ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Next Call: March 8 (Tiered Registries) - Feb 8 Audio added
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings Q1 2017

Mar 18 (date change) in Los Angeles [details]
.Action ItemsACSOLCalifornia

Assembly Further Amends, Passes AB 2569

The Assembly further amended, then passed Assembly Bill 2569 which would reduce the number of individuals eligible for an exclusion from their name, photo and other personal information being posted on the CA Megan’s Law website.

The bill was amended by the Appropriations Committee on May 27 and would require a “local assistance center for victims and witnesses” to speak to a victim in order to determine if granting the exclusion would be “in the best interest of the victim”. A prior version of the bill required CA Department of Justice to speak to victims.

The bill was passed on the floor of the Assembly on June 1 and then referred to the Senate on June 2.

“Assembly Bill 2569 must be stopped in the Senate,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “If this bill becomes law, the lives of many registered citizens and their family members will be significantly harmed.”

In the Senate, AB 2569 will be heard by both the Public Safety and Appropriations Committees. The bill will only be considered on the floor if the committees vote in its favor. No committee dates have yet been set, but will be reported on this website as soon as they are available.

The annual cost to implement this bill is estimated between $150,000 to $180,000.

Join the discussion

  1. USA

    Well, the part where they request to speak to the victim is a little strange? What if the victim is dead? Mentally disabled? What if the person is mentally incapable? Living in Europe? Asia? Very odd. It’s difficult to believe this part of the bill could be carried out in both a fair and professional manner. Secondly, it’s difficult to believe that it will be done at all when the State of California can’t even update and run the Megan’s website as it should. There are no updates and it’s filled with errors. Good luck with updating thousands of records.

    • JR

      @USA I agree. You list: the dead, disabled, incapable, living abroad. Don’t forget the many of us who have no victim whatsoever (literally no victim… no cp, no contact) or those in consensual relationships?

      The lack of ability to speak to a victim is clear for those you list and it could be argued that the dead would have no objection. However, how do those of us with NO victim exercise the option even in part to be excluded from the ML website if no victim exists?

      Hmmm…

    • Mike

      Or if the victim is a profile that law enforcement created to use in their sting?

      • Tom

        So, if the crime was the result of a sting by the PD and not a live person would that allow for US to be removed from the Megan site?

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Well, the real issue is that they are hurting victims with this. One size does NOT fit all, and that includes the victims. Many victims would like to just move on and forget, they don’t need these people, especially the biased and hard core ones the bill was changed to name to do it, contacting them and throwing the entire thing back in their faces so they can never put it behind them. It reminds me of the victim in the Roman Polanski case, who only says to drop it, let it go, its over, its history, but she just keeps getting it thrown in her face and dragged around forever, which she has stated she would like to stop (the point being not whether Polansky should be prosecuted for fleeing, but that victims do not necessarily want these things constantly thrown back in their face). This is just another bill based on nothing but hate.

      The change from the Justice Department talking with them to the private group is clearly designed to block this relief for anyone as that group, as designated, is quite biased, will say no registrant should get that relief — that’s why the bill was changed to say that. Its like putting the Runners in charge of the decision.

      • Timmr

        Actually there is nothing in the bill that says the victim gives permission or not. It is up to these private groups to determine what is right for the victim, no criteria even set out for that. At least before, there was a non subjective set of criterion to make the determination.

  2. Unforgiven citizen

    How do we stop it? What can we do to bring logical rational thinking to brain dead people how can I help.

  3. USA

    I’m a little confused. Who does this bill apply to? Incest convictions only?

    • Lake County

      I think it only applies to those that received an exemption for non-penetration offenses against against a child, grandchild or sibling as long as it did not involve oral copulation and penetration. (a*)And certain CP offenses involving minors 16 and over. Here’s what the form states qualifies for an exemption as of today:

      (Megans Law website has the form posted for us, however I don’t understand why it is on a website we are not allowed to view?????)

      http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/pdf/Application.pdf

      -Felony conviction of California Penal Code (PC) section 243.4(a)
      -Misdemeanor conviction of PC section 647.6 – former PC section 647a
      -Conviction of a registrable sex offense (PC sections 290-290.006) with proof of successful completion of probation or that you are currently on probation. Submit to the Department of Justice (DOJ) a certified copy of a probation report, pre-sentence report, report prepared pursuant to PC section 288.1, or court documentation that demonstrates both the following: 1) you were the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent; and 2) the crime did not involve either oral copulation or any type of penetration.
      -Felony conviction of PC section 311.1, section 311.2 subsection (b), (c), or (d), or section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, or 311.11. Submit a certified copy of a probation report filed in court that clearly states that all victims involved in the commission of the offense were at least 16 years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense.

      Also if If your most recent Static 99(R) score, if such an assessment was completed, is higher than 3
      (0-3 is a low-moderate risk score), you are not
      eligible for exclusion.

      (a*) The new bill says nothing about these CP crime exclusions. Probably being saved to address during the next major election. Can’t pick all the low hanging fruit at once.

      • Timmr

        You are right there, it just takes a local news story about someone convicted of CP possession attending a school recital who is, lions and tigers and bears, oh my, NOT ON THE WEB! Then some opportunistic legislator will have an opening to make more ineligible. Can’t make it seem like a concerted effort, and make it look like retribution and therefore, punishment.

      • JDub

        Speaking of “a website we are not allowed to view,” does anyone know for certain the actual reason, and legal justification used as to why registered citizens cannot view Megan’s website)? What about the Freedom of Information act? We certainly can be given copies of the information on the website by someone who can view the website contents, but we cannot set our eye upon the “forbidden fruit” … Sounds as if someone is hiding something! But what? But why?

        • David Kennerly

          I would love to see this challenged in court. Of course, someone would first have to be convicted of violating this ridiculous and absurd law.

          I would like to say that it wouldn’t – couldn’t possibly – stand a chance of sustaining judicial scrutiny since it is so baseless and constitutionally egregious on any level that it can be viewed.

          But who knows?

          As I’ve said before, it would make a good candidate for civil disobedience, en masse. What form could that take? I suppose we could have a number of Registrants gathered publicly accessing little Megan’s website in full view of a gathered press. Yes, it sounds very silly but so is the “law”.

          • Will A

            It is beyond an outrage that people who are on the nanny big government list cannot view it. Are those people also not entitled to “protect” their families? Just more proof of what a bunch of scumbags the people who support the Registries are. True un-American, immoral scumbags.

            • Robert Curtis

              There has to be some law supporting the registrant’s right to access information as it relates to themselves ie the Registry. The Freedom of Information Act was put in place to mandate government to be more transparent …as part of a govt mandated list shouldn’t freedom of access under that Act also apply to registered citizens? Of course all things sex offender tend to play by different rules, but REALLY?

              • Anon

                Everyone could demand a review per Code Sections 11120 through 11127. But it costs to get the live fingerprint scan. There may be exceptions to payment though so it could cost the state too much to keep this law.

        • Renny

          It is to prevent association, organization and bonding, which in the eyes of Americans, means we would become rabid hordes; raping and beheading their children.

          It is a ridiculous law now, since our information can viewed by any of the sites that steal the registry information for profit.

          I truly think it is ripe for a challenge, since we fill out our forms by hand and there is great potential for error during the transcribing process.

          If we can be harassed, arrested or even prosecuted for an error in the registry information, we should be allowed to view it for correctness.

          • Will A

            I think the true argument is that people on the list deserve the information just as much as anyone else. You have just as much right to “protect” your family as anyone else does. There is no legitimate excuse to block access. They are doing it because they are idiotic scumbags. Just as they dream the Registries “work”, they dream not allowing access would somehow do something useful that could not easily be worked-around. All false, obviously.

            You don’t have to worry if the information on the website is accurate or not. All you have to do is ensure that you give them the correct information in writing and keep proof of it. If they can’t copy it over to a website, too bad for them.

  4. Will A

    Too funny. These criminal regimes are getting dumber by the day. The only intelligent thing to be doing is reducing the number of people on their Registries. Anything else is idiocy that is harming our country.

  5. Unforgiven citizen

    USA- Yes this group of SO is being targeted

  6. Tobin's Tools

    Sounds like implementation of this bill will far exceed $150,000 to $180,000. Considering the grossly excessive salary, compensation, and pension benefits of state and local government con employees, the 150k to 180k seems like the annual salary alone for one manager of these “local assistance center[s].”

  7. JN

    Can Janice please verify exactly who this amended bill applies to please

  8. Unforgiven citizen

    JN -Read the post trail

    • JN

      Why not just answer the question if you know?
      Does anyone know to whom this exactly applies to?

  9. Anti-Tobin

    In California, there are over 18,000 registered sex offenders — of the over 100,000 — NOT published on Megan’s Law website. This bill seems like a small step to ensuring more, and perhaps eventually all, of the unpublished sex offenders are published. So the slippery slope begins…

  10. TiredOfHiding

    More names = More money justified to run that damn list.

    Simple as that.

    • Will A

      You are right. It’s just big government getting bigger.

  11. David H

    it says the annual cost of this do nothing piece of work is $150-200K per year; has anyone thought about filing lawsuits as a tax payer on behalf of the tax payer for pending legislation in a committee and require them ( the sponsor or committee chair) to show good cause the cost benefit analysis of passing such legislation.

    honestly based on that approach it doesn’t need to become law first.

    • The Unforgiven

      Sometimes I wonder if/do taxpayers really care where their money goes but if it ‘saves just one child’. That’s all you have to put down on paper to pass anything. Look how many comments made on internet articles say, ‘lock them all up’. When taxes have to be raised to do that, those people should be willing to fork over their hard earned money to pay for it..right? But would they? When I use that argument with people, they often don’t have a comeback. People are selective.

      • Will A

        Actually, the people who should pay for incarceration are the people being incarcerated. The full cost of law enforcement against them, trials, incarceration, etc. should be borne by the guilty. I don’t think that is workable but that is how it should be.

        And also for that to be moral, fair, and American, there has to be a very solid sense of proportionality of punishments. We cannot say that a person deserves to be incarcerated for 10 years for looking at a “bad” picture and yet someone who punches a child in the face does not deserve more than 10 years. We cannot have a “sex offender” witch hunt and also have it be fair that the people who are incarcerated must pay for it. We cannot have Registries for “sex offenders” only and expect them to pay for it if we also don’t have Registries for all other crimes. And we certainly can’t modify Registration “requirements” (i.e. punishments) retroactively and expect people affected by it to pay for it.

        So for all those reasons and more, it will never be moral to force the people who are incarcerated to pay for it.

      • David H

        you are so right unforgiven; all the more reason for the public display of facts in the court room. This whole SO thing is going to come down to an argument of fact!

  12. CA

    Obviously this cannot be RETROACTIVE?
    What if you were granted exclusion many years ago?

    • PH

      Yes can Janice PLEASE clarify whether this is retroactive AND to whom it exactly applies to?

  13. PH

    Can someone PLEASE clarify what the amended bill applies to? Does it apply to only those cases of incest or does it include other offenses such as 647.6a?
    Thank you.

    • TiredOfHiding

      Someone reply…well. I think you hit the nail on the head with just WHY there is so LITTLE monetary support for this website.

      Stories are posted…genuine questions are asked and ignored…panic and mis-information are pretty much the result.

      If this website was suddenly to become a place of real and up to day info then perhaps more people would donate as it would actually be useful unlike the way it is now.

      • David Kennerly

        Well, there are no paid staffers to do such things. As with all of RSOL, it is the work of volunteers donating their time freely.

        It IS a place of real information. I can’t think of anyplace else where you can find the information that it contains but people have to be willing to step up and help if it is to be expanded and improved. That’s the only way we’re ever going to dismantle the massive injustices we face.

        I can think of lots of things that need doing but are not being done for want of volunteers.

        • James

          These laws are thick and complex, PH….Are you going to be at the Senate hearing on June 28? This may be your duty…and you may get your answer there.

          As to Tired, are you going to be at the Senate hearing? What are you doing to reduce the Law’s ambiguity? Where is your in depth analysis?

          Are you too lazy to wade through these mountains of laws for this specific answer? If not, why should someone else do the work you want done?

          You do the work, you bring some insightful analysis to the table before you start complaining.

          I do believe this proposed law only refers to Incest cases…but how many degrees out does this apply? And I could be entirely wrong…it could well be years of court interpretation and administrative practice before we know what this law ultimately will mean.

          People seem to want to demand hard answers….this is real life, we will just have to wait and see in action how this plays out.

          But we should all oppose this regardless.

          I am sorry I don’t have a better answer for you….alas, in the end, we are all plagued by existential angst…questions without answers.

          Tis` the way of the world.

          Best Wishes, James

      • WantsToHelp

        Wow. Just… seriously? This website has more information for registrants that any other site out there. It’s run by volunteers. Unlike most of the people who visit this website, Janice has sacrificed her time, her energy, put her reputation at stake, has taken on the challenge of registrants without any skin in the game. She had nothing to gain by taking up this cause. She has NOTHING… and let me repeat that… she has NOTHING to lose by deciding she no longer wants to fight this fight.

        Maybe your comment that, “If this website was suddenly to become a place of real and up to day [sic] info then perhaps more people would donate as it would actually be useful unlike the way it is now.” wasn’t intended as a criticism, perhaps I’m just a little bit defensive on behalf of those who’ve rolled up their sleeves and taken this fight on vs. talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain.

        I’m terrified one day Janice will read a comment like yours, think it over and say, “Well, if that’s how people still feel after everything I’ve done and continue to do, screw it, I’m out of here.”

        For people with a sense of entitlement, people who are willing to sit back and let others fight their fight for them, people who aren’t willing to contribute time or money because they figure someone else will take up that slack, there’s no amount of information on this website that would encourage them to start coughing it up.

        The blame goes to indifference, apathy, and selfishness. Not to the volunteers who’ve made this site possible through their own time and financial contributions.

  14. Unforgiven citizen

    PH it only applies to incest victims

  15. Unforgiven citizen

    The way the law is written they can retroative if they want it’s all subjective.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderation decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator@all4consolaws.org
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

My Tickets is currently in testing mode. No financial transactions will be processed.