General Comments Jan 2023

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of Jan 2023. 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.  
 

180 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A Police App Exposed Secret Details About Raids and Suspects
what about the victims who were wrongly accused were all their information was expose doubt anything will come of that.

Judge to weigh sex offender registration

with the recent ruling in Pennsylvania maybe this one goes our way.

Interesting article from a Law Firm
Suing for Harm to Reputation in California

Sometimes you just need a reality check as in this video from Vice News: “The Young Children Working From Dawn to Dusk”.

Refresher and in light of the odd Preliminary Injunction decision… Let’s focus back on unconstitutional passing of conflicting laws.

General vs Special laws
 
If the laws share all the same components, then the Special laws will be followed. If the laws do not share the same components, then the General law must be followed.
 
Using Venn diagrams (circle symbols) might be the best way to explain this concept.
 
1.  If the Special law circle is completely inside of the General law circle, then the laws share all the same components. The Special law must be followed.
 
1.  If any part of the Special law circle is not inside the General law circle, then the laws DO NOT share all the same components. The General law must be followed.
 
History of General vs Special laws
 
In Kelly v Municipal 1958 decision, the court founded 1203.4 General law and 290 Special law do not share all the same components. Therefore, the General law must be followed over the Special law. 1203.4 General law must be followed over 290 Special law. Here’s a direct quote from Kelly:
 
—————– quote ————
 ” ‘It is the general rule that where the general statute standing alone would include the same matter as the special act, and thus conflict with it, the special act will be considered as an exception to the general statute …’ ” Section 1203.4 deals with all probationers, including those who have committed none of the offenses mentioned in section 290. In addition, section 290 applies to some convicted persons who are ineligible for probation as well as to some who are eligible. Clearly, the rule invoked does not apply.
————– end quote ———-
 
I included a Venn Diagram. The big circle represents 1203.4 probationers. The small, green circle represents 290 offenses. Where both circles overlap (the black and green lines) is where you have 290 probationers. (I do hope the picture shows up and you can see it, there is no preview function.)
 
What does this ruling mean?
 
Since they don’t share all the same components, the General law (1203.4) must be followed. That means all the benefits and immunities under 1203.4 “must be granted” to 290 probationers, which includes a “not guilty” plea (no longer convicted) and the accusation/info against the defendant is dismissed (the case cannot be used or disseminated because it is no longer public info). Those two benefits/immunities are protected by “right to privacy” as well as “right to reputation”. Therefore, earning 1203.4 means a defendant cannot be a part of the registry scheme with the passing of “right to privacy/reputation” in 1972.
 
i. Because of General rule (Kelly, 1958), 290 recognizes two types of convictions: 1) after judgment, such as finished serving sentence or released on parole and 2) during the suspension of imposition or execution of sentence. For 1203.4 probationers, conviction is only during the suspension of imposition or execution of sentence. Under 1203.4 process, the judgment is not final. When a defendant successfully completes probation, then the conviction judgment is removed and replaced with a “not guilty” judgment. 290 is failing to recognize this “not guilty” final judgment.
 
ii. Because the General rule (Kelly, 1958) must be followed, 1203.4 registrant recipients “must be granted” the same privileges and immunities as all 1203.4 recipients pursuant to CA Const. Art 1, Sec 7(b). Notice the consistency of the rule of law between General vs Special, Conviction status, and CA Const. Art 1, Sec 7(B).
 
iii. Because the General rule (Kelly, 1958) must be followed, the obligations of 1203.4 contract cannot be impaired pursuant to CA Const. Art 1, Sec 9. That means 290.007 is an unconstitutional law as it purposely impaired the obligations of 1203.4 contract. Remember, 1203.4 is a reward if a defendant successfully completes probation. (Well, that was before 1203.425 was passed recently.)
 
Putting this all together, it shows the state is complicit in defaming, both written (libel) and spoken (slander), all 1203.4 registrant recipients since the passing of 290.007 and all laws denying removal from the registry. 1203.4 represents rehabilitation and the courts willingness to not destroy a life to have this venue to “pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy”. Back in 1931, Melvin v Reid had this similar situation where a film company dug into someone’s past to tarnish that someone’s present rehabilitated status in life. The film company is today’s registry scheme as they don’t care if a defendant earned a 1203.4 rehabilitation.
 
The inconsistency of the rule of law is on full display when it ignores General v Special rule and right to Privacy. 290 does not recognize 1203.4 recipients are no longer convicted. When does a statutory law override a criminal law? It cannot, especially when the only way to be on the registry is through a sex conviction. 290 is not recognizing 1203.4 registrants conviction was not a final judgment, but a temporary conviction during the suspension of imposition or execution of sentencing. It is perplexing to have a 1203.4 and 290 on the same background check when that 290 is directly related to 1203.4 case dismissal. You are convicted and not convicted of a sex crime simultaneously, which is defamation because both cannot be true at the same time. I’d love to sue for damages of preventing job opportunities and travel.
 
290 undermines the the purpose of 1203.4 in the late 2000s by unconstitutionally breaking the General vs Special law and treating 1203.4 registrant recipients differently than non-290 offense 1203.4 recipients. The only 1203.4 class that needs to apply for the CoR to earn 1203.4 benefits of being rehabilitated is the 1203.4 registrant class, which is evidenced in all the applications preceding the recently passed SB-384 tiered registry scheme.
 
If someone can share this info with NARSOL, then it might help NARSOL speed up the law suit process or give them new ideas. The registry violates so many laws, but the two most important ones are General v Special and Right to Privacy. 

Maybe ACSOL might want to revisit this angle seeing how the Prelim Injunction is citing 290.007 as good, standing law.

General v Special (Venn Diagram).png

Which State and County requires no ankle monitor for sex offenders?

Not sure if anyone watched the Critics Choice Awards, but it was interesting to hear the Host talk about Congress and Hollywood. She said something like this: “For the first time Congress is in more turmoil than Hollywood; they already have more sex offenders”. Isn’t that the truth? The term sex offender is really becoming a joke.

Here’s a story that yet again highlights the hypocrisy of not only the U.S. , but other governments defending the registry.
I have a friend that I met while going to the dreaded court appointed therapy yrs ago. He and his wife (Thai ) never had children because he was placed on registry, but now have decided they would like to since he has only three yrs left in Ca.
They applied here and after a couple of interviews were denied. Now, his conviction was expunged, he makes a very comfortable living in Bay Area and both he and his wife have advanced degrees. This would normally be a dream scenario for adoption agencies, but no way.
Here’s where it takes a funny twist.
They called the Thai consulate and requested agency names there. It seems he can’t enter Thailand, but they have no issues with him adopting a child. All he has to do is arrive at Bangkok airport. He needn’t go through customs. His son ( they want a boy) will be brought to them along with adoption papers. Then they fly back.
Isn’t that the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard. Well, They get their baby and they will be happy.regardless of the registry. Will make a great story for their son if they decide to tell him.

Curious if anyone can chime in with some help on this.

Former registrant in California.
Age of victim was 16.
Misdemeanor 647.6.
expungement and COR

Nevada age of consent is 16.
under Nevada registration laws it says,

“Out of State Offenses – An offense committed in another jurisdiction that, if committed in this State, would be an offense listed in this section must register.“

Considering my crime in CA would not have been a crime in Nevada, does anyone know if that would clear me of having to worry about being forced to re-register upon moving there? Also, would I even need to notify anyone since my crime here would not be a crime there?

thanks!

Just seen this, if your young and on the hit list and want a new start consider joining the Foreign Legion

Human trafficking laws were supposed to help women. Victims’ stories say otherwise.
Just like the sex offense registry was supposed to stop sexual abuse as well.

I realized last week that I have one thing in common with Donald J Trump. We both call the Department of Justice the Department of Injustice (DOI).

My reason is because of the DOI implementing all the SORNA regs which are an assault on multiple parts of the constitution.

His reason is because he hates law enforcement investigating him for his numerous crimes and he is scared of indictments and possible prison time.

Just had another Registry influenced moment with a neighbor. I wrote a comment about the one I had last week, but the moderator decided it was too long. I agree, it was too long. Thank you Moderators for helping me be a more responsible poster. Not kidding, that was genuine.

Unlike the teen neighbor who threatened to beat me up if I didn’t stay away from his little Sister, a girl I have never met as far as I know, this was a good moment overall. Just happened walking back from the corner store at the end of the block. My neighbors, who are street vendors, invited me to enjoy some tacos. Wonderful…so good and given with such kindness. So how is THAT Registry influenced?

Couldn’t help but think, when they stopped me on the sidewalk as I walked by…”Am I being set up?” It was the first thought that went through my head, and came very close to getting me to just keep on walking. Decided to risk it, so long as I stayed visible in the front yard.

Home now, writing this after devouring the tacos. Should be an all great moment…but…the abomination has a way of tainting everything for me.

I have a question for those here, I am 75 and would like to return to a part time job. My offense was 664/288(a) and this year 2023 completes by 20 years on the Registry. The LA County Public Defender is going to apply for my relief from the registry Anyway I would like to find a part time with Lowe or Home Depot or Harbor Freight and wonder if anyone here has tried any of them and be successful or failed?
Thanks

Janice
I am the person who contacted you a couple months ago.as a victum of an attemped scam I heard you recall the event a couple of times on your Podcast warning people, every thing that you stated about me was true but I wanted to add something that might be important for others . My initial scam contact was a voice mail after I missed the call so first I looked at the voice mail phone # and I noticed right away that it was the Ventura County Sherriff’s’ number when I listened to the message it said ” This is officer Denny? of the Sherriff’s department and I need you to call me back ASAP” . So I thought OMG this i legit and scary.! So I called him back and this is where the scam started he said We had mailed you 2 certified letters from the Court asking you to appear at the County because we need to get new DNA tests done on you , so of course I said that I had never received any certified mail and you guys have gotten my DNA several times , But he says it is on you that you ignored the certified letters so at this point the Court is putting out 2 arrest warrants on you and That is where I fell for it and he was telling me I could stop the arrest warrent if I posted $6000 cash bail only and I would have to bring it to him personally I guess , at this point you know the rest of the story when the Bank Cop told me I was being scammed and just hang up on him ! What still troubles me is that this Sheriffs Deputy was behind this and when I told him the gig was up he still called me back and asked me if I would come in anyway ?. So a sheriff was doing this what was his motive? Did he just want to get money off of me or did he have a pathological hatred of RSOs was he just a sadist was any other cop in on this ? I have lost all trust in the Sheriffs dept ever since .this . So I would warn other people that it could be a Bad or Rouge Cop doing this ! Knowing that he was a Cop convinced or fooled me that it was legit .
Janis now that I have told you this it is not necessary to leave this comment on the forum., Thank you for everything that you do I am also enclosing another donation for the cause.

Catch 22

Scam call on all 3 lines – from (714) 844-9827 but looks like it’s a spoofed number per internet search? Let it go to voice mail and it met my delete button. They’re late by 21 days, last two months they called on the 2nd of the month. It looks like it started after the annual registration after the full information started displaying last year.

I see California had another mass shooting.

Meh. Amerika loves hate. Always has. Today, they really promote hate with the Registries. They encourage it. There is hate directed at PFRs and hate directed from PFRs. Everyone loses. But who really a f*ck, right? As long as we can keep growing big government into an ever bigger, monstrous nanny and keep its Registry, etc. businesses thriving, it’s all good. Those people need jobs. The OffenderWatch people need mansions.

Amerika reaps what they sow. We could get rid of all the guns and mass killings aren’t going to stop. The guns make it easy but they aren’t the root problem. Few people care about the root problem.

Now I want to know when I’m going to get my damn Gun Offender Registry. I have a right to know about those people living near my children. They shouldn’t be allowed to live in neighborhoods. How insane is it that we allow people who have shot children with guns to live next door to schools?!

So if NM passes the castration for parole law, what will they cut off murders, drug dealers, violent criminals? Hands, lips, ears, feet. If any state passes this, many will follow. Then the states with expanded registries may begin the appendage removal. Oh what a delight for the powers that be. They won’t have to spend money on passport indicators. Then of course, it won’t be just for parole. They’ll expand to probation requirements. Then they’ll make it retroactive and we’ll all get castrated. NM needs to be stopped at all cost.

Because NY temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on when one could file lawsuit against others, 30 years later, Mike Tyson is hit with one for an allegation that is that old: Mike Tyson accused of raping woman in the early 1990s as part of new civil suit

The flood of them has arrived…

Why do we not register drug dealers? Not on a drug dealer registry, but on the SO Registry? Career drug dealers engage in various form of sexual assaults on a regular basis. The typical is, “Sex for drugs” arrangements, but rape in various degrees is extremely common. 

I’m not saying we should convict people of crimes that cannot be proven, just register them. The State has repeatedly indicated, and the courts have continuously agreed, that the registry isn’t punishment. So, why not register people when we have a very high level of confidence that they have committed sexual offenses? Maybe after their second conviction, just to be sure?

If a person has 3 or 4 Drunk in Public convictions, wouldn’t suspending their drivers license make sense? Why wait for them to get a DUI before you do that? Why put all the kids in the neighborhood in danger just to avoid suspending this person’s driving privilege? 

If you knew your neighbor has raped a child, would you hesitate to register him…conviction or not? We use, “Presumption of guilt” in other ways, such a bail considerations, so why not here? If he looks guilty enough to charge, register him immediately. Don’t risk this on getting a conviction, do it the moment charges are filed. Maybe ask the judge to, rubber stamp that. It’s not punishment, so it doesn’t matter if he is found guilty or not. It’s just a civil regulatory scheme narrowly tailored to promote pubic safety….so why not apply this to him…just in case? You would rather he not be registered based solely on the fact he lawyered his way out of the conviction?

People that break into houses where it is obvious that kids live there. Maybe they have a swing set in the front yard, littered with kid stuff. We are absolutely sure that the REAL reason they broke in isn’t to get to some young boy’s Elmo Plushie? We all remember what these pervs do with the Elmos. Register him, just in case. With that one, maybe wait on a conviction…but if you get it…register! Why risk the nation’s Elmo’s?!? It’s not punishment, so there is no problem. Civil Regulatory Schemes can be applied to anyone the State feels the need to. Only punishments require criminal convictions, and this is not punishment!

We register people based on a Public Urination conviction, based on the assumption that a conviction for this crime equates to a life long threat to the community. We do this despite the fact that there are at least 20 or so million people in America that have urinated in public at some point. We have no concern about trying to find any of those people, but will register the few that get caught. So obviously, only dangerous Pedos get caught!

So let’s just register everyone? No no…just the people we can reasonably assume have, or will commit! Shouldn’t be more than, 20 to 30 thousand more a year…50 tops. Obviously, as retroactive application is valid…yeah.

Soon, we’ll have a mighty registry of millions and millions of dangerous people!

Thoughts?