of them involved a person’s death yet none of them involve a sex crime.

      • Lake County

        Yes, apparently being involved in a murder makes you safer than someone that looks at a nude photo of a 16 year old. Makes sense to me…?

  15. JesusH

    Question for you guys in California with kids in school. How do you ask the school for permission to visit the campus? I think the law says you need written permission but I’m not sure it says your request needs to be in writing.

    My kid started his senior year of high school and there’s a parent meeting next about the college process. I should probably go to that so I know what’s going on.

    I’ve been avoiding any school stuff with my kids for the last 5 years but this is very important.

    I don’t understand how this is even legal to do. As a parent I need to have 100% access to everything my kids do or where they are. And as students, they need to have the same opportunities as other kids. Parents needing to ask permission is a disability to their education.

    Thanks.

    • Lake County

      It could be risky for you if you don’t get permission in writing. Trust no ones verbal approval. You just need to get a simple note of approval stating they know you are a registrant. They may require you to be supervised at all times while on campus. The risk is too high to not have written approval from a school or district administrator.

      • JesusH

        See that’s the part that scares me, that they’ll assign someone to escort me. Basically, that I’ll be singled out and people will know. I don’t want teachers or staff to look at my kids different.

        There is no way I would ever go without following the proper procedure spelled out in the law.

        I’m actually paralyzed into inaction at this point. I very much want to go to this meeting (and any possible future events like any parent would) but I’m afraid of what will happen once the school knows about me and any possible consequences to my kids.

        • Will Allen

          The ONLY thing I would worry about would be is if other children found out then they will start bullying your child. That is guaranteed. Other than that (which is significant, of course), I wouldn’t worry about anything else.

          I stayed involved 100% with everything my children did in school. I wasn’t going to let the idiots stop me or slow me down. Luckily, I live in a state that is not so dumb that they pretend to believe that Registered People being escorted in schools does anything useful. Only truly stupid people believe that is necessary (as opposed to escorting/supervising ALL people).

          I’d love forcing Nanny Big Government (NBG) entities and agencies to waste extra effort and time to deal with me. Love that. If I could force an NBG agent to accompany me everywhere I go, every day, that would be great. I would love to have 2 law enforcement officers in fact. If they cared about “protecting children” and their other lies, why wouldn’t they do that?

          You cannot waste enough of their time, money, energy, concern, resources, and lives. Suck up their will to live.

          And I certainly stopped caring long, long ago about what anyone thinks of me. Most “people” who support the Registries and its nonsense are not worth the time it would take for me to stop walking and piss on them. I could not give less of AF about those harassers. Amerika!

        • Bob

          Research. Ask.

          See if there are any published written policies at the school or district level.
          Failing that call and ask or have someone else.
          Alternatively, one could “livestream” the whole thing, Skype or whatever if there was someone else you knew attending. With a large enough tablet it would be ok. Just say you are on business out of town.

        • AJ

          @JesusH:
          Perhaps your wife or kid could FaceTime/skype it for you. If the school is told ahead of time that you’re unavailable to attend in person but want to be involved, they may okay it. I would definitely check it out ahead of time if following this route. Just starting it without advance notice will probably get it stopped–bureaucracies spook easily and react sternly.

        • R M

          @JesusH: One part of me says don’t be scared, be there for your kid. The other part worries about what you stated as consequences to your kid.

          Your “kid” is now an adult. If you haven’t, you need to have some real adult discussions with him/her. Let him/her decide and abide by that decision.

        • NotEasilyOffended

          I have school-age children and remain active with their teachers, meetings on campus, etc.

          I write to the administrator of the school, a principal usually, and briefly explain my status and my desire to attend whatever it is. Our schools have been accommodating and respond quickly with a written letter of authorization. There is no escort, they only ask that I sign in at the office during day time hours but some events, like a PTA meeting, are at night so that doesn’t apply.

          To my knowledge, teachers and other staff are not aware.

          Good luck and if you ask and are denied, immediately contact Janice.

        • AJ

          @Will Allen:
          “I live in a state that is not so dumb that they pretend to believe that Registered People being escorted in schools does anything useful. Only truly stupid people believe that is necessary (as opposed to escorting/supervising ALL people).”
          —–
          It serves their true purpose: dissuading many RC parents from even coming on campus. That, and appeasing the Chicken Little sheeple, is why it’s done. Think about it, what better way to throw a flashing red arrow that says, “there’s something about this person we don’t like/trust”?

  16. R M

    Hi. I just got a visit from the DCS (department of community supervision) with the upcoming Halloween restrictions. In the past those registered and on supervision had to stay in their home during a certain time frame on Halloween night.

    This year we have to report to the Sheriffs Office from 5:45pm to 9pm.

    How can DCS just make up new restrictions?

    • Lake County

      What State are you in? Are you on Parole or Probation?

      • R M

        This is in Georgia. From the discussion I had with the DCS officers, any registered citizen on any type of supervision is affected.

    • Will Allen

      I really don’t get that “people” who support the Halloween nonsense don’t seem to realize just how thoroughly moronic it demonstrates they are. The question I always have is do the probation/parole people think it is a good idea or are they only doing it to pacify the stupid “people” who comprise most of the public? I do believe that most probation/parole people have below average IQs and/or personality/behavioral problems. So perhaps it is them. I don’t know.

      But I’ve got to think that any benefit that could be briefly gained by these types of actions is surely outweighed in magnitudes by negatives. Registry Terrorists really do not seem to comprehend that if a person believes they are being treated immorally, bad things will almost certainly happen. They probably are too dumb to realize that.

      I promise that I will go far away from my home this Halloween and run around completely anonymously. I’ll make sure I check out what all the children are doing, on purpose and much more than I would if a criminal regime did not have me listed on their hit list. I promise.

      • R M

        @Will: Thanks for the comment. Two DCS officers visited me, before I even saw the paper with the restrictions, one said “don’t shoot the messenger”. That one knows I fight, I object, I write, and I support reform in more than a few ways. Nazi Germany came to mind but I didn’t mention that as from previous dealings with her, I know she has compassion for us (I truly believe she is just obtaining a paycheck).

        I went on to state that this is all ridiculous, and asked “when was the last time a registered sex offender committed a sex crime on Halloween?”. The second officer said at least once a year. I quickly said NO and blurted out facts and stats to disprove him. He shut up.

        I asked about who this affected, was it all RP’s or just those on supervision? The two actually argued about it, but eventually agreed it was just those on DCS supervision. LOL

        The second officer, I believe is just truly ignorant of facts, and also is just doing a job.

        The whole thing though that bothers me is that in the years past, the restriction was that I had to be home on that day from such and such a time (lights off, no candy, etc etc etc). Now, this year, it was changed to having to go to the Sheriffs office. Why? My only guess is that it is too much effort and money for them to visit us all on Halloween night.

        • AJ

          @R M:
          “this year, it was changed to having to go to the Sheriffs office. Why? My only guess is that it is too much effort and money for them to visit us all on Halloween night.”
          —–
          Don’t forget the other angle: it’ll make for good TV. That way they can show how they’re keeping Halloween safe for kids. I can practically hear the head TBL If it doesn’t make the local news in some manner, I’d be stunned.

        • TS

          @R M

          Please, oh please, record this visit to Sheriff Roscoe’s office using whatever you secretly can without getting caught and then post it for us to either watch or listen to. If you are comfortable with it too of course. You have the right to do so. Same with the next visit. Sounds like it would be entertaining to either view or listen to as you lead them by the nose through a comedy act.

        • R M

          @TS: I have 8 outside video cameras (one of which points to my front 4 foot gate which they enter and one pointed to the front porch where they stand at my door). Six others record the sides and back yard. Just these have recorded my DCS (one of them) officer threatening to shoot (yes shoot, like with a gun) my dog, which I didn’t even have yet (I just asked if he had a problem with me getting a dog (I didn’t need to ask, was just being inquisitive as to what he would say)) and a neighbor who said she got tired of them making loud noises one Saturday morning (knocking on my door) peeking over my 6 foot back yard fence and reaching over to try and unlock it. This neighbor was confronted by me (on video) as to her actions and has since basically been non-existent to me.

          Unfortunately, even though they have audio, it’s not discernible at all. I need better audio; any ideas anyone?

          I’ll do it, I’ll record any interactions with the pigs, and I’ll post them for all to see/hear.

    • blake

      f that crap. Id say f you and go to prison. Me personally. not telling you what to do. They are not gonna rip me from my own home when im a free man. Wtf, That really upsets me. We all need to fight this bull crap this stupid cops thinking they are actually doing something. Whats stopping you from doing something at 9:01? Your such a danger to the community they might as well forget where they put the key to let you out. What a joke.

      • R M

        @blake:”f that crap. Id say f you and go to prison” Would you risk going to prison for up to 30 years for a violation? If so, why aren’t you in prison now? Just a question.

        “Whats stopping you from doing something at 9:01?” Nothing at all, except the restriction also says go straight home and be there until 6am. Again, would you risk going to prison for up to 30 years for a violation?

        I agree but it’s not a joke; there are consequences to these stupid restrictions. I do fight but I’m not willing to be locked up for 30 years.

        • blake

          1st question is my answer is yes. i have kids and if someone tries to come tell me i have to leave my children and go to the police station and be DETAINED for not doing anything yes i will fight. I am however not on probation so i have not been put in that situation.

          For your second statement in what mind is going to prison for 30 years seem even remotely sane for not commiting an actual crime against another human being? SO yes i would say staring down the law and holding onto my pride if it came down to would be worth it. I will not bow down to everything they ask of me.

          Im glad that you fight and once again i said i was not telling you to do anything.

    • R M

      I just wrote and sent an email to Avery Niles, the head honcho of DCS.

      averyniles@djj.state.ga.us

      “Dear Mr. Niles,

      I am writing to express my opinion on the new Halloween restriction placed upon Ga registered citizens.

      In the past, they have been forced to stay at home on Halloween night (with other restrictions included). This year, YOU decided they must be rounded up in the nearest jail.

      WHY?

      “The mission of the Georgia Department of Community Supervision is to protect and serve all Georgia citizens through effective and efficient offender supervision in our communities, while providing opportunities for successful outcomes.” Do YOU really feel that rounding up and incarcerating registered citizens makes Ga safer?

      If ANY person wants to commit a crime, they will…. regardless of what “restrictions” have been placed on them. REGARDLESS.

      When was the last time a registered sex offender committed a sex crime on Halloween? I’ll tell you, NEVER. Prove me wrong.

      Even so, 95+% of new sex crimes are NOT COMMITTED by registered sex offenders!

      Yet, YOU still insist on putting additional restrictions on them. restrictions that were NOT part of their original sentences nor by law.

      In you 6/20 board meeting YOU said:

      “let us know when we’re not getting it right” and that is exactly what I’m doing.
      Placing additional restrictions on registered citizens does NOT make Ga safer; in fact, makes Ga less safe. The more restrictions YOU place on them, the more likely they become homeless AND THEREFORE LESS CARING ABOUT THE LAWS. They will offend more and if caught, will cost Ga more money in court fees and imprisonment fees.

      Maybe that’s what you want? My guess is that this about control, money, and/or a “make Ga think you are actually doing something”.

      [me]”

      • R M

        Oh btw, I’, guessing they know I’m a registered citizen. I was invited to a DCS board meeting a few months ago (I think the meetings are held every 3 months) after inquiring if the meetings were public. They said yes. A few days before that meeting (while I had already traveled to Atlanta for a second reason, but was still in the area), they stopped responding to my emails.

        • blake

          IF it was up to the public we all would be shot and hanged no matter what we did. anyone convicted of any sex offense would be publicly shot if that was a choice to the public. Never forget the police are getting paid and they would surely not put up a fight. Im sure the laughed about your situation even though most cops are dirty and do stuff that would surely get them sent to prison. The legislators are always gonna have to have a boogyman to seem like they are doing something. Right now its us. I feel until something bad happens on a mass scale to us that even the public wouldnt even be able to justify its gonna get worse and worse. Yes michigan is supposed to fix stuff but give them time and they will find new ways to hurt people and their families. nothings off limits when it comes to the greed of money.

        • Will Allen

          @blake:

          No one is going to care much what happens to people who are listed on the Registries. OR their families. Registered people could be murdered every day and most “people” would still want the Registries.

          What needs to happen is something to THEM because the Registries exist. Then people MIGHT care. Terrible things need to happen to people who support the Registries, because they support the Registries. To millions of them. That is the only way they will care. If people who supported Registries were told they could not have a smart phone as long as the Registries existed, for example, the Registries would be gone in a matter of hours. That is how little concern that people have that Registries actually do anything important or useful. They don’t care. They just like Registries because they harm people, gives them something to gossip about, and makes them feel a little bit better about themselves. That’s it.

      • AJ

        @R M:
        Nice letter to the head jerk. I wonder what sort of latitude a PO, let alone Sheriff, actually has to forcibly detain someone without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I get that being on paper means reduced rights, but part of probation is NOT being incarcerated. They’re doing just the opposite.

        Common sense (yes, I know that’s a dangerous idea when it comes to the courts) says an injunction should be possible, especially given the State would have ZERO data to show the previous method of “house arrest” hasn’t worked. But that’s money, time, and money. Perhaps post-fact a suit for illegal detention (which if I did it, would be called kidnapping) could have legs.

        • R M

          @AJ: I have reached out to NARSOL/RSOLGA asking how restrictions of supervision (I’m not on parole or probation but on Community Supervision for Life (sigh, not really life as there is a way off)) can be changed just at the tip of a hat. My original conditions mention nothing about Halloween.

        • R M

          @AJ: “Common sense (yes, I know that’s a dangerous idea when it comes to the courts) says an injunction should be possible, especially given the State would have ZERO data to show the previous method of “house arrest” hasn’t worked.”

          How would I impose an injunction on this nonsense? I have money. I also did some research:

          Conditions of supervision:
          https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4510788/united-states-v-joseph-canfield/
          https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure

          A district court must satisfy three requirements in impos-
          ing a discretionary condition of supervised release. 18 U.S.C.
          §§ 3553(a), 3583(c)–(d).
          First, the condition “must be reason-
          ably related to
          (1) the defendant’s offense, history and char-
          acteristics;
          (2) the need for adequate deterrence;
          (3) the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;and
          (4) the need to provide the defendant with treatment.”

          United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828, 845 (7th Cir. 2015); 18
          U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1). Such a condition also “cannot involve a
          greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to
          achieve the goal of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.” Kappes, 782 F.3d at 845; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2).

          Lastly,the condition must be consistent with any relevant state-
          ments issued by the United States Sentencing Commission.
          Kappes, 782 F.3d at 845; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(3). We review the
          district court’s imposition of such conditions for abuse of
          discretion. United States v. Speed, 811 F.3d 854, 858–59 (7thCir. 2016).

          I know you’re not a lawyer and you pose no legal advice on here. Is this worth fighting or should I and and all Ga RC’s on supervision bow down to DCS or fight it in court?

        • Will Allen

          @R M:

          Sounds like you need an attorney and to get into court.

          WTF is this CSL nonsense anyway? Is that from Georgia or elsewhere?

          I think I’d have to get into court and try to get boundaries set for that. Otherwise, I’m certain that the criminal regime of Georgia will try to do anything they think they could get away with. They are criminals after all.

          I do wonder if you could get the Registration part “separated” from CSL. I lived in Georgia and was put on probation in another state. So I was serving the probation in Georgia. I got the Registration part “separated” from probation, meaning that I forced the Registration people to treat me exactly as anyone else who was not on probation or parole. Because, you know, Registration has nothing to do with punishment, so nothing to do with probation or parole. The Registration crybabies were very angry about it. They lost their little minds.

          But anyway, the practical part of that was that I did not have to allow the Registration people to come to my home or work. I did not have to talk to them. I did not have to answer their extra, illegal questions. I did not have to give them extra information on their illegal Registration forms (e.g. names of people I was living with, parents’ names/addresses, probation status, or whether or not I used alcohol or tobacco!!). So I would just give the information in writing that I was forced to by “law” and then told them to go F themselves. All the time. They didn’t like me and I liked that.

          I admire your will to fight back. But be careful, and I know you know that.

        • AJ

          @R M:
          I guess I’m unclear on what exactly CSL is, as I thought it to be some form of probation or parole. As such, I’m not sure how that affects things. However, you should only be subject to whatever a judge said when the CSL was started.

          Since you’re in a different State than your conviction, you have the added layer of ICOTS (now called ICOAS). Under ICOTS, you are subject to the union of your convicting State’s and GA’s general (as in broadly or universally applied) supervision rules–to a point. Also under ICOTS, the GA agency is a proxy for the originating State’s agency and must follow what they say.* GA cannot terminate your supervision, they cannot extend it (I know…CS for LIFE), and they cannot add requirements to what the judge said. Nor can declare you in violation of your supervision–ONLY your convicting State can do that. What they CAN do is apply to you the supervision rules they apply to all people convicted in GA of similar offenses. Herein lies the questions you need to try to get answered. Is detention, whether house arrest or collection at the PD, something that is part of GA’s standard supervision process, and is it applied to all risk levels and all supervision levels? Or is it something a GA judge enumerates in a convicted person’s (cookie cutter) supervision conditions?

          If it’s the former (agency policy), you’d probably have to sue for unwarranted, suspicionless detention (“Am I free to go?” “No.”). You’d argue violations of your 1st Amdt. (freedom of travel and assembly) and 5th/14th (Due Process) rights. You may even be able to make a 4th Amdt. claim for unreasonable search and seizure. Mind you, a judge may simply slap it away and say you have reduced Constitutional rights while under supervision.

          If it’s the latter (GA judges’ orders), they must follow what your original sentencing order says. Since your order makes no mention of such a restriction, they would not be allowed to augment or modify it. Heck, even your convicting State would have to go back to court to get such a modification!

          I believe that a competent civil rights attorney would be able to convince a decent judge that the State is acting without reason or need. It would be one thing if there were even a single event of a RC doing something on Halloween somewhere in the country. But to “round up the usual suspects” (tip of the hat to “Casablanca”) “just because” is not something this country (supposedly) does.

          * A personal example was probation in my State of residence wouldn’t let me go out of state to visit an ailing direct-family member. The judge in my convicting State issued an Order stating I was allowed to go. The probation agency supervising me under ICOTS was required to comply with the Order.

        • R M

          @AJ: You said “Under ICOTS, you are subject to the union of your convicting State’s and GA’s general (as in broadly or universally applied) supervision rules–to a point”. You are correct…. but neither states conditions say anything about Halloween. This Halloween bull was initiated by the Department of Community Supervision (DCS) board. DCS is who “supervises” those on parole, probation, and CSL/PSL. Not just RC’s but also other persons who were convicted of a crime.

          Like I said… neither states conditions say anything about Halloween.

          In the years passed, we had Halloween “detention” at home. This year, that got changed to having a “mandatory meeting” at the Sheriffs Office/jail/courthouse. They plan on putting us in a courtroom (maybe more than one, idk how big the rooms are) and show movies while feeding us popcorn, lol.

          You said “Herein lies the questions you need to try to get answered. Is detention, whether house arrest or collection at the PD, something that is part of GA’s standard supervision process, and is it applied to all risk levels and all supervision levels? Or is it something a GA judge enumerates in a convicted person’s (cookie cutter) supervision conditions?”

          This condition about Halloween came from the DCS. Any RC on any type of supervision has to abide by it. As it isn’t a part of conditions created by law, every year we have to sign a paper saying we will adhere to the Halloween restrictions or we will be violated and go to jail. In the passed years, DCS officers visited everyone’s home during Halloween night when we were told to be home… if we weren’t or if we had a porch light on, were passing out candy, or even answer the door to any children…. again … violated and off to jail. They do allow an exception for people who work during those times.

          In short, this restriction/detention is decided by the DCS board of 10 or 12 individuals led by the commissioner and Avery Niles.

          What’s ironic though, is now there’s going to be 100’s more vehicles on the road around 5:30pm and then again at 9pm potentially hitting a kid trick or treating.

        • AJ

          @R M:
          There’s a big difference between their telling you to keep your house dark and quiet and hauling you into custody. Neither is proper, but the latter escalates it a whole bunch, IMO. If you cannot get an injunction prospectively, you may have to go along for movie night to avoid the risk of getting jailed and/or sent back to your convicting State. No matter what, I’d have an attorney aware of what’s going on–heck, I may even ask my attorney to give me a ride and accompany me! 🙂

          Once there, I would immediately and repeatedly ask, “Am I free to go?” If no, then ask, “Am I being detained?” It shouldn’t take much for one of the PO morons to admit that yes you are being detained. That opens up the Fourth Amendment violation. I recommend your reading Florida v Royer (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/491/), ignoring the reason Royer was detained and instead focusing on the 4th Amdt. seizure issues addressed and case-law citations. Again, you absolutely have reduced 4th Amdt. rights being on supervision, but reduced doesn’t mean none. While a PO may be able to enter and toss your residence, it doesn’t mean s/he or anyone else can seize and detain you without probable cause or without meeting the criteria of a Terry stop. While DCS probably has a lot of latitude in the rules it promulgates, they still must be based on some sort of rationality. Detaining and confining you against your will should raise constitutional concerns for even the lamest, in-their-pocket judge.

          In short, you may need to go through with their hijinks, but I’d be slapping them with a suit the next morning!

        • AJ

          @R M:
          Maybe you should ask for an outline of the meeting agenda. 🙂 If the “mandatory meeting” is a false pretense and you’re instead subjected to a “lock in” Movie Night, they may have a tough time defending themselves. I’d absolutely have an attorney involved as much as possible and would record as much as possible. If they seize your phone (another possible 4th Amdt. issue), I’d be sure to take copious notes.

        • R M

          @AJ: Thanks. I have contacted NARSOL and RSOLGA and ACSOL. So far, none have told me positively yup, let’s take this to court. A lot of the communications revolve around what CSL actually is. Most states have parole and probation. NJ (and I think NC) have CSL which was later changed to PSL….. both are like on going parole. There’s no difference really except CSL/PSL are lifetime with a way to get relieved after so many years of being crime free. But even a technical violation resets that clock to zero. Technical violations are considered a felony too (it has been fought in court in NJ a few times to no avail).

          I will contact a lawyer next week who I have worked with before and see if he is willing to fight. There is also a RSOLGA meeting next week which I will attend to discuss several Halloween issues. We’ll see what happens.

        • R M

          @AJ: I am going to take my phone with an additional battery; I am going to take an additional audio recording device. I do not know if these are allowed inside wherever they put us though.

          The usual lawyer I use/consult is in the middle of a murder trial. He said he wouldn’t be available for a consultation for a week or so. He did say “As far as added restrictions from the Department of community supervision, they are given wide latitude in regards to hell persons under sex offender conditions are supervised.” Not sure what the typo is with the “hell” word.

          I sent him another email using some of your wording but no response yet:

          “Thanks for the response.

          You said “As far as added restrictions from the Department of community supervision, they are given wide latitude..” What guidelines, if any, does DCS have with imposing restrictions? Surely they can’t be unrestricted.

          While a PO may be able to enter and toss my residence, it doesn’t mean s/he or anyone else can seize and detain me without probable cause or without meeting the criteria of a Terry stop. While DCS probably has a lot of latitude in the rules it promulgates, they still must be based on some sort of rationality. Detaining and confining me against my will should raise constitutional concerns.

          I will be attending a meeting with RSOLGA (Reform Sex Offender Laws-Ga) on Saturday the 28th to discuss a few Halloween issues such as placement of signs in SO’s front yard in a few counties up north and the one I raise about unlawful detention. I’d like to if you at least think there is a chance to fight this?”

          Anyone else in Ga who want to help fight this?

        • R M

          Eh, just sent an email to the city manager requesting to bring in electronic devices into a courtroom (as that is where we will be detained).

          “Dear Mr. Barber (City Manager),

          I will be one of the unfortunately and illegally detained persons who have to spent the evening of 10/31 at a “mandatory meeting” as defined by DCS.

          I would like to and request permission to bring in my cellphone and an additional recording device. Per the website at https://www.valdostacity.com/municipal-court/court-rules-conduct-and-security I need permission from the court. I am asking and requesting from you, the City Manager, for this permission. There will be no court in session at this time. If you can not provide this permission, who can?

          Sincerely,
          [me]”

          I’m interested if he’ll respond and whom he will direct me to for permission.

        • R M

          Sent another email, this time to Michael Nail, DCS commissioner of Ga: sent it to the only contact I found at webmaster@dcs.ga.gov Hopefully it get’s routed to him.

          “Dear Mr. Nail,

          I am writing to express my opinion on the new Halloween restriction placed upon Ga registered citizens.

          In the past, they have been forced to stay at home on Halloween night (with other restrictions included). This year, YOU decided they must be rounded up in the nearest jail.

          WHY?

          “The mission of the Georgia Department of Community Supervision is to protect and serve all Georgia citizens through effective and efficient offender supervision in our communities, while providing opportunities for successful outcomes.” Do YOU really feel that rounding up and incarcerating registered citizens makes Ga safer?

          If ANY person wants to commit a crime, they will…. regardless of what “restrictions” have been placed on them. REGARDLESS.

          When was the last time a registered sex offender committed a sex crime on Halloween? I’ll tell you, NEVER. Prove me wrong.

          Even so, 95+% of new sex crimes are NOT COMMITTED by registered sex offenders!

          Yet, YOU still insist on putting additional restrictions on them. restrictions that were NOT part of their original sentences nor by law.

          In you 6/20 board meeting YOU said:

          “let us know when we’re not getting it right” and that is exactly what I’m doing.
          Placing additional restrictions on registered citizens does NOT make Ga safer; in fact, makes Ga less safe. The more restrictions YOU place on them, the more likely they become homeless AND THEREFORE LESS CARING ABOUT THE LAWS. They will offend more and if caught, will cost Ga more money in court fees and imprisonment fees.

          Maybe that’s what you want? My guess is that this about control, money, and/or a “make Ga think you are actually doing something”.

          Richard

          ps: this will also place many additional drivers on the roads on Halloween night…. we all know drivers kill children on Halloween night.Dear Mr. Nail,

          I am writing to express my opinion on the new Halloween restriction placed upon Ga registered citizens.

          In the past, they have been forced to stay at home on Halloween night (with other restrictions included). This year, YOU decided they must be rounded up in the nearest jail.

          WHY?

          “The mission of the Georgia Department of Community Supervision is to protect and serve all Georgia citizens through effective and efficient offender supervision in our communities, while providing opportunities for successful outcomes.” Do YOU really feel that rounding up and incarcerating registered citizens makes Ga safer?

          If ANY person wants to commit a crime, they will…. regardless of what “restrictions” have been placed on them. REGARDLESS.

          When was the last time a registered sex offender committed a sex crime on Halloween? I’ll tell you, NEVER. Prove me wrong.

          Even so, 95+% of new sex crimes are NOT COMMITTED by registered sex offenders!

          Yet, YOU still insist on putting additional restrictions on them. restrictions that were NOT part of their original sentences nor by law.

          In you 6/20 board meeting YOU said:

          “let us know when we’re not getting it right” and that is exactly what I’m doing.
          Placing additional restrictions on registered citizens does NOT make Ga safer; in fact, makes Ga less safe. The more restrictions YOU place on them, the more likely they become homeless AND THEREFORE LESS CARING ABOUT THE LAWS. They will offend more and if caught, will cost Ga more money in court fees and imprisonment fees.

          Maybe that’s what you want? My guess is that this about control, money, and/or a “make Ga think you are actually doing something”.

          Richard

          ps: this will also place many additional drivers on the roads on Halloween night…. we all know drivers kill children on Halloween night.

        • AJ

          @R M:
          I did a search using these criteria: michael nail “@dcs.ga.gov” (yes, include the quotes in the search) and found his email address.

          BTW, this works almost all the time for pretty much anyone in government. At some point they’ve given a presentation, or been to a conference, or whatever, where they post their email address.

          As for the courtroom/recording issue, that should only apply if court is in session. If they argue security concerns for the layout of the room, that should be voided by the fact they will let a sketch artist DRAW the exact details all day long! Besides, it’s not as though you will be taking pictures. You simply want to audio record the details of this (apparently) important meeting so you can avoid missteps going forward. 😉

          I still think you should request an outline or synopsis of what will be covered in the “meeting.” Surely they have given their staff some sort of heads-up about the topic of the meeting. Though they may opt against giving you the exact same details, they should be able to provide an overview.

        • R M

          Thanks AJ, I will email him, michael.nail@dcs.ga.gov directly in a few (actually done already).

          Updates:
          My lawyer responded with “Raise it with the group [RSOLGA] and see what they think. You’d probably get a more serious response from Department of community supervision if someone like the southern poverty Law Center or ACLU got involved. between now and Halloween I don’t know if I could even schedule a court date to address the matter.”

          So, I have just today contacted both the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) and ACLU branch in Ga.

          We’ll see if ACLU, SPLC, or Nail answers.

  17. Mcfly

    Anyone know if a PA SO that no longer needs to register in home state PA, Moves to Ohio needs to reg in Ohio? Looks like you only need to if you’re req to reg still in your home state.

    • AJ

      @Mcfly:
      The best source is probably the OH SOR people, though I’d still take what they say with a grain of salt and check it out myself in some manner. I’d call them–ideally from a non-identifying phone number–and speak generally. “I’m relocating from a State where I no longer must register. Under what circumstances will OH require me to register, if at all?”
      Actually, before calling them I’d also scour the OH SOR laws for any mention of “like offense” registration requirements. Even then, I’d check where I’d fall in OH’s laws if I had been convicted there. The more background and perspective you have BEFORE calling them, the better.

  18. JohnDoeUtah

    Update on my case against the Registry Fee in Utah. The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the State Office of Debt Collection. The judge stated he lacked jurisdiction and authority to rule on constitutional questions, and so he threw out my Ex Post Facto and Due Process claims.

    One of biggest issue reside here:
    UCA 59-10-529, “If there has been an overpayment of any tax imposed by this chapter, the amount of overpayment is credited as follows:
    (a) against an income tax due from a taxpayer;
    (b) against:
    (i) the amount of a judgment against a taxpayer, including a final judgment or order requiring payment of a fine or of restitution to a victim under Title 77, Chapter 38a, Crime Victims Restitution Act, obtained through due process of law by an entity of state or local government”

    -BUT-

    UCA 63A-3-307, “The lien created by this section shall, for the purposes of Section 59-10-529 only, be considered a judgment.”

    The State Finance Office created a law that says that when you owe the state money, a lien is created after 90-days (for which no notice is given), and that that lien constitutes a judgment upon issuance for the purpose of seizing tax over payments.

    Half of my argument was that the State failed to sue me within 3 year in order to obtain a, “judgment against a taxpayer…obtained through due process of law.” And, that the “extrajudicial” judgment awarded the state under 63A-3-307 failed to meet that due process requirement. Therefore, garnishment of tax over payments not only failed to meet the requirements under the Utah Tax Code, but it also violates constitutional due process because it is obtained via statue without any notice or opportunity to be herd.

    So, now its on to a review before the State District Court, who has authority to rule on constitutional concerns now that administrative remedies have been exhausted.

  19. TS

    Um, so this interesting case result is on the wire this morning and makes for an interesting discussion perhaps when it comes to SO laws and exposing one’s female self upper half:

    #FreeTheNipple wins victory in Colorado
    https://www.fox4now.com/news/national/freethenipple-wins-victory-in-colorado

    From a legal standpoint, there’s a CCOA split between 7th and 10th, so SCOTUS could judge next if another appeal was raised (I’m betting from the 9th).

    From an exposing body parts view (ahem), will there be reconsideration of previous exposure convictions or repeal of the law going forth?

    • Facts should matter

      Americans have selective outrage when it comes to sex!

      • David

        Sex is bad. It’s all bad…… unless it’s something I like, then it’s okay.

        Welcome to America, a nation forever in it’s adolescence, thrilled by violence and obsessed with sex, titillated by LGB, scared by anything’s Trans, overall rather pathetic. MHO.

  20. James

    I’m traveling to Hawaii soon and I’ll be there for ten days and not longer Dumb question but do I need to let law enforcement where I register annually know of this travel? IML doesn’t apply correct? I saw the Hawaii codes and it says that I don’t need to register with them as long as I don’t stay longer than ten days. Anyone been to Hawaii and face any problems? Thanks for your comments.

    • TS

      @James

      Aloha! As we’ve discussed here before there is a three-day or more travel away from home across state lines Federal travel notification requirement for your registering jurisdiction to know you are leaving the local area. If you open the matrix above where the travel notification durations and moving duration notification information is, you’ll see on the bottom of the first page what is annotated related to this.

      • James

        Thanks TS. Better safe than sorry so I’ll make a visit to the police station. CA is non-federal SORNA state but better erring on the side of caution since this is about the SOR.

        • AJ

          @James:
          CA being SORNA compliant or non-compliant doesn’t change your obligation as a citizen to comply with the Federal law. CA can thumb its nose at the Federal law and ignore SORNA requirements all day long due to the Tenth Amendment. Individual citizens have no such right.

          As well, some States have their own requirements to notify if being out-of-state for some period of time. (I don’t know how many States do this nor what their timeframes are.)

    • JuniorSD

      No questions are dumb questions when the registry and possibly being subject to felony charges is involved. Whether you need to inform your home registering agency of the travel is likely dependent on your state. Some states may require it if you are going to be away from your registered address for a certain number of days. Since Hawaii is part of the US and not international travel, IML doesn’t apply. Be careful when staying right up to the limit of days that triggers registration. I’m not sure what Hawaii’s code says, but being present in the state on the tenth day could possibly trigger the registration requirement. You may want to limit your trip to 9 days to be safe, or verify that the code says “longer than 10 days” rather than “10 days or more”.

      • James

        Thanks JuniorSD. The Hawaii codes say, “for more than ten days“ so I should be good as long as there’s no flight delay or an act of God to put me over to more than ten days.

  21. john doe

    UPDATE 290 REGISTRATION WITH RING VIDEO MORE HARASSMENT !
    https://ring.com/share/6738761442134926577
    (rings doorbell and almost leaves… then roomate walks out)
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=17Fqo8RSs5CRifpMbCUS28Cchwv80isyV
    (ring doorbell share screwed up so I had to DL it and share it on my google drive)
    https://ring.com/share/6738762399912633585
    As many of you may recall the SAN DIEGO PIG Sheriffs came out a month ago to “compliance” check if I live where i’ve registered to…. AND I POSTED MY RING DOORBELL VIDEO OF the LIES and THREATS THEY MADE…. UPDATE BELOW WITH MORE VIDEO… THEY CAME OUT AGAIN a FEW MINS AGO and I DIDNT GO OUT THERE….. F*** Them I don’t have to I don’t have to ID I don’t have to EVEN TALK TO THEM, im NOT ON prob/parole… and I HAVE NO REASON to talk to that SLIME.

    My landlord (that ive known 25 yrs knows and the two tenants out front know… so who cares…)

    Ive lived at the SAME ADDY for 6+ years now…. Just because they CANT SEE ME IN PERSON and even knowing ROOMATE and NEIGHBORS Verified i live here they keep coming out !

    Janice advised me a few years ago to NOT ANSWER DOOR, PUT BLINDS DOWN….

    This is because they have NO AUTHORITY UNDER ANY LAW here in CA to do a COMPLIANCE CHECK as im not on paper….

    Supposedly (I cant hear the audio good) they claim they can get a warrant…. yea a FALSE WARRANT…. Since there is NO LAW Backing them up they cant get a LEGIT Warrant….

    Luckily my property is also littered with cameras all over the place ! LOL

    OTHER VOICE you hear is my roommate that went out there….
    Supposedly they claim there is CONSEQUENCES and supposedly they said they would get a warrant… good luck for what ? LOL… then they arrest me and FALSE ARREST ! Surely they cant get a WARRANT Since no crime was committed as they have NO PROOF I Live anywhere else !

    • SR

      I know cops can legally lie through their teeth during an interrogation, but can they lie like this to gain access to private property when you’re not on paper and this isn’t an investigation? I don’t see this being any different than them walking up to a random house just to make sure there’s no meth being cooked their, and lying that they have the right to get in and will come back with a warrant if you don’t let them in. Check on this and file a complaint and possibly a lawsuit for harassment. You have video and audio evidence that’s pretty clear at the level of harassment and lies you’re receiving.

      • bob

        Your correct, it really is plain harassment as much as they are coming by ! but i’m not on paper and will continue to NOT go out to the gate and waste the sorry losers time… as the piglet said… he is paid by the hour….. so keep coming ! there is times I don’t leave the property for days on end lol…

        Actually I think since here in CA they do NOT have a LAW Backing them up to do a COMPLIANCE Check (since that is a ON PAPER THING Anyways) it DOES Turn into harassment or stalking after so many attempts to come to the property./.. Plus remember they are here to harass me, I didn’t call them, nor did a member of the public call them… Plus they arent investigating a CRIME as no one has reported one !

        In actuality I wish I could get a restraining order against them, COPS are nothing more than a BUSINESS that MAKES $$, just like any other business does.

        • Bee

          “Actually I think since here in CA they do NOT have a LAW Backing them up to do a COMPLIANCE Check” that is not necessarily true.

          To be sure, there is nothing in PC 290 that obligates you to participate in a home compliance check unless on parole or probation. You are required to report in person at the cop shop a few days around your birthday or when you move or establish a secondary residence (apparently not applicable in your case). There is no requirement for any interaction with law enforcement at your residence.

          BUT local law enforcement is funded and considers themselves authorized through the County Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) Team Program. PC 13887-13887.4.
          https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=6.&part=4.&chapter=9.7.&article=

          San Diego is really loving this.
          http://www.sdcda.org/preventing/sex-offenders/index.html
          http://sdsafe.org/index.html

          I am not a lawyer but imo it is not as clear cut as they make it out to be. Some thoughts.

          1. “13887.1. (a) The mission of this program shall be to reduce violent sexual assault offenses in the county through proactive surveillance and arrest of habitual sexual offenders, as defined in Section 667.71, and strict enforcement of registration requirements for sex offenders pursuant to Section 290.”

          “proactive surveillance” only applies to “habitual sex offenders”, while “enforcement of registration requirements” goes for all. What they are doing at your home is “proactive surveillance”, unless you are giving any indication that you are not fulfilling your annual and moving requirements per PC 290. In which case they will get an arrest warrant for Failure to Register.

          2. “13887.3. The program established pursuant to this chapter shall have the following objectives:
          (a) To identify, monitor, arrest, and assist in the prosecution of habitual sexual offenders who violate the terms and conditions of their probation or parole, who fail to comply with the registration requirements of Section 290, or who commit new sexual assault offenses.”

          This applies to habitual offenders only who are in conflict with parole, probation or registration, or are new suspects in new crimes. None of which applies to you unless you are a “habitual offender” (and what is the definition for that?)

          3. “(b) To collect data to determine if the proactive law enforcement procedures adopted by the program are effective in reducing violent sexual assault offenses.”

          I have made a formal records request for this data to more than one Police / Sheriff Department. Was never provided the requested data. “The San Diego County SAFE Task Force has been in operation since 2002”. So they would have to have compiled a decade and a half of data and analysis. I would make a formal records request for it. If it does not exist, they are in violation of the law. Please note that the program SHALL have this data collection.

          4. “13887.4. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the otherwise unlawful violation of any person’s rights under the law.”

          If – big if – you can show that this conduct goes well beyond a normal “knock-and-talk” and your 4th Amendment Rights were violated, they are, again, in violation of the exact same PC section that authorizes and funds them. It would be up to a judge to decide if your video evidence is still covered by knock-and-talk. I most definitely say no, but I am no judge.

        • TS

          @Bee, john doe, et al,

          Get them (LE, councils, the state) to define what “habitual” means as a requirement for the offender as not defined here. There is no numerical equivalent to it. The same can be said for “pattern” because there is no numerical equivalent to it. No, two is not a habit or a pattern, just a repetition, but that makes the person a repeat offender, not habitual. Three? Maybe. If it is one and done, then obviously you cannot infer a habit or pattern there. Off paper is off paper and people should be left alone of course.

          Any public pressure would mean they would need to, in any forum, decide what a numerical equivalent would be. If they CANNOT, then you have grounds to go after them legally as you see fit because you are asking them to stand their ground through the law, which they cannot because they cannot define habitual or pattern in reference to the offender for home checks in a court of law, which the judge would hopefully consider the wording of the law and get them to stop and force the state to decide how to proceed with a numerical habitual or pattern definition. Make them think while getting them to stop this poor behavior.

        • john doe

          @bee … yea I do register once a year and thats it… I read your links 🙂 and still nothing in the state 290 code gives them authority (backed up by a nepan code law) to BUG or in this case harass me,…

          And no law anywhere says I need to make any kind of contact at my residence (just once a year to register at thier office) Loser sheriff pig said they will get a warrant… yea right.. another LIE they CANT get a warrant to see if I life here…

          pigs: yea judge we want a warrant to break down a door to see if someone doesnt live there that says he does….)

          judge: have u asked neighbors… got any reason to believe or proof he doesnt live there… ?

          In a email to janice she said keep blinds closed doors locked and do not answer unless a warrant…

          I wonder how many visits to my property are considered harassment…

          as for me I have a 6′ fence all around the property locked ! lol

    • Facts should matter

      They want to, as my P.O. use to say: “lay their eyes on you” for ocular confirmation. Ugh.. they most likely believe that ALL SO’s or public safety liabilities and they’re just covering their collective asses.

  22. Eric Knight

    A company wrote an article with suggestions on how to “drive out sex offenders in your neighborhood.” The first suggestion, by the way, is to “build a pocket park” in a neighborhood, ironically referencing the very same park in Harbor City (Los Angeles) that Janice successfully threatened to sue if registrants were kicked out.

    But the other ideas have got to go.

    “Weird Tricks to Drive Out Sex Offenders in Your Neighborhood”

    https://www.truthfinder.com/infomania/crime/sex-offenders-neighborhood/

  23. AJ

    @john doe:
    I think I’d ask my roomie to quit telling them ANYthing about me. Let them come out over and over and be wholly frustrated. The TBL was clearly trying to butter up your roomie for being subservient (what it truly is, NOT merely compliant). He even got a thumbs up. Lucky him, the TBL approves of his subservience!

    Keep doing what you’re doing, friend. You’re gumming up the works just a little bit. You’re making things harder for them and you’re keeping maybe one or two fellow RCs from getting a visit…at least that day. Keep making them waste time and money!

    As for the warrant claim, what a load of crap. “Your Honor, we’d like a warrant to enter a property where the resident is legally exercising his Fourth Amendment right not to answer the door.” Hey, maybe next time your roomie goes out, he should hand them a copy of Kentucky v. King (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/563/452/) with the following section highlighted:
    *****
    And whether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497–498 (1983). (“[H]e may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way”). When the police knock on a door but the occupants choose not to respond or to speak, “the investigation will have reached a conspicuously low point,” and the occupants “will have the kind of warning that even the most elaborate security system cannot provide.” Chambers, 395 F. 3d, at 577 (Sutton, J., dissenting). And even if an occupant chooses to open the door and speak with the officers, the occupant need not allow the officers to enter the premises and may refuse to answer any questions at any time.
    *****

    It would also be nice to give them a copy of Florida v. Jardines with this section highlighted:
    *****
    We have accordingly recognized that “the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds.” Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626 (1951). This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.
    *****
    If they are lingering beyond “wait[ing] briefly to be received” it would seem they are conducting more than a knock-and-talk. Given their repeated behavior of lingering beyond a brief wait, I wonder if a claim could be made they are conducting a search and/or retaliatory harassment for your unwillingness to respond to them.

  24. JohnDoeUtah

    This is my opening arguments on the Registry Fee aspect. I think I contacted Janice a long time ago, but can’t find her e-mail address anymore. Janice, would you be willing to look this over when I am complete?

    “Petitioner disputes the imposed liability of the Sex Offender Registry Fee as an illegal ex post facto fine. While the Petitioner does not currently have a duty under state law to register, the “fee” provisions of his previous requirement continues to cause injury; thus, Petitioner has standing to challenge the “fee” provision. It is also noted that the State of Utah could at any time amend its laws to recapture Petitioner in its registration scheme, through retroactive application, under the disputed purpose of “public safety” and he would again be subject to liability of a registry “fee.”

    During the Administrative process the OSDC relied on Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000) and Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2010) as a blank endorsement that the Utah Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry does not constitute an ex post facto law. However, OSDC reliance on Femedeer is misplaced as much of the registry statue has changed in the last nearly 20-years since. The same can be said of Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). Petitioner argues that the findings of Femedeer and Smith are not a blank check or a shield that the State of Utah can use to write ever restrictive amendments to the registry. Shurtleff is also distinct from the current case as it does not involve a registry “fee.” Additionally, if Shurtleff was successful at anything, it was stopping registrant’s requirement of providing the passwords associated with their internet identifiers and preventing public disclosure of those identifiers; thus, there are limits on how far the State can go with its registration scheme. This specific case is distinct from all the proceeding cases, especially due to the multitude of changes in the registry since 2000-2003 that make it resemble probation/parole in both intent and effect, including the enactment of a registry “fee.”

    The Petitioner argues that the Utah Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry we know today is punitive, “while SORA is not identical to any traditional punishments, it meets the general definition of punishment, has much in common with banishment and public shaming, and has a number of similarities to parole/probation” (Doe v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied). (Sixth Circuit COA finding that Michigan’s 2006 and 2011 SORA amendments constitute punishment, and subsequently is an ex post facto law, where SCOTUS denied certiorari). Snyder represents the effect of going beyond the reporting requirements in Smith where “offenders subject to the Alaska statute are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision” [emphasis added]. Snyder went further by finding that registries constitute an affirmative restraint, “…something is not “minor and indirect” just because no one is actually being lugged off in cold irons bound. Indeed, those irons are always in the background since failure to comply with these restrictions carries with it the threat of serious punishment, including imprisonment.” But perhaps the most notable decision of Snyder is that the registry fails to have a rational relation to its non-punitive purpose, “the record before us provides scant support for the proposition that SORA in fact accomplishes its professed goals. The record below gives a thorough accounting of the significant doubt cast by recent empirical studies on the pronouncement in Smith that “[t]he risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’” 538 U.S. at 103 (quoting McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34 (2002)).” Alas, a court has seen through the lies and debunked assertions that sex offenders pose a “frightening and high” risk or recidivism. As Synder points out, many states have also found that the registry is punitive in effect (e.g., See, e.g., Doe v. State, 111 A.3d 1077, 1100 (N.H. 2015); State v. Letalien, 985 A.2d 4, 26 (Me. 2009); Starkey v. Oklahoma Dep’t of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004 (Okla. 2013); Commonwealth v. Baker, 295 S.W.3d 437 (Ky. 2009); Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999, 1017 (Alaska 2008)). “As the founders rightly perceived, as dangerous as it may be not to punish someone, it is far more dangerous to permit the government under guise of civil regulation to punish people without prior notice. Such lawmaking has “been, in all ages, [a] favorite and most formidable instrument[] of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 84, supra at 444 (Alexander Hamilton)” quoting Snyder.

  25. State vs. Federal

    As for as the Tier System is applied, which jurisdiction has authority.
    I read that the Federal system applies a 10/25/lifetime while the states are (excuse the pun) all over the map on this subject.
    I live overseas, and under Federal law would be removed in a few yrs for my Misdemeanor.
    Does this mean I am off ALL state registries as well? I can’t imagine that you could be removed in one jurisdiction, yet be arrested in another fir non compliance if federally you are relieved of your obligation.
    To me it is akin to paying a traffic ticket in county “A” , but getting in trouble in county “B” because they charge more for same offense. If the Registry is to be a national thing, shouldn’t it be enforced the same across state lines. Obviously Florida would be exempt, since tfat state is literally on another planet of thinking when it comes to morality!

    • AJ

      @State vs. Federal:
      “I live overseas, and under Federal law would be removed in a few yrs for my Misdemeanor.
      Does this mean I am off ALL state registries as well?”
      —–
      No, because of dual sovereignty you are subject to both federal and state laws. They may overlap, but they are independent. SCOTUS affirmed this just last Term (I forget the case offhand but can find it if need be).
      =====

      “I can’t imagine that you could be removed in one jurisdiction, yet be arrested in another fir non compliance if federally you are relieved of your obligation.”
      —–
      Sure you can be, again due to dual and State sovereignties. Federal relief is just that: relief from the burdens of federal law–and ONLY federal law.

      Since it’s deemed regulatory, each and every State can establish its own regulations concerning this public-safety item. That’s one of the many complaints amongs RCs: they have to know every RC law for each and every State they enter or remain.

  26. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    “Lancaster mother sentenced to house arrest for bringing child to home of 3 registered sex offenders” It’s not like she was pimping her kid out, she was just visiting friends who were on the Registry and she ends up getting house arrest and probation! We’ve been seeing more-and-more of this kind of shit. This is going in a very bad direction. “Police began investigating in January when a state parole agent noticed sidewalk chalk outside the home and toys inside the house, officials said.” https://www.wgal.com/article/lancaster-mother-sentenced-to-house-arrest-for-bringing-6-year-old-child-to-home-of-3-registered-sex-offenders-tabetha-mitchell/29126516

    • R M

      @ Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly: Where’d you get “she was just visiting friends who were on the Registry”? Or that she pimped the kid out? From the video you provided she lied as to being his sister. I do agree that it’s getting ridiculous.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        RM, I said that she WASN’T pimping them out. And she was just visiting these guys according to the story. I assume that she got the sentence for “lying” to the police.

        Never talk to the police, even if you think that it can’t hurt you. Please see: “Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

    • Will Allen

      Completely outrageous and unacceptable. Amerika has always been an awful country and it continues.

      So evidently in the criminal state of PA, it is illegal to bring a child around a person who is Registered?! WTF? Is that the case? Or is it because the person/people had been convicted of certain crimes?

      As usual, whatever dipshit wrote the news article doesn’t even think that detail matters. I’m sure he/she is thinking, “Of course it is illegal to bring a child around a $EX offender!” Which, in and of itself, it so insanely outrageous and offensive that it harms my brain.

      As a parent, I will decide whom I take my children around and when. Fuck big government to think they should even have an opinion about that. And certainly fuck the average moron on the street who can’t mind their own business and stop harassing people. Most don’t have enough sense to even look at me, let alone make decisions for me.

      If I were this woman who was convicted of this “crime”, I sure as hell would retaliate. People would seriously pay. And have people not learned yet?!! Never, never, ever, for any reason, talk to law enforcement. If they try to talk to you, tell them to go fuck themselves.

      I am around children all of the time. Because the Registries exist, I’m going to go out of my way to be around children. It’s the proper, moral thing to do.

      Fuck ALL people who support Registries, including every person who has posted on here saying that Registries are okay (as long as they personally aren’t listed on them). Every day.

  27. Will Allen

    I’ve been thinking more lately about the Registries and “compliance checks” and such. And how some people on this very site (!!!!) have said how Registries are just a “minor nuisance” and even that they support the Registries. I was quite confident before that Registries are unacceptable and even more so now. I do think that confidence grows literally every day though, so I guess nothing really new there.

    But regarding things like “compliance checks” and similar things (which I really don’t find to be exceptionally bothersome either), I am convinced that people still should NEVER allow those to happen. People should not allow law enforcement to “visit” them anywhere, not at home, work, or anywhere else. They should not allow law enforcement criminals (LECs) to get near them (or their families!) or to speak to them for any extra/unnecessary reason. And ALL communications should only be in writing or recorded (and triplicated). There is simply no reason to allow LECs to do extra Registry “work” or tasks.

    The problem with allowing “compliance checks” is that they give an impression that Registries are acceptable or that they might be functioning. That should never be done in any way. All out war needs to be waged.

    No one should ever turn on their TVs and see some 20 LECs at some home talking to the people who live there and “checking up” on some Registered Person. That should NEVER be seen. Instead, they should see nothing. Nothing but walls, fences, gates, closed doors, silence, wasted resources.

    Even if a person is on probation or parole, I think it can be well argued that Registration is not part of punishment and is thus not part of probation or parole. Unless a person is expressly ordered that they must comply with ANY LEC that just wants to stop by and verify whatever, then I wouldn’t think they would have to. But unfortunately, I do expect they often bring probation and/or parole with them so you probably have to respond to them. Most times.

    Anyway, the environment needs to be created where these big government employees can plan huge, wasteful things like “Operation Dipshit” or whatever they want to call it, but that everyone knows that it is nothing but a PR stunt. That is what needs to be seen – big government waste.

    Lastly, if you KNOW that a law enforcement officer OR other big government employee DEFINITELY does not support the Registries, then you can treat them as humans. But if not, you don’t have to be concerned with how you treat them. And if you know they are an LEC or support Registries, there is certainly no need to be nice. Remember that they aren’t Americans or decent.

  28. TS

    The REGISTRY CONCEPT wants to be expanded by a presidential candidate. How interesting. Does this mean we get to know if our neighbors are wealthy even though they live modestly? Will it be publicly listed? IRS only? Isn’t this wealth shaming?

    When will the registry madness stop if you have one each for DWI, pet abuse, domestic violence, sex offenses, etc? I guess when everyone is on one for whatever criteria is needed.

    Sanders targets highest-income Americans with ‘extreme wealth tax’ and ‘national wealth registry’

    https://www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/09/24/bernie-sanders-wealth-tax-1763426

  29. JR

    Hey everybody, I’m a RSO and I realize that most of the comments are geared towards registry, but my concern is to an even bigger issue which lifetime parole. I read through all of the topics and seen a few that touched base on this. Within weeks of successfully finishing 3 yrs probation along with SOMM and 6 polygraphs. I thought my scrutiny days were over but boy was I wrong. I was magically added to this growing “list” of offenders to be watched over for the remainder of their days. That was 3 years ago, and now I’m finally seeing that after all of the successes I had overcome through the super strict probation that I didn’t prove anything to anybody except myself and family. Only because of my offense and no other factors I was placed on this list. My first and only criminal offense in my life has now handed me a lifetime babysitter. Being a RSO in Indiana is as bad as living in FL. I recently ran across an article, older but is like gold to me right as I’m just learning of some possible changes that can be made here. In short.. If my sentencing judge or court did not add at the time of sentencing that I be added to lifetime after completion of my prison and probation sentence, does the parole/probation board have the right to add me solely on my offense? The restrictions are exactly the same as probation!

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/11/supreme-judicial-court-orders-end-lifetime-parole-supervision-for-sex-offenders/GL43yinlBDo10Ta1Sn3hRM/story.html

    Just a question.. I’ve contacted the ACLU and if this doesn’t change for myself and I’m sure hundreds of others, myself and my family have already planned to leave this prison of a state. Thank you for giving us a place to air our concerns and thoughts ACSOL.

    • Chris f (@JR)

      Sorry to hear about that JR.

      That ruling you linked only applies to the state it was in since it wasnt a federal court. However, you should track down all the legal documents and arguments that gave them a win and use the appropriate parts in your fight.

      What they did to you is a clear violation of Procedural and Substantive Due process, Separation of Powers, and probably a few other things related to contracts.

      • JR

        Thanks so much for your response. I’ve been waiting on someone to chime in. I have no clue of the law but now that this has affected my life substantially I’m looking to do something about it. Not only for myself but others here in Indy as well. We need a risk based assessment system in place for those nearing the end of their sentences before they are just thrown into this category. I will be looking for the documents or anything I can find on Lifetime Parole as you suggested, thanks so much

    • AJ

      @JR:
      Only a judge should be able to modify the terms of your sentence, which includes the manner and length of supervision. Were I you, I would get a copy of my full record from the County or State. This is a document that shows every step of everything that’s gone on from arrest through conviction. I would also request DOC to provide any and all documentation about me regarding the terms and length of my supervision. Somebody somewhere signed off on the change. From what you said, it was not a judge.

      If you are indeed CSL/PSL, moving to another State probably won’t help. Since you’d still be under some form of supervision, you’d be subject to ICOTS/ICOAS (http://www.interstatecompact.org/). Under ICOTS, the “receiving State” would be able to scrutinize, and possibly deny, accepting your supervision–and being a RC, they usually try to find any reason to do so.

  30. Waste a moment

    For what ever reason , my CP case wasn’t granted reduction by a Santa Clara judge over a year ago. I had no issues after my conviction and probation was no problem. I filed 6 months after completion. Now it’s been almost 2 yrs since my release and I am filing again. The attorney says I need to show that I have “ progressed in my Rehab”. WTF!
    I was originally released from therapy because they said I wasn’t considered a “threat for re offense”. I literally haven’t viewed ANY porn since. I have had a stable living arrangement (rent my own apartment) and work without interuptions in employment. I volunteer as for trail maintenance for county parks.
    But this was the case when I last applied. I am at a loss as to what can prove I am “worthy of reduction”, as the attorney has phrased it.
    I don’t attend church (agnostic) , I am not one to engage in community functions, so am I to accept that this my destiny? I can’t afford monetarily to continue filing every yr, or wait for this particular judge to croak so I can get a more logical one.

    • SR @ Waste a Moment

      I’m sorry to hear what you’re going through. When was your actual conviction? In 2014 they amended 311.11 to no longer be eligible for 1203.4 “expungement”. And in 2015 it was further amended to be a straight felony, meaning not really eligible for reduction. If your conviction was prior to these days, then the corresponding relief is grandfather in for you as you took your plea before the changes. But otherwise, I’m not sure what you can do.

      • Waste a moment

        My conviction was early Jan 2015, so I am eligible for reduction. I don’t think the attorney would have attempted if I wasn’t eligible. I don’t care about expungement anymore. Actually I don’t care about much of anything anymore. I feel the system has beaten any resolve or hope I had out of me.

        • SR @ Waste a Moment

          Unfortunately, these changes take effect on Jan 1st. It’s not to say that your attorney may not be able to make it happen (law is weird), but its a bigger hurdle than if you were convicted just a month earlier. It’s crap. I know. I wish I had something better to tell you. Ask your attorney about this more directly. And bring up what I’ve mentioned in case I’m wrong or he has a legal explanation. But see if you can get an explanation so that you at least know you’re not being ripped off by him taking your money for something he knows won’t really happen (a lot of sleazy attorneys will do this as it happened to one guy in our group who had this CP case dragged out for over 2 years, only to get the same sentence he would’ve got had he simply plead in the opening months. Turned out his lawyer was writing some book and was using this case as part of it. He ended up completing nearly the entire therapy program before he was even sentenced as he voluntarily entered it at the get go. Even the judge at the final sentencing was sympathetic for forcing registration on him as he didn’t really think it was required but had his hands tied by the law).

  31. Will Allen

    So I was reading “Osceola County conducts “Operation ‘Parking Lot Party'”” yesterday (https://floridaactioncommittee.org/osceola-county-conducts-operation-parking-lot-party/).

    I was really, really angry. I had to drive to take care of some business. And I was realizing during that time, that I actually am a dangerous, unstable public safety threat. Very, very oddly it kind of felt like the first time that I had fully realized and understood that.

    The Registries have made me dangerous. They literally are the 100% cause of it, without doubt. Registries are just incredibly idiotic social policy.

    I have also become convinced that the criminal regimes must do a couple of things if they want to keep their Registries toy but stop the rampant damage to Amerika. Today, the Registries are anti-factual, anti-American, and immoral. These couple of things would do a lot to fix that. This is what the criminal regimes must do:

    1. Create Registries for ALL crimes. No more BS and lies about just $EX. Until this is done the criminal regimes will continue to have zero credibility.

    2. Remove every single requirement that any Registered Person has. Everything.

    Regarding the second item, Registered People would not be required to give the criminal regimes anything or do anything. Everything would be 100% up to the criminal regimes. They love to constantly lie about how they are “monitoring” people. So let them actually do some work. Don’t they have to fake “verify” the information anyway? Let them collect and verify the information all at once. That would also remove the possibility that anyone could be arrested for any BS Registry “crime”. Because I’m certain that arresting people is a huge public safety problem.

    If the criminal regimes could do those 2 things, I think I could write them off and forget about them. The war could end. If not, they’ll keep losing.

    I do find it hilarious that these criminal regimes keep talking about “red flags” and such. They wouldn’t know a red flag if someone was beating them senseless with it. Besides, they love red flags and creating them, it gives them “reasons” for their jobs and lets them play their games.

    • AJ

      @Will Allen:
      Thanks for bringing that FAC post to my attention. Boy, good thing all that time and money was spent for all those TBLs to go out there and solve those heinous crimes! Now we can all rest easy as the sexual-offense rate plummets because I’m sure there had been a spike in such offenses ahead of this “Operation.”

  32. Waste a moment

    I seem to be at odds with an attorney about my reduction.
    He says that Misdemeanor CP would be a Tier 1 offense. I keep reading here that that isn’t the proper reading of the bill as if now. That all CP would be tier 3.
    He also gives a pretty formatted statement about community volunteer work and professional license as a means to show “rehab” .
    I am looking for those that recieved their refuction on this offense and their advice.
    I am not a joiner. Never have been. And fail to see how dishing soup out or helping at a breast cancer walk shows any change in my actual persona. I am a person that made a stupid mistake. I have focused on my self improvement, not how some superficial, judgemental community sees me.
    I think I made a mistake going with one of these REDUCTION SPECIALTY lawyers.
    Please help

    Thx

  33. TS

    Interesting piece that will hopefully cause some discussion on the topic of SA on campuses and the lack of due process for those who are accused and those who are accusing being given more latitude. 5.9% false accusation rate is a higher rate than those could possibly re-offend from this community. Amazing.

    I will also add to what is written in the piece that any non-military judicial system, minus Oregon, has a unanimous court verdict system where beyond reasonable doubt is the standard because Oregon is still under a non-unanimous verdict system (being challenged at SCOTUS this term) as is the DoD until wiser heads prevail there.

    Some Feminists Admit Sex Tribunals at Colleges Have Gone Too Far, Hurting Some Unfairly Accused

    https://stream.org/sex-tribunals-at-colleges-gone-too-far/

  34. Jason

    LA County Probation is doing compliance checks today.

    First one where they came in like swat, scared my new fiancé to death.

  35. NY won’t let go

    I’m not sure if it’s an onset of paranoia or not…. but has anyone else noticed the PK hasn’t posted in a long time?

    I tried emailing him but haven’t heard back since about April.

    I remember that he had to travel back to the US due to medical conditions even though he lives south of the border.

    Getting a bit worried. Hopefully nothing bad happened.

  36. TS

    Anyone seen this interesting post over at the NARSOL website? LEO encouraging the banishment of those impacted by the registry be banned from Nextdoor.com. Is that legal? That is a real slam to those in Amerika!

    Nextdoor.com hangs out “Not welcome” sign to those on the registry

    https://narsol.org/2019/10/nextdoor-com-hangs-out-not-welcome-sign-to-those-on-the-registry/

    • Bill

      @TS

      They might as well burn a cross on his front lawn while they’re at it and leave a noose on his front porch.

      It’s blatant discrimination that’s based on misinformation and paranioa. This continual stereotyping is the underlying mental sickness that permeates the human condition that needs to be pushed back by way of law suits and activism.

      So in the spirit of this article I’ll leave with a quote I’ve read somewhere:

      “Don’t judge me by past,
      I don’t live there anymore!”

    • TS

      @Bill

      I completely agree on that last statement you say.

      However, I just want to know is it legal for a government entity or law enforcement to encourage such action if they’re supposed to be non-political while being paid by the taxpayer? To encourage banishment as a precondition to an agreement with them reminds me of someone endorsing a political candidate while in uniform which is not condoned. I don’t know if it’s actually illegal or just unethical. I’d think there could be a pretty good case of challenging the governmental side of the citizenry encouraging this In a court of law and having it stricken down but under what guise, I am not aware of as I type this. Maybe others here could chime in on that.

      I should also say I don’t care to be a part of that particular website either. It’s the principle of it that bothers me. It rubs me as bad as profiling people without any basis because that’s what they’re really doing.

  37. bob jones

    so some lame agreement was just made w the US and the UK on sharing DATA… one thing was child sex offenses etc…. looks like we will never go into the UK in the future…. who cares queen is lame !

  38. MATTHEW

    Not sure why no one has a definite answer with how 1203.4 will play in the tiered eyes. By no one, i mean it is not anywhere in the bill that goes into effect in a few years….

    While we can speculate, it is no clear anywhere

    • Bill

      @Matthew

      What distinguishes Felony CP from Misdemeanor CP in the eyes of the Tier System?

      Or is there even one and that all CP is on one Tier?

      • matthew

        Misdemeanors will be in tier 1, felony in tier 3. It is not sure what a 1203.4 would do. A reduction should be tier 1 but the law doesn’t state that either but the charge would of changed. 17 b reduces.
        1203.4 dismisses it so I am not sure how it would change the tier status.
        I have a 1203.4 but not a reduction.

    • SR @ Matthew

      My guess is that it currently has no value to your placement into tiers. The reason I’m guessing this is that 1203.4 basically says you get a pass for whatever you did unless you have to register. And then points you towards 290.5 (I think that’s correct?) as the actual way to de-register. Right now, that code is for the COR. Once the tiered registry goes into effect, it’ll replace the current language of that code. So basically, 1203.4 will now still be the same with just the code it points to to actually get off having its language changed. I, along with everyone else, hope that what I’m thinking is incorrect, and 1203.4 will actually have a real benefit for us like it literally does for everyone else that’s able to get it.

      • matthew

        Bad part is that the COR goes away with the new bill.
        I sent a letter to the DOJ after the 1203.4 and they took me off the website completely stating that it is not disclosed offense anymore (311.11((a)) since I received the 1203.4.

        I, however, read on DOJ website that once this bill is passed in 2022 they will take away the exclusion to honor how the bill is written.

        This bill is actually more dangerous than we all thought. It will ignore corrective action we all took.

        We should of not supported this!

        • SR @ Matthew

          I’m not sure the type of exemption you received due to your 1203.4 will be removed once the tier bill goes into effect as your removal was due to you no longer having a “conviction”. The way I understand the bill to remove some of these exemptions was more directly due to some codes specifically being allowed to be excluded from the public registry that you can send a petition for to the DOJ. For example, if you have just a 647.6 misdemeanor, you can fill out the app to be removed from the public listing whether or not you cleared your record via 1203.4. And it’s actually this particular code that the legislatures pulled from currently being qualified for such removal.

          To me, being removed from the public listing specifically because you have a 1203.4 makes sense as it otherwise would directly contradict disclosing your conviction when you don’t technically have one. But I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it’ll truly pan out. Even if this technically shouldn’t change, you never know what they’ll do and then claim an oops when someone points it out.

  39. @Bob

    Citation, please?

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 *

.