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.
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?
I’ve noticed a trend that’s been going on with the media. They’ve begun to use the modifier “known” in front of S** ******** because they think that means they’ve “caught” and “identified” an ongoing threat just because of the label.
That modifier is used exclusively to stoke fear and attrack eyeballs:
“Known murderer” sounds dumb because it is! It’s a misnomer, but by the media exclusively using “KNOWN” in front of “SO” it implies that that person is actively offending, up to no good and can’t be trusted.
Pathetic!
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts faces impeachment push (Newsweek via MSN.com 23 May 2026)
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy…just sayin’
Anyone in Massachusetts or has moved there from another state? I am considering moving there and I understand their method of classifying your tier level is different. What is that like? Are they reasonable? How is it existing there as a person forced to register?
The New Ellingburg Mandate:
It no longer matters if SORA is 90% regulatory. If the mechanics of the law—such as public shaming, forcing people into homeless shelters, and threatening them with mandatory felony prison terms for clerical mistakes—are punitive, that punitive chunk triggers the Ex Post Facto Clause. 24-482 Ellingburg v. United States (01/20/2026) Ellingburg v. United States – Oyez
Under the new federal mandate, if SORA is also punitive, it is an unconstitutional retroactive law—period 24-482 Ellingburg v. United States (01/20/2026)Ellingburg v. United States – Oyez
1,673 year sentence for Austrian in Thailand for SA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQsOpk_JWTo at 4:30 minutes
Does anybody know what crime has the fastest-growing recidivism rate in America?
Could it be crimes committed by PFR?
Could it be frightening and high? Up to 80%?
Of course, the recidivism rate of PFR is frightening and high!
BUT not for sex offenses. For registry paper violations!
Now, why would that be?
Oh, could it be because the government has turned PFR human rights into actual crimes?
In such a devastating way that they can fabricate just about ANY activity of a PFR into a felony offense!
Doesn’t even matter if the PFR actually didn’t violate any of the registry burdens; the corrupt courts use malicious methods to lock them in prison again for their past conviction anyway!
It is a FACT that it is HUMAN NATURE to forget and miss deadlines.
No one else on the planet is charged with a felony and locked in prison for being human!
This is NOT civil by ANY definition of the word and goes way beyond cruel and unusual punishment for a prior conviction!
Which is definitively the only reason behind the new incarceration!
Incarceration for conviction, not for a criminal act!
Converting human nature and rights(not privileges) into crimes for prior convictions IS ex post facto punishment!
We know it, they know it!
They choose to abuse their positions of trust with their use of veiled doublespeak to deny it for the purpose of destroying the Constitution one protection at a time, until there’s nothing left to protect Americans from a corrupt government whose actions reveal that they clearly do not hold the best interest of the people at heart!
We must look at who actually does benefit from these actions.
If it is not the public, then who?
IT IS THEM!
EVERYONE who works in THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!!!
Any wonder why they would all LIE ABOUT THE DANGER!
Or create a false narrative mechanism?
Think about it and follow the money!
OUTLAWS and IMPOSTERS!
Judge = LIAR!
Memorial Days Mean Nothing To Me
Written by Quiet too long — 05/25/2026
While the public celebrates the deaths of its honored warriors – the ones who fought for freedom, the parents of freedom, the symbols of a nation that claims liberty as its birthright – I sit at home, unseen, a ghost of remembrance.
Not a ghost of their wars, but a ghost of the justice they swore to defend.
For on this day of flags and folded hands, I am reminded not of sacrifice, but of the treason committed quietly against the Constitution they died to protect.
I am the living evidence of a breach: a citizen marked not by danger, but by a state created crime that punishes long after punishment ends, that calls its chains “civil,” that calls its exile “regulation,” that calls its silence “safety.”
And so while the world salutes its dead, I remain at home – not in mourning, but in witness. A witness to the truth that freedom is not honored by parades or speeches, but by the courage to confront the treason done in its name. With this I hope you have fun
June 2 Primary — One California PFR’s Research Notes
I’m a person forced to register (PFR). Most of what the registry, residency, supervision, and sentencing architecture actually does to us is decided not in Washington but in Sacramento, county courthouses, and DA’s offices. So before voting on June 2, I researched each candidate’s public record on those specific questions and voted accordingly. Sharing what I found in case it helps anyone else who didn’t recognize most of the names on their ballot, as I didn’t. Not legal advice. Not ACSOL-endorsed.
No statewide propositions, no California Supreme Court retentions, and neither US Senate seat are on this ballot. Most county DA and Sheriff seats are off-cycle (AB 759 moved them to 2028). Where my research found no defensible signal on a race, I say so rather than guess.
Statewide
– **Governor: Tom Steyer** — only candidate endorsed by Smart Justice California; record ending automatic sentencing enhancements, phasing out private prisons.
– **Attorney General: Rob Bonta** — voted AYE on SB 145 (Wiener, 2020), the only PFR-direct legislative vote in any candidate’s record.
– Lt Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner, Superintendent of Public Instruction: no meaningful PFR impact.
US House (your district)
Most CA Democratic incumbents up for re-election voted yes on the First Step Act (2018) and the EQUAL Act (2021). Where solid-R districts have no reform-aligned challenger, “no clearly PFR-favorable candidate” is the honest answer.
– CA-1: **Denney** — challenger
– CA-2: **Huffman** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-3: **Jones** — challenger
– CA-4: **Thompson** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-5: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– CA-6: **Bera** — First Step + EQUAL + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-7: **Matsui** — First Step + EQUAL + MORE Act yes
– CA-8: **Garamendi** — First Step + EQUAL + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-9: **Harder** — EQUAL Act cosponsor
– CA-10: **DeSaulnier** — First Step + EQUAL + MORE Act yes
– CA-11: **Chakrabarti** — Justice Democrats co-founder, decarceration platform
– CA-12: **Simon** — public defender background, ACLU-aligned
– CA-13: **Gray** — reform-aligned vote record
– CA-14: **Swalwell** — First Step + EQUAL + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-15: **Mullin** — EQUAL Act yes
– CA-16: **Liccardo** — stated reform positions
– CA-17: **Khanna** — EQUAL + MORE Act cosponsor, end-qualified-immunity
– CA-18: **Lofgren** — Judiciary senior, First Step + EQUAL + Second Chance
– CA-19: **Panetta** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-20: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– CA-21: **Costa** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-22: **Villegas** — Bernie / CPC / Working Families endorsed
– CA-23: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– CA-24: **Carbajal** — First Step + EQUAL + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-25: **Ruiz** — First Step + EQUAL + MORE Act yes
– CA-26: **Brownley** — First Step + EQUAL + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-27: **Whitesides** — stated sentencing-reform support
– CA-28: **Chu** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-29: **Rivas** — EQUAL Act cosponsor
– CA-30: **Friedman** — state rehabilitation record
– CA-31: **Cisneros** — EQUAL + First Step yes
– CA-32: **Sherman** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-33: **Aguilar** — First Step + EQUAL + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-34: **Gomez** — EQUAL + MORE Act yes
– CA-35: **Torres** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-36: **Perkins** — decarceration-aligned writing
– CA-37: **Kamlager-Dove** — state CJ reform author, EQUAL Act cosponsor
– CA-38: **Solis** — civil-rights record
– CA-39: **Sanchez** — Judiciary, First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-40: **Kim Varet** — challenger
– CA-41: reform challenger
– CA-42: **Garcia** — EQUAL Act yes
– CA-43: **Waters** — First Step + EQUAL + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-44: **Barragan** — EQUAL + MORE + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-45: **Tran** — civil-rights attorney background
– CA-46: **Correa** — EQUAL Act yes
– CA-47: **Min** — former law professor, ACLU-aligned
– CA-48: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– CA-49: **Levin** — EQUAL + MORE + Justice in Policing yes
– CA-50: **Peters** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
– CA-51: **Jacobs** — EQUAL + MORE Act yes
– CA-52: **Vargas** — First Step + EQUAL Act yes
State Senate (even-numbered districts only this cycle)
Sourced from Initiate Justice Action’s 2026 Senate scorecard and La Defensa’s 2026 primary guide.
– SD-2: **Connolly** — IJA Recommended; open seat
– SD-4: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-6: **Frame** — IJA harm-reduction (weak field)
– SD-8: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-10: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-12: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-14: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-16: **Kaur** — IJA Recommended
– SD-18: **Padilla** — IJA harm-reduction (weak field)
– SD-20: **Menjivar** — IJA + La Defensa endorsements
– SD-22: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-24: **Erickson** — La Defensa endorsement, ACLU SoCal past-president
– SD-26: **Pudlo** — IJA + La Defensa, abolitionist platform
– SD-28: **Smallwood-Cuevas** — IJA + La Defensa, resentencing-relief authorship
– SD-30: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-32: **Tate** — IJA harm-reduction (weak field)
– SD-34: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-36: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-38: no clearly PFR-favorable candidate
– SD-40: **Elliott** — IJA Recommended; open seat
State Assembly (your district)
Sourced from IJA’s 2026 Assembly slate, La Defensa’s 2026 Assembly guide, ACLU California Action’s 2026 candidate questionnaire, and Assembly Public Safety Committee membership. Listed only where defensible signal exists; silent on the rest.
– AD-2: **Rogers** — IJA Recommended
– AD-4: **Aguiar-Curry** — IJA Recommended
– AD-12: **Beckman, Elward, Lucan, Schwartz, or Thier** — all five Democrats answered yes on the ACLU CA Action 2026 questionnaire
– AD-23: **Bergman** — IJA Recommended
– AD-24: **Lee** — IJA Recommended
– AD-25: **Kalra** — IJA Recommended
– AD-28: **Pellerin** — IJA Recommended
– AD-30: **Addis** — IJA Recommended
– AD-35: **Palacio** — only Democrat answering ACLU CA Action questionnaire
– AD-41: **Harabedian** — IJA + La Defensa Recommended; Public Safety Committee member
– AD-43: **Rodriguez** — IJA + La Defensa Recommended
– AD-44: **Schultz** — IJA Recommended; chairs Assembly Public Safety Committee (the committee that writes registry law — flagged for the insiders to weigh)
– AD-49: **Fong** — IJA + La Defensa Recommended
– AD-50: **Garcia** — IJA Recommended
– AD-51: **Caloza** — La Defensa Recommended
– AD-52: **Zbur** — La Defensa Recommended; former Equality California executive director
– AD-55: **Bryan** — La Defensa Endorsed (top tier)
– AD-57: **Elhawary** — La Defensa Recommended; authored AB 1231 diversion
– AD-61: **McKinnor** — IJA + La Defensa Recommended
– AD-65: **Iqbal-Zubair** — IJA Endorsed + La Defensa Endorsed (top tier both)
– AD-66: **Houston** — only Democrat answering ACLU CA Action questionnaire yes on all CJ items
– AD-67: **Briceño** — IJA + La Defensa Recommended; ACLU full yes
– AD-68: **Lopez** — IJA Endorsed (top tier); ACLU full yes
– AD-69: **Lowenthal** — IJA + La Defensa Recommended; co-authored AB 1231
– AD-72: **Kluwe** — only candidate answering ACLU CA Action questionnaire, full yes
For the other 55 Assembly districts not listed, none of the PFR-adjacent published scorecards (IJA, La Defensa, ACLU CA Action) produced defensible signal in my research. The honest answer is “vote your other priorities” or look up your candidates’ ACLU CA Action questionnaire response directly.
County DA and Sheriff
Most counties have nothing this ballot — AB 759 shifted them to 2028. The live ones:
– **LA County Sheriff: Eric Strong** — strongest civil-rights record; explicit non-cooperation with ICE.
– **Alameda County DA: Pamela Price** — most progressive-prosecutor record; recalled in 2024.
– **Santa Clara County DA**: no PFR-favorable choice; vote other priorities or skip.
– **San Bernardino County DA: Jason Anderson** — apparently unopposed.
– **San Bernardino County Sheriff: Joe Silva** — the only challenger.
Orange, San Diego, Riverside, Sacramento, Fresno, Contra Costa, San Francisco: no DA/Sheriff race this ballot.
Superior Court judges (your county)
The only judges on this ballot. Default for any contested race not listed: prefer public defender, civil rights, or non-prosecutor background.
**LA County:**
– Office 2: **Tal Valbuena**
– Office 64: **Rhonda Haymon** — 25+ year deputy public defender
– Office 65: **Justin Clayton** — deputy public defender
– Office 66: **Cheryl Turner** — non-prosecutor private attorney
– Office 81: **Dan Kapelovitz** — career defense
– Office 87: **Anthony Bayne** — 25 year deputy public defender
– Office 131: **David Ross** or **Donna Tryfman** — both deputy public defenders
– Office 176: **Zachary Smith** — 23 year deputy public defender
– Office 181: **Thanayi Lindsey** — administrative law judge
**San Diego:** Office 31 **Adam Noakes** (administrative law judge); Office 32 **David Gallo** (civil trial attorney).
**Alameda:** Office 13 **Cabral Bonner** (civil rights attorney); Office 19 **Patricia Miles** (administrative law judge).
**Riverside:** Seat 10 **Andrea Garcia** (deputy public defender).
**Fresno:** Seat 9 **Eddie Ruiz** (criminal defense); Seat 12 **Miles Harris** (criminal defense); Seat 13 **Jose Salazar** (public defender); Seat 14 **Jamie Xiong-Vang** (administrative law judge).
**SF:** Seat 16 **Alexandra Pray** (deputy public defender).
No PFR-favorable choice in LA Office 14, LA Office 116, OC Office 13, OC Office 41, Fresno Seat 11, Contra Costa Position Q.
Sacramento, San Bernardino, Santa Clara: no widely-reported contested races.
The Los Gatos Party mom just got sentenced–35 year and then on the registry like us. I could never find these moms when I was a teenager
I am now eligible to petition for registration relief after 20 years. My case was in So-Cal, Pomona Superior Court. I’m hearing that it’s a tough court to get relief granted, as the DA is actively arguing against any and all petitions. Anyone have any experience with that court?