ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org



CA Dept. of Justice Changes Registration Form, Misstates Federal Law

The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) recently changed the state’s registration form (CJIS 8102S). In doing so, it added the following sentence: “Federal law requires me to notify my registering agency no less than 21 days before I intend to travel internationally.”

“The main problem with the new statement is that it does not accurately reflect current federal law,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

According to a five-page letter sent today by ACSOL, state governments that comply with SORNA are required to demand international travel information from registrants. This requirement, however, does not flow to individuals who are required to register.

In its letter, ACSOL requests that the CA DOJ strike the sentence on the registration form that misstates federal notification requirements.

“We are providing the California Department of Justice with an opportunity to correct its mistake,” stated Bellucci. “If the state agency fails to remove that sentence, ACSOL will pursue all available legal remedies, including a lawsuit if necessary.”

Letter to Atty Gen – CJIS 8102S – 27 Oct 2020

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I have not read the section you mention but I recognized a common theme. When there is an error in the interpretation of a laws factual intent, it always seems to favor the authority or to expand the agenda. Never does the administrative branch’s interpretations side with less authority for whoever’s currently steering the ship. It is always the overreach, everytime!
Over time this results in a somewhat bi-polar disorder about the way the system works.
There seems to be little to stop this fact except for each concerned person to confront it.

Thank you for doing so here.

Tim, your observation that those in authority nearly always create expansive interpretations is on point. Perhaps that involves the psychology of those who crave authority. However, I won’t go there because I’m not a psychologist. Once authority is extended ultra vires (cool, I learned a new legal term) it is presumed they have that authority. This is an example of increasing repression via the camel’s nose in the tent. They also absolutely despise any challenge to their authority, particularly if they are in the wrong. I applaud ACSOL for whacking the camel’s nose.

The essential point I want to make involves travel notification, which speaks to notification of “intended” travel. There is nothing indicating that a person can’t later change his mind. He may get a case of wanderlust after arriving in a country and change travel plans.

I bring this up because a useful tactic might be to file an intended itinerary and directly state that those plans may change, even capriciously. Such notice could induce some government agency to respond by claiming filed plans can’t be changed. That would constitute an affirmative deprivation of liberty, which is a traditional form of punishment and would give the harmed person standing for a court challenge.

There is a fundamental difference between requiring notification and in restraining travel. The former is presently considered as “rationally related” to public safety, whereas the latter is a form of punishment that can only be applied as a criminal penalty, not through civil regulations.


Great insight Ed C!

Let me get this straight. Only those states that follow sorna must comply?

Define intent. From Cornell,, there is much that goes into it. CA specifically is called out in this definition too.

Just by talking about international travel, I can see a prosecuting atty deciding intent was made and proceeding with a case until told otherwise. I say it is once the money has been paid towards travel, whether a deposit or in full, intent is done.

Thanks for listing the exceptions to the 21 days thinking in the letter. Hope folks here who still argue about it can read it for themselves in the letter.

I want to also bring Admin Law intent up here, from this Cornell citing, since we discuss the registry and legislative intent because we all know their intent is to punish, but use terms to show otherwise, and think this could be used to challenge it: In Administrative Law, courts also have the authority to determine legislative intent for the purposes of statutory construction. In doing so, courts primarily look to the language of the statute as understood when codified. It is worth noting that courts sometimes look to omissions of certain language as an indication of legislative intent as well. Courts also consider circumstances under which the statute was enacted, purpose, and legislative history.

Ed. C,
The notice of potential changes in itinerary sounds like a reasonable tact. IML is yet another example of Americans being sold out to protect foreigners on their own soil. We all know where project Angel Watch is housed. Nothing new in Mormons missionary work. The Never Trumpers, Romney Bush and the rest of the war monger elites got no problem making a buck by sending our jobs elsewhere, or selling out privacy to the big tech imps., or engagement of permanent WAR.

I’ve Thought about of returning the SOR form blank along with a letter requesting more time to collate the data requested. State does that…ask for an extensions ad nausium. This would impact liability understood by statute as ” knowingly ” or ” intentionally ” not registering.

They certainly mis-quoted this one:

“Require jurisdictions to have sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance of such travel and to submit information concerning such travel to the appropriate Federal agencies and databases”


“registrants must be required to inform their residence jurisdictions of intended travel outside of the United States at least 21 days in advance of such travel”

Clearly the guidelines currently in place in SORNA are speaking to the registration authorities. But, the bottom line is the same for any jurisdiction which has implemented this…registered persons would be required to give the 21-day notice.

Interesting that CA buggered up the verbiage on this though – the requirement is not to make notice more 21 days of the intention being formed, it’s to do so more than 21 days in advance of the intended travel.

It seems that states are already implementing the New Proposed SORNA rule even though it hasn’t been put into law yet. What do they know, that we don’t?

@,johndoeUtah EXACTLY JDU. Exactly

Here in Nevada, we have a similar statement on our registration form:

“If I am traveling outside of the United States I am required to notify the local law enforcement agency in my residence jurisdiction of the intended travel at least 21 days in advance. Reporting travel does not authorize entry into your destination country; contact the local embassy or consulate of your destination country prior to your departure to determine whether entry will be authorized upon your arrival. (NRS 179D.151, 179D.470, 34 U.S.C. 20930, 34 U.S.C 20923(b)), 73 FR at 38066-67, 34 U.S.C. 20914(a) (7), 76 FED. REG. page 1637 (Jan.11, 2011))”

Additionally, we have to acknowledge this:

“If I am lodging in places other than my residence for seven (7) days or more regardless of whether that results from domestic or international travel I am required to notify the local law enforcement agency in my residence jurisdiction of my travel plans and notify the local law enforcement agency where I will be lodging domestically or internationally of my presence. (NRS 179D.151, 179D.470, 73 FR at 38056, 38066, 76 1637 (Jan.11, 2011))”

The Nevada laws cited, NRS 179D.151 and 179D.470, do not say any such thing.

I wish Janice was working in Nevada, because we could use her here!

So if my mother or my wife and children are hurt wile traveling on vacation in another country i have to wate 21days before i can leave to be by there side LMFAO these people are sick they’re literally obsessed with sex offenders just like they were with the AFRICAN AMERICAN SLAVES.
The federal government never intended on letting sex offenders go free there so mad that califorina the #1 money maker of the prison system came up with a off ramp for sex offenders.
The federal government is focussing on sex offenders traveling overseas because they dont want not one sex offender to escape virtual custody.
Due to decades of mass incarceration of MEXICANS and BLACKS crime in the ghettos of America have been on a major decline for the last 20 years so much so the Federal Government had to find another way to pack the prisons and what better people to take advantage of the SEXOFENDER.
All these rules and restrictions are almost impossible to comply with 5 out of 10 people will violate one of their conditions and will be sent to prison /free labor/sex ofender death camps. $$$$$$

Good luck


You’re wrong. What you describe is an exception to the 21 day notice under a family emergency where one can provide less than 21 days to travel overseas for the family.

They are obsessed. They are seriously pathetic as well, grasping at the most insignificant, useless, idiots things that they are able to, just dying to keep growing their Registries and try to make them look legitimate and useful. They are desperate. Weak and pathetic.

And with every step and new crime that they commit, they ensure that the retaliation against them grows worse.

I really hope your “5 out of 10” is not right. They seem to think it is no big deal to arrest people for Registry idiocy. But I keep reaffirming to myself that if anyone ever arrests me, I am going to very seriously retaliate. I will act. They likely won’t know it, but it will happen.

I think it is crazy when the criminal regimes act like this and then people are supposed to care when cops get shot. Just crazy.

Let me clarify – for the layman’s. The 21 day rule is Federally mandated and only applies to those states under SORNA? Ca doesn’t use SORNA! Correct? Guys, please respond in both a simple manner. Thanks

Sort of. As far as CA in concerned, you’re correct. CA doesn’t care if you give them the notice. But as soon as you cross a state line whether you’re going to the state next door or flying out of the country, you fall under federal authority and thus should’ve provided them with the notice. It’s like marijuana is legal in CA and OR. But it’s absolutely illegal to transport marijuana between CA and OR because that invisible state line is Federal where marijuana is illegal. CA also provided all registrants with a notice about the Federal 21 rule, so you wouldn’t even be able to claim that you didn’t know about it. So you should technically file the 21 day notice and get a receipt of some sort as CA isn’t actually under any obligation to send your notice up the chain to the Feds.

It is a federal law. You are subject to it. You must notify whoever you notify in your area.

Wi. is also a non SORNA state. When I leave the country I always give a notice. When I return I am always checked. I normally fly through Chicago. Illinois is not SORNA compliant either. If I wouldn’t give 21 day notice I would be out of compliance. They harass me enough as a compliant traveler. (Customs is federal.)
In customs you are in limbo until you pass through. You have very little rights compared to outside of customs.

@Will Alan. Why I didn’t know you were a faithfull follower of Buford T. Justice. I wonder if he did bust momma in the mouth or barbecue someone’s ass in molasses. Now these 21 day punitive damages are a bit much in much of this travel venue.

While laws are good to live by who is taking the advantage of most of these issues. Sure this interneatioal issue can press on some or who is on radar in this whole MASH mistake in much of this registry call out or is it time to get one’s six shooter out. Oops I forgot one can’t be around guns or carry.

Thank you for the information. I completely understand. I have my Court Date for my COR (23 year old expunged misdemeanor sexual battery/summary probation in LA)/ early January. I did what you informed me, Janice. Hindsight, I’m trying to cover all bases. I’m aware the new registration law goes into affect January 1st! Thus, this will be my only and last chance to obtain my COR. My question is, I was hearing there was a possibility that those individuals who had birthdays Jan – July might have to wait another year, since the overwhelming number of individuals applying? I will say this. It took my 8-9 months to get my court date. Please advise.

@USA and others – The CA legislature passed a bill in August 2020 that requires individuals to wait until at least their first birthday after July 1, 2021, to petition for removal if they are eligible to do so. As a result, anyone who has a birthday of January 1 through June 30, 2021, must wait until their birthday in the year 2022 to submit their petition.

Thanks Janice. I believe I’ll (I have a good background) be successful in LA. It’s basically the last chance for a COR. Thank you and I truly appreciate your advise. Primary & Secondary ie

Would you, have any predictions, for the way the new year may bring for registry reform. With the new Gov taking office, I am curious of your thoughts on this and please others chime in with what your thoughts are.

I had also noted demand for SSN as well, never in my 34 yrs Reg before even interagency of just fingerprinting in the old days with a CA DL have EVER required your number, now with next yts Tier this seemed to be added.
As I started to pull away the SO of our Co ran after me alongside masked stopping me for my SS number, as I had left blank for fear of a new or SORNA Add On next year’s surprise of CA DOJ being inclusive readying now requiring this be completed. Stating I forgot…didn’t work. No matter Cancer an above 60 she had to have the number or the 290 would of been invalid due to incompleteness.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x