Please join ACSOL Executive Director and civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci as well as ACSOL President and criminal defense attorney Chance Oberstein for our next meeting. The meeting will be held on Saturday, November 19, online on Zoom beginning at 10 a.m. Pacific time, 1:00 PM Eastern, and will last at least two hours. You can use the Zoom app or call in using a Zoom phone number.
There is no registration needed for this meeting. You can use the Zoom app to see Janice and Chance and choose to show or hide yourself, or you can use the Zoom phone number to call in to the meeting.
This meeting will be recorded and then posted here as an audio recording within a couple of days. A link to the recording will be at the top of our pages.
Discussion topics will include:
- California Lobby Day 2023
- meet a board member
- status update regarding lawsuit challenging SORNA regulations
- status update regarding lawsuit challenging denial of military retirees access to military bases
- status update regarding lawsuit challenging exclusion of felony registrants from serving as jurors
- the California Tiered Registry (now effective)
- challenges to California Tiered Registry Law
- domestic and overseas travel
- other current topics and pending legal action throughout the nation.
Please Show Up, Stand Up and Speak Up!
To join our Zoom meeting with your Zoom app, click on this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83275896264
Or you can call in to one of the phone numbers below, then specify: Meeting ID: 832 7589 6264 Dial by your location: +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Find your local number from around the world: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcQ8fXsCtM
You can set up your one tap mobile using these keystrokes (these are examples; choose the phone number above that you want): +16699006833,,83275896264# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,83275896264# US (Tacoma)
Nevada – An Open Letter
Dear Janice & Chance:
My name is Bruce a.k.a. Atwo Zee, Registered Traveler. I have been listening in on the ACSOL monthly call-in meetings since you took them virtual on account of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Every month, while giving your overview of domestic travel issues before taking questions, you stress the importance of not staying in any state long enough to trigger their requirement to register. Of course I strongly agree with that advice.
Every month, including the Sept. 15, 2022 meeting, you use Nevada is an example of how careful everyone should be, because Nevada state law allows only 48 hours for initial registration, one of the shortest grace periods of any state. §§179D.460, 479D.480. Nevada, and especially Las Vegas, is a major travel destination for everyone and especially Californians because it’s so close. You must be constantly inundated with questions about Nevada.
What you don’t seem to be aware of is that Nevada is one of a handful of states that, by policy, treats a statutory very short visitor registration requirement as a “duty to check in” but holds SO visitor information separately pending a commitment to depart within a specified time (up to 30 days); your info becomes part of a “visitors registry” that is not made public. Other states that do this are Alaska, South Dakota and Rhode Island.
I first became aware of this separate “visitors registry” while calling every state SOR office as part of my research in 2020. The nice lady at the Nevada SOR office told me all about it. Then, following your advice to not necessarily accept at face value anything some random person at a SOR office says, I called back in April 2021 to re-ask the question, and the same nice lady took my call. She even remembered me from my previous call. She gave me the same answer, with a few additional clarifying details.
And yet, there seems to be nothing on the Nevada SOR website about this, and month after month I hear you emphasize that no registered person should ever be in Nevada for more than 48 consecutive hours. You often say, “Folks, just leave Nevada overnight, get a receipt somewhere to prove it, then go back to continue your visit.”
Again, I strongly agree with that advice for any state that doesn’t maintain a separate unpublished “visitors registry.” Tennessee is an example of such a state with a 48 hour grace period, and if you read my posts about Tennessee you will see I emphasize the importance of watching the clock there. I guarantee you, nobody wants to wind up on Tennessee’s registry.
But what about Nevada? On my October 2021 Southwest trip, I decided to put this state to the ultimate test. I was passing through Nevada anyway on my way from California to Utah. So, restricting myself to two partial days in-state and foregoing all the potential sins and delights of Las Vegas, my one and only stop was the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. My sole purpose was to find out if they knew anything about this separate unpublished “visitors registry.”
If there’s one thing I always say about police registry offices it’s this: “The person sitting at the desk behind the bullet proof glass is without a doubt the least knowledgeable person in the whole building.” That was certainly the case here. She had never heard of any “visitors registry.” However, with a little prodding I was able to get her to go ask her supervisor about it, and when she came back a few minutes later she smiled cheerfully and said, “Yes, there is a visitors registry, and as long as you check in within 48 hours of your arrival, and give us all the information about your visit, and come back to check out before you leave, you will go on that visitors registry.” So as far as I can tell Nevada’s unpublished “visitors registry” is a real thing.
You may be wondering why any state SOR office, whether in Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Rhode Island or elsewhere, would go out of their way to create a separate visitors registry when it’s not spelled out in state law. As a person who worked as a government bureaucrat his entire career (until I ruined my life), I’m confident I know the answer: work avoidance.
You see, these states have very short visitor registration requirements, but they also have standardized procedures available to remove you from their registries after you leave (unlike Tennessee, Florida and 13 other states that keep you on their registries forever in order to pad their numbers and get more federal funding).
What this means for a SOR office (or sheriff’s department) bureaucrat is that any time a visitor is forced to register, they have to do all the work of adding that person to their registry and posting it on their website. Then as soon as that person leaves the state they have to do all the work of removing that person from their registry and their website. That’s double the work for somebody they really couldn’t care less about. Thus is born the separate, low effort “visitors registry.”
While I was updating all my state by state research in August 2022, the nice lady at the South Dakota SOR office came right out and confirmed this when she said, “We have hundreds of sex offenders coming to the Sturgis Bike Rally every year. They typically stay more than three days but less than a week. Why would we want to register all these people and then have to remove them a few days later?”
[As an aside, I was amused by how the SOR lady’s description of the Sturgis Bike Rally made it sound like an annual sex offenders’ reunion. Hey, maybe NARSOL or ACSOL should hold next year’s national conference in Sturgis during the rally and make it official?]
The SOR lady stressed that all they are asking is that visiting registrants staying more than three days come in from the summer heat and check in at the local sheriff’s department, then check out when you leave. No harm, no foul.
Meanwhile, I have no choice but to point out that you are giving incomplete information about Nevada (and Rhode Island, which you often mention) on every monthly ACSOL phone call.
Sincerely,
Atwo Zee, Registered Traveler
Can you list the navigation keystrokes for dialing in. Last meeting I wanted to raise my hand and did not know how to do it.
I’m wondering if ACSOL have gotten the letters discussed on Steve Lehto’s podcast on YT. The title: CA state bar sends open letter to it’s members Re: Gerardi https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qyzAvxyQA_o
CA isn’t the only state with problematic things concerning attorney discipline. I filed a complaint upon the lawyer who refused to put former AG on the witness list the third time I was indicted for FTR.
I hadn’t signed a standard waiver in the sex case against me (’92) yet AG promulgated the civil registration regime upon me without it anyway. See Kentucky v Padilla. I was stonewalled by our state OLR, Office of Lawyers regulations on the issue and my complaint died summarily. The WI SC oversees the OLR similarly to how CA does.
My point being we’re seeing a pattern of certain events being overlooked, especially surrounding data collection & big tech data brokers. Mr. Garerdi was involved with the legal matters involving many Silicon Valley startup’s & their funding. I’m currently drafting a letter to Judge Salas of NJ in which I discuss the murder of a lawyer named Betsy Gavan. Betsy was my lawyer in my 1st FTR case. She’s the one who told me my trial was prejudiced by the testimony of the mother. She also told me about the Standard Waiver of Civil right, which state didn’t have. It was important to contest FTR so she filed a motion based on substantive 14th. That first case was dismissed but without prejudice. In short, she’d done her job. The second time they drug me invfor FTR, I was going to hire her again, but I couldn’t find her. That case proceeded per usual and at one court date I happened to hear about her death accidentally from the clerk who handed out all the time & date slips to defendants before they exited the defense table. I overheard her conversation with another person when she – the clerk-used the phrase ..” the Gaven murder case.” I inquired “Did you mean Betsy Gavan?” The clerk nodded and I told her- I wanted to hire Betsy again because she’d done me right the first time. I was in shock.
Why- how this ties to Judge Salas and the death of her kid has to do with the CA mens rights group I had contacted this group for support as per Betsy’s advice.
I was broke and needed help so I reached out to them via email. The man who killed young master Salas was from CA too and he attempted to join the Mens rights group, but was rejected- See Dateline NBC piece on the Salas case. Note how cleanly the Dateline piece concluded with master Salas murderer committing suicide conveniently with two manila envelopes at the scene. I believe the killer wasn’t acting alone, and his suicide was staged to close the case without additional inquiry into his connections. Simply put the wackjob was merely an asset for someone or some few. The key to understand this has to do with the lawyer working for the mens rights group who was also murdered. This lawyer was the guy who won the case of registration for the draft by female Americans. Obviously a talented lawyer he also focused on how men were being prejudiced against in courts during divorce custody cases etc.
It could be that Betty’s filing for me in the first case was an early threat to the constitutionality of data collection, and thereby a threat to those who would desire unfettered use and application of the database. Maybe I’m wrong but someone killed her and I believe the case is still unsolved. If it were I’d have heard.
The only other candidate would be my lawyer from the bogus sex case, who subsequently became the Courts Commissioner here in Rock County WI, just as his father was at one time. This lawyer showed up in the DAs office just as I was signing probation papers upon my sole conviction- by jury for FTR in 2011. Either Mr. Junig was falling on his own sword on my behalf or covering his tracks. I’m unsure at this point.
Feel free to delete this post because it’s out there I know, but I felt the need to do it. It may prove useful for something.
Thx Tim in WI.
P.S. I AM WRITING SALAS! NO BS!