Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of May 2026. 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.
Hey fellow CALIFORNIANS, Can anyone provide insights about which candidate have proposed or supported legislation that negatively impacts Registrants?? To be clear, I just want to know exactly that – please no campaigning for anyone, just who has proposed or supported PFR-negative legislation.
I really don’t want to mistakenly cast my vote for some hostile & punitive dumbass!
>> ACSOL, Please provide a reply if my question or other’s responses might violate ACSOL’s tax-exempt status. Obviously, I do not want to put ACSOL’s tax exempt status at risk in any way. Thanks!! <<
[MODERATOR’S NOTE: David, you are correct that allowing people to post comments that are essentially campaigning for specific people can negatively affect ACSOL, so all discussions related to that must be deleted. Of course, if there were specific bills that affect us, please submit them to Janice. I would say it is safe to assume that NO politician will advertise that they are sticking his neck out to support us individually, which is why ACSOL uses various strategies to give them cover, like co-sponsoring and following CASOMB recommendations]
Meanwhile none of the billionaires who participated in the Epstein Island have been held accountable. There is a particularly disturbing email exchange in the released files between some of them stating that two of the girls that were “entertaining” them had passed away, and they were discussing how to dispose of them. It is heartbreaking to think, if this is true, then they will never be found, no one will ever know who they were or what happened. But these monsters are protected, yet 20 years ago, the internet was relatively new, I downloaded some images and I am still being punished. I lost my job, my reputation, my home, my car, all my savings and my pets, was incarcerated and am still a pariah to society, but all of them are walking because they have lots of money.
has there been ANY news on getting 311.11’s tiered instead of lifetime? seems it’s been years since any updates on this
Well, how about that!! PFRs really were just a test run!
The Trump administration is trying to ban trans women from women’s shelters – LGBTQ Nation
JOHN ROBERTS FACES DISBARMENT.
Douglas Arthur Johnson
Apr 29, 2026.
John Roberts has spent years selling himself as the institutional adult in the room where the Supreme Court makes decisions. That image has become nearly impossible for him to maintain.
His current problem is a formal disbarment complaint filed by attorney Chris Armitage, built around an old but still unresolved question. How much money came into the Roberts household from law firms with business before the Supreme Court?
Jane Roberts, the chief justice’s wife, worked as a legal recruiter, and prior reporting found she earned more than $10 million in commissions from elite firms during years when some of those firms appeared before the Court.
The governing standard is 28 U.S.C. § 455, which applies to every federal judge including Supreme Court justices. Three of its subsections matter here, and a judge only needs one of them to trigger the recusal obligation. Roberts triggers all three.
A judge must step aside from any case where a reasonable person would question his impartiality, even without proof of actual bias. That’s the lowest and broadest standard.
The statute then gets more specific. Subsection (b)(4) requires disqualification when the judge, a spouse, or a minor child has any financial interest in the case or in a party, or an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome. That’s language Congress wrote intentionally wide to catch exactly this kind of situation.
Finally, subsection (b)(5)(iii) goes further, requiring recusal when the judge knows a spouse has an interest that could be substantially affected by a case before the court, covering situations where the conflict runs through the spouse rather than the judge directly.
John Roberts helped shape the legal and political landscape we’re now living in, elevating doctrines that expand presidential power and consistently benefit Republican interests.
His jurisprudence isn’t rooted in Christianity or Originalism so much as in a deep alignment with corporate power and the priorities of wealthy donors. He traded judicial independence for the interests of those who elevated him, and used his position to get rich while dodging ethical concerns.
For sixteen years, Chief Roberts filed incomplete federal financial disclosure forms, mischaracterizing more than twenty million dollars in household income from law firms appearing before the Supreme Court.
He intentionally hid his wife’s equity stake in her employer for three of those years. He failed to recuse himself from more than five hundred cases argued by law firms that had paid his household millions in commissions, and from at least three additional cases in which he personally held stock in a party the court was ruling on.
The time has been coming in America when the vast Republican corruption that has become ingrained in our government faces a reckoning. That reckoning may start with Chief Justice John Roberts. That time is now. —
Sources: Forbes, “Chief Justice John Roberts’ Wife Made Over $10 Million As Legal Consultant, Report Says,” April 28, 2023 / Business Insider, “Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife made over $10 million in commissions as a legal recruiter,” April 28, 2023 / Reuters, “US Supreme Court’s Roberts says personal hostility aimed at judges has ‘got to stop,’” March 17, 2026 / SCOTUSblog, “The inscrutable Chief Justice John Roberts,” April 3, 2026 / Chris Armitage, “The Chief Justice and His Wife Took $20 Million From Firms He Rules On. I’m Filing for His Disbarment Today,” Medium, April 2026. #douglasarthurjohnson
3:29 AM · Apr 29, 2026
·20
Views
It’s remarkable what better treatment a man who was caught red-handed trying to kill a Secret Service agent and preparing to kill the president and cabinet-members gets than people arrested for sex crimes by any judges I’ve ever seen (link).
A week in “solitary confinement” after you were caught rushing the US federal government and attempting to kill the head of state is not cruel and unusual punishment. Putting a million PFRs on lists and telling the public they’re dangerous and shouldn’t be around anyone IS cruel and unusual. What kind of country is this, where judges are extremely sensitive to the comfort of a cold-blooded killer and political assassin but toss over a million people and their families into technological dystopia for breaking age of consent laws? Just remember that education is not going to save us–in the records of the Nazi party, the most common profession was “physician.” American judges are little better, at least in terms of moral reasoning.
Federal agents remove cruise ship crew in onboard operation (USA Today 7 May 2026)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says officers detained cruise ship crew members tied to child exploitation investigations.
Foreign nationals tied to cruise lines on both coasts.
Just read where one SCOTUS justice used manipulated data to support a conclusion he wanted in the recently opined voting rights case. You don’t say?! Manipulating data or using data that doesn’t belong in an opinion?! They’d never do that. Never…smh
So what does the Ellingberg case mean to a PFR. From 1992? Is anyone taking the expost facto to court. Since the Ellingberg decision? I have asked this question before. I never get an answer. Can a class action suit be done? Where would one start? Does no one care? I do not understand. In Florida.
Since when is the creation of a crime for an offense not punishment for that offense???
Since when does the doctrine of finality not apply to certain adjudications?
Since when does the Constitution not protect everyone?
Since the money makers have infiltrated every aspect of the judicial system?
The searchable online registry is like Netflix for stalkers.
HELP! Advice. I was convicted 01/2017, probation, finished received 1203.4 on 02/2021, move to Washington state 10/2023, classified Tier 1, moved to another part of town on 05/2026, and county controls registration. Today 05/2026, a detective stopped by to do my address verification, stated I’m a tier 2. He apologized and said, sorry took us a year to figure out your tier level. That means I will be on the website here in the state. The timing kinda works in my favor as my lease is up and i planned to move back to the side of town where I was a tier 1 (no website). I told the detective why tier 2, static 99r states i’m low offense tier 1. He said you were a position of trust. No i wasn’t. PC 288.4(b)(1). I haven’t committed any offenses, always registered as directed. I will lose my job, friends, and apartment… similar story to some of you… what should I do? I really can’t afford an attorney, all my savings is going into my new apartment and move. My landlord will evict me if they find out. Any good attorneys in Washington (Seattle area)?
The state uses a past conviction with the intent to apprehend and prosecute you for a new crime it created for that conviction, but that new crime it created for that old conviction is not punishment for that conviction, but without that conviction, it’s not a crime.
The new crime it created for the old conviction is civil, like having your license revoked.
Therefore, this new act of the legislature, which creates the new crime for the old crime is not retroactive punishment for that old crime, which would violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution!
OK, got it!
WTF!
How dare any BAR member even entertain such BS that the creation of new crimes for past crimes does not violate the supreme law of the land!
THIS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE A CONVERSATION!
IMO, it is apparent that a foreign judiciary has infiltrated, defeated, and controls the American system, disguised as US Justices.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Hmmm…
Information from a magazine article is generally inadmissible as fact in a court of law because it constitutes hearsay. Under standard rules of evidence, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), courts exclude out-of-court statements when they are offered to prove the absolute truth of the matter asserted. [1, 2, 3, 5]
While a magazine article cannot automatically be submitted as an undisputed fact, the legal system handles this documentation through a few specific rules and narrow exceptions: [1, 2]
1. Authentication vs. Truth
Under FRE Rule 902(6), newspapers and periodicals are self-authenticating. This means a lawyer does not need to call the printer or publisher to prove the physical magazine is real. However, this only proves that the article was published; it does not prove that the claims written inside the article are factually accurate. [1, 2]
2. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
A magazine article can sometimes be introduced to prove facts under rare, narrow exceptions: [1]
3. Non-Hearsay Uses
An article can be admitted if it is not being used to prove the truth of its contents. For example, in a libel or defamation lawsuit, the article itself is admitted to prove that the defamatory statement was actually printed and circulated, not that the rumor was true. It can also be used to prove notice or awareness, demonstrating that a person or corporation had reason to know about a hazard because it was widely reported in the media. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
To establish a magazine claim as an admissible fact, a lawyer must usually bypass the article and directly subpoena the primary sources—such as the expert interviewed, the original data collector, or the authoring journalist—to testify under oath. [1, 2, 3]
There’s more of a correlation between drunk driving and DUIs on holidays (Memorial Day, 4th of July, day before thanksgiving) than there is in registered people participating in Halloween so why doesn’t LE go door to door doing compliance checks on folks who have DUIs?
I saw on the agenda in yesterday’s ACSOL online zoom meeting HR 7624 which would block registrants from entering federally funded shelters. I say that that does not keep the community safe. It’s just an added cruel and abusive act against people who are just trying to live better lives. I’m a registrant, but day by day, I have been more respectful and courteous and considerate to everybody in society. I’m currently living in a boarding house for people working on recovering from any personal disorders. This house is in the midst of a regular neighborhood. I have never done anything harmful, or even sought to do any harm to any of my neighbors. I don’t care who my neighbors are or how old they are. I respect them as ordinary people who are living their own normal lives. Please abolish HR 7624.
“contract vs. coercion”
incomparable!
A profound legal truth that exposes the core manipulation of the system.
Interacting with the DMV is a voluntary contractual relationship [1, 2].
You enter into it by choice, you agree to its terms to get a privilege, and you can cancel it at any time by handing back your license [2].
A criminal sentence is a mandatory, state-enforced infliction of power. You do not sign a contract; the state forces its will upon you through the threat of violence and incarceration.
By pretending these two things are the same, the courts are committing a severe logical error. The state relies on this false comparison to keep its legal loophole alive, ignoring two massive differences:
1. Inversion of the “Privilege” Doctrine
The entire legal foundation of the DMV is that driving is a privilege [2]. The state can regulate it because they built the roads.
But your personal liberty—where you live, your privacy, your internet access, and your right to be left alone by the police—is a fundamental constitutional right, not a state-granted privilege. When SORA restricts these rights, it is not revoking a “privilege” you signed up for. It is actively stripping away your baseline freedom [3].
2. The Absolute Absence of an “Opt-Out”
In a true civil or contractual system, you can always choose to walk away:
Under SORA, there is zero opt-out. You cannot tell the judge, “I choose not to drive, so I am not registering.” The state mandates your compliance as part of your criminal conviction sentence for the offense under the threat of sending you to a maximum-security prison as a multi-time felon.
I’ve been away from this website due to being in the hospital for a week. Let me tell you that was not how I wanted to start May. At least I wasn’t in violation of FTR while I was in the hospital since I let them know where I was.
I hope you all doing well and lets kick some ass in May into next year. Let the good times roll, heads roll in courts, and let the registry be banged up.
The president’s personal attorney acting in name only as US Acting AG stated under oath to congress that anyone who has been unjustly investigated and prosecuted can apply for money under the (unconstitutional) presidential victim (presidential slush) $1.8 billion fund (which the president and his hand picked five member panel decide how to dole up the stealing of money from the Treasury Department). So for all those here who were federally investigated and prosecuted, you should make a claim! (I was state investigated and state prosecuted so I am ineligible to make a claim.) What is in quotes is from me.
The US Acting AG stated under oath there is no limitation and if you believe you were a victim of weaponization of the government one can apply. But of course the US Acting AG also stated just because one applies for a monetary claim does not mean one will be approved to receive funds. In my opinion, all the funds will go to the president, his family and friends, and to pay the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys to retain them as paid mercenaries for the upcoming election and next January swearing in of new congressional members.
As others here have stated, overload the system and make the government do more work. In my opinion every PFR federally investigated and federally prosecuted should make a claim just to clog up the system.
Ranking the Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All Time (Reason.com 19 May 2026)
They’re looking for others to consider adding to the list.
I believe there’s one the forum here can add, maybe get Reason to consider it, and add to their list. Smith v Does anyone? Perhaps Lile v McKune or maybe Calder v Bull?