Recent Comments

That's clear in the post. Only under perfectly permitted marital relations with the explicit purpose of making a child.

@ Anonymous: RE: "When the number of lives on the registry that are lost due to registry-related violence exceed those of the ones this “Megan’s Law” is designed to protect (and we may be there already, I don’t know)..." The registry has not protected one single person throughout its existence. Nor could it, as has been shown repeatedly over the years.

IL does the same thing, changes the label and status retroactively. A conviction against an adult suddenly becomes a predator and predators are on for life. For the handful of people in IL with a 10 year registry term, it's nearly impossible to be removed. We are all lifers.

Me too.

In a couple of years, this delinquent will be able to have a real firearm. Then we'll likely have some serious gunplay to contend with. People in that area be forewarned! When the number of lives on the registry that are lost due to registry-related violence exceed those of the ones this "Megan's Law" is designed to protect (and we may be there already, I don't know), will it finally become clear to everyone the true intent behind this list? When will they see that the registry as a useless waste of time - one which will only make a significant, and growing, segment of the population rise up one day to combat it?

Let's remember what AI stands for (artificial intelligence) and where that information, not necessarily intelligent, comes from... the internet. The internet where anyone can write whatever, true or not.

Just sent an e-mail to hopefully discuss our story more.

@New - You are spot on again, as usual. The part I don't understand is that the "frightening and high" has been debunked by reputable and smart people. Why is it so hard to argue that it was never true? It is like sayin 4+4 is seven and people believe it, but it is so easy to disprove. How can a law be be based on false information that is PROVEN to be wrong?

The government is "grooming all of America" to treat registrants as 2nd class citizens b/c of their "frightening and high" recidivism rate. Unfortunately, the government does not recognize that Smith v Doe, 2003 utilized false information that painted registrants as irredeemable and to strip civil rights out of our lives. Do the non-registrant convicts get blanketed as murderers? Drinking and driving leads to murder. Robbery can lead to murder. Doing drugs can lead to murder. Who cares if they're misdemeanors because it potentially can lead to murder. Shouldn't there be an online registry map for all of these convicts after they get out and have to wait at least 10 years to petition out or be on a lifetime term? But the government doesn't do that. There is no equal justice here b/c justice got manipulated by a false "frightening and high" recidivism rate by a magazine trying to secure their occupation to exist.

TN recently passed a similar bill, Registrants that were eligible to apply to be removed from the registry after 10 years, all of a sudden saw their status on the registry changed from non-violent to violent in order to prevent them from ever being removed from the registry. Dirty politics. This non-violent to violent status change has been on-going on the TN Registry for years and it's ridiculous. The victims here are the registrants, they've done nothing wrong since getting out of prison, following the rules, paying their yearly fees to the system, trying to get on with their lives in the hope of someday being free of this never ending punishment called the registry, and some mis-informed representative gets an idea that if he presents a new and improved bill so registrants can never get off the registry, he'll be re-elected. So, even if your offense was non-violent, a little change in wording here and there in a bill now makes you violent thru no fault of your own, and you are doomed to the hell of the registry forever. This has gotten so crazy. Can anybody make it stop?

A proposed solution looking for a non-existent problem since no example was cited.

Penalties for Misuse (CA) Sorry, I thought "don't do bad things with it" was another way with words for misuse, e.g., going after PFRs with a BB gun in a threatening manner and actually harming them. My bad. The more direct question to ask elected officials and judicial employees who make decisions is if the registry is in the name of public safety and the courts cannot control what the public does with the information, then can the govts and courts be held responsible for the misuse of the information in such as manner as seen here (violation of public safety) in a third party liability manner as @Athena has described? It is valid legal concept that needs to be explored for these instances and followed through, IMO, by one party who is willing to take on the registry concept. A person with a criminal conviction doesn't deserve such treatment ever regardless of what the public thinks. Certainly the victim's family can after the shooter (and his family possibly given he was a minor when the crimes were committed) in civil court which where they need to start with a 9 figure settlement offer.

Email sent!!! Another voice for us!!!

i picture the same thing except it is a convicted drunk driver living next door and offers to take my kids to school or ball practice, etc... Statistics alone would suggest that my child is more likely to be injured or killed by the drunk and not injured or harmed by the person that you want to add on the hit list! why is no one putting the true facts out there especially in situations such as this! another force there hands at them putting there ownselfs on a list instead of passing there own wrong doings off like if there's (in this case people on the hit list) is worse then mine! START STANDING UP AND PUSHING BACK! EDUCATE THE PUBLIC GO TO MEETINGS AND STAND UP!

i just emailed you my story that i put up on you tube about a week ago i had enough they won! Story Deserves to Be Heard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIa5gA2VN8  

The registry page says to not do anything bad with this information. It is like the fine print at an amusement park. Getting on this ride may cause harm, bodily injury or death. Only difference is, I can make the decision not to get on the ride. I can't remove myself from the registry!!! We need a lawsuit against the registry!!!

Could you please share the link to your question and answer to AI? I asked a similar question to Grok, and here is the response I received: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_121ee656-11fc-4519-a741-e10001aa661d

Double Work Is Best Written By Quiet too long 06/25/2026   The Court begins with a simple observation: The modern civil or federal system is not the system this Court upheld twenty years ago. And is now a multi‑state compulsory labor regime. When a state judge is confronted with the questions through the proper channels of whether this system is civil or criminal? Are the states united or sovereign? Is the scheme state or federal? And all the info within this script excluding the bias report to be brought at the proper time 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. But over time, the states treated that narrow holding as a blank check. They built something entirely different — and they all built the same thing. Across the petitioner’s 50‑state, 3,244‑county statutory survey, the Court sees absolute uniformity: the same federal definitions, the same federal exclusions, the same federal penalties, the same federally enforced duties. This is not the organic diversity of fifty sovereigns and their counties. It is the architecture of a single national regime. Yet when constitutional limits appear —...

That's exactly why there's fine print stating not to do bad things with it...because they know bad things are going to be done with it

The courts have said they can't control what the public does with the registry's information despite the fine print stating don't do bad things with it.

Can you explain this in more detail for me to better grasp what you are explaining here?

THIS is why the public posting, (the Registry itself) needs to go! Here in AZ, they changed the law and have everyone (even level 1s) on the web. Not too long ago, a PFR was murdered because his information was on the web

There's got to be a way for the registrant's family (or registrant if they are still alive) to sue the government for their harm if the perpetrator admits to getting the info from the registry.

Do beg to differ bout registry being labeled civil, many lawsuits against, like 2011 lawsuit deemed it unconstitutional and punishment, lawsuit I believe in 2018, was considered punishment, lawsuit 2021 til now, considered by judge goldsmith unconstitutional and punishment. Plus if it was civil should be applied by a civil court then, not a circuit court. Just as little extra measure. Also you are partially correct. Under fifth amendment to constitution, states under Double jeopardy clause, the government can’t try or punish someone multiple times for same crime.

He didn’t have a phone? He wasn’t doing it for social media clicks? I’m skeptical. Still, this shows that when the government lies about a group of citizens, there are consequences. I hate the term “grooming,” but the government and media are essentially grooming our youth to hate an entire group of people, for no reason.

I posted about this on the general forum. Interesting that he targeted pfr's but was also a drug dealer?!?! Sees no problem with harassing one felon while committing felonies himself. Such a hypocrite. Being a minor they will probably only charge him as a juvenile. Tell that to my friend that was charged as an adult at 17 for a crime he committed at 13 with a 12 year old girl. Pathetic!!!

This teen should have been monitored with GPS, compliance checks, and being listed on a registry for being a drug dealer at 17. I wonder if he knows he's a drug dealer or California considers him clueless because he is 17 and could not know that being a street pharmacist is illegal.

If the 50 states are no longer sovereign in the registry system, then the federal government has effectively united them into a single national enforcement structure. Once the federal government creates and compels enforcement of a unified class of 972,000 people, that class—combined with federal authority—cannot be civil. Under constitutional doctrine, federal + class = criminal, because only criminal systems may impose compelled duties, penalties, and nationwide enforcement.

Try using a bb gun to threaten other other dope dealers if you want to portray yourself as a badass.

No. Double jeopardy is when you are tried for the same crime twice in the same jurisdiction. jail, probation and restitution are a part of the sentence from the time you are tried. registry is labeled civil so not a criminal jurisidiction.

Looks like a walnut Creek California teen was out hunting with a BBC gun, pfr's from the hit list. But he was under 18 and they are protecting his name. But it also looks like he was selling drugs to fellow students. Such a hypocrite!!! When will we see some lawsuits about the public registry.

Also Sherri's Thursday night group has a long term Mbr who LIVES IN NY and he may be able to give what NY Atty he utilized back then. Good Luck!

if YOU are out of Calif and can't locate a specialez atty alike above , then contact NarSol.org and see if they can address with your location/State or country currently residing in . Good Luck! /You came to THE RIGHT PLACE! These Atty's specialize in almost an impossible place to find.

In 2003 Smith v Doe the Supreme Court held that Alaska's registry is not punishment for an offense, but it laid out boundaries that, if crossed, would make the Alaska registry subject to ex post facto. In 2008, observing those boundaries, the Supreme Court of Alaska found that the state had crossed the boundary lines set in Smith and held that the Alaska registry is now punishment. Why are all the other courts rubberstamping that the Supreme Court held registries are not punishment, disobeying Smith by excluding why? Just like the Ellingburg decision was only about the MVRA, likewise, the Smith court was only about how Alaska's registry operated at that time. When an act of the legislature redefines a criminal offense, adding to the duties and restrictions imposed on those who commit it, this is not a civil act, and these changes cannot be applied retroactively unless as parole conditions that end with the original parole term! This is actually how the New York Legislature wrote SORA to apply. The courts changed it by legislating from the bench, stating if the legislature doesn't like it, then they must say so, and they haven't. Meanwhile, I'm sure the legislature does like it, but the bill would not have passed if they had written it to apply retroactively beyond parole conditions, which is why they didn't. Instead, they colluded with the courts to do it for them to get it done! Such BS!

@sheldon , Ditto been on the stupid register since 1995 . My Conviction was 6-19-1992. This is for anyone who reads this just curious on your thoughts. I asked A.I. a question on the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling on Betts and Shaver. It says not to wait for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule, it said to petition for remove asap, because regardless of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Michigan's ruling is binding. I emailed and called SADO, and they claim/said regardless of being a pre 2011 registrant or even a pre 95 registrant I still have to wait for the ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, because unfortunately we are still under the 2021 Amendment. Truthfully that doesn't make any sense to me because of Michigan Supreme Courts ruling. So obviously I'm missing something, but what am I not understanding. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Happy 4th of July to everyone. Bobby S.

So did they end up removing your name? Most people on this forum have said it's very difficult to get your name removed from Florida's lifetime registration. And the ones that did, had to go through a costly lawyer and legal process.

This ettevaatust.ee private website must be the Family Watchdog of Estonia

I called Florida because I had lived there 20 years ago. I got removed from the registry when I moved to Indiana back in March. I called Florida to let them know that I had been removed from the registry. Florida told me to call back in the morning during business hours so that I can be removed from Florida’s registry. I’m only responding so as to prevent the spread of misinformation about this.

Just returned from the EU. Went SE Asia to Germany, couple weeks in Germany, flew back yesterday, no problems. Got my new visa, marked PP. all ok. Happy travels everyone

Wait...so this is GOOD news?

This is extremely good news. The appeal could easily lead to the appeals court overturning the trial court and granting relief for the additional three counts. In addition, could it possibly extend relief beyond the state of California? One step closer to abolishing the registry entirely.

I was just thinking I've been on the registry 30 years of America's 250 yrs.I think get some beer and celebrate it this year.lol

@ TS One of my favorite lady podcast Hysteria has an episode of this fu*king guy about our very own Chief Justice John Roberts. My hope is someday soon he will be removed from being a justice and put in prison so he gets to experience a price club membership from Hell.

For clarification, does someone still need the passport stamp and to provide advanced notification of travel if they fall under Federal SORNA tier 3, but are no longer required to register in the state they currently live in? I have yet to travel internationally, but I've seen some conflicting information in regards to this scenario. Is there anyone here who has traveled with these similar circumstances?

Regarding "People vs Trout-Castro" (sp), I'm very interested in this case. I have a CA 288.2 felony conviction from almost 30 years ago that was reduced to a misdo in 2000, yet in 2021 I was placed into Tier 3 anyway, based upon the SB 384 statutes, (if I'm using word "statute" correctly). I've been told that -- for now -- neither the DOJ or anyone else can override my Tier 3 classification unless the legislature re-writes the law. If the courts side with Trout-Castro, could some or all p(17) midso 288.2 cases be moved to Tier 1? Obviously I'd be very happy and relieved. I want my old life back as a "no-post."

Tennessee where future spouses meet at family reunions.

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...

Congratulations on that! I only have a (P17 misdo for a 288.2) yet was reclassified as Tier 3 due to SB 384. I am currently begging my Representatives (in CA) to recognize it and lower my tier classification.

We did it! We raised $5,000 for the matching grant program. Many thanks to all who helped us reach this important goal! And please know that future donations are welcome.

@jc, Before SB-384 was implemented, the CoR petition had a distinction between a sex crime conviction and a non-sex crime conviction eligibility. It may still hold this requirement today. A sex crime conviction requires a case dismissal via 1203.4. To be eligible for the 1203.4, then you did not go to state prison. A non-sex crime felony conviction does not require a 1203.4. Here is the web address for a pdf CoR petition: https://www.lacourt.org/division/criminal/pdf/CertificateRehabandPardonPacket.pdf

And for those who made a plea deal before a registry even existed but are now required for life because your state offers no relief except for extremely limited cases.

Go, PLF!! 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 🤩🥳🎉

The public defend claim is 100% false and white supremacist have ran with it to no end, spreading it everywhere. Snopes disclosed the family never spent the money on a house or car and it did indeed go towards his lawyer. His lawyer WAS a public defender years ago but no longer works in said role. They paid the lawyer for his time.

I noticed in the comment you said that one must have the convictions dosmissed before they are eligible to petition for certificate of rehabilitation. This is not true. You only have to have them dismissed if they are eligible to be dismissed under 1203.4. I was sentenced to prison for felonies so I was ineligible to have the convictions dosmissed or expunged. My certificate of rehabilitation was granted. Originally my petition was denied for the reason that the convictions were not dismissed and I was sentenced to prison. I appealed the decision and the appeals court agreed with me that I was in fact elegible. The case was sent back to the county Court and it was ultimately granted.

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...

A couple of question for Janice or ACSOL. In the lawsuit, it says those with a 1203.4 and CoR cannot be put back onto the registry. Why is the reasoning behind that? Is the combination of 1203.4 and CoR equivalent to a Governor's Pardon? And if it is equivalent to a Governor's Pardon, then will other states acknowledge it to where that individual cannot be put back on any state registry? For non-registrants petitioning for the CoR, it is often because they are ineligible to get their case dismissed and living with a conviction. From a Google query on the difference between a CoR and Governor's Pardon: A Certificate of Rehabilitation is a court order declaring that a formerly convicted person has been rehabilitated. A Governor's Pardon is an official act of executive clemency that forgives the conviction itself and restores certain civil rights. For a registrant to petition for a CoR, there exists the requirement is to have your case dismissed (1203.4) first to be eligible to petition for the CoR. The Court already granted the conviction to be set aside or changed the plea to not guilty, dismiss the accusation/info against the defendant, and released from all penalties as well as disabilities resulting from the conviction from the petitioning registrant. Thank you in advance for your response.

All of these unfortunate murders where the registry was used as the catalyst should be evidence whenever ACSOL and Janice go to the Supreme Court. The internet is a this era's public square. Being put on a stockade in the public square for all to see, even for a short amount of time, was deemed punitive. The registry being broadcasted on the internet for 24 hours a day, everyday is beyond the pale as it also gives the information of where supposedly free people live. That doxing is the only factor for a registrant being murdered when the assailant confesses they used the registry. SCOTUS has given the country an open hit list, but somehow disassociate themselves from being culpable for creating such a monstrosity.

I pray and beg they do!! It’s the only way this will get brought before the US Supreme Court and give other states like Kansas and Missouri and Arkansas a fighting chance for those of us that was given life after a plea deal that told us it would be 10 years registration!! I know there are so many of us in the same boat and are just living day to day with just a thin thread of hope this will end someday. The question is will we put our strongest and brightest up to fight for us and is the courts truly showing signs that they are open to ruling that the registry is indeed a punishment?

I agree. Its been way too long for there to be this indecision to create an off-ramp from tier 3. What's worse is that there are still two outstanding suggestions from CASOMB that have yet to be implemented after there were suggested 2 years ago. Its disheartening that the board whose sole purpose is management makes a suggestion yet has no power to implement it. Janice and her team have had some victories which I am thankful for an glad to see but other things like the two suggestions should be easy to get implemented yet are not.

No, that was GiveSendGo, which doesn't have many restrictions on fundraising causes. Recently, the family of the young man who was convicted of murder for stabbing another man at a sporting event used GiveSendGo to ostensibly raise funds for his defense (although I believe they made use of a public defender). Presumably the family of the Tennessee teen who killed the PFR will pivot to GiveSendGo. I feel that as long as GiveSendGo is truly cause-agnostic--or at least treats fundraising for legal defense equally across all types of alleged crimes--I don't really have a problem with it.

I don't think it's a set of moral standards, I think it's fear of liability. They could be viewed as culpable in supporting the violent crime in question.

Not surprising. One incident happened in a forward progressive state with an embedded regime of privacy laws. The other incident happened in...well.. Tennessee 🤭

Its So............... ****PUNITIVE***** It Can Not be Applied Expost Facto. An ex post facto law (Latin for "from a thing done afterward") is a retroactive law that criminalizes actions that were legal when they were performed, or retroactively increases the severity of a punishment. [1, 2] In the United States, these laws are expressly prohibited by the Constitution (Article I, Section 9 for the federal government, and Article I, Section 10 for the states) to protect individuals from arbitrary government. We would think The Appeals Court Should have no problem figuring this out. 🤔

I'm shocked that GoFundMe has a set of standards. This is the same platform where a woman raised nearly a million dollars for calling a 5 year old child the N word in a public park

What we need is a complete, published list of the individuals with crimes perpetrated against them for being subjected to registration laws, including a long list of the murder victims. Force the Supreme Court to reconcile that they are condoning murder under their standing interpretation.

What state? My husband was just put through a similar situation after they called him at his job in New York. I can't find anything in SORA that authorizes LE to harass registrants whenever they feel like it as if they were on parole. Mandatory "Civil" paperwork duties imposed for a criminal offense and surprise parole- like harassment arrests are not the same, and the courts pretending it is are outlaws!

In the New York Knights Inn fire that killed six people, police have withheld all victim names “out of respect for the families,” and none of the reporting mentions criminal histories, registry status, or any personal background about those who died. By contrast, in the Neal–Locke homicide case, law enforcement released the victim’s name immediately, and every article prominently identified him as a person under a forced civil disability, centering that status in headlines and repeated references. The difference is stark: one group of victims is afforded privacy and dignity, while the other was publicly identified and defined by a civil‑administrative label from the outset. This contrast reflects a clear disparity in how victims are framed, not in the facts of the cases themselves.

These dead are known as acceptable casualties in the name of fratricide of the user. In the name of a greater good, allegedly, they allow this action to happen as detailed in the article. The problem from Albuquerque is other states are along Interstate 25 but also branches at Interstates 40, 70, 80, and 90. It is a great analogy to be used for minors in the situation you noted. #corruptgovt

It is my belief that CA passed unconstitutional laws to render 1203.4 immunities voided only for the registrant class. There are several laws that prevent inconsistencies of laws from being passed. Laws must be consistent for all, otherwise justice is being misappropriated and not equal. CA Const Art 1, Sec 7(b): A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. === Conviction is set aside or changed to not guilty. === The only way onto the registry is via conviction. A 1203.4 provides the immunity that the conviction changes from no lo contendere to not guilty or from not guilty to set aside the guilty verdict by the court. With the registry, both 290.5 and SB-384, they do not recognize a defendant is no longer has a conviction. In fact, the registry boldly identifies a conviction exists. This duplicitous act prevents a defendant from returning to society. Job opportunities are lost because one remains on the registry on background checks despite earning the 1203.4. === Accusation is dismissed. === From 1203.4, "the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant." And yet, the registry, 290.5 and SB-384, continues to share that accusation or info publicly and/or on background checks after earning the 1203.4. The court "shall" dismiss the accusation, but it is not being adhered to with the registry. === 290.5 and the CoR === What is truly astonishing is the proof of immunities not granted on the same terms is that registrants were required to earn a 1203.4 before petitioning for the CoR. No other convicted group were required to have a 1203.4 to petition for the CoR. That means those...

if you spend a long time in jail, then put on probation, made pay restitution, and put on the registry, isn’t that being punished multiple times. Which is violation of double jeopardy?

SB-384 increased penalties to some registrants instead of transferring directly from the old registry to SB-384. Michigan proved the increased penalty was punitive and it should only apply to new registrants after implementation. CA screwed up by unscientifically manipulating some convictions into higher tiers and applying them current registrants instead of prospective registrants. If Michigan courts proved an increased penalty under newly implemented laws was unconstitutional, then I do not understand why the same lawsuit of unconstitutionality not apply with CA. Another point I'd like to bring up is why aren't all those convicted prior to SB-384 are not grandfathered in to use the Certificate of Rehabilitation (CoR) to get off the registry since that was the legal pathway when their conviction was levied? That pathway should have still existed for those who had a year or two left to petition for the CoR to get off the registry. That registrant group had that pathway off the registry, but it was completely negated via SB-384 instead of having a grandfathered group.

Thank you, David, for putting these announcements by law enforcement in perspective.

@SR - I agree. This is definitely something that should be discussed but never has so far. A 1203.4 used to get you off the registry (as it should). With a 1203.4, you can honestly say you have never been convicted, yet Megan's Law shows a conviction WITHOUT a disclaimer that it has been dismissed. Even a LIVE SCAN HAS to show a 1203.4 if they are listing a conviction that has been dismissed. Why is Megan's Law not held to the same standard? My fiance was never publicly listed and was in a "no disclosure BY LAW" category prior to SB384. His two offenses have been dismissed/ expunged via 1203.4. Yet, now he is listed publicly in Tier 3 when with the old law, he was considered the lowest of Tiers that would not even list him publicly. There was also a category of "no show" after applying for an exclusion (certain offenses could be excluded). He did not fall in that category either. His offense (Indecent Exposure with NO children present) was deemed so minor that, by law, he was not displayed publicly. What changed????? All these decades, the public had no idea where he lived, and now he is deemed so dangerous, he is in the highest Tier WITH a 1203.4. That is about as ridiculous as it gets and makes zero sense. This has to be grounds for a lawsuit.

SB-145 was also signed by a Dem, and I remember Gov Newsom getting nailed to the cross by conservatives for doing it. Although Clinton was wrong for signing Megan's Law, I'll give him a little leeway for not fully knowing the ramifications of the law in the mid-90s. The thinking then was that the registry was "no more intrusive than applying for a Price Club Membership," as John Roberts eloquently puts it.

I never said anybody was a friend. Just pointing out a fact. This bill is sponsored entirely of Republicans. That's a fact.

I think you are correct. I also think that is quite funny. The criminal regimes and their law enforcement criminals (LECs) are putting countless children at risk by using them as sting bait. But it's no surprise that they traffic children. They are the biggest human traffickers in the entire world, after all. I'm also 100% sure that the LECs have committed actual SEX crimes by talking to actual, real children in sexual ways. They don't know who they are talking SEX to. The person on the other end could be a 50 year old or a 12 year old. I'm sure they've SEXed up children. Also, I'm fairly confident that it is illegal in many places to even just write about children and SEX. Surely the LECs have crossed that legal boundary countless times. All of it is a good bit of stupid. The whole time they are jerking off with their stings, burning resources, real crimes are occurring. People are getting hurt and killed. Children included. They are too busy to prevent that or even solve the crimes afterward. But they manufactured some crimes. Crimes where not a single person was harmed. The last thing I will say is that the conviction criteria of "believed that the person was a minor" is whole horsesh*t. They have no idea what a person believes. Even if a person tells the "chatter" on the other side, "I believe you when you say you are a minor," you still have zero proof the person actually does believe that and they absolutely may not. I would bet any amount that some criminal regimes have arrested a person in a sting where not a single person involved thought there was any child involved.

You.know when law enforcement ("LE") periodically have those big headline sweeps with names like "Project Angel Save" and LE arrest 50 allrged perpetrators and rescue 19 at risk minors.... I can't help but think, "Yu knew fur some time where this missing child was.... But you, LE, chose to wait for a " rescue" until you could make big headlines with lots of arrests. well, apparently, LE plays the same games with deadly drugs: DEA allowed staggering amounts of fentanyl to hit streets and took no action, records show

I think we are in agreement from different angles.

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".

The U.S. Supreme Court has established that while the existence of probable cause generally defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, plaintiffs can still sue if they present objective evidence that they were arrested when similarly situated individuals not engaged in protected speech were not. In the June 2024 ruling Gonzalez v. Trevino, the Court clarified that plaintiffs do not need to identify specific comparators who engaged in the exact same conduct but expressed different views to prove retaliation, rejecting an "overly cramped" standard that would have made such lawsuits nearly impossible to bring.

Disagree. A child is endangered when used to bait individuals for sexual contact. The intent of the stinger to use a child in that manner is clear enough. It shouldn't matter that the child is non-existent.

According to what I am reading, there have to be two levels involved. 1) Parental consent of at least one parent 2) A court hearing to determine if it in the best interest of the child. It seems most states are doing this now. Before it was under 18 through a certain age just parental consent. Under that certain age, then a court would be involved. It seems a lot of guys were going to poor countries and getting girls to bring to the US who were under 18 to marry under a Fiance visa then marrying them easily in the US with parental consent.

In Texas it is 17

I left Michigan in 2020 with 12 more years left of registration and upon moving to Ohio I was removed from Michigans registry and had no duty to register in Ohio because I would’ve only been on ohios for 10 years. So needless to say I have zero desire to ever move back to Michigan lol

How does MI registry laws apply to a Jan 1995 offense date. If an out of stater moves to Michigan.

As of today, a total of $4,100 has been donated in the matching grant program. Donations have ranged from $5 to $1,000. Thanks to all who have donated so far. For those who haven't donated yet, please consider doing so today so that we can meet the goal of $5,000 established by an anonymous donor. Donations in any amount are welcome.

They already do this on "NextDoor" and private FB groups WITH the registry in place. But yeah, it would just exacerbate the hysteria and lead to more vigilantism, "pred hunters" and all sorts of attention-hunting losers popping up if SORNA was taken down.

They literally just do it so they can put “strengthened penalties for those who prey on our children” on their resumes. They just pulled these numbers out of a hat. I mean Republicans probably came up with the original penalties so it should be on them to explain why those Republicans were so “soft” on PFRs.

Just ask Pennsylvania. The age of consent here is 16

"As for Vitaly, after a month of radio silence, his Kick account came back online in mid-May. In his first livestream after the ban, he said he planned to keep catching predators, this time in Europe." Good luck in Europe. People aren't as hysterical about this predator thing like in America 

I assume you were able to bail out, which is good. I don't know the state, how many prior violations you have had, etc. so this could be something as light as a misdemeanor, or as potentially disastrous as a serious felony. In light of this, whether you are guilty or not, having legal counsel may be necessary to ensure the best outcome, especially if it may affect future eligibility for removal from the registry. The sooner you are able to get legal counsel, the better. If are in a position to use the internet, definitely use online AI resources for help give you clarity on what to do, but don't discuss anything sensitive that could be obtained later with a search warrant. P I'm sorry to hear about your issue. Technical violations are an affront to liberty and are about as anti-American as it gets, and makes this country more like China or Russia than the "most free country on earth." Keep us updated!

Yep, that's usually the case. However, Dems tend to cave in to this stuff in a swing state like Michigan. That's what Whitmer is doing.

"Michigan has one of the largest registries in the country; there are approximately 45,000 Michigan registrants, and almost 10,000 more who live out of state." Hmm...that sentence is a little confusing. Are they saying that Michiganers have to register after they move out of state? Because I thought only Wisconsin & NY has that law. My guess is that Michigan only keeps people on their registry once they leave the state.....kind of like the Floriduh thing where people stay on their registry, but they don't have to do anything afterwards

Just a little humor from the old Doc 😊

Thank you for exposing this!

And you act like the Dems are our friends.....get real!!!! Megan's law was signed into law by who???? A dem.

Every sponsor of this trash bill are Republicans. Remember this! Thomas Kuhn (Primary Sponsor) — Republican, District 57 Mike Hoadley — Republican, District 99 Alicia St. Germaine — Republican, District 62 Douglas Wozniak — Republican, District 59 Joseph Pavlov — Republican, District 64 William Bruck — Republican, District 30

@Dustin Alleged child endangerment is an interesting angle. Impersonating a minor for the sake of catching an alleged potential predator isn't a defense under 1A, IMO. Others may think so for the alleged potential safety of possible minors but I believe you can't do it like you can't yell fire when there isn't one. It may not be a criminal infraction, though should be, but certainly could be a civil infraction with a lower bar for finding guilt and civil financial penalties.

I still say they ought to press child endangerment charges on this guy and anyone else that do these stupid stings. That there was no actual child involved should be no more a defense to that than it is to their targets.

Happy Father's Day to all those here in the forum it is applicable to and those who have carried the role without being one.