ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

conference at all4consolaws dot org



CA: 25 suspected child predators arrested in Riverside following month-long operation

[Source: – 6/9/21]

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – Twenty-five suspected child predators were arrested in Riverside County following a month-long operation combatting human trafficking.

“Operation Intercept,” conducted by the Riverside County Child Exploitation Team (RCCET) in partnership with the Riverside County Anti-Human Trafficking, was a proactive undercover enforcement operation with the intent to locate possible sexual predators who actively look for minors on social media platforms for the purpose of committing lewd acts.

The operation was meant to reduce the number of internet child predators throughout Riverside County.

By using covert social media and communication platforms, task force members communicated with potential child predators.

“The predator starts an online conversation with the undercover task force members and solicits a sexual conversation with someone the predator believes is a minor. During those conversations, the subject arranges a meeting with the intent to commit a lewd act with the minor. However, when they arrive at the predetermined meeting location to meet the person they believe to be a minor, they are instead met by task force members and arrested,” authorities wrote in a press release.

The following suspects were arrested on suspicion of soliciting a minor with the intent to engage in lewd sex acts:

The following suspect was arrested on suspicion of soliciting a minor, possession of child exploitation material and distributing child exploitation material:

The following suspects were arrested on suspicion of soliciting a minor, arranging to meet with the intent to engage in lewd sex acts with a minor and possession of a firearm:

Authorities reminded parents to monitor their children’s online activity, social media/gaming platforms and who they are communicating with on the different online platforms. Anyone with questions about this operation can contact Riverside County Sheriff’s Sgt. Jose Tijerina or Sgt. Robert Menchaca of the RCAHT task force at 951-955-1700.

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

“The predator starts an online conversation with the undercover task force members and solicits a sexual conversation with someone the predator believes is a minor.”

How do these investigators get lucky enough for someone to randomly contact them out of the hundreds of million of minors that are on Facebook and other social media sites? Are they creating profiles that are just short of being CP to entice people?

I met a severely brain damaged guy in county jail busted on one these and he let me go over the discovery. She did state at some point that she was underage, but he was chatting with dozens of ladies online simultaneously and didn’t catch it. There was no sex talk in the transcript. She would initiate conversation on subsequent days. Anyway, she eventually invited him over for “a party”. When he got over there, he saw no other vehicles or suggestions of a party, got suspicious and decided to leave. They stopped his vehicle on the street, brought him back, and dragged him inside. After I got out, I found the video on YT. It just shows the cops dragging him in to talk to J.H. which pretty much verified what he told me. Unfortunately, they got him to plead guilty with a few weeks time served rather than wait up to a year for a trial. He took the plea and I actually met him again on the street. He said his life was ruined, he lost his disability, was living on the streets, and couldn’t get a job. At the time that county was notorious for arresting S.O.s for failure to register if you were homeless and didn’t have a “real” address.

@Whatever: A lot of the people arrested for these stings appear to have disabilities. There’s a To Catch A Predator video on YouTube, I believe, where the “predator” has a severe developmental spine disorder and uses two canes to sort of hobble around. Does anyone think there is a real threat of a teenage girl rushing to lose her virginity to this guy after he wooed her for 5 minutes? I believe there was a New York Times piece a few years ago about how many CP and sting arrestees and SOs in general are young men with autism diagnoses (I believe Christina Hoff Sommers has written about this as well). This is all
especially relevant regarding stings, where, presumably, the state is seeking to intervene between “vulnerable teens” (typically girls) and sweet-talking lotharios who will convince them to engage in criminal sexual activity. On the sites where these stings happen, there are often hundreds of men for every female. Is there any meaningful chance of actual sexual activity between the few teens who might use these sites and the often socially awkward, disabled, or generally charmless and clueless men caught in these stings? Does anyone really think the way to protect the virtue of impressionable young women is to go after autistic men with spina bifida?

literally nobody:
You are absolutely right. Many of these guys are autistic or lower functioning. Just ask Professor Dubin at University of Detroit or read Tony Attwood’s book on autism and sex crimes.

@literally nobody

So, having a disability should negate the crime that he/she has committed?

I have Aspergers; which is a high functioning form of Autism. I may not be the greatest writer; but I’m not afraid to speak my mind. Personally I rather be an Aspie than a arrogant harasser holier than thou azzhat any day!!

Thx for speaking out Brandon and sharing here , plz plan on listening and engauging in Aex G’s groups once a month, you are welcome to attend, enmail Gettinger on groups here. You might of even attended a phone mtg!

Trust me it wasn’t easy, so many on here are just as judgmental as the rest of society; yet hide behind their keyboards.

Professor Dubin at U of D has a son with Aperger’s who is or was on the registry. He knows a lot about the issue. Also, check out

By using the word “predator” this is probably defamation, and because authorities use it, it has a legal definition. Since these people have not been convicted for the sting, the term cannot apply.

Panning for money.

Good Lord, when are they going to stop these BS stings?? How can this crap be legal??
This is nothing more than “child protection theater”.
No actual children were involved…. nor even at risk.
And who is really safer now? The taxpaying citizens who they’ve just dragged through the media mud?? The public gets to snicker and point at the naughty men, do they feel superior? Pathetic. 😒


This is no different than Bait Car…if people would stop falling prey to the stings, they’d stop doing them.

Because there was not a real child involved doesn’t make the suspect any less dangerous. Don’t you think that if they were caught on a sting, there’s a slight chance that either they’ve done it before or they would do it again, but with a real person that next time around?

The mere fact that people on this forum condone criminal activity is perplexing. The same was being done in that post about the youtube guy.

It’s criminals such as these that continue to instill fear in society, thus making it more difficult for changes to be made in favor of registrants.

On second thought, Eagle, perhaps I’m looking at this all wrong! 😳
This adds another 25 people to the California Registry! Maybe law enforcement should be doing MORE of these stings! In no time at all, we’ll have half a million* people on the Registry!
And, with those numbers, a lot more voting power!

*Not to mention the ripple effect that will include their family and friends supporting the elimination of the Registry.

Here is a registry most everyone can understand

Support The National Registry of Exonerations

25,000 years served for wrongful convictions.

Look in the mirror Because society feels the same about you

Society, in general, feels that all registrants are animals, I’m sure. Which only adds to my point that the people getting caught in these stings are just making it more difficult for registrants to shake the stigma.

Society hasn’t made me feel like an animal. I’ve had conflicts, but don’t blame the registry. It does make for many dead ends though and it could be my fault for not plowing through them.

Society and the Hit Lists haven’t made me feel like an animal either. In fact, I’ve discovered that I’m one of the most fair, moral people around.

The Hit Lists have made me feel though that at least 200+ million people living in America are animals. Really quite a pathetic bunch of enemies. People from other countries are not my enemies. My enemies live right here.

Society hasn’t made me either. Ive never been listed, fortunately, so I’ve flown under the radar. I was more speaking in general terms, where society looks at registrants as monsters. It’s the reason every politician goes after the registrant laws because of the easy backing they’ll receive from their constituents.

@Eagle one. I disagree completely and I was not caught in a sting. If the person in a sting was seeking out underaged persons that’s one thing and if that was what was being done I would agree more with you. That isn’t what is happening. Instead, people who are caught in these stings are seeking relationships with other adults and often believe that they are talking with another adult until LE switches things up and then often even plays mind games to still arrange a meeting. People have even been known to cut off the contact with the LE decoy only to have LE to make multiple attempts to re-contact. LE tries to trick people who would otherwise have stayed clear of underaged persons into a meeting so they can arrest them. To use your bait car analogy it would be more like if on bait car they swapped your own car from where you parked it with a car of the same make and model a few years newer but keyed the same so you decide to hop in and drive it anyway Then they arrested you for stealing it.

It’s not the way you say it is. The courts would never convict someone of the crime if law enforcement was really portraying themselves to be adults and lured someone into carrying on with them. Carrying on with an adult is not a crime. If you’ve ever read the transcripts of any of those stings, the decoy always portrays themselves as a minor child. They make sure the age is noted, which is necessary in order to establish the crime. The other person them has the choice whether to carry on or not. Any normal person would stop the conversation upon hearing the age, but the people caught on those stings continue to carry on and attempt to meet up with the minor, despite being told the decoy is 13 or 12 or whatever age is being portrayed. You can argue against that all you want, but no crime would have been committed if they were told the decoy were an adult.

Also, your analogy is completely ridiculous. Swapping out someone’s car to the point of them thinking it’s actually theirs, would have no MO for being a crime. What are the elements to the crime? Them getting into a car that you made them believe was theirs and even went as far as keying it so that their key opened it up and started it up? Yeah, I’d like to see a court of law convict on that.

Xvairer Von Erck claimed his hard drive crashed and he could not produce it at Dr. Wolin’s trial because he tossed it. How can you possibly know what was on it and how chats actually started and if they started in adult forum, or at forums the prohibited 12 or 13 year-olds?

Perverted Justice chief told to explain how he lost files in trial of East Bay doctor

Von Erck, who calls members of his group “evil vigilantes,” testified that the chats were saved on his home computer hard drive. But after a judge late last year ordered that mirror images of the hard drive be turned over to defense attorneys, Von Erck told prosecutors his hard drive had crashed in February 2007 and the data was irretrievably lost.

But, he said, he had copied the chat logs to a portable hard drive before the crash.

Von Erck told prosecutors he had a friend, a technician at Radio Shack, examine the hard drive, prosecutor Brian Staebell said, and that the friend determined it was beyond repair.

Wolin’s defense attorney, Blair Berk of Los Angeles, characterizes Von Erck’s explanation as “highly suspicious.”

“To date, no legally sufficient evidence of Mr. Von Erck’s claim has been presented to this court,” Judge Arthur Andy Wick wrote in an order made public this week.

? What am I supposed to be gathering from that article?

Sometimes I’ll comment for other readers who may be open to different viewpoints. In this case, the sting evidence obviously could not be trusted, so be skeptical readers!

@Eagle One,

You need to get your head out of the sand on this one. The courts absolutely do convict in exactly the situation where the decoy was first posing as an adult and then a child and they absolutely do try and continue contact often several times after contact is ended because the person said they are a minor. In fact, they couldn’t hardly run their stings without first posing as an adult as the dating sites they use don’t allow minors to use them. If the decoy was a minor from the beginning I wouldn’t defend and I won’t. When LE resorts to sneaky tricks where it’s borderline entrapment I can’t agree with that approach because you are convicting people who committed a crime because the LE convinced them to do so.

My head’s in the sand, yet you’re the one who thinks it’s ok for someone to not take responsibility for their own actions?

you are convicting people who committed a crime because the LE convinced them to do so.”

That is nonsense. People have choices. Nobody has forcefully made one of these people drive to a location to meet up with someone.

If someone repeatedly told you to rob a bank, would you finally give in because they convinced you to do so? You’ll likely say no, but if you did end up robbing the bank, are you then excused because someone convinced you to do it?

As for your assertion that the courts have convicted people based on the lies and trickery you mention, please provide some links to the cases you’re referring to. If there are actually cases where people are being tricked into thinking they’re meeting up with adults, but then are convicted of attempted lewd acts with a minor, I’d genuinely like to see it.

Stings don’t just involve dating sites. They also involve chat rooms. There are a lot of chat rooms that don’t limit you based on age. So, not always is someone lying about their age to sign up. However, in your scenario, the decoy uses an adult age to sign up for an adult site, but then once entered into conversation with someone, mentions that they’re actually underage. That’s the point in which the adult should cut it off. There is no longer a defense to claiming you thought they were an adult because they’re on an adult site.

Also, from cases that I’ve seen, the argument isn’t that they thought they were adults, but more so, they didn’t have any intention of doing anything sexual with the child. Someone brought up a case from the old show To Catch a Predator. Just watch a few of those episodes and you’ll see, they always say they were aware of the person being a minor, but that they were only meeting up with innocent intentions.

Seems you’re the one with your head in the sand here…

@Eagle One,

You are completely missing my point. If LE/decoy is being straightforward and portrays themselves as a minor right away and the person goes along with it and gets caught they should be caught. LE often doesn’t do this and it’s not just with sex crimes it’s every crime. They play dirty to get convictions because LE is big business. They don’t always play dirty when the crime is obvious and easy to charge but when it’s not and they need to get charges that stick to help their business they will often do this. Your head is in the sand because you don’t believe LE does this when they do these predator stings. You trust LE too much. I don’t trust LE and know two people personally that have done plea deals when LE played dirty on this type of sting. We’re these people wrong, absolutely but when LE decoy keeps pestering you after you cut the contact off to still meet up you are trying to convince someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t have committed and that’s what happened to the two people I know both by the same police department in WI. They took a plea deal because they were offered 90 days in jail and 5 yr probation charged under a lesser misdemeanor offense with lifetime registration as opposed to something like 10-15 in the prison if they lost in the jury trial where the jury might be skeptical of the entrapment defense.

At this point, we will just need to agree to disagree. And I don’t believe my head is in the sand. I’ve seen too many of these stings where the perpetrator admits to thinking that they were meeting up with a minor, yet did so anyway. Their arguments are usually that they knew the age, but weren’t meeting up to do anything wrong with them.

It’s not that I trust law enforcement. Despite knowing that there are flaws in our system, I do generally believe that our system works for the most part. Judges aren’t always fans of law enforcement and neither are prosecutors. So, I would think that if the lying and trickery that you speak of were a common tactic by law enforcement, that it would eventually be brought out. There are many stings that go on, so it’s not like it’s a rare thing.

This is not to say that I don’t believe that unscrupulous activity ever happens by law enforcement. There are bad seeds in every profession. I just don’t believe it’s a common tactic, as you may be suggesting.

What causes me to overlook the pressure tactics and harrassment that you speak about, is that if an adult has no interest in a child, then why would any amount of pressure convince them to act out on something they have no interest in?

But as I said, we probably just need to agree to disagree, as it’s obvious we see it differently.

“Because there was not a real child involved doesn’t make the suspect any less dangerous.”

So if someone raped a “real child” he met online, you would be just as happy with the bust?

What does your question even mean? What does a child being raped have to do with someone attempting to meet up with a decoy portraying themselves as a minor?

I was responding to this comment of yours:

“Because there was not a real child involved doesn’t make the suspect any less dangerous.”

My point was someone that does rape is far more dangerous by legal definition. There is almost no equating the two, non contact v rape. Non contact is less dangerous than rape. Some rape victims may resent the equation because it minimizes.

You misunderstood my comment. Nowhere did I equate an actual rape to attempting to meeting someone. I was saying that just because it was a decoy doesnt make him any less dangerous than if it were a real child. His intentions were to meet up with a minor. The decoy has no bearing on his dangerousness.

I know nothing at all about the evidence in these 25 cases and cannot say with any certainty what happened. Nor can I say if the catch thought the “child” was real instead of a full grown adult. That’s why the Fifth Amendment is so important. Given Von Erch’s shenanigans, I couldn’t be sure even if I read the chat transcripts since key pieces of evidence could disappear. Fortunately, someone who read a news article is not permitted to pronounce the sentence and carry it out. There may be some wisdom in that.

You’re basing your skepticism on a vigilante group who took part in their own stings for a television show of which was 15 years ago. They lacked proper training, obviously.

However, the gentleman from your article, despite the missing transcripts, went on to take a plea deal for a felony, attempted lewd conduct charge.

Threatened with years and years in prison or taking a plea deal for just about time served, that looks like extortion.

I didn’t see anyone claim here LE is always wrong, but Perverted Justice was training the police on how to conduct stings, and many departments accepted the training. Funny how Perverted Justice is innocent until proven guilty. If the “gentleman” had taken it to trial, he likely would have won, like the only person in that sting who went to trial instead of pleading guilty.

Watsonville man acquitted of charges resulting from Petaluma sex sting on Dateline”s ”To Catch a Predator”

His mother, Deborah Roisman of Watsonville, shouted, “Woo woo!” as Judge Arthur Wick ordered the case thrown out after six days of trial testimony, and later had harsh words for those involved in the TV show that implicated her son.
She said she and her pediatrician husband spent more than $100,000 defending their son. She vowed to sue NBC producers and called the sting a “huge waste” of tax money.
“They made my son”s life a living hell for five years,” she said.

In reaching his decision, Wick found prosecutors had not proven Roisman had “specific intent” to commit the crime – attempting lewd acts with a child under age 14.

He also criticized the tactics used by Dateline”s partner, online watchdog Perverted Justice, whom he suggested lacked credibility and engaged in entrapment.

“The axiom, ”Actions speak louder than words,” clearly does not apply in this case,” Wick said from the bench.

Wick stopped the trial and issued the verdict without the defense team presenting its case and before consideration by the jury.

“This case is the poster child for the abuse in this program,” Turer said after the acquittal. “They took everything away from this kid just to make a TV show.”

I’m aware of the acquittal. I’m also aware that every other case in that sting resulted in a conviction. I’m unable to find the actual chat logs for any of the cases from that sting so there’s no way to know how much each suspect incriminated themselves.

With regards to the acquittal, I wouldn’t exactly use that as a barometer for stating that the doctor, or any of the others for that matter, would’ve “likely won” had they taken their cases to trial. In fact, the only thing I could find on it, stated that most of the cases resulted in plea deals, which would suggest there were others who also went to trial. We already know every other case except for the one resulted in a conviction, so there’s no reason at all to believe it “would be likely” that the doctor would’ve won had he went to trial.

I will also say that despite the one being acquitted, his actions are still quite creepy and sick and although not able to be proven, sure seemed questionable. He was 26 and admitted to speaking to someone he thought was 13. He drove 110 miles on a bus to go see her. He said he wanted to cuddle and watch movies with her. He asked her what the oldest person she had had sex with was. He told her he wanted to cut up fruit and the two of them eat it off of each other. He also, upon arriving at the house and went to the backyard, removed his shirt. What 26 year old is going to do and say all of that to a 13 year old? Sure looks like he intended on doing more than cuddling, which in and of itself is quite creepy given their age differences.

Threatened with years and years in prison or taking a plea deal for just about time served, that looks like extortion.”

It wasn’t just a plea deal for “just about time served.” He was also given the mandate to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, as well as, his physicians license remaining suspended. (Probably for the rest of his life)

People fight in court all the time for crimes they didn’t commit, even when facing long sentences. Yet, you’re telling me that in this instance, the doctor would just take a plea because he was being threatened with years and years in prison? If the guy was innocent, as you are suggesting, then he could have gone to trial just like the one guy did who was acquitted. He had his career to lose by taking a plea. 29 cases, only one acquittal. Looks to me like it’s pretty clear what most of those people who are caught in those stings are looking to do.

I get it. Even when an impartial judge throws out a case because the decoy (the leader of Perverted Justice) “lacked credibility and engaged in entrapment” the catch is guilty and the sting was flawless. Even if the prosecution failed to prove its case, there was enough proof to prove it despite the fact the judge threw it out without the defendant putting on a defense. It was that bad.

I get it. Confirmation bias at its peak and that can never become a real conversation.

Thanks for giving me the context to state what Perverted Justice was really all about. Bet hardly anyone knows.

You happen to know Von Erck’s address? I’ve seen requests for it to be published as a matter of public record.

There was no confirmation bias at all in my post. You should really learn what it means before accusing someone of it. I simply stated the information that’s available as having taken place in that case. You, however, choose to skip over it. Yet, I’m the one avoiding a real conversation?

I never once said the sting was flawless. In fact, I don’t think stings should be done by vigilante groups. They’re not trained for that type of thing, nor is it their job to police the streets.

I also acknowledged that he was acquitted because they were unable to prove his intentions. I don’t fault the Judge or the court one bit for that decision. If the elements of the crime were not there, then so be it. But, as an outsider looking in, his actions were creepy as hell. I would suspect that the average person would also find his actions to be creepy/sick/inappropriate, as well.

Maybe instead of twisting my words, perhaps you can actually respond to my post and answer how any of his actions don’t make you question him, as well? Do you find it normal for a 26 year old to want to cuddle with a 13 year old? Or to eat fruit off of her body? Or to ride a bus 110 miles to meet with her? Why did he remove his shirt upon arriving there? Do all of those actions really not peak your curiosity?

Last edited 4 months ago by Eagle one

The confirmation bias comes in when you say he is creepy 15 years later and try to keep litigating his actions despite the facts (see the Wikipedia link). “Do you” is present tense. You may (or maybe you don’t) accept the judges decision, but you don’t accept actual innocence like the judge did, despite 6 days of trial testimony that informed the judge but you are ignorant of. That is your right. But being creepy isn’t criminal according to Judge Wick. If it is not criminal, why litigate it here? Why accuse him in the present for actions 15 years ago. Are you going to claim these kinds of accusations hashed over and over again don’t taint the public opinion you claim to be so concerned about? Of course they do, and I think you are doing it intentionally. I don’t think it is relevant if I, or anyone else, thinks he was creepy back then. Case closed, but the stings go on.

Perverted Justice taught me not to trust them and hopefully more citizens will become skeptical after learning what they did not see on “To Catch a Predator.” There is a lot more to learn. The stings are so prevalent they do not need my support, but the constitution does need the support of everyone.

Again, you’re twisting my words. You’re consistent with that, in order to fit your narrative.

Faulting me for speaking in the present tense is reaching…you posted a 15 year old case and I commented about it. If you didn’t want it being critiqued, then you shouldn’t have posted it. If I misspoke in the present versus the past, it’s because it was being discussed at this moment. How you say that’s confirmation bias is beyond me.

You do understand that just because there wasn’t evidence to prove something, that it doesn’t necessarily mean someone is innocent, do you not? You can’t say that the judge “accepted actual innocence”. The judge made his decision based on the evidence, or lack thereof. That is not equivalent to him believing he’s innocent. I’m sure you’ve seen cases in your lifetime where people have been let off due to a lack of evidence when it actually appears that the suspect is guilty of the crime. A lack of evidence does not equate to being innocent, despite what you say.

This will be my last response to you, since you are the one who’s actually avoiding a real conversation, as you claim I was doing. I respond to all of your points, where as you continue to avoid answering certain questions that I’ve posed to you.

It’s one thing to not trust police lead stings based on the actions of the police, but to say you don’t trust them based on the stings lead by a vigilante group is humorous. You do realize those vigilante groups lack the proper training, correct? They also don’t have to abide by the same rules as law enforcement. Private citizens have more leeway to do things that law enforcement cannot. Enjoy hating on stings and continuing to believe those caught up in them are victims…looks like you’ll continue being disappointed because it doesn’t look like stings are ending anytime soon.

The Nazi Census: Identification and Control in the Third Reich

A controversial book when originally published in Germany, The Nazi Census documents the origins of the census in modern Germany, along with the parallel development of machines that helped first collect data on Germans, then specifically Jews. The authors begin by examining the history of statistical technology in Germany, from the Hollerith machine in the 1890s through the development and licensing of IBM punch-card technology. From its general use in collecting data on all German people, the methods employed by the Nazis developed into compulsory registration to establish information on individuals’ racial designation. The authors argue that this information was collected first because of demands based on questions of security and the tracking of racial groups, including Jews and Gypsies. disastrous results for these and other peoples. Ultimately, as the authors point out in this short, rigorously researched book, the system the Nazis employed to track, gather information, and control populations initiated the modern system of citizen registration. Aly and Roth argue that what led to the devastating effects of the Nazi census was the ends to which they put their data, not their means. In short, it is the employment of normal methods of collection that lies at the heart of the problem, a problem worth examining historically as it applies to the Nazi regime, but also to the way contemporary methods of classification and control still affect the modern world.


I just read part of that ebook and noticed this:
— —
“…and other Europeans who were murdered — and murdered not just in a chaotic split second as casualities of war but in a grotesque and protracted twelve-year campaign of highly organized humiliation, dehumanization, and then ultimately extermination?”
— —
Highly organized humiliation and dehumanization sure does seem to describe our situation.

Extermination is already in progress even if not accepted yet 100%. The comments in news articles of registrant murders point to more widespread acceptance and more radicalization of lone wolfs and terrorist cells. That had to be the way it progressed in Nazi Germany as well.

The term blood libel refers to the false allegation that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish, usually Christian children, for ritual purposes. The Nazis made effective use of the blood libel to demonize Jews, with Julius Steicher’s newspaper Der Stürmer making frequent use of ritual murder imagery in its antisemitic propaganda.”

Here’s looking at you, Q.

“Again, you’re twisting my words. You’re consistent with that, in order to fit your narrative.
Faulting me for speaking in the present tense is reaching…you posted a 15 year old case and I commented about it. If you didn’t want it being critiqued, then you shouldn’t have posted it. If I misspoke in the present versus the past, it’s because it was being discussed at this moment. How you say that’s confirmation bias is beyond me.”

Even if you did’nt bring up the 15 year old case first, that doesn’t give you right to say someone’s actions from 15 years ago is creepy in the present when no charges were brought 15 years back without a valid accusation of confirmation bias. You admit you haven’t seen the transcript. If the prosecution or judge is dropping the case, it’s for the reason that they thought they couldn’t prove it. Legal defenses for the accused are very important to most people in America.

I’m sure you’ve seen cases in your lifetime where people have been let off due to a lack of evidence when it actually appears that the suspect is guilty of the crime. A lack of evidence does not equate to being innocent, despite what you say.”

To a supporter of vigilante sting operations, I would question your judgement of what looks creepy and not assume everyone is guilty just because it fits within your biased outlook.

“This will be my last response to you, since you are the one who’s actually avoiding a real “

I’m a different person if it matters.

“conversation, as you claim I was doing. I respond to all of your points, where as you continue to avoid answering certain questions that I’ve posed to you.”

You respond to only some of his points but even the ones you respond to the logic in your responses is bad. For example, you said the sex crimes done by non registrants hurt the reputation of registrants and are responsible for registry laws. That’s not true. Crimes done by non registrants and not done by registrants in large part is what enables certain statistics that help the cause. The reason many registrants might be against the entrapment of others is because it’s just wrong to do that to someone who is innocent. But one question, if you want sex crime to stop so crimes dwindle, then why support questionable sting operations that lowers the bar for what constitutes a prosecutable crime. Even in Bait Car, the person has to physically see a car, not be told about a car and then go to where someone told you the car is. Then, the person has to get into the car, That’s equivalent to the person meeting and hugging a real minor. Then they start up the car. That’s equivalent to the person in the sex sting actually having sex with a real minor, Bait Car is just one example of any other stings which all have a higher standard for prosecution than these vigilante sex stings.

Even more similar, the decoy would have to be in the car and waving the catch inside. “Hurry, drive off before my parents get home,” the decoy, “eager for sex” would say. No kidding. Chris said the decoy chatted like a normal 13-year-old “eager for sex.”


Shift change? No, I’m not calling you(s) a troll.

Police and laws doing the work of the parents and parenting.

Nothing new here in the good ol US of A.

They should stop for a moment and realize that every time they announce these stupid sting operations, the real criminals are just going to lay low for a while or move to a different platform and learn from this. The only people that get busted or one timers that , yes, need to be slapped for their actions. But for the most part are in no way predators.
It would be interesting to see how many have had previous related charges/ convictions or better yet have had any issues or complaints related to this. I bet even that number is crazy low.
Meanwhile , the “30 previous arrests” gangsters that are beating on women at gas stations and killing kids in drive by shootings laugh as they are released to a 1/2 way house yet again.

@eric o

You’re probably correct in that most of them probably don’t have similar priors. It sometimes takes multiple offenses before someone is caught. However, I’m of the belief that if someone’s going to carry on with a minor and attempt to meet up with them, that they should actually be charged with a crime. I realize these are stings and there isn’t a real minor involved, but the suspects actions were done while believing they were carrying on with an actual minor. Whether one agrees with the law or not, it is in fact a crime and stings are thus far allowed.

Because there are other crimes going on in the world, doesnt mean law enforcement should just stop and focus on one are only. They have different task forces for different areas of crimes…you just dont normally hear about what the other ones are doing because it doesnt draw the attention that sex offenses do.

So if a man is driving to a bank to rob it, but decides on the way that he won’t carry through with it, then is stopped by police before he gets there, does he get charged with attempt? The actual crime? What? Because registrants don’t get the benefit of the doubt. I know I didn’t. My C.P. ( still debatable ) Was located in the trash of a hard drive by a computer cleaning service. If I knew it was there, would I have allowed them to even go near it? Yet no weight was given to this by D.A. ( Fortunately the judge did see the difference ).
“Suspected” covers to much grey for me. Sorry. But I do agree with you that if the crime is carried out, than the gloves are off.

Your analogy doesn’t equate. You’re attempting to compare someone who actually goes to a destination to meet up with a minor child with someone who thinks twice and never goes to the bank he wanted to rob.

The better analogy would be if the person attempting to meet up with the child never goes to the destination, as you say about the would-be bank robber.

CP was found in the trash on your machine by the cleaning service…in your office? Wow. For years I’ve required that end-users lock their workstations when they step away from their desks and push out policies wherever I can to enforce this. Among my worries was that the cleaning crew, who frequently brought their kids to work, would help themselves or plop a kid down in front of a PC to play games or surf the web to pass the time. I worried the kid would wreak havoc on the network, but it never once crossed my mind someone on the cleaning crew would plant CP or look for something juicy. Wow.

Pro Tip: Lock your machines, people! Make sure your drives are encrypted, create a strong password and make sure the screen locks if the screensaver kicks in or machine sleeps.
Also, leverage Remote Wipe capabilities available from MS and Apple. If your computer becomes lost or stolen you can nuke it from afar the next time it connects to the Internet.

Its 2021 how do people still get cought up in these sting operation it’s kinda hard to have sympathy for them.
Riverside county law enforcement agencies did a good job getting these people off the streets in my opinion

Good luck 😇

#1 Sympathy is irrelevant.
#2 Why should your measure of sympathy matter to us?
#3 Unprintable.

@Aero 1

Agreed…and I find it quite odd that so many people on this forum would actually defend the suspects. Those are the exact types of crimes that are making it worse on registrants and harming chances of society changing their views on the matter.

Again I disagree. These crimes aren’t making it worse on registrants. It is how the registry piles so many of the offenses into one category that makes it difficult. Notice in other crime related reporting that the offense is often described as a misdemeanor or felony, yet in sex offenses that is often left out. Society understands the difference between the two, which is again why they don’t report it. I am not defending their action, but don’t want “ suspected” offenses to get this kind of treatment.

What I mean by “making it worse on registrants” is that it only supports what society believes with sex offenders/registrants. In their minds, anyone having to do with sex offender, are all animals and should be crucified. The more child related crimes they hear about, the more they believe we’re all animals.

I agree that painting everyone’s crimes with the same brush is a major issue, but that’s because those of us who have experienced being on the registry, understand the burdens and get to all be lumped together under one umbrella, regardless of the degrees of our crimes.

This has nothing to do with PFRs. I do get that LE [ACSOL moderators notes: define your uncommon acronyms the first time you use them in a comment, or the comment will be deleted. Not everyone knows what PFR and LE means.] loves to conflate all sex crimes with Registration and try to confuse the mob into believing they are somehow related. But they aren’t.

How is this “harming chances of society changing their views on the matter”? Because sex crimes keep happening? Because they keep happening in spite of the magic Hit Lists? Perhaps you should think a bit.

Or let me guess, you LE people fantasize that if these people had been Registered then you would have been “monitoring” them and this wouldn’t happen? Some other fantasy?

PFR means person forced to register, because we despise the term “sex offender” and LE means law enforcement.

Thanks for the assist!

For me though, I like PFR because it is factual and accurate. I don’t necessarily “despise” “sex offender”. I don’t like it because it is inaccurate and hateful, has been co-opted by our idiot criminal regimes as a weapon of war and propaganda, and it just really embodies the abject and thorough idiocy of the Hit Lists. When I hear the phrase I can’t help but hear a moron redneck saying it (I can say that because my family was redneck (some still are!)).

I agree Will Allen , big time LE fantasy , like they can go buy a little magic kit, I think all cops that are found doing wrong they need to be on a list , because they are at least accountable to the people in their job capacity , most PFR’s are done with their time and parole , therefor PFR’s should not be accountable as long as they are not harming anyone , the Magic is pure BS that LE use as a sales pitch , corrupted power sales

First of all, I’m not a “LE person” as you guessed. You don’t know me or anything about me. I’m simply someone who fell victim to the one size fits all registry that exists. And unlike many people I see comment on this site, I don’t automatically dismiss all things law enforcement, simply because I feel I’ve been wronged by the registry. I still believe that crime is crime and when someone commits and illegal act, they should be prosecuted accordingly.

It does have to do with registrants, however, in an indirect way. Any sex crimes being committed have a negative reflection upon current registrants. It proves, in society’s minds, that sex offenders are dangerous and need to be monitored. It’s the “frightening and high re-offense rate” that continues to be recited throughout the courts. Media makes sex crimes appear to be rampant and society, in general, has taken fight against it.

If you don’t agree, all good…but don’t presume that I’m a law enforcement fan because I don’t share in your hate for the system.

I did not “guess” you are an “LE person” by knowing you or anything about you. I said that because of your actions – what you said. Regardless, it wasn’t meant to be a scientific assessment. That was my feeling. There are some people on here that are such Hit List fans that I have very often wondered if they are LE or another type of big government dependent employee.

Anyway, you might be right about sex crimes having a negative reflection on PFRs. That is exactly the opposite of what should happen, but it might be accurate. I could see if sex crimes just kept increasing and increasing and were growing ever out of control, that the general, dumb mob of people living in America would think “we” should be doing something/anything to/about PFRs. But in reality, it would just be showing that the Hit Lists aren’t preventing sex crimes.

I don’t really like that I must hate LE and wish ill upon them always. But they’ve proven to me that it should initially always be assumed that they are liars and criminals. If one or two of them prove they aren’t, great. That doesn’t really compensate for the rest of them. It also can’t cure the fact that they are the agents of the criminal regimes that have Hit Lists. As long as Hit Lists exist, I’m going to make their work and lives more difficult.

And yes, for sure, I do not trust a single word they say about their “stings”.

I appreciate your honest response. No, I’m not LE…in fact, I was a registrant, as well…dating back to well before it was ever a public list. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a COR and be freed of the burden.

With that said, it’s not that I support LE or believe they are perfect. It’s more so that cases like this anger me. I feel that the people caught up in those stings should know better. They’re walking right into the trap. As mentioned already, I feel it makes it more difficult on registrants, as an after effect. So, in my mind, with each and every person who is caught, it just tightens the noose on registrants. And while I no longer have to register in my home state, I’m not allowed to move freely to another state without them making me register all over again. So, all of this still effects me and pisses me off. If the crimes would just dwindle down, the whole registry could die off over time.

I understand the lack of trust and the anger towards LE. I’ve encountered my fair share of corrupt officers. I just choose to believe those are the minority of the bunch and hope the rest aren’t like that.

There’s this thing called innocent until proven guilty, and it requires defending those not convicted. Look it up.

I never liked the term “innocent UNTIL proven guilty.” It should be “innocent UNLESS proven guilty”, because when you use the word “until” it implies that once charged with a crime, the person WILL be found guilty, and that is not always the case.

Never thought of it that way and I will adopt you phrase.

On second thought, given all the wrongful convictions, UNTIL or UNLESS seem to close the door on questioning the validity of an arrest or a conviction. I believe that door should always be open, at least a crack.

Where does it say that I’m required to defend someone who’s not convicted? Since you say it can be looked up, please reference where it says I’m required to defend them. With that said, are you saying that when some or all of those people from this sting are convicted, you’ll then stop defending their actions? Afterall, at that point, they’d have been deemed guilty. Something tells me you’ll still defend their actions, even at that point.

Perhaps a better question is “Do you think guilty until proven innocent should be the law of the land?”

Not at all. I think everyone deserves their day in court and evidence should be presented to prove someone guilty of a crime.

However, that doesn’t preclude me from having an opinion on what I think happened. I don’t know if any single person in this latest sting is innocent or guilty. But, I do think that if it walks like a duck and acts like a duck, then it’s likely a duck.

I’ve said it in another response, but I’ll repeat it so you understand where I’m coming from. Based on what I’ve seen with these stings, law enforcement establishes elements that are necessary to charge someone with a crime. One of those elements is portraying themselves to be a minor so that they can charge the suspect with a crime against a child. So, in my mind, if someone’s willing to continue on with what they think is a child, then they deserve what they get.

My main objection to this, though, is how I see so many people automatically dismiss the charges simply because they hate the system. Or because they think since it wasn’t really a child and only a decoy, then no crime should exist.

“My main objection to this, though, is how I see so many people automatically dismiss the charges…”

Now we’re getting somewhere. How many people is that, exactly? Did someone here say all the charges should be dropped? How many people could have said that but didn’t? I’m trying to get to the bottom of how realistic it could be that the charges will be dismissed just because “so many people” want them to be. There is a difference between trusting the system and wanting to protect children. Many of us here have children or have child relatives we want to protect. It is not an either/or and it is possible to want a trustworthy system for when they grow up.

Operation publicity for the ignorant masses who can’t think for themselves and have no idea how to be a parent. A list and stings aren’t going to keep your kid safe, that’s your job to protect them.

Yep. The exact people who are hysterically screaming about “sex offenders”, love the Hit Lists, and love these “stings” are always the worst parents imaginable. They are exactly the parents who are not protecting their children. From what I’ve personally seen in person, that is nearly always the case. Low-lifes support the Hit Lists. Good, responsible parents don’t have any need for any lists from incompetent, lying big government. Capable people protect their families.

The term predator should only be used for repeat offenders! I doubt this is the 1st time any of these men have been online doing this. This might be the 1st time they got caught? Anyone online doing this today with the media attention out there has issues. Case and point. I’m not sure what to say


Agreed that there’s a good chance that these people arent doing this for the first time and perhaps just hadn’t got caught up until now. Regardless, imo, they have issues and deserve to be tried for their actions. It’s not normal to try and carry on with kids. And from what I understand, most of these stings use very young ages, not borderline ages.

Agreed 🥶

Thats how I look at cops when when 1 or more beat some poor person to death , can’t be the first they either did or took part in covering up , “Team ” and they have been beating PFR’s to death with your thought pattern forever , even when they have zero proof , one thing can be said with certainty , is that finger pointing nosy ass mites have far more skeletons in their closet than the average PFR that took a Plea deal , that the clown gov’t can’t even keep their end of said Deal , heck no ! they even developed this registry so PFR’s can be stalked , and beaten on the public square to satisfy the cold unthinking public , there is your unicorn predators the ones the registry creates , not the PFR’s , its the big LE cult , its the witch hunter , its the judge that has had a secert for years , its the guys spray painting your car/house at night thats been hanging out with the single women on the block and she has kids , its that want a be tough guy pointing his finger everyday at some poor old disabled dude on the registry , its the guy out peaking in PFR windows saying he is keeping tabs for the safety of man kind , its the guy that kicks in the door of a PFR and his family and kills them with a hammer , I wonder how many of these unicorn’s were the allusive finger pointing unicorn , Monster around every corner , I don’t trust anyone but I mind my own biz and don’t stand around looking for a registry I can look everyone up thinking I am on some high road , the High road that everyone has been smelling forever

Here we are again discussing the people’s unfettered use of the database.
Here again we see how the people and their children are exploited, even by those pretending to be children with the aid of the database driven infrastructure. Much of the cyber exploitation was not possible before its arrival, now exploitation goes on endlessly exacerbated via the database. The Sex Offender Registry regime paved the way! If man can enslave man to database there can be no limit to its potential use good or bad. Who protects human sovereignty from the database machine?


Serious question, how does this have anything to do with a database? I havent seen anything that suggests the undercover operations are seeking registrants and then dangling a carrot in front of them with the hope of catching a registrant. They’re going into chat rooms and equally dangling carrots for anyone who will bite.

A social media platforms & networks ( all of them) are in fact a database driven infrastructure. A cell phone, blog and vlog, too is a database driven device. GPS & SBM are also database driven. ALL OF IT in fact is database based. The distinction between each is a matter of iteration in form and function.

Got it…I misunderstood what you were driving at.

Well in General this: article describing the state of national cyber security and a bill to combat the obvious lack thereof. in gov and other important sectors like the Columbia power grid. Obviously somebody’s into over reliance upon the database.

Nobody in their right mind should be chatting with underage kids nowadays. Sex offender info is all over the place. Go chat with a 18 year old. Remember, how often do you get caught the 1st time? These males/females need to wake up

Do you realize that upwards of 30% of new sex crimes are by minors themselves? [ACSOL Moderators note: anyone who claims statistics like this should back them up with links, such as this one that shows it is 20%

Last edited 4 months ago by Ditto

And people who put in links should make sure they work.

Why, yours didn’t?

I am referring to the link by ACSOL moderator, that link leads to “page not found” for me. Maybe it’s my VPN and/or incognito?

Holla at the females! Do they really do this a lot though? I can’t recall even one female offender on To Catch a Predator.

We might have a live one.

TCaP was deeply edited and censored to always make the police look good. A behind-the-scenes documentary would be awesome, funny and enraging. The bloopers and f-ups didn’t even air, so maybe there was a female, maybe not.

One of My favorite shows the look on their faces when they find out it’s a bust is classic lol

Enough with the blanket judgements of people caught in stings. You don’t know the circumstances or situations that caused them to be online in the first place. I don’t like the blanket restrictions on all forced to register, just like I don’t like the blanket judgements on people caught up in stings. We should stand up for all people forced to register regardless of their crime. If we can’t have empathy for others you are no better than the registry supporters.

What caused them to be online? They where obviously looking for kids! These investigators always make sure they know they are underage snd the perp must start doing what they do!

Creating a crime to catch people doing something wrong is the next step towards arresting someone in anticipation of them possibly doing something in the future. The only reason this type of entrapment is not screamed about by the public is that catch all phrase ‘ protect children’.
Any predatory behavior is bad. It is unfortunate that these men feel compelled to act in this way. But why don’t police send a case of whiskey to an alcoholic’s home and then wait for them to get behind the wheel of their car. Or call a thief and tell them where they can find a stack of money, then arrest them when they show up. Enticing someone’s mental or physically weakness is not solving the problem. The police are just so called anxious for these people to maybe do something that they would rather not wait, so out comes the ‘ public safety’ or ‘ keeping children safe’ tag line and all the entrapment and skirting civil rights is forgiven.

Exactly spot on! The underlying weaknesses will remain until they are rectified either through a) arrest, or b) behavior prevention. For instance, for alcohol, drug, (non-sexual) domestic abuse, and other potentially criminal activity (driving under influence, assault) all have organizations that allow for the people to actively take measures to prevent abuse. Only sex offenses are absolutely stigmatized to the point where people who seek out such prevention are treated as badly as those who’ve actually committed real crimes against real victims.

Riverside County tried three time to lure me into sex with a minor when I was on probation.

The first attempt was when I just had gotten my probation transferred to CA from another state. I received provocative images in text from an unknown number that I was not able to trace, even by using White Pages. I did not respond to the text. I did NOT block the number. There was a second attempt, another nearly nude image of a very young woman in a provocative pose. I mentioned this in a now defunct offender forum and one of the other members suggested it was law enforcement. She, YES, she suggested that I change my number and ONLY report the change to my PO, no friends, no family, no one else. She suspected that it was my CA PO and not my originating state PO.

So I did just that. Changed my number and gave it to only my PO. It took almost a month, but BOOM, another photo and text. At my next monthly check in I told him what I had done. He vehemently denied it, even when I told him the chain of events AND showed him the message and call history, which the only contact the phone ever received was from that same number. He pretended to show concern, took my phone to check it for CP, lol, and then copied the number and said he would look into it.

I never received another text EVER and just shy of 20 years later, I have the same number and not only does everyone know it, it comes up sometimes when my name is searched because I used it for business.

So my experience tells me that stings might snare men and women who are actively looking to bang one out with a kid, but that if they think they can get away with it, they will try to lure you first, entrap you and do what they can to get you locked up.

It is that time of year that Police Departments in CA have to justify their budgets or lose funding…following the money is approx the same time every year they have these round-ups.

I agree with Eagle 1. I’m a 17b/expunged with a COR/off the registry and people nowadays should know better. I was searching the Megan’s Law website and I was blown away by how many child related/many no victims where on there (intent/possessing child related material/intent to meet). Many of the individuals looked like dumb kids. I will say this. They intended to meet? What would have happened if they met someone? Or, why did they possess child related photos? I get it. People can be curious, but intent is intent. I don’t agree with the registry, but some of the individuals where repeat offenders and I was also shocked how many women where on the Megan’s law site for child molestation. The scary /sad part is many people aren’t listed/others? Things will change in January. I’ve been blessed to be off/I’m presently re-applying for a professional license. The point is the registry ruins lives, we all hate it and I just wish everyone the best. If this site didn’t exist or had Janice not accepted my call back in 2020, I would still be on the registry. Best wishes. LA is much more friendly to our cause. I would be running ASAP to LA with their liberal DA. I was almost shocked at how easy my request was 🙂

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x