ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

conference at all4consolaws dot org


General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments May 2021

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of May 2021. 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.

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I went to the store and on my street a kid was walking home from school at a normal pace. I pulled into my driveway and got something out of my car and they kid took off like roadrunner. Got my laugh for the day

OMG! WHAT did you get out of your car?? 🤣🤣🤣
A butcher’s cleaver? 😳
A running chainsaw? 😳
A severed head? 😳

I wouldn’t laugh too much at that, all it would take for you to land in jail or back in jail would be for that kid to run home say the wrong thing to overzealous parents next thing you know you get knock knock at your door.

New SCOTUS Ruling on 4th Amendment Freedom from warrantless searches:

Good blurb on SCOTUSBlog too about this case.

A Reader’s Digest of opinions by the court. Kav kills me with a LifeCall exception. Going search the house by what’s in line of sight while helping the down person on a welfare check?

Hmmm… does this now make compliance checks illegal or… make compliance check criminal in nature since the police officers are asking to go inside the house?! If criminal in nature, then the policy now makes this part of the registry punitive.

In 1958, Kelly v Municipal cited that in-person reporting was quasi-criminal and any person who earned the 1203.4 was able to be removed from the registry since in-person reporting was part of the registry.

@New Person:
No, it doesn’t make them illegal. The cases cited, FL v. Jardines and KY v. King, both clearly lay out what LEOs can and cannot do. While their presence is a Fourth Amendment “event”, it’s not an unconstitutional one. It can quickly become one if you or they are not careful.

Any person, even LEOs, can ask to come inside. And you have the right to say no. You also have the right to 1) never answer the door or engage, or 2) slam the door in their faces without a word, or 3) direct them to leave your property immediate and then slam the door in their faces. Remember, if you say yes to any request from another person, even LEOs, it’s considered a consensual interaction and therefore void of any Fourth Amendment protections.

Kelly is no longer good law. See Humes v Sacramento, E.D. CA, 2018.

It reads to me more like SCOTUS took the 1st CCoA to school, as in needed remedial training on the 4th Admt. and case precedent. Twas nice, though, to see SCOTUS reinforce the scarred and damaged wall that is the 4th Amdt. It’s been attacked and pocked full of holes for too, too long.

Edwards v Vannoy from LA was ruled on by SCOTUS yesterday denying retroactive applicability of Ramos v LA.

Yes, a horrible decision by the Court. I do like seeing Kagan going after Kav, though. He’s meeting all my expectations as a jurist–none of which are flattering. The dude should stick to drinking beer and coaching his daughter’s sports team.


I agree on all counts of your reply.

I’m sure most have seen the recent footage of a man trying to kidnap a young girl (she escaped; he was caught). LE enforcement reported at least one prior sex offense was among his apparently extensive criminal resume.

Clearly the registry didn’t do a thing to mitigate this. So tell me again the point of it?

Oh, no. You’re wrong about the conclusion they’ll come too. Clearly they just need to create more paper barriers. More banning’s from various locations. This isn’t a sign that the registry doesn’t work. It’s a sign that it needs to be bigger and heavier!

Yes, maybe a ban on being ANYWHERE that any child is present. What? That wouldn’t have stopped him? Oh, yes, I suppose you’re right – it wouldn’t have. Nor would his face postered all over his neighbor, nor would a GPS ankle bracelet, nor would 4/yearly to every 30 day check-ins, nor would daily compliance checks….. Yeah, I think you get the point: nothing in the Registry itself makes people safer.


Political cred only and nothing more. The info is available otherwise but govt and people are too lazy to look.

Not only too lazy to look but completely unaware of its existence.

Despite all of the national publicity about Megan’s Law since its passage in 1996, and despite the fact that, according to a May 2005 speech by Gonzales, 48 states provide Internet-based access to these lists, a majority of Americans are uncertain about whether a publicly available list of sex offenders is maintained in their area. Only 38% say that such a list is maintained, while 4% say it is not maintained and 58% are unsure.

The percentage of Americans who have ever checked a sex offender list is even smaller. Just 23% of U.S. adults have done this, including 36% of adults who are parents of children under the age of 18.


More telling statistics from the article:

Also, there is relatively little sympathy for the argument that such laws will lead to harassment of people named on these registry lists. Only one-third of Americans are very or somewhat concerned about this; 44% are not at all concerned, while another 21% are not too concerned.

It may not be animus but it’s certainly apathy, both the existence and use of the registry as well as its effect on RCs.

I wonder, if someone convinces a legislative body, big or small, to create a list of everyone who has been convicted of a crime, e.g. DUI, and make it easier for the public to find out who they are, where they live, etc, then will the public be upset about it if it just happened and was not publicized it was created until someone revealed it after discovering it when no one needed to come in and provide said data?

That is a backhanded way of creating a registry without the registrants input and cooperation but putting out there the same data. It would not take an IT person long to this and make a link on a city/county website if all data is already known, e.g. DUI convictions in the last year, five years, etc.

May have to try this with a city or county council.


Interesting 2005 article. I wonder what a 2021 update to it would look like given the path things have gone since then.

Resource to add to revisiting Supreme Courts reliance on fraudulent statistics regarding frightening and high.

This is a post by a civil attorney on Quora regarding a question of “What is the greatest scientific fraud of the past 50 years”

this is the person who wrote the following article

For millennia, humans understood that opiates were addictive; and that users eventually developed both tolerance and dependency, which limited its use solely to the relief of acute short term pain; and for the relief of pain in terminal patients.

On January 10, 1980, the leading medical journal in North America, the New England Journal of Medicine published what appeared to be a relatively innocuous “Letter to the Editor” Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics | NEJM

Not a case study, or a double blind random controlled medical study; but a simple letter to the editor, based upon a mail survey, suggesting that patients who receive opiates for the relief of acute pain in the hospital do not generally report problems with addiction. Following the publication of that letter, numerous medical researchers in countless peer reviewed articles began citing that “letter” for as evidence that addiction was rare for physician-prescribed opiates, even when used long term for chronic pain.

As shown in the chart, the “letter” was cited over 600 times as proof that physician prescribed opiates were not addictive, and over twenty-five times in a single year, which coincidentally occurred while pharmaceutical companies were promoting oxycontin and other powerful opiates for routine non-terminal pain. Medical research can be compared as “rabbits having bunnies,” therefore, while these articles cited the letter, often as a “study,” countless other journal articles that relied upon this “study” were cited in other publications promoting opiate use, which were then cited by other medical articles.

Based principal upon this article, pain organizations began promoting pain as the Fifth Vital Sign based upon the patient’s subjective estimate of his or her own pain from one to ten. Unlike the other vital signs: Body Temperature, Pulse Rate, Respiration Rate, Blood Pressure —which are outside the patient’s subjective control— this alleged Fifth Vital sign was completely within the control of the patient, and was to be the determinant as to whether the patient received opiates. And after all, what is the harm if addiction is rare as long as a physician is prescribing opiates.

In 2017, after hundreds of thousands of patients died from opiate overdoses, and millions became addicted, the New England Journal of Medicine finally acknowledged the harm done by this letter, and its misuse as evidence that opiates were relatively harmless.

In conclusion, we found that a five-sentence letter published in the Journal in 1980 was heavily and uncritically cited as evidence that addiction was rare with long-term opioid therapy. We believe that this citation pattern contributed to the North American opioid crisis by helping to shape a narrative that allayed prescribers’ concerns about the risk of addiction associated with long-term opioid therapy. In 2007, the manufacturer of OxyContin and three senior executives pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges that they misled regulators, doctors, and patients about the risk of addiction associated with the drug.5

Our findings highlight the potential consequences of inaccurate citation and underscore the need for diligence when citing previously published studies.

A 1980 Letter on the Risk of Opioid Addiction | NEJM

In other words, “my bad, sorry about the deaths and desolation.” Suffice it to say that the prescription opiate crisis was a catastrophic failure of the medical peer review process that infected researchers across multiple disciplines. Opiate prescribing increased geometrically without any evidence that it was either safe or effective for chronic non-terminal pain:

The US medical industry, in particular, embraced opiate prescriptions:

Predictably, here are the deaths that resulted:

As a final note, opiates are referenced in antiquity and classical literature; and their side effects have been well known since Homer’s Odyssey. Opiate addiction was well understood after both of the World Wars, and the US had a first wave opiate addiction during and following the Vietnam War. Based upon nothing, the medical profession, en masse, ignored centuries of teachings about opiates.

The conclusion today is the same conclusion reached thousands of years ago, which is that opiate users develop both dependence and tolerance, which means it is both dangerous and ineffective for the treatment of long term chronic pain. To call the promotion of opiates for routine non-terminal pain a mere scientific fraud is an understatement. It required willfully ignoring well established scientific knowledge in favor of absolutely no scientific evidence.

Here is the actual “evidence” cited in 1980:

The entire standard of care for opiate prescribing was changed based upon a survey of patients who had received at least one narcotic pain pain reliever in the hospital. The survey had nothing to do with the treatment of chronic pain for opiates, and it was not a double blinded random controlled study. It was also never repeated by any other medical institution. Despite the limitations of this letter, it was repeatedly cited as a “study” in multiple preeminent medical publications without any real peer review or criticism.

May Roberts see this same fraudulent data thing in person when he realizes the error of his thinking, preferably when on the court, but I’d take in retirement too.

While looking for ML use statistics, I found an article out of CT from 2018 that I don’t recall previously seeing. I do recall the legislative activity mentioned but not this fair, objective article, nor the advocacy group in CT, nor their lawsuit:

AJ ~ You seem so knowledgeable, so I am addressing this question to you, but others may have some input too. What and how exactly is a SARATSO score determined? Is every Sex offender scored, regardless of the offense or whether this person went to jail or prison? Secondly, does the registrant know his/her score, meaning does the probation office or treatment provider have to tell him/ her the score at all? Would this score have to be presented to the judge pre-sentence, and will that show in the minute order? Lastly, if the new tiered registry uses the risk assessment rather than the offense itself to determine the tier, is that legit? If the offense dates back 9 years, can they still use the score from that far back even though there has been no new offense since?

Static-99 is determined by answering these simple 10 questions. You can see the form here. Most of these questions should be simple and self-explanatory.

Every offender is scored who had a direct potential victim (even if it was a sting set up). The only people who are not scored are those convicted of CP possession as no direct victim was involved on your part, and the test wasn’t “tuned” to take this into account (by reading the 10 questions, you’ll somewhat understand why). Otherwise, it doesn’t matter if you were sent to jail, prison, or did not time at all and were just given straight probation.

Your Static-99 score isn’t a secret and should be on your presentencing report, if the test existed at that time.

If for some reason your score is read during sentencing (mine wasn’t), then it would be part of the minutes. But there’s little reason why your score would be read into minutes as it plays little relevance in your sentencing. Prior to CA’s new Tiered Registry, the score didn’t play much of a roll in your sentence other than putting up some barriers like being ineligible to petition off the public site for people with a score of 4+.

A score of 6+ sends you straight to tier 3 regardless of your offense. This is legal until some court says its not because its the law. Even if it weren’t legal, nothing would be done about it until someone sued.

Currently, there’s nothing that says these scores expire for any purpose, so their age is irrelevant to any barriers the score may create. I’m however speaking strictly in legal terms here, as the actual Static-99 documentation says the score is only good for a couple of years and is actually cut in half for every 5 years of being offense free. The government ignores this whole deal because it’s inconvenient to them. They only use the parts they like.

For those having old convictions prior to Static-99 being a thing, the whole 2 years of being placed into the To Be Determined tier was created (also for some out of state convictions who’s conviction may not have a straight CA equivalent). This whole part is extra layers of BS done because they can. Again, it’ll continue until someone sues and wins.

SR and AJ ~ This is directly from the CASOMB website: “After about eight to nine years offense‐free in the community, people who have committed sexual offenses and are assessed as average or above‐average risk to reoffend pose no greater risk of committing a
new sex offense than any other type
of offender.3 For this reason, they
were intended to be in tier one (10‐
year registration) or tier two (20‐year registration). During the bill process, however, amendments to the original draft of the bill moved some of these offenders to the lifetime tier. CASOMB will re‐evaluate this as well as other amendments made to the original bill and make future recommendations for modification.” So, the offense free time should be considered. Also, the dynamic risk factors from the treatment provider and the passing of Polygraphs.

CASOMB has generally put out positive findings in our favor. However, the legislatures seems to ignore anything that CASOMB presents that is favorable to registrants. Year, after year, after year CASOMB has put out data that shows registrant re-offense rate to be around the 1% marker. Has that made a lick of difference in the laws our politicians pass? Has that made any difference in them amending the tiered registry into hell? I wouldn’t hold my breath that the legislature will take any of CASOMBs recommendations to heart to move the registry the other way. The brunt of any positive movements will be the result of lawsuits brought on by ACSOL and other such organizations. Politicians will never do anything on their own based on empirical facts. Empirical facts don’t help them win re-elections.

Politicians don’t make decisions to benefit the community. They make decisions to benefit their position in office. Exhibit #1? Every Republican that is opposing the 1/6 commission and every Democrat pushing for it. Does this really surprise anyone? I hope not.

SR – The Static99 webpage itself talks about year offense free recidivism declining. This is the tool the DOJ is using, so how can they ignore this? I can see if they don’t want to believe CASOMB, but the Static99 website, the tool they treat like god says it, too, how can that not be considered? If they want to use the Static99, use it all the way, and calculate offense free time, dynamic factors, and additional factors like people who help the “offender” by being a positive influence. Read up on outside factors that are not part of the Static99 but need to be considered as far as risk score is concerned

You’re singing the same song we all are. Welcome to American “Justice” System. They absolutely should follow ALL parts of whatever test they use, but they don’t. The whole deal with auto placing people into Tier 3 for having a score of 6+? Yeah, they specifically wrote into the tiered registry that they’ll be looking at the score as it was at the time it was administered (typically person’s release). They don’t care if that was a million years ago and Static-99 now says you’re as likely as Jesus to reoffend because you’ve been offense free for all that time.

Politician are trash for doing this in spite of the information they have on the matter as a whole, and even their own tools saying they’re wrong.

DOJ is trash for “following orders” while full well knowing the orders and laws are flat out wrong.

All this just makes one want to adopt religion with Hell just so you can feel that all these SOB’s will get theirs at some point.

@someone who cares:

Thank you for the kind, complimentary words. More importantly, thanks to @SR for taking up the baton. Due to a number of items involving my case and who I hired as counsel, I avoided all sorts of things, including Static-99, SARATSO, polygraphs, etc. So my answer to you would’ve been, and is, “I have no idea.”

I won’t go into any detail about everything I was able to avoid as part of my conviction or how I was able to do so but rest assured my sentence and fine were substantially below the norm for all manners of offenses, never mind sex offenses–to the point the other attorneys in the court room were stunned by what I received. I was quite pleased with it too, as you can surely guess. Now if I just didn’t have to contend with this non-punitive regulatory scheme….


Good article from the CT Mirror I don’t recall hearing about it either. It’s well written and covers the topic objectively. Highly recommend others here read it as well. Good reference article for discussions.

One point I found interesting was this: “The registry does have backing from victims. “I have never heard a victim who didn’t support the registry,” said State Victim Advocate Natasha M. Pierre. That would be the public registry. She said in instances where the assailant was a family member, victims will sometimes push to have the individual placed on the police registry to protect the family’s reputation or privacy.”

This is the point many peeps here make. People want the registry until it hits close to or at home. Then, they want to deal with it differently to protect themselves selfishly but screw others in the public in the same situation. This is the politician or other who is influential and needs a good public name. Of course victims want the registry, it is their way of continuing to inflict retribution on the perp in their mind long afterwards.


Or to put it another way: “for thee but not for me.”

Here’s another example… Okay for he, but not for we:

Cowboy State Daily: Bouchard Releases Video Announcing Teen Pregnancy, Marriage From Florida Days.

Take a minute and go to youtube. You will find vid after vid of people convicted of killing others after multiple repeat dui convictions. Now try and find even one vid of a repeat sex offender. You can’t.

Bill Gates hoped friendship with Sex Offender would help him with Nobel Peace Prize.

😖😡 This BS is infuriating!! They don’t do this to ANYONE else – murderers, gang bangers, gun violence offenders – no one but Registrants!! 😡

For Chr#st sake, fine him $200, but don’t f#cking arrest him…. AND don’t plaster his face all over the news!! Let him work his job and leave him alone!! 😡

How is this NOT cruel and unusual!!?? It’s outrageous!! 😡

Absurd. The guy’s doing the right thing, turning his life around, providing a valuable (and apparently needed) service to his community. Is there one recorded case of a sex assault committed by a licensed landscaper against a client, much less one committed by man with a conviction for a sexual offense? Meanwhile, in our cities men are being released with no bond paid for violent offenses against elderly women. We’re a country of stupid extremes.

But the sex offender registry isn’t punishment. Right?

Even if you win, you lose,,,,

 Tribune Publishing

Former tutor cleared but damaged
Kara Fohner, News-Topic, Lenoir, N.C.
Fri, May 21, 2021, 11:59 PM

Supreme Court Overturns Habeas Win for Alaska Sex Offender

The justices held that a criminal who already served his time for sexual abuse of a minor cannot challenge those convictions while facing a new charge for failure to register as a sex offender.
comment image?resize=984%2C656&ssl=1(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
(CN) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated a sex offender’s habeas corpus victory, finding that the Ninth Circuit incorrectly granted him relief because he was not legally “in custody” for his sex-based convictions when he tried to file a federal petition challenging them.
The case, which arose from Sean Wright’s failure to register as a sex offender, asked the court to consider how much time is allowed to elapse between when a person is in custody for a conviction and when the habeas petition challenging that conviction is filed and litigated.
The Ninth Circuit ruled last year that Wright’s incarceration and supervised-release sentence for his failure-to-register conviction rendered him “in custody” for the purposes of challenging his underlying sex-offense convictions.
But in a three-page unsigned opinion Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco-based appeals court got it wrong. The justices found that although Wright’s state conviction served as a predicate for his federal conviction, he was not in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court.
“If Wright’s second conviction had been for a state crime, he independently could have satisfied [28 US Code] §2254(a)’s ‘in custody’ requirement, though his ability to attack the first conviction by that means would have been limited,” the ruling states. “Wright could not satisfy §2254(a) on that independent basis for the simple reason that his second judgment was entered by a federal court.”
An attorney for Wright did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
In 2009, an Alaska jury convicted Wright of 13 counts of sexual abuse of a minor. After completing his sentence in 2016, Wright moved to Tennessee, where he failed to register as a sex offender as required by federal law.
He was jailed in the Volunteer State from June 2017 until February 2018 and pleaded guilty to one count of failure to register in Tennessee. Wright received a sentence of time served plus five years of supervised release.
During the course of the failure-to-register proceedings against him, Wright filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 in Alaska federal court challenging his state sex-offense convictions on Sixth Amendment speedy-trial grounds.
Wright argued that the Alaska Supreme Court failed to correctly apply the law when it dismissed his petition on the grounds that the Sixth Amendment only authorizes courts to hear petitions filed by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. Wright said his then-pending federal failure-to-register charges rendered him “in custody” with respect to his Alaska state court sex offense convictions.
U.S. District Judge James Singleton Jr. rejected Wright’s claims, ruling that he was not “in custody” under the meaning of the law when he filed his initial petition since he had already fully served the sentences imposed on him for his Alaska state convictions.
The Ninth Circuit reversed that finding, deciding that Wright’s state conviction was “a necessary predicate” to his federal conviction and that he was actually in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court.
“Wright’s conviction and sentence for failure to register was ‘positively and demonstrably related to the [Alaska] conviction he attack[ed],’” the three-judge panel’s order stated.
With the Supreme Court’s vacatur of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, the case will be returned to the appeals court for further proceedings.
The decision puts clear limits on a 2001 Ninth Circuit ruling, Zichko v. Idaho, which held that a conviction for failure to register as a sex offender would revive “custody” status as to an otherwise fully served conviction for the underlying sex offense.
Attorneys representing the government did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

This doesn’t make sense.

He was jailed in the Volunteer State from June 2017 until February 2018 and pleaded guilty to one count of failure to register in Tennessee. Wright received a sentence of time served plus five years of supervised release.

During the course of the failure-to-register proceedings against him, Wright filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 in Alaska federal court challenging his state sex-offense convictions on Sixth Amendment speedy-trial grounds.

Being in jail is the definition of “being in custody”. What the Supreme Court is trying to do is state that this recent “in custody” is independent of his Alaska conviction since he served his time. The SC is creating a double standard here because the registry is directly created from the initial conviction. There is no “failure to register” if a person was not on a registry. Therefore, the logic of the ninth circuit remains true because the only way one gets a failure to register is to be on the registry, which is due to the initial conviction.

I think the Supreme Court is purposely trying to skirt this to avoid that the registry is direct punishment by identifying “failing to register” is a separate conviction that is not related to the registry. There is some seriously flawed logic or the Supreme Court is doing mental gymnastics to cite the “failure to register” is not directly related to a sex crime conviction.

What if the same amount of energy for sex offender issues by politicians and L.E. Went into gun control and DUI punishment. How many citizens would be safer. How many more families would be together this memorial day. 🤔

33 days left until the California SB384 takes affect I hope people start going free if not the California DOJ is gonna have big problem on their hands they’ve gotten away with creating a second-class citizen for almost two decades but I promise you they won’t get away with it for another one.
There’s no way in hell California sex offenders are gonna stand by and let the government kick them in the ass for another 10 years

Good luck 😕

Oh look! Another ridiculous Amber Alert for a non-custodial parent and a “child” (Really? Infant? Toddler?🙄) who was 17 at the time of the “aggravated kidnapping” (🙄) by her biological father and who is now 18.

Nathaniel Glover, aka Kidd Creole, is a founding member of hip-hop group Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, and he is currently being held at the Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center in the Bronx. He has been there since 2017 and has yet to go to trial, according to The Source. Glover, 61, was arrested and charged with murder in the second degree after stabbing a man named John Jolly in the chest. Glover and Jolly, a registered sex offender, had an altercation in midtown Manhattan.

Read More:

My point in posting this is, the story was about the man stabbing a stranger. So then why did they feel the need to put that additional little tidbit about the victim. Served no purpose other than to spice it up. If the man had been convicted of robbery, would they have included that?

I took a chance an subscribed to another online therapy service last week. The Therapist called me yesterday and wanted to do a background interview. I held nothing back. After approx. 10 minutes he said that he wasn’t sure if he could help and that he , “ suspected I might have agitated depression”. NO SHIT? Let’s see………Loss of profession, friends(?), future in doubt, unstable life environment due to constantly changing government restrictions. He recommended going to V.A. And getting on meds. Oh, yeah. The answer to all my problems, drugs! I have asked for a full refund, with his blessing.

I had a Therapist ask me “do you think guilt from something you did in your past might be causing your depression”
I remember thinking daam i can’t even get therapy without someone googling my name and bringing up my past.
After are session he referred me to another therapist at the community health center in a really ghetto part of town.

Good luck 😈

I have no guilt about my offense. I know it was a mistake, but after discussing my life with a group of peers , it was clear that other family issues in my past contributed to my state of mind leading up to my offense. I have come to terms with that.
That being said, therapists want an easy ride. If they don’t know how to address something, they seem to want to push it off on another therapist or drop you altogether. The whole thing is a scam in my opinion. Which is why I will forego anymore “therapy”.
I don’t need any back patting or hand holding. “ Things will get better” is their way of saying, “You’re f***ed for the rest of your life, now go pay the receptionist”.

Another example of how the media spins the story and drives it in favor of government.

How missing teen Daphne Westbrook was found in Alabama

Check the comments.

Yup, I posted about the Amber Alert (5 comments up). Florida (FDLE) involved itself because, well…Florida!

And 18 months later and the media still doesn’t know what is going on.

Ditto, it must have been a very slow news day for them to waste all that airtime listening to this law enforcement flunkee babble on with nothing noteworthy to say!
Mr.”Special Projects” didn’t have sh#t to do with the outcome of this non-custodial parental abduction case, no relevant involvement whatsoever! 🙄
(I wonder if he has enough insight to realize what a buffoon he sounds like in that video.)

Am I correctly reading 290 where if I just step foot across the state line into the state that I must register within 5 working days?

My gf and I were planning to be driving through western Nevada and I thought it would be nice to drive into CA for three days to see the Redwoods and Sequoias.

I am planning my vacation to avoid having to register in any states I visit and will make sure I comply with the residency rules and timeframes to keep from having to register.

If I have to register in CA for just stepping foot into the state then I will avoid CA and spend my tourism dollar in states that will welcome me (at least for a short visit anyway). And I will have to just wait until state and federal rules do not apply for me to visit CA.

You’ll need to register with CA if you’re here for more than 5 days. That’s the “within 5 working days” part. If you’re here for less than that (or over the weekend/holiday), you’re good to go.

Thank you but I am still confused with your response. 290 states must register within 5 days. There is nothing stated such as if one temporarily resides five days then one has to register. Some states say if temporarily reside more than so many days one must register. In that case, one can reside less than the numbers of days required to register and then leave the state. I can find nothing in 290 that allows me as an out of state visitor to stay up to five days and not register. It just says if one temporarily resides one must register within 5 days. In this case if I am understanding, whether I temporarily reside one day or 5 days, I have to register and the 5 days is the deadline for registering, not the maximum number of days I can stay without registering. So I am confused about the CA statutes as I do not live there and the wording is difficult for a lay person to understand and follow (by design? so the state can lock people up?).

California just has the one date thing. It applies to visitors and residence. I live in CA, and if I go on vacation for 7 days to another part of CA, I have to register with that district. If I stay there for less than 5 days, then I don’t have to register with that district. CA doesn’t separate residence and visitors.

It is a bit confusing and the wording is not the best. As my registering office explained and as 2 lawyers confirmed there is a 5 working day grace period in California. If you stay less then 5 working days then there is no need to register as it is the grace period.

That is the interpretation, and if you want to run with it you have a good argument and there are a number of lawyers who would be more then able to help you.

If you want to make sure there is no chance of any problems then I recommend not visiting California.

You don’t have to register until day 5 so you’ll have plenty of time to enjoy the traffic and crowds, I mean flora and fauna. Enjoy.

It’s Nevada that I’d be worried about. I think they have a 48 hour rule for registering.

Thank you all for interpreting CA 290 for a potential visitor. The wording was very confusing to me. And thank you for the heads up about Neveda, I was aware and was planning on staying a little less than 48 hours, but I appreciate the heads up.

You should be able to border jump between NV and CA to keep resetting the clocks. Just be sure to spend an entire calendar day in/out of one or the other. So go to NV for 47 hours, leave for 24+ hours to CA for fewer than 5 days, go back to NV for 24-47 hours, then back to CA, etc.

Some states do have “cumulative days” provisions in their laws, so be careful of that.

Millions of child abuse images to be wiped from internet (Ukraine article)

I’m not sure anything can actually be wiped from the internet and even if it could be done, that doesn’t stop people who have posted them before to re-post them. I don’t get the article.

Last edited 4 months ago by LPH

Demonstrates how completely insane this whole internet crap is. There are literally millions of people all over the world viewing this images. They are there permanently, just like our images. That is why removing the public registry will do nothing. The damage has already been done. The best thing to do is once you are off the list, officially change your name. The only way to shake off the stench.

That is not right. Removing the public registry will do everything.

Personally, and mostly thanks to the Hit Lists, I couldn’t possibly care less what anyone thinks about me. I don’t care what people see or don’t see. But what I do care about is being subjected to extra harassment that is the Hit Lists. I don’t need to be talking to big government all the time. I don’t need them telling me what I supposedly can and can’t do. THAT is the part that must end, or there will continue to be consequences.

In my case, getting rid of the public registry will vastly improve public safety. People don’t realize it or seem to care that as long as the Hit Lists exist, I am in a lot less danger than they are.

While waitin’ for the June 2021 General Comments thread to be created here, I found this today: A 7-Year-Old Was Accused of Rape. Is Arresting Him the Answer?

The conundrum of minors and crimes is crazy. Is it 6 years old as is in NC for an arresting age minimum or is it 12 as in other states? Should they be charged as an adult at 13 or should they wait until 18? Should they be a perp and victim at the same time of their own crime, e.g. alleged sexting with another teen or posting racy pictures of themselves in an artistic manner? Can a minor consent to sex in whatever manner they desire but legally not in some states until 18 because they know not what they are doing?

There are two Missouri Republican house members that are under investigation for sex related crimes with minors. One was a cop who had sex with an underage drunk girl while he was on duty. He claims she was 19 and he was off duty, but internal memos have text messages that prove he is lying.
The other is a Guy that physically and sexually abused his 12 yr old son and 9 yr old daughter. Both children , now older, have written letters to the legislature asking for him to be removed.
These are the people that write the laws that ruin our lives, and the lives of our families.
How many more like them are in a position to do this. Our ACSOL donations might be better spent investigating our Reps and finding dirt on them. Then we can simply blackmail them into overturning laws or else be outed.

What’s the FBI up to here? Someone post something mean about them and/or favorable toward the shooter on a forum linked through the USA Today article? Will USA Today give in?

USA Today fights FBI subpoena asking them to hand over readers’ information | Daily Mail Online

A silver lining in the California law enforcement system. With a federal court judge lifting the assault weapon ban and the massive increase in violent crimes throughout the state due to the complete collapse of society, Registrants are the last thing on their minds for the near future. I am watching all of this with such a feeling of satisfaction.
I so want the entire system to go down the drain. Not just at the state level either. The disaster that is the federal political system is about to implode. I give it 2 yrs before there is a massive civil war. The decades of hate that hicks, ignorants and white supremacy nut jobs have been letting stew is about to boil over.
The world is too good a place as a whole to be stuck with the sludge at the bottom of the tank that is the America.

The worse crime gets, the more law enforcement tries to save face by demonstrating its commitment to arresting men for sex offenses. Why? Arresting and prosecuting real criminals is hard. Arresting and prosecuting mostly law-abiding men for registry infractions or shaky vice crimes is easy. So yes, the public is more concerned, as it usually is, about violent and property crime, but the less ethical elements of law enforcement will throw us deeper and deeper under a pile of busses to show their commitment to “public safety.”

Yep. And they are afraid to create gun offense registries and others because those people likely wouldn’t be so nice about it. They would rightly strike back.

The registries are just to keep their big government prison business bigger and pulling in $$$$$$$$$$.

I guess I just don’t care anymore. Nothing left to lose. I just got a letter from IRS. My accountant screwed me and now I owe $176,000 in back taxes. Nice way to end the week. Of course paying that is impossible since I can’t work in my profession. But after all the crap with the registry, the IRS doesn’t even bother me. At least they have nothing to take away from me now. Bankruptcy is my only choice.
From a home owning, respected healthcare professional to a half assed employed bankrupt registrant. Whatever……….

Wow tell me this isn’t scary and dirty. The FBI wants the names, identifying information, and IP addresses of ALL people who read a news story about a CP arrest gone bad. Why? They wont say. It chills me to the core because if they want to know this its because they want to investigate and prosecute for being informed. If they succeed what other websites or news articles will be next.

I posted this yesterday and was surprised at the lack of reaction, because, you’re right, this shit is horrifying as it proves the Constitution means absolutely f***ing nothing to the FBI or DOJ except when it suits them.

That whole high integrity image Hollywood help the create is nothing more than PR bullshit. You cannot trust the government.

As of today the FBI rescinded the subpoena, not because they realized it was a gross violation of the 1st Amendment, but because they caught their suspect.

By the way, I was heartened by the comments slamming the government and defending the Constitution.

I think they’re lying. They wanted a bunch of suspects, but the public backlash was unexpected. It’s amusing seeing the hubris of these agents, who think because CP is judged so immoral by most Americans that they can have carte blanche to traipse over basic Constitutional rights, and probably have met little impediment previously in their Stasi-esque crusade against Internet offenders. What a rude awakening this must have been.

Dark days we live in, but darker days ahead for you and your children. Remember that absolute power is abused and corrupted absolutely. I feel that voting is a charade now. Once in power, politicians have one agenda and that is staying in power. I have read where 80% of their time in office is spent campaigning for their next election.
As for the FBI, seems they are intent on saving their own skin. And what better way than taking a page out of local law enforcement and prosecuting this century’s boogie man……. sex offenders.

USG going after IP addresses this way is concerning and records being attained previously is scary as well.

Does anyone agree that our depression, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness is NOT a mental health issue? IT IS AN ISSUE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE POSITION WE ARE IN EVERYDAY! I never felt this way before. And I am sure I wouldn’t feel this way if the registry didn’t block my means of being self supportive, seeing loved ones, and not having to worry about being shot because of a label every time I walk out the front door.

“Depression, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness” is a mental issue. It is the policy of the government that has created this mental state. Don’t diminish the existence of the mental issue, but rather identify its progenitor (creator).

There is no rehabilitation going on here with the registry if the registry creates “depression, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness”. Instead, the policies have only increased to continue to limit opportunities of becoming an equal citizen, thereby inducing more “depression, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness”.

Fear means one has power. The registry is a tool of fear for politicians to gain power in a hurry. Ignorance is the politician’s friend as they will ignore science to continue the fear of registrants. Science proved Smith v Doe used incorrect and extreme data. Science continues to prove the recidivism rates of registrants are of the lowest.

I am weak. Many of us are weak. Yet, Janice took up the mantle to protect the weak. She started off by herself. Then created CARSOL, a California based organization. During that time, found Chance. Afterwards, CARSOL evolved to ACSOL to encompass all states. Also, Janice was approved to argue at the Supreme Court level. ACSOL identifies that progenitor of “depression, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness” and combats it on our behalf.

Although I do have “depression, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness”, a part of me can seek comfort in ACSOL despite bad news popping up often. They are always working behind the scene. Janice and team have fought and won for residency and presence restrictions, but I am still reluctant to go to parks. Most of my days are spent on focusing on the next task so I don’t think too much to become depressed. There are some strong registrants on here, but I know I am not one of them. Maybe seek comfort in this verse to help carry you through the day:

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. – Matthew 6:34 NIV

I used to be paranoid about going to parks and other such places. But there were things I wanted to do there, especially summer movie festivals and public concert series in local parks and public venues. And a group of friends had a softball team that played at local parks. So I began attending, and encountered no problems at all, and that greatly reduced my fear. I did my research. I checked on all the laws. I knew that I was allowed to go to these parks and public venues.* I was not restricted from going to them, so no one could tell me I couldn’t.
Admittedly, I do make a point of having a purpose when I go. Even if it’s just reading a book, walking my dog, or attending a movie or concert. (I do not loiter and I avoid any playground areas in parks.)
*A million thanks to Janice and ACSOL for defeating all these stupid presence restrictions!!

Here is a thorough explanation of domestic and international travel restrictions and covers requirements of visitation to other states as well as requirements for leaving and returning to the U.S. it was updated 11/20 , so is current.

Aero1 is a troll.


Has anyone been able to remove their info from the ‘citydata’ site. I am not on the public registry, yet am listed on this sight.

Follow up:

I received an polite email from the company saying they had checked and I am indeed still on the public registry. I was told by my attorney that once my misdemeanor was granted my name would by removed automatically. I guess that isn’t the case. I guess you need to fight the system at every turn because they aren’t going to do their job.

If you are no longer listed on the government site, then its this private company using old data. You’ll need to try to get them to take it down. It took 3-6 months for FCRA legit companies to catch up when I came off. But these non-FCRA companies are harder to deal with. They flout their First Amendment right to post old data.

No , the email sent to me was actually cordial and seemed honest. They said they lag behind but try to keep it current and that I should verify with the state and let them know. My charge was reduced approx 5 months ago, and I was told by attorney that the listing would be removed automatically next time the state addressed it. I guess he was incorrect. A friend was removed when his was reduced. Should I file the petition or just call them.

Call the DOJ and ask them directly first.

I’d serve them with the judges order. The State that is.

If you live in Los Angeles County, here’s an interesting website:

Does anyone have any citations to any CA SC cases that have stated that the registry does not violate privacy issues under CA constitution, or that the state does not have to conduct determination hearings for SO under CA constitution? I need any and all cases by the CA SC concerning SO and registration.

Mike – I will start researching, too. For now, I found this website: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the US is a State Party, protects against “arbitrary or unlawful interference with [anyone’s] privacy, family, home or correspondence,” article 17. This is on the Human Rights Watch website. Not sure if it’s relevant, but while I look for other articles, I wanted to send this for now.

So, here is my thinking. If the Supreme Court has upheld that registration is not punishment but rather administrative (which is utter BS) and should be revisited, what allows them to also post registrants’ personal information on a public website? They can believe that registration itself does not violate constitutional rights, but the right to PRIVACY is not something they can just ignore. That is in the Bill of Rights/ Constitution (9th Amendment is worth a read). Just a thought. Not sure if this has been addressed at this angle yet.

Someone who cares, it is my intent to file in state court on state constitutional grounds as outlined in my complaint here.
I need all CA SC cases that maybe relevant to my case. This is a state action on state constitutional grounds.
Thanks for anyone’s help.

Mike – I can’t open the link without logging in or creating an account. I came across Doe vs Poritz. There are a couple of good points from what I can tell. Once you look at the case, you can do a “Find” for ExPost Facto. I know most will talk about punishment, which registration was not deemed punishment, but it also says this: “The Weaver Court found that two critical elements must be present for a law to be ex post facto: it must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to
events occurring before it was enacted, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it”. Registration is 100% a disadvantage for the following reasons: You have to be available on or around your birthday to register, so you can’t be on vacation, etc. You can’t travel without giving a 21 day notice, but you might need to travel short notice. I am sure others can think of a ton more disadvantages.

Sometimes an appeals decision carries the same weight of a SC decision if the SC let it stand.

I found the White v. State of California opinion. Of special interest is the dissent by FRIEDMAN, Acting P. J.

Alternatively, the lawsuit is one for invasion of privacy. California law recognizes the actionable character of disclosures which unjustifiably expose the plaintiff’s personal affairs to public view. When the disclosure is false or puts the plaintiff in a false light, his lawsuit may move from the traditional defamation category and seek its legal underpinnings in the privacy cases. fn. 9 Although lack of malice is not a defense in a privacy invasion suit, somewhat parallel defenses are available, for example, the public interest in the disclosure or defendant’s furtherance of its own legitimate functions. (See Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374, 383-390 [17 L. Ed. 2d 456, 464-468, 87 S. Ct. 534]; Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, supra; Werner v. Times-Mirror Co., supra; 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law [17 Cal. App. 3d 635] (1960) Torts, § 136; Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) p. 851.) In a general way, all these defenses involve judicial balance between the plaintiff’s right to be “let alone” and the public interest in the disclosure. The point here is that the disclosure’s truth, falsity or reckless disregard of truth profoundly alters the array of interests on each side of the lawsuit. (See, e.g., Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra.)


It’s already public info. They just want it updated as needed and collated easily for the public to find n read because the public are sheep and cannot search for it normally like others on any other topic. I say it’s compelled speech but have nothing to back it with.

Of course, the AG has changed

@someone who cares:
SCOTUS allowed “the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public[,]” (Smith at 98) in its ruling. As such, even info that is not deemed public (such as tattoos) is allowed.

Regarding the right to privacy, none explicitly exists, or at least so says SCOTUS. In fact they have repeated said in cases that they have never said an explicit right to privacy exists, or some words along that vein. I disagree but I don’t get to wear a black robe. Sadly, it appears SCOTUS never will “create” a right to privacy, so we’re instead beholden to the chuckleheads in Congress to someday make it law. (Don’t hold your breath, even if you’re David Blaine!)

As for the 9th Amdt., it’s tough to use. SCOTUS uses it to “create” rights (such as abortion) as *it* sees fit but unless or until it says the right exists, the citizen is SOL. IMO that’s total BS. Having read an entire book on the 9th, it’s clear the Founding Fathers meant it to say–and reinforce–that the citizenry has pretty much any right there is as long as 1) it’s not expressly prohibited or limited elsewhere in the Constitution, and/or 2) it doesn’t interfere with someone else’s rights. The 9th is vying with the 4th for most-trampled-upon Amendment.

AJ – How can SCOTUS decide whether there is a right to Privacy? It is not their decision and the constitution trumps SCOTUS, I would think?

Because the right to privacy isn’t explicitly spelt out in the constitution. The 4th alludes to it, but it’s not explicit.

@someone who cares:
Your question goes right to the point I was trying to make: somehow SCOTUS has become the (self-appointed?) arbiter as to what is and is not covered by the 9th Amdt.–despite the clear wording of the Amendment itself. So unless and until SCOTUS decides this, that, or another unenumerated right exists due to the 9th, it has little chance of success. Even if there were an enumerated right to privacy, as SCOTUS has so often pointed out, no right is absolute. So assuming the right exists, one would expect carve-outs in the name of public safety would happen almost instantly. The classic example of a carve-out, to a fundamental right no less, is that you do not have a right to shout “Fire!” in a theater unless there’s actually a fire. That free speech restriction is widely held to be proper in the name of public safety.

As for what @SR touched on with it being somewhat in the 4th, that only applies to things over which you have control, are in your private possession (and out of public view), and/or you have never released to a third party. Unsurprisingly, it’s called the Third Party Doctrine and arose out of US v. Miller (, which was later expanded upon in Smith v. MD ( I feel there’s a veerrrryyy slow shift on that concept coming out of SCOTUS, as best evidenced by the decision in Carpenter v. US ( That Opinion was 5-4, with Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy dissenting. Gorsuch’s dissent is worth reading because his problem with the case is that it didn’t go far enough. He (correctly, IMO) feels the 4th Amdt. is almost dead and would like the Third Party Doctrine reined in. Given how little private info and papers any of us actually physically holds at home (versus online–a third party!), the Third Party Doctrine is ripe for massive abuse by Government. Gorsuch sees it and fears it; the others on the right, not so much.

In short, as far as SCOTUS is concerned, if it’s not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or by Law, it’s left to them to decide whether or not Right X exists, and they use the 9th to create it. Total BS and not at all what I believe to be the original intent of the Constitution but again, I don’t wear a black robe.

If it were in the name of safety, everyone should be on a public website as they might be the soon to be offender. For the sake of my safety, I want to know every neighbor’s criminal history so I can protect myself. Sure, it is said that this information is already public, but I can’t access this information if it dates back 7 or more years. Once 7 years on the registry, that, too, should become inaccessible. Same rights for everyone!

Your first sentence doesn’t make sense.

The Hit Lists seem like a good idea. I mean, who doesn’t want to know if a person around them has done dangerous, harmful things in the past? Doesn’t that seem like a good idea? So people are informed? Perhaps if that is all the Hit Lists were, then they could conceivably be moral. But we all know that is so far from reality that it isn’t even worth discussing. The Hit Lists are counterproductive and they will be forever. They are not just worthless for everyone in America, but a lot worse.

It is very easy even for dumb people to understand that the Hit Lists are not useful. It doesn’t help me in any way to know that one of my neighbors is listed on the Hit Lists and another is not. I don’t have any clue which of them has committed more sex crimes. More importantly, I have even less of a clue who is more likely to commit one in the future. I also have no clue who is more dangerous. So it’s useless. I have to watch out for both of them. How many times do we have to see neighbors talking about their “nice neighbor” who was just arrested for heinous crimes? Hundreds of times? Thousands?

If the Hit Lists were only worthless, perhaps they could exist in peace. But we all know they are a lot worse than just worthless. The list of damage they cause everyone in America is very, very long. Most people never think about it and few care.

That argument about “the information is already public” is too dumb to care about. Not even worth discussing. If the Hit Lists makes sense for sex crimes, then they make sense for all serious crimes. The safety of my family is not affected at all if a “regular” child molester lives next door. But what about a person who has shot their neighbors? Or breaks into their homes in the middle of the night? Not dangerous?

Personally, I think it ridiculous that supposedly my family has a “right to know” about CP consumers. Really? If I have one of THOSE people living next door, I have to worry? In case he/she reoffends? And looks at more pictures?! OMG, what would I do?! Just knowing he/she looked at pictures would harm my family. Dumb. If I knew that people who look at CP are likely to shoot people with guns, then I would worry.

The fact those other Hit Lists don’t exist is all the proof that we need that the purpose of the Sex Offense Registries is animus. The point is to facilitate hate, segregation, and ostracism, and that is exactly what it does. It is also to generate and grow business for America’s giant “justice” industry.

“People” who support the Hit Lists are harassing terrorists – they cannot mind their own business or leave other people alone. They are enemy of the good people living in America.

Will – I hope you were not referring to me? If so, I was being sarcastic in saying I need to know people’s records for my own safety. What I meant was that if they say the right to privacy is void if in the name of safety, then technically I could as well request that other crimes are being disclosed for my safety (which I don’t need to know). It is basically either all. or none if they want people to feel safe. I hope that makes sense.

Nah, I don’t think I mentioned anyone specifically. Certainly didn’t intend to. Just having a general discussion.

But I guess I didn’t write very clearly if you thought that I was confused about what you said or meant.

But yeah, the Hit Lists are not for public safety. The fact that we don’t have Gun Offense Registries is more than enough proof for that. There is plenty more proof.

Additionally, America’s out-of-control, big governments (criminal regimes) have decided that the families of people who are listed on the Hit Lists, and everyone who lives with them, do not deserve safety. For example, the criminal regimes know that Facebook,, and likely piles of others, try to keep PFRs from using their products. So what do the criminal regimes do about that? They work with those companies, form special relationships, and put critical public safety information on their products where PFRs are restricted. That information is intentionally withheld from PFRs and their families. In the case of at least, that includes every person and family that lives at a Hit List address. That ought to be illegal. But regardless, it is proof that the criminal regimes have little concern for the safety or well being of millions of Americans. Those Americans can be sacrificed in order to grow their giant, money-sucking “justice” business and keep it huge.

Anyone who watches CP deserve to be on a list for life plane and simple

@someone – agree with you here. This is where my questioning the “right to know” of the public starts when it comes to registry data. Is “safety” the lynch pin? Where is the line for the “right to know”? Can anyone draw the line on that? @AJ, @PK, @SR, @JDUtah, @anyone who reads this forum?

I believe the phrase “right to know” is a misnomer. What actually is going on is the benefit to public safety has been deemed to overcome a right, perceived or realized, of the citizen. This isn’t unusual, as there are all sorts of carve-outs of explicit, Constitutional Rights in order to benefit public safety (workplace drug testing in DOT-regulated jobs, for example). The word “right” gets tossed around waaaayyy more than is proper. “Entitled” (such as SSA or Medicare being an Entitlement but not a Right) is perhaps closer to the proper term but still not quite correct.

Thanks @AJ for clarifying.

@someone who cares:
And if legislatures decide to make such other registries, they will most likely be upheld in court as valid. That there aren’t (many) other registries has nothing to do with legalities and everything to do with legislatures not crafting said laws. Gotta love the plenary power of legislatures…

I think they don’t do more because it would be unpopular and would likely affect people they know, if not themselves (see the cop registry). Also, more registries like this would likely mean a much faster downfall of all of them; so many more organizations would be involved that currently don’t want to touch ours.

And I don’t see courts ruling some of these registries are bad but not SOR. Especially if their ruling would be based off empirical evidence, which I think they’d have to be.

California has a right to privacy in its constitution. Here is a detailed paper on it.

1992 though so a lot of case law may need to be Shepardized.

While an accurate criminal record may not be protected, the surrounding baggage – pedophile, predator, monster, etc. — could be actionable as false defamation or as a privacy invasion suit. See the White decision above.

This could put an arrow through the heart of the moral panic that relies on these false, loaded words.

That was a good legal paper. Go to the 400’s to get a vibe of how it came to be. Lots of cases using the right to privacy cited there. Again, this paper was in 1992, so there could be more cases out there, but I haven’t found much when I did this research long ago.

The right to privacy is an explicit California constitutional right. In the CA constitution is cites the right to pursue and obtain privacy. If a person can lose privacy right, then they have the capacity to regain it as well.

For lifetime registrants, the registry does not allow a path off the registry as it is a right granted in the CA Constitution.

For those who earn the 1203.4, it cites:

 the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant

Thus, the right to privacy was regained by the 1203.4 recipient. Any law preventing this is in violation of CA Constitution Art. 1, Sec 9

A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.

The imperative word in 1203.4 is the word “shall”. Hence, your accusation/information cannot be used against you as it no longer exists and is a benefit guaranteed by 1203.4. You have regained your privacy, the right to be left alone, through legal means.

1203.4 benefits and PC 290 cannot co-exist, especially with California’s explicit “right to privacy” in its constitution. While it is public safety that props up the registry, it is also in the interest of public safety to those who qualify for the 1203.4 allowed to regain their privacy as it is written in law.

The right to privacy for CA against PC 290 is revolves around regaining privacy:
i) there should be a legal pathway to regain privacy
ii) if there is a legal pathway, then the state must adhere to the law and “not make it more difficult to get off the registry”, which was the theme when it denounced using Kelly v Municipal (in 1952 iirc) for the recent new laws of PC 290.007 and 290.5, requiring an extra step to de-registry via Certificate of Rehabilitation.

New Person, did you catch this from the White v. State of California?

Our nation’s current social developments harbor insidious evolutionary forces which propel us toward a collective, Orwellian society. One of the features of that society is the utter destruction of privacy, the individual’s complete exposure to the all-seeing, all-powerful police state. Government agencies, civilian and military, federal, state and local, have acquired miles and acres of files, enclosing revelations of the personal affairs and conditions of millions of private individuals. Credit agencies and other business enterprises assemble similar collections. Information peddlers burrow into the crannies of these collections. Microfilm and electronic tape facilitate the storage of private facts on an enormous scale. Computers permit automated retrieval, assemblage and dissemination. These vast repositories of personal information may easily be assembled into millions of dossiers characteristic of a police state. fn. 1 Our age is one of shriveled privacy. Leaky statutes imperfectly guard a small portion of these monumental revelations. Appellate courts should think twice, should locate a balance between public need and private rights, before deciding that custodians of sensitive personal files may with impunity refuse to investigate claims of mistaken identity or other error which threaten the subject with undeserved loss. The office of judges is to strike that balance rather than pursue sentiments of indignation or sympathy. It is obvious, nevertheless, that an unwarranted record of conviction, even of arrest, may ruin an individual’s reputation, his livelihood, even his life. fn. 2

In that PDF, I read in the 400’s that one of the factors in the right to privacy was accurate information being used. This means a citizen has a right to look at their information to make sure it’s accurate.

The registry prevent you from looking at your own information online. Recall, Janice and team discovered that the registry was not up to date. Welp, this law preventing you from looking up your own information to see if it is accurate violates one of the factors that helped create the right to privacy explicitly for the CA Constitution. That Cory guy really pushed so much to have the right to privacy as a separate constitutional right for CA.

It would likely be possible to check the accuracy and completeness the old fashioned way, through PC 11120-11127.

Cannot highlight and link here but there is already a link somewhere in this string.

Fingerprint scan required and it costs $25 if affordable.

I would look at the Registry any time that I felt like it. F*** any criminal regime that thinks that I don’t have the same right to use such a critical safety tool as anyone else. In fact, f*** anyone who thinks the Hit Lists are acceptable.

I was referencing the Federal Constitution because 1) @someone who cares clearly was meaning that (see: Ninth Amdt.), and 2) I don’t live in CA so I’m ignorant of and apathetic toward its constitution.

Fair enough.

The interesting thing that I don’t think anyone has realized is even though the courts say a person’s criminal history is public record, you have to PAY to see the records, unless you’re a registered person, then your information is posted for free all over the internet.
Case in point; do a google search of someone you know who has a criminal record (not a sex offense) then try to look at the record. You’ll have to enter a credit card or purchase a subscription. Same thing if you go to a court records office. They’re not giving you any information for free.
Same thing if you try to get a cop to tell you who owns a vehicle based on the license plate. He’s not going to run it for you, yet our plates are public?
Seems like a double standard to me.

Good distinction – Free info on People forced to Register but paid info on all others.

@Disgusted in Michigan:
Have you ever paid for public parking, such as a parking meter? “Public” does not necessarily equate to “free.”

mike r, I’d really like to help you research this if you want.

Here is a kick start.

Criminal Records – Request Your Own (CA)
ARTICLE 5. Examination of Records 11120 – 11127

Note 11125

  No person or agency shall require or request another person to furnish a copy of a record or notification that a record exists or does not exist, as provided in Section 11124. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1227, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1993.)

I just noticed this was amended in 1992. That was most likely to allow so many agencies access for good ol’ “public safety” reasons, when previously protection of privacy was the issue. There was a case on criminal history reacords with White as a party. Haven’t found it yet, though I may have the legislative process in my ancient filing cabinet.

Here is a pdf of the federal version of Record Review. One thing that stands out is that fingerprints are required there before relase of the records. Why if public information with not privacy restraint.

There could be complications in Doe v. California but I haven’t finished reading it yet and will probably need to read it at least once more to get it.

IDK if anyone else saw this article but to me it once again highlights the uselessness of the registry, at least as far as its stated purpose:

From the article:

Federal prosecutors said [the doctor] intentionally targeted girls in Ashland County — some 90 miles from his Youngstown home — to avoid being spotted by anyone he knew.

1) The offender wasn’t on the registry.
2) Even if on the registry, he traveled outside his home area to commit the acts.
3) Even if on the registry, girls aged 12-15 typically don’t look at ML to screen people.

I’ll save commentary on the culpability of the girls but the fact there were at times groups of them and that they were sneaking into hotels sure says lots to me.

Another “victory” for the powerful ML!

Another one for the 95% stat category of those first time offenders for the registry. “But he was such a nice man who saved lives in the ER as a doctor” his neighbors said…(not a real quote but could be imagined to be said).

If keeping score at home, that is one doc and two LEOs in the past week who are first timers and have alleged to committed (LEOs) or have been convicted of offenses which will get them on the registry.

Nned some assistance on the internet exclusion form. When I filed mine it was handled by my attorney, but a fellow registrant is applying and asked for help. They were in group with me for same CP offense. My question is,

Since they have had a 17b, which box is checked in the reason for exclusion section.
The last box says felony 311, but theirs is now a misdemeanor.


I don’t think they need to file for an exclusion then. It should be automatic. Were they able to get the 1203.4 dismissal as well? The two usually go together.

Dismissal is only before 2015. And it isn’t automatic. The Megan’s law people are separate from justice dept. so you need to file for the exclusion if you were originally a felon conviction. This is what I was told.

@eric o, did your friend receive a reduction recently? I reviewed the form, and can’t determine the answer to which box to check either. None of them encompass a reduction, and with recent discussions that doj considers a reduction to misdemeanor as a felony still in relations to tiers, this form is unclear.

Does the last box mean if it was a felony reduced but the child was under 16, it doesn’t matter that it was reduced to a misdemeanor? Terrible form. Following along hoping someone has some insight.

Anonmom – Have you tried calling the number on the form (last page) for questions regarding the form?

These two are accused with shooting and killing a 6 year old boy. Surely they’ll have to register as child abusers, right?

Shooting and killing isn’t near as serious as, say, looking at an illegal image.
No registering for them.

On the other hand, if one of the two put his hand on the boy’s chest to feel for a heart-beat, that would be Sexual Assault, and then they would REALLY be in trouble!

If you kill them, it’s not abuse. </sarcasm>

True. No registry required- they only touched him with a bullet, not a hand. 😒

This is weird….

“He faces a felony count of being a sex offender who failed to register, second offense; a felony count of being a sex offender who failed annual verification, second offense…”

The second charge – ” failed annual verification” – sounds as if he is being charged because the cops were unable to verify his residence. 🤔

Thank goodness the poor girl was found safe. I was so worried! 😏
Oh wait, no, I wasn’t ….. because this was yet another stupid Amber Alert about a non-custodial parent abduction. 🙄🤨

Honestly, just like the fact that Registries are overpopulated and made useless by listing the vast majority of individuals at very low risk of reoffending, these stupid Amber Alerts have become rather meaningless because they nearly always involve non-custodial parents. So if a real abduction were to take place, would anyone pay any attention to the Amber Alert? 🤔🤷🏻‍♂️

I haven’t paid attention to AMBER alerts for decades. I’ve blocked them from my devices also. I don’t pay attention to any public alerts. I’m definitely not going to worry about helping the public. I don’t need to care about other people or their problems. That’s the American way. In fact, I have a duty to lower the quality of life of anyone who supports the Hit Lists or says “sex offender”. It’s deserved.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x