You are invited to join ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci and President attorney Elie Miller to our next meeting. The meeting will be held on Saturday, July 18 online on Zoom beginning at 10 a.m. Pacific time, 1:00 PM Eastern, and will last at least two hours.
You can use the Zoom app or you can call in using a Zoom phone number.
There is no registration needed for this meeting. No government officials are allowed to attend the meetings.
This meeting will be recorded and posted within a couple of days. To listen, click on the Recordings link at the top of all our pages.
Discussion topics will include:
- ACSOL conference (Oct. 2 and Oct. 3)
- Federal Legislation that would prohibit registrants from receiving Medicaid benefits, block registrants from entering federally funded shelters and stop federal pensions
- Recent success stopping state legislation
- Pending lawsuits
- SORNA
- Domestic and overseas travel
- When does treatment and counseling end for registrants on parole?
- The California Tiered Registry (now effective)
- Challenges to California Tiered Registry Law
- Other current topics and pending legal action throughout the nation
Please Show Up, Stand Up and Speak Up!
To join our Zoom meeting with your Zoom app, click on this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83273166148
Or you can call in to one of the phone numbers below, then specify:
Meeting ID: 832 7316 6148
Following is a list of phone numbers you can call for the meeting:
+1 669 900 6833 (San Jose)
+1 669 444 9171
+1 719 359 4580
+1 253 205 0468
+1 253 215 8782 (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 (Houston)
+1 929 205 6099 (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 (Washington DC)
+1 305 224 1968
+1 309 205 3325
+1 312 626 6799 (Chicago)
+1 360 209 5623
+1 386 347 5053
+1 507 473 4847
+1 564 217 2000
+1 646 931 3860
+1 689 278 1000
Good meeting today!
I hope we can get 1203.4 to actually mean something. At least have everyone with this being designated as Tier 1. The current registry scheme is anything but “rational”.
This Whole World Is Work
Written By Quiet too long 06/24/2026
Inspired by New Person
The federal government has compelled all 50 states and 3,244 counties to enforce a unified registration system through criminal penalties, creating a federally forced national civil class of 914,000 people. Across the country, every immunity statute that functions like California’s 1203.4—whether called set‑aside, dismissal, expungement, sealing, or vacatur—is either explicitly denied to this class or nullified by registry law. The 50‑state pattern is uniform: each state maintains an immunity statute for the general population, yet every state excludes registrants or overrides the immunity through the registry. This national class is then required to perform up to 21 unpaid professional‑grade compliance duties as a condition of continued freedom, and these duties are not local or limited; they transfer instantly to every county and every state the moment a person moves, travels, works, or even passes through a jurisdiction, creating a 24/7 multi‑state compulsory labor regime. When a state judge is confronted with the question of whether this system is civil or criminal and responds with “not for this court to decide,” the judge inadvertently confirms the truth: the moment the state refuses to classify the system, the issue becomes federal, because only the federal government can answer the question the states refuse to touch. These duties are not civil in nature, and their enforcement is not an expression of state sovereignty; instead, the system unites all 50 states and the federal government into a single enforcement regime, compelling labor from a single national class under threat of felony prosecution. California’s refusal to apply 1203.4 immunities to this class—while granting those immunities to all other citizens—violates Article I, Section 7(b) of the California Constitution, which prohibits granting or denying legal immunities to one class of citizens on different terms than others.
50‑State Immunity Comparison (Vertical List + Statutes)
Format: State — Immunity statute (citation) — Excludes registrants — Registry override
Alabama — Expungement (Ala. Code §15‑27‑1) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Alaska — Set‑Aside (AS 12.55.085) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Arizona — Set‑Aside (A.R.S. §13‑907) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Arkansas — Sealing (Ark. Code §16‑90‑1401) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
California — Dismissal (Penal Code §1203.4) — Yes exclusion (PC 290.5) — Yes override
Colorado — Set‑Aside (C.R.S. §18‑1.3‑303) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Connecticut — Erasure (Conn. Gen. Stat. §54‑142a) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Delaware — Expungement (11 Del. C. §4372) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Florida — Expungement/Sealing (Fla. Stat. §943.0585 / §943.059) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Georgia — Record Restriction (O.C.G.A. §35‑3‑37) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Hawaii — Expungement (HRS §831‑3.2) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Idaho — Dismissal (Idaho Code §19‑2604) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Illinois — Expungement/Sealing (20 ILCS 2630/5.2) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Indiana — Expungement (Ind. Code §35‑38‑9) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Iowa — Expungement (Iowa Code §901C.2) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Kansas — Expungement (K.S.A. §21‑6614) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Kentucky — Expungement (KRS §431.073) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Louisiana — Expungement (La. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 977) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Maine — No general expungement statute — N/A — Registry override still applies
Maryland — Expungement (Md. Code Crim. Proc. §10‑105) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Massachusetts — Sealing (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, §100A) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Michigan — Set‑Aside (MCL §780.621) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Minnesota — Expungement (Minn. Stat. §609A.01–.03) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Mississippi — Expungement (Miss. Code §99‑19‑71) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Missouri — Expungement (RSMo §610.140) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Montana — Expungement (MCA §46‑18‑1101) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Nebraska — Set‑Aside (Neb. Rev. Stat. §29‑2264) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Nevada — Set‑Aside/Sealing (NRS §179.285 / §179.245) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
New Hampshire — Annulment (N.H. Rev. Stat. §651:5) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
New Jersey — Expungement (N.J. Stat. §2C:52‑2) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
New Mexico — Expungement (N.M. Stat. §29‑3A‑5) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
New York — Sealing (CPL §160.59) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
North Carolina — Expunction (G.S. §15A‑145.4, §15A‑145.5, §15A‑145.8A, §15A‑145.9) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
North Dakota — Set‑Aside (N.D.C.C. §12.1‑32‑07.1) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Ohio — Sealing (Ohio Rev. Code §2953.32) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Oklahoma — Expungement (22 O.S. §18, §19) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Oregon — Set‑Aside (ORS §137.225) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Pennsylvania — Limited sealing (18 Pa.C.S. §9122.1) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Rhode Island — Expungement (R.I. Gen. Laws §12‑1.3‑2) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
South Carolina — Expungement (S.C. Code §17‑22‑910 et seq.) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
South Dakota — Expungement (S.D. Codified Laws §23A‑3‑34) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Tennessee — Expungement (Tenn. Code §40‑32‑101) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Texas — Set‑Aside/Judicial Clemency (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 42A.701) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Utah — Expungement (Utah Code §77‑40a‑301) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Vermont — Expungement/Sealing (13 V.S.A. §7601–§7614) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Virginia — Sealing (Va. Code §19.2‑392.12 et seq.) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Washington — Vacate (RCW §9.94A.640) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
West Virginia — Expungement (W. Va. Code §61‑11‑26) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Wisconsin — Expungement (Wis. Stat. §973.015) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
Wyoming — Expungement (Wyo. Stat. §7‑13‑1501) — Yes exclusion — Yes override
DisclaimerThis comment is research and constitutional analysis only. It is not legal advice, does not create any legal relationship, and does not instruct anyone on how to act. All statutes and classifications referenced are presented for informational and discussion purposes.
Written by Quiet too long 06/15/2026 Double Jeopardy by State — A structural practice in which each U.S. state treats a single past conviction as a new offense within its own borders, imposing new restrictive boundaries, duties, or disabilities based solely on that past conviction, and enforcing those boundaries through ongoing criminal prosecution even though the scheme is labeled “civil.” This results in repeated criminal charges, penalties, or obligations for the same underlying conduct every time a person enters, resides in, or moves between states. challenge this all 50 states untied (separate sovereigns) exposes Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, Full Faith and Credit, Right to Travel, State Sovereignty’ Equal Protection. And violates state sovereigns as separate if the farce continues then all states must contain the same laws or be ununited
Written by Quiet Too Long — 06/15/2026
Double Jeopardy by State — 50‑State Challenge (Untied Sovereigns)
Double Jeopardy by State — A structural practice in which each U.S. state treats a single past conviction as a new offense within its own borders, imposing new restrictive boundaries, duties, or disabilities based solely on that past conviction, and enforcing those boundaries through ongoing criminal prosecution even though the scheme is labeled “civil.” This results in repeated criminal charges, penalties, or obligations for the same underlying conduct every time a person enters, resides in, or moves between states.
When the states are untied — meaning each is a separate sovereign — this entire structure collapses under constitutional scrutiny.
A separate sovereign cannot punish a crime that occurred outside its borders.
Yet every registry system does exactly that.
This exposes violations of:
Double Jeopardy — 50 punishments for 1 conviction
Due Process — criminal penalties without a new crime or trial
Ex Post Facto — new punishment long after the sentence is complete
Full Faith and Credit — refusal to honor the original state’s completed judgment
Right to Travel — criminalizing movement between states
State Sovereignty — one state reviving another state’s finished sentence
Equal Protection — newcomers punished differently than long‑term residents
If the states insist they are separate sovereigns, then:
No state may impose criminal penalties based solely on a conviction from another state.
If they continue to do so, then the states are not truly “untied.”
They are acting as one unified sovereign, which means:
They must have uniform laws,
They must share uniform standards,
They must apply identical rules,
Or they are not separate sovereigns at all.
If the farce continues, then:
Either all states must contain the same laws, or they are un‑united.
the doctrine exposes the contradiction the system depends on:
Untied when avoiding constitutional limits
United when imposing punishment
That contradiction is fatal to the entire 50‑state structure.