General Comments Dec 2023

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of Dec 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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.  
 

153 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=43045

in North Carolina you can petition to get off the registry after 10 years so this man who was 17 when he committed the crime he’s been Colorado first and then Florida however, it’ll be 23 years on the registry before he can petition to get off of a civil regulatory scheme, and they only asked for 10 years from the state legislative. How is this legal? The dissenting judge has a good point about this because it hinge is on initial county registration. What is the initial county is initial county the state of conviction is it initial county North Carolina?
So if they’re saying the residents don’t feel safe because he has to live in North Carolina for 10 years to show proof that he has been rehabilitated. Then what is the point of 50 individual registries shouldn’t the United States government have oversight over the whole thing.

I am curious what anyone from Florida thinks about Christian Ziegler. Will a person in such a prominent position in a state that is one of the absolute worst in regard to it’s treatment of people on the registry ever be charged with a sex crime, or will it all be swept under the rug?

BioLife plasma donation centers ask donors (via a computerized questionnaire) if they have ever been convicted of a sex crime with a minor. If one answers “yes”, this is brought up during the subsequent face-to-face interview with one of their staff members. The prospective donor is then told, in no uncertain terms, that they are forever banned from donating blood to any BioLife facility. I know this from first-hand experience, and I know two other individuals who had the same exact experience. I’m not sure if this is the proper venue to expose this, but I feel it definitely needs to be exposed.

Just posted a very long speculation regarding Fischer v. United States. Post is in replies to my (top level) post on the “3 myths about hiring people Criminal Records article”. Didn’t have the name of the case then, just found it. So yet another super long post. Sorry, complex ideas require long posts.

Please, if you have the time, look at the central issue of this case scheduled to be heard by SCOTUS this Wednesday (12/20/23).

Fischer, a J6 rioter, claims the charges of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, are without merit, as there is no proof he did anything specifically to obstruct the proceedings. Simply being part of the riot does not make him guilty, nor does the actions of those he is in direct, in person voluntary association with, make him guilty of this by virtue of his presence. So, SCOTUS believes it is possible for him to be present in the riot, without being responsible for creating an obstruction, because Mr. Fischer claims he did not intend to create an obstruction, and did not engage in any specific actions that would cause an obstruction.

Now ask yourself, “How is it possible that Fischer is not guilty, but all non-prod PFRs are not only guilty, but also high and Frightening risks of escalated future crimes?”

If SCOTUS decides in Fischer’s favor, they must confirm that only direct, intentional involvement with the crime creates responsibility. Simply being involved with people that are engaged in this crime, even while you yourself are knowingly engaging in a crime (Trespassing), does not make you responsible for their actions, even as they unfold all around you.

However, possession of CSAM is criminal because….? I had no association with the production. No idea who the producers were, when or where the images were produced. So I obviously bare no responsibility for the production, as I neither intended the images to be produced, nor did I engage in any action that caused the production. If Fischer’s charge of Obstruction is without merit, I cannot have any responsibility for the creation of the images. Hearing this Fischer’s case means, my responsibility for the production of questionable? How is he questionable, but I’m not?

If Fischer can be criminally present in the middle of a mob of people creating an obstruction, yet not be responsible for this obstruction… How can I be in anyway responsible for images that were made days to decades before I saw them, by persons unknown to me, without my knowledge, consent, or involvement?

Fischer can choose to be right there in the middle of the riot, and have no responsibility for anything the people around him are doing, but I bare responsibility for the, in some cases decades old actions, of people I have never, and will never meet? How are both things possible?

Fischer may avoid charges of Obstruction, by claiming he was not involved with an attempt to obstruct, despite being present as this crime was being committed by others all around him? However, crimes I had no involvement with, knowledge of, nor association of any kind with, creates a burden of responsibility upon me? How are both things possible? Why is it questionable with him, but not me?

What is the logical foundation for criminalizing possession? How does that same logic not apply to Fischer without question, in the same way it applies to me without question?

Even if Fischer looses, ask yourself this: Why is SCOTUS listening to this appeal if there is no question of Fischer’s responsibility to face a charge of Obstruction? If his presence in the riot, which is not in question, did not conclusively establish that he is at least potentially guilty of Obstruction, how am I guilty of any crime without question?

Possession creates mental anguish for all who have been victims of production crimes. Ok, point taken, but my possession did not actually do this. The current anguish comes from knowing that people could be in possession, my my specific possession, which was unknown to any but myself until the State made it public knowledge, did not create this anguish, it later my possession. Also, it would still exist even if I was never in possession. Also, the specific individuals depicted in the images found on my computers are unknown to all, with the possible acception of the State (not me). So how did my specific actions create anguish for anyone that did not proceed my possession? I didn’t create the anguish, nor did my actions exacerbate the preexisting anguish for any individual, nor did I intend to create nor exacerbate any person(s) anguish. So what do my actions make me responsible for, and how am I still responsible for them if the results were unintended, and unknown to me?

Now compare your answers to the Conclusive Presumption of frightening and high risk.

How can there be any question of Fischer’s potential responsibility for obstruction, as part of his proven presence in the riot, but there is absolutely no question regarding my risk of future crimes, including crimes that there is no evidence I have ever even attempted? How are both things possible? Fischer’s responsibility to face charges of Obstruction by virtue of the fact he was part of the mob is questionable, but there is no question about my risk of future behaviors? How?

SCOTUS can look at my past, and make conclusive presumptions of future behaviors, including behaviors there is no evidence of ever being part of my life, but SCOTUS is unsure that Fischer’s presence in the riot makes him even potentially guilty of the crimes others were commiting all around him?

The rational foundation for these two conclusions is exactly what? There is no rational foundation for my responsibility for any result that my actions did not directly produce, which was to download an image file to my computer and nothing more. The State has simply made what I did a crime because they wanted to, and arbitrarily assigns me responsibility for the actions of others, and the unintended results I did nothing to produce. This is done in an attempt to create an illusion of legitimacy to conceal their irrational and arbitrary decisions and conclusions.

So CSAM Possession should be legal so long as you were not involved with the production? Nope, it shouldn’t IMAO (In my Arbitrary Opinion), but felony.. F no.

Misdemeanor possession of contraband items…at least once. Unless your possession can be conclusively linked to producers, then felony. You bought it from someone you knew produced the imagine you are buying, traded with someone you knew produced the images you received, provide them with something that made the production possible (money, equipment, a place to produce in, and most egregiously a kid). That’s a felony, being involved in some way with making these images happen, and/or knowingly rewarding someone for producing images. I add, “Knowingly” to the last, because I should not be held to felony responsibility just because I downloaded an image that some freak show put on the P2P because they “get off” on the idea of strangers downloading the image they created. That ain’t my fault freak show’s got a fetish that I unknowingly, and unintentionally became involved with.
Other uses of the word, “Knowingly” in the last paragraph, I admit are more questionable.

As it stands today, there is no legal difference between me, and someone that was paying a producer to create custom images for them. Yes, that person may have gotten a more serious criminal sentence then I did, but today that distinction would/could be meaningless. Unless they were charged as an accessory to the production, or were unable to plea bargain away the receipt charges like I did, we would both just be non-prod possession felons, and T3 lifetime PFRs.

Yeah, they charged me with possession and receipt, and threatened distribution charges to drive the plea bargain on the possession charge. Pretty typical for P2P cases in CA at the time. Hit them with everything you can to get them to agree with the possession plea deal as fast as possible! Pushed all multiple-thousand of us that showed up over a couple year period through the court process and on to probation quickly and cheaply.

Should the Sex Offender Registry exist?

A monster of the worst kind who turns to God can be used most heavily for the Kingdom. Jesus forgave the woman sex offender caught in adultery…who are we not too also forgive? Look at Apostle Paul who once sought out and murdered Christians. God used him greatly. So, no one in their sin is beyond God’s hand of Grace.  The woman washing Jesus’s feet with her tears and her hair..The Lord in His compassion said though her sins were many she is forgiven. Is it not true that to whom much is forgiven renders in them much to be thankful for to also give towards God, others and the Kingdom?  By contrast the existence of a Sex Offender Registry is evil and wrong. It is the opposite of forgiveness and Grace!  TRUTH

NARSOL posted there Residency restrictions mainly focusing on the 7th circuit.

https://www.courts.michigan.gov/news-releases/2023/december/supreme-court-schedules-january-oral-arguments/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,               Vs. 
CORA LADANE LYMON, a/k/a COREY                 
LYMON

“The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application, but granted the prosecution’s cross-application to address whether requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., as amended by 2020 PA 295, effective March 24, 2021 (the 2021 SORA), for a non-sexual crime, such as unlawful imprisonment of a minor, constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16 or cruel and unusual punishment under US Const, Am VIII.”

So in Michigan next month the Supreme Court will hear if a non sexual crime warrants placement on the registry. 

I’m watching a news channel and they are talking about how unproductive the federal GOP has been because they’ve passed so few bills recently. I freaking hate that.

We don’t need these criminal regimes to be passing laws. We need the opposite. We have enough garbage laws in “free” Amerika.

What these a**hole criminal politicians should be doing almost 100% of the time is going through every existing law and seeing which ones should be thrown in the trash. Start with the idiotic Registries. Go from there. Maybe the idiots could balance a budget for once.

Vote to end big government. We’ve had enough of their idea of a “free” country. It only involves growing government ever bigger.

Back when my children were young, my wife and I would swap baby sitting days with neighbors. Everyone loved that and it worked very well. They all had kids that were already friends with my kids, etc.

I found out maybe 20ish years later that one of those neighbors was a child molester. Maybe all of them were. How would I know? I didn’t have any idea. And it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. I never read a government List.

Since I didn’t know I protected my children from everyone. My children were not molested. They knew how not to be molested. And I was involved. I kept them safe without the help of a government List.

Another thing that I didn’t know about those neighbors is who all of them had guns in the house. That situation is probably 1,000 times more dangerous than a child molester in the house. So where is the nanny government Registry of guns in houses? Aren’t we still pretending that we care about “public safety” and that we want to “protect children”? No?

Nanny government doesn’t Register guns. Heck, they don’t even Register people who have committed gun crimes! Or shot people in their home with a gun! Or shot children with a gun! My children were in those homes!

Until these criminal regimes get their Gun Offender Registries going, everyone will continue to know that their “public safety” and “protecting children” Sex Offense Registries are based on nothing but lies and propaganda. They exist for harassment and money.

Registry A**holes/Supporters/Terrorists love big, nanny government. They NEED government to help them through life. And the people grifting off of that, like OffenderWatch, love THAT. Decent, moral Americans need to end it all.

What does PFR stand for? I have been noticing it more in the comments and yet I have no idea what it stands for.

Anyone else the Nirvana Nevermind album cover case has been reignited upon appeal? True story. The recent reissue of the album caused the album to be a focus again, but not for CP but for the alleged continual harm related to the republishing of cover image with the reissue of the album.

😲Wow.😳 It’s strikes me as so surprisingly odd…. but if you search Google News for key word such as “12 year old”, “13 year old”, “14 year old”, “sexual assault”, etc., there are now – on a very regular basis – quite a few news articles about women♀️ allegedly commiting such offenses. 😳 Teachers, swim instructors, etc.
Did it happen as frequently in the past? Was it just covered-up or made to go away?
Curious & wondering.🤔

Merry Christmas and happy holidays, everyone!

To my Illinois comrades: I have been in contact with Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas and they will be working to support Chicago 400’s efforts to pass new legislation – SB 2158 / HB 3703 – reducing residency restrictions. The spring legislative session starts in a couple weeks.

I am a regular ACSOL $ supporter, and also contributing to IL Voices. If you have the means, please donate whatever you can to support Mark and Adele at http://www.ilvoices.org/contribute-financially.html. They are working hard for IL PFRs and also everyone in the 7th circuit.

I wanted to bring up this article again since I feel it could be directly applied to the new SB384 or Tiered Registry. Before the new law, and when taking a plea deal, we were aware that he could apply for a COR after 7 years offense free (10 years for some other offenses). With the new law, the COR is no longer available. Isn’t that the same as in this case from New Jersey where the PFRs were able to be removed from the registry after 10 years, and then a new law took that right away from them? The court decided that the new law could not be applied retroactively. I believe that with SB384, those who were eligible for a COR before the new law, should still be granted the COR according to this case. I hope a lawyer and/ or Janice can take a look at this case to see if this should be applied to those in California who were eligible for a COR with the old law but not with the new law. https://fredsisto.com/retroative-application-of-megans-law-subsection-g/

Retroactive Application of Megan’s Law Subsection (g)

I am not sure if I forgot to hit “Post Comment”, but my post never appeared here. I will continue to bring up this and other issues so it moves to the top again in the hopes ACSOL or any attorney reading this might look into this for those in similar situations here in California. Before the Tiered Registry SB384, some of us were eligible to file for a COR and be removed from the registry. With the new law a COR no longer relieves one of the duty to register. We missed this chance by a few months, and I believe this also would be considered retroactive application of Megan’s Law. We went from being able to file for COR and be removed from registering altogether to being placed into Tier 3 with full address disclosure when before the new law, he was not publicly listed and months away from filing a COR. This has to have merit!! In addition, his offense was expunged via 1203.4 and at a minimum, he should be removed from the public site. As another poster sated, Megans Law lists him as having a conviction, yet per 1203.4, he no longer has a conviction. The public is being misled and unnecessarily alarmed about a “dangerous” person who is no longer a threat according to the court of law. Thoughts?

Two ideas. I’ll try to be succinct.

#1: Pure speculation: The various “Treatment programs” those convicted of SOs are forced to be part of, violate the Human Right not to be used for “Scientific experimentation”?

Are all the various aspects of every program thoroughly vetted and approved by the American Psychological Association, or the FDA? Who exactly approved these programs? What criteria is used? What 3rd party monitoring is used to ensure compliance with the program in practice?

#2 I am not alone: As I have seen recently in various articles regarding the impact simply being on the registry has on people, I have to ask…

“… nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Does the devastating psychological and emotional impact of being on the Registry make the registry cruel/and Unusual punishment?

Similar arguments have been used to combat the use of Solitary Confinement, as well as other prison policies. Could these be used here?

Obviously the State will argue that the registry isn’t punishment, thus nothing about it can be viewed as Cruel and Unusual Punishment. However, if the result of this requirement is cruel and unusual, does it matter that this result is produced unintentionally?

There is no limit to how much Cruelty, no matter how unusual it may be, the State may inflict upon a person as a result of a conviction, so long as the State claims it is not punishment?

What is key, the intention or the result? If intention, how many times can the State produce this result and still be absolved of responsibility, and allowed to continue? At what point does the illusion of Sovereign Immunity give way to the reality of State Impunity?

I have a question,

Why hasn’t the issue of 1203.4 for misdomeanor offenses for CP possession been addressed. It seems to make sense that this should be allowed. From what I have read here regarding CASOMB, they have brought the penalties/ tier way down as the registry is concerned for many in higher tiers. I think that the subject of expungements should be addressed for what the legal system sees as minor offenses.
My brother had a misdemeanor drug charge and a felony armed burglary charge, both expunged after serving 11 months in jail and 5 yrs probation. He is now head of HP Aviation maintenance services in Texas. For those that don’t know, any position in a company having to do with planes is closely scrutinized and overseen by a federal agency (FAA). I have a misdemeanor charge that carried zero jail time with 2 yrs unsupervised probation. That was removed after just 1 yr. Now after 9 yrs I still get turned down in my profession when they do background checks. My profession is overseen by a state agency board that says if a 1203.4 is granted, then the person is allowed to be hired despite being on the registry. I know the 1203.4 wouldn’t affect the registry checks, but it would sure help when I sit down and explain that it isn’t on my record anymore.

Happy New Year Everyone! There are two issues I am hoping will be addressed by ACSOL at some point since we are now in 2024, and I am hopeful that it will be a good year. Number one is the issue with the 1203.4 or 1203.425 (new law). A 1203.4 lets the person withdraw their guilty plea and have their offense set aside/ expunged. With that, there is no longer a conviction except for certain scenarios such as being used as a prior should there be another offense. Also, with an FBI live scan (which is required for a State License), the report will show the offense, but it also HAS to show that it was dismissed. The new law 1203.425 (or 1203.4) both state that once an expungement is granted, information about the conviction can no longer be disseminated to anyone except a criminal agency or the person whose expungement was granted. Since Megan’s Law does not fall in either category, they should not be allowed to disseminate the person’t conviction, especially since they don’t also show that the conviction was dismissed. This is a complete misuse of the law. The 2nd issue I have been pressing is this case from New Jersey that covers retroactive application of Megan’s Law. In this case, the registrant was able to apply for removal from the registry prior to a new law being enacted. With the new law, they are no longer able to request this removal. This case sides with the registrant in that this new law should not apply to him since he was able to petition for removal prior to the new law and it should not be applied retroactively. We in California are in the same position with the new Tiered Registry Law SB384. Prior to the new law, my fiance was eligible to get a COR (Certificate of Rehabilitation) after being offense free for 7 years (some offenses require 10 years). We were a few weeks shy of being able to file the COR and then the new law came into effect. An attorney thought we would not have enough time to file since it was weeks before the new law was due to take effect . Now, with the new law, the COR will no longer relieve you of the duty to register when before the new law it did. This has to have merit as the new law put a more stringent burden on my fiance than prior the new law. He went from being eligible for a COR and ultimately being removed from the registry to Tier 3 with full address disclosure. If this is not retroactive application of Megan’s Law, I don’t know what is. I am hoping that ACSOL or any attorneys reading these posts could chime in. Here is the link to the New Jersey case: Retroative Application of Megan’s Law Subsection (g)

🤣 Haha! I just heard an NPR report about California’s new gun law that is now in effect. Hilarious to my sense of absurdity because of the long list of “sensitive places” where one can no longer – even with a concealed carry permit – bring a firearm. That’s right -;it’s basically all of the places where so many States don’t allow Registrants!
I’m amused because now others get to experience how it feels. Notably, a gun law expert they interviewed said that the patchwork of “sensitive places” basically makes it illegal to take one’s gun anywhere in California! Like I said, now they can feel what we have so often felt!! 😝