ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (01/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Recording of Emergency ACSOL meeting about new SORNA regulations



ACSOL Leaders Discussed New SORNA Regulations

UPDATED: Click here to find out how your donation to fight SORNA regulations will be doubled!

ACSOL President Chance Oberstein and ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci discussed the new SORNA regulations during an “emergency” meeting held on Dec. 11 for two and a half hours.  The meeting was attended by about 250 people from at least 10 different states.

“ACSOL thanks everyone who attended Saturday’s meeting regarding the new SORNA regulations,” stated Bellucci.  “It was an opportunity for registrants and family members to hear the views of two experienced and caring attorneys as well as to both ask questions and make comments.”

During the meeting, Oberstein stated that the new regulations are likely to become effective on January 7, 2022, because it is unlikely that Congress will oppose the regulations.  He added that the new regulations are unlikely to immediately affect anyone because government notice is required before a registrant can be found in violation.

Bellucci added that government notices are likely to be communicated first to registrants who live in one of the nation’s 18 states that are SORNA compliant.  Those states are Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.  The next group of registrants expected to receive notice of new SORNA requirements are individuals convicted of a federal offense who are currently on parole, probation or supervised release.

“The biggest problem caused by the new SORNA regulations is uncertainty,” stated Bellucci.  “For example, the new SORNA regulations will increase the number of times some registrants must register from once a year to four times a year.  The questions are who are those registrants and when will their new registration requirement begin.”

It is possible that some non-SORNA compliant states will protect their citizens from the new SORNA requirements, according to the ACSOL leaders.  

“Despite the assertion that the new SORNA regulations will not increase the cost of registration, state and local governments can be expected to pay a lot more to register individuals if those regulations are implemented,” stated Bellucci.  “The new SORNA regulations also falsely claim that  they will make it easier for registrants to determine what they are required to do.”

For those required to comply with the new SORNA regulations, the following apply:

  • Notify local law enforcement if you are leaving your residence for 7 days or longer
  • Provide notice to local law enforcement at least 21 days in advance if you plan to travel overseas
  • Disclose all “remote communication identifiers” including internet usernames and phone numbers
  • Register up to 15 years if assigned to Tier 1
  • Register for 25 years if assigned to Tier 2
  • Register for lifetime if assigned to Tier 3
  • Disclose occupational and professional licenses
  • Disclose vehicle information including location of cars, watercraft and aircraft
  • Disclose all passports and immigration documents

In addition to the requirement of government notice, the new SORNA regulations provide a defense if a registrant attempts to comply with the regulations, but finds it is impossible to do so.  For example, a registrant who is required to register four times a year may attempt to register more than once, but if local government refuses to register that person four times a year, the federal government may not violate that person.

According to the new SORNA regulations, the new federal regulations are the minimum requirements a registrant must meet.  State and local governments may levy additional requirements.  As a result, a registrant convicted of possession of child pornography may be assigned to Tier 1 under SORNA yet be assigned to Tier 3 under state law.

The new SORNA regulations provide an exception to the 21-day notice required for overseas travel in case of an emergency.  The regulations, however, do not define what is or is not an emergency.

The ACSOL leaders stated that litigation will be necessary in order to challenge several provisions within the new SORNA regulations.  The litigation is expected to be initiated during the first quarter of 2022 provided that plaintiffs and financial resources are available.

Listen to the recording of the meeting

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

Total idiocy, this will increase violations dramatically, and it will have untold impact on the well being of registrants, especially those that have kind of found a niche in society and are functioning, but now they will lose employment, licenses, will be subject to harassment and discrimination. I see nothing good for anyone in this. It will further burden law enforcement and waste resources.

Let’s also keep in mind the horrific impact on our families. Having a parent yanked from a child’s life, not to mention the loss of income, will be devastating.

You guys must realize that “people” who support the Oppression Lists don’t have any concern for the well being of PFRs, their spouses, and their children. I don’t think it does much good to talk about how the Oppression “laws”, especially those that are obviously useless and idiotic to anyone with any I.Q. over 90, are harmful to families. Could it be any more obvious that they don’t care? They don’t care that the “laws” are useless. They don’t care that they harm families.

From what I’ve seen and witnessed, LEOs welcome this “burden” with open arms. Why? It’s easy PR and an easy way to secure funding/grants for new toys to witch hunt and harass us further. It’s also wish-fulfillment for the public that see us as lesser creatures.

They want to go back to owning people; lets be real.That’s why everything SORNA related gets a rubber-stamp.

America is sick and twisted hypocritical country held together by feel-good platitudes and instant gratification gimmickry. .

I could not f’ing agree more.

They love such easy work that gives them great PR. They love having a public enemy that everyone hates. That is why all decent people must wage war against big government and their huge, overpaid law enforcement criminal departments.

Thank you, Janice and Chance.

WHICH SORNA TIER? Convicted of 288a and given 12 month (so NOT more than 1 year) sentence in county jail and freed after 8 months. Does this mean he is on Tier 1 according to SORNA? (§20911(3) Tier II sex offender. The term “tier II sex offender” means a sex offender whose offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year and— (A) is comparable to or more severe than the following offenses, when committed against a minor, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense against a minor:…..


I believe that “punishable by more than 1 year” means that if the punishment for the crime could be for more than one year (that is the maximum possible penalty not the minimum). Therefore if the penalty could be punished for more than 1 year then it would fall under the Tier II.

Where I have been unclear, and nobody has really answered this question for me here is that some states have offenses that are punishable by more than 1 year but sometimes the offense can be a misdemeanor or deemed one (I think in California they call them wobbler offenses) – usually when the punishment is under 1 year and there are statutes that make it this way. By federal definition, a felony is something punishable by more than one year and a misdemeanor is something punishable by one year or less. Therefore, if the offense is considered a misdemeanor under by the state law, is it an offense that is punishable by more than one year (if there is a felony version) or is it considered to be punishable by less than one year because it is considered by the state a misdemeanor and thus becomes a Tier I under federal SORNA. My legal research on this subject comes seems to come up blank. Maybe that’s why it has never been answered.

If you look at California’s package sent to SORNA in 2015 at pages 16-20 it explains the California penal code convictions transcribed to SORNA convictions

Very informative meeting!! If anyone could not attend in person, I would certainly encourage them to listen to the recording!
Thank you for reiterating that “government notice is required before a registrant can be found in violation.”
(I can’t recall when I last received any government notification of anything at all – except for the income taxes they want from me every year!🙄)

Dear Readers

In a word: DONATE!

As much as you can and as often as you can. Donate now, donate often.

If you register in California, and you received a 1203.4 for your sex offense, then you do not have to register under SORNA? Also they mentioned you must receive “penal consequences” to be considered “convicted under SORNA. What is considered a penal consequence? Isn’t registration a penal consequence?

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, registration is an administrative requirement, not a penal consequence.

Janice thank you for your response. You and Chance are doing a exemplary job! again Thank You 🙂

That is why we need to overturn their decision, Smith v. Doe, when we have an opportunity to do so. Going to Washington, D.C. in March 2023 will help to educate the public and the court regarding the grave harm that has resulted due to that mistaken decision.

Thank you for your work , so glad you and your team are with us , but I think many of us will be either back in prison due to SORNA or state tricks by 2023 , been in this game for 30+ years and never ever seen them play fair , You can count on mine and my families support , Prayers in the air


Was this brought up in the meeting? Where did you hear this? I am trying to corroborate this very thing myself.


About 14 minutes in.

John, I am still wondering about this myself. Chance Oberstein was questioned and said he believes so but look into it yourself and get back to us please.

Here is the link to SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of California January 2016, look at the Foot note on page 9

It says as clear as day!, if you received a 1203.4 in California then SORNA doesn’t recognize it as a conviction, therefore you do not have to register under SORNA.

I hope so!!!

This is what it says:  Offenders receiving such a withdrawal of a guilty plea or set aside of their guilty verdict will no longer meet the definition of “convicted” under SORNA and, as such, are no longer required by SORNA to register.

So with a California dismissal, does this mean that you also do not have to give a 21 day notice as long as you are only registered in California? I know that you currently don’t have to give notice in California anyway but it would still be considered a federal offense in this case. However with a dismissal this means even customs should not be able to detain you for this as it would not be considered a federal offense anymore…right?

Last edited 27 days ago by AJP

Good Question AJP, one should never assume but this it appears to be the case. We will need clarification but since we have not been told to give a 21 day notice ever in CA I would assume. ?

I was. It’s been part of the annual for the past few years.

in CA?

how can we donate?

Paula, coincidentally ACSOL just posted this: federal sorna regulations litigation fund now has matching grant program

It seems to me each state’s AG has an obligation to protect people from the feds actions should the promulgation conflict in any way from current state law. The same duty exists for any potential abridging of due processes written in state statutes.

@Tim in WI

In addition to your point, state AGs also have the responsibility to understand the facts but cannot seem to do that in the most basic of terms when it comes to studies contradicting their own positions as seen here by 37 who ignore the ALI and associated facts: Hawaiʻi Attorney General, et al, Opposes Proposed Changes to Sex Crimes in Model Penal Code (

Section II of the letter is of interest to those impacted by the registry.

“Facts”, lol. Good one.

AGs and other leeches that feed off of big government are most interested in keeping their various big government businesses running. They want a lot of customers. The more customers they have and more money being churned and burned, the bigger they look and feel. Ego and greed are the only facts they care about. I think most of them are impotent in various ways so they need to raise their self-esteem.

Well said @Will Allen as they certainly do and are as you describe.

@TS – I find it funny that Dana Nessel the Mi AG signed it, when she was an amici stating current law has gone too far and punishment. What a joke


That is politics for you and the 2022 re-election campaign in high gear from a hypocrite.

Since I live in Maryland I will post anything I may receive from the state. Holding out hope that not much will change for me, yet it’s the unknown that puts the fear on high heat.

@Janice, I was on the conference call and posed a question regarding tapping ACLU and the UN HRC (united nations human rights council). I got muted and couldn’t unmute to explain about UNHRC. Is there any man power to dedicate to brining up such issues as the SORNA to them? If at least we can make them aware and let the eyes of other nations see the horrific laws crushing RSOs, perhaps they can at least look into it.

I have to second that emotion Will Allen! Tim in WI its about time you got your head out of computers.oops. To much thinking can drive a man crazy and too much wisdom can drive one stir crazy.. loved the movie. Wonder iif that was PG rated or even G rated. If one puts a ratting label on the registry I am sure Will Allen can come up with a good one. Now I’m sure George Washington grew hemp for rope and Jefferson grew grapes for stomping now with the invent of internet we see a registry problem.

Man is always out there to take advantage of another any way he or she can. Take a look at this registry. Nothing wrong with a little punishment but too much is too much. Guess they will start growing marahajana here in VA and if the rating quality isn’t good or doesn’t pass inspection your busted. I’m sure a little peace pipe would do good for a lot of government today.

put everything in your wife name or someone maybe it will help

At the point of where I just don’t care anymore.
[Moderator’s note: edited for not following guidelines]

So my husband took a plea to Indecent Assault ( misdemeanor) in 2009.
He got 10 years on the registry
We’re in PA.
In 2012, his registration was changed to Lifetime.
Then the Munoz case came along and my husband was put back to 10 years registration.
Last year, he was removed by the state for fulfilling his 10 year registration.
Please tell me, he won’t be put back on!

I was in the same boat, was supposed to be removed in 2012 but, had my registration extended to 15 years, the Munez decision cam down, they had to rush ACT 10 into law and try and nab as many people as they could, that law would have made me register for life, I was removed under the Munez decision after I had to hire an attorney in 2018, which I’ll gladly do again if need be, they can’t revers that decision, plus they are in clear violation of ex post facto and other constitutional laws, they can only, legally apply that to new registration but, only after they sign it inti law and apply it to newly violated people, they’re just asking for mass lawsuits.

Good to know.
I don’t understand how it’s not a breach of contract if someone takes a plea that includes, say, 10 years on the registry and the Government changes it.

I mean, that’s like changing the rules of the game after it’s finished and the winner has been declared.
And, in my husband’s case, his trial ended in a hung jury, so he took a plea because the DA was threatening to re- try.
But if we had thought for one second, he’d have to register for life, we probably would have gone for another trial.

Carla, this issue you bring up about breach of contract was sued in Texas and the argument relied upon a US supreme court decision.

But of course, the most conservative federal courts in the country are in Texas and at the 5th appellate court. So of course they all ruled against the sex offenders and ruled against a US supreme court decision. I can’t think of one case where the 5th has ruled in favor of a sex offender. Even the state supreme court has allowed expo facto laws against sex offenders when the state constitution clearly prohibits all civil and criminal expo fact laws with no exceptions. The three states in the 5th circuit, TX, LA and MS are not the place to be in our shoes as you will never win. Though it can be used to create split decisions in hopes of forcing an issue to the US supreme court.

So unless the supreme court takes up the case (they have been petitioned), the 5th circuit opinion which overrules the supreme court will stand.

I would not be surprised if the supreme court allows an overruling of their opinion to stand because otherwise a supreme court ruling would benefit sex offenders. Reminds me of the Gundy case where a judge stated, yes, there is agreement with the legal argument of the sex offender, but it is preferred a different case be brought to address the issue. God forbid a supreme court ruling can be made that would benefit a sex offender – constitution be damned.

so if california ag doesn’t issue some sort of statement or instructions is it safe to say california will still not be following sorna?

Correct. You are not “notified” until you receive an official letter and/or do your annual initials on all the various things we must adhere to. In this case, it’s most likely the latter, just like the 21-day notice.

SR, You seem pretty knowledgeable! I saw this on the Sorna California Compliance Forms: from 2016 – “Sexual battery of a minor would be charged under Penal Code section 647.6 and it is registerable”. What does it mean to you? So there saying if we have a 243.4 a it is a 647.6 for the purposes of Sorna?
I don’t understand it?
It’s footnote 23 page 18-19

It’s page 17 of 20!

Do you have a link to the full document? I want to make sure I’m looking at the same thing.

SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of California 2016

It’s page 17 of 20 and check out footnote 14
on page 9 of 20 thanks

Last edited 24 days ago by CA

It looks like there are several different 243.4 depending on the specific letter code a well as victims age, across all three tiers. Also, if you’ve been granted 1203.4, then you don’t have to register under SORNA regardless of what you were convicted of (not sure if this applies to you, but if you weren’t sent to prison, county jail okay, you should be able to get the 1203.4 dismissal).

243.4 (a)-(d) (victim 18 or older)
243.4 (e)- (1)=Tier 1
243.4 (a)-(d)=Tier 2 (victim 13 -17)footnote 23
243.4 (a)-(d)=Tier 3 (victim<13)

So my question is this: if a registrant had his felony 243.4(a) reduced to a misdemeanor via 17b!
does that make him a Tier 1 under SORNA? are the last 2
felonies? Thanks

The way I read SORNA in general is that misdemeanors are Tier 1. SORNA seems to automatically treat any conviction with a maximum sentence of 1 year or less as misdemeanors, which are all tier 1.

I’m not entirely sure on the footnote 23, but I think it might be referring to 647.6 itself being Tier 2 as a felony and misdemeanor as Tier 1. So maybe they mean the same to apply here? I’m otherwise not sure what it could mean.

I Believe all 288’s are Tier 3 Here is the link to SORNA Substantial Implementation Review

Thank you, CA….that footnote14 on page 9 is quite fascinating, almost hopeful for many of us.

Does it still pertain?

Hummm….I can copy and past the footnote…but what does this mean in reference to the newly published and enacted SORNA Regulations?

I’m not being difficult…it is simply too positive…

“14 Offenders receiving such a withdrawal of a guilty plea or set aside of their guilty verdict will no longer meet the definition of “convicted” under SORNA and, as such, are no longer required by SORNA to register.”

But I really appreciate the heads up on this.

The Federal Government has never done anything good for us, so I am a little bewildered. But I am thinking…

Thank you.

Best Wishes, James I

A California 1203.4 dismissal vacates the guilty plea.
No longer convicted of said crime! Sorna only applies to people “convicted of sex crimes”
SR, if want to chime in please do! Thanx

Last edited 23 days ago by CA

That indeed seems to be the case. That also used to be the case for CA registry as well, but some time ago CA legislature added a special amendment which negated this benefit for RC’s only. The Feds/SORNA still treats it properly. So if you have a 1203.4, SORNA shouldn’t apply to you.

Your input is appreciated, thanks SR!
Happy Holidays!!!

In regards to this individuals statement: James I: mentioned (newly published and enacted SORNA Regulations) I wonder if there is a change in there somewhere regarding 1203.4, but i think i heard Chance saying in a Zoom meeting, that its from the original 2007 guidelines and CANNOT be changed.
If anyone wants to chime in/ please do thank you:)

The new regulations don’t change anything about the penal codes or tiering system. It’s mainly an update on reporting/duty to register. For majority of people, nothing really changed. ACSOL is just worried that based on some wording it may leak out to non-SORNA states, but I personally don’t see where it would force that. But I also don’t think ACSOL would raise the alarm if there wasn’t some ambiguity.

Another violation of ex post facto, not thinking this will affect anyone who was removed under the Munez decision, that’s why Pa isn’t on the list of this BS, probably the reason other states aren’t on board either.

I know this is a long shot but wouldn’t it be great if these regulations were published by Attorney General Merrick Garland with him knowing they would fail or knowing what a disaster they were and not even those hired to protect our rights understand it? This way he could “abolish the registry” by leaving it up to the courts? No politician wants to be seen being leninat on registrants but this would be a clever way to get something done with clean hands.

Well, seeing that the Pennsylvania constitution has greater protection than other states , I just don’t think they’re going to let this happen to Pa residents, along with other states that may be similar, with the Munez decision, ex post facto comes into play, which has already ruled that, you can’t just add on new laws and apply them to people currently on the registry, however, they can pass the laws and when someone commits new offenses, then they can apply it to those persons, but not anyone who was never required to register, people who were on the registry and were let off, due to the Munez decision and people who are currently on the registry, they already tried putting people back on the registry in 2012, which they accomplished for 5 or 6 years, until Munez, states like Pa aren’t going to let this sht fly folks, and it’s going to be challenged, you have all these states with all different SO registry’s, their own rules and regulations and now they’re going to alter them all, now they’re trying to make one big registry it seems but, then they’re altering over 200 registry’s which means, altering millions of registrants requirements, in turn will trigger, mass challenges and lawsuits, sorry but, this will take the entire registry down, of corse, they will try and revert everyone back to the old registry but, it will no longer be, because it will be repealed, so like our old registry, there is no registry to put people back on, the registry will be, abolished, once and for all, these politicians are getting to big for their underwear, not as smart as they think they are.

I do my annual on the 4th. If there are any new bullet points to initial, I will report back here.

  1. I see someone else has started posting here as “C” so I will now post as “Old C”
  2. Registered today. (Riverside County)
  3. No SORNA forced changes that I saw. The 21 day notice for international travel was there, HOWEVER, the 21 day written notice for out of state travel was gone. So one positive change. The SORNA required relocation to another state stuff was still there.
  4. Tiers were implemented. I scored a Tier 3! I wasn’t too surprised, although it did cause me to have several suicidal idealization episodes on the drive home. But without the Tier mess, I would have done this for life anyway and I am confident we will go back to life once the public realizes we are being set free, just like in my convicting state, they kept changing so everyone would stay registered. So either way, I would be lifetime instead of the ten years I agreed to. My trust of the system was gone long ago and I bored everyone with my angry rants long ago as well, no need to repeat.
  5. This time no temporary card, although I put prints on a temp and perm card, they kept both and gave me another form called “proof of registration.”
  6. They gave me a FAQ from CASOMB or whatever, once I saw I was Tier 3, I lost interest in asking questions lol.
  7. As it has been every time except the very first time, it was low key, professional, quick and I was done 15 minutes before my appointment time. The ice had not even melted from my rear window by the time I was done.
  8. I am a bit worried, as many of us probably are, that eventually I will get fired because of this. I was recently just given a very nice promotion, so if they fire me because of this, I will try for a wrongful. I will probably lose, but I will try.
  9. In general, outside of being depressed and angry at myself about having to do this at all, it was not a bad experience. I still have my bad health and a shitty job in which I am doing really well, so no rope action just yet. Someday of course, I will kill myself after a registration or maybe suicide by cop during registration, but not today, not this year.

Good luck folks and I hope your experiences this year in your jurisdictions go smoothly and that you get the lowest tier possible so at least for a time, you can feel like an American again.

The deeper the valley, the taller the crown,,,

Don’t count on losing a wrongful termination suit because your employer finds out your status. Years ago, I worked for a company for a little over a year. It took me that long to realize what a scam the place was. My employer would regularly skim our paychecks. We would work 50-60 hours and be lucky if we got paid for 39. We didn’t get lunch breaks. Eventually I gathered enough damning evidence against the company and went public, then filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Labor. They came down hard on him and he had to cough up tens of thousands in the wages he stole from us. When he found out it was me who blew the whistle, he fired me claiming I had lied on my job application. I asked him to point out where I lied and he said I failed to put down that I had a record. I didn’t lie on the application, I just left that section blank and didn’t answer. Then he tried to block my unemployment.
Long story short, I actually found an attorney who was willing to help me for no up front fees. The judge ruled in my favor on everything, (he asked for a bench trial and I agreed) stating that leaving the section of my application blank did not constitute fraud on my behalf, and since I had been working for the company for well over a year, he had ample time to do a background check if he wished. I was awarded a little under what I was demanding, but it was more than enough to put a big smile on my face because the company owner was forced to liquidate company assets to pay me and he soon went out of business. I can’t say what it was, but it was over 5 figures but under 7.
I don’t know what state you’re in, but there should be similar laws and regulations, and there are also federal laws that apply. If you recently got a promotion, I would assume you have been there for a while and proven yourself to be an asset, so for your boss to fire you simply because he finds out you’re on the registry will not fly in a court of law.

Let me ask you a question, are you newly registering from out of state or, just doing your annual registration and did you already have a teir and they just changed you to a 3? I don’t think you will lose your job but, anything can happen, a few years ago, when I was supposed to get off the sht list here in Pa, they signed sorna into law the year before, went into effect in 2012, took me from a teir l to a ll, from 10 years to 15, I had the suicidal feelings also but it passed, just accepted that I have no control over this.

Last edited 17 days ago by B

I don’t understand how they kept you on, and didn’t remove you after Munez.
My husband had to start registering in 2010, and had a 10 year registration.
That changed in 2012, to LIFE.
But after Munez, they switched him back to 10 years and took him off in February 2020.

I have been registering as an out of state since 2003, the year I was convicted (Alford Plea) for a 1997 crime. In fact, I never registered in person in my convicting state (NY) except when I was released.

In NY my worksheet, which I have the original form, calculated me as a Level 1. The judge never convicted anyone as Level 1 and bumped me to Level 2. He has since died and my lawyer is now the judge in that County.

Tiers just started here in CA, all out of state felony sex convicts, generally, were life registrants before this year.

I guess I better recheck the papers they gave me to make sure I am not quarterly now. Ugh. I get 5 days vacation a year and would have to burn 4 of them to register.

All PFRs should be delivering angry rants daily. Personally, as long as the Oppression Lists exist, I’ll be as big of a problem as I possibly can. Daily. The criminal regimes think I’m a problem so I’ll be one.

Don’t kill yourself. Then the scumbags win. The criminal regimes would be lucky if I killed myself, but that is not the plan.

Sic semper tyrannis.

There are plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people here whose opinions I respect. I would love some feedback about my possible future domestic travel plans regarding SORNA and its related regulations to be sure I am understanding SORNA.

a) One out of state travel plan is to DC (ASCOL related) and then to nearby states for 2-3 weeks. The other out of state vacation may be for 2-3 weeks later this year.
b) Before I travel I will inform myself of all other state and local laws and be sure I visit in such a way where I do not have to register. I am not on probation or parole.
c) The non-SORNA state where I live, work and register has no travel requirement other than if you change your address, you must give a 7 day in person notice before. Address and change of address are not legally defined. A local attorney suggested I give notice I will be on a domestic vacation and give an expected return date (and provide no other information) in case of a compliance check not required by law.
d) SORNA law states it does apply to those with a state conviction if one crosses a state line or enters a reservation. My offense was with the state but dismissed. State requires me to register. SORNA law requires me to register. SORNA law requires one to register and update where one resides, works or attends school. SORNA law defines resides as the location of an individual home or where on habitually lives. I have owned and lived in the same place since 2014 and intend to return to the same place after my vacation. I interpret SORNA law as I am NOT changing my residence.

If I am not changing my residence as defined by SORNA law, I interpret that SORNA law does not apply to me because of my 2-3 week vacation. SORNA law states there is a criminal penalty if 1) I am required to register, 2) if a state conviction and I cross the state line or enter a reservation, and 3) if I knowingly fail to register. If I am not changing my residence as defined by SORNA law, then I interpret SORNA law as I am not required to register per SORNA law or any of the SORNA regulations because of my 2-3 week vacation.

SORNA law already does not require me to comply with SORNA or its regulations if I don’t leave my state or enter a reservation located within my state as I have state conviction for SORNA purposes.

SORNA law also states the AG has the authority to adopt regulations to interpret and implement SORNA law. I can find nowhere in SORNA law that gives the AG the authority to expand SORNA law. And I though the Gundy case stated the same, the AG can only interpret and implement, not expand SORNA law. So if correctly interpret the SORNA law definition of residence, then in addition to SORNA law not applying to me while on the 2-3 week domestic vacation, then no SORNA regulations should also apply. All of us attending the DC trip need to know and understand. Your opinions?

SORNA does have a section which specifically addresses temporary address such as when on vacation, and I believe they require information be reported within a certain timeline if you’re out of your registered address for more than X number of days. There was even something specifically in the new document addressing the concerns about this. Read through all that.

What I do when I’m leaving home for 7 or more days is to provide our local registration specialist with my itinerary as best I can before leaving, and get a confirmation that it’s been received. Then I make sure not to be in another state long enough to trigger registration there to the best of my ability.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x