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 June 2021

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

Everyone should watch the documentary on Harvey Milk. The parallels between the early struggles of the LGBTQ community and the ways in which they were thought of, treated by “moral” leaders, and ostracized by their fellow citizens is something that we all can relate to.

America’s Dad, Bill Cosby, just had his conviction overturned in the PASC because he was not supposed to be charged based on a promise from the prior prosecuting atty they wouldn’t prosecute him which the subsequent and actual prosecuting atty did not honor (despite no written evidence of a promise made). What a turn of events!

Money buys you great attorneys. Usually DA’s get away with a lot of things, but without lots of money, good luck getting a judge to hold them accountable. The judge said that he cannot be charged with these same offenses again. But he still has civil suits to deal with where the bar for guilt is lower. But he will likely quietly settle these cases or just make it hard to collect any money like OJ has done.

Good. I don’t think he was guilty anyway. I think those women were only after his money. Why else would a couple dozen women wait until years later to accuse him? That makes no sense to me.
Just my opinion.

Wow. This guy has a heck of a legal team.

James Franco Agrees to $2.2 Million Settlement in Sexual Misconduct Suit

So, it IS about the money. Looks like the “victims” are fine as long as they get paid out…..hhhhmmh.

Bill has a plethora of civil suits lined up but will make payment hard I bet so no one will ever see any money.

I thought the exact same thing when I saw that. Interesting also to me that none of the accusations came out while JF was in his heyday and extremely popular and considered one of the most attractive young actors. Why is it that everyone comes out of the woodwork years later? Is it because now they can garnish money instead of feeding off of his popularity and fame at the time of the alleged “assault”?
There is always a huge chance he is innocent (in my eyes), but I think they know the damage will be done once they make the accusation and he’ll be forced to pay up because the narrative the public is meant to believe is that this man must be some sort of a predator, instead of the attractive “ladies man” which is more likely the case, imho.

I received another notice today that I have been selected for jury duty. Different from previous notices, they wanted me to go online to verify that I met the qualification. So I went to the webpage and scrolled down to the check box that says I have been convicted of a felony, only to discover that a felony conviction was no longer a disqualification for jury duty, unless you are incarcerated, on parole, or on probation. I was thinking, wow, they might actually want me on a jury?
But then I saw the next line on the list of disqualifications: Required to register as a sex offender. So I checked that box and clicked the Submit button. My juror status changed from Active to Ended, so my short time as an active juror was done!

California is ending no questions unemployment july 11th. After that you need to look for a job. That will be easy. I will just put on every application that I am a registrant . Then when they turn me down, I will be able to continue collecting.

This is interesting…..

It was 2003. “Victim” was 17; she was 21. How now, 18 years later, is she considered a high risk offender? What measure/tool do they use? It is my understanding that all the risk assessment tools (such as the Static-99) are only applicable (1) to male offenders and (2) at the time of the offense – not two decades later.
I don’t know the details, but this reads like a Romeo-Juliet …. or rather, a Juliet-Romeo situation.

@David: What an absurd case. In most states 17 is over the age of consent (in 2003, the age of consent in the entire country of Canada was 14), and for those of us who went to high school before the 2000s it was relatively common for juniors and seniors to date people 19-22. I have no idea how this woman was ever prosecuted, much less humiliated like this 18 years later. What the hell happened there in Arizona?

@ Literally Nobody: In 1995, when my offense occurred (note the passive tense suggesting my offense occurred all by itself 🤣), the age of consent in New Mexico was 13.

Apparently the female registrant in question was a band teacher in San Bernardino, CA in 2003. Seems like the 17 year old young man, err, the child victim, in essence, gave her a bj (from the conviction). If the 17 year old young man, err, child victim, was a student, that sort of conduct is certainly highly inappropriate and illegal for a reason. 

However, California has, then and now, a strict age of consent of 18 irrespective of any position of authority. So this 17 year old young man, err, child victim could have been a Marine on active duty (entirely feasible with parental consent) in a bar with a fake ID (easy to come by) and the premise would be exactly the same.

It would appear – from the Yuma PD Facebook page – that after moving to Arizona this registrant’s tier level was bumped from 1 to 3 because of additional, non-sex related crimes (drugs and property).

To think that a young lady is such a threat to public safety that her move must be broadcast to the entire world because 20 years ago she got a bj from a person old enough to drive, hold employment, obtain a hunting license, be prosecuted for anything and easily so as an adult, followed up by some minor offenses, while any paroled murderer can just go about their business is just part of what makes this country so star spangled awesome.

*she gave him a bj

People who are not capable of consenting to sexual activity absolutely should not be operating vehicles on public roads. Big government is putting my children’s lives in danger. But meh, nothing is dangerous except sex, so it’s all good.

F Registry Supporters/Terrorists. I will be trying to not work much over the next couple of weeks and I look forward to having a lot of extra time and ensuring every single day that the Hit Lists are not just worthless, but a lot worse. Every day, starting tomorrow. I’m going to be around lots of people, all over the place, completely anonymously.

This article is interesting – it mentions California’s new Tiered Registry law:

(It also inappropriately uses a medical designation [pedophile]. But it’s Fox News, so what can one expect?)

Yeah, I’m curious what the California Penal Code is for “pedophilia”…

At least they didn’t trash the Tiered Registry and say it was a mistake, although maybe they were trying to infer that.

It really isn’t much of a medical designation, either. It was invented by a turn-of-the-century German sex theorist and, much later, incorporated into the forensic psychology industry. Now, it’s used, witlessly, to describe attraction to anyone under the age of consent when, of course, it really only means attraction to prepubescent children. It’s now become a reliable marker of ignorance on the part of those using it.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x