General Comments Oct 2022

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of Oct 2022. 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.

Related posts

Subscribe
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.
  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.  
 

267 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

To moderator:Yes,was there no monthly
meeting recorded to make available?
Also,thank you for dedication. R

[MODERATORS COMMENT: Sorry, but due to a technical error there will be no recording posted for the October meeting]

Privacy Act of 1974

Anyone here familiar with it? It would appear that it governs disclosure of personal information collected or held by government agencies? Seems there are some pretty tight controls over who gets to see personal information held by the government. I’m quite sure that ML Law data is not covered, somehow. They carved out an exception for this? Did they, or are they just ignoring these laws?

Just becoming aquatinted with it. DoJ Office of Civil Liberties put out a very wordy overview covering the 2020 update. Again, anyone familiar?

Here’s a link to document I found: https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition

Google search: “departmet of justice civil liberties privacy act of 1974 overview”

Hell yes! Just like NotoriousDIK I’m officially off this F:$;ing registry! The DA had five sentences in objection while Janice provided the court with 70 pages of a brief. If anyone faces a DA challenge Janice should be your only choice. Janice thank you so much!!!

Has anyone else seen “negative” campaign ads where a candidate has helped a sex offender or represented a sex offender. That just gives me give a solid endorsement and vote for said candidate. In Michigan, those ads should give them a solid 50,000 votes (The amount of PFRs). I love being informed.

Hello, If our petition gets approved under SB 384, which means we do not have to register anymore, under penal code 290; This i understand!
However, when it comes our time to do our annual, do we still have to register under
SORNA? Or if we stay in California and don’t leave, are we are safe? Don’t we have to be notified by SORNA of our requirements?

Slavery is on the ballot for voters in 5 US states (AP via Yahoo)
Large dicussion in this forum on involuntary servitude and incarceration. States realize they need it (including CA as seen in the article) to save on incarceration costs (as CA did). So, once again, there are exceptions to everything if the people vote for it after being proposed by legislatures.

The states and US Constitutions will have so many holes in them they will resemble cheesecloth in the end held together merely by fabric thread for some semblance of a document.

SCAM WARNING!

I’ve previously read reports here on attempted scams where someone calls a registrant claiming to be law enforcement and stating there is a warrant issued for them and attempts to keep them on the phone while they supposedly deposit some money at a location they are directed to to avoid arrest.

Had the pleasure of being subjected to this attempted scam this past weekend, and just wanted to make people aware of their latest methods.

They phoned me first through a local cell number and left a voicemail, and followed with a second call from a phone number that appears to be from the County (I’m sure the number is spoofed) and left a second voicemail urging me to call back immediately. I was in the middle of playing golf so called back after my round.

Since I had heard of these scams I was skeptical as soon as the “officer” stated I had failed to show up to court per a summons that was issued and supposedly sent to an address I had de-registered from. After a few minute discussion I was getting pretty agitated because what he was saying didn’t make any sense to me. He tried to play “tough cop” but eventually said he didn’t care if I didn’t respond and let me hang up.

Then proceeded to call back on the “County” number to assert his authority and prove this was serious. This is where the first bit of doubt crept into my mind that maybe this is real. He then texted the supposed summons, a warrant stating I had a $30,000 bond and a document with a QR code directing me to a kiosk location that I was to deposit cash to get a voucher to bring to the court house. By being argumentative and not giving me a chance to really review these docs, I was actually nervous this was real at this point.

After telling him I couldn’t post $3,000 (10% of the bond) in cash and that I could only do $200, he said he could try and get authorization for a reduced amount while I started driving to the bank, and then on to the kiosk to deposit the bond and proceed to the court lobby to submit that voucher. Insisted I had to stay on the phone the whole time and provide updates of location. Even had police dispatch sounds going on in the background and pretended to be talking to other “officers”.

Going into PTSD mode, I’m embarrassed that I stayed on the phone for over 30 minutes while I drove to the bank and withdrew cash. The whole time driving I was starting to doubt that it was real. Fortunately had to stop for gas, and took the opportunity to examine the documents he sent me more closely and noticed spelling errors, headings indicating what court it was from didn’t match across documents, and penal codes cited didn’t match up to state codes when I googled them. Finished filling up my tank, got in the car and hung up now certain it was a scam. Guy tried calling back twice and I ignored it.

Happy to report they haven’t come and taken me away yet, lol! Felt so stupid the whole rest of the day as my initial gut told me it was a scam. So just a warning to everyone out there, I thought I’d never fall prey to this scam and they managed to get me halfway there.

CA Information Practices Act of 1977 ponderings.

The registry is a statutory scheme that collects, maintains, and disseminates information once a person is convicted of a sex crime in CA. And with the data, there are attached restrictions, laws, etc… This can only be permitted if the registry is allowed to collect, maintain, and disseminate one’s private information due to a conviction.

PC 1203.4 has benefits of

  1. Court withdraws conviction plea and enters a plea of Not Guilty
  2. Court shall dismiss the accusation or information against the defendant
  3. Court shall release defendant from all penalties and disabilities

The CA registry was once deemed punitive in the Kelly v Municipal, 1958 decision and 1203.4 provided relief for 1203.4 registrants. Around the 2000s, CA changed its registration status from being punitive to a civil, regulatory scheme, which was probably due to the Smith v Doe, 2003 decision citing the registry was not punitive. It was around that time CA passed 290.007 in 2007 to negate 1203.4 registrants from no longer having the path off the registry to regain their privacy once again.

CA’s right to privacy was amended into CA constitution in 1972.

The state Constitution gives each citizen an “inalienable right” to pursue and obtain “privacy. (sic, from website)

This codifies into CA law there exists a way to obtain privacy once again and are allowed to pursue the venue to attaining privacy.

.
In 1977, CA passed the Information Practices act of 1977, or Civil Code 1978.

CC 1978.1

The Legislature declares that the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right of privacy in information pertaining to them. The Legislature further makes the following findings:

… (a) The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies.

… (b) The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information.

… (c) In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits.

This law codifies “right to privacy” to extended to personal information in 1977. The registry was still deemed punishment in this time and 1203.4 never had to utilize right to privacy laws. Therein lies the problem between CC 1978, PC 1203.4, and PC 290.007/PC 290.5, the right to privacy was never extended to the registrant class when the registry switched from a punitive program to a civil, regulatory program.

No one used a Civil Code law to combat a civil, regulatory program law. 1203.4 states legally that an individual is “not guilty” of a sex crime AND the accusation or information against the defendant can no longer be used because the courts dismissed it. The only way an individual can get onto the registry is to be convicted of a sex crime. Logically, if an individual’s conviction was changed to not guilty, then that individual is no longer part of the civil, regulatory program. Also, that civil, regulatory program cannot disseminate that accusation and information against the defendant because it is court ordered within PC 1203.4.

PC 290.007 neutered PC 1203.4 for registrants only by not recognizing a “not guilty” plea change by the courts, but by also continued use of personal information that was court ordered to be not used. The fact these two PC 1203.4 immunities/benefits are not recognized only for the registrant class is unconstitutional. There were no scientific sources to negate these immunities/benefits. The are several federally sponsored researches that prove the recidivism rates are low and that the recidivism rates before and after registry did not change.

——-> I find it ironic that the PLF and ACSOL are now fighting the Federal government from changing the Fed’s SORNA rule that mimics 1203.4 and PC 290.007 situation. The Fed gov’t wants to change who is relieved from the duty to registry from any who had a case dismissed through any legal venue to only recognizing dismissed cases of innocents only. That’s essentially what PC 290.007 did to 1203.4 registrant class – not recognize a case dismissal to relieve the duty to register. <—————-

Yet, CA has something the Fed does not have. CA explicitly has a right to privacy law within its constitution and CA explicitly extends that right to privacy law to personal information (CC 1978.1). We have the CA constitution and Civil Code hammers to prove the state wrongfully applied its power over the 1203.4 registrant class. I find it baffling that PLF and ACSOL are trying to prevent the Fed gov’t of these changes, but it cannot identify and sue CA for doing the same thing of not recognizing a case dismissal as the venue to be off the registry.

Officially off Megan’s Law Website and National Registry. Working on Homefacts NOW! Have a date already to go get a new passport without the stamp of shame. If you are eligible don’t be afraid of going back to court file the petition. The feeling of freedom is worth it.

Jesus, now we face scrutiny on who we give donations to
Kari Lake accepted hundreds in donations from people with sex offense convictions

Question: I was a 38 year member of the Knights of Columbus until my offense in 2001 for 664/288(a) in CA. That ended my membership AND now I as a Tier 2 will seek relief in April of 2023 from the Registry . I contact the K of C and was told once I am off the Registry I can apply for Reinstatement to the Order
Has anyone else gone through all of this and applied for and obtained reinstatement?
Thanks

Well, it’s holiday season again. When everyone decides to be nice to each other for a few months. Inviting others to homes for thanksgiving dinner, opening gifts on Christmas and celebrating the new year.
Of course those things will be denied to many of us as we are not welcome in society. We will be shunned by our families, friends and co workers because of some mistake that was made sometimes over 20 yrs ago.
I for one have only my pet to celebrate with. But at least she is sincere in her affection for me.
I want to wish those out there in my situation a safe, if not happy holidays.

Has any thought been put into designing a matrix for profiling our PFR community at time of offense. Things like,

  1. Family dynamic ( i.e. divorced parents, single parent living situation, siblings,etc)
  2. level education completed
  3. type of employment ( labor, management, proprietorship, etc )
  4. living arrangement ( single, married, partnership, widowed, etc )
  5. age group
  6. sexual preference identified with
  7. Offspring if any

All this could be anonymous and I think it could really help researchers in identifying triggers in the PFRs life. I know I have found through talking with my doctor that I experienced things that she said were indicators that I was susceptible to my offense. Wouldn’t it be helpful if these are identified as a preventive measure rather than waiting then using as an excuse after the fact.

Janice you know you talk about getting men off the registry and yes I’m sure that makes any lawyer happy when they see their client get a fair trail. Some don’t even get a trial but it is wrapped up in the form of a plea deal. While we don’t talk much about political science one should take note of it..

Are RSO better off than we were 5 years ago? I think things stay the same.
Are we better off then we were 10 years ago?
YES, big thanks to Janice and her team. 10 years ago we couldn’t even legally drive on HWY 5 because there is a playground under that over pass.
I think all this will be over within 5 years. We have more lawyers interested in doing RSO civil right. I appreciate that Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) coming out of the woodwork to help us out. I think they will be able to shut down the whole thing.

A Spooky Halloween Tale: Fears of Satanism rise again from the grave (although it never completely left).

This video from NBC discusses the resurgence of satanic panic today as well as provides the historical backdrop of it in the 1980s. It includes public service announcements (“60 children disappear everyday!”) that provides those of us who remember this period all too well with an extra-scary reminder.
Satanic panic is more than just a ‘Stranger Things’ plot — it’s real life

Steve in Germany did his 1st solo flight towards his pilot license three days ago. Congrats to him. We all need to focus on our goals and not let this registry be our albatross.

For those interested, Reddit has a group ‘ sex offender support’. Good way to get outside yourself and lend support to those just getting started with the registry. Also lots of questions answered by those experiencing the registry first hand.

This sex branding is a combination of good intentions. prejudices, and unforeseen consequences. To the church goers this type of action of deception, unethical plain and simple and overshadowing another in the way of entrapping another by use of this computer device. If many knew the truth about these registries they would be ashamed of American government.

Sure the computer can be a tool for marketing anything today but who is marketing who in this registry of human servitude type issue. Authorities in Government understand their own ways and do these things to keep their jobs intact. Whether right or wrong who is judging who today? In many ways its a deceitful and fraudulent form of human trafficking that is why much of this registry should be banned.

Circling back to the upcoming new law PC1203.425. Offenses that meet the criteria, like completion of probation, shall automatically receive conviction relief, and the DOJ is to, on a monthly basis determine what individuals are eligible for this relief. Sex offenders are excluded again. How can this not be discriminatory and unconstitutional as the regular 1203.4 is still available for sex offenders and must be granted if criteria is met? So a singled out group, who will get this relief through a petition that HAS to be granted (if criteria is met), can not benefit from this automatic relief and must go through a lengthy court petition that has to be granted in the end,

Moderator

Now when a comment is entered and submitted, it does not go to a draft posting but is left in the raw comment box as if it was not submitted. When you submit it again, it gets a duplicate note message.

Using latest Firefox web app through a laptop if that makes a difference.

So I’m thinking this might be helpful to those now and in the future to provide contact info and just plain info on removal from the third party sites. I have had zero luck getting any response from homefacts or city-data. Surprisingly, offender watch has a responsive customer service and were very pleasant with me and are removing me. They have a website and an app make sure you are removed from both.

support@offenderwatch.com

Homefacts
https://www.homefacts.com – if you search your name and your page comes up there is a report error in blue. It’s kinda small but use that link.

City-Data
errors@city-data.com
legal@city-data.com
http://www.advameg.com -corporate

they also have a corporate email and legal which I will use next if I get no response. They do say it takes awhile to get a response

Thanks to David for making me dig deeper.