Considering the political climate of this country, you can bet it would make our plight worse.

If everyone refused to register, don't think for a minute that each and every registrant would not get arrested. And they would either built more prisons, perhaps some very low level security prisons, or they would put us all on probation.

That would take money, but that would probably not be much of a problem.
You can damn well bet that they would find the money somewhere. Public sentiment would be 100% against us.

If we all failed to register, I can just hear it now-----"Those sex offenders are nothing but criminals" or "See how they are??? I knew they had no respect for the law," or "Lock 'em up forever."

Heck, they may even label us as some kind of "domestic terrorist" who are conspiring with each other to compromise the security of this country. Then the penalties would be particularly harsh.

Any good will we had worked toward would evaporate. You can bet the media would also work overtime picturing us as "dangerous malcontents" who "we cannot allow to roam to streets to rape and mangle your innocent children."

It would just give them the excuse that many have wanted all along to eliminate us.

We have to accomplish our goals through the courts or through educating the populace.

rewdiazepam

Point I did not considered, What if one person did, would they have a better change to challenge this law while in prison. As in my case ? Crime 1979 4 years in prison started a business 1985 raise a family all my kids have goes to college. I bought a house 1996 my income was about 200,000.00. Once I was seen on the Megan's Web Site I lost 33 years of my life in one day.
I lost my business under a new law that destroyed my life, as while as my friend that did not know about my past!

It has not stopped, every day people see the Megan's Web Site and are left thinking this crime from 35 years ago is a new case, and that I just Raped someone, not understanding it was so long ago.

Placing a new picture of me or any each year makes one guilty of a crime they have not done, plus I hate even remembering the years of my youth. I am no longer that 19 year who ran the streets I am 56 years old that just wants to live out the rest of my life not being guilty for a crime no one remembers

Lifegonewrong,

No, one person challenging the law with some type of civil disobedience would not work either. They would NOT look at that person as some kind of modern day Rosa Parks, trust me.

Yes, your situation is ridiculous. I see you live in California. I wonder if that state is ripe for a Starkey decision like the state of Oklahoma. Do you know if this has ever been explored? Has Janice ever read the Starkey decision form Oklahoma? Might be something to think about. It would sure get you off the registry and make your life easier.

rewdiazepam

You know I'd love to see someone sue and ask for punitive damages.

The money you were making prior to the public splashing of your face on the web and phones.

Is that even possible? Punitive damages (or even substantiated actual damages) from the effect of these laws?

I am not sure, Ivy, but that is one way to stop some of this nonsense----hit these people in the pocket book.

I know in the county I live, a group of female inmates sued the sheriff for six million dollars, as they were raped while in the jail. They won. The entire county had to pay it through their property taxes.

The sheriff did not get re-elected and conditions in that jail changed drastically. Sometimes the fastest way to someone's brain is through their wallet.

rewdiazepam

Loss of money (income or ability to earn an income) is punitive. These laws cause that loss.

Of course the counter argument is 'we' did it to ourselves by committing the crime.

But in Life's situation he was successful in business long after his crime. It wasn't until the punitive and ex post facto laws were enacted his income was lost.

I wish I was a lawyer! Oh wait... I can't be because I'm a SO. Grrr.

This new law would of made my life much better if it had been inactive when I frist was released from prison 1984 because I would not of been able to have the life I had and never would of know what I lost. I have always had to register, only the police saw my profile. This allowed me to work but not now
I used to repair Tvs, I been in about 70,000 peoples homes in my 33 years working and now I can. Its like when did I become dangerous? I have never had any problems with any one until 2008.2008 is when people saw my picture on the Web Site. They take a old crime and put a new face on it like I just commited this crime today. The problem is today never stops this will be true next year and the years after.
I am going to look into Starkey decision form Oklahoma.

If you have been registering since 1984 it sounds like you are in California. They have been able to pile on without any challenges because registration is civil and not punitive. Ha! Once you are registered the extent of restrictions is not ex-post facto punishment.

Starkey in Oklahoma challenged that and won on the grounds that it is indeed punitive. So did Williams in Ohio.

However, the 600-pound Gorilla is Doe v. Smith from 2003. That decision MUST be invalidated. If so, you would go back to your registration conditions from 1984. A favorable decision would plunge the registry in California into complete chaos (the CASOMB stated that there were at least 100 registrants in CA who have NOT committed a sex crime in 50+ years).

As luck would have it, California RSOL appears to be preparing to slay that giant.

See here - CA RSOL's Janice Bellucci addressing the issue at the 2014 RSOL Conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPW5No_KrU

However, it would be a grave mistake to sit by and watch. All these people are volunteers. Get involved - volunteer time and donate money. God helps those who help themselves.

http://californiarsol.org/

I've thought that about CA. The wins on local ordinances are great but based on a technicality of law.

I'm thrilled that Janice is going to challenge the punitive nature / ex post facto of the laws.

I think the Starkey case and the KS one before the Supreme Court in KS lay out all the arguments needed.

Something has to give.

I'd gladly go back to the laws / restrictions in place in 1996 when I was arrested.

Janice helped me change the Megan's Web Site to show my crime was from 1980. In doing so the California State criminal Investigation sent me a copy of all my crimes, which they said, I HAD NONE. My crime was so long ago they had not updated my background into the new system.

I had rode with her to LA 2-3 times for meetingS, it seemed she wasn't interested in fighting the ex post facto but want's to march and have sit downs like back in the 60s and protest about civil rights like the homosexuals and blacks have done.

I don't understand law or how laws are changed. I don't understand how we who are guilty for a crime can use those same rights as those who where innocently mistreated, they did nothing wrong.



I was remove from society for 4 years back in 1980 but what is happing today makes me more afraid and fills my heart with fear as daily I became more unwanted by society. 33 years I lived with respect among society, this new law is making me and others criminals even though are crimes are from long ago.

Ex post facto is wrong and is punishment to us that did not have these restrictions as we where allowed to live among society with out fear, (like myself 35 years) and make a life for ourselves. Ex post facto is causing us to be guilty of crimes we have not done and causing us to lose every thing we have or had worked for.

Ex post facto is to protect those of us who are not or have not committing any new crimes. Seeing they are using Ex post facto should show every one how bad it is in preventing any one today from being able to start a new life, its making every one old and new alike, criminals for the rest of life

Yes I agree but the laws are terribly unjust for those that are not ex post facto also

@Rew... I live in Maricopa county, home to geriatric Joe Arpio. The residents in this county pride themselves on the amount of times our sheriff has been sued for violating peoples rights

It'd be a shame to waste a law license on sit ins and hippy protests.

I'm not seeing that going far.

We need court rulings and to hit them in the wallet fighting all the lawsuits.

The more we win and the more we file the greater the chance of the big court looking at the situation.

Although it's fun to see the CA towns squirm the sad fact is the state could easily pass laws like IL containing the restrictions and it'd be 'legal'. Or. CA could pass a law allowing local codes to trump state. And all her efforts are for naught.

Better to fight the punitive nature and ex post facto that will put an end to the laws once and for all.

I actually like Joe Arpio, I know amy, I'm just a, how did you put it, a "Stupid ass Republican? (Conservative, yes, Repub, no)
His 'Tent City' he says that our military members live in GP Large tents in worse conditions than his inmates, but of course, he hasn't been sued for that, nor for the pink underwear. Baloney sandwiches? There were times I would have gladly traded my MRE for one, nope, he has only been sued by the Holder(Obozo) justice dept over illegal immigration, the same Justice Dept that have been more than diligent in enforcing the AWA.
How many times have Obozo or Holder come down on the RSO's side?

Coastie.... You , Sir, could you a little Ron Paul in your life. What a great man he is, am I right? Hell fuckin ya I'm right.

Lol I can just picture you being a guy in his 50's sitting in his recliner, drinking Pats Blue Ribbon (I think that's what it's called) watching that very angry news anchor on FOX news , while saying to yourself " build the dang fence already"...