ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

General Comments December 2020

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of December 2020. 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. David⚜️

    🙂🙂 Happy December everyone!!! 🙂🙂
    Please, everyone, stay healthy & COVID-19 safe!! 👍

  2. Anon

    Hi all I have a question that someone may be able to answer. Not sure if it’s just a mistake the way the law was worded or if I’m reading it wrong.. In the new tiered registry bill, there is a provision for tier 2 to petition to get off after 10 years, it states:

    b) (1) A person required to register as a tier two offender, pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, may petition the superior court for termination from the registry after 10 years from release from custody on the registerable offense if all of the following apply: (A) the registerable offense involved no more than one victim 14 to 17 years of age, inclusive; (B) the offender was under 21 years of age at the time of the offense; (C) the registerable offense is not specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, except subdivision (a) of Section 288; and (D) the registerable offense is not specified in Section 236.1.

    I have a 288(a), one victim under 14, when I was 19 years old. Would this apply to me?

    At first glance, I would say no. Because in section (A), it says the victim has to be 14 – 17 years old. However, in section (C), it says the offense cannot be a violent crime under section 667.5, only exception being if it’s a 288(a). But, the victims for 288(a) can only be under 14, not 14 – 17 years of age so why does it specifically mention this? Why would it say that you qualify if you have a 288(a), yet one of the other qualifications need to have the victim at 14 – 17 years old?

    Can someone clear this up? So confusing haha, I might be reading it wrong.

    • AERO1

      @Anon
      288(a) is 20 years state and 25 years federal if your victim was 14 at the time you would of been labeled a tier1.
      Also if your less then five years apart from your victim in of age you also are tier1 and the difference in age is measured from each of your birthday so you being 19 at the time places you in tier2 life time registration.

      Good luck

      • John DonDiego

        @AERO, I think your wrong about 288 (a) being 25 years on federal SORNA. It’s a tier 2 for CA but I recall Janice saying it is a tier 3 under SORNA, which would make it lifetime, which is why everyone was pissed over Barr’s latest crap. Janice, could you chime in. If you think it’s a Tier 2 on Federal AERO, can you please tell me where you found this? Thanks man.

    • New Person

      It’s a checklist where all must conditions must be met. All of the following must apply:

      i) the registerable offense involved no more than one victim 14 to 17 years of age, inclusive;
      ii) the offender was under 21 years of age at the time of the offense;
      iii) the registerable offense is not specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, except subdivision (a) of Section 288; and
      iv) the registerable offense is not specified in Section 236.1.

      ==== Breakdown ====

      Condition i): If the victim was under 14, then you cannot apply.
      … This stops the process already.

      Condition ii): If the offender is under 21, then you can apply provided you pass condition i).

      Condition iii): Offense must not be listed in 667.5 (c), which is classifying violent felonies. The exception to the violent felonies classification is 288(a), where it can be classified as just a felony. The classification of “violent felony” determines an enhancement to the prison term. [This is my interpretation.]

      Condition iv) Offense must not be listed in 236.1 , which is false imprisonment or human trafficking.

      I don’t think you qualify for this tier 2 early removal process as it is written, but I wonder if there is a way to revisit your offense if your offense aligned with the newly passed law of an offense being non-registerable via court discretion of SB 145. The best summation I found was this quote from abc10.com, “SB 145 would eliminate automatic sex offender registration for young adults who have anal or oral sex with a minor. Instead, a judge would make the decision, just as they do now in cases involving vaginal intercourse.”

      There has to be a way to re-emphasize that you were still a “teen” for your offense, despite being identified as an adult. I don’t know the age of the victim, so that age difference could be a significant factor as well as what action was lewd. Maybe 288 takes precedence over any non-registerable discretionary precedence? These are things you probably want to discuss with an actual SO lawyer.

      • Anon

        Thanks for you reply. I will definitely have to look into SB145. Yes, I was 19 at the time (and confirmed on my probation report), and the victim was 13, only oral was involved. Would be interesting if it’s possible to revisit the sentencing.

        What I am confused about is condition (3) – that the registerable offense can be a 288(a). In order to have a 288(a) like me, the victim has to be age 13 or under. If the victim is 14 – 17, then you would be charged with a different penal code altogether.

        To me, this is in conflict with condition (1) where the victim has to have an age of 14-17. Why would having a 288(a) be ok when it doesn’t matter at all because in order to satisfy condition (1) the victim has to be 14-17?

        • John DonDiego

          @ANON, ya you don’t qualify under the 10 year. 288 (a) is a violent felony now. I know crazy! I was like you, 19.5 years, my victim was 1 day before turning 14. Since it’s a violent felony, you can’t do the 10 year thing, even though you are under 21. SB 145 won’t help you. If the victim is under 14, then it’s Tier 2, 20 years. Scott Weiner’s bill applies to 14 to 17 year olds, which is not 288 a. That would be a 288 c, and for some unknown reason, that is a tier 3! His bill was directed at same sex cases where straight men could be sentenced by a judge to not have to register, while gay men actually had to register. So this closed that loophole. But with SORNA on our back door now, 288 a’s could land on a Tier 3 lifetime again if CA decides to enact it. Crap never seems to stop.

        • New Person

          @Anon,

          Since condition 1 negates victims under 14, then that already includes 288(a).

          I looked at condition three within context of subdivision (c) of Section 667.5. Subdivision (c) simply lists “violent felonies”. It’s excluding the classification of “violent felony” from 288(a).


          So I went to look back at SB 384, and I found this under Section 2:
          (1) (A) A tier one offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 10 years. A person is a tier one offender if the person is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c), or for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

          link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384

          Huh. Guess there exists a possibility that you could be a tier 1 and be able to apply at the 10-year mark. For that to be consistent throughout the new tiered system, then a non-violent classification of 288(a) must be excluded from that tiered 2 list that qualifies for the 10-year reduction relief.

          I hope you get classified as a tier 1. Outside of sharing that info directly from the Senate Bill, you might want to legally see if you can get classified as a tier 1.

      • LPH

        @ New Person, “i) the registerable offense involved no more than one victim 14 to 17 years of age, inclusive;”

        Isn’t ZERO “no more than 1”?

        • New Person

          Unfortunately, no.

          More than 1 is 2, 3, 4, + …
          No more than 1 is not 2, not 3, not 4, not + …

          Since we’re dealing with people, we use only whole numbers. Thus, if you say zero people, then no offense took place.

  3. David⚜️

    Interesting article addressing the “non-delegation authority” and even mentions the case of Gundy:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/supreme-court-gundy-doctrine-administrative-state.html

    • Worried in Wisconsin

      If you notice the justice’s comments, it appears that they want to address the issue but not in relation to sex offenders. My guess is that IF they take action on the delegation clause, it will not affect SORNA.

      • TS

        I read it as if sex offender’s are the primary case to challenge Congressional delegation again, then it could be a hard sell because of politics. However, sex offenders could be swept up in the possible positive effects of a delegation change by another case because equal protection applies.

        Congress can’t do it all but too much delegated power in the admin state creates power fiefdoms within agencies to do more than they should and thus create court cases needing to be filed challenging the admin rules. The balance is off.

        • JohnDoeUtah

          When the justices say politics rule their decision making, or that nondelegation applies to all but…

          That shows you that this is more than a civil remedy. We have no “rights” in their eyes. Its punishment pure and simple.

    • Josh

      @Michigan….I just got done reading a Mlive article on all the criminal justice “reforms” and the new SORA bill is the most prominent item on the To-Do list for the lame duck legislature. This doesn’t look good for us here in Michigan. Those of us who are lifers are going to remain that way…..the damn shame of the thing is that the ACLU’s class action prevents those of us with the means to file action on our own behalf in federal court. Basically, we’re all bound to the fate of the class action and whether they have the testicular fortitude to continue fighting…Just my opinion, but there isn’t going to be much to show for all these great legal “victories” that they’ve won. These last 9 months have been some of the best of my life with the no enforcement injunction in place. Sad and apprehensive are the words to describe my feelings about now….

      • BM

        @Josh – it is just utterly sad and frustrated the position we’re now facing. What’s worse, it gets worse. 3 business days to 3 days?? My reporting place isn’t even OPEN on weekends and I have tried to go to MSP previously (as a test) to offer changes and they will NOT take them unless that is your place normally. So now we have 1 business day if changes are made on Thursday? Let not forget to mention the publishing online of ALL our private information for everyone to harass us. Utterly ridiculous. I’ve gotten all the ACLU emails and sounds like there was absolutely ZERO effort to make any meaningful reform from Rep. Fuller or his committee.

        I know you’ve spoken about filing suit. Have you spoken to your attorney on this potential garbage? Any feedback? I’m contemplating my own actions as well.

    • nondelegation, please!

      As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in Gundy if the conservative justices bring back the nondelegation doctrine, “most of Government is unconstitutional.”

      You are correct, Justice Kagan. And you know WHY it’s unconstitutional? Because the Federal government isn’t supposed to handling all these things, the States are! The Framers designed a pyramid-shaped republic and then everyone, particularly FDR and onward, flipped it. We now have an inverted pyramid-shaped “republic” that’s full of bloat and unconstitutional activities. Perhaps if SCOTUS hadn’t rubber-stamped everything under the Commerce Clause the the like, we’d all be better off. For those who ask who would do this, that, or the other item that requires national attention, I point you to the rights of the States to form compacts. THAT is how interstate laws and agencies are to be crafted.

      So again, Justice Kagan, it is indeed unconstitutional. Perhaps you need some remedial reading assignments of the Federalist Papers and such. Heaven forbid Congress have to make the choice of doing the work itself of keeping the hell out of the topic.

  4. NorthEastPENN

    Happy Holidays everyone

    Stay safe and healthy!!

  5. ConfusedMan

    Remember last year when the Michigan ACLU said they were discussing legislation with state lawmakers to reduce the registration time requirements to 10 years, 15 years? And then we were told, as the process dragged on into late summer and fall, “Well, it’s an election year now, so this might be hard.” Now we’re in lame duck season–literally the safest season for any lawmaker to actually get practical things done–and what are we presented with? This trash law that makes the lives of post-2011 registrants harder and only marginally makes the lives of pre-2011 easier (tbh, as someone who owns a home not in any “school safety zone” and was a Tier 2 this doesn’t improve my life in any respect and only makes my registration requirements MORE burdensome).

    The ONLY solution going forward for all registrants is eliminating the registry as cruel and unusual punishment. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Taking people out of prison and putting them in a world where they can’t get jobs or housing or even just leave for 20, 25, 50 years is cruel and bizarre and if the courts don’t recognize that then they’re utterly useless. When these laws were created we didn’t know what “doxing” was, we didn’t have smart phones with registry access glued to our hands, we didn’t have employers routinely searching registries before hiring any applicant (even 10 years ago this was uncommon), we didn’t have Angel Watch, we didn’t know that there would be several bills proposed annually in each of our 50 glorious states designed to make the lives of registrants harder. Now we know. And it’s utterly contemptible that these registration laws continue to stand. In a world where both parties claim to be committed to “criminal justice reform,” the continued support and expansion of the registry is proof of their lack of meaningful commitment.

  6. Brandon

    All of these registration laws wouldn’t of been a hot potato issue, if these lawmakers would of left people alone instead of raising hell on a bunch of lies. Those on the bench should have spines and actually follow the constitution without the hysterical public recalling them. I guess wrong is now right because we all have been convicted of something wrong and trying to live a just life; while watching the wrong being done to our families and ourselves.

    • w

      Judges know what’s going on, and many are choosing to “join the rebellion”. Of course it’s a hard thing to ask, and the scum district attorneys made it that way every time a case come up and they “legal loophole” through more bad legislation. Like that heinous Marsy’s law and James C Ramos’ bill ab 433 which now requires prosecutors to get hearing on early probation termination or modification.

      Sure, now they have another “stall tactic” to use and do it under the guise of being “on behalf of victims”. Except obviously in the case of the falsely accused where the victim doesn’t matter and it’s just the defendant vs the system.

  7. Off of probation

    I have completed my two years probation and will be looking to travel for vacation. Was curious to know if any veteran travelers have useful information they may want to share. I live in a SORNA state and must let the registry office know if I leave for 3 or more nights. I plan to have my wife drive in case of an accidents and avoid unnecessary harassment. Is it best to contact the local police in each place we plan to vacation and treat every state like I must register immediately? Has anybody had a run in with police and questioned about how long they have been in the state? Just curious if I am thinking to much about it or if it is smarter to register everywhere and hope the registering offices give me correct information. Or is this just the new reality for a relaxing vacation haha 😑

    • Interested Party

      @Off probation

      Congratulations on getting some relief and finishing probation.

      Your interest in travel is common, but sadly their are no great answers. The following is a 2 yr old link which compiled the laws for all 50 states for those interested in trying to remain compliant.

      https://all4consolaws.org/us-sex-offender-registration-laws/

      Over the years I have seen a lot of people give their opinions on how to live life the best you can.

      Best of luck and I hope you find a path to travel and have peace of mind about your being forced to register. The system is not designed or intended to be helpful.

      • Off of probation

        I appreciate the advice. I just found out today when I did my yearly registry, that i only have to email them when I travel for more than 7 days. But they would appreciate a text if I leave for 3 days. Sounds simple enough but still leaves me scratching my head. I wanted to share this resource below that seems to be a good find. Every state I have called so far for traveling info, has directed me a competent, well informed person. That is very hard to find in my experience. All of the phone numbers seem to be up to date as well.

        https://www.waspc.org/assets/SexOffenders/state%20rso%20registration%20requirements%2008.15.docx

    • M C

      @Off of Probation, There if you use the legal tab on the main ACSOL page you can find a downloadable word document that should be somewhat helpful in telling you the requirements by state so that you may comply with the requirements of that state. You should also pay special attention to states where you will be placed on their registry and never removed if you trigger the registration requirement.

      The other thing is that if your wife does the driving and you never do, for the most part you should not be required to ID yourself to any police officers. In nearly all cases, police officers must have reasonable circumstances present to suspect that you are committing or about to commit a crime to require that you ID yourself. As such, and especially if you are unsure if you are in compliance in a particular state, you should decline to ID yourself unless you are sure such reasonable circumstances are present. Often, even if a LEO says you are required to ID yourself, they are incorrect. Furthermore, if you are arrested for failing to ID yourself and the reasonable circumstances requiring you to present ID were not present you would be able to challenge any failure to register charges (and the arrest itself) on constitutional grounds. You certainly are not required to ID yourself as a passenger in a vehicle or if you are just going about your business legally. The one exception to this typically is that when operating a vehicle you can be asked for ID to prove you have a valid license. That’s why I say always have your wife drive as you have suggested.

      • TS

        You have the right to remain silent isn’t just a miranda warning but a constitutional right too even if you’re not doing anything wrong. No need to invite trouble. I’d recommend though recording any interaction with LE as best you can quietly to avoid issues and cover yourself n wife. You have the right to record them in action. There are phone apps which will help you.

        If you’re wife is the main driver and bill payer on the trip, less footprints for you to leave.

        • M C

          @TS and all, be careful regarding your right to remain silent. The right is no longer absolute. In other words simply being silent allows the silence to be used against you in court as well. You must follow the guidelines in Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. (2013) and if in Cali also see, People v. Tom, No. S202107 (Cal., Aug. 14, 2014). Generally since these rulings, to use this constitutional right you must actually clearly state that you are invoking this right or you do not actually really get the right!

        • TS

          @M C

          Thanks for the reminder of those cases and the need to express your choice to remain silent when interfacing with LE. Being silent is a choice, an action, and one that can be held against you.

        • KM in SoCal

          @M C and sometimes specific invocations of Miranda rights are ignored/rejected by the investigators and your lawyer simply shrugs when informed. I asked for a lawyer more than 6 times, and told them I invoke my right to remain silent atleast 10 times. I was told if I didnt already have a lawyer hired I couldnt have one until trial. I was informed I was not under arrest, but that they were not letting me out until I answered their questions. 1 local cop who did the talking and an uncomfortable female “FBI Agent” conducted the interview. Me and the local spent over an hour back and forthing over Right to Lawyer/No Right to Lawyer and Right to Silence/No Right to Silence, under arrest(my position)/unofficial chat but not allowed to leave(Cops position). My lawyer said cop was known for that, but did not bring it up or challenge the interview. What I learned in Imperial Co $$$$ = miranda rights, no $$$ = no miranda rights.

        • TS

          @KM in SoCal

          Verbiage is what got them to do that too… it should be “I want MY lawyer”, not “I want a lawyer”. Whether you really have one or not is irrelevant when you say you want “YOUR” lawyer. At that point, the lawyer request has to be recognized and questioning stopped because anything beyond that is inadmissible in court. If they question it, then express you are staying silent until further action to release you or hold you is done because whether you are arrested or not, you don’t have to say a thing and having “YOUR” attorney on your side in their mind is all that matters. Prosecutors get pissed when cops screw up possible prosecutions with their own errors in judgement. Nowadays, every interrogation is video recorded anyway, so it’s on the record which can be released to you and YOUR attorney regardless if charges are filed or not. It is your interrogation and public record. 72 hours in holding sucks, but that is enough time to get a real lawyer if you really don’t have one and need one for releasing you. Two can play the game if they want.

      • Off of probation

        I appreciate the idea about another bank account. Never can be to smart. I found this resource that seems to connect you with a professional. Not just a person who answers phones and collects $. I’ve called 5 of the states and go every answer I needed with confidence. I’ll leave this here for anybody else who may need it

        https://www.waspc.org/assets/SexOffenders/state%20rso%20registration%20requirements%2008.15.docx

    • Worried in Wisconsin

      I’ve traveled a lot, both while still on paper and in the years since. I’ve never had a problem with law enforcement, even when we had a traffic accident while driving through another state. They never even brought up my conviction, even though I know it came across their screen.

      I think that the common sense rules apply more than anything. Don’t do things likely to bring on interaction with law enforcement, don’t be doing things you shouldn’t, and have a paper trail of where you’ve been so you can document how long you have/have not been somewhere.

      Law enforcement is unlikely to be out there hunting for offenders, although it sure will feel like it at first. It took me a while to start feeling like I belonged out and about, and it took even longer to get past the feeling that everything I did was going to need to be logged and reported to my agent.

      Enjoy the travels. Be safe. Be prepared by knowing the rules before you get there.

  8. Saddles

    On a general note, who wants to eat the icing and take the cake too in this sex conspircy fraud. Talk about voter fraud. Oh thats right those that set people up are police officers. My mistake. So who’s controling who in a lot of this registry type game of probation vs Jail time, senting pictures, graphic language. One wonders who’s incriminating who. If a real teenager was involved one could understand.

    Seems government doesn’t want to look into their mistakes and nobody’s perfect and thats a proven fact or did Washington actually chop down the cherry tree. They say action speaks louder but someone has to “act” to prove or disaprove the action or is everyone missing the point of Paul in the scriptures.
    Now I’m not going to talk any more about biblical as it seems its like a pipe dream to the many American’s today. Why do you think this Convid-19 is here? Are we all learning lesson’s of truth? How about the act of nature.

    Well nature takes care of itself but for the human that is involved in much of this registry garbage its a circle of stranger danger or one step out of line and your back in the joint or are we all perfect or who calls the upire of a game a toad hopper.

    • David⚜️

      The name or word SORNA doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible. Really. I’ve checked. 🙄
      (Although, I did find the section in which Ronus Howardus addresses the Tellurideians to “bring forth an epic vision that you may see the Sun dance and see the stars align.”)

  9. BM@Josh in Michigan

    Josh – it is just utterly sad and frustrated the position we’re now facing. What’s worse, it gets worse. 3 business days to 3 days?? My reporting place isn’t even OPEN on weekends and I have tried to go to MSP previously (as a test) to offer changes and they will NOT take them unless that is your place normally. So now we have 1 business day if changes are made on Thursday? Let not forget to mention the publishing online of ALL our private information for everyone to harass us. Utterly ridiculous. I’ve gotten all the ACLU emails and sounds like there was absolutely ZERO effort to make any meaningful reform from Rep. Filler or his committee. I know you’ve spoken about filing suit. Have you spoken to your attorney on this potential garbage? Any feedback? I’m contemplating my own actions as well, looking for feedback.

    • Josh

      @BM…I have filed suit once already and had to withdraw that suit because it would have been dismissed with prejudice out of hand due to the fact that we and by that, I mean every RSO in Michigan is a member of the class action lawsuit that the aclu filed. There is a law that prevents us from suing if we are involved in other litigation. Never mind the fact that most of us if not all excepting the “Does” never signed paperwork including ourselves in the class action. We are effectively boxed in by the aclu. From what I heard through the grapevine, there were between 25-50 people who attempted similar lawsuits and were swatted aside rather easily. Once the class action was certified we were screwed and bound to the fate of that class action. I probably have some of the technical legal stuff wrong so if somebody wants to correct me please do. Fortunately, in my case I was able to withdraw without prejudice so I have the opportunity to file again at some point if I wish….sorry I don’t have a better explanation for you @BM but that was how it was explained by my lawyers,,,

      • Josh

        @BM…to answer the rest of your question. Yes, I will be meeting soon with my attorney who follows most of these developments as they happen anyway. If the advise is suitable to post I will share it next week early sometime…..

        • BM@Josh

          @Josh – understand all the ramifications of the class action. At some point though that case is going to close and we will no longer be part of an active suit. And unless the ACLU revives a suit and certifies again, we could do something on our own at that point? I’m HOPING that the Senate will make SOME changes for the better and we’re not stuck with the crap from the House completely.

          If you do get some clarification, direction, etc.. Please share. I would like to get some idea of what your attorney’s thoughts are.

          Appreciate it.

        • Josh

          @BM
          I think you’re hope in the senate to do the right thing is misplaced. I’m very confident that they’ll roll this right through as the house did. MY hope is that Whitmer will decline to sign it into law on the advice of AG Dana Nessel who has been at the very least somewhat supportive with her various briefs. Those run of the mill elected state officials don’t have the balls to go against the grain especially on THIS issue…I would be expecting the aclu to be going straight back to court IF/WHEN this law goes into effect too…

  10. C J

    Just ran across this case in research, Doe vs Brown, 177.Cal.App.4th 408. It challenges PC 290.007 in the ways it digitally avoids PC 1203.4 and publishes convictions that have been dismissed.

    The court concluded that it’s “regulatory and not punitive”. On prima facie, when anyone reads an offense published online by DOJ that no longer exists they will reasonably believe it’s a current and valid conviction. Seems like a punitive disability. As far as I know, no law enforcement agency can produce a certified copy of conviction once it has been removed and replaced as a dismissal after conviction.

    • New Person

      @CJ

      The point of attack was that 1203.4 third relief should relieve one from the registry because it is a punitive, a disability.

      There are three reliefs due to 1203.4:
      … i) the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty;
      … ii) the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant
      … iii) and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted

      Using the third relief of 1203.4 is doomed to fail once the registry was denoted as a “statutory”.

      I would rather use the second relief of 1203.4 to show PC 290.007 violates equal protection (CA Const. Art 1, Sec 7(b)), law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed (CA Const. Art 1, Sec 9), and right to privacy (CA Const. Art 1, Sec 1).

      Your private information has been regained as stated by the second relief of 1203.4 as the court shall dismiss the information or accusation. If your information/accusation no longer exists, then it cannot be used as you have regained your privacy as denoted in Article 1, Section 1 of the Ca Constitution, which is an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Your dismissed information/accusation no longer exists and cannot be used if it no longer exists.

      == How can dismissed information be currently used? == These two states cannot exist. Either the information has not been dismissed or it has been dismissed.

      Dismissed information/accusation is a guaranteed relief under 1203.4. Negating this contractual relief is PC 290.007, which is actually unconstitutional. Why? Because no other convict sets have any of their information distributed after serving their time. This is important in the case you presented the provide two comments:

      1… “Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Section 12021.”

      2… “Dismissal of an accusation or information underlying a conviction pursuant to this section does not permit a person prohibited from holding public office as a result of that conviction to hold public office.”

      These must apply to all. The registry only applies to a subsect of convict class, not all.

      What should be re-emphasize is that 1203.4 does not state registrants cannot de-register, but 1203.4 does exclude certain sex offenses. Also, 1203.4 gave the two quotes shared above by the case lawyers.

      PC 290.007 is re-writing law that affects 1203.4 contractual immunity benefits. Also, we don’t ever bring up “the right to privacy” under the CA Constitution which states you are able to pursue and obtain privacy.

      PC 290.007 delays justice to a minimum of a 10-year wait to attempt to de-register via Certificate of Rehabilitation as opposed to the term length of your probationary period. Why make it far more difficult to de-register if the registry is simply a “statutory” program? How does this help to reintegrate back into society by earning the 1203.4 since 1203.4 says you are able to rehabilitated? By continuing to push dismissed information, PC 290.007 negates the “right to pursue and obtain privacy”. There exists no research work done about recidivism rates before 1958, between 1958 and 2004, and after 2004 to date to delay justice.

      Delayed justice is injustice.

      Link to CA Constitution
      Art 1, Sec 1: https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-1/
      Art 1, Sec 7(b): https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-7/
      Art 1, Sec 9: https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-9/

      • C J

        @New Person.

        The courts seem deferential to authority. How do we pose a legal argument to overcome this default “regulatory ” rubber stamp they use.

        The one thing that stands out that you said is that we are the only class where dismissed convictions are published to the world as if the dismissal never happened.

        I think the spineless courts won’t entertain your valid constitutional points. Ya know, that old worn out “reduced expectation of privacy” in paramount interests of public safety.

        Every stated legislative intent in this nation has been proven a false notion. Does vs Snyder visited that.

        Hopefully it’s only a ten year hitch for a good portion of us.

        As it stands now we are going to have quite a few with no criminal record, just a 1203.4, that will be placed on tier III. That’s a crime in itself.

        • New Person

          @C J,

          “The courts seem deferential to authority. How do we pose a legal argument to overcome this default “regulatory ” rubber stamp they use.”

          Fight authority with authority.

          There are three reliefs due to 1203.4:
          … i) the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty;
          … ii) the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant
          … iii) and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted

          Section iii) deals with punitive punishment. Section ii) has nothing to do with “penalties and disabilities” as it is “private information that is dismissed”.

          There are exceptions listed in 1203.4 such as …

          (2) Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.

          (3) Dismissal of an accusation or information underlying a conviction pursuant to this section does not permit a person prohibited from holding public office as a result of that conviction to hold public office.

          Both of these subsections were cited in that case you shared, but can you point to a subsection under 1203.4 that says registrants cannot de-register? None. But there is this subsection…

          (b) Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 287 or of former Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.

          Thus, there is specific rules for sex offenses, but none that state it cannot relieve the duty to register. That is a different law that passed in PC 290.007. PC 1203.4 was established long before PC 290.007 was ever written. Thus, PC 290.007 is impairing the obligations of a contract set forth in 1203.4.

          How do you prove PC 290.007 impairs such an obligation? Simple, it’s in its statute…
          “A person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4 , unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5 , or is exonerated pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 3007.05 of the conviction requiring registration and the person is not otherwise required to register.”
          Link: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-290-007.html

          ::: Regardless (emphasize) of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4 :::

          Recall, 1203.4 used to remove one from the registry. But since 2003 Smith v Doe said it was a statutory scheme, then it gave the legislature a way to negate relief as everyone focused only on the “punitive” aspect.

          The registry scheme is only about sharing “public information”. A dismissed information is no longer public.

          Welp, the 1203.4 second relief doesn’t have anything to do with “punitive”, but it does have everything to do with “the courts shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant”. Now that is stating you have regained your privacy, but PC290 is utilizing “dismissed information/accusation”.

          The only way this can happen is if a law is impairing the obligations of a contract, which is unconstitutional as it cannot be passed as per Article 1, section 9 of the CA Constitution.

          The key here is to wonder, “Why was there that second 1203.4 immunity to dismiss information or accusation?”

          And it can all fall back to a California’s ‘inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy’.

          Although 2003 Smith v Doe states the registry is statutory, California has its own privacy law within its constitution.

          As far as I know, I don’t think anyone’s taken the “right to privacy” issue, which is directly tied to 1203.4’s “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.” This immunity is a separate immunity from “be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.”

          If we’re able to win via “right to privacy”, which is a “right to be left alone”, such that a person can pursue and obtain privacy, then it will be a monumental legally. This means your privacy cannot be taken away from you forever because you have a right to pursue and obtain privacy. Hence, there cannot be a lifetime term ever with respect to a loss of privacy.

          That’s the big game here if we win this small victory.

  11. David

    Does anyone have experience joining “abolitionist” activist groups like Critical Resistance or Democratic Socialists of America? I wonder if they would welcome people on the registry…

  12. C J

    @ New Person

    Just read a legal study titled California’s Right to Privacy by Pepperdine Law Review. The paper states privacy breaches are classified into 4 classifications:
    1) Intrusion into private matters
    2) Public disclosure of private facts
    3) False light
    4) Misappropriation of name or picture

    False light = protects the interest in the truthful dissemination of information about one’s self.

    Truth is a defense to claim of false light.

    The paper considers false light insignificant tort. Maybe because defamation laws are usually the tort action.

    Couldn’t find any case law in respect to false light, privacy and the DOJ’s publishing online convictions that no longer exist.

    • New Person

      Link to that Pepperdine Review: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Kelso-Californias-Constitutional-Right-to-Privacy.pdf

      “The paper states privacy breaches are classified into 4 classifications: …”

      Yes, but that’s under the section “The right to privacy apart from Article 1, Section 1”
      The first section is titled “The Right to be Left Alone”, not “intrusion into private matters”. This section states the following:
      *** Finally, there is a statutory cause of action for harassment, defined as “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses such person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.” The remedy for harassment is an injunction. ***

      This appears to be poetic justice as the excerpt denotes “statutory cause”. The registry does this once you have had your case dismissed, it continues the serious alarms, annoyance, and harassment of the “statutory scheme”.

      There is emotional distress if you are forced to continue to register with a dismissed information/accusation. You banned from certain areas, you are treated as a liability for employment, and you must report everything new within certain time period.

      Here is a college example. If you are on parole or probation, then you must sign-in every time you are on campus. If you are no longer on parole or probation, then you turn in your schedule in-person at the beginning of each semester. There is no distinction between no longer being on parole or probation. If you successfully complete probation and qualify for 1203.4, then your case is set aside and your information/accusation is dismissed.

      The qualification to earn 1203.4 should distinguish types of convicts. If a convict earns a 1203.4, then they don’t need to apply for the CoR, unless you want to improve your status of licensure. That is true except if you have a sex crime via PC 290.007. I want to state that 1203.4 used to relieve the duty to register before newer PC 290 laws in the early 2000s (PC 290.5 and PC 290.007).

      I want to reiterate that there are no scientific research created on tracking the recidivism before 1958, from 1958 (Kelly v Municipal) to the early 2000s, and after the passing of PC 290.5/PC 290.007 to present for sex convicts who qualified for 1203.4.

      What is the difference between relief after successfully completing the probationary period (5 years or under) or relief via CoR (a 10-year wait minimum)? What are the threshold markers? Time? Why time? Where is the long term research work involved in this delay of justice?

      Remember, the legislatures want to greatly hold onto the fact the registry is a “statutory scheme”. Getting your information/accusation dismissed has earned an individual the right to be left alone. Negating this ability to be left alone triggers a statutory cause of action.

      Now, this is apart from Article 1, Section 1 of the right to privacy amendment.

      With Article 1, Section 1 (which is at the end of the paper), there is this:
      *** It should be recalled that in White v. Davis, the court had identified the “moving force behind” the privacy clause as “a more focused privacy concern, relating to the accelerating encroachment on personal freedom and security caused by increased surveillance and data collection activity in contemporary society.” ***

      The “moving force behind” the privacy clause can be directly tied to 1203.4’s contractual immunity of “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.” PC 290.007 negates this immunity such that it continues the surveillance and data collection activity on court dismissed information/accusation.

      I implore you to look up Kelly v Municipal, 1958. It relieved the duty to register, but it used the third immunity “be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted”. The 2003 Smith v Doe SCOTUS case made the registry statutory, expanding to now include in-person reporting as non-criminal in California. Thus, making the punitive aspect of Kelly v Municipal moot. Yet if you swap out the punitive aspect with right to privacy, then Kelly v Municipal can be relevant once again… but under a different name since you’re using right to privacy as opposed as calling out the registry to be punitive. Kelly succinctly describes that PC 290 and 1203.4 run concurrent with one another such that one is convicted only during the probationary period.

      The devious part of PC 290.5 was that it blatantly impaired the 1203.4 contractual obligations. Just because PC 290.5 gave a pathway to get off the registry via CoR, it did so by impairing the contractual obligations of 1203.4. This violates Art. 1, Sec. 9 “law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.”

      It should be that 1203.4 provides registry relief for those who qualify for it. Then the CoR is another form of relief for those who do not qualify for 1203.4.

      From a layman’s perspective of Art. 1, Sec 1., it says as a CA citizen I have the right to pursue and obtain privacy. 1203.4 provides that avenue with “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant” immunity. Nowhere in 1203.4 does it state one cannot de-register (which was brought up in Kelly). Hence, this immunity carries that obligation of a contract.

      Now, Art. 1, Sec. 1 says one has a right to pursue and obtain privacy. The registry is a loss of privacy. If we are only talking about privacy, then there should be relief to any program that removes privacy permanently when you are no longer under custody. That means there can never be a “lifetime term” with no way to regain privacy once again as it would violate this constitutional right.

    • New Person

      Pepperdine link: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Kelso-Californias-Constitutional-Right-to-Privacy.pdf

      The four listings you have are apart from CA’s right to privacy (Art. 1, Sec 1). Yet, the Right to Be Alone is pertinent so as to not harass or annoy you.

      What was one of major factors of Right to Privacy amendment? On pg 439 of the Pepperdine review gives a summary of it, “a more focused privacy concern, relating to the accelerating encroachment on personal freedom and security caused by increased surveillance and data collection activity in contemporary society.”

      So 1203.4’s immunity to dismiss the info/accusation against the defendant is protected by the right to privacy.

      • C J

        Here is an excerpt from PC 290.03:

        3) Persons convicted of these offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the public’s interest in public safety.

        No doubt the tree needs to be chopped down at the trunk. Read PC 290.03, legislative reasoning, and all the assumptions made have been proven false. In fact, some studies have proven that public disclosure actually INCREASES recidivism and crime. When you provide no avenue for redemption and reintegration what’s the value in a law abiding life?

        We’re just pruning the tree right now. In particular, their dubious distinction in level of dangerousness and arbitrary tier assignments will no doubt be challenged in court.

        I just don’t see winning an argument on grounds of violating Article 1, Section 1 of California’s constitution on plain wording regarding those whose underlying offenses have been wiped away. Judges will just refer to the above section (3) in legislative intent.

        It’s there though. I can’t figure out the correct claim of injury. Obviously DOJ is publishing online convictions that have been removed via dismissal without any reference to this final disposition. There is distinct injury there. They won’t correct the listing by stating “dismissal after conviction” because the public would really start to question the legislation as a whole. The lifer political zealots don’t want any question of authority. They want control.

        Take this example. I was offered and accepted a nice job in my selected field, an upscale facility with many expensive assets and high echelon customer service. They do a thorough background and drug screen.

        The second day I was called into HR to see the director. He stated that my background check showed I was on the registry. I calmly informed him that those underlying charges were summarily dismissed and showed him the court order. He concurred and I kept my job.

        That is an example that those with ONLY a dismissal on record, no record otherwise, do not belong on any registry.(no one does publicly or privately, but this is a PC 1203.4 view) 25 states in the nation agree with this fact.

        • TP

          Constitution supercedes any law passed by a legislature regardless of their intent.

        • C J

          @ New Person and all who earned PC 1203.4

          As NP has posted prior, anyone who has dismissed charges should read this case. It was Cal Court of Appeals and denied cert from Supreme Court. Therefore, precedent.

          https://casetext.com/case/kelly-v-municipal-court

          California did an end around on this decision. That’s gotta be unconstitutional.

        • New Person

          @CJ,

          I cited Kelly v Municipal, 1958 in my prior post.

          Kelly v Municipal was found moot since 2003 Smith V Doe stated the registry was statutory. Kelly focused on two things: 1) PC 290 and PC 1203.4 run parallel to one another and PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4; 2) in-person reporting was classified as quasi-criminal, which represents a disability.

          I forgot which case (I think Avila or Costenello) stated that in-person reporting isn’t punitive, thus taking power of Kelly.

          Now, if you address the “right to privacy” instead of “punitive measures, then you can use most of Kelly v Municipal, stating that PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4.

          This is where I ask when did legislature do any research work for the following timelines:
          i) pre-1958
          ii) 1958 (Kelly) – 2000s (PC 290.5 and PC 290.007)
          iii) 2000s – present

          Was there a difference in recidivism rates between all three eras? We only know about CASOMB’s work in recent years with under 1% recidivism rates, once you remove failure to register from that recidivism category.

          Dates to know:
          … 1958 Kelly v Municipal
          … 1972 Right to Privacy amendment into CA Constitution
          Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_California_Proposition_11#:~:text=Proposition%2011%2C%20sometimes%20known%20as,of%20Rights%22%20of%20the%20constitution.

          … 1995 Megan’s Law
          … 2003 SCOTUS Smith v Doe
          … 2007 PC 290.007 (negates using 1203.4 to relieve the duty to register)

          As you can tell, the right to privacy law was created after Kelly. Everyone was focused on punitive measures for relief because Kelly was the law that gave relief. It all failed because of the 2003 SCOTUS decision.

          What I’m bringing up is to use the “right to privacy” constitutional law to emphasize a different immunity provided within 1203.4:
          *** the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant ***

          How can dismissed information/accusation be utilized to be disseminated by a different program? According to 1203.4, the information/accusation does not exist. According to PC 290, that non-existent information is being utilized and disseminated. Both cannot exist.

          This is where PC 290.007 comes into play as it states:
          *** Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5. ***

          That is a CA constitutional problem because here is Art 1, Sec 9 of the CA Const:
          *** A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed. ***

          PC 290.007 impairs the obligations that 1203.4 provides. The evidence is in PC 290.007 statute “regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4.”

          Remember, the right to privacy added in 1972 states you have a right to “pursue and obtain privacy”. PC 1203.4 allows an individual to regain privacy as stated within 1203.4. Thus, PC 290.007 was unconstitutionally passed as per Art 1, Sec 9 as it denies the obligation to pursue and obtain privacy in the from of dismissed information/accusation against the defendant. PC 290 is disseminating that dismissed information/accusation against the defendant.

          Anyone who earned the 1203.4 and were not allowed to be relieved of the duty to register had their civil rights violated. And the evidence is in the statute that violated it.

          Very important to note that nowhere within 1203.4 does it state it does not relieve the duty to register, but there are sex crime exception on who qualifies for 1203.4, which Kelly v Municipal addressed.

          It seems very clean cut to me when you pair the right to pursue and obtain privacy with “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant”. Then the obvious question is the registry using court dismissed information/accusation? And the final coffin in the nail is, “where is the research study comparing pre-1958, 1958-2007, and 2007 to present?” In recent years, CASOMB has founded the recidivism rates to be under 1%. Thus, this delay of justice is justice denied.

  13. Peter

    I have court this week. I am off probation and I am going for a 1203.4 which I know they cant deny it. I was caught in a bs backpage sting. I have a misdemeanor. They didnt make me take classes and my fine was $150. I did 40 days in county jail. My lawyer also wrote a motion to get me off the registry. I used the same lawyer to terminate probation early and when my lawyer filed the motion the DA went crazy and said I was a menace to society that I was a threat to the public. This time we haven’t gotten a opposition letter from the DA. I don’t know if that is a good sign or not. Has anyone had luck winning motions? I am nervous and I just want my life back. Any advise would help. My lawyer said he would do the appeal and take it to the California supreme court for free because he feels like what they did to me was so wrong the police broke state and federal laws during the sting. How can they say I was looking for a minor when I was on an adult website? How can they switch the age when we already agreed to meet and I was at the location? I said no to sex 4 times after the age was dropped and drove away the police called my phone and said they needed help and me being dumb I agreed to help and I was arrested. My lawyer feels like the police went way to far and broke a lot of rules. The police lied of the police report and said I admitted to the crime and said I was horny. I found the video on YouTube and I can prove the cops lied. Also the video was uploaded a day before my first court appearance why wasn’t it given to me during discovery? The DA keeps saying that I admitted to it I keep telling my lawyer why cant we use the video to prove they are lying and he said that because I didn’t do a prelim I cant use the tape because at prelim is when we can say the police lied. Please help with any advise you can give me. Thank you guys.

    • Interested Party

      @Peter

      Peter I feel for your situation. The circumstances around your arrest and conviction sound horrible. I have no insight into what you can do about trying to undo your conviction. It seems like you trust your lawyer, but it might be worth the effort to find someone who specializes in post conviction situations.

      The other part of your situation is trying to stop being forced to register and moving forward with your life. I know this seems linked to undoing your conviction but there are things you can do.

      Getting your probation terminated early was a huge step. Now getting your 1203.4 is the next. From my non lawyer understanding they have no way to Prevent your 1203.4 from being granted – that said it has happened, I had to appeal my 1203.4 and then back to the court to finally have it.

      Once you have the 1203.4 in hand I believe you have to wait until you meet the time requirement for obtaining a CoR or petitioning to be removed from the registry under the new tiered law. As a misdemeanor you are/will be a tier 1 10 years.

      I wish you the best, keep fighting it’s worth the fight.

      If you pursue a lawyer specializing in post conviction sex crime areas I recommend contacting Chance Oberstein – his contact information is available on this website.

  14. Saddles

    Due to the subject matter of this general comment section people under the age of 16, 18 or can’t read the back of a Weatie’s box are not allowed to review this content. They say all’s fair in love and war. Well this sex registry takes the cake as far as true justice goes and as far as some type of cover up goes. Well thats government for you and with many on this registry gulf it amounts to no mure than “Control”.

    As mentioned on another comment on here about biblical and yes anything can be biblical but nothing can overshadow the truth. Sure going to church is good if thats what one seeks to understand life a bit more even about that wife you married ( sorry ladies ). Now marriage life can be sometimes rocky but with this hanging over many of men’s heads or one of the family kids it can be ruff. This comment is for mature audiences only.

    Now we have just seen a president (pardon the song lyric) cry like a baby in a manner of speaking so what does that say about government, prosecutors, juries and the like. Why do they…. the courts, probation officers want to make a plea deal with you … Hi I’m Monty Hall… Lets make a deal!,,,, a plea deal…..if thats not fraudlent behavior than what is swearing all about. Someone doesn’t understand the this legal system when it comes to this sex registry garb. And this sex chatting is a bit too much via this internet as far as those that give the come on and those that tell a guy to get lost.

    So the next time one sees something wrong with this sex registry point it out to Janice and her team and I’m sure it all comes out in the end or should Donald Trump pardon us all for having bad behavior or should he just say get him out of here. No offense to Democrates or Republicans. Looks better in writting. One wonders who offends who in this devilish ordeal. And we all thought democracy was all about the truth.

  15. JesusH

    Hello,

    I was one of the lucky ones who was able to keep his job after I was arrested and convicted. That was almost 7 years ago. Since then I finished probation early and got 17b and 1203.4. 2 years ago I bought a house and everything has been as good as it can be. I managed to rebuild after the disaster of getting arrested.

    Well, last week I got laid off. 15 years in this job. They’re giving me until March so I have a few months before I need to find something.

    But I’m scared to death of having to look for work with me being registered. I’m an IT person. What are the chances I can find a job paying 6 figures that doesn’t require a background check?

    My wife has a steady job and we have savings so it’s not going to be desperate, but I worry about the future.

    I have to do my yearly in a couple of weeks too. What a slap in the face that after paying my debt to society this still hangs over my head.

    • Mike G

      @JesusH

      So sorry to hear about your layoff.

      Your best bet is to work for yourself. I was fired after my conviction, but was able to work as a consultant in the same field (IT/programming). I even did work for the same company that fired me, though through a third party. I would think that there are companies, especially small businesses, that need help with their IT issues but can’t justify a full time employee. Seldom would a small business do a background on someone they were hiring for consulting.

      If your lay-off was not due to your being on the registry, you should be able to get a letter of reference from the company you just left. You just use it as proof of ability when you tell potential clients that you are now an independent contractor (consultant).

      Good Luck!

      • JesusH

        Thanks for the reply.

        They did give me the option of staying on with a more general tech role at about 40% of my current salary. That’s kind of an insult but there wouldn’t be a background check obviously.

        Only my current boss knows about me (and he’s being laid off too) so I’m safe there.

        I have a few weeks to make up my mind about taking that smaller job. I’ll need to see during that time about the consulting thing, or if I should just swallow my pride and take the job with the job cut.

        Anyone else in the IT field have any insight to share?

        What kind of companies are less likely to do background checks? I guess with my 17b and 1203.4 a background check should theoretically turn up nothing. I am currently NOT on the public registry, would a background check even show anything for me at all?

        Thanks.

        • @JseusH

          The easiest way to find out what a background check reports on you is to pay for one. It can’t be too hard to find out who the “best” ones are in CA. It shouldn’t be too expensive, either.

        • New Person

          The registry won’t show on a normal background check. If you have to do a livescan, then the registry will pop up. If you want to work for a company that works inside of a military base, the checkpoint will find out and you’ll be denied entry, but you will be given paper work for a petition with your potential future employer vouching for your entry onto the base.

          I have seen local governments looking for IT, with salary range that start from $60k to triple digits. I don’t know if they do a livescan, though.

        • C

          I paroled in ‘94 with no tech skillz and built a great career during the dot-com boom. I was a 6-figure IT Manager when the Megan’s Law site went live and my world went to shit.
          Fast forward to today I’ve built a small MSP making more money than ever. So, if I were you, I’d take that smaller job and work your butt off to collect as much side work as you can and turn those customers into regulars with flat rate annual contracts. Good luck!

    • AERO1

      You got to figure out a way to power through this in actuality there isn’t any way
      I’m sorry to tell you this but start getting your ducks in a row because In five years your wife will leave you
      And there’s a 65% chance you will become homeless.
      the registry is a death sentence…smh

      Good luck

      • JC

        There Aero1 goes again with his negative fear-mongering.
        Don’t bother listening to him, he is angry and constantly projecting that onto others.
        Just ignore his ramblings, he has nothing constructive or productive to add.

        He needs his “good luck” more than we do.

        • A.D.A.T.

          @J.C.

          Agree 💯. I know that at times my comments can be a little negative, but I try not to direct it to those on the site. Aero1, you seem to have other issues that brought you here. Recommend you work on those .

  16. C J

    @ New Person

    California Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 is a persuasive argument. And PC 1203.4 is a contract between state and resident.

    The state won’t lay down on this challenge. What do you anticipate would be their rebuttal argument? All I can find in research is the state said Kelly vs Municipal is “bad law” and enacted PC 290.1 in 1981 (which is now PC 290.007).

    • ditto

      It has been so long that I can’t remember any case names or which laws. but there was a change in the law in the early to mid ’80s. It was possible to petition before that. I was told by the judge in court I would be removed from the registry upon completing probation, but that changed right after the plea, about ’82 or ’83 or so, and my lawyer said I could have the conviction removed.

      The rap sheet is presumed to be private, however.

      https://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/record-review

      https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/fingerprints/forms/all-others.pdf (includes a reference to White v Davis.)

      Publication of names of sex offenders not an invasion of privacy

      https://www.rcfp.org/publication-names-sex-offenders-not-invasion-privacy/ (Kansas, but privacy is indeed in the Cal. constitution)

      One rebuttal might be the 3 strikes law as a contract. A pro per person argued his 3rd strike was not permissible because it wasn’t in his plea contract previously. The Cal SC shot it down with an argument something like the state is permitted to evolve and everyone understands that.

      Fascinating discussion.

      • C J

        Indeed ditto, it’s a discussion worth considerable attention.

        And yes, California sure has evolved into a byzantine behemoth.

        Is pc 290.1 circa 1981 which is now pc 290.007 unconstitutional? It surely decapitated the statutory function and contract of pc 1203.4. Any law which impairs the obligation of contracts is specifically prohibited by California constitution.

        Here’s a new proposed law: any legislator that authors or votes for a law that’s clearly unconstitutional is disbarred, barred from holding any public office and placed on a constitution offender registry available online for life. Governor signatures included retroactively.

        • ditto

          Yeah, I’d much rather discuss battle plans like this than whine even if it turns out to be a dead end. At least the registry isn’t a 3rd strike, although failure the register can be now. Grrr.

    • New Person

      There are three reliefs due to 1203.4:
      … i) the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty;
      … ii) the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant
      … iii) shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense

      Kelly v Municipal is bad law because the courts stated that in-person reporting was not punitive during the 1980s (i guess… I thought it was early 2000s). The registry has no punitive aspect because it is called a statutory scheme, which is supported by the 2003 Smith v Doe, SCOTUS case.

      In refuting that Kelly should provide relief from the registry, everyone focused on the punitive aspect of Kelly and 1203.4’s “be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense.” But everything else about Kelly can be used such that PC 290 and 1203.4 work together, not against one another as it’s stated that PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4. An individual is only convicted during the probationary term. (If you’ve read Kelly, it’s a very good breakdown.) Also, Kelly gave precedence of giving relief from the registry. That’s a significant precedence!

      Link to Kelly: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/160/38.html

      Kelly should be used as the template, but instead of 1203.4 immunity (iii) punitive aspect, it should use 1203.4 immunity (ii) information/accusation is dismissed as it is a legal pathway to pursue and obtain privacy, as stated within Art. 1, Sec. 1 of the CA Constitution.

      “The court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant” means the information/accusation against the defendant no longer exists for use. How can information that doesn’t exist by the court still be used as if it currently exists? This is where PC 290.007 and PC 290.5 are unconstitutional laws passed.

      Thus, any new law circumventing this avenue of contractual relief via 1203.4 is unconstitutional under Art. 1, Sec 9.

      Also, request actual scientific records pre 1958, 1958 – when Kelly was stopped, to after when Kelly was stopped to the present for empirical evidence that is supported. (If they use 2003’s Smith v Doe, then counter with Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman’s “Frightening and High” academic paper.) The key here is that the recent recidivism rates from CASOMB have been under 1%, when the state stopped adding failure to register (FTR) to the recidivism rates.

      Frightening and High link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616429
      CASOMB education pamphlet: http://casomb.org/pdf/CASOMB_Education_Pamphlet.pdf
      CASOMB 10-year Parole recidivism study, 2008: https://womenagainstregistry.org/Resources/pdf/CASOMB_RECIDIVISM_STUDY_10_YEAR_w-Graph.pdf

      It is very important to emphasize that the DA and judge agreed to the level of charge of the defendant to qualify the defendant for the 1203.4 program. 1203.4 program is offered to convicts of low or lower risk.
      Yet, PC 290.5 and PC 290.007 believe the sex convicts are of higher risk and the need for a longer probationary period of rehabilitation beyond what PC 1203.4 prescribed. The new laws of PC 290.007 and PC 290.5 breaks equal protection of 1203.4 immunity and forces registrants to wait 10 years to attempt to petition off the registry via the Certificate of Rehabilitation. This negation is evidenced within the PC 290.007 statute and also evidenced in the current Certificate of Rehabilitation, as sex offenders are a separate class.

      Nowhere within 1203.4 does it state one cannot be relieved of the duty to register, where it is the only place to have an exception to 1203.4 immunities. Any other law preventing the relief is an unconstitutional law.

      Note, even with the new tiered registry, that also violates 1203.4’s contractual obligations as it is a different law passed to circumvent 1203.4’s contractual obligations.

      …… on a tangent with 1203.4, background checks

      Background checks and livescan reveals criminal history. The registry is not criminal history, it is statutory history. Why would a statutory scheme ever be combined with a criminal history? With this act, it reveals just how invasive the statutory scheme is if it is being used in a criminal context. Although your case (conviction) is dismissed, the registry informs the reader that the prospective employee still has a conviction. This, again, identifies two different states that cannot exist simultaneously.

  17. C J

    @ Ditto

    I hear you. Most can vent their frustrations here because they are no threat & caught up in a widely cast net or are just plainly innocent. For you and I one can gather that we have been declared not guilty by state law.

    I’ll work on a writ and post it here. The key imo is showing the court that it’s not regulatory or remedial in function. Its plain unconstitutional, publishing online underlying accusations that have been summarily dismissed.

    • New Person

      On a livescan, it reveals criminal history. It will show you earned your 1203.4, that your case was dismissed, implying you no longer have a conviction. Yet, you will appear currently on the registry, implying you have a standing conviction. Those two pieces of information contradict one another. This is how the most practical way of exposing how PC 290.007 and PC 290.5 violates 1203.4 with respect to having your information/accusation dismissed and your privacy was regained via “Right to Privacy” under the CA Constitution.

      Also, whenever you venture onto a US military installation, they have their own background check. Again, your conviction is dismissed, but the registry implies your conviction is current. You can be denied access to the military installation until the base commander receives a petition from you and whoever is vouching for you. You’re being outright banned for a non-criminal activity simply because you’re on the registry. I had a job interview on a military base through a third party company located inside the base. Got denied access and had to call the company that I wasn’t allowed onto the base as well as apologized to that company for not making the interview. Pretty embarrassing to have the checkpoint shutdown for over half an hour all because you’re on the registry. I didn’t attempt the petition because I’ve already started off the wrong foot with the company who owes me nothing as a prospective employee. That event shattered me.

      Also of note, why is a statutory program being shared with a criminal program? The registry is solely classified as statutory.

      • Tired of this

        Several years ago, I worked as a driver for a well-known airport shuttle service and had a van full of airmen heading to their new assignment at a northern CA base. Being denied entry at the gate was absolutely mortifying. Making matters worse, since I was a private contractor, the company did not know of my conviction so I had to choose my words very carefully when I made that dreaded phone call to explain that I couldn’t proceed with the drop-off. That was not a very fun day.

  18. Brandon

    Ugh I found out that a relative has passed due to COVID-19 over the weekend. I Don’t want to travel to a state where you have to quarantine for 2 weeks. I rather wait till the spring or summer to pay my respects. Talk about throwing my emotions in a wood chipper. Hopefully nobody else has go through this especially if they are a registrant.

    • Tired of this

      This begs an interesting question: the quarantine period is longer than the length of time triggering registration in most states. How would a registrant hypothetically navigate this conundrum?

    • LPH

      I feel what you’re feeling Brandon. I really do.

  19. RC resource & aid?

    Has anyone ever used https://sexoffenderonestopresource.com/ to find housing or anything? The info for my state is old but maybe it’s good in other places.

  20. A.D.A.T.

    I know this sounds ridiculous……..and redundant……….and obvious. BUT I AM SO SICK OF THIS REGISTRY!

    • Will Allen (Registration Liberation Army guerrilla)

      Sounds fine to me and I’m right there with you.

      It is beyond outrageous that I committed a relatively minor and NOT dangerous crime well over 20 years ago and yet today I have all sorts of punishment, harassment, and restrictions directed at my family. Outrageous, unacceptable, immoral, anti-American, anti-human, illegal, and acts of war. And YET, YET, YET …. there are piles of people who have committed very dangerous crimes recently and repeatedly who have none of that. So nope, I’m not accepting the LIES of the scumbags who think the Registries are acceptable. I’m going to harm them by any means that is legal.

      I look at the Hit Lists as nothing more than an illegal act of war. All through history, people have done immoral and illegal things to other people. People are scum. They harm other people when they can get away with it. So the Hit Lists are just war. It is no different than when the Nazis thought they could do whatever to Jewish people. When the Hutus decided to murder the Tutsis. When Americans had slaves. Or very recently when Americans thought it was great to harass and segregate “coloreds”. It is the same as all of that, with some exceptions being the motivation and scale of attacks. The Hit Lists are not as bad as any of those of course, but they are acts of war and people who support them deserve and need punishment. Not just words and not just telling them the Hit Lists must be destroyed, but punishment. All the time.

      In the meantime, the criminals can pass all the “laws” they want and do whatever nonsense they fantasize about. I’m going to make sure it is useless and make it hurt.

  21. Brandon

    We need a do as I say, not as I do registry for government officials for violating the same rules they put in place for us citizens. We also need an asshat registry for those that can’t mind their own business, think they are better than others, and cause harm due to their immoral views.

    Those are the unhinged loons that need to be tracked, not someone who peed outside 30 years ago.

  22. A.D.A.T.

    I was speaking to my therapist yesterday ( an amusing past time that I am slowly becoming bored with ). She insists that everything will get better. I keep asking her, “ How do you claim to know about the future when you don’t even know what will happen in the next 5 minutes”. Her answer is always,” You don’t want to miss out on possible happiness”
    Well, I went through my life not really being happy. Barely being content. Then I met someone and my life suddenly had purpose. I felt like something had flipped and I was finally in a place I kept hearing and reading about. Then I lost that person. She reminded me throughout her ordeal that if we had even 5 minutes of happiness, then our meeting was worth the lives we had lived to that point.
    Which brings me to my point. If I have had my moment of happiness, then why worry about what happens going forward. In fact why keep pounding through time only to have it end. I don’t need to look for happiness in my future, for I have already experienced that joy beyond anything I had hoped for to that point. I am neither worried about what path my life takes now, nor fearful of it ending without that feeling of happiness.
    So keep passing laws that push me out. Keep making life harder for me even to take a step. I really don’t care. I have an option. I have been happy, and I don’t need to try anymore.

    • New Person

      @ADAT,

      You don’t have to try when it comes to the registry. That’s what ACSOL is for. Janice, Chance, and the rest of ACSOL is doing the yoke carrying. There is NARSOL and WAR (Women Against the Registry).

      The only advice I can share is the advice my friend gave to me. Focus on the next task. If that’s the next day, the next meal, or the next five minutes. This is where the ACSOL website or NARSOL or any other similarly related sites come into play. They can help put that next task in front of you. When we reflect on the past, the enormity of loss is difficult to take at so many levels and it hurts… a lot.

      When I first started reading ACSOL, which was called CA RSOL (iirc), there were many things that were starting beginning to make changes. Here’s a couple of things that have happened since I started ACSOL:

      In CA:
      … presence and residency law were rule unconstitutional
      … Halloween restrictions found invalid
      … same-sex acts with minors are treated equal to hetero-sexual acts and discretion to avoid the registry
      … Janice protected SO in Prop 57 (early release from prison)
      … go from lifetime to a three-tiered registry

      In Maryland:
      … found a way to find aspects of the registry unconstitutional to their own constitution

      In Michigan:
      … Snyder case found the registry punitive (including in-person reporting)

      In PA:
      … I forgot what case it’s called, but it also found the registry punitive

      For ACSOL:
      … Janice is approved to argue at a Federal level!
      … Dr. Ira is part of ACSOL (co-wrote academic paper “Frightening and High”)
      … added many other experts to aid with or be connected with ACSOL

      Who knows, but maybe this pandemic and contesting it’s arbitrary rules without science supporting it could be the springboard that re-examines the registry as that thought runs parallel as both are implemented due to public safety.

      Your job is to simply be and let ACSOL, NARSOL, WAR, etc… carry the heavy yoke. If you can’t fly, then run. If you can run, then walk. If you can’t walk, then crawl.

      Here’s a Bruce Lee quote, “Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one.” I pray often. It’s okay to breakdown, but you still need to carry on somehow. There are success stories on here. I’m still striving to be one of them. We all are striving to be a success story. Why? So we can recount our success stories on here or NARSOL or WAR or etc… to give the next wave of registrants hope.

      talk about giving hope… I just donated to ACSOL (funny, it still show CA RSOL on the donation page).

    • Tired of this

      Man, this resonated with me.

      I often wonder what there is to look forward to. I’ve been dealing with this horseshit going on 14 years now, in 4 different states, and while there have been some victories for our side, it is hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. I often wonder what I’m trudging on for. I’ve pretty much always been going through life alone, having learned long ago that I’m not the kind of guy that women desire. Life feels pretty meaningless and empty without purpose, without someone to share it with. For most people, family, belonging, and love bring purpose (and are a foundational step in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), and without these things, without the support of a special person at one’s side, everything feels incredibly dull and meaningless…and the older you are (42 in my case), the harder these things are to come by, especially as a registered person.

      Moments of happiness have been fleeting and scarce. But true happiness, contentment, these are things I read about, these are things people talk about, but to me they are things of fantasy. I am slowly coming to terms with the idea that all my future holds is more years of registering and living with the ever-present anxiety that being on the registry brings, more years of struggling to remain gainfully employed and slaving away my weeks to support myself, more years of wondering what new hell I’ll face after another election cycle or worrying about overlooking some registry-related technicality, more years of aging out of the already-shrinking dating pool as a middle-aged man with less dating experience than your average 20 year old (and with the red flag of being a RC, to boot). More and more it seems there is only one way out.

      Like you, I am also slowly starting to care less and less. At a certain point, there ceases to be any incentive to continue playing this rigged game.

      • Roger

        @Tired, it comes down to expectations. Being white, I have lived most of my life without understanding that I had white privilege, since whites have dominated America for centuries. That means my expectations of what is possible in life were high. I expected police would treat me fairly. I expected I would have no problem getting bank loans. I never thought that job interviews and other interactions. I had no idea what people of color went through with police, that store security would follow them around, that their color made a difference in interviews and bank loans, and a million other situations that made their lives more difficult than mine in situations identical to mine. People of color have learned to set their expectations to reality to keep their sanity and live life.

        Since being on the registry, I have had to reset my expectations of life. Police don’t treat me like before. Job interviews made me wonder if they would accept my past (no). I never had to deal with neighbors seeing me on a website and suddenly fearing and hating me. I used to be able to travel anywhere, but now my choices are limited.

        I am learning to not have expectations, since they can be smashed at any time. Instead, I focus on whatever blessings I have, no matter how small. I don’t compare myself to others who I think are in a better situation because that makes me feel bad about life being unfair.

        I focus on the relationships available to me, like other ACSOL members, friends and family who accept my past.

        That makes live livable. When I catch myself comparing to others, I stop and refocus.

        That’s how I survive a very unfair phase of the remainder of my life.

        Don’t give up. We are there for you, and so are some of the people around you, some of which you haven’t discovered yet.

        • C J

          Amen Roger. I admire you.

          @ tired of this. I had a woman betray me and commit 8 hours of perjury to land me on the registry, currently for 25 years. I wanted nothing to do w women.

          When I wasn’t looking, there it appeared. She knew my past and knew it didn’t define me. Quite frankly, she gives it zero thought.

          She is now my wife. As Roger alluded I’m very blessed.

          Do what you love and find your inner peace. You’re still young. You’ll find what you wish for when you least expect it.

    • Facts should matter

      “Her answer is always,” You don’t want to miss out on possible happiness”

      Translation: She just lacks the courage to tell you it doesn’t get better. She just doesn’t wanna confirm what you and all of us already know. Instead, therapists like her will gladly take your money and continue to tell you what you want to hear.

  23. Saddles

    One wonders in all of this registry issue is the confusion, even about calling once a month to check in. Here in Virginia they want you to call in. I’m sure many at times fail to call on the day of the month specified. I even think I forgot this month but basically its to show responsiblity. We can all get a bit under pressure even with family life, some trying to find work or other issues on a persons life.

    So what if a person forgets to call in to verify things are ok? Lets say a person calls in a day or two later than what. Guess that would be up to the probation officer. Now if anyone travels this holiday one can bet that Covid issues are not preventing police to watch for speeders as I have seem several doing the holidays here in VA.

    I’m sort of like most on here that much to a lot of this registry is a bag of intimidation to try and abuse one’s conscious with this sexual ruse. One has to remember they are servants to protect and serve in all this pretending issue when it actually comes down to getting over on another to prevent one from talking to a teenage person when the facts come down they are the ones that are unjustified in this game of judgement call. Why do you think plea deal comes up in many of these types of sex issues. Look at this as over abuse of power. Life is not a pretend game. So right now I am a day or two short so a late call is better than a no call I hope. This has probably happened to some across the nation also so I’m sure I’m not the first.

    • Worried in Wisconsin

      Call in monthly? Are you talking about a probation/parole rule of something for all registrants? Sounds much more like something to do with probation/parole than the SOR.

  24. Steveo

    This probably needs its own thread. Here we see that law enforcement has their sexual misdeeds swept under the carpet. They get to land on their feet. They get to remain private, but we average people in this nation, we get exposed, punished for a lifetime. So unjust. Sexual misconduct shakes FBI’s senior ranks: https://apnews.com/article/us-news-sexual-misconduct-a0d33e4770acef8ff5f4a48f0267202c

    • TS

      Welcome to the USG’s employment law and ability for civilian federal workers where it’s damn near impossible to fire someone or even do something about it with serious consequences.

  25. Saddles

    While I did call in today and left a message on their voice machine which I have done since Feb of this year its best to call as I’m sure we that are on probation during this pandermic ordeal tend to at times lose tract of time. Seems much of this ordeal is a punishment/responsiblity type of issue and those PO officers are only doing their job in all this ordeal stuation. Course probation and paroble doesn’t know what the person that is under this registry is going thru and the pressures many face. Its like a mind consuming game that can drive one bonkers at times if one lets it.

  26. C

    I wonder how many registrants this deputy harassed and persecuted before his own crimes were discovered?

    https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article247691795.html

  27. Brandon

    AG Bill Barr might resign before the end of December. If he does I hope the DOJ’s door hits him and his proposed SORNA rules in the butt; as he lands on concrete for being an unethical and immoral human. Now that would be poetic justice because I’m tired of being America’s punching bag. The only I know how to deal with these laws is through sarcasm. Logic and common sense are wasted trying to figure these laws out.

    Not advocating violence, just karma on the SOB

  28. Alecc

    Does anyone know about getting a SIDA badge clearance at an airport in southern California?

    I work for a construction company and I am required to get a badge to work on the airfield side but I am currently on probation. My offense is not on the disqualifying list by TSA but not sure if being on probation or the fact that I have to register will be enough to deny my clearance. I have tried doing research on this but cannot find anything and a lot of lawyers don’t seem to know for sure.

  29. Peter

    I had court today and I won. I was caught in an underage sex sting off an adult website. I had court today and the judge said what the cops did was outrageous she expunged my record and said I no longer have to register as a sex offender. I want to thank all of you guys for letting me vent. I have been fighting for years to clear my name and I finally won. Guys do not give up you have to fight for what is right.

    • Brandon

      @ Peter

      Congrats on winning your case it must be a huge weight off your shoulders. I wish you the best of luck in life.

    • David⚜️

      Congrats, Peter!! What excellent news!! Your long battle was worth it!! 👍🤗

    • New Person

      @Peter,

      Congrats! You got yourself a very good lawyer! I’m glad to know a judge doesn’t allow the law enforcement to break laws to entrap people into jail and the registry. It would be good if your lawyer could find others that this unlawful entrapment group has put into jail just like your scenario. If this is a sting, then they’ve done this more than one time of using an adult site to entrap an adult.

      BTW, I’m glad this was caught at the start of the problem (sting) bc I don’t know if the laws would change the registry for one person.

    • @Peter

      Congratulations! I recall your story and also recall how it sounded like a totally corrupt setup by the LE swine. It’s a shame it took so much and so long for you. Any chance of suing for violation of civil rights? That would be icing on the cake!

  30. someone who cares

    Peter ~ Wow! Great news. Maybe there are some people still who believe these stings are just appalling and wrong. Congrats on your win!!

  31. Saddles

    Peter I am proud of you in your endeavor. Sure their are a lot of variables in all this sexual underpinning when one mixes truth and proof its like a nightmare on elm street in many ways.. While the proof may be there who is blinded by the truth? The one falling for the truth or the one falling for the proof. Sure one may be on an adult site and lash out sexual over tones but is one lashing out to an adult or a teenager in this tag game of sexual deception.

    While I have two more years left and I’m sure many more have some years left its never to late to stand up. Even in this episode of this Prediency even a president can be wrong so were does equality of true justice come into play in this registry of mental compensity of brain matters in these sexual matters.

  32. TS

    From the same Phoenix news source who wrote about the guy who works with hoop players (posted here in this forum) comes this article (https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/phoenix-cop-alleged-sexual-assault-woman-lawsuit-victims-charges-11517869) and particularly this part of it:

    Cops ‘Seldom Report Each Other’

    The allegations against ____ also raise questions about how frequently police officers commit sexual misconduct and sexual assault while on duty. Another woman is suing the City of ____ after she was allegedly groped by an on-duty _____ cop in 2015 during a traffic stop; that same officer reportedly had a record of misconduct. Between 2006 and 2015, six members of the _____ Police Department were convicted of sex-related crimes, according to a database (The Henry A. Wallace Police Crime Database, https://policecrime.bgsu.edu/Home/Map) maintained by criminal justice researchers at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

    ***Great map showing the entire country and the related LE crimes for each state and into each county.***

    Research suggests that cases of police committing sexual misconduct are more common than people may believe. Between 2005 and 2012, 669 cases of “police sexual violence” occurred across the United States, according to a study (Stinson, Philip M.; Taylor, Robert W.; and Liederbach, John, “The Situational Context of Police Sexual Violence: Data and Policy Implications” (2020). Criminal Justice Faculty Publications. 117. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/crim_just_pub/117) published earlier this year by the university. The perpetrator was a patrol officer in 87 percent of the cases, and in 81 percent of the cases, the offense was committed while on duty. Female drivers and sex workers are among the most common victims of police sexual abuse. The study’s authors found that the “most common context of police sexual violence” involved cases of police officers assaulting women during traffic stops.

    ***Very nice report of the study conducted and shows the seriousness of the matter; however, when most are able to resign and face no consequences of matter other than that, it loses the effectiveness needed to send a message and put them on the same plane as the regular citizen.***

    Most of the time, the 2020 study found, the crimes were discovered by citizen complaints — and not “police initiated internal-affairs investigations” — in 94 percent of the cases.

    “Sexual abuse of citizens and what officers would claim as consensual sex on duty — it’s fairly common at police departments and sheriff’s offices across the country,” Phil Stinson, a Bowling Green State University criminal justice professor and co-author of the study, told New Times. “Police chiefs frame this in the context of bad apples. I would maintain that the whole orchard is rotten.”

    Penny Harrington, former chief of the Portland Police Bureau and founder of the National Center for Women and Policing, said that sexual harassment within law enforcement is a rampant issue. She add that the misconduct is usually committed by a small number of officers who repeat their behavior unless swiftly disciplined.

    “There’s a lot of sexual harassment in law enforcement. Officer against officer or officer against the public, pull you over you for a traffic violation and then talk about how beautiful your breasts are or want to follow you home,” she said. “If the department doesn’t take swift and effective action against them, then they get the message it’s ok, oh boys will be boys, and because officers will seldom report each other, it can be going on right in front of your face.”

    ***I wonder if the deputy in Indiana who said those who have to register have mental issues would say the same about his contemporaries in LE uniforms that have committed crimes such as these.

    ***So again, those in a position of trust, e.g. LE, are more apt to offend using their position against others than those who have made a mistake already according to the stats. Ah, but what are stats when they are ignored and do not work for the narrative needed in passing laws? Merely fodder then except for those who they mean the most, sadly.

  33. John

    Can someone educate me whether sex offenders are allowed on beaches? My extended family plans on having a small BBQ at Huntington Beach and I’m pretty leery about going. If we’re allowed on beaches, can someone provide to me the relevant caselaw?

    Thanks in advance!

    • A.D.A.T.

      @ John
      As far as I know from reading , if you are not on probation or parole , then you don’t have any restrictions on you. You have the same rights to gather in public as any person. Private businesses may set restrictions , i.e. Disney, Movie studios, etc. , but Janice and her team have worked very hard to get restrictions abolished in California. Some municipalities still try to enforce residency and community park restrictions, but those are usually shot down in court. Unless a private beach, then the state runs it and the state does not have any restrictions.
      You can look up Hunington Beach Felon and sex offender restrictions on line. You can also call your police department.

      • New Person

        @ADAT

        Ha! Beat me to it. Didn’t realize you commented when I finally got back to responding. Good job on helping new people on ACSOL!

    • New Person

      Here’s the case for California… in re: Taylor

      Link to pdf: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S206143.PDF

      Feel free to confirm it, though. Caveat… you can’t be on parole or probation with special restrictions. Enjoy the beach!

    • 290 air

      You’re allowed on beaches in Huntington Beach. If you want to feel more comfortable call the records office of HBPD. They do all the registrations and answer all those questions, but I’m 99.9% sure beaches are good to go.

  34. SR

    So Barr is stepping down within a week. Is this good news for those new SORNA modifications to die?

    https://trib.al/MVw0AYW?fbclid=IwAR211ZrzQ1pbp27IFoChpaqIRIF-K2arOOmtc8bZtyJAOa3HA6ruT5u9bvM

    • JohnDoeUtah

      Probably not, maybe delayed, but not done for. I see this as SMART Office agenda more than USAG agenda.

      • TS

        I agree this is probably a SMART office driven agenda item after Epstein made a mockery of it. Like to see them killed off totally too. The comments will have to carry a lot of sway to do that. Don’t expect the USG to use skill and brains to be good about these when stupidity will do.

  35. Tony

    Was able to make a school update over the phone in Orange County. Nice to see. I wish it was this easy every time.

  36. A dude

    Wondering if somebody with a good eye for reading law might be able to clarify… Would like to know if I will be able to petition for removal after ten years. I have two convictions of video voyeurism involving a adult and am registered as a tier 1. I plead at the same time for the offenses. The law states more than one conviction cannot be relieved but follows a section about juveniles. Any clarification will be much appreciated, been trying to figure out for two years and just thought about posting here

    http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=79164

    • JohnDoeUtah

      In most jurisdictions two charges do not equal two subsequent convictions, and are only counted as a conviction. I’m not sure if California is one of those.

      • A dude

        Appreciate the info, It was in Louisiana and the law says..

        (c) The provisions of Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Subsection shall not apply to any person who was convicted of more than one offense which requires registration pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.

    • A.D.A.T.

      A Dude,

      Two convictions, or two charges. If you plead guilty to both at same time, I think that would constitute one conviction. The Prosecutor normally folds entire case into one plea. Other wise you would have 2 completely separate cases and multiple court dates, etc. Sounds like you have multiple COUNTS of the same charge. That means multiple offenses, not multiple convictions. It’s Louisiana, so be glad you walked away without being fed to Alligators or put on a chain gang.
      ( Not a lawyer, just slept at a Holiday Inn last night )

      • JohnDoeUtah

        Maybe, if they are two counts of the same offense, is it two offenses?

        • A dude

          It was 2 counts and one conviction. The law says “does not apply to person who was convicted of more than one offense”. Which leads me to believe I cannot petition.

        • JohnDoeUtah

          @dude

          Yes but are they two counts of one named offense, or 1 count each of two separate named offenses?

        • New Person

          @A dude,

          You wrote: “It was 2 counts and one conviction. The law says “does not apply to person who was convicted of more than one offense”. Which leads me to believe I cannot petition.”

          Is what you’re saying you were convicted of two counts of voyeurism? That means it’s one conviction, which you already stated.

          Now, if you have a separate conviction afterwards, then that counts to be more than one conviction.

        • A dude

          @ New Person

          Was arrested at two separate times on separate offenses. Plead to two separate counts at same time, so that was on conviction.

        • A dude

          @New Person

          My registration paper says video voyeurism- 2 counts.

          Does that mean the counts are combined to equal the same (1) offense?

          I was arrested on separate occasions and the charges were lumped together of one conviction. But still confused on if it was one offense or two offenses. Or does offense mean conviction.

          Aneurysm coming soon…

      • A dude

        Ok I understand. Sounds like the answer is no. Btw if you get on the chain gang or in Angola you are considered lucky. Something to do instead of sitting in a old concrete room. Luckily I did probation after long fight and two lawyers

  37. TP

    In this week’s episode of Registry Matters (NARSOL’s podcast), they talk for a few minutes about how much of a failure the new CA tired registry is going to be a failure because no one will get off due to DAs, judges, and victims will all say no to the petitions. This conversation happens around the 20 to 30 minute mark. Although they didn’t seem to know too much or speak to concrete terms.

    Have I missed something that victims get a say now? (Although I am currently a T3 person, I have hope my tier will change or even the whole registry will fall.)

    Can Janice or chance speak on this, and maybe they should bea guest on the podcast to clear up these statements.

    • SR

      The way it’s written, it’s almost automatic unless the DA can show why the public would be safer with you on it. If you have a clean history post conviction to now, they’d be hard pressed to argue that you should remain on the list.

    • New Person

      To have the victims speak at this petition appears to induce a second bite at the same crime. You in a court, before a judge, DA, and victim 10 or 20 years later to ponder about extending the registration period for the same crime truly feels like double jeopardy. The registry now behaves like parole, which is punishment.

      • David⚜️

        I don’t recall there being any provision for a victim’s comments. I am certain it only allows the DA an opportunity to argue that the individual should remain on the Registry. (Bear in mind, with the request for removal happening 10 to 20 years AFTER the conviction [release, actually], how in the world would the victim even be located to be informed of the requested removal?? And I’m not sure that even cold-hearted lawmakers would wish to force victims to revisit their trauma after 10 or 20 years.)

  38. Saddles

    It seems their is good and bad in everything and this registry tells a story in so many ways. Yes it appears their has got to be a motive in all of this or who is bowing down to who? Sure we can all take punishment, have punitive damages drumbed upon us. call things fraudlent or go thru this cycle of offender ordeals on its merrit but what is the real cause and effect it leaves by those authorities playing this dangerous game.

    Someone once said, Nobody tells me what to do, so who does than. Sure we are all wrapped up in this sex registry of this blind leading the blind in this sexual nature battle for truth and justice. Much of this registry matter is a jaded type of consequence induced upon another to prevent in this bicurious way which amounts to fraud and overcoming another via this internet ordeal. Are we all guilty or do others run over us?

    I believe Janice and many lawyers can see the point in all this registry that seems to be a dominating motive in LE measures but when analysed out it all comes down to those in power over coming others in all much of this sex registry game in many ways.

  39. TS

    The long arm got longer: Supreme Court overturns top military court, rules that rape cases before 2006 can be prosecuted https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/10/politics/supreme-court-military-sexual-assault-prosecuted-any-time/index.html

    • Worried in Wisconsin

      Statute of Limitations laws have been revised numerous times in recent years in many states to virtually remove any barrier to prosecuting old crimes. As much as I hate to see rules changed after the fact, I think that the ship on this has already sailed many times over.

      • TS

        True, but at least in this case, it is defined ’86-’06 and not longer, but long enough.

  40. New Person

    Apparently, my local town in CA still does compliance checks. I just had mine done to me just a few minutes ago, 12/17/2020. The LEO actually asked to come inside to check inside the house. I said without a warrant, you’re not allowed inside. This is just a compliance check and I’m not on probation, so I don’t understand the need to come inside.

    Get this… the LEO actually said (paraphrasing) the he wanted to make sure there weren’t any kid tied up inside the house. WTF?!

    This is the first compliance check that was quite aggressively rude. Previous compliance checks weren’t as abrasive as this LEO.

    @Janice and ACSOL, are compliance checks written in PC290 for those no longer under custody? This LEO actually said it is in their books to do compliance checks.

    On probation (in custody):
    … in-person check-in
    … rules and restrictions follow
    … inspection/compliance checks at home

    No longer in custody:
    … in-person check-in
    … rules and restrictions to follow
    … compliance checks required

    This LEO parked his SUV in the middle of the road, drawing neighbor attention.

    I truly want to know if “compliance checks” are specifically written on PC290. This LEO was quite disrespectful and treated me like I’m a current monster. I even asked if I could put a comment on the paperwork about the compliance check, but he wouldn’t even let me write the comment. My last compliance check was a few years ago and I wrote that there wasn’t anything on PC290 about compliance checks being mandatory.

    arrgghhh… just venting here, but this LEO really was quite disrespectful to me. He even tried selling that if you don’t have anything to hide, then all the people he has asked would let them inside to check… again, to make sure I was in compliance and there were no kids tied up.

    seriously, I am at a loss of words.

    • SR

      From what I recall there is something for compliance checks, but it’s noted as for “habitual” offenders, which means more than one separate conviction. Like with the majority of LE RC situations, they do whatever they want until someone sues them into compliance. Them running illegal compliance checks would be no different then cities and counties STILL trying to impose residence and presence restrictions despite CA Supreme Court ruling and dozens and dozens of successful lawsuits by ACSOL. This is what happens when LE are never punished or even reprimanded for their transgressions.

    • norman

      what county are u in..if those bastrards want to come into my house they better have a warrant..no warrant..than they can go pound sand..

    • David⚜️

      @ New Person: You do need to speak with Janice. You will definitely want to hear her answer regarding compliance checks.
      But I’ll give you a heads-up: They – the LEOs – are required to do compliance checks. We – the Registrants (who are not on probation or parole) are NOT required to participate in their compliance checks. The compliance checks are their problem, NOT ours. You do NOT have to answer the door when they knock. If you do choose to answer their knock, step outside and close the door behind you – you do not have to allow them in your house. Don’t let them look or snoop inside.
      (Personally, I keep both my fence gates locked. It frustrates them, but that’s their problem – NOT mine. They call me and complain “we can’t gain access to your property”. Oh well.🤷🏻‍♂️)

      • David⚜️

        @ New Person: Be sure to join the ACSOL Phone Meeting this Saturday at 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time). Call in & ask about Compliance Checks. 👍

    • someone who cares

      New Person ~ First off, what county are you in, and secondly, did you recently have your annual registration? I am asking since I have been around the block regarding this topic. Compliance checks are not mandated as far as I know, and I have never seen it anywhere in the PC290, but that law is a million pages long, so I may have missed it. We had a few of these “compliance checks”, and each time I called and complained afterwards. Each time I was told that we did not have to open the door or answer any questions if no longer on probation. I hope you don’t sign anything. You are not required to even talk to them. I know, sometimes you just want to shake them off and get it over with, but every time I tell them we don’t have to talk to them, they agree and then leave. It is like a Knock and Talk.They can knock, but in the absence of a response from you, they HAVE to leave. There are clearly abusing their power. Next time tell them that you know your rights, and that you know that you don’t have to talk to them. Exercise your 5th and 4th amendment right and tell them that is what your are doing. When I called to complain, I was told that if they come by, they should be as invisible as possible, in plain clothes. You are NOT on probation and you gave them NO reason you are not of compliance. I will emphasize this again. You do NOT have to talk to them, much less let them into your home. If he pulls the “if you have nothing to hide” card or “others let me in”, I would simply reply that those people obviously don’t know their rights, but you DO!

    • 290 air

      Wait… according to the Supreme Court this thing is supposed to be like a Costco membership renewal. Costco never came by to do a compliance check or ask to come into my house unless they were delivering something.

    • Lake County

      There is nothing in the 290 PC code that requires compliance checks. If you are on probation or parole, then they can require most anything of you. It is NEVER a good idea to open your door and speak with cops if you’re not on probation or parole.

    • C

      Home Verification Raids:

      Permitted by law however the law does not compel offenders to comply. In other words, the police are permitted to conduct the raids, but we are not required to answer the door.

      I have an even more interesting dilemma I will outline in another post…

  41. David⚜️

    Florida LEOs harassing Registrants again:

    https://www.wtxl.com/news/local-news/wakulla-county-sherriffs-office-makes-7-sex-offender-arrests-in-operation-holiday-check

    Why do these bozos give names like “Operation Harassment” to simple compliance checks?? Does it make them feel like they are actually doing something worthwhile and heroic – rather than simply harassing individuals who have already repaid their debts to society?? 😠😡

  42. Saddles

    Ok guys I didn’t want to bring this up but it seems like many on here are lost just like I was in my ordeal that is still going on. When I say lost its like who’s ruling who. Yes one can take this punishment two ways justly or unjustly. So who is being fair? So what is the weighter matters of Justice. And why does the scriptures say not to go to court in front of the unjust? Yes this sex registry game tells a story from those conning one into a plea deal or signing a paper saying one knew they were talking to a teenage person so who is overshadowing who.

    I am inclined to agree with many on here about a lot of this unjust registry when “Sex” is the common denominator. My PO even came to my house a few weeks ago and we had never met due to this pandemic thing that has came upon us earlier in the year. While I even invited him in he declined due to this pandemic issue. If one really understands this registry and its different measures and techniques, LE is just as much guilty and much of this should be struck down. Taking liberties or advantages of others in this way is not what anyone with common sense would say is true justice.

    The registry is so devilish and those that induce these things on another will or are finely realizing that this is a great inbalance of justice but authorities don’t want to admit this shame or what is out of balance today. Talk about that nobody tells me what to do type of power in government. At times I ‘m sure many understand that the scales of justice are unbalanced in these weighter matters.

  43. A.D.A.T.

    A person I met while on Probation at a S.A.A. Mtg ( btw, complete waste of time ), had their felony reduction hearing today. Called to find out and got msg. Some of us have tried to reach him, but no luck. I called his lawyer and asked results, but no one was in office. I am fairly sure that this isn’t good news. He hinted about what his reaction would be if he did not receive the reduction , and I am at odds to pursue him. We had gone to a place he liked to go when he was stressed. It was overlooking the ocean on Highway 1. I want to give it a while and see what he does. I need to respect his space and decision about this. Am I making the best decision for all involved? I will not feel guilty if this turns out bad, because “bad” in our world is a relative reality.

    • New Person

      I went to get my 1203.4 and 17B done at the same time after I successfully completed probation, but my lawyer at that time asked the judge not on record how he was going to be deciding on 17B. The judge would not allow it, so my lawyer withdrew the 17B motion, but pushed ahead on the 1203.4 motion.

      Later on, my new lawyer discovered why the judge would not allow the 17B at the time and it was specifically written on the probation report. The report stated that I needed more time before they gave their recommendation. I waited five years before re-applying for 17B. A five-year wait is a period of rehabilitation, according to my lawyer, which he had read and often practiced in law. Welp, my lawyer was correct and probation recommended that I receive 17B. Despite the judge bashing me (due to my conviction) and denoting that receiving the 17B wouldn’t let me off the registry as well as the DA didn’t recommend it, the judge allowed the reduction based heavily on the probation report recommendation.

      I know how it feels to be denied the 17B. The whole atmosphere felt bleak. Reflecting upon it now, I don’t know how I made it through. I just tried to focus on the next task and the next task and the next task to get through the day. There were days I broke down, crawled into ball, and wept profusely that I fell asleep in a sea of tears.

      If your friend didn’t get the reduction, then read the probation report recommendation. That is probably where your friend can discover why the reduction was not recommended. My lawyer discovered it and I couldn’t because I was beyond depressed. LoL

      Maybe this can help whenever you find your friend again to know someone who was kinda denied 17B did end up earning it several years later. TBH, I still can’t believe I was granted it.

      • A.D.A.T.

        New Person,

        Our worries were for not. He was granted his reduction. He had travelled up to Northern California to sit at his mother’s gravesite and tell her. I am so happy for this man. He is such a good person and as so many of us have done, he made a terrible error in judgement.
        I can’t wait to sit with him again on that point overlooking the Pacific, put my hand on his shoulder and tell him how many people are proud to call him a friend.

        • SR @ ADAT

          That’s fantastic to hear! I’m glad it worked out for him. The trip he made to his mothers grave was probably very cathartic for him. I hope he finds some peace now. This reduction should mean he’ll be able to get off the registry at his 10-year mark (all misdemeanors should from what we understand).

          Do you know and mind sharing what his offense was?

  44. David⚜️

    Forgive my ignorance, what’s a “17B” ?

    • SR

      Its the CA penal code that let’s you file for a reduction of a felony to a misdemeanor.

  45. TS

    Korematsu v US was sadly upheld on this day by SCOTUS in 1944. I think their record speaks for itself thereafter.

  46. Traveller

    I am filing to be removed from the public registry and have questions about filling out the form.
    1. I have a misdemeanor C.P. Offense that was originally a felony. Do I mark the 3rd box that says I have a felony conviction? Because How I understand it is once I have been reduced, it’s like I never had the felony.
    2. Do I have to pay the probation department to give me copies of my probation report?
    3. What paper work besides the probation report do I need to include in the filing.

    I am in California, so whom ever has done this here , I could use experienced advise so I don’t mess this up.

    • SR

      Not sure on what additional paperwork you may need, but you can mark that you have a misdemeanor. Once it’s reduced, that’s what it is for all purposes. The only other paperwork I can think of is possibly your receipt for proof of having registered for the year, though I’d think they’d just pull that when they run a background check on you.

      For copies of your report, I believe you pay that to the clerk who gives it to you. It shouldn’t be too expensive. I think they literally charge by the page a few cents.

      • Traveller

        SR,

        I found the form on A.G. Gov site. It says if I am filing as a general 290 , then I need to provide a copy my probation report, or court disposition paper to prove I qualify for the removal. I guess I just go to the probation office and ask for it. Been 2 yrs since I stepped in that place. Was hoping I would never have to again.

        • SR

          I know that feeling. I have a lot of anxiety about going back to file for my reduction and expunged. Just being in that environment again is putting the brakes on for me. I keep putting it off and off even though its going back for something positive this time.

        • New Person

          @SR,

          Although you may have PTSD going to the courthouse, earning your expungement and reduction is huge, especially with the new tiered system. If you successfully completed your probation, paid all your fines, and have no other new convictions, then expungement (1203.4) is automatic. The reduction (17B) may need some finesse, especially if you live in a county that dislikes registrants. Probation’s report is a significant factor in reduction.

          I freak out whenever I go to the courthouse. I get flashbacks and cower inside. Despite granting my felony reduction, the judge made sure to acknowledge that the reduction didn’t do anything to remove me from the registry. It made me wonder if I really won on that day. My lawyer said I won, my brain says I won, but my heart felt empty. The only positive I focused on that day was that probation recommended that I receive the reduction. That recognition is huge on a legal scale and hopefully helps me to get off the registry as soon as possible.

          Whenever I drive by the courthouse at night, I still have flashbacks of being detained inside of it for a couple of days before being sent to county. I simply can’t escape the history, especially since that history has made time stand still as the registry has made it far more difficult to move forward.

          Get your expungement and reduction as soon as possible, re-visit your tier, and then apply to get off the registry when the first available date you are allowed to apply. Good luck!

    • Interested Party

      @Teaveller

      Sorry just reread what you said … I missed you were filling to be removed from the internet not being relieved from registering …

      Double check that you are filing in accordance with the new requirements under the tiered law. They made changes which might complicate things. In the law it states what paperwork is required.

      If you had a lawyer for your initial case you might be able to get all needed paperwork through the lawyer.

      Sorry for the first post and my misread of your question

  47. Saddles

    You know I like all the interesting comments about this sex registry ordeal and how the authorities can make a mixture out of all this ordeal. Its to me like watching the odd couple or who has a barbeque at another person’s expense. Myself I have two offenses against me, traveling, and also talking to a teenage girl which I proved not to be a teenage girl. How does one look at that. Was it the language I used or was it the just to come down to meet this person to talk sexual with as they wanted me to do. So truth in much of this registry game is more non-fiction than some real encounter.

    Sure we can all talk about principals and principalities or what is just and unjust. Now I’m sure many were big fans of “Lost in space”, Alfred Hitchcock, or even Rod Sterling back in that time frame. Maybe some were big fans of “To tell the Truth”, but what is overshadowing others today with all this talk about teir’s and felony’s and misdemenors today. Sure grovernment can play hard ball and that is what they are doing in much of this registry game even this Convid is telling a story.

    Yes we can all talk about abuse but with much of this registry who is the abuser to acuse the one that abuses. Who is inducing or seducing another in this. These multiple accounts of abuse or how many playboy mags or porno of kids are on one’s computer. Isn’t a kid a billy goat? I’m sure everyone is getting the point as government wants to run over a lot of things or who is playing fair and were is equality today. Yes I’m inclined with Janice in this “Met my people go” that was on here earlier this year and I’m sure that speaks for many also.

    Janice I can say you and your team and the other advocates are doing a good job about helping to get true justice for all in this ordeal.

  48. A.D.A.T.

    New Person,

    It is comments like your “ if you do all this your expungement is automatic “ that gets people confused and ultimately leads to arguments.
    No, not all offenses are expunged, no matter what you do. I have a misdemeanor cp offense. Because of my conviction date, the law states “no expungement”.
    Please don’t go speaking authoritatively without knowing the law. It is not helpful.

    • Austin

      Seconded, any federal, military, tribal or other jurisdiction will not be able to be expunged. Great for the people that can.

    • New Person

      @ADAT,

      Right.

      You must qualify for 1203.4 to earn expungement. You must qualify for 17B, felony reduction.
      1203.4 link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=1203.4.

      17B link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=17.

      Point 1.
      Although, I am responding specifically to SR, who knows his legal reading stuff. When SR is stating the delaying of reduction and expungment, then I will take SR’s word knows the qualification. If you qualify for 1203.4, then it is automatic upon petition as per law, provided all the requirements are fulfilled. FACT.

      This allows a person to petition for themselves without a lawyer if they wanted to do it themselves.

      The reduction petition is a different. It is at the judge’s discretion to award or deny the reduction. One has to do a lot of research on doing this. Depending on a lot of context, one can petition for themselves or one can get help via a lawyer.

      ***
      Point 2.
      Specifically @ADAT, when you cited “if you do all this your expungement is automatic “, you are citing out of context. I listed the three requirements for the expungement petition, provided you qualify for it. Apparently, your fixation on detail completely misses the forest.

      ***
      Point 3.
      It is pertinent that registrant knows if he or she qualifies for expungement and/or reduction before sentencing, as well as knowing their tier classification. That is part of what a lawyer should state to you. It is also pertinent that any convict keep their paperwork for on-the-hand review of their charge(s) so that they can readily cross-reference the penal code for 1203.4, 17B, SB 384, etc…

      ***
      Point 4.
      Laws change. So be sure to keep all your info as well as read all the new laws to know what is qualified or not qualified nor any exceptions. Sometimes, within a span of a week one can qualify for a full immunity and one not qualify for a full immunity with the same charge, which is what happened with our fellow poster Mot.

      @ADAT,
      Be a friend and leave links for others to be helpful if you continue to plan on interjecting yourself in other people’s conversations. In fact, you should list not only your infraction that doesn’t qualify, but all infractions that don’t qualify to be that much more helpful. That’s your tip ‘o the day.

      Merry Christmas to you and your family!

      • A.D.A.T.

        New person.

        1. You talk out your ……….(fill in as needed)

        2. Didn’t realize you could have a “private conversation” on this forum.

        3.I did list my infraction. If you weren’t so busy listing items to act so superior about, you might have noticed.

        4. Your sad attempt at condescending remarks is only surpassed by your even sadder attempt at being superior.

        Here’s a tip…….🖕🏽

  49. Lake County

    This month, the United States Supreme Court issued a remarkable opinion that could pave the way to repealing qualified immunity. That doctrine — which shields government workers from accountability when they violate the constitution — relies on the policy that government workers should rarely be subject to lawsuits for money damages. But in Tanzin v. Tanvir, a unanimous Supreme Court said that it is not its business to do policy. In addition, it held that damages are not only an appropriate remedy against government workers who violate the Constitution, but that “this exact remedy has coexisted with our constitutional system since the dawn of the Republic.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-might-finding-way-090009786.html

    • TS

      Let’s hope these men find the justice and damages they deserve with this new SCOTUS ruling in Tanzin v Tanvir.

  50. David

    Yup, it’s so important that LEOs waste time and taxpayer money harrassing individuals once convicted of a sexual offense. (Sarcasm intended. See the real story below.😠)

    https://ktla.com/news/newport-beach-woman-22-charged-with-murder-in-suspected-dui-crash-that-killed-couple-wounded-3-others/

    What fo you mean “DUI Driver” doesn’t appear on her driver’s license?? 😠

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 *

.