Janice’s Journal: Because We Can

Have you ever been shaken to your core by an answer to a question?  That happened to me recently when I asked a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles county why his office had objected to a petition for removal from the registry.

Without a pause, the deputy district attorney replied “because we can.”

What?  A district attorney is objecting to a petition solely because he or she can.  Technically, that answer is correct.   After all, the Tiered Registry Law authorizes district attorneys to object to a petition, but their authority to do so is limited to cases in which an individual’s continued registration would “significantly enhance community safety.”

Although it is not spelled out in the Tiered Registry Law, it is implied in that law that a district attorney must have a valid reason for their objection.  The law does not state or imply that a district attorney may object to a petition because they can or for no reason at all.

The case in which this oral volley took place involved a person who was convicted about 30 years ago and has not re-offended. In addition, the person has a clean criminal record both before and after her conviction for a sex offense.

Like most people on the registry, this individual has struggled with employment and housing.  She has also struggled with determining her gender identity.  She first married and then divorced a man only later to marry a woman with whom she has been in a loving relationship for more than 20 years.

Due to her marriages and divorce as well as a first name that is often misspelled, this woman has a long list of names on her Megan’s Law website profile.  The deputy district attorney suggested that this long list of names is evidence that the individual is trying to hide from law enforcement.  That alone is not a basis for an objection and therefore fell back to the original statement, “because we can.”

When a district attorney objects to a petition for removal, there is not just one reaction.  Instead, it starts a chain reaction in the individual as well as in his/her legal representative.  That is because in order to overcome a district attorney’s objection, one must provide evidence that “community safety” is not at risk if the judge grants the petition.  Often this requires a comprehensive psychological evaluation as well as a lengthy legal brief.  Both cost time and money.  If the person cannot afford to pay for the evaluation and the legal brief, the only choice left for the individual is to withdraw his or her petition.  This means, of course, that the individual must continue to register and the district attorney has won.

In these situations, which are admittedly rare, the intent of the legislature in its creation of the Tiered Registry Law is being undermined by district attorneys.  That is, the legislature passed the Tiered Registry Law in order to eliminate individuals from the registry who do not pose a current risk of re-offense.  The district attorneys who object to a petition for removal solely because they can should be held accountable by the legislature.

Related posts

Notify of

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Because I’m a strict constructionist, the process for removal used currently is unconstitutional. Why you ask?
Because the question is not before a jury of peers. Instead it’s up to a bench judge or panel. This is in error precisely because ” the people ” are not in the mix. Certainly civil commitments require it by law. Another constitutional deficiency rests in irrelevance of the Standard Waiver of Civil Rights as a probative factor as to the removal question. After all, it is the factual record that must count for something as State proceeds entirely upon it as a factual basis in necessity. Clearly, “Because they can” is rooted in their mission use of the Standard Waiver, as intelligently signed ( or not) by the individual in question. Indeed Kansas v Hendricks would have been a very different outcome if the people themselves were not in the mix.

When asked of the DDA, “Without a pause, the deputy district attorney replied “because we can.””

Everyone and every circumstance can be answered that way. What has disappeared from many persons minds is that there are CONSEQUENCES to all anyone SAYS or WRITES or DOES.

Once the damage of “because we can” has been done it’s up to the recipient to initiate legal (and in some cases as it seems today justifies, illegal) action.

hello jus wondering if any body has been granted relief from 290 rigistration in san bernardino city are county..my petition was filed in june ,and was served on DA in july 2022,, no news from court still…..

O M L! What Adam Henry’$ !!! NO Justice, one sided by legal leaders of IGNORANCE AND…fear, political scandals to keep their position for next DA blockerz.
Believable…Judge ME

The EU can and Is.

🌟 ⭐ News Flash!* ⭐ ⭐
Another Petition win for Janice and her (now Off-the-Registry!!🥳) client!

Way to go, Janice!! 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻

*I had the pleasure of attending the hearing. J., so happy for your success and your newly restored freedom!! 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Oops, correction:
Congratulations to S. on your successful petition and your restored freedom!
👍🏻 👍🏻 👍🏻 👍🏻
And congrats to Janice on her success and another win!! 😃
👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻

On this subject of “Because we can” I don’t think Janice was prepared for a rebuttal with that answer. You see many lawyers are prepared for the answers which can denote a well prepared lawyer as apposed to some other lawyers. While their are many laws that appear to be in good taste this internet folly is a bad way to go setting up a mark to achieve their goal this this internet ordeal is ready to crumble.

Action is the key to many of these ordeals or who gives good counsel? While two wrongs don’t make a right at times one wonders if government has the understanding or wisdom. And yes we all lack wisdom in various ways or the understanding.

the law is clear on its face we have a right to go before a court not the district attorney
Yes the DA can object all his wants it up to the judge to decide the DA has to much authority alone… i found out that the DA had the new abstract of judgement read as if there is two stepparent charges..I went from being a undetermined risk to a level 3 without considering i’ve not committed any other sex offence since 1981. and that was a horrible mistaking identity case. .

ok guys here is a study for you .. Look up or type in… do court systems make errors and you will find a whole wealth of information and also get others involved in this issue like Janice and her team are doing. I’m sure Janice doesn’t want to go against the grain but at times one has to tackle the challenge.

And I can guarantee its not all in part about the database.. its about human suffering, emotional trauma and bias effects and yes their is greedy gain involved.

This pharse “Because we can” that Janice received a while back seem to stick out. Yes much of these issues registry issues should of never gotten this far. I am not here to condemn anyone nor force them in anything. I’m sure we are all lost in limbo over this registry sting operation. Getting much of this abolished is yet to be seen. Janice and team don’t have all the answers but a good constitutional lawyer understands how corrupt these issues are to all involved in many levels of this registry and how it corrupts government has slidden.