ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q3: 9/16 in San Diego [details], Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group Meeting: Aug 26 in LA [details]

ACSOLCaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: ACSOL Board Faced With “Sophie’s Choice” [updated with Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill]

During the five years in which this organization has existed, we have often heard a wish expressed – that registrants in California be treated differently, not the same.  That wish was expressed in many variations including that registrants should be treated differently according to their current risk or that registrants should be treated differently according to the offense for which they were convicted.

Those wishes are now nearing reality in the form of a tiered registry bill expected to be introduced in the state legislature early next year.  As drafted, the bill would treat registrants differently based upon both their current risk and the offense for which they were convicted by assigning them to tiers that would allow some registrants to automatically be removed from the registry while others could petition for removal after 10 or 20 years.  A final group would continue to remain on the registry for their lifetime.

If the proposed tiered registry bill becomes law, more than 10,000 registrants would “immediately” stop registering and about 60,000 registrants would “ultimately” stop registering.

The organization therefore is faced with a “Sophie’s choice”.  Do we agree to the “immediate” liberation of more than 10,000 registrants from the punishments inflicted by the registry and the “ultimate” liberation of about 60,000 registrants from the same punishments?  Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do?  And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime.

The board of directors discussed this topic in depth a week ago during its annual face-to-face meeting.  No consensus was reached, however, in part because a copy of the bill was not yet available.  Now that the bill has become available, the choice the board must make is even more stark.

The board of directors will meet again on December 8 and in the interim, the opinions of registrants and their families about the bill are being gathered.  All opinions expressed prior to the meeting will be considered.  The board of directors may or may not make a final decision regarding the bill on December 8, however, to ensure that your opinion is heard by the board of directors, please add your comment to this article before that date.

Thank you.

— by Janice Bellucci

Draft Bill

Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill

(added on 11/21)

TIER 1 (10 years)

Indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314(1), (2)); sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4(e)); inveigling/enticing a minor to have sex (Pen. Code, § 266); contacting a minor with intent to expose oneself or engage in lewd or lascivious behavior (Pen. Code, § 288.4(a)); possession of child pornography with intent to distribute, etc. (Pen. Code, § 311, 311.2); hiring a minor to perform prohibited acts (Pen. Code, § 311.4(a)); advertising for sale obscene matter depicting a minor (Pen. Code, § 311.10(a)); trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1(b), (c); possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11(a)); annoy/molest a child under 18 (Pen. Code, § 647.6); contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Pen. Code, § 272).
Inveigling/enticing a minor to have sex (Pen. Code, § 266); sending harmful matter to a minor (Pen. Code, § 288.2); contacting a minor with intent to commit a specified sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3); contacting a minor with intent to expose oneself or engage in lewd or lascivious behavior (Pen. Code, § 288.4(a)); possession of child pornography with intent to distribute, etc. (Pen. Code, § 311, 311.2); hiring a minor to perform prohibited acts (Pen. Code, § 311.4(a)); advertising for sale obscene matter depicting a minor (Pen. Code, § 311.10(a)); trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1(b), (c); possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11(a).)

TIER 2 (20 years)

The following offenses, most of which are serious or violent described in subdivision (c) of section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of section 1192.7:

Assault with intent to commit described sex crimes (Pen. Code, § 220); rape (Pen. Code, § 261); spousal rape with force or violence [1]Pen. Code, § 262); rape in concert (Pen. Code, § 264.1); abduction for purposes of prostitution (Pen. Code, § 267); incest (Pen. Code, § 285); forcible sodomy or sodomy of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 286); lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288); continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5); forcible oral copulation or oral copulation of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288a); forcible foreign object penetration or foreign object penetration of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 289, subds. (b), (d), (e; sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4(a), (d)); solicitation of rape (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (c)); trafficking a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subds. (b), (c); out-of-state sex offenders required to register in California whose offense is not equivalent to a California registrable offense (Pen. Code, § 290.005).

TIER 3 (Lifetime)

Murder with intent to commit a specified sex offense (Pen. Code, § 187)
Kidnap with intent to commit a specified sex offense (Pen. Code, § 207, 209)
Sexually violent predators (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)
Sex offenders sentenced to life term (Pen. Code, § 667.71)
Repeat felony child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288(a))
Forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288(b))
Aggravated child molestation (Pen. Code, § 269)
Sex crimes with child age 10 or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7)
Registered sex offenders who are convicted of a second and violent sex offense
Assault with intent to commit a specified sex offense in the commission of a first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 220(b))
Offenders with well above average risk level (formerly denominated high risk) on the state static risk assessment instrument (Pen. Code, § 290.04)
Habitual sexual offenders (Pen. Code, § 667.71)
Out-of-state sex offenders in California who have been assessed with well above average risk level on the state static risk assessment instrument (Pen. Code, § 290.04)
Out-of-state sex offenders in California who have ever been civilly committed to a mental hospital in a proceeding equivalent to California’s sexually violent predator proceedings (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)
Offenders sentenced to 15 or 25 years to life for an offense listed in Section 667.61

Note: All described registrable offenses include any attempt or conspiracy to commit these crimes.


Los Angeles DA to Co-Sponsor Tiered Registry Bill

Read all Janice’s Journals




References   [ + ]

1. Pen. Code, § 262); rape in concert (Pen. Code, § 264.1); abduction for purposes of prostitution (Pen. Code, § 267); incest (Pen. Code, § 285); forcible sodomy or sodomy of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 286); lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288); continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5); forcible oral copulation or oral copulation of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288a); forcible foreign object penetration or foreign object penetration of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 289, subds. (b), (d), (e

Join the discussion


    First, there is no guarantee on the numbers of those going off the registry… Secondly, that’s a token amount considering the people staying on and the newer people coming in later. Consider also the upward moves of tier 1 to 2 and 2 to tier 3. I’m sure if they can give you a projection on the 10,000, they have predictions on the bump ups and the growth with the new changes. None….

    Advocate groups, in my opinion, should be like doctors. Do no harm. I warned you about the message support for a tiered registry would send and the potential of helping the state further their next registry schemes. Now we have a registry planned for Muslims. No registry is good, if you believe the targets are human. It’s a disgusting practice that should be eradicated. You have no right to safety at the expense of another’s rights.

    • Keith M.

      Good points Those are good reasons as to NOT support this bill.

    • This Bill Is At The 'Expense' Of Others Rights!

      This bill helps 10K, but at the expense of 3 times the people (i.e. 30,000 people will be advanced into Tier 3 and thus labeled as the most ‘dangerous’ and harmed MORE). Unfortunately, you can see that the special interests funding this group are in the pre 1987 category — a capricious year — because they are leaving everyone else to hang. Kind of ridiculous because a lot of us put a lot of faith in this CIVIL RIGHTS group. Also, I very much agree with your statement that civil rights groups should be like ‘doctors’ in doing ‘no harm.’ This bill, in much more that one sense, will likely do more harm than the current scheme that we have now. I don’t know about you guys, but this bill is a farce. This bill should have ‘CAUTION!’ and ‘WARNING!’ signs wrapped around it in big bold letters. But you know, with Janice, CASOMB, and the DA’s behind this… this sham bill is going to pass.

      • NO!

        Did you miss the point of the title? Obviously Janice has not decided yet.
        HOWEVER Janice MUST NOT support this bill.
        Too many will be harmed significantly by this bill.

        • Matt

          I don’t understand who would be harmed by passage of a tiered registry. We are all on the registry for life as it is. If some can get off, I am all for it. How dod you determine that 30000 would be advanced into Tier 3 if there currently are no.tiers? Right now we are all Tier 3. The way I read it, only violent offenses would require lifetime regustration, and those deemed high risk. How many is that?

          • HOOKSCAR

            ALL sex offenses are considered “violent”.

            • Tired of this

              This has always struck me as absurd. Many of us in my treatment program in prison (for mostly non-contact offenses) were scrawny, acne-faced, socially awkward, early 20s computer nerds who had never known violence in our lives, at least not outside of video games. To think that the powers that be, and the average registry terrorist, consider us violent criminals blows my mind. Only a person incapable of rational thought would place downloading illegal material on the same plane as physically attacking someone, i.e. the standard definition of violence.

              • David Kennerly aka “The Human Equivalent of Toxic Waste"

                Keep in mind that actual “violence,” as most people understand the word, is not necessary to brand us as “sexually violent” or as “predators” within legal frameworks.

                “Sexual Violence” has been statutorily redefined for the purpose of further marginalizing and vilifying Registrants and scurrilously misrepresenting them, as well as their capacity for harm, to a credulous public.

      • American Detained in America

        I’m not sure how many are actually harmed by this when we are already treated as Tier 3 to begin with. There is no such thing as anyone being moved from Tier 1 to Tier 2 currently as there are no tiers as it currently stands, and the only way to move up as I’ve read it is to commit a new crime.

  2. M.

    I strongly disagree with this draft bill as it is now written.

    While I respect that this bill will help others, I suggest that this organization work to make the following amendments:

    1. The ability to earn a Certificate of Rehabilitation, relieving one of the duty to register, remain. Even for Tier 3 offenders.

    2. The Static-99R be limited in application to a 10-year offense-free period in the community. (As others have mentioned, the Static tests were never designed to be used after a 10-year offense free period. And the state’s studies only examine the Static for 5-year periods.)

    3. That addresses remain unlisted for those who are not currently subject to address listing.

    Here is the premise to my suggestions:

    I was convicted of a non-contact, first-time offense about six years ago. The offense was under 290.006, so it was not one of the over 70 offenses requiring registration under mandatory registration. I scored low-risk on other risk assessments and had favorable assessments.

    But unfortunately, my crime had multiple stranger victims. I was in my early 20’s. And because my crime was “non contact” (as opposed to contact), I am actually given a worse score than a contact offender. These “risk factors” do not score favorably under the Static-99R. And I score right at the borderline of Tier 3. (It doesn’t make sense that the Static scores ‘non contact’ offenses worse than contact offenses.)

    It makes no sense that our futures can be determined based on 10 questions that do not take our CURRENT state of life into account. The Static also fails to take into account our offense-free period in the community. It doesn’t even take into account any counseling! In fact, the Static score never changes! Unlike this draft bill, which Nancy O’Malley has said is “set in stone,” our lives are hardly ‘static.’ Our destiny is not ‘set in stone.’ Our learnt experiences shape our future decisions. And the Static-99 tests do not take what we have learned from PAST mistakes — such as healthy coping skills — into account.

    I had no violations during my two-year incarceration. No violations during supervision. (I discharged free of any violations.) No other crimes other than the one conviction.

    Right now, I work full-time and volunteer for a non-profit. Since committing my crime, I completed my degree. I have matured from that time in my life. And the Static and this tiered draft does not take this into account in placing me in the Tier 3 level.

    Currently, my address is not listed on the Megan’s Law website.

    However, this proposed law would place me in a Tier 3 level, thus requiring publication of my address. I would still be required to register for life. Further, this law would have the perverse effect of publishing my address. This bill will actually make life much worse for me.

    I had looked forward to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation in about four more years. Under existing law, I am eligible for relief at the 10-year mark. But this proposed bill does not allow for the Certificate of Rehabilitation to relieve one of the duty to register. At minimum, I am of the opinion that that provision should stay. At least it would give Tier 3 offenders a way out.

    I suggest that this organization consider the following amendments:

    1. The ability to earn a Certificate of Rehabilitation remain: even for Tier 3 offenders.

    2. The Static-99R be limited in application to a 10-year offense-free period in the community. (As others have mentioned, the Static tests were never designed to be used after a 10-year offense free period. And the state’s studies only examine the Static for 5-year periods.)

    3. That addresses remain unlisted for those who are not currently subject to address listing.

    • Davidh


      I would strongly support passage of the tier system amended as you suggest. In my case, too, The only thing that makes me a “risk” to society is that damned static 99!

      Maybe the argument should be to repeal and replace the static 99!

    • Jonathan

      It’s too much that a non contact offender can be lumped into Tier III because of the STATIC 99/R. If the static is only good for 10 yrs use, why is it then used for lifetime determination of Tier III? I don’t think this is the “tier” we expected. At least I did not expect to be very disappointed and alienated like this. As I have a similar situation to you. A felony that required 290.006 registration. My ONLY (and last) offense. But STATIC 99/R has me at 6: so I guess I am lumped into Tier III. So yes….. this bill would have the perverse effect of making my situation MUCH worse. Please advocate that will at least IMPROVE ALL ourlives. Not a bill that will help a few, but completely screw over others. For the reasons I explain, I oppose this bill. Thanks.

      • Anon

        It also looks like indecent exposure with a prior has no way off the registry because all roads off require ONLY one conviction requiring registration.

        For those concerned about stranger victims and the Static-99 these kinds of cases significantly increase the statistical recidivism rate because indecent exposure has a high recidivism rate. This could be an avenue to challenge the reliability of the stranger factor of the Static-99 because these “nuisance” cases exaggerate risk.

        • someone who cares

          ANNON ~ Can you elaborated on the “Indecent Exposure” with a prior comment. You mentioned there is no chance to get off the registry? Does that mean it will fall into the Tier III lifetime registration?

    • jd

      I second M.’s well-articulated, sound argument.

  3. Doug

    Thank you Janice !
    I have been registering over 30 years. I finally can see the end of a very dark tunnel.

  4. Steve

    First of all Janice thank you for all you have done. I am not sure how you have come to those numbers but I think you are way off. I believe the majority of people are on the list with a 288 conviction and for those people, as I read it, there is absolutely zero risk assessment and automatic tier 3 without a hearing or any due process. I cannot support this bill written this way. There are already 3 tiers in California low, serious offender and svp. To throw us in the group of predators is just wrong. To be classsifed an Svp you need to be diagnosed with a mental disorder and be a repeat offender but not anymore apparently. The 6th circuit said its unconstitutional to classify someone after the fact with no individualized assessment. There is a poster “Mark” who says he is not even on the website but this new scheme will put him on.
    The only way I support this bill is if those who are moving up a tier for any conviction, are given an assessment for current dangerousness as the 6th circuit says. For the record I am a onetime offender. 20 years on the list, no previous convictions and no post convictions for anything. Would have scored low risk on static 99 if it were given to me.

    • Steve

      Sorry forgot to add the ramifications that no doubt will be coming for tier 3’s. notification by flyers from the police, every 90 days reporting and without question extra scrutiny from the community not to mention the over zealous legislators who will do all they can to banish us from society. The latter might be extreme but why should we expect anything different from all that we’ve seen. This is Adam Walsh Act light until they realize they can get cash being compliant and then we will be in the same position as Michigan. Let’s not be naive, being a tier 3 will mean to the public you are a dangerous person. All of this without any due process.


        Agree with you Steve. This bill is a joke. Tier 3 will see ‘narrowly tailored’ restrictions that will be hard to challenge. My family and I will write and call our state politicians to oppose this bill when the time comes. I hate to be at odds with Janice and the organization; but they don’t seem to be looking out for my family anymore in pushing this bill to help but hurt. When they claim to be a “civil rights” group, yet are so dismissive to set aside 30,000 plus people aside to be labeled as Tier 3… then to continue to support this group would be foolish. I hope they don’t support this hurtful bill… but it sure seems like they are headed in that direction. – Amy

      • Davidh

        Steve true! at least with all the flaws of the current system–I’m left alone–if they up the ante on me and those like me–how is it a good thing?? it’s not even a matter of releasing a many and leaving a few behind–it’s upping the punishment for many; unacceptable.

        They built an unmanageable monster in this registry and now they want to appease a few with a hope, while giving so many a real shaft. This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing disguised! in numbers they know we’re gaining a voice–they’re trying to divide and conquer us again

        And even when you get off a state registry one is continually hounded by a separate federal entity. I say keep it as it is and keep fighting on constitutional grounds as to affect both state and federal laws

      • Not Really

        It appears there has to be evidence of “current risk of sexual or violent re-offense….”

        (a) (1).Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), any
        designated law enforcement entity may provide information to the public about a person required
        to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, by whatever means the entity deems
        appropriate, when necessary to ensure the public safety based upon information available to the
        entity concerning that specific person’s current risk of sexual or violent re-offense, including but
        not limited to the person’s static, dynamic and violence risk levels on the SARATSO risk tools
        described in subdivision (D of Section 290.04.

    • Not Really

      That is not my reading:

      “(2) Tier Two offenders must register for 20 years. Persons shall register for 20 years if the
      person was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) which is also described in
      subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 ”

      The first subdivision (c) is the offenses that requires registration.

      The subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 includes 288 (A).

      So the requirement to register under 290 (c) of the 288(a) offense in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 puts one in Tier 2, not Tier 3.

      • mikey

        ok my offense was in 1989 and took a plea under pc 288a and 288c so im curious because i dont understand all this lingo where would that put me under the tiered registry

  5. K

    Supporting a tiered registry (a “fairer” registry) does not necessarily mean support of the idea of having a registry in general. BEST is not the enemy of BETTER.

    Please support this legislation.


      No way! This piece of “legislation” is a joke!

    • Civil rights first

      I’m in a state that has a tired system…. Don’t do this. I have a conviction from 1996 for luring and the state tacked on “with sexual motivation” an unranked sex offense because I bought beer for some minors and asked them if they needed a ride. The state offered me a plea offer that I accepted. Was there any sexual motivation… Hell no but under the advisement of my court appointed attorney I accepted the offer. During this BS I also took a physyco-sexual evaluation. The first thing the therapist said was “if you tell me if a crime i have to report it to the authorities” week this was a problem because there was something I did do but now I couldn’t even get help if I wanted it. During this same time I exposed myself to my step daughter and a couple of her girlfriend. Yep you guessed it… One of the girls told a friend and she told her mother and I was arrested again but this time for 1st degree child molestation. This makes me a two time arrested for a sex offense…. No contact ever!!!! No infractions during my 6 years incarceration, no infractions during my 10 years on probation, no new offense since being out of prison for 13 years…. No hope of ever getting off this crap.
      So here I am classified a tier 3 with no physical victim ever and no hope of ever getting off. Since my release from incarceration I’ve obtained my BA in information security and am gainfully employed. I’ve tried to travel internationally and got to go to Hong Kong last year and Thailand then again to Thailand but the last time I tried to travel the IML got me blacklisted. I say enough and we need to fight to abolish this whole darn thing. If Janice and this civil rights group is been fighting the whole registry scheme on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and constitutes continued punishment, how does a tier system make it any less unconstitutional and any less punishment?

      • NPS

        YES You DID have contact and you DID have victims; you exposed yourself to your stepdaughter and her friend. Seems like the reason you’re at a higher tier is due to your unwillingness to own your actions.

        Great that you’ve done well for yourself but until you put yourself in front of a judge and atone for your actions, you will be stuck at your tier.

        • Civil rights first

          Excuse me….. To clarify…. No physical contact is what I meant. As for standing in front of a judge….. I guess you need to read better…. I did do 6 years for what I did and 10 years of probation and I volunteered for sex offender treatment. Yes volunteered…. Not ordered to it not was it a condition of my release. Oh….. Wait also once i heard that my daughter’s friend told her friend and that what I did was out….. I took myself to the police station to be arrested….. I still cation all of you from going to a tired system. Once you’re at the level 3 good luck getting anyone to sign off on lowering your level and be prepared to do life on the registry.

          • NPS

            I guess you need to read and think more critically. From what you’ve written, it’s pretty clear you have not gone back to a judge (post-conviction) to have your record cleared and/or tier lowered. But then again, you committed a second offense so that’s out. And that’s on you. You blew it. You have no one to blame but yourself. You should’ve learned to keep your nose clean after your first offense. Whether or not that was not sexually related is irrelevant. You’ve already demonstrated that you are a recidivist and THAT is why YOU are in a higher tier. And it’s those extremely few recidivists, like you, who have made it much harder for the majority of RCs who have had a one and only offense.

            • David Kennerly

              You have obviously lived a life of finely calibrated moral rectitude in devotion to a society with which you are in perfect agreement and accord. Doubtless, you have rightly positioned yourself well above the pedophiles and recidivists who are your moral inferiors and correctly laid at their feet responsibility for your own social misidentification while laying none at those of the priggish neo-puritanical scolds and sadists you count as your peers.

              Tell us, how might we correct this wrong that has befallen you and, indeed, how might we become more like you?

              • NPS

                “You have obviously lived a life of finely calibrated moral rectitude in devotion to a society with which you are in perfect agreement and accord.”

                Indeed I have.

                “Doubtless, you have rightly positioned yourself well above the pedophiles and recidivists who are your moral inferiors and correctly laid at their feet responsibility for your own social misidentification while laying none at those of the priggish neo-puritanical scolds and sadists you count as your peers.”

                Yes, I have rightly positioned myself above those who have acted on their impulses on a prepubescent child because I certainly have not, nor would I ever. (and my now expunged charge had nothing to do with a child).

                Yes, if they are a recidivist, they are morally inferior to the vast majority of those RCs who made one mistake that they never repeated. And which camp do you belong to, David?

                “Tell us, how might we correct this wrong that has befallen you and, indeed, how might we become more like you?”

                Support the tiered registry. Live your life in spite of the registry. Keep your nose clean. It really isn’t that hard.


                  How you must loathe being on the same website with so many people that are beneath you.

                • judgmental much?

                  “Morally inferior?” Are you serious?

                  The fact you support this “tiered” registry should have others thinking whether it is *really* the smart thing to support.

                  I rarely cite religious material, but: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” – John 8:7

                • David Kennerly aka “The Human Equivalent of Toxic Waste"

                  By golly. You know, I do believe you’ve helped me to make up my mind about this tiered registry business. Thanks!

              • Timmr

                She’s got you with that keeping your nose clean thing. Should have done that myself before they arrested me.

            • Civil rights first

              You don’t know the laws in this state. There is no going back in front of any judge for anything regardless of level nor is there anything like a CoR. Also everything happened at the same time but I was charged separately so yes technically that does make me a repeat offender. However if you knew Washington state and knew what an unranked offense is and that it doesn’t require registration maybe you wouldn’t be so guick to judge. Also in Washington the county sheriff has the ability to raise a person’s level. Which Is what happened to me. The department of corrections set my level at level 2 but when being released the county sheriff arbitrary raised my level because I was releasing to a county of non-conviction…. that was 13 years ago.
              You don’t know me. But if you feel better attacking me instead of the unconstitutional BS of sora, AWA and IML then I welcome you to contact me directly at my email

            • Roger

              NPS, human nature is that we want to feel good about ourselves, and the CHEAPEST, most DECISIVE way to do that is to find reasons to consider ourselves better than others.

              The irony of you placing yourself at a higher moral level than some of your fellow RCs is that the public considers ALL sex offenders to be monsters who attack random children and who never want to change, no matter what their actual crime was.

              YOU are part of that hated group!

              No matter what fairy-tale hierarchy you make up to convince yourself you are better than other RCs, the public sees you as part of the RC “herd”. The anti-RC laws affect you just as much as the rest of us.

              You have VERY FEW allies against these laws. Your fellow RCs and our families and friends are a majority of your allies.

              Therefore, deflate your ego, stop being decisive, and work with us for unity.

              We are all in this together!

      • GRR

        Tier 3 in the current proposed California tiered system you can petition the court to become a tier 2. It seems you might be a candidate to become a tier 2.

  6. ALL, must be for ALL

    While this is an “All or Some” choice, working for “All” should be the stance. It wasn’t liberating some of the Jewish people in the camps, but liberating all of the Jewish people in the camps regardless of what they had committed in the eyes of the judge, jury and executioner. This is the same situation with the same effort required.

    If those who chose to administer this bill properly don’t want to do the analytics of who the individual is as a person regarding their particular matter, because no two matters are the same, then they need to step back and recuse themselves from the efforts to better the system for people. They need to choose a system of analytics that is impartial and personal to the individual. CA can do this. They are smart enough to do it, but will they put politics aside and work to get it done? CA has lead the nation in many efforts before, they can do it again. Soon this could be swept up in the hysteria of the immigration movement that is coming after January 20 and be lost. If this is not done right, correct and proper from the onset, it will be a mess shortly thereafter and even more painful.

    There will be votes by those who want off of it now and then will be off of it soon enough. There also will be opposition from those who don’t have to register now, but given what the bill states, will need to register where their info becomes public. It is a swapping of one for another without any rhyme or reason to bring them from out of their productive, quiet, lawful shadows. This nation was once a great nation that would allow quiet, productive, personally redeemed lives to happen, but not now and perhaps never again. This nation has become a nation of labels, individuals, people always out for blood and a step up on the back of others regardless. This bill should deal with those who are currently impacted in their present format, not those who are not, but could be because things change. The tiered system is a flawed system based upon what people know, don’t know, chose to read and acknowledge and blatantly ignore. Do it right or go home.

    People here are going to find who their friends, colleagues and enemies are when voices are spoken in this comment time you have posted. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs will prevail in the voices who speak up.

    You, Janice, are in an unenviable situation here, but you are the voice here, the Joan of Arc leading this charge. You are looked up to gratefully by many. There should be no martyrs here in this effort. Don your armor with your sword and shield and climb aboard the horse to lead the liberation charge for All. May you be provided the strength and fortitude with the blessings of the Almighty as you traverse this path.

  7. BA

    It is very important that we do not look at this as a choice but as an opportunity, once they go to a tiered system we will have some momentum and it will put a lot more power in court for the judge. This is important as they will not prejudice as much as we see currently see, because there hands were tied. The other thing is a misdemeanor OFFENSE OF ANY KIND should have NEVER HAD ANY RESTRICTIONS weather it be sexual or not! Will the tier 3 ever see relief that is hard to say I think they still want to have a SEX OFFENDER LABEL so law enforcement can say see there is real bad guys out there, instead of rehabilitation and education.

    • BSL

      I SUPPORT THIS BILL!!!! It creates momentum in the right direction. Taking parts away from a structure from the bottom up immediately causes the top down to become unstable. Current RC will fall off, then become part of a support system of 10,000 to 60,000 supporters to help chip away at the top!

      • Steve

        Problem is BSL it’s the aftermath. They did a tier in NY only to take it all back and throw many back on with many more restrictions. There are no guarantees anyone will come off except tier 1 and the rest are left up to the people that put you here in the 1st place. The vultures will be waiting for one person to screw up, and it will happen, then it’s over.
        I know have zero confidence in CASOMB

  8. Davidh

    Wow interesting dilemma for both the organization and an objective registrant. I love the horse track, but I hate gambling on my life! I recall recently the conference call with Oregon in what seems to be a same situation. Thier situation was different, while they dont have a registry as such that everyone follows, or maybe as I recall it’s not online; yet their decision would place many online to release a few. Not the same here, but your point hit home with me:

    ” Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do? And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime.”

    Personally, I feel depending on how certain things are interpreted in my life would be the difference between 20 years or life. I feel it unconstitutional that I be stuck with this choice ex-post facto–These laws didn’t exist when I made a deal with the government!

    So in response, one naturally wants to go by way of an opportunity or hope, where there is little now! But as you point out the consequence of that bet could be punishing.

    On the other hand, passing the tiered system is at least a positive step for many and I gather the cause would still continue for the rest, until all registries and ex-post facto has been removed.

    I guess I’d vote for the step in the positive direction.

    • Davidh

      Despite my earlier post, I’d like to hear the thoughts of others, really, before I made a conclusive vote. However, all risks considered after reading the legislation, I felt there was a lot of leeway in it or discretion by the “powers that be”, as opposed to “cast in stone,” a recent piece of legislation referred to.

      Furthermore, the law I felt opened the door to new legal challenges. I wont enumerate my unqualified legal analysis on this board as I wouldn’t want to see the Bill changed ( is Bill capitalized?). So let’s have a good debate about this–needless to say it’s a life-changer for all!

    • Not Really

      Same here. When convicted it was possible to get off the registry. That was changed while I was still on probation.

  9. Mary Devoy

    Support the Tiers based on Risk! 70,000 peoples lives depend on it.

    If 10,000 are NO-risk and 60,000 are a slight-risk how can reasonable or compassionate people even think about making them continue to bear the burden of being an RSO for the approximate 23,000 disgruntled RSO’s who fall into the high-risk group?

    For true reform you can NOT take the attitude of ” All or Nothing”.

    Small steps forward that benefit some are better than no steps forward so everyone continues to suffer.

    In the end some of your “supporters” and maybe even some board members could be in the lifetime- bucket and if they can’t be happy for those who are removed while they remain then they weren’t ever interested in reform they were just in it for themselves.

    We should be happy when small groups of RSO’s have successes even if we aren’t included.

    True advocates are selfless, not selfish.

    Help those 70,000 NOW and work on the remaining 23,000 down the line but don’t take your ball and go home because some folks aren’t included in this first accomplishment.

    • Civil Rights is an "All" movement

      Sorry Mary, but those who are Tier 3 and classified by you as “disgruntled” are worthy of being freed from the system too. In this situation you don’t take small victories as you can and then tell the rest to “piss off”. You or one of yours must be one of those in the 70,000 who are turning a blind eye to the rest.

      For true reform, it is “All or nothing” as history as indicated. The Civil Rights movement was an “All or nothing” situation just as this is. People are here to win a war, not a battle and call the war good afterward.

      So, please take your “Some with victories” ball as you stated and go home. Someone else will want to play with you and your ball there.

    • Keith M.

      Mary, it isn’t as simple as 60,000 registrants being freed. Unfortunately, I think we are failing to see that most of the 60,000 that you claim would need to ‘petition’ a judge to get freed. ELECTED judges are not very friendly to registrants, especially in today’s political climate, knowing that if one successfully petitioned registrant reoffends in a heinous fashion, their political career is bye-bye. The only winners in this bill are the defense attorneys, who may or may not get their client relief (but will be paid a bunch of money nonetheless). So the 60,000 may be inflated. But it seems Janice and ACSOL has already made up their mind. Which really frustrates me and quite frankly, feel betrayed at the moment for all the meetings and donations I give at each meeting.

      • Run freed man, RUN!!

        Lawyers win on both sides, financially if they are defense and electorally if they are voted should the defense lose and the prosecution win. The individuals don’t win unless they are able to be removed via a petition. If the petition is such a great idea, then why are not other crimes also forced to petition for their removal from their conditions? Oh that is right, it is all about time and only time with the intermediate steps needing to be completed. If they do those steps and all is good, then they may be able to be released earlier from whatever they are under. Stupid and utter nonsense.

        This is a great social experiment showing the true colors of who would do what in this situation. It is already sounding like everyman for themselves, screw the collective.

        Guarantee you, those who would be freed will run away as far as they can from this and not stick around to help their fellow person left behind. It will be “See ya suckers!” and put it in the rearview mirror. If those who are the ones who may never be freed work this, should they work it knowing they will be left behind? No greater compassion than helping your fellow man, especially when you know your fellow man is not going to turn around and help you. If your fellow man had nothing to live for, then that is admirable, but when they do, do not expect them to help you knowing you won’t help in return. Martyrs need not apply here, but real people who are freed or not who are willing to continue the fight. That is what fighting about civil rights is about….ALL or nothing.

        There is only one real choice here Sophie, it is for ALL and a continued fight for registry abolishment with reliable analytics used individually on a case per case use to put people on par with others who kill, maim or hurt others daily in CA through a variety of methods. If there is not way out or off for Tier 3, your effort is only a half effort. You must go with ALL for everyone impacted.



        • Robert Curtis

          Lawyers won’t win IF they would simple petition to have the whole 290 registry placed under probation and parole. Once done with probation and parole the requirement to register would also end. There is a thing called lifetime parole and we still have civil commitment laws. The registry as it is now is a form of informal probation/parole. This way only makes sense. No matter the form of the tiered registry it would be best applied if it was under probation and parole sentencing guidelines. This would also bring discretion back to our courts.

          • Timmr

            Registration length and conditions determined at trial, based on offense and various other mitigating factors, psycological evaluation, amenability to treatment, prior behavior, analysis of whether the registry is effective in reducing recidivism or a means of punishment, that process would truly be treating everyone equally under the Constitution. But this organization feels we all want to be treated differently. So, limiting registration to a parole or probation term, also means everyone would receive a different registration requirement based on individual circumstances surrounding the crime, the sentencing parameters for the offense and potential for rehabilitation, getting punishment after the fact out of the hands of the legislatures and the DA’s offices, that sounds fair to me. Which organization is supporting that concept? I hope this one would. It sounds like a real Constitutional position.

    • Timmr

      I don’t understand you. Are you suggesting the board go along with this proposal even though it is not risk based or do you want them to make their own proposal based on risk?

    • BSL

      THUMBS UP! @Mary Devoy

  10. NPS

    Under this proposal, I would be categorized as a tier I and off the registry in three years. But I still have some problems with this draft bill. Here are my concerns:

    The requirement that one must petition for removal is ridiculous especially when it can still be denied. If the person has been offense free throughout their duration of registration, why not just fall off the registry?

    There is a lot of talk about categorizing tiers based on the criminal codes, but what of those who have had their records expunged? We no longer have a criminal code attached to our names, but we’re still required to register. A 1203.4 is granted because the petitioner is deemed to have successfully completed all probation requirements, assessed as very low risk, and is not a threat to public safety. Why then, should we have to file yet another petition under this proposal? That work has already been done. Those with an expunged record should automatically be relieved of the duty to register once this bill (or a new version of this bill) is enacted.

    Female RCs
    I am a female registered citizen. I never took any Static-99 because there isn’t one for women. Instead, we are given a general analysis about our likelihood to re-offend for any crime. I was tested at less than 1%. My therapist at Sharper Future stated numerous times that from her experience and interactions with female clients, women just don’t reoffend. Furthermore, women are the backbone of the family. To have her on the registry is to deny her children the maternal bond and the strong sense of security she provides. Schools primarily confer with mothers about their children’s education. If Senator Leyva has her way, she is denying mothers their involvement in their children’s lives. Yes, I understand fathers are already going through this, but to place that burden on mothers is far more egregious.

    • New Person

      Permit me to add onto the “Petitioning” portion.

      In all technicality, all 70,000 registrants have the ability to eventually get off the registry via Certificate of Rehabilitation. The problem is not a lot of people do get off from the Certificate of Rehabilitation because judges and the DA are involved in that process. (I would love to see the success rate of Certificate of Rehabilitation, CoR, to registrants.)

      The problem here is this tiered system already absolves 10,000 registrants. Wait………….. Why can’t they do that now with Certificate of Rehabilitation? What’s the psychology behind all this? Either they are dangerous or are not, but not both – which is what is suggested within this Bill by absolving 10,000 immediately and the 60,000 still need to petition to be relieved the “DUTY” to register.

      Again, the CoR is a petition that can be done in 10 years. How is the new tiered system any different for those who will still have to petition? This is putting lipstick on a pig b/c it doesn’t change anything!

      This new tier bill actually does “enhance” penalties to a certain group of registrants. Well, according to what Michigan courts have already denoted, is in fact, added punishment. Changing one’s level of risk after the fact to enhance penalties is added punishment. Making one’s address available when the law made it not available is also added punishment.

      The CASOMB, judges, and DA’s are holding registrants hostage. The CoR is the only pathway off from the registry right now. Yet, the CASOMB, judges, and DA’s are not rewarding registrants who have been conviction free for x-amount of years (since the arbitrary 1987 date) the CoR. Instead, they throw a carrot by absolving 10,000 right now, but still have to petition in 10 years after incarceration. How is that petitioning any different than now? It isn’t.

      It’s essentially the same system disguised as tiers, without Frank Lindsay at the forefront.

      Seriously, why cannot 10,000 registrants be awarded the CoR right now or all along? Because it is all dependent on judges and the DA. And you want to agree to the exact same conditions?

      How is that a win?!

      I would counter the bill and thoughts behind it by asking for the success rate of CoR for registrants. Apparently, the state is holding registrants down. Apparently, they don’t see 10,000 registrants as dangerous enough to absolve them immediately, but cannot award them the CoR.

      The more I contemplate about the tier bill, the more disastrous it looks when you take a step back. So 10,000 do not have to petition, but 60,000 do have to petition? How is that equal? It isn’t. How is it that 10,000 can be absolved immediately when the bill is passed, but were denied the CoR make cogent logic? It doesn’t.

      This is a ruse. It’s a pig with lipstick on it. After being conviction free for a decade and I still have to petition? So if they say no, then my registration years continue. For how long? How long can they continue to deny it? Well, basically, that’s the same situation with the CoR.

      There is no direct pathway to relief if people (judges and DA’s) are involved. I had a judge, DA, and probation informally denied my initial request for a 1203.4. (I did everything probation wanted me to do, but they recommended that I not receive the 1203.4) It took an appellate lawyer to inform my lawyer that it is by law that my 1203.4 be granted. So we went in a second time, this time denoting in the paperwork that it is by law my 1203.4 be granted. The judge and DA were still upset, but the judge said the law is the law.

      Being a registrant who abides by the law and fights to regain his rights are often met with opposition from the courts/state. I do not want any judges or DA to be part of the exit program. Set the conditions like 1203.4 and once achieved, that’s that! We already know what happens when the CoR is at the discretion of the courts. You mean to say 10 years of being offense free isn’t enough that they have to do special investigations, costing extra tax payer’s monies to deny a path to freedom and PRIVACY, as denoted in the California Constitution, Article 1, section 1.

      This bill proposal is a farce.

    • New Person


      1203.4 and the lack of registration relief is outdated.

      CASOMB’s research for the past four years have denoted recidivism rates hovering around 1%, with the last two consecutive years below 1%.

      These are current FACTS.

      1203.4 states:

      the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.

      Registration is a disability. (Re-reading 1203.4, I see an amendment not to bear arms, but do not see an amendment in 1203.4 that states a person needs to continue to register. So I do not see where relief from the duty of registration should continue on the site: )

      What exactly are all these years of facts for, by CASOMB, if it does not re-shape how registrants are viewed? It would seem that NPS has a plausible query as to why registration relief is not granted upon 1203.4 award.

      In California, it is a “one crime” equates to lifetime term of perpetual Constitutional abuse. The risk assessment for low levels have very little value as you are still viewed as a lifetime registrant. Low risk assessment + CASOMB under 1% recidivism rate + 1203.4 = ??? It should equate to relief.

      Is the point of CASOMB and the State of California to prevent people from regaining their life to induce a far worse outcome (see Re: Taylor) or should they try to promote people to gain relief from the registry to fulfill a proper life? No one is using the actual low level statistical recordings for the good of registrants, but rather glazing over to the point of ignoring the stats and 1203.4.

      What is the point of CASOMB when they reflect a low recidivism rate for the past four years to still deem registrants as highly dangerous to cost them 10, 20, to lifetime terms of their lives? Shouldn’t actual results guide CASOMB to a more appropriate amendment(s)? So why is CASOMB still perpetuating the myth that registrants cannot be more than monsters?

      The 1203.4 and registration are contraries to one another. Either they are rehabilitated or they are not. Why the two different standards? Under definition, registration is not a punishment, but it is a disability.

    • Stumped

      I agree completely I have had my charge expunged this year and received a certificate of rehab as well, why would I have to petition for relief to register if I have been deemed rehabilitated by a judge? It should be automatic that we fall off the registry. On top of this I’ve been registering for over 20 years and looking at all these penal codes and subsections I don’t even understand where I would fit in these tiers???

  11. Timmr

    Go with the actual effectiveness of the registry or lack thereof to be fair to all registered citizens and support the Constitution. That is what every real American must do. I realize you are dealing with a hostage situation, where both the Bill of Rights and registrants are detained by criminal regimes and feel responsible to act in the greater good under present circumstances over which you have little control. I don’t envy the choice you are making and wish you wisdom.

    • Registry effectiveness....

      That, Timmer, is the true measure that should be used. Good point and well stated…..

  12. Cool CA RC
    The choice is between two unbearable options, and it’s essentially a no-win situation.

    Sophie has just arrived with her ten-year old son and her seven-year old daughter and a sadistic doctor, presumably Doctor Mengele, tells her that she can only bring one of her children; one will be allowed to live while the other is to be killed.

    Take the tired registry at least it will save some people’s life and their family.
    The greatest love you can show is to give your life for your friends.

    If we say no to this and nothing will improve. If we say yes to this then some life will be improved.
    I think the other choices we have is a lawsuit and remove the registry

    • NO!

      That is wrong. Some lives will likely not be improved and many other will be SUBSTANTIALLY harmed.

  13. Bruce Ferrell

    Some things I noticed in the bill are the explicit prohibitions against use of registry inclusion for many purposes for which is used now, that in effect exclude registered citizens inclusion in wider society and including specific monetary damages to the offending entity for such exclusion. Also mechanisms for tier three registrants to be down graded to lower tiers and mechanisms for correcting/altering static scores.

    Overall this seem to be well thought out, ultimately offering a way out. This doesn’t exist for anyone in California now. It’s NOT a some or none… It’s all, but not necessarily right now and not without some review.

    I don’t see this as a Sophie’s choice at all.

    • Keith M.

      Uhh… Bruce a lot of those things already existed before. Only the crossouts and underlines are the deletions and additions. Also note how they took the right to a certificate of rehabilitation away. I don’t think it’s ‘Sophie’s Choice’ too. I just think this bill would be a Bad Choice. But it seems ACSOL has already made it’s decision.

      • Bruce Ferrell

        Sorry Keith, but they don’t exist for the vast majority of us. No way out of the registry, no way out of IML.

        The registry IS stupid, but it what exists and abstaining from a partial solution for more of us is saying yes to no solution at all.

        What happens if you say “if I can’t save all, I won’t save any”?

        • NO!

          This is not well-thought out in terms of our benefit, quite the opposite.
          Read more closely, many many people will be harmed by this.

  14. Keith M.

    Sorry to say, but this bill stinks. So I gotta disagree with it. For one: let’s be real. It isn’t really as simple as… POOF… 60,000 registrants ‘ultimately’ freed from registration. After the Brock Turner case, judges will be hesitant in granting these “petitions.” They know that it will only take one registrant given relief to commit something heinous and they are out of their ELECTED office. So that can really mess things up in the future. This bill also gives the prosecutor the right to make a case against me ‘petitioning’ off the registry so it’s going to be expensive, the outcome uncertain, and ONLY THE LAWYERS will get rich from this bill. Secondly, what’s so special about 1987? Why have a lifetime tier at all? It should be a 30 yr rolling max applied to EVERYONE! Seems unfair. But, in my opinion, this bill seems so intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to begin with. I was really excited about this tier. But after reading the actual draft three times now, I am sorely disappointed.

  15. someone who cares

    Proposing a tiered registry is admitting to the law makers that they were right all along in saying that a registry for sex offenders is justified. It is not! Especially since other groups of offenders don’t have to experience the humiliation, fear and injustice that sex offenders AND their families endure. A constant threat of incarceration for failure to register, knowing all the laws in all the states, counties and cities all over the country, having Halloween restrictions, presence and residence restrictions, etc. All that because they are on a registry that needs to be outlawed. That is a fight I want to fight. Some say that we should not be selfish and be happy for those who would get a chance to get off the registry. We would be happy, IF the rest would not be subject to more severe punishment. If all registrants’ status stayed the same or got better, I would be all for it. But having to go backwards is just not fair. Not even those who will benefit can honestly say that a step back for the rest is worth for this Bill to be introduced. We need to fight to have the registry abolished. By agreeing to a tiered registry, we will not be able to move forward with this goal for a long time. Even 10 years on the registry is too long. Heck, that is a decade. In ten years, many things can change, hopefully for the better. I oppose the tiered registry, and I don’t trust those who want to implement it. They can, at any time, make changes and decisions that will be retroactively applied yet again.

  16. Stephen

    I say were all in this together.

  17. ReadyToFight

    I’m a single father of two. My daughter (11) is high functioning autistic, and my teenage son was born with the umbilical cord around his neck and suffers delayed motor skills. I’ve done everything I can to protect them from the cruel realities of the registry.
    I will Never let the term “Sex Offender” define who I am.
    Against impossible odds, we break our backs to hold the weight of the world and put food on the table.
    My children have a future. Our children have a future. And I will never compromise for that.
    At this point, I want to add that if a Tiered Bill is to move forward, that at the very least ANYONE currently registered shall be exempt from Tier level manipulation (no bumping up) and Also, Teir 3 should be given an opportunity to drop down to the second tier at some point because we all know the DOJ makes mistakes and to set that in stone for someone is just terrible.
    And like I said before, the “petition” for 1 and 2 tier is ridiculous. Just one more way to eff with peoples….Families lives.
    Our decisions effect everyone we love, and So do Their Decisions…

  18. mike r

    I agree….while I would be placed in a tier twoand immediately have my current address removed and would be able to get off the public registry in two years o still can not support this bill..this bill will open a Pandoras box of new laws aimed at registrants…even though it would be great to not have my current address listed it isn’t worth our life’s I fear will get worse not better just for that one issue and for relief for a handful of people and a slight chance for some others by a 1-2-3-thousand dollar petition that will most likely be denied unless you are an absolutely perfect fir according to a judges standards…we need to take the current registration scheme down and force them to repeal or replace it with only those that the Court can prove thru clear and convincing evidence standard are a threat to public safety…that is the only way registration can even have any resemblance to a constitutional law…their going to do whatever they want with this but we need to push for more reform and amendments especially to make it automatic deregistration not based upon a courts discretion and the requirement to register only after the government can prove you are a threat….we cant settle for anything less….apparently they are on the retreat and realize the entire scheme is going to come down unless they do something to prolong it’s life and make it appear as though it’s more fair and just….guess what people the justification for these laws are and always have been based on lies and deception and that justification needs to be challenged in this bill and in the courts….

    • New Person

      Is the petitioning a money scheme?

      It makes no sense to absolve 10,000 without a thought, but the 60,000 need to petition in court? Let’s presume it is $1,000 per petitioner. That’s $60,000 right there, not including rejections.

      Again, the logic behind this irrational. No petition for 10,000, but for you other 60,000, you will need to petition. If the DA doesn’t like you, then you keep petitioning upward to a judge. That’s another lump sum there.

      How is this any different from our current 10 year wait for CoR just to be denied? It isn’t.

      • Timmr

        That judge sitting on the CASOMB, he may have a point. It is an unfunded mandate. What’s the point of having a judge retry a person for the same crime, then having the tax payers fund it? Maybe they are hoping to flip this to Adam Walsh Act compliance and get the federal funding?

      • No, a few more $$ than that....

        An additional 60,000 petitions x $1,000/petition is $60M

        Again, this is a money making scheme that is not and never has been truly about the safety of the people, but the coffers of the local municipality and overall state. When revenues decline elsewhere, like what could happen here at ACSOL if the right choice is not made, they put it on the backs of those who they know have to pay. If mass deportations happen, then the money that was made off of those folks is suddenly gone and then where does it get made up? The RC…….

        Again, this bill needs to be defeated at the grass roots level like a gardener chasing a snake with a shovel….

        • Timmr

          $1000 per petition only? That seems off. These labor costs got to be at least $500/hr including staff, judge and DA salaries and infrastructure expenses, maybe $1000/hr. Got to spend more than one or two hours on each petition, I would think. $600,000 would be at best an unrealistic minimum.

        • Not Sophie's Choice: Just a Bad Choice

          You are only looking at the UNFUNDED costs incurred by the courts. But what about us registrants? If we need to hire an attorney to ‘petition,’ it would be at least $200 an hour? Assume that he or she has about 10 hours of work, that would be about $2,000 that each registrant would have to pay to ‘petition’ a judge. Maybe it will be successful. Maybe not. The only winners from this scheme would be the attorneys.

          Then we’d probably have to pay for a plethora of “risk” assessments and a psychological “expert” to fight the DA in their almost guaranteed objection to our petition. That can easily be another $2,000. So then in that case, 10 hours of attorney billing hours will turn to 20 hours. So that’s a $6,000 expedition… at minimum. But good luck in getting the petition approved. At least in Orange County, lol.

          I hope the attorneys on ACSOL’s board are not looking at this bill as a profit opportunity (i.e. “money scheme”). Because that’s what it is looking more like. We trusted you guys, attended your meetings, donated to you. Please don’t stab us in the back. We’ve had enough already.

          What’s perhaps more troubling is that the CASOMB judge, Superior Court Judge Brett Morgan, mentioned that this bogus bill is an “unfunded mandate.” Well, how do you think the state is going to ‘fund’ this excursion? Become an Adam Walsh Act (AWA) state!

          AWA = more federal funding.

          So now we’d have to register either every 6 months or 90 days. Complete with the reassurance of greater restrictions.

          The puzzle is so clear, that you’d be foolish not to see that we’re being setup. Like someone said, this is a chess game in which the government has thought this out seven moves ahead.

          Again. Just a bad choice to go along with this phony baloney tiered registration bill.

      • Civil rights first

        Check your math….

        60,000 x 1,000 = 60,000.000

        I totally disagree with the whole concept of a registry, the AWA, the IML.

        OK… If they want to do this why not set hard time limits. Why not set it up so there is no petition at all.

        Tier – 1 = 10 years
        Tier – 2 = 15 years
        Tier – 3 = 20 years

        Why won’t they go for this? Because they would lose control.

        Washington state has a tiered system and there is no getting off the registry for tiered 3 and what elected official is going to sign off on lowering someone or remove them from the duty to register…. Washington state also has two strikes and you’re out…

        Fight to abolish not modify.

        We have all been fighting to abolish the registry why now would we agree to anything less?????

        • Timmr

          OK, let’s try this again. 60,000 x 1,000 = 60,000,000. Sixty million. Add the zeros as in grade school, Timmr, are you losing your mind? Still less than incarcerating people for long terms and life for sex offenses, which I think is a more worrying trend going on.
          Anyway, you brought up a good point. After reading one of the articles provided by David, aka Toxic Waste, Kennerly, I notice that this proposal is really for a lifetime registry with possibility for exiting after either 10 or 20 years for some. It is not technically a tiered registry, as described in the article, meaning except for the pre-1987 convictions, you do not “fall off”, as a true tiered system. If not, you might say we have a two tiered registry already, because some are eligible to apply for removal with a CoR, others are not. Like Janice has said, words have meaning. It still may be better than what we have now for some, especially for those excluded from a CoR now. For others, I am worried about the use of actuarials rather than the clinical findings during trial. Doesn’t make sense that someone given a suspended sentence, probation, and trusted enough to be amenable to treatment and not punishment, or someone with a misdemeanor or non violent offense, has to get approval to get off the registry after years of no re-offense. I understand why they are making it this way, to be safe, and to assure the legislators that they are not “letting off” dangerous people, it’s political to get it passed in a hostile environment for anything looking like it is lenient on former offenders, but inexact words can lead to deceptive meanings.

          • Civil rights first

            Yes the . Was supposed to be a , but there was the correct amount of zeros

            • Timmr aka Tier 2 Humanoid Hazardous Substance

              It’s a lot of money, but still less than keeping people in prison. The registry is custody on the cheap. Most people would want most of us behind bars for the rest of our lives.

              • Can you make that argument about registry and custody?

                Timmr – if you, or anyone, can get a judge to buy into the argument registry is a custody, I say more power to you. Unfortunately, that has been tried and denied in that context with an US AG. In sentiment, you are spot on and correct, but it is not like parole, etc which is considered custody as I read here earlier. If you could get registry is a custody, then I believe you could slide into registry is punishment as is parole, etc is an extension of your punishment because they are custody arrangements. Make sense? Again, your sentiment is spot on and concurred with.

                If it has been bought into, then list that decision for all to read!

        • YetAlert

          Go ahead, support this bill. After contact offenders get to go free and low level non-contacts with a high static-99 replace them on the internet as dangerous ones, address listed, the public may be less inclined to check Megans Law website since it will show low level’s and not the 288’s or other contact offenders who were let off. At that point, Megan’s Law will be acknowledgeably useless. I don’t see the registry coming down any other way.

    • Steve


      We have had our differences but I along with many who will be placed in tier 3 appreciate the fact you don’t support even though this would get you off in two years. I don’t blame anyone who this helps for wanting this to happen I probably would too.

  19. mike r

    I see a whole new wave of laws coming this bill passes, new residency restrictions,presence restrictions,Internet restrictions, all based on the fact that the registry will be more narrowly tailored and unlike all the wins we have had on these issues it will be extreemly hard to stop any of those types of bills from passing right thru the legislative process and even upheld by the courts….we have made exactly three steps forward only to leap ten steps backwards if this bill passes….floriduh here we come….

  20. Renny

    If a tiered registry is passed, CA will simply do what NY has done, increase the registration time for the lower tiers until ultimately everyone has to register for life.

    Each election year will bring about competition to close loopholes like Former Citizen Detainees “escaping” from the registry.

    Passing a tiered registry bill might seem like it will do some good, but be warned, those who get off the registry will be put back on the registry when election year politics gets involved.

    • Timmr

      That’s the can of worms. Nothing in this bill establishes an ex post facto prohibition against further punishment, nor is there a clause that states the length of the tiers can not be increased by legislative action or proposition the day after it is made law. Nor is there any prohibition against residency or presence restrictions or even something ridiculous like prohibiting anyone on any tier from attending college. There is nothing here that will protect the innocent when people hear about the next heinous crime, and all registrants will be guilty of it, somehow, magically. That protection is in the Bill of Rights and the state constitutions. I am not against getting people off now, let’s say amen to that, just that we have to realize we are going to need each other’s help when these things happen in the future, including making sure people who are off are not subject to actions like IML. They will. Things will. Get worse. If people sleep. Take one step forward, be prepared to hold your ground against those who want to push you two steps back. Where have we all been if we believe 2003 is gone.

  21. mike r

    also how is it that somewhere along the lines of all this registration bs that we are responsible and have had the burdeen of proving we are not dangerous and that we are innocent of any future offenses when the burden of proof has always been on the government to prove we are dangerous and are guilty of some crime, perceived or actual…think long and hard every state with tiered registration are the ones with residency restrictions presence and Internet restrictions….that alone should scare us all and make any ca organizations to vehemently oppose this bill….the only ones that will really profit from this bill are the handful of people who were convicted long ago and the legislators, lawyers, all the organizations profiting off the registry,county and municipal districts and their counsel members because they will be able to implement all these restrictions with impunity ect. and ect….think long and hard everyone and look to who realistically benefits from this bill and what other states who have such a system are like…not pretty…

  22. alienated

    First I must say it is about time they introduced a tiered registry. With that being said I honestly only thought of me and my family until now. Can You BLAME ME ? I have being living under a rock in a cave for 25 years. I am ecstatic of the thought of some closure and feel as though my life will begin anew. Now after knowing my cynical motivation and desire, I must now try to be impartial for all fairness to this question in front of me.

    Honestly there are some who probably need to be monitored FOREVER if not incarcerated, yes I said it. I was selfish in my actions and regret my actions. There are some who do not regret and are looking for another opportunity. I am no expert or psychologist just a realist and been there done that kind of person.

    While one broad stroke for labeling is not fair. I believe one broad stroke for removal from the requirements to be a very similar dilemma. I would feel sad/angry if anyone who was removed from the registry would re-offend. I could not imagine the weight of this decision that the board of directors must make.

    I personally think we should allow all registrants to be allowed to petition removal from the Megan’s Laws after a certain amount of time granted you meet the requirements.

    So my thoughts are we proceed forward with the suggested tiered registry but also allow the Lifetime registrants to petition for removal after 25 years if they have only been convicted of one crime in which they are required to register and were not convicted after the new Bill comes into effect in 2017. This way if you commit a crime that requires registration after the new Bill comes into play you will live by the new rules set forth.

    I feel that I am being impartial, fair and realistic.

    Thank you for asking our opinion and I hope this has been some help.

    • winding down

      Janice, I am about a quarter through all of the comments this issue and your request for comments have generated. They have exhausted me and I am winding down. I am a Female RC. Over 30 years ago I pled n/c to aiding and abetting consensual sodomy involving my “co”-defendant and a 15 year old girl. It was an isolated incident involving a lot of alcohol, and I have no other sex crimes on my record. Annual registration and compliance checks were a burden, but life went on. I was employable. I worked. I grew. I married. I was privileged to help raise my spouses daughter. She became my daughter too. I started my own business and it prospered. Our daughter went on to college. Then the List went public and within a couple of years I lost my business. Then we lost our home. Our new “home” is on wheels, and though it has been in the same place for over a year I’m considered a transient and have to re-register every 30 days or face a felony and prison. My experience is that life is getting a lot worse. Yesterday i went online and read of your Sophies Choice. In so doing I became aware that this bill offers me and my family a ray of hope. I was relieved to read “Alienated”‘s spin on the whole topic because it mirrors my own. I hope that you support this bill.

  23. Mike Mike

    Wow, this is difficult. I understand the dilemma you’re in, Janice.

    Before I give you all my answer I’ll start with explaining my own situation. I’m a registered citizen. In January of 2014 I was convicted to 261.5(c). Even though it doesn’t require mandatory registration, the court decided to discretionarily require it. I didn’t even know until later that that penal code didn’t require it. Public pretender.

    I did 1 year state prison for this (2 with half). I got out on PRCS and completed it in one year.

    My static 99r is a 2. And yeah it’s a joke system.

    I am not listed publicly on Megan’s Law (police only). By all accounts I would guess that puts me on Tier 1.

    Having said all that, I can’t support this bil. It’s a slam dunk for me, so why not? First, it throws many under the bus. Those who didn’t have it as bad now have it worse. They now can be singled out and focused on. That’s unfair.

    The whole petition for removal is a joke! This is the most hilarious part. So with current system I have the Certificate of Rehabilitation, in ten years. This bill, I apply for relief… In ten years. What’s the difference??

    This bill does far more harm than good. At the end of the day I care about everyone in this fight.


    I am opposed to this bill. It bumps my husband up to a Tier III. Why must you, CARSOL, advocate for laws that help many… but also hurt others. You could have advocated for a system other than a 3 level system that does not throw quite a few under the bus. I thought this organization was about helping the few, not just the many. There was a better way to go about this. When the time comes, I, as well as my family, will be sure to write and call all necessary politicians to let them know about some of the flaws to this bill, as well as how our family will be worsened by my husband being placed in Tier 3. – Amy

    • Theodora

      My grandfather committed a crime 10 years before I was born. I pray for all of you to support to let him off of this registry. He is a good man. True Christians would not be so selfish and think only of themselves to oppose this.

      • Steve


        I too am a good god fearing person. With that said i have had my house vandalized 3 times my cars broken into and vandalized I even had a neighbor come into my backyard screaming and waving my price club membership in my face. My kids have been kicked off their sport teams and Ayso went as far to ban me from watching my six year old daughter play soccer. God knows how many other things my kids have been left off because of my status. I can only imagine what bs is coming my way after being placed along sexually violent predators. I will fully fight this and will seek representation for all the constitutional violations.
        So yeah call me selfish but I am not taking anymore of this.

        • Timmr

          Steve, I am sorry to hear that. I thought my family and I had it bad. That is why I would propose first to get everyone off the public registry. Science supports it. If they want to keep someone on, it must be a pretty good verifiable reason to have the public monitoring of him or her for life. If that can be verified why not civilly commit him or her? I don’t know what your offense was, but mine, 288(a) is already considered a violent felony along with murder and kidnapping. I don’t know when that happened, or if it was because of Chelsea’s Law, which the CASOMB supported, but in the beginning I was a “serious” felon as apposed to a violent. I suppose that is why they are putting it in tier II. (These tiers would define to the vigilantes where the bulls eye is and so to direct their hatred. As a tier III, you would have a very valid increased fear for your safety under this proposal.) Also, the minimum term for my offense now is I believe ten years. Added to the tier II time length, it would be thirty years of registry since the conviction. These time frames are brutal, let alone the collateral consequences of being on the registry that go with them. I am surprised someone has not gone ballistic over this by now. Ten years for a misdemeanor, someone streaking or going to a nude beach where it is not exactly legal? As a result, being put on an extortion site, to be there indefinitely. California is definitely not a liberal state when it comes to crime. It is all let’s give people a chance, we are all one humanity, until one commits a s*x crime.

          • Steve

            Timmr my conviction is the same. When I first went to court DA told my attorney he just wanted a misdemeanor…a lynch mob changed that. Even with all the bad I’ve managed to more than adequately survive…I am lucky on that end. Fearing a tier 3 label could change all of that though. That’s right at first serious…then violent…now thrown in with crap

            • Steve

              Sorry just re read your post is 288 (a) tier 2?

              • Timmr

                Yes, it is one of the violent felonies listed in PC 667.5 (c) that they put in tier II, unless you have two separate convictions for it, then tier III. Anyone correct me if I am wrong here. I have read it over and over.

                • Steve

                  Well I completely read it wrong then. I thought I saw it in tier 3. I hope someone can lay it out so we all can understand it.

          • Davidh

            i think 288 (a) is probably one of the most popular offense in the community, as I too am one. Tim, i know 288’s are punished as a violent, but I was unaware that it’s categorizes as a violent felony–how sure are you of this??

            • Timmr

              Copied from California PC 667.5 (c):
              (c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” shall mean
              any of the following:

              (6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of
              Section 288.”

              • Not Really

                But it is excluded in the bill unless there are two separate convictions:

                (3) Tier Three offenders must-register for life

                (vi) The person was convicted of subdivisions (a) of Sections 288 in two proceedings brought
                and tried separately, or…

                That appears to indicate 288(a) is excluded as a violent felony for the purposes of registration. If it were a violent felony under Section 667.5 then only one conviction would be necessary for Tier 3.

                • Timmr

                  The update above lists 288 (a) as “repeat felony child molestation”. When did that happen? The code I have been reading is “lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14.”

        • Not Really

          I have long argued that the best attack against the registry would be for the family to sue under Skinner v Oklahoma. They have very strong and recognized rights.

          Since I do not have a wife a children I cannot pursue this line of attack.

      • Theodore, Theodora, Theodora

        A true Christian, Theodora, would stand and fight for all of those who are oppressed and been redeemed in the eyes of the Lord so everyman has their chance to live again, not just those who are in the numbers the tax collectors believe are best.

        Sorry for your grandfather, but there are other just as deserving as him to live in such a free way…..

      • Michael


        How are you so sure your grandfather will be helped by this bill? At first I THOUGHT I would be helped by this registry. But after reading the draft. I’m wrong. I am actually harmed by it.

        Screw this bill.

  25. Tired Of Hiding

    You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig.

    Get rid of the registry for those who have 1) done their time/paid their debt to society and 2) are not locked up and therefore have been determined to not be a threat to society.

    Total freedom or Total imprisonment nothing else will do IMO!

  26. Not Really

    If the new bill gets me off the registry I will like it better than if it doesn’t. Anyone who is honest will likely say the same. If it keeps me on, I will like it much less and will have to fight resentment. But I won’t begrudge those who get off the registry. Good for them.Think of it as getting out of jail. We might prefer we were the one getting out, but we wouldn’t want whoever is getting out to stay locked up just because we feel bad. No one would ever get out.

    Now I have to read it and that might change my mind.


  27. Not Really

    I made the PDF searchable so readers can focus on on their own situation easier. How can I get it to you?


  28. wonderin

    I’ll be getting off the registry because I’m one of the 10 thousand but I’ll make a deal.
    I don’t believe the registry does anything to keep former offenders in line so here’s my proposal: Cut everyone loose from the registry and if there are any significant negative behaviors from their freedom to rebuild their lives I’ll agree to spend the rest of my life admitting I was wrong every time I muster in to go through the booking process and try to explain to my family why we must continue to be shammed and shunned by our community because I’M STILL REGISTERED.
    Just show me the contract and where to sign and as I’ve said before either put up or shut up!

  29. Opposed

    I’m just having a hard time throwing so many under the bus to save those who will be relieved. The penalties & punishments for those still registered remain & some become even more punitive. Plus, all the power still remains with the DA. How much relief can we really expect from a group financially motivated to keep us in a regulated system? This is politically motivated. Criminal Law reform was big in the elections and this is part of their reform to say we’re gonna stop punishing this group of people but only some & for the ones we keep punishing we’ll make it worse. Reform would be taking this disgustingly expensive registry that puts a huge burden on taxpayers & does nothing to protect the public & displaces almost a million Americans & eliminate the whole thing. That would free up millions of taxpayer dollars & put hundreds of thousands of taxpayers back to work. Instead we avoid real reform; dress up some proposal to make it look like we’re truly moving forward when it’s really just a dog & pony show for the pubic. Police already have your information & they are the only ones legally able to use that info anyway. It’s redundant & expensive for them to record that information twice or more. & since the public isn’t allowed to use that information for any action against you it serves no purpose besides creating hysteria. It’s been stated that this is a way to divide us. It will certainly remove the solidarity of many granted relief to the numbers still affected. The ONLY registry I would even consider standing behind is one that is placed on you as a parole or probation condition & only for that duration; accessible only to law enforcement for supervising & enforcement purposes only.

    • Timmr

      Yeah, this petitioning process will put the ending of registration under local, not state control. Woe to those who live in Orange or San Diego Counties! Judges may not want to make enemies of DA’s. It would be better if the end to registration was processed in the AG’s office. The only thing they need to look for is if a new offense was committed.

  30. David Kennerly

    Our ability, either as marginalized individuals or as members of a group representing the interests of a despised minority to influence our lawmakers is, I think everyone would agree, pretty limited. I don’t know to what extent our buy-in on this particular scheme will enhance its ultimate success but I would guess that it would not be an overwhelming concern in Sacramento or amongst the public. Not to be terribly cynical but it could be that, if they see us as enthusiastic for the prospect of this bill then its chances of becoming law may be greatly diminished.

    Certainly, ACSOL’s influence will be needed to lobby for changes in the final draft of the bill and I have no doubt that Janice will be there doing just that. If the question is “Would sponsors of the bill be looking for Registrant stakeholders’ acquiescence on the general concept of the proposed bill to move it forward?” and the answer seems to be yes then our response should be very much a provisional endorsement. If our concerns are being sought or even if they’re not, the details of the finalized bill need to be clear and their effects knowable in order for us, either as individuals or as a group, to extend our support.

    A great many concerns have been raised here over the last several days as our members try to wrap their heads around the deliberately obtuse arcana of legislative bill-craft and to imagine the logical consequences that it would have in their, very real lives.

    The Static-99R has been revealed to be a wholly inappropriate and extraordinarily blunt instrument of prognostication which is, nevertheless, a critical component in the proposed mechanism for gaining relief from the horrors of registration.

    A single additional metric would make it far less objectionable (although we would still find much in the Static-99R to object to) as it would be applied in this proposed law: a formula for further reducing that score through the passage of time, crime-free in the community.

    Another would be the Tier-3 life sentence which is clearly at odds with what the best statistics are saying about the influence of aging on recidivism.

    My point is that ACSOL’s wholehearted support for this bill should be conditioned upon its final form and that any compromised and inferior relief that it represents should be met with an endorsement proportional to its capacity to deliver justice to its membership.

    My hat’s off to you Janice and good luck moving forward!

    • David Kennerly

      Oh, one last thing: the DA’s required support is obviously quite horrible. We already know that this will prevent many Registrants from getting off of the Registry and that it will result in huge disparities from one county to the next. We don’t need an actuarial instrument to know how that will shake out in advance.

      One good development is that prosecutors are coming under scrutiny for their punitive zeal like never before as has been shown in this last election. Is it so unimaginable that their role in this registration removal process could be dispensed with and replaced by the decidedly low-effort and low-cost method of automatic removal?

      This provision keeps this bill firmly in the failed and miserable Witch Finder General mode of justice just as D.A.s are coming to be seen, more-and-more, as power-hungry and often sadistic zealots who have played an outsize role in creating the biggest carceral state in history and in the world.

    • Timmr

      David, we are on the same thought pattern. I agree. I wrote the following comment before I read yours.

      • David Kennerly

        Thanks Timmr.

        You know, I’m almost certainly a Level 2 if my interpretation of the bill is correct and, having been on the Registry for 23 years or so and having been convicted in San Francisco County (the jurisdiction for the D.A.) probably means that I stand a pretty good shot at getting off fairly soon. However, I’m not willing to leave those left on the perverse Registry to the tender mercies of an ignorant and petty state.

  31. Timmr

    There is no reason to take a for or against stand on the complete proposal. Heck, civil organizations take a yes/no position all the time with legislation. Affirm the good parts, oppose the bad parts. From whatever they say, it is not set in stone until the final vote. The key is to look at the details and not support something that will come back to haunt you (us). You represent all registrants, by your bylaws. That is what you are bound to. Your constituents spoke of a lot of concerns, represent them all of them.
    Personally, I don’t see them putting much value on our opinions. We haven’t really organized the base of 80,000 to make much of a difference. They are going to listen mainly to the law enforcement personnel. If you threaten a lawsuit because of INCREASED penalties for some, they would probably take notice. It is way out of anything Constitutional to enhance a negative condition for one convicted person to benefit another. On the other hand, how can an organization that helps people say no to 10,000 getting off the registry right away? Answer: They are calling the shots. You (we) call the shots. Try to unite us.

    • Davidh


      there’s a pretty big list out there of California registrants, including phone numbers. It just takes doing!

  32. James

    I also do not see this as a Sophie’s Choice…even if the numbers are half of what Ms. Bellucci forecasts, 5,000/30,000…this is a boat that must be taken.

    I have suffered under the Registration Regime, but for God’s sake, let my people go…this is a fantastic first step that none of us could even have prayed for a month ago…and now it is close to becoming an actuality!

    Let us run with this…yet secretly saying, This is only a first step.

    Let me note where I sense people are falling into mistaken thinking:

    “The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

    By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.”

    This is a false choice, for people starving, Eat half the cake presented and then get back into the kitchen…(smile).

    I have agonized over writing anything on this…but, sitting here with a sigh…there really is no choice.

    Take this and run with it with a smile.

    Best Wishes, James

    • Timmr

      If your enemy up until now gives you cake, shouldn’t you check it for poison?

      • Not Sophie's Choice: Just a Bad Choice


        This bill is riddled with poison. This bill isn’t “Sophies Choice.” It’s just a bad choice. Kind of like eating four Egg McMuffins. It’s a great idea at first. But right after comes the consequences. Incrementalism has its downsides: one being that it doesn’t always account for future variables. The fact that Jackie Lacey supports this is not something to be happy about; it’s something to be worried about. Moreover, CASOMB, (and I respectfully say this) regardless of what is said by Janice and Frank in the meetings, is no friend of ours. Look at the pseudo science they recommend (i.e. polygraph, static, containment, etc.).

        Be careful when you begin to trust the government. It might just come back to bite us. In this case, I’m pretty sure they have something planned in order to screw us over. They smile at us now, but they’ll be sure to go ‘Selena manager’ on us later.

        disagree w/ this bill. it’s a farce.


    I support a tiered registry, but it has to be the right one. The final bill’s details really matter. I don’t believe that the registration will ever be completely abolished.

  34. Nicholas Maietta

    My feelings are about this is pretty simple.

    I used to believe in a tiered system but have since come to the realization we cannot and should not ever have a registry of those who have completed their sentences. I don’t support the registry but if the only hope we have to remove some people off the registry is to go to a tiered system, then I will just have to accept it.

    I still stand strong on the notion that the registry ultimately needs to come down completely.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      I need to update my post with the following:

      I no longer support this bill. I am in fact against it now. There are too many risks that this won’t do as it’s intended to do, which is to give people a path off the registry.

      If a person hasn’t reoffended in X number of years, especially after several decades, why are they even on the registry anymore? That applies to EVERYONE who’s on the registry.

  35. Tom

    As written, the proposed tiered registry offers many of us no hope. Even though it speaks of risk assessment the assignment of tiers is still very much based on conviction, especially tier three. Each case is different and should be looked at on a one on one basis. Any legislation that proposes a ‘one size fits all’ law is not a good one. We already have that. I have two separate convictions which would put me into tier three, yet I have not had a criminal offense for over thirty years. The fact that I am a registered citizen does not dictate my life, however it sure does hamper it. It would be best to see a law that offers all of us a chance to be free from this stigma.


  36. Ron

    Be pragmatic. Take what is given, then push the bar even further. There is nothing that says you can have one and not the other.

    • Jason B.

      “Take what is given?” What is this: a soup kitchen? There is nothing “pragmatic” about this bill. It is an ‘unfunded mandate.’ It is irrational in many ways. And the Tiering schemes are so bogus. 20 yrs and LIFETIME? What the heck is the point of LIFETIME for someone who remains offense free for many years? What ever happened to 17 yrs? This bogus bill is legislative judo in the worst degree. We are being clearly set-up with an ‘unfunded mandate’ that is sure to evolve to CA becoming an Adam Walsh Act state.

  37. Provide a new bill proposal entirely

    The board here has the ability to provide with details, analysis and truth what should and could be done by the powers that be in an entire new bill proposed that can and will accomplish everything that people want done. As the public, RCs and their representatives have the ability to do that, present and work to get it implemented. During the time, you will see then what the elected officials are really like, what and are willing to do to get their way. Rational and irrational thinking will take place with emotion and lack of factual thinking. Be prepared.

    Based upon what is provided here today alone, there are enough smart people who have commented with great detail the shortcomings of the bill as is and where improvements are needed. I hope the board will take them and use them to better the bill or provide a new one altogether. CA has the ability to lead the nation here in this area, as they have with others, and stay away from any US Government enticement of being in compliance with what they feel is best (including $).

    I do find it interesting this bill is provided just after election day has come and gone. I don’t believe that is coincidence, but strategically planned.

    A tiered system is not something that should be strived for.

  38. Derek W Logue of

    I’ve been calling this a Sophie’s Choice for a very long time now. i’m glad ACSOL is at least offering to let us voice our opinion before dissenting opinions are ignored, because I already know Janice is married to her incrementalist strategy. But since I have this last chance to point out the flaws of this strategy, I may as well do just that. This is why I say 3 jeers to 3 tiers:

    1. Few will actually benefit from the 3 tiered system: First off, I doubt this will be applied retroactively and thousands of registrants will drop off immediately. (It seems the more likely scenario is they would create some form of petition to get off the list process rather than simply cut folks off.) There will be a Trump-storm if that is even sniffed by the media. Seriously, I doubt they’d cut 10,000 immediately. Oregon is transitioning to a 3 tiered system from lifetime registration and they’ve had to extend their time frame for implementation another 2 years to 2019. They have about a third of the registrants as Cali so I imagine that any potential relief will be delayed for years to come. Also, there’s the potential for moving the goalpost, as NY state had done once to level 1 registrants, whose registration period increased from 10 to 20 years, and now there’s a second push to increase that further. And how will folks be classified? I see a push to keep as many folks on the list as possible.

    It validates the registry: If anyone’s endgame is the abolition of the registry, then this strategy is repugnant because in order to advocate for three tiers, you have to proclaim the need for a registry in the first place. You are allowing the opposition to line up on our side of the field in doing so.

    It will make things worse for those on the highest level: There isn’t really a great way to pigeonhole folks into neat little levels. Ohio has been doing this for 20 years and they got it wrong even under the older, more superior risk assessment system. Just look at MY classification as an example. I’ve lived with the label of “sexual predator” for 11 years now, and I get it far worse than the average registrant. I could ramble on all day about the many ways it sucks more for me than for other registrants, but I think many of you get the idea already.

    It will actually make fighting the registry harder in the future: It will be harder to use some of our go-to arguments (particularly the examples of teens landing on the list) under a tier system because folks will believe that we are successfully separating petty offenders from the “real threats” out there. Of course, I know that even risk assessment programs get it wrong because I’ve lived it. There is still a human factor involved in the risk assessments (in my case, judicial discretion, aka bias), and many judges or whoever is in charge of classifying registrants will err on the side of caution.

    What I believe will ultimately happen is a very narrow pathway may open up for a very small number of registrants to get off the list (nowhere near 10,000) and the system will merely give many the false hope of getting off, but the procedure that will be installed will create standards so high, very few will truly get a reprieve. It might help a few but at the expense of many.

    Janice believes in incrementalism but I don’t. To me, that’s like saying lets not abolish slavery because it is never going away, but instead, we just devise a system to free some slaves but allow some slavery to remain.

    I don’t care if I piss some of you off but they asked for an opinion, so i’m giving it to them.

    • Well said Derek....

      Well said in what is needed to be said about the brutal honesty of this draft bill…..

    • Anon

      I agree with you Derek. Too bad you aren’t the attorney representing all sex offenders.

  39. M.J.

    I disagree with this legislation. The way I see it, it’s like taking equity out of your home or maxing out your credit card. It feels good at first; but later on, it’s something you’ll come to regret. Why?

    First, while it is great that about 10,000 will get off, the price to pay is a plethora of endless qualifications for the other “about 60,000 registrants” who may or may not “ultimately” stop registering. Not every one’s cases are clear. A lot of people might very well depend on having to petition the Court. And who knows if judges (who are elected) are really apt to grant such petitions. So this law might have the sick feature of making people pay a lot of attorneys fees to get disappointed in the end. So giving this much power to an elected judge to deny/grant a petition is really troubling. I can see why the attorneys on ACSOL’s board would push for this bill. But then, maybe I’m being paranoid. Right?

    Second, what about the OVER 30,000 registrants who are classified as Tier 3? So non contacts and non violents can be lumped into that category IF they just happen to score high on the static? The static is no sure predictor. What about if a Tier 3 hasn’t reoffended in 20 years or more? Lifetime does not seem fair. Why is there an arbitrary 1987 date? What’s so magical about 1987? Also, what’s the point of posting addresses for Tier 3?

    Third, why is this organization so adamant about pushing for a three-level tier? It seems awfully coincidental that Adam Walsh Act is also a three-level tier. After reading the draft and looking at other tiered states, I have a gut feeling that this law is a terrible long-term strategic option because all it’s going to do is set California up to be one bill away from joining the Adam Walsh states. Tier 2 subject to 6 month registration requirement, Tier 3 to having to register every 90 days? No thanks!! But you know the politicians will pass AWA because of its perceived increase in public safety and federal funding. Be careful ACSOL!

    IF this organization makes the mistake of classifying offenders into three groups, California will be only one piece of legislation away from becoming an AWA state. This powerful organization might just be setting up its very own registrants for a future of more draconian laws. Look at other states who extend their tier levels or give the Level 2 and Level 3 registrants more restrictions. You are sacrificing a few who will end up getting more scrutinized (30,000), just to “free” another few (10,000)… while giving the majority 60,000 a reward that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT come provided a judge is willing to risk her/his political career.

    Another thing. California has the incentive to become an AWA state because of increased federal funding. The fact the District Attorneys support this farce bill is one sign that should trouble us. The DA’s support is certainly not something to boast about. The fact CASOMB supports this bill is also something that should trouble us. They’ve thought this through. They know that becoming an AWA state will increase federal funding. And this is exactly what labeling and classifying registrants into three groups will do. It might very well set California up to be an AWA state. The incentive being more federal funding.

    Think before you do this. While there might be some great short-term benefits, this is probably (in the long-term) a big mistake. I trust this organization will do the right thing:

    1. Either work to HEAVILY revise this draft so that it is much more logical; or

    2. Oppose it.

    • Martin

      I wholeheartedly agree with M.J.’s comments. Being a registrant myself and having researched the details of the general tiered registry concept vs THIS tiered registry bill, I see irreparable harm in the long term from this wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have personally wanted a tiered registry in California for quite a while. This version is dividing our community and will present opportunities to tighten the noose on all registrants. As for those who fall off the registry, you cannot fall off the internet. Several websites have duplicated the information posted by Megan’s Law; that will never vanish. Anyone deep searching you (potential employers, savvy new acquaintances, neighbors, etc.) will discover your past via those sites and wayback-like search engines. Understand that retroactive laws against sex offenders have altered the concepts of ex post facto and Constitutional rights; this tiered registry will not protect those who fall off from future changes to laws (that could even re-instate them on a secondary or “lesser” registry – a nice concept for a senator/assembly person hoping to gain future votes).
      A fair tiered registry is one that will not add restrictions/punishments for anyone. A fair tiered registry is one that will continue to allow the CoR. A fair tiered registry will not require registrants to spend thousands on additional legal costs to attempt to leave the registry (Isn’t getting a CoR costly enough already?). A fair tiered registry will lock out changes that would allow for the eventual re-additions of presence, residency and other restrictions based on the concept of tier-measured danger to society. A fair and appropriate registry (noting the concept of punishment – thank you Michigan) will not exceed any term of punishment (including probation/parole). Make no mistake. We can use a fair tiered registry bill, not THIS sly attempt to upend the progress that bold civil rights champions like Janice have fought so hard to achieve.

  40. PR

    I too oppose this bill. I believe that we should all stand together and work toward totally abolishing the registry.

  41. Jason B.

    Whatever happened to “We’re All In This Together?” When I attend those meetings the podium often has that handwritten note. But I guess it means nothing now? This bill is a dupe. I’ve been reading it over the last day. What it does is it forces the 10,000 to sellout for the greater good of the other 30K and probably many of the 60K who will just end up disappointed. The way the bill is written and setup, AM I JUST CRAZY IN SEEING THAT WE ARE VERY CLEARLY BEING SET-UP TO GET SCREWED? Are the attorneys not seeing this?

  42. LM

    This is like trading one side of hell for another.

    I think it’s time all child safety advocates should be labeled as a hate group. They are the ones the Lawmakers have to coddle and appease in order to stay in office.

    The dehumanization and subjugation will continue until the registry is no longer normalized as routine.

    You people are not fighting mad enough. Reminds me of the Jews reaction when they felt the box car doors slamming shut on their faces. Only difference is they were forced to make peace with their fates.

  43. Chris F

    I’m confused. Are those proposing this really that stupid?

    If they put an arbitrary “registrants convicted before 1987 would be automatically removed from the registry” in the bill, then go ahead and let it pass.

    After it passes and some are removed from the registry, challenge it in court for everyone convicted after 1987 to also get off the registry under “Equal Protection” clause of the constitution.

    Equal Protection

    The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. This means that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

    What am I missing here?

    • New Person

      I think that may only work if it’s punishment. Why? No other convicts are forced to register after their punishment custody has ended.

      • Timmr

        Even punishment must follow some rational, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation. 1987 is completely irrational. Maybe they just need to cut off a certain number of registrants right away for some reason. Talk about arbitrary.


          Every action, especially government action, is intentional and thought out. Once you realise the nature of government, it’s easier to figure out their intentions. That works for the average person too.

          Anyway, it’s 29 years, so that’s most likely the beginning of the greater influx of people. It also stops the most from timing out at 30 years. Now they’ll most likely endeavor to keep the remaining on by upping their tiers and also denying the petitions for release. This also projects the idea that they’re trying to reform, in words and soundbites only of course, but not in actuality.

          • Timmr

            You’re guessing, right? Do you know this?


              Which part? I used terms like “most likely”. As for the government remarks, I’ve seen enough throughout life to make those statements. Most people have, they’re just unable to make or believe the connections, for one reason or another.

              Mike r, 72FLH, myself and others told everyone what to expect in a tiered registry. The signs are always available, one just needs to open their eyes to see.

    • Steve

      Interesting Chris…

  44. Jonathan

    What ever happened to the 17 year idea? If even ‘high risk’ offenders who remain offense-free in the community for at least 17 years are not likely to reoffend than anyone else, then what is the point of 20 year or even lifetime registration? Also, we are failing to note that there is no evidence to show that registries reduce crime. In fact, most studies show registries perversely creating crime because registrants’ risk factors are upped and are not able to integrate into communities and move on from the past. Even CASOMB awknowledged this in their reports. But I guess CASOMB is so dishonest to recognize its own findings and instead create and push a highly divisive bill that will put over 30,000 people in a WORSE position than everyone else. Again, I join the few others who OPPOSE this bill. It is unfair and lumps many in the Tier III who do not deserve to be. Thank you.

  45. NO to this Bill!!

    PLEASE do NOT back this bill!
    I and many other registrants who were formerly excluded from the ML site will be made public if this bill goes through. This would ruin my life and the life of my family.

    • Not Really

      Where in the bill do you find that? I missed it. Please point it out.

      • Edna

        If a previously unpublished offender falls into the Tier 2 or Tier 3 category, then they ARE going to get published. So for those people, this bill will hurt them. One of the many flaws to this bill.

        • J

          But those that are unpublished Tier 1s would remain unpublished?

          • It Seems So

            It seems that if you are unpublished now, and remain in Tier 1, you will remain unpublished. BUT if you are currently unpublished, and you’d be Tier 2 or Tier 3 in this proposed bill, then you would perversely be published. So this draft bill will (strangely) HURT these people. If this subset of people were not subject to public notification then, why all of a sudden now? IDK about this bill. There are so many injustices to it.

  46. Paul

    The decision to support, or not support, should be dynamic.

    In its current form, the law seems reasonable when compared to what currently exists. That being said, this is only a draft bill. What is actually introduced, and what actually becomes law, can be a complete 180 from where the draft stands. After everyone has had their chance to amend the bill, what ends up landing on the Governor’s desk (if it gets that far) could wind up being a nightmare.

    My opinion is to support now, contingent on what the bill evolves into.

    • New Person

      My opinion is to support now, contingent on what the bill evolves into.

      Is this like saying, “You have to pass the bill in order to know what’s in the bill?”

      I don’t subscribe to supporting something that doesn’t really change anything, but at the same time make it worse. A 10 year minimum to where you have to petition – how is that any different now? I know I will sue if there is added restrictions upon me and use the Michigan decision as my basis.

      • Not Really

        The difference is between LIFE for all or the opportunity to petition. I don’t understand the bill well enough to be for or against, but that is a big difference.

        • Edna

          Some people ALREADY have the opportunity to ‘petition.’ It’s called a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Strangely, this bill takes the relief of a Certificate of Rehabilitation AWAY!! As I read above, there will be people who qualify for the certificates under existing law. But if this shady bill passes, those same people might be lumped into Tier 3 and have no more hope in ever getting off. So this bill does a lot of damage to people. For one, it takes Certificate of Rehabilitation away. Second, many unpublished people will be surprised to learn that they’ll end up on Megan’s Law website (if they end up in Tier 2 or Tier 3). And third, this law relies on the very flawed Static 99R ‘instrument.’

          • Not Really

            Does a Certificate of Rehabilitation relieve the “duty” to register? It doesn’t help some other rights, like the right to own a firearm if a felony or some misdemeanors.

  47. LS

    So Iv’e read all of the comments on this post so far and there are obviously two points of view 1) Do not accept the tiered registry but abolish the registry altogether 2) accept the tiered registry (at least for now) and push forward later to try to change it or make it better. Any of you that believe/think that the registry will EVER be abolished are dreaming! At least a tiered registry represents SOME sort of positive change because if not, we are all destine to die while still on the registry

    • Trader Joe's

      LS, there are more than two ‘points of view.’ It is not as binary as you make it seem. Personally, I cannot — and do not — accept this bill. But at the same time, I recognize that there will always likely be a need for a registry, so it will likely never be ‘abolished.’ We need something that INDIVIDUALLY evaluates EACH person (and not solely using the hocus-pocus Static 99R, but a collection of instruments and clinical opinion of QUALIFIED and UNBIASED psychiatry experts). What disturbs me about this bill is that it is written in a manner that is clearly intended to divide our civil rights cause. This is a bill that gives immediate relief to 10,000, at the EXPENSE of dignity and civil rights to 30,000-plus people who will be unfairly advanced into the Tier 3 category. Meanwhile, the others who are sandwiched into Tier 2 live at the hope and fear that the Tier 2 registration period is not increased or that judges do not become politically unwilling to grant these petitions. It’s just a risky and bad bill.

    • New Person

      What change, exactly occurred?

      They pardon 10,000. They could have easily done that via Certificate of Rehabilitation.

      60,000 will have to petition to get off the registry in 10 years. That’s what we all have to do for the Certificate of Rehabilitation. The DA is involved in the rejection process of the petition for both instances. How exactly is that different? What is the longest term a tier one can be denied registration? Is there is set limit? Similarly, the same can be said for tier 2s? The state can continually “add” years to your registration without breaking the law.

      What about tier 3s? They have no resolution? Janice brought up 17 years as a statistical landmark. CASOMB has founded under 1% recidivism rates for the past two years. None of these FACTS help mold this current bill as it stands.

      This is a DA trying to give you a bad plea deal vs the highest restriction possible -which we are already in. On the surface, it looks like the state is trying to help, but in truth, they are showing how they’ve held so many registrants down by not awarding Certificate of Rehabilitation, CoR, to many registrants, particularly those set to be automatically absolved off the registry list.

      That’s how out of the box POV I have. So we know the state doesn’t give out CoR awards to many registrants, why would any RSOL want another “petition” type exit program when we know the state does not give it out often enough in the first place?

      By this bill, the state is still fearful of registrants. So the petition can easily add years to any registrant!

      Again, after 10 years, qualified registrants can petition for a CoR. How is that any different from what this bill proposes? Oh… besides taking away the CoR (because tier 2s could probably petition in 10 years instead of 20) and making all those who, by law, do not have to show up on ML’s list to be show on ML’s list.

      Again, nothing really changes for the registrants outside the 10,000 that are absolved, except just get worse. There is nothing of statistical support that reflect under 1% recidivism rate, nor if the registration system is effective, nor the 17 years max limit. NOTHING POSITIVE RESPECTIVE OF REGISTRANTS WHO STILL HAVE TO REGISTER.

    • Timmr

      Need I point out that before 1947 there was no registry. Need I point out that branding peoples palms with an M for murderer or T for thief is no longer done, and we look down on those countries that still do that as medieval. Things change with new information. I am depressed that registrants themselves feel there is some sort of valid public safety use for registering people like cattle.

  48. B.Wat

    I’m with LS, accept the tiered registry for now. I’ve been on this registry for 28 years and want off !

    • NO!

      You won’t be. Read the bill and educate yourself.

      • Not Really

        Won’t be? How do you know that?

        • NO!

          Because each registrant must still petition a judge in order to get off the registry. It’s incredibly naive to believe that this will happen.

          • Not Really

            Incredibly naive?

            If the person has completed all the requirements, the petition is automatic unless the DA can prove current dangerousness and that DA must argue the “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”. Isn’t a hearing on dangerousness a long sought goal? How is the DA going to prove it? How hard would it be to prove low risk? These are questions that must be answered before knowing if we should be for or against the bill.

            (a) (1)`A person required to register under Section 290 who is a Tier One or Tier Two offender
            may file a petition in the superior court in the county in which he or she is registered for
            termination from the sex offender registry at the expiration of his or her mandated registration
            Tier, pursuant to subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 290. The petition must contain proof of the
            person’s current registration as a sex offender.

            (2) The petition shall be served on the registering law enforcement agency and the district
            attorney in the county where the petition is filed. The registering law enforcement agency shall
   the district attorney regarding whether the person has met the requirements for
            termination pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290. The district attorney shall have the right
            to request a hearing on the petition if the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of successful
            Tier completion described in subdivision (e) of Section 290, or if Community safety would be
            significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration, If no hearing is requested, the
            petition for termination shall be granted if the court finds the required proof of current
            registration is presented in the petition, providing that the registering agency reported that the
            person met the requirement for termination pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290, there are
            no pending charges against the person identified by the registering agency which could extend
            the time to complete the Tier or change the person’s Tier status, and the person is not in custody or on parole, probation or supervised release.

            (3) If the district attorney requests a hearing, he or she shall be entitled to present evidence
            regarding whether community safety would he significantly enhanced by requiring continued
            registration. In determining whether to order continued registration, the court shall consider:
            the nature of the registrable sex offense(s); the age and number of victims; whether any victim
            was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender less than 24 hours); criminal
            and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registrable offense(s); the
            lime period during which the person has not reoffended; successful completion, if any, of a
            CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program; and the person’s current risk of sexual or
            violent re-offense, including the person’s risk scores on SARATSO static, dynamic and violence
            risk assessment instruments, if available.

            (4) If termination from the registry is denied, the court shall set the time period after which the
            person can re-petition for termination, not to exceed five years, based on facts presented at the

            • New Person

              That petitioning requirement is double jeopardy.

              The DA is trying a person again for the SAME crime. Please denote how they added “criminal or relevant non-criminal behavior” This is Minority Report fiction come to real life.

              How is this continued possibility allowed to continue? The fact that one is offense free for their duration is enough evidence.

              I will repeat my experience again with judges and DA for my 1203.4 expungement case. My initial attempt was informally denied by the judge as the DA and Probation recommended that I NOT RECEIVE 1203.4 despite me fulfilling all my requirements!

              How can I successfully complete all my probation requirements and be NOT RECOMMENDED for 1203.4?

              It took an appellate lawyer to inform my lawyer that 1203.4 cannot be denied, but if they did, then it would be appealed by that appellate lawyer to state it is by law that once I successfully complete my probation that I be awarded 1203.4.

              The judge, DA, and probation were all against me receiving 1203.4 despite me successfully completing all things required of me.

              I DO NOT WANT ANY MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED AFTER MY CONVICTION HAS BEEN LEVIED!!! People (judges, DA, and probation) will still have a personal outlook and only law superseded their biased thoughts and design. I still have the paper work where probation wrote that I not be recommended in my attempt to achieve 1203.4!

              Now, conflate that experience with how many people have attempted a CoR and not received it after waiting 10 years is just as bogus!

            • Civil rights first

              Ask anyone who married a foreign national and petitioned for their spouse a green card. And the government simply denies it because they “say” we are a DANGER to that person and the offender must PROVE they are no risk to that person whom they married and most likely knows everything about the offender how easy it is the government to prove we are still a danger. They don’t need to…. they just point at our past. And the new people denied green cards for the support that possess CoR.

              • D4Civil rights first

                The last sentence was supposed to say:
                And there are people being denied green cards for their spouses that possess CoR.

  49. someone who cares

    I already voiced my opinion earlier, and I just wanted to emphasize my concerns again. Some already mentioned this and I wanted to summarize three points again:

    1. 10,000 will fall off the registry right away. If they are deemed not a threat all of a sudden, why did they have to stay on the registry for this long in the first place? They were not able to get a COR for what reason? Now, everything is different and they are fully rehabilitated? Actually, I am sure they are, like so many others whose offense happened after 1987. They, too deserve to fall off immediately.

    2. Per AWA Wikipedia: A study conducted in Ohio found that retroactive AWA re-classification increased the number of offenders and altered their placement in management categories. Prior to implementation of AWA in Ohio 76% of adult and 88% of juvenile offenders were designated on the least restrictive category or did not have to register at all, while only 20% of adults and 5% of juveniles were classified as “sexual predators”, the most restrictive category. Following re-classification this basic pattern was reversed, with 13% of adults and 22% of juveniles placed in Tier 1, 31% of adults and 32% of juveniles placed in Tier 2, and 55% of adults and 46% of juveniles placed in the highest and most restrictive Tier 3. 41% of adults and 43% of juveniles previously in lowest category and 59% of adults and 45% of juveniles who were not previously registered at all were assigned to Tier 3.[13]

    So, the numbers of registrants who will end up on Tier III will have been excluded from the Internet all these years and are now considered SVP? How did this save the public all these years who were not aware of all these horrible people? The public is being fooled by the lawmakers, what a shame. Obviously, all this hysteria will get worse. If the people who were formerly not on the public site did not cause any concern, they should not cause concern now. The lawmakers can;t have it both ways. People were not on the public site for a reason, and the public deserves not to be mislead again.

    3. Some mentioned that having some fall off the registry is better than what we have now. I disagree. A lady compared it to being in jail and being happy for those who get released. Right, but if the remaining people in jail now have to endure beatings and abuse that they previously not get, this does not constitute a fair ending.

    • Not Really

      You may or may not be referring to my comment about getting out of jail. Either way, I’m not a lady. Why do you say there will suddenly be “beatings and abuse” when there were none before? I don’t get that.

  50. HopingforHope

    What happens to those of us who were never assigned a risk level? My offense was 25 years ago in California and I was never assigned a risk level.

  51. E

    So I don’t even really understand this draft to the point where I could tell how it will affect me personally. I will be checking with my lawyer about that. But I’m confused about some of these comments. Can’t we continue the fight on a federal level to abolish the registry AND have a tiered registry in CA? Are these two goals mutually exclusive?

    If they are not mutually exclusive then we should take progress, if it in fact really is progress. I say that because there is one point that I see brought up several times that does concern me. The idea that we have to petition to be taken off the list. So my question to Janice and her team is: on a practical level what is the benefit of this bill over the current system that that allows us to petition of a certificate of rehab after 10 years?

  52. The Minorty Report?

    So even for the non-contact offenders, the Static 99R will be THE controlling factor in determining whether one belongs belongs in the Tier III category? What is this? “The Minority Report”?!?!

  53. NO!

    All those in support of this bill have clearly NOT read the bill. The devil is in the details.
    As it stands this bill is nothing but a “dangling carrot” meant to deceive us into thinking it’s a progressive improvement. It is NOT.
    We will be WORSE off. There will be NO SOs “immediately” getting off. All this bill does it put control back in the hands of local DA/municipalities and corrupt/brown-nosing legislators.
    Also, at least 10,000 previously unpublished SOs will have their information published and their lives destroyed even further.
    I believe this is an attempt to maintain control over the registry under the pretense of a “progressive tiered system” due to the increasing scrutiny that SO laws have been getting.

    • Not Really

      “Also, at least 10,000 previously unpublished SOs will have their information published and their lives destroyed even further.”

      Please point to where this is written in the bill. I did not see it.

      • NO!

        Check where all the previous eligibility for exclusion has been crossed out.

        • Not Really

          Do you mean this? It appears to still allow for exclusion. The stricken lines are ommited.

          1) If a Tier Two offender successfully completes the first 10 years of Tier Two following release from custody on the registrable offense, pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290, and he or she has not, subsequent to conviction on the registrable offense, been convicted of an offense described in the Sex Offender Registration Act, or of an offense described in Section 667.6 or 1192.7, that person may file an application with the Department of Justice, on a form approved by the departinent, for exclusion from the Internet Web site. If the department determines that the person meets the requirements of this subdivision, the department shall grant the exclusion and no information concerning the person shall be made.available via the Internet Web site described in this section. He or she bears the burden of proving the facts that make him or her eligible for exclusion from the Internet Web site. However, a person who has filed for or been granted an exclusion from the Internet Web site is not relieved of his or her duty to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 nor from any, otherwise applicable provision of law.

          (2) Other offenders required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act may apply for exclusion from the Internet Web site if they demonstrate that they meet the following criteria:

          The person’s only registrable ‘offense is an offense for which the offender successfully completed probation, provided that the offender submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1,or other official court document that clearly demonstrates that the offender was the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.
          (ii) An offense for which the offender is on probation at the time of his or her application, provided that the offender submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1, or other official court document that clearly demonstrates that the offender was the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.
          (iii) If, subsequent to his or her application, the offender commits a violation of probation resulting in his or her incarceration in county jail or state prison, his or her exclusion, or application for exclusion, from the Internet Web site shall be terminated.
          (iv) For the purposes of this subparagraph, “successfully completed probation” means that during the period of probation the offender neither received additional county jail or state prison time for a violation of probation nor was convicted of another offense resulting in a sentence to county’ jail or state prison.

        • Edna

          This bill has the risk of publishing previously unpublished offenders. If one scores high enough on the Static, they can go from unpublished (i.e. one of the lines not crossed out) to Tier 3 and published! Similarly, a current unpublished offender can meet the criteria of Tier 2 and he/she will end up being published. These people will definitely get screwed by this bill!

          • Not Really

            I don’t believe Tier 2 is published. I wish everyone would copy/paste where in the bill it applies. Downloading the bill should allow this.

            • M

              Tier 2 and Tier 3 will be published. Look at 290.46(c):

              “[…] Tier Two offender as described in subdivision (d)(2) of Section 290, The Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, the community of residence and Zip Code in which the person resides or the county in which the person is registered as a transient and other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant[.]”

              Tier 3 has the added burden of having their address posted!

              “Not Really,” please take the time to actually read this bill before you start spewing claims that have no validity. You’ve been incorrect in a lot of your statements.

              The mere fact this bill puts so much weight on the Static-99R scam should be troubling in and of itself! A “6” or higher Static, in and of itself, is enough to put someone in the Tier 3 class. Even if the person would have been in Tier 1 had he scored a 5 (i.e. just a point lower).

              This bill is insanity! Just giving the Static so much power should be reason enough as not to support this bill.

              • Not Really

                Since my previous comment will likely not get approved, I never spewed that Tier 3s would not have their addresses published. It was my mistake about Tier 2s because I already pointed out they would be like they are now, without addresses posted.

        • Edna

          “Not Really,” you are wrong. There WILL BE a lot of previously unpublished offenders published under this bill. That website exclusion petition process with the DOJ, similarly, seems like a farce. So many exceptions. If someone who is currently unpublished either has a 6 or higher static score -OR- meets the criteria of Tier 2 or Tier 3, they are (unfortunately) going to get published under this bill. So these are a class of people that are really going to get harmed with this thorny bill.

          • Not Really

            I could very well be wrong. Please copy and paste the sections you refer to, then we can search the bill with the text for context.

            How many would fall into Tier 1 or 2 and still have a score of 6 on the scale and so end up Tier 3? 0 or more than 0?

          • Not Really

            I still can’t find this in the bill. Sorry! Please copy/paste.

          • M

            “Not Really,”

            You are incorrect. Tier 2 and Tier 3 WILL be published. As for the Static, there will be quite a few that will be put into Tier 3 just because of it.

            I, for one, will be placed in Tier 3 because I score 6 on the Static. Otherwise, if I scored just one point less, a “5,” I’d be placed in Tier 1 for a my non-contact, first-time felony offense under 290.006.

            “6” is such an arbitrary number. And I think too many of us have problems with the Static-99R scam to begin with!

            • NPS

              Re: 290.006

              Only if it’s considered a “violent offense” as described in 667.5

  54. Ron S

    So glad to see so many of us giving our input. I wish the people who make these laws that cause so much harm in our lives would read these posts. At minimum they would realize that we’re all just people who want to feel human again.

    Regarding the bill, it makes very little sense to support it as is. Just about everyone who is classified tier 1 is eligible for a COR which you can get in 10 years anyway. This is a scam folks. They’re giving us something we already have and if we agree, the men and women who remain registered will face more scrutiny from both the law and the public.

    This bill has to be amended to allow EVERYONE to obtain a COR. I don’t know why some of us can and some us us can’t get it. You are either reformed or you are not. We should have protection from this sort of ambiguity in the law.

    Secondly, I’d love to see verbiage in the bill that eliminates ex post facto increases in limitations for those who will remain registered. I’d hate to see us sell each other out for a small return.

    Another item of concern to me is petitioning to be removed. Those who are eligible need to be dropped automatically without applying to an elected official who may see a political benefit to interfere.

    While true freedom would be an all out abolishment of the registry, I don’t consider it realistic. We’re a very important piece of the fear machine that makes a lot of money for a lot of shitty people. If we are going to agree to a reformed registry, it needs to liberate all whom deserve it. Let’s keep this discussion going and make our voices heard.

  55. Will A

    I am not a California resident so this would not directly affect me.

    But I feel that any attempt by the criminal politicians to polish their illegal, immoral, un-American turd, should be completey rejected. The only thing that is acceptable to Americans is to destroy the Registries.

    When I read people asking about how the bill will affect them personally, I find it to be quite offensive. I feel that attitude is how the U.S. got into its Registry mess and witch hunt. People seem to be good with the Registries as long as they are not being affected. I feel like those people would get off of the Registries and never lift a finger again to oppose them.

    I have been listed for 2 decades and I’m surely a “low level” former offender. But I won’t ever forsake people who are listed for life. F the un-Americans who think the Registries are okay just as long as they only list “those people”.

  56. danielle

    Hope and prayers! No public registry. It kills by 1000 cuts. It only creates panic. It helps no ones safety. It prevents re integration into society. Its probably costly too- though some folks make a living that way- but there’s more humane ways -please. I’m praying that no one can be bumped up a tier retroactively. And please-if a tiered registry with possibilitys to get off is implemented,do not go past that 17 year maximum registry requirement for any RC. Provided no new sex crime convictions during that period. The laws were made for man(and women). Not- man or woman for the law. Let’s have fair and just laws. And stop the panic buttom costly laws.

  57. Marked For Life. Lepors

    I see a problem with this bill. There is no way for those who would be placed in the tier 3 category. There are those of us like myself whose crime is listed one way but had a totally different meaning because of the way it was written with no variation as to the penal code to differentiate between a crime with a child or an adult. Such as an example of 288a(c) which is oral copulation with a child under the age of 14…. OR BY FORCE in which the victim was an ADULT , NOT a child. In essence, the person is labeled as a CHILD MOLESTER when the opposite is true. So how do people have any chance of getting off the registry? Again, we are just lepor’s with no right to live a normal life, or have a girl friend or a family for fear of placing our families in harm’s way, or having a good job, or a nice place to live. Not even the right to travel outside of the USA. Now they want to ban us from watching our kids in a school play or be able to attend college classes to better ourselves.

    God Bless America!!!

  58. Honorary Lifetime Price Club Member

    Third, the people who crafted this bill used the 10,000 old-timers as leverage — not unlike a hostage situation — to have those that will benefit sellout to the cause as a whole. So at the end, the real people who pay the true Constitutional consequence are those who are labeled “Tier 3.” Meanwhile, Tier 2’s are stuck in a sort of Twilight Zone (wondering if their petition will be granted or whether the tiers will be extended in the future). Meanwhile, the CASOMB crafters of this bill are well-aware that their new tiered bill is a perfect setup for becoming an Adam Walsh Act state. Because you know what? Sharper Future (as well as CASOMB) will LOVE LOVE LOVE that new federal funding. It’s all part of a corrupt political system — and I don’t think any one person can stop it. Not especially after seeing the process highjacked what seemed to have been a noble civil rights group.

  59. Eric

    Thank you for your leadership, Janice.

    This proposed bill comes in the wake of the recent tightening of certificate of rehabilitation availability.

    The two reflect an attempt to reform the registry regime by narrowing its focus … Only “really bad people” will stay on for 20 years or life.

    I would support the proposed bill. Relative freedom for some, sooner, is better. But we must continue to press the issue: Does the registry do what it’s supposed to do? Does it reduce crime?

    The public registry is expensive to maintain. It debilitates registrants and their families. It frightens communities. It’s arguably un-American. Unless it can be shown by data to benefit society, these costs are an inexcusable waste.

    • Anonymous

      ERIC: You said that “[o]nly really bad people will stay on for 20 years or life.” Are you kidding me? This bill leads the public to believe that those who are Tier II or III are “really bad people.” But I have to disagree entirely! This bill, which I DISAGREE with, does nothing but single out Tier II and Tier III as “bad people” based on either PAST conviction OR a dubious Static 99 score. What makes you think people can’t change and learn from the past? I used to label people as either ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ But I’ve come to learn that people are often more complex than the labels ascribed to them.

      • Eric

        I agree with you … It’s why the scare quote marks are there. I’m one of the “really bad people” under the new law, for your information.

    • NO!

      What was the recent tightening?

  60. Steve

    In addition to what everyone has said that is bad about this if this does pass there has to be something in this bill that states it would be illegal and punsihable if third party sites continued to publish people’s names who were lucky enough to be removed.

    • Anonymous

      Or how about something that says it’s illegal for third-party sites to publish Megan’s Law information altogether? People can always go to the government’s site themselves.

  61. Not Really

    After reading the bill twice, I still don’t understand it and still don’t know how much it will help me, if at all.

    A few guesses so far:

    1. The bill reflects the 3 Tiered system already in place. Yes, it’s there. Some offenses can petition to removed from the public registry. Some others do not require the DOJ to post home address, and, finally, what could be called the 3rd Tier, the DOJ is required to includes the home address be public. So the registry was already divided. This bill seems to reflect that to a degree as a starting point, but it is not a perfect reflection.

    2. It incorporates the Three Strikes law violent or serious felonies law. In other words, it appears those with a strike offense will have a lot more trouble getting off the registry. I did not research this in depth.

    3. If the petition goes through the police department, then the DA, and it is denied, it is possible to try again within 5 years at the most. A judge could set 1 – 5 years as the “postponement” limit, it seems. After whatever the limit the judge set, a person could try again.

    4. It uses the current Static-99r procedure, and that means it is not meant for older offenses. That takes into account “ageing out.” Does that mean those with a current Static-99r of medium or high will not have that after the time period of accuracy expires (provided they stay out of trouble)? After the expiration date, could the person petition for an updated score and then an accurate score would be impossible because the score would no longer apply to that now outdated older case?

    These are just initial reactions and questions and they could be wrong. It is very difficult to read.

  62. Sergio

    Overall, I support the bill.

    The reality is that any tiered registry that passes will not be good for everyone. I can understand that those that will be categorized as tier 3 will be in a very tough situation, being perceived as higher risk. However, there are elements of the new law that are moving in the right direction. For one, having limits on how long you register (at least for some individuals). Second, taking into account some sort of risk assessment.

    I don’t know how static the tier classification will be. Can you demonstrate with time that you are not “high risk” and be shift from tier 3 to 2 to 1? It would be great to have some sort of mechanism to do this.

    The registry is unsustainable in terms of the amount of resources that go into it. I’m glad people in government are realizing this. It’s an expensive waste of money that does not protect victims and punishes families that are trying to contribute positively to society.

    • NO!

      It’s dangerous to support this without reading the bill and understanding it. If THIS tiered registry bill passes, we will not get a second chance at it.
      We must NOT accept this bill simply because it appears like it’s a progressive move. It is not.
      Many more registrants will be harmed than helped by this. The Static99 Risk assessment is not an acceptable measurement.
      They are removing the certificate of rehabilitation. They are publishing the names of those were previously not published.
      Even after your Tier designated time duration ends there is absolutely NO guarantee that you will actually be granted exclusion.
      Open your eyes people and READ the BILL. DON’T JUST BLINDLY SUPPORT IT.

    • Davidh


      Which is why we have greater power now to fight them. They are attempting to mute and divide us all over again. We have power in numbers, whether it’s our voices, the cost to maintain us, or whatever measurement. We are at peak strength now and should insist on a better deal!

      “The registry is unsustainable in terms of the amount of resources that go into it. I’m glad people in government are realizing this. It’s an expensive waste of money that does not protect victims and punishes families that are trying to contribute positively to society.”

  63. Eric

    The proposed bill in its current form would still have men and women who’ve never had an actual, identifiable victim, on the registry for 20 years or life. Outrageous and unnecessary.

  64. Gerald Cervente

    I’m shocked that some members would even consider this proposed bill,that the organization
    would view this as Sophie’s choice and consider it .I have been on the registry for 34 years,convicted of 288(a)
    in 1982,there a lot of people that have been convicted of 288(a),your asking them to be completely destroyed,a lot have young families that will be destroyed.This proposed bill needs changes to include
    288(a) having a time limit and not being bumped up to tier 3.If people with 288(a) get bumped up to tier 3,besides them being on megans web site,and reporting every 3 months,harassment by the police,public notification,possibly getting attacked.It will occur to the dirty politicians that this mass in flux of
    tier 3 people constitute a threat to the public and likely will pass a restriction bill to apply to these people this will result in a lot being homeless and jobless.If this proposed bill did not help me,and simply left me in the same situation that would be ok,if it released a lot of other people.It completely will destroy anyone having a 288(a) conviction,so no way,a very bad proposed bill.

    • Anon

      Gerald, if you have one conviction of 288(a), then you would be tier 2. You are tier 3 if you have more than one 288(a) conviction (separate convictions, not at the same time), or if you committed 288(a) during a murder.

      Side note: if California was AWA compliant, then I believe one count of 288(a) would put you up to tier 3. That is why we have to be careful. If this is approved, then, we would be one legislation closer to being AWA compliant, which would move all registrants with a 288(a) charge from tier 2 to tier 3. Believe me, I’m sure there are already some legislators frothing at the mouth to do this to further their career.

      • Gerald Cervente

        To Anon,the tier 2 does not address 288(a),tier 3 does say that if you have two separate 288(a)’s that you were convicted of your, going on tier 3. I only have only one 288(a),however it maybe a typo for tier 2,
        since it makes no sense to say you need two 288(a) separate convictions for tier 3.
        The bill is far to confusing it needs to be clear,not in bullishness.
        The bill needs work,as it stands no way I support it,I agree with you these dirty rotten politicians
        are ready to ponce.If Trump drains the swamp in Washington ,he needs to drain the septic
        tank in Sacramento.

        • Edna

          LOL @ “drain the septic tank in Sacramento.” As for this bill: it deserves to be in the septic tank.

    • Davidh

      As a 288 (a), I strongly agree. if there weren’t still yet more ex-post facto and incrementing my status, let the bill pass (maybe). I’ve never been notified on during my tenure as a 288 (a); I live a quiet life that isn’t harassed. I register once a year. How is it that with a stroke of a pen I am suddenly a greater risk that needs notification and greater public scrutiny?????? This bill is contrary to every ideal that this organization has ever espoused, I feel: it’s unconstitutional, it’s ex-post facto, it’s incremental punishment, the list goes on… I’m sorry but no this cant be a goal achieved!

      ASCOL getting behind this would be a great betrayal. The Organization should not lose site of its over-arching stated goal of ending registries that have been shown to be wasteful, provides a false sense of security, are unconstitutional, are indeed punishment and banishment.

      I felt so much happiness and hope when I saw the great job the ACLU did in Michigan and in that light I’m astonished this organization would settle for one morsel less!

  65. Opposed

    I hope everyone understands. I’ve been here almost 30 years & it never gets better. Every chance they get they just pile on more bull$#/+. They have the Supreme Court telling them, “it”s not punishment!” So they add more laws and punishments to go with them. & in this draft the DA still has too much power. How much relief can we really expect from a group financially motivated to keep us registered? This is political. Reforming Criminal Law by saying, “Look we’re letting go of all these previously registered sex offenders.” & the other’s have to petition for relief? The system they have now is so impossible I’ve had lawyers say “Don’t waste your money!” I can ‘t imagine the hurdles & flaming hoops they have planned. & before we were all so bad they placed us all in one group. All of the sudden, about 1% of us, without questioning or screening, are stable enough to be unsupervised. However, don’t expect to travel!

    I’m afraid this is going to pass when the voter’s hear that it’s backed by the DA. The police, sheriff & attorney general will probably back it too. I believe these people are not our friends & we should be highly suspicious and cautious anytime they label something sex offender & present it to voters. I also believe that support for this tiered system will indeed somehow justify the registry.

    EX-POST FACTO, BILL OF ATTAINDER, RETROACTIVE APPLICATION, REDEFINING THE REGISTRY AS PUNISHMENT; the registry should be fought with every & all issues. Accepting this proposal is justifying the registry.

    “Good Parents don’t need Sex Offender Registries!”

  66. Roger

    A tiered system bill would not help me today, since I would be in the third tier. However I support it.

    I think we need to fight the registry on two fronts: (1) challenge its constitutionality, and (2) supporting a tiered system.

    But I believe challenging its constitutionality will FAIL in the short term because politicians, the courts, and the public will not suddenly drop their fear of RCs after decades of fear-mongering.

    I believe a tiered system would eventually help lessen their fear of those of us in tier 3.

    Here is why:

    Human nature is such that we need to have evidence that what we believe is false before we will change our beliefs. This is especially true for highly emotional issues surrounding RC policy.

    Hyper-conservative California politicians often object to the tier system, saying that when tens of thousands of people are gradually released from the registry it would cause a huge increase in offenses against children.

    However, when a tiered system passes and that does NOT happen, people will see that their fears are proven unjustified, and would be more open to allowing tier 3 RCs to apply for release from the registry.

    This is similar to how gathering statistics on recidivism of RCs over the years resulted in proving low re-offense rates, forcing people to think twice about their incorrect preconceptions of high recidivism, which opened a dialog around the nation on alternatives to treating every RC as a dangerous monster.

    • NO!

      Wrong. This is not some progressive evolution. This is a sheep’s in wolf’s clothing meant to deceive.
      This bill will keep SOs in an even tighter, more controlled grip. Please read the bill fully before making a statement of support – in every instance registrants must still petition to get off the registry even if their Tier designation mandates it. Many registrants will be denied.
      This bill will destroy many SOs lives by eliminating the previous public exclusions. By eliminating the possible of Certificate of Rehabilitation. And by using a terrible measurement in the static99.
      Please read the bill fully.
      This bill MUST NOT be supported.

    • Davidh

      Rodger with all due respect i believe your argument is flawed:

      ” However, when a tiered system passes and that does NOT happen, people will see that their fears are proven unjustified, and would be more open to allowing tier 3 RC’s to apply for release from the registry.” Currently they have the data that indicates we are safe–they have recidivism data. No once 100’s are released that isn’t going to light a candle of new-found wisdom!

      Look to the motives as to why they would do this:

      1) they are snaring too many people and its become unmanageable and expensive.

      2) we’ve grown in numbers and made some gains–they see the writing on the wall and now they want to mute and divide us.

      3) They would like to get this out of California courts and into the federal courts, and can do so and even gaining financially by going to an AWA compliant state!

      4) how can you profess to the absolute ruining of 10,000’s of people in support of something that has always been and will continue to be a catastrophic event in this country’s history, one that will stand side-by-side historically along with the Japanese internment camps, eugenics: lobotomies and LSD experimentation, along with civil rights, women’s suffrage, etc.

  67. Anonymous

    Janice, here are my thoughts about the matter (Note: I would be a tier two):

    If you do end up supporting the bill, I believe you would need to fight tooth and nail to remove the power of the DA in this draft. It should be when your time is up, then you are automatically off. If the DA has the power to oppose, then both of these things will happen, which will cause even more legal issues:

    1. Some counties are more liberal than others. So one county might not oppose registered citizens petitioning to removal, while other counties will do all they can to oppose. So then basically it’ll come down to luck to which county you were convicted in.

    2. If the DA does oppose, than an ELECTED judge will have to decide. As we know, judges are human, and look out for themselves and their careers first, before justice. They will be very hesitant to approve somebody, since it can be used against them in a re-election. And as somebody else said, all it takes is one person who has been removed from the list to re-offend in a heinous way, then no judge will ever approve again.

    So either the power of the DA’s opposition must be removed from the draft, or if left in, must be severely reduced. For example, if they do oppose, then they MUST provide reason (ex. maybe you got two DUI’s in the last 5 years). If they can’t provide reason (ex. you were living a clean, offense free life), then they cannot oppose.

    The thing that worries me the most is the “unfunded mandate” that was mentioned. Believe me, I could easily see the legislature moving to be AWA compliant in the future to “fund” this mandate. If that were to happen, it would move the majority of tier 2 registrants to tier 3, including me. If DA opposition was removed from the draft, then no extra funding would be required since the courts wouldn’t be involved.

    • Davidh


      a few things you said and one someone else said struck me the most.


      Moving to AWA. what else is this about! They are not admitting to an error here or doing anyone a favor, and anyone who believes a system under AWA is better than we have now is crazy! I think the tiered registry was the only item California was not compliant on. So why not AWA, leave all the constitutional crap to the federal courts and save money! defer to another entity (federal government). This is AWA compliance all the way–and to you thinking you’re off the registry–READ AWA!

      Someone else:

      Janice, Agree to your principles for change, but dont be naive and destroy so many–dont get caught up in pronouns such as the “many” or the “few” the real solution is the betterment of all. This is only accomplished when you accept what is acceptable and fight against what is not, what someone else said!

      Plese dont accept this as is,but do get behind change!

      • Davidh

        Janice, above I’ve discriminated between two other views by registrants. I’d like to now do so with yours. Your 5 year goal, as presented is sound to the principle that no two person’s situation, or in this case crime, are the same; and therefore, to what appear to be a solution for the many, and solving your goal–here’s the problem: i’m going to assume the organization’s name sake: Alliance for constitutional SO laws is also a goal and that you presumably got into this area of practice because of your deep seated convictions for justice, fair and good laws for the betterment and enrichment of society was part of that too. Now, we all can agree there is nothing just or beneficial for society with these laws and still would not be with the passage of this legislation. So I will ask that before you consider you following paragraph to be a : well, boys a job well done–we met our goal and objective. I would say very narrowly defined. I agree we cant make a perfect outcome for everyone, we are not all similarly situated. but I’d argue given what we’re being left with, which in the end will be AWA, would be a betrayal, I feel. I dont think you are a naive person, but some times we all can be blindsided. Call me a skeptic, but ever since my brush with the law, I frown negatively of the motives of man! They are dressing this up to look like they’re creating a rational system, but there was never a rational component to it to begin with so building from it cant be right! They are attempting to become an AWA compliant state, period!

        ” During the five years in which this organization has existed, we have often heard a wish expressed – that registrants in California be treated differently, not the same. That wish was expressed in many variations including that registrants should be treated differently according to their current risk or that registrants should be treated differently according to the offense for which they were convicted.”

    • Notgivingup

      Texas has a deregistration program that was put in place many years ago, it is very limited as who can petition to get off, the main problem is as you stated was the DA’s office and the Judge having to agree. You have to jump through many hoops just to be eligible, eval that cost $2500 or more, filing fees that run into the 100s of dollars then approval from the Sex offender council. Then you have to go to court. Attorney fees that will cost an average of $10,000 to $15,000 and then as you said each county Judge will make their on decision and so far most of the time you are denied even while being a low risk and met ALL criteria to be let off. All this time and money spent to make people richer when most of the lawmakers know you are not going to get off no matter what you do or how you have lived your life since the crime.

      You wrote( So either the power of the DA’s opposition must be removed from the draft, or if left in, must be severely reduced. For example, if they do oppose, then they MUST provide reason (ex. maybe you got two DUI’s in the last 5 years). If they can’t provide reason (ex. you were living a clean, offense free life), then they cannot oppose.

      I think you need a council to make the final decision and take both the Judge and the DA out completely. This should be state wide and not county by county and once you have met the criteria that is written in law you are allowed off without spending $1000s of dollars that many do not have. This may seem good to some but it is a trap for many. The elected officials/Politicians are NOT doing this from the good of heart, IMO I would not trust Any district attorney or most judges to do the right thing.

  68. Punished For Life

    OK here’s my question with all of these possible ways to get off of the Registry.
    What about the poor sole who has no real skill or a means to earn a decent living? I mean after all,
    I don’t see any State with a program to help the RC find work or to teach them a trade.

    Many are fortunate enough to have access to “Thousands of dollars” to hire a good attorney and petition the courts and file lawsuits. There really isn’t much help in the “Proposed Bill” for someone who can hardly afford
    food? What about them?

    My guess is that the State really does not care about them. If they fall off the list, OK. If they never can get off, So be it.

  69. someone who cares

    Derek from Once Fallen and Will from “Sosen” both oppose this bill. That should tell us something.

    • Edna

      The fact that Derek and Will (from the organizations you mention) oppose it: is that a good or bad thing? Because personally, I oppose this bill.

  70. Lee

    I am against any new law that falls short of abolishing the registration requirement for citizen’s who have done their time. I’ve been registering for a 288(a) since 1992. Everything the Legislature has done since then has been punitive and I see nothing in the proposed bill that guarantees that will change. It is still left up to the DAs and Judges. I never was given a static rating but I do know one size doesn’t fit all. That being said, I trust Janet and Board to come to the right decision and will support them in whatever that is!

  71. please do not support this bill. fight for something NOT created by the government

    The support for this bill is not part of any ‘incrementalist’ strategy. It seems predetermined because clearly, for some reason, the money fundng this bill and organization seem so intent to to let the 10,000 pre 1987 go. “1987” is such an arbitrary number. This bill is so troubling, and it shows this ‘civil rights’ organization’s true colors, because it is not just helping the 10,000 group: but it also is harming a group of 30,000. Plus, the fact this bill is an UNFUNDED MANDATE!! My guess is California will next become an Adam Walsh Act state to get federal funding to pay for this UNFUNDED MANDATE. That means Tier 2 would need to register every 6 months and Tier 1 would need to register every 3 months!! That’s a lot worse than every year, folks!! Janice, please have a heart and consider what you might be getting into! This is a bill that is going to harm a lot more people than help!

    • Steve

      One of the reasons California has not gone awa besides cost is that it includes juveniles. I don’t think they want to see that happen here.

    • Punished For Life

      I believe that under AWA a Tier 1 must register once per year, Tier 2 is every 6 months and Tier 3 is every 90 days. In Nevada all RC’s who have no permanent residence must Check in every 30 days. Now Nevada is not a fully compliant AWA State, and I hope to hell they never implement it. Just keep in mind that if CA. goes to the AWA so they’ll receive the federal funding, 288(a) moves to Tier 3 and you are on there for life with no chance to be removed. Any “Bill” that even resembles AWA should be avoided like the plague.
      If we must have a registry (although unconstitutional) we should fight to the very end resisting anything based on the original conviction and work toward “Risk Based” methods for rehabilitation and moving ex-offenders back into society once time is served. I’ll be the first to agree there are some who may deserve and require civil commitment. Some maybe shouldn’t be out of prison. But 99% should have a chance to be redeemed. 17 years should be the goal, and it should be automatic.

  72. Josh

    What I did forced me to become a different person. Thankfully. I understand why many could care less about me, but not having forced public humiliation and shaming would be better than being released from prison. Its like theres a part of me being held back from really being a normal, contributing person, cause I never know when someone’s going to recognize me fromthe list

  73. Agamemnon

    I for one see the tiered registry as a step (a big step) in the right direction, not a resolution. I say this as a person who will most likely see themselves placed on the third tier.

    • Edna

      I oppose the bill. As a Tier 3, this bill will hurt you more. It will also do a lot of damage to other people (i.e. it will take Certificate of Rehabilitations away, give lots of power to the puestionable/limited Static 99, publish previously unpublished offenders on Megan’s Law website IF they fall into Tier 2 or Tier 3), gives no way out for Tier 3, gives a lot of problems for Tier 2’s who want to ‘petition’ out, gives a lot of power to elected judges and elected district attorneys, is an unfunded mandate… so how is this going to be paid for, does not account for Tier 1 or Tier 2 expanding in future registration duration, does not account for more narrowly tailored restrictions on YOU… as a Tier 3. What will prevent presence restrictions, internet restrictions or identifier restrictions against you in the future? As a potential Tier 3 under this bill, you are sacrificing yourself.

      • Andrej Dixon

        Could you please clarify where in the bill you saw that Tier Ones would still remain unpublished?
        The bill seemed to remove my previous requirement of being a misdemeanor 647.6(a) (which would likely be a Tier One) as a qualifying code for exclusion from the site.
        Thank you in advance.

  74. JDub

    ACSOL Board member’s do face a “Sophie’s Choice” dilemma regarding the issue of Tier Registry. Does ACSOL support the proposed board as it stands, or does it continue to fight for universal application of the registry laws?

    I ever so respectfully remind everyone of ACSOL’s Mission Statement: “The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) is dedicated to protecting the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of registrants and their families. In order to achieve that objective, ACSOL will educate and litigate as well as support or oppose legislation.”

    Moreover, ACSOL believes, in part, that “Sex offense laws and policies should be based on sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia. Current laws and policies that paint all sex offenders with one broad brush are counter- productive, wasteful, and cause needless harm. Each offense must be judged on its own merits with a punishment that fits the crime and does not waste taxpayer dollars. The public sex offender registry and residency restriction laws do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families.”

    Having been convicted in 1990, under the proposed bill I will fall 3-years short of the 1987 propose CONVICTION year for relief of registry responsibility… this, after serving 25 years in state prison. Moreover, for most all other registrants (including myself) registration time begins upon release from incarceration… unlike the conviction dates of those prior to 1987.

    Here in California, it is understood that incarceration is punishment for the offenses committed. What is unknown to many is that “290” inmates are subjected to willful deliberate indifference and punitive measures within the prison system designed, propagated and enforced by CDCR, such as housing, employment, custody levels, fear of being “found out” etc.…

    While each of us who are registered citizens have our own personal reasons for wanting the elimination of the registry, I would argue that a tiered registry is a huge step for California 290’s. Not a perfect step… but a good step nonetheless. However, on a personal note (and not unlike many 290’s) I served a great deal of time for challenging the courts and going to trial. My choice! I cannot argue that! I also spent, what I believe to be enhance and arbitrary punishment, for the nature of my offenses. And now, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel – but for some reason, the proposed law chooses to allow some 290’s to use their CONVICTION DATE to determine that they no long are required to register, while holding others to their release date from incarceration.

    I would propose that ACSOL consider supporting the idea of an either-or scenario for the 10-20 registration: In the case of 10-year registry, I propose that a 10-year registration include a period from the date of conviction OR the date of release… Whichever comes first. And for 20-year registration, it be 20 years include a period from date of conviction OR the date of release… Whichever comes first. And as for petitioning for removal… This can easily open the door for the courts to be arbitrary in its decision, rather that guarantying release from the obligation to register. Which in trun will ope the door for more litigation kin the future.

    Now is the time for change… But now is also the time to ensure that change is as fair and equal to the clear majority of registered citizens, and not just a few.

    • Notgivingup

      Well said, I do agree with this. It only makes sense to allow the clock to start ticking at the time of conviction not after your release of prison or probation. 20 years is way to long after your release date. If the bill was written with many of the changes people on this blog have suggested it might get more support.

    • Timmr

      In addition to other things, prison is imposed to rehabilitate you, so you can function as a productive citizen. Why do you need an additional full period of monitoring on top of that? If prison or probation were doing what it is supposed to do, your risk would go down. On top of that the risk is so low, the reoffense rate for all types of 290 offenders is low, and basically reaches a rate equal to the general population after 17 years offence free, there is no justification for these long periods of detainment other than they don’t want to scare the public and loose their jobs.

  75. Bill Arthur

    Two questions:

    I live in another state, but I believe I would qualify for Tier 1 and I have been registered in my state for more than 10 years after completing probation. Could I move to CA, register in CA, and then effectively be off the registry?

    The two prevailing laws seem to be:

    From the new draft bill:
    (4)(a) Persons required to register pursuant to Section 290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is assessed as equivalent to a California registrable offense describer in subdivision (c).

    And from the referenced current law Section 290.005:

    Except as provided in subdivision (c) or (d), any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, of any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state, based on the elements of the convicted offense or facts admitted by the person or found true by the trier of fact or stipulated facts in the record of military proceedings, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses described in subdivision (c) of Section 290, including offenses in which the person was a principal, as defined in Section 31.

    The question is will my registration in my home state count toward the 10 years registration in CA? I certainly don’t want to call anyone’s attention to this apparent deficit in the new draft bill, because the legislature might do what Oregon has done, which is to exclude anyone moving to Oregon from the benefits of Oregon’s very lenient law — with the stated purpose of discouraging sex offenders from moving to Oregon.

    Second question — I would be very interested in hearing what ACSOL board member Catherine Carpenter, Professor, Southwestern Law School feels about the issue of supporting the new bill. I heard Professor Carpenter speak at the Illinois Voices for Reform conference last Friday in Chicago and was enthralled with her passion, reasonableness, persuasiveness, and eloquence. I would say listen to what she thinks before deciding how to proceed.

    Also, so many of those posting seem to think that they have something to say about what the government does. Well, you don’t. It’s ridiculous to vent about what you like/don’t like about the new bill. They don’t care what we want to happen.

  76. WantsToHelp

    I don’t live in California and this bill would not affect anyone that I personally know. But just based on the experiences that I’m aware of in Texas, I’d be a little hesitant to throw support behind this bill. In Texas, there is a deregistration process that, while completely different on its face, shares many similarities on a practical level and for all intents and purposes, deregistration in Texas is a complete sham. Here it operates as such that first the individual must hurdle all the “exceptions” as to why they cannot apply. (These would be similar to the tier II and III proposals in the California bill). If those hurdles are passed and the person meets the narrow definition of who can apply, then he must have completed a state approved sex offender treatment program for (I believe) a minimum of two years. However, in-prison SOTP does not count, and unless the individual has been through an official program on the outside, his weekly/monthly $$ therapy sessions don’t count either. There are also individuals who were released from prison before the State started all the in and/or out treatment programs and mandatory requirements. So someone who went on the list retroactively and has been crime free for 20 years would still have to attend a very expensive treatment program. So, first, there’s that expense. The therapist must also sign off that the individual is rehabilitated, which can be a hurdle in and of itself. Then there’s the expense of hireing a lawyer. Once all of that has been completed, just as with the California bill, the individual has to go before a judge in the county in which he was convicted and the DA can (and nearly always does) oppose deregistration. The entire decision is entirely in the hands of the judge. And after two years and thousands of dollars, if the judge has no interest in signing off on it, everything that has come before is completely wasted. Most individuals who meet the qualifications and jump through all the hoops are then opposed by the DA and denied by the judge. So, from my perspective, and from having no skin in the game, I look at this bill and think that while it looks good on paper, in any practical sense the only people who MIGHT benefit are those who were convicted prior to 1987 and are SUPPOSEDLY meant to be automatically removed (if/whenever that actually does happen). But for everyone else, it’s arbitrary at best, and mostly just false hope. For some people, hope is enough.

    The other angle, though, which should be considered is that getting something like this on the law books is pretty damn difficult. However, once it is there, there is always the possiblity that changes can be made and wording tweaked. That is what the advocates in Texas are trying to accomplish now–get the bill that already exists tweaked to make the deregistration program more substantial. It’s kind of like, say, the ease with which someone might spend $1 here and $2 there and end up frittering away $100 without really noticing vs. being hit with a $100 purchase. It’s easy to say yes to the small things but MUCH harder to overcome the bigger sticker shock. Without a bill like this already on the books, incremental changes are impossible. There’s no guarantee that incremental changes would come quickly or even that they’d come at all, but at least the possibility of incremental changes exists. Without a bill like this on the books, no change at all is possible especially because the sticker shock of abolishing the registry all at once is so severe it will never happen. It’s true also that incremental changes could go the other direction, however in my humble opinion, the states where this has happened tend to be those in which there’s no lobbying or advocacy group available to constantly challenge them, or there are only a few very overworked advocates and volunteers without the backing of lawyers or financial resources.

    So… is this a good bill? No, it’s horrible, really, as it offers the idea or pretense of hope that will be absolutely meaningless in practicality. It will also, through the shuffling of tiers and risk factors, make life more difficult for quite a number of people.

    However, it is also being put forth by one of the few organizations that politicians might listen to and for whom it could POSSIBLY be possible to muster the political will to vote through. And unless SOMETHING, as abhorent as it is, is voted through, then theres’s nothing there to work with to start chipping away.

    On the flips side to that, those who drafted this bill did not do it because they are friendly to registrants. They did it because even they can see the bloat and waste that the registry has become, and they can see that the current system it is not good public policy and is counter to the mission they have been handed, which is to find pollicies to increase public safety. With that in mind, and understanding that it’s going to be a hard sell to get this thing passed to begin with, it’s possible that ASCOL opposition MAY cause the bill drafters to consider the issues at play and POSSIBLY give them enough reason to at least CONSIDER altering the wording on SOME of the processes. It would depend, I suppose, on how strongly they want to get the bill passed, and how highly they value ASCOL support.

    • Timmr

      ASCOL may be able to whittle down the law only if states its objections now. It may look a little ingenuous to give support now to a bill with the intention of undermining it later. That is how it could be interpreted by CASOMB or the legislature.

    • Katharine

      It would probably come down way less that they value ASCOL support and way more that they fear ASCOL lawsuits. While this draft bill has the potential to improve the lives of a few, it also has the potential to worsen the lives of many more. And anyone whose life is made worse may very well have an ex post facto case. Having to report more times a year and/or report more information. Information listed on the internet when none was before. Revocation of possible Certificates of Rehabilitation after 10 years. It all adds up. And with courts beginning to recognize that this is ex post facto punishment, ASCOL could have plenty to work with.

  77. NotLikingCA

    Do not see this as a Sophie’s choice. Improve the lives of 10k immediately and 60k in the future and continue to work to better the lives of those who would stay. Just because you can’t get everything you want doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take some improvements and this is clearly an improvement.

  78. anon

    In general, I support the bill but I can think of several improvements. First, the registry is unAmerican and immoral and should be eliminated. Second, the bill requires RSOs to file a petition to get off the registry. That implies hiring a lawyer which will make the process inaccessible to thousands of RSOs who just cannot afford an attorney. I suppose it is conceivable that the public defender could help, but those offices are generally overworked. I would have gone with something much simpler: misdemeanors get 10 years; felonies 20 years; recidivists 30 years. You can go to court to change your tier for extenuating circumstances. Of course, there is an even simpler solution–to get rid of the registry, but we are not there yet.

  79. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    I printed this bill out and read it over the weekend a few times. I also made some notes and highlights. Nonetheless, here are the things that trouble me about this bill; they are as follows:

    (1) Current unpublished offenders will be published if they fall into the Tier 2 or Tier 3 category.

    (2) Registration relief through the Certificate of Rehabilitation is removed.

    (3) Superseding reliance on the Static-99R. (The Static should be limited to periods while on parole or probation. BUT the Static-99R should NOT be used to determine tier level! Using the Static for any other reason than parole/probation begins to resemble ‘The Minority Report.’ But IF it has to be used, restrict it to only 10-years offense-free in the community. After the 10-year offense-free period, and according to its own ‘developers,’ the Static is NOT designed for use.)

    (4) Also troubling is that this bill puts equal registration penalty to offenses under 667.5 and 1192.7. Tier 2 should be limited only to the violent offenses under 667.5.

    (5) And finally, this bill does not distinguish between contact and non-contact offenses. So it is entirely possible for ‘non-contact’ offenders — even a first-time offender who has remained offense-free — to fall into the lifetime Tier 3 classification. (Of course, this would be dependent on whether they score “6” or higher on the Static. But the scoring system is ‘dubious’ at best… especially after over 5-years offense-free.)

    Thank you.

    • steve

      I was trying to figure out what happens if you were never given the static 99. In one paragraph of the draft, after explaining the use of static99, it says “if applicable”. Seems as though if you were never given it and you are past 10 years it’s not going to be factored?

  80. Ab

    How does this Bill affect those with federal registration requirements? My conviction was for possession of child pornography. After 15 years the federal government no longer will require me to register. Since California has lifetime registration for everyone right now what does that mean if this Bill were to become law? All the state based assessments do not apply in my case or a vast majority of federal cases.

    • Tired of this

      As someone with a federal conviction myself, it’s my understanding you have to follow the registration requirement of whichever state you’re in, if it’s a non-AWA/SORNA state. I recommend moving to a tier state if you can, which is what I ended up doing.

  81. G4Change

    I support this bill. I support anything that can remove registration from even some people. I view this as a first step and not a be-all and end-all in this fight. It’s not as if this bill will be passed, and then roll credits and that’s all folks. Let’s take this first step, and then let’s continue to fight!
    YES, all registries should be abolished. Let’s start by abolishing registration for some, and then, eventually (God willing) for all.
    Count me in as a supporter of this bill!

  82. Happy, joyous and free

    I am out on the east coast. I’ve been to one Texas Voices conference and one National RSOL conference. I’ve met Janice, Frank, and a whole number of great people. I am gravely concerned with this piece of legislation. I will be succinct in my reply.

    1) pushing more people into Tier III is a horrible idea.
    2) I agree with many that the DA has extensive power. I do not expect people to be released easily, and it is EXPENSIVE to go that route. How many registrants have the funds to do this? Realistically, this makes it legal while making it extremely difficult to attain. This is by design.
    3) removing the ability to get a CoR? It is called “let us make this process more difficult”
    4) 1987 dating: In case you haven’t done the math, they are willing to drop the people who have been on for a very long time and aren’t a problem. Yet they never have to admit that the registry is flawed. It’s called reducing the registry by aging out. It’s not for our benefit in the long term.
    5). I remember discussing the Romeo and Juliet cases five plus years ago. How many R&J supporters left as soon as they started being successful? I am not talking specifically in CA, but across the USA. This is a divide and conquer strategy.
    6) I am a cynic by nature and trust government very little. To me, this is a victory for some at the expense of others. I see the main reason for the bill is that Janice is doing an amazing job and being a pain in the ass to those in power. They want us to fight amongst ourselves. They want to dilute our effectiveness. Long term, this will weaken us. A hollow victory because they want us to go away.

    I am a lifetime registrant with zero hope where I live. Personally, I want to move to Portland, OR with my fiancée. I’ve been on the registry for 12+ years. Thank you.

    • Davidh

      Happy, joyous and free:

      i agree with every sentiment you shared. Dont go running off to Oregon just yet, however. They are going through precisely the same thing right now. Worst yet, the ASCOL like organization there, which i believe even has a seat at the table support throwing the “few” under the bus for the “many.” As you state, this bill is especially flawed as it leads one to believe there are the “many” yet in actuality it’s a “few” and the remaining will end up being more severely punished.

  83. mjk

    I can understand the position of those who support, as I too would likely benefit from its passage. I also understand the concerns and criticisms of those who would not benefit from its passage. Personally, I’m skeptical of any proposed “improvements” to the registry as I am about aerosol sprays that make feces vanish.

    In either case, I find it hard to believe that abolishment will ever come from within any particular state, but rather that decision will almost definitely come from the US Supreme Court. Abolishment of the registry & the CASOMB draft bill are not the same issue.

    Whether we individually support or oppose this bill, it seems obvious that we are united here in our wish to see the registry completely abolished.

  84. Timmr

    I give up. This now seems to me to be a supreme waste of time. The CASOMB said this is set in stone, meaning we are not going to make them change anything in this bill. Sounds like they have gone through a lot of arguing amongst themselves to hammer out this proposal and if you wish to change anything, it will have to be in writing letters to your legislators who may modify this bill. As for the incremental change hoped for in being in favor of this bill, I hope you guys are correct. To me this is just another example of the failed appeasement strategy of the Clinton democrats. You vote for this bill, you are stuck with it and will have to answer for it later, like they did for NAFTA or the crime bill. If that doesn’t bother you like it bothers me then fine put your stamp on it.
    What we should be doing here nonetheless is confronting those in favor of the registry, at the places were the lies are spread, online and in the face to face conversations. That is how incremental change is really going to happen, when more and more people start seeing the sham this registry is and will start to feel some conseqences for believing in it. People for example don’t smoke less now because of government decree, but because they see the damage to their lungs. It is not as easy as putting your name on a ready made bill, or arguing about it in this safe space. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me confronting the pitch fork mobs, but I can’t see a way to avoid it.

  85. mike r

    Janice ,,seems the census is absolutely no on this bill…the government is flanking us with air filled tanks and fake troops all the while why they are making precision strikes taking out our best weapons,ie frank Lindsay and the like,, so they can attack head on with virtual impunity….the fact is that Megan’s law is one suit away from being repealed and replaced with a registry only for those who the government can prove thru clear and convincing evidence standard to be a threat to the public….we have had multiple courts saying enough is enough and with the right suit,,on the real issues and theright plantiffs, would indeed be least try before you help throw us all to the wolfs…

  86. DPH

    Wow, Janice look at how many RC’s and others including Family Members responded, the most I’ve seen all year.
    Hope they see that you and the Board has the best interest in all RC’s in mind and achieving this long term goal and can be changed for third tier folks in the future for possible amendments.
    It is quite an achievement and probably stops the mostly foolish Law Firms mailer sending us false hope for thousands of dollars for nothing but to look at your case (RC individ).
    This, even though I may know a few that would be a third tier would make life possible for a larger majority than NOW.
    I also noted that the State Of Cali DOJ would take this and not meet their self goal of identifying Calif RC/s Original DATE OF CONV> and save them money by taking so many off possibly to save adding dates to thousands of Calif RC’s on the ML Site for AG’s site.
    Winning the tier system when you step back and overview may be a larger winner stepping FORWARD, not backward. And after reading EVERY Response to the 21st from your post, sadly majority doesn’t like it.
    Get Ira’s response too beside Catherine’s. This is a SERIOUS Step for a long life goal for so many here, may NOT affect Nationally, but other State’s may take note. THIS IS WAY BETTER THAN CURRENTLY for the VAST MAJORITY and makes common sense to move up and not backwards. Thank YOU and the Board for your Service. Period.
    WOW, almost 200 by time of this writ.

  87. DPH

    104,369 to the CASOMB, changing daily…this could lighten their workload as well as LE Agencies. TIERED.

  88. mike r

    follow the money people…look who realistically will make a lot of money and others who will continue to feed off the teet of the registry…the only way this bill could be rectified is (1)if it didn’t raise the level or requirements of anyone currently on or off the registry,(2) if it was automatic removal based on time and the offense ,and if you are a repeat offender or violent based on individualized risk assessments (3)that there would be some kind of guarantee that there would be no legislation in the future targeting individuals that are on or off the registry…even then it still isn’t constitutional on either the federal or state side…after all they are on the retreat I don’t care what anyone says they one has challenged smith or Connecticut in any meaningful way…those who have challenged it on the periphery have all been pretty much successful lately you even have the courts themselves stating that they only addressed one issue out of a plethora of others that can and should be challenged…helll the California case on residency restrictions is a great resource to show how non effective these laws are and how the legislators are out of control by enacting laws with absolutely no rational basis…I can’t even find hardly any case where the courts ruled that a law had no rational basis let alone a unanimous decision on it..use what leverage and momentum that we have and challenge the justification and the constitutionality of these laws on the real issues and come at them from a place of strength and demand all our amendments be included in the bill or we oppose the bill and we’ll see you in court….

  89. mike r

    also I suggest that you notify these civil servants on the record that if they pass this bill and continue to pass any more unconstitutional laws against its citizens that they are do not have personal or proffessional immunity against a suit both criminally or civil monetarily for violations of constitutional rights under color of law…stop playing nice guy and acting from a place of weakness when the ball is in our court…we’re in the last quarter with seconds on the clock, we’re down two and need that three pointer to either win or lose,make the shot..

    • CS

      mike r
      May we speak more of this suit for violations of human rights violations under color of law? I would like to sue for monetary damages for every year that the public registry has barred my employment. My yearly pay before taxes at the time of my lay off was $70,000 & I’ve been under or unemployed almost 10 years. Also would like to sue for pain & suffering due to the counseling I’ve received. Of course there’s the issue of attorney’s fees & whatever other fees the court deems necessary. & the thought that they can be held accountable with the prospect of jail time or loss of money
      might finally cool their jets. I would like to know more of this process & how to pursue it. mike r, please respond!

  90. Opposed

    I would just like to say one more thing & then I’ll rest my case. So I hope I can get my point across with as few words as possible. If this was something that would benefit the few without FURTHER punishing those left behind no matter where I fall into that category it would have my full backing & support. I’m an older registrant now with a family to consider. However, and pay very close attention to this statement, EVERYONE has a family who deals with the registry and all the issues that come with it. Even if we, as registered citizens, do not deserve peace from our pasts then our sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers who are innocent and have done nothing wrong certainly do deserve peace from our past. And to further punish us is to punish our families as well. I’m out!

  91. mike r

    I think the following statement is very misleading and and does not reflect the recent decisions in the courts or the possibility that that 60000 would get relief which is very questionable if the Da and Judges have anything to say about it…Your stating that there is no other option and that we ahve to accept ths deal or suffer for ever the unconstitutional regime thats currently in place..
    “The organization therefore is faced with a “Sophie’s choice”. Do we agree to the “immediate” liberation of more than 10,000 registrants from the punishments inflicted by the registry and the “ultimate” liberation of about 60,000 registrants from the same punishments? Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do? And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime.”..
    Those are not in fact our only choices as there are many many others if we can find the will and the resources to fight this, as shown in recent court decisions….

  92. mike r

    No wonder we cant get any real action if all our warriors have already conceded to defeat….

  93. Davidh

    I would conclude as follows:

    I’m becoming almost immune to life changers, so I’m not going to argue my view any longer. In fact, there was a lot of argument I made against this just off other’s posts without reading more thoroughly than a scan. Now that I’ve read it more thoroughly I place myself at a tier 2 with 15 years registration logged.

    I honestly dont understand how to conclusively score issues on 99, so I figure that’s the only potential snag for me.

    i was arguing against this, so now after reading it through I have learned I probably benefit from it. I’d be a hypocrite to change my argument, so I have to end my lobby with pretty much as I’ve argued for: pass with modification, I think a lot of us fall into this camp!

    i also think carsol; could meet their objectives in some way doing so.

  94. mike r

    one more thing…where is the rational basis or connection between the public notification or registration requirements to online offenders??? other than the Internet indetifier requirements that doesn’t apply retroactively there is absolutely no nexus between registration and public safety…these laws have zero effect on public safety as they are proclaimed to give people notice of who are living in their communities…althouth the entire registration scheme has zero effect on public safety it really has no rationalty when applied to online offenders…I am really disturbed that we were told that we either choose this bill or condone ourselves to a lifetime on the registry….this is NOT our only choice if someone is willing and able to fight and doesn’t just give in to defeat without even putting up a real fight …..very disturbing that that is exactly the position of this organization and others….of course non of them have anything to lose right….I’ll never concede defeat and will continue to fight for my god giving rights…even though all ohr forefathers and generstions have fought for your rights i guess if your not willing to fight for your rights you must not deserve them….

  95. mike r

    correct me if I’m wrong but is it to much to ask or expect that any legislation is based on facts and empirical evidence and be reasonable and be reasonably connected to a effective it to much to ask that a registry,if you must have it, should be reasonable, based on empirical evidence and facts and puts the burden of proof on the government to show that an individual poses a significant risk for re offense and that public safety will be increased if the individual is placed on some kind of registry???I think it is very reasonable….

  96. Thoughtasweak

    I know that Janice values everyone’s opinion, if that wasn’t true Janice would have decided on her own on what she wanted to do regarding this bill.

    There are issues with the bill, everyone can agree with that, but we also have to look at how many people we can also help with the passing of a teired bill.

    IF ACSOL can tweak the current bill to address a lot of the concerns of the current version, would you all be in support of the bill?

    • Davidh

      On tweaks, I’d agree. As I said I believe I’d be helped by this, but there is still a lot of scary stuff. i dont think this abolishes once a SO always an SO. Imagine them coming back years down the road and saying you need to register again. While I’d buy in to some tweaks I cant denounce anyone who gets left behind–what’s going on here is still wrong!

      • Davidh

        Just on a further note. yes on tweaks, if the organization agrees to continue to challenge the constitutionality of registries in federal court. If the Org agrees to some form of it then other than federal challenges would be disingenuous.

        My read was most objected to static 99 as do I. Along with politicized offices being involved in the releasing from obligation process. With these two items as well as perhaps no ex-post facto on top of what already exists I think it’s sell. The latter being moved into tier 3 at the time of passage. Or even perhaps recently convicted, as they knew of these laws, as opposed to a lot of us where these laws didn’t exist when we made our deal.

    • Happy, joyous and free

      @ThoughtasWeak: hope you are well, it’s been a while since we talked on the phone. If I lived out in CA and ACSOL can get the legislature to tweak the bill to fix the flaws, then I would support it. I realize Janice cares about us, as she asked for opinions, and I know she reads them.

  97. Andrej Dixon

    Can you please clarify whether a misdemeanor 647.6(a), with an applied for and granted exclusion from the site, will be published under this bill?
    Regardless I do not support this bill, however ANY clarification would help immensely.
    Thank you.

  98. B.Wat

    I just had a thought, I’ve been wondering, what the year 1987 in the draft means. Maybe the ca.doj can’t go back any further than 1987, that would make them noncompliant with the law suit Janice filed to bring everyone’s information up to date. I didn’t think CASMOB would do this out of the goodness of there heart, there has to be another reason!

  99. Joe123


    If there is a chance to make the amendments that people have mentioned here, then it makes sense to oppose the current bill, as it will harm more families than it will help. Although this bill seems like a blessing, it may setup a precedent to make it very hard to pass future challenges to this bill. It’s basically like the state saying “See, you were fine with the tiered bill, so now you can’t complain about it”. I would suggest more push back to the state. If the static 99 wasn’t designed for use beyond 5-10 years, then it shouldn’t be used as the prominent tool to determine risk here. It seems like your team should really look at this bill and see if a potentially better solution could be proposed. If there is any chance that a better solution can be reached, then this bill shouldn’t be approved, just for short term gains. However, if this bill will make it easier to propose challenges to the laws in the future, then it should be passed.

    • HopingforHope

      How would risk level be determined for those of us who never took the Static? Would risk level be assigned strictly on the nature of the offense, or would the passage of time come into play?

  100. Eric

    10 years, 20 years, lifetime. Why these numbers? They are arbitrary and not supported by data. Every year on the registry costs the state money and delays a registrant’s return to full community membership. How about: 5 years for tier 1, 10 years for tier 2, 15 years for tier 3. Fifteen years without recidivism is a clear indication of new behaviors, a new way of life.

    Regardless, the registry itself had not been shown to reduce crime.

  101. David

    Bill or no bill, I can’t help but think that the scum-politicians will simply do a work-around and change the wording of existing laws from “registered sex offender” to “convicted sex offender”, so there would be no relief whether one remains on the Registry of not – all laws, regulations and restrictions would still apply. Still subject to IML and Angel Watch bullshit. Still no visiting your kid’s school for PTA, softball game or holiday play performance. I’m sorry, but I have no trust in pandering polititicians – while they shake with their right hand, they’re stabbing you in the back with their left. Besides, speaking from a strictly selfish perspective, I have no idea what tier/assessed risk level I am, but I don’t imagine this will change my life in any way. However….. the simple act of introducing this bill and the discussion (and possibly public interest) it might encourage, could benefit all of us if the public looks at the reasons the bill is being introduced, the facts, the research, etc. …. and the unconstitutional travesty of neverending punishment.

  102. Timmr

    I have never been scored for the Static 99, so I was wondering at what point in the process a convicted offender is scored, and is that score updated when the actuarial test is later changed? It looks like the Static. 99 has gone through continuous mutation since its inception, with varying accuracy results.
    Someone could be put in a high risk catagory one year, to maybe be rescored and have a lower risk when the test is updated. So it looks like with this bill you are stuck with the score from whatever incarnation of the test they had at the time.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      That is one of the many flaws to the Static-99R scam. Many of the papers and studies praising the credibility of the Static strangely cite papers made by Karl Hanson, David Thornton, and Leslie Helmus in their admiration of the Static. For those of you who aren’t aware, Hanson, Thornton, and Helmus are all “developers” (i.e. they created the Frankenstein) of the Static-99R. So Hanson, Thornton, and Helmus have a vested, conflict-of-interest, interest in praising the damn thing!

      The recent paper by Jill Levenson, Melissa Grady, and George Leibowitz is one example of a paper that seems completely oblivious to the bias material cited. I was appalled by this paper, because given the great information Levenson has given to prior date, it seems that she should have known better than to cite ALL FOUR (4/4) papers by the Static-99R’s own “developers” (with Hanson in all but one, and Helmus in the other) praising the Static!

      Look at the paper, page 18, how Levenson cited “Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Hanson & Thornton, 1999; Hanson, Thornton, Helmus, & Babchishin, 2015; Helmus et al., 2012.” Hanson in three of the four papers cited (2009, 1999, 2015). Thornton in one of the papers cited (2015). And Helmus in the last paper cited (2012). You can find a copy of the paper in the following link:

      Again, there is very little evidence in the Static’s ACTUAL accuracy after five years. And even the accuracy within the five year period is even more questionable, given the “developers” lack of transparency in releasing the original predicating data for all independent researchers to review.

      Further, I guarantee that the CA DOJ and CASOMB will cite the following paper praising the Static-99R:

      But consider the authors of the paper: (1) California Department of Justice; (2) Karl Hanson (again, the ‘developer’ praising his own work); and (3) a place called Carleton University. What’s interesting about Carleton University is that Karl Hanson actually WORKS at Carleton University:

      So the so-called “studies” praising the Static-99R scam are citing other studies completely smothered and sprayed with ‘conflict-of-interest.’ At minimum, should this bill pass, it should completely exclude reliance on the Static-99R to determine ANY tier level. The Static-99R is first-degree pseudo science. The Static is not all that different from the precogs in ‘The Minority Report.’

      Some of us have already discussed many of the flaws to the Static in the following link (refer to comments section):

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        I just wanted to add that the paper by the California Department of Justice, Karl Hanson, and Hanson’s Carleton University (a research university that ranks near the bottom of worldwide ranking) only reviews the Static-99R for a 5-year period. It does not go any further than that. Thus, it would seem very premature to rely on the Static for the LIFETIME determination of putting someone into Tier 3. Yet this is what this bill is asking the Legislature to do.

        Furthermore, the Static is not designed for application for a person who has remained offense-free in the community for 10 years or more. Another fallacy that really has me wondering: why is the Static going to be used to determine whether someone falls into the lifetime Tier 3 bracket?

        Sorry guys. But it makes absolutely no sense.

      • Davidh

        Tobin Tools

        that sounds like a good letter to write

        to: casomb

        from: ASCOL

        After review of your proposed legislation, we cant support it in it’s current form. It has the same serious flaws that brought us the destructive registries to begin with. Most notable is the use of the static 99 form for the purpose of Assessing one’s risk at end of tier-term limits and placement about within the registry: per the included research by our organization, which is a compendium of primary research in the field of associated study the Static 99 fails at minimum to measure risk beyond a 5 year window… etc, etc. Before getting behind this, We would propose a “common sense” approach by those who are stake holders within the process to assess risk based upon the totality of one’s life, including to the present time period. etc., etc.,

      • Timmr

        Yes, I found the papers critical of the static 99 to be few and far between. But when you made your arguments, you didn’t reference where you get your information, so we all can check it out, and see you know what you are talking about.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          The papers are all within the links that I provide (in .pdf form).

    • Janice Bellucci

      It is our understanding that registrants may obtain a new Static-99R score, however, they will have to pay for that service and then provide the necessary documents to CA DOJ.

      • PK

        I was told by 2 leading psychologists in New York State that the Static 99 is only relevant for a period of 10 years. Since my offense was 16 years ago, neither of them wanted to provide that. I’m working on a downward departure.

      • Joe

        With all due respect… that makes no sense. As the name implies, the Static-99 is static. 2 years, 10 years, 20 years, 80 years later most of it is not going to change.

        Age at release, priors and victim info (1,4,5,6,8,9,10) are set in concrete, forever and ever. That is 7 out of 10. The biggest swing being age (current).

        Regarding the remaining items… as much discussed here, #7 gives a worse score to non-contact offenses than contact offenses. Having a photo of a topless 16 year old she sent herself is a greater risk level than anally raping a toddler? Makes no sense. Is it possible they are talking about these offenses in addition to the instant offense?

        Also, #8 gives a worse score for unrelated than related. It makes no sense that someone is considered a greater threat for having a relationship with a willing 16/17 year old unrelated person (with a fake ID, met in a bar, sexually aggressive) or a drunken encounter with another adult in a he said / she said situation, than raping a 5 year old niece / daughter.

        I suppose they have the recidivism data to back up their claims? If so, then only for a limited time period. That must not get lost in the shuffle.

        • lad

          Thanks for the good points Joe. For me, the thing that would be my demise is also the static 99. CDCR also gave me a 6 for a .006 offense. Ironically also 1st time non violent. So from tier I to III because of 1 point? I got off parole no violations. Not in trouble since the arrest. Been working for a temp agency, saving, staying outta trouble for 4 yrs after spending a yr in prison. 290.006 has always been the (excuse my language) bastard step child of 290. It was added in 2007. If the politicians wanted to add a 290 offense, they should have added it SPECIFICALLY to 290. Instead 290.006 leaves a standard that relies on either a feeling or thought. But any way sorry for the rant. A lot of us it seems are gonna get screwed by scam/static 99. Risk is not all that better than offense registration. In theory it sounds great. But the reality is risk is gonna go into crime fortune telling and in this case using a really flawed tool, the static. At least offense based is based on something that actually happened.

        • PK

          Well you’re the Psychologist Joe why don’t you call them to argue your points?

          “The STATIC-99R is the standard assessment of historical (static) risk factors for sexual recidivism. However, the manual indicates that, “The STATIC-99 is not applicable to offenders who have had more than 10 years at liberty in the community without a sexual offence…” (Harris et al., page 7). Because Mr. X committed his only sexual offense roughly 16 years ago, I will organize my risk assessment around the 20 criteria of the Sexual Violence Rick-20 (SVR-2), which is a structured professional judgement approach.”

        • Timmr

          It’s because they have to compare your score to a sample group of offenders to get your percentage of risk. They keep changing that sample group.

          “Alice In Actuarial-Land: Through the Looking Glass of Changing Static-99 Norms”

          • Tobin's Tools 2.0


            You bring up a good analysis that highlights just some of the many flaws to the Static-99R. Here is an actual pdf:


            That analysis, published in a top-tier medical journal, is written by very respected MD and PhDs from respected schools (Duke University School of Medicine, USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Washington). The authors do a good job at mentioning just some of the many flaws to the Static. They call the Static 99 and 99R “dubious” [Apart from the dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications, the validity of the risk scores themselves is dubious, given different definitions of recidivism in the norming samples, lack of clarity in statistical methods, and an overreliance on unpublished manuscripts and presentations to document methods.”].

            The professors also emphasize that the Static-99R relies on “unpublished” papers. It’s cited in the following:

            “Of note, both the Static-99 and the Static-99R normative data are based overwhelmingly on unpublished findings. Many are doctoral or master’s theses, with limited details as to who comprised the study sample.” At 402.

            What’s interesting is that the theses papers cited are from L. Maaike Helmus. Leslie Helmus is now one of the “developers” to the Static scam:


            I think the last sentence of the paper you cite says it best in the very last sentence: “They should reflect reasoned judgments based on an understanding of all elements of a case, not just a small number of risk factors.”

            Indeed 10 questionable “risk factors” — risk factors that only take into account your age at release from incarceration (not current age) — is wholly inadequate. And it should be troubling that the Static-99R, as applied in this bill, may be the sole determinant in classifying people as Tier 3.

            This is definitely something that the Static-99R scam was never intended to do!

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0


          Actually, your current age is not even considered in the Static-99R score. Only your “age of release” is factored into scoring. So the Static-99R does NOT at all take into account offense-free years in the community. It assumes that you are the same “risk” as when a person is released from jail or prison. Quite stupid in my opinion.

          Which makes the Static-99R even more troubling.

      • Davidh


        Why would someone get a new anything when the anything has expired in its usefulness as some see it to be?? If the static 99 is a 5 year tool max and I’m a 15 year registrant why would I want a new static 99 especially when I’ve never had one. Per all school of thought, it’s a test, in my case anyway, that is invalid!

      • Not Really


        A high static score assumes a more dangerous person. To balance that, we should have access to any CODIS results. If there are no CODIS hits from outstanding/unsolved crimes, then that could weigh more heavily than a made-up static test. The use of violent/serious crimes in 290 opens the door to this and it should be included in publications.

        Static-99 = 6
        CODIS hits = 0

        Please try to add to the bill the ability to access our CODIS or state database run information so we can include that evidence in petition hearings. How else can we argue we aren’t serial killers?

        • lad

          From what I’ve read the static 99 doesn’t measure “dangerousness” per se. Not at all in fact. The static is an alleged prediction of RECIDIVISM. This is the problem!! Cause exhibitionism, voyeurism, having underage pictures, burglary fetishes and other no contacts are not the same as violent rapes, child molesting, etc. But the static treats all these crimes equal & lumps them into a dumb number score. Recidivism of someone exposing their ding dong or taking panties from a laundrymat is not the same as recidivism for someone sticking their wang into another person without their adult consent w/ force. Obviously the latter is a lot worse. Which is not all that different than the system we have now because it still lumps all crimes together. Except with the static the guy who exposed his ding dong gets the extra 1 point penalty cause it is no contact. Even if it was a 1st time offense. So all else equal u will have a bunch of non contact offenders w/ higher scores than the violent offenders.

      • PIA

        Thats a FLAW, WHY should WE pay for #1 a FLAWED test and #2 why should WE PAY at all ?

        And even if given for FREE then we are IMPRISONED AGAIN to go do STATE CRAP on our own time (imprisoned again)..

        That is what this govt is all about providing FALSE information and this just FEEDS IT more.

        A static 99r from 10-20-30 yrs ago is useless bs.

        So they are going to RATE someone for level 1-2-3 on a crime that is 10-20+ yrs old ?
        yes it would be nice to become a L1 and get off PUBLIC SHAME LIST after 10 yrs or L2 and 20 yrs.

        The public thinks like (if your level headed) like a credit report if the debt is OVER XXXX yrs old they dont count it against you much anymore. And the SOL (Stat of Lim) says the NEGATIVE is gone after 7 yrs (and BK after 10)…

  103. mike r

    lets clear this up since this organization is either incompetent or they left out the most common offense on the registry in their assesment of the tiers purposely for some unknown reason..
    a simple 288.(a) lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14 is a tier two offense….that means if you have this offense and have never reoffended or if you attempted or conspired to commit this offense you will be a tier two…Jesus people the bill is incredibly straight forward and even this organization cant explain it correctly…wowww

  104. G4Change

    Regarding: Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill

    Can someone please advise. I read through the Guide to the Tiers that was added to this article. Does Tier 1 include all misdemeanors? I didn’t see 288 (C) (1) listed anywhere up there. 288 (C) (1) is a wobbler, and I had it reduced to a misdemeanor. So, I’m wondering if that would also be under Tier 1?

    Thank you for all of your hard work with all of this!!!

  105. Steve

    For the same reason I would have fought this if it didn’t go my way, my family, is the same reason I’m going to have to support it. My wife and kids have suffered way to much and deserve a shot at relief. It’s all we got right now and I’m willing to taking a chance in front of a judge. That’s what I’ve been asking for for 20 years. I’m hopeful this will eventually help everyone down the line. It’s not perfect by any means but what in life is. God bless everyone in this mess.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      If they can strike the Static requirement, then I would like this bill. Because as it stands, with the Static (I have a “6”), I would be in Tier 3. But without the Static, I would be at Tier 1. Two very stark differences.

      All for a felony 290.006 offense (i.e. not specifically listed under 290), first-time, non-contact, with no other criminal record. This does not seem very fair to put so much weight on a very questionable ‘instrument’ that has only been validated for a 5-year period in California (and is not to be applied for more than 10-years a person has been offense-free in the community).

      The Static should only be used in determining parole or probation supervision levels for the first few years following release (i.e. 5 years). But to put so much weight on the Static in using it to determine Tier 3 lifetime level? Will our legislators really allow this to happen when the Static is at complete odds to logic?

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        If I had scored only ONE damn point lower on the Static-99R scam, I’d be in Tier 1… not Tier 3. What baloney!

        But even if the Static prerequisite for Tier 3 was removed, I’d still be at odds with my conscience. Sure, I’d hypothetically be placed in Tier 1. But yet there will still be a third of the registry, not a small number by any means (> 30,000 people), stuck at Tier 3 for life. And another group, the Tier 2, in a sort of limbo. Those Tier 2’s will be hoping those tiers are never expanded in the event a politically charged crime occurs and/or the whims of legislators dictate for the worsening of laws for those at the upper Tiers. Like in New York, they expanded the registration duration of tiers. What is to guarantee that it will not happen here in California?

        It would be completely hypocritical of me to support this bill if it helps me, but yet oppose this bill if it hurts me. Just because it might immensely help one group (i.e. you and/or me), is it right to support it when it is at a great cost of another? Because that is what this bill forces us to do. That’s the ethical and strategic dilemma faced here. Sure, 10,000 will be freed. But in the long-term, how is it going to REALLY effect the 90,000+ that remain on the registry?

        This bill will either help -or- this bill will backfire. It’s really hard to tell which it will do in the long-term. But the fact that it is written by CASOMB and prosecutors — and is convoluted in verbiage — MIGHT be indicative of the future traps that lay within this bill. The “unknown knowns,” in quoting former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, so to speak.

        Should those traps be used against us in the future? Who knows.

        This is what troubles me about this bill. As it is, I just want to move on from the past. As with the rest of you, we’ve learned from our mistakes and just want to move on.

    • Chris F

      I can tell you from the statistics in Texas, when left to a judge to decide you are left with only 1/3 getting approved. That is from a group that already has the approval of the sex offender management board to be removed and met all criteria for removal. Only 1/3!

      Judges are elected and don’t want to risk their career for you. It’s just a fact of our current system.

      Best of luck though!

  106. Not Really

    One thing I need to know about this bill. What about those who were entrapped by Perverted Justice on “To Catch a Predator”? Where will they stand? No, I wasn’t one of them, but I hate that!

  107. Jo

    You know what’s going to be “fun”? Let’s say this passes, you’ve worked hard to be removed and finally you’re off only to find 50+ internet sites that still say you’re on the registry and they could care less if it’s correct info or not.

  108. Davidh

    This statute listed under tier 3 is confusing, as no mention of a single conviction is listed any where that I can see:

    ” Repeat felony child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288(a))”

    what tier is one conviction?

  109. marie

    My son was convicted 261.5c and 261.5d and scored 2 on static 99. Anyone have any clue what tier he would be? Thank you in advance.

  110. wonderin

    Obviously, asking for opinions on such a confusing, ambiguous and incomplete proposal raises more questions than answers.
    I would prefer to see strategies to eliminate the registry (as it stands) entirely and respectful arguments why they would or would not work.
    For instance: In my sentence, I was required to register for life. At the time of my sentence registering entailed only specific requirements and hardships which the judge was aware of.
    Those have been changed dramatically without due process which has in effect changed the sentence the judge levied on me and all those like me?
    The judges sentenced most of us to a simple notification process to keep law enforcement aware of our location for apprehension or questioning (in case a sexual crime was committed) and consistent with the foundation of the origin of the law.
    For the state to arbitrarily increase our sentence with reckless disregard for the consequences to us and our families is clearly a breach of our right to a fair hearing before another court of law; Furthermore, to require us to seek relief from registering by proving we are no longer a threat places the burden of proof upon us instead of the court.
    Is it any wonder that most people are wary of the state and their intentions, with this proposed tiered bill?


    After reading the proposed bill and the comments, I really think this should not be supported. The name of this organization has the word CONSTITUTIONAL in it. A registry is unconstitutional no matter if it has tiers or not. It is still a registry. Whatever happened to the 17 year assessment CASOMB had in their report? I think everyone that was convicted in the last century should be dropped from the list. I really think that they should practice what they preach, and so should this organization. I donate, but if this is passed, I will not donate again as I will not support and fund my own demise.

    • NPS

      When ACSOL mentions “Constitutional”, it talks about having sex offense laws that are constitutional. I don’t think anyone is nor should be arguing that we shouldn’t have sex offense laws. If a crime of a sexual nature has been committed, then there should be a punishment that is appropriate and not in violation of the Constitution. That is what this organization is fighting for.

      As per this draft bill, and this is a DRAFT, no one from the organization has had any input in this bill. Janice isn’t writing it. If this organization decides that they are not going to endorse, it may or may not have an effect on what the legislature will do. They could still pass the tiered registry regardless of ACSOL’s dissent, but why place the blame on Janice and Company by withholding donations? Do you actually believe that this organization will cease to exist once the tiered registry is enacted? Don’t be so naive.

      • David Kennerly

        Agreed. Janice solicited us, in entirely good faith, for our ideas and opinions in response to this proposal which was not authored either by her or ACSOL.

        We should be reassured if anything, that our views count and that we are participating fully in shaping the direction of this movement.

        To distort this into a sign that we are excluded from this process is quite unfair and corrosive to that very spirit of engagement.

        This is precisely the sort of thing we should be doing; considering future legislation with a view to how it will affect us individually and as a group. No one else is asking us to do this nor have they ever. Previously, laws were simply imposed upon us without any consideration for how it would impinge upon our lives or serve the interest of justice. That may still happen here but it will not be because of what Janice or ACSOL are doing or failing to do.

        Let’s try to hold it together, shall we?


        I think the person was referring to the unconstitutionality of the registry itself, which is a sex offender law. So by extension, so would be any bill pertaining to the registry.

    • lad

      HOOKSCAR, I don’t blame u for feeling like u do and u have every right 2 feel that way. As a matter of fact I feel the same. I (and sum other people here) am gonna get put in tier III cause of being 1 point too high on the static for 1st time offense. Otherwise looks like we’d be put in tier I for 290.006. Like I said I work, 13 bucks an hr, go to the acsol meetings every 4 months & also donate at least 80 bucks a meeting. So 4 me, it is pretty much a day’s hard work after taxes. Do I feel about this bill? yes. Angry? yes. I HOPE there will be CHANGE to this bill. But I don’t want to have 2 much expectation like I did in obama. as of now i am not put on megan’s website. but should this bill pass the static will be the only reason i am put on the website. I’m gonna brace myself and prepare 4 the worst cause this thing is gonna pass.

  112. mike r

    a tiered registry is still a unconstitutional registry..a ducks a duck no matter what color or species of duck it is it’s still a duck…this and Mos organizations have already conceded defeat….they are either to incompetent or are simply unwilling to attempt a real strike against the government…bottom line…

    • NPS

      Then get your lawyers together and start your own organization.

      • lad

        Sounds expensive NPS but mike does gave a point. Cause if we r donating 2 this organization anyway, why not some one start another that will not just throw the tier II & III under the bus. But then again lets see what happens. To me this bill would be OK if they took the stupid static off tier III. Or maybe at least keep the static only for tier III for people w/ 2 or more separate conviction dates. 1st time offenders who score high on static doesn’t deserve tier III if they r non contact. peace!

        • NPS

          Of course it’s expensive. That’s why we donate to the organization.

          The problem with MikeR is that he’s pissing on the very organization that has made his life a little bit easier. Without Janice and Co., there would still be residency restrictions, there’d still be presence restrictions, there’d still be the requirement to post signs on Halloween.

          Hey, if he thinks he can do much better, then he needs to either put up the funds for his own organization or shut up. Frankly, I’d rather him do the latter. He is far too divisive and too overly critical of those making the effort to combat the registry.

  113. Unforgiven citizen

    miker, thanks for your insite and sharing clarity to this bill. But did you have to insult people doing there best to help. We all know legislation is written by lawyers for lawerys so its not always easy for the everyday Joe to understand the language as written.
    We all feel frustrated from time to time as its difficult to deal with the consquinces of our actions and the pain we caused others because of them. Unfortunately society looks at us with destrust because they belive we have no control of our actions, and to be honest there is a small percent that trully are a danger to society and should be locked up for life. We all know this to be fact. Unforgently we all pay for this irrational fear of soicity’s bogeyman (RSO).
    As its said many times here, we need to educate people too the fact we’re not all the same and the odds of the bogeyman taking our children is one in ten million, and registration does not keep them safe.
    A tier registration is a start in that direction in my humble openion.
    Keep up the hard work, I do look forward to your input and view on the fight to protect the constitutional rights of all RSO and continue to educate people on actual facts about sexual offence crimes and the likelihood to reoffend.

  114. hh

    What happens if you are a level 2 or 3 and have already been granted a certificate of rehabilitation ? Do you get off or does the cor mean nothing ?

  115. jo

    Janice et al didn’t write the legislation, some of the comments here make it sound like she can add and subtract certain provisions. I think you guys should support it. Is it perfect? No. Is the registry constitutional? Debatable. But it is not going away any time soon, and like you said before, baby steps, little victories. Once the law is in place, it will be easier to amend and change, but to get this even to be voted on is a milestone. More attention to our situation. Personally, I love the idea of being able to petition to get off in 2 years time, and that is a heck of a lot better than the prospect of never getting off. So, do we LOVE the bill? No. Is it livable? People, we have not a leg to stand on, so any relief or potential for relief has to be seen as a godsend.

    • lad

      U say it has “potential” for “relief.” But this bill has the potential to open a can of worms as well. This bill is pretty much a double edged sword!! For one, the high static for tier III gives the gov’t permission/power in using a really dumb tool to “assess” us and put us in tiers. Giving the static any power like that will create scary precedence. It’s like we r asking 4 more problems.

  116. Eric

    The proposed bill is unjust in a number of ways. Why treat attempts just as harshly as completed crimes? Why is tier 3 for life? Why isn’t data the basis of the policy?

    But if we object, what options do we have?

    Do we have a seat at the table?

    I doubt it.

    What leverage would we have over the drafters or those voting on the bill?

    I think we have to start asking ourselves, What would Karl Rove do if he were in tier 3? What would Saul Alinsky do? There are many ways to influence policymakers.

  117. E

    Wouldn’t the abolishment of the registry happen on a federal level? I still don’t understand how this bill affects the goal of abolishing the registry. I was under the impression that at some point the constitutionality of the registry will be fought at the Supreme Court where all the new evidence and restrictions that didn’t exist 13 years ago wil be presented. Won’t this happen with or without a tiered registry in CA?

    • Timmr

      I haven’t seen in their mission statement or in any declarations from the board that ASCOL has the goal of abolishing the registry.

      • New Person

        I dunno if Janice’s declaration in a SO conference a few years ago where she stated she was gonna get registration repealed a la the internment camp.

        but officially, I haven’t seen anything on this new ACSOL.

    • ReadyToFight

      Good question “E”

    • Timmr

      Their goal may be to eventually go to the Supreme Court and challege Smith vs. Doe, but that wouldn’t necessarily abolish the registry itself. If won, it would mean the ex post facto laws that came after an individual’s sentencing would be invalid. Registration would then become a part of sentencing, not regulation.
      In my opinion, if ASCOL supports this bill, they would have a hard time later convincing anyone they were against ex post punishment, unless their support is worded so it is conditional that no new restrictions are placed on any registrant because of this bill.


        So many people don’t understand the basis for the registry itself is flawed. In order to pass it, they HAVE to justify the “need” to violate someone’s rights. They did so based on public safety by way of high recidivism rates. That was the only way they could get it allowed.

        We know that wasn’t true. I call it a lie but call it what you’s surely continued on a lie.

        I WILL challenge that lie…
        So we can accept better (this bill isn’t that) or focus all of our attention on best.

      • Davidh


        good observation. in addition to that I think it would be wise for ASCOL to send a notice as to why it’s specially against it-citing each issue and why. Static 99 is a good example. There is plenty of evidence to prove it’s a terrible way to measure and to place RC’s in the registry. If people felt like there was a hope one day to be relieved of this process then they may even win the registrant’s approval. There are people who need to be followed and we are a rationale group of people with sons, daughter and wives ourselves and capable of selfless opinion.

    • jo

      There is WAAAAAY too much money and way too much public sentiment to ever overthrow the registry. Look I am right there with you on all this, but you have to be realistic.


        I think your assestnent is unrealistic. Michigan has already shown you that public sentiment matters not to those still worried about constitutional law.

        You, however, will get exactly what you expect because you’ll accept less… You already have mentally.

        • Joe

          Considering the strong disapproval of and the condescending tone towards those in favor of a tiered registry… I just noticed this statement by you:

          “…I plan on changing my name when this ness is over. Another year! …”

          What does that mean? Is this (m)ess over and the registry going to be completely abolished in another year? Are you in a state with a tiered registry that lets you off in another year and you are looking forward to that?

          Call me curious Joe…


            Did you miss the part where I was 10 years, bumped to 20 and then moved to get the 15, I’m at now. There’s no guarantee that once I’m off that I won’t be put back on with the stroke of a legislative pen. That’s what not fighting for eradication offers you. Your future, all of our futures are in danger.

            As for this bill, it stands as a horrible idea on its own. One seeming step forward and numerous steps back.

            • Joe

              That is what I thought…

              So let me get this straight…. you will get to stop registering after 20 years or less dealing with this. Good for you. Congratulations.

              But you want over 100,000 individuals (one hundred thousand – with convictions dating back to the Eisenhower era) to NOT be afforded this very same second chance out of principle (I guess you will gladly sign “off” the registry when your time comes) and, more importantly, so you cannot, at some point in the future, be again required to register.

              You really think they should live and die with this burden so you can make a point and be protected in the future. And pontificate here about principles and such.

              You cannot make this stuff up…

              • Manny

                Yes, no kidding… it is called ‘taking one for the team’. Except in this case it is tens of thousands taking one for ‘Team’.

                Har har.


                  You guys are absolutely right. What the hell was I thinking! I’ll change my site name to aolishtgeregistryfor100, immediately. Sheesh…

                  • Joe

                    He is probably talking about your clever user name.

                    BTW – how is that web site going? I see you are still hanging around here. By now you should be too busy for the likes of us. No?


                      I knew what he meant.
                      It’s doing exactly what I expected a new site to do.

                      As for the rest, I made it clear that’d I’d post on both. You made an account didn’t you Joe/Jo? Why not pop in and take a look.

                      As for the lines of “us” bit.. There are only a few here that are a mild annoyance but I don’t hold it against them no more than I would an autistic kid that broke one of my drinking glasses.


                You seem to mysteriously skip over the registry changing my registry times. How about the others that are also in California who are off in short times that oppose this bill? Also it’s kind of weird for you to bring up 100,000 I’m supposedly stopping from being released when I’m proposing that the entire registry be abolished. Not very logical of you. “You can’t make this stuff up…” That doesn’t keep people like you from trying.

                • Joe

                  “How about the others that are also in California who are off in short times that oppose this bill?”

                  Huh??? Who – on God’s green earth, or in the Golden State, are you talking about? Who gets off in California? In a short time? In a long time? Ever? Mysteriously or in reality?

                  Surely a person with your vast knowledge about the subject is aware that everyone in California is a lifer. That goes for the guy who made a rude comment to a teenager riding the bus, as well as for John Albert Gardner. Life, as in life, until your very last breath.

                  It is over 100,000 individuals who you propose should stay on this list for the rest of their lives, while you presumably will enjoy your new-found freedom next year. That is weird to bring up? I trust you will not turn down de-registration out of principle and solidarity. Tell me you will, and tell me you did, and prepare for a big fat apology from me.

                  It is over 100,000 individuals who you propose should stay on this list for life while you “propose the entire registry should be abolished”. Where is that “proposal”? Pontificating on this web site without pertinent knowledge in a condescending tone? Buying a domain name, at godaddy for $10 / year and one-click installing some software that my 12 year old nephew could do in his sleep?

                  Neither of these are proposals, nor actions, and certainly not achievements. That is weird to bring up?

                  Am I in the wrong movie???


                    Are you having a few wild turkey shots for thanksgiving? You remind me of “Doc” the way you’re all over the place. You’re inferring things I didn’t say, ignoring context like you have comprehension problems so are you posting drunk?

                    Speaking about my site: I posted a quick pita pizza recipe if you’re interested. I have a place for blogs now too so people can talk about their everyday lives. So come over, start a blog, get Turkey day plastered and bitch till you pass out!

        • jo

          Slow your roll home-skillet. No need to tell me what I do or don’t accept mentally or whatever. I am merely stating my opinion. The registry is a mild annoyance to me. Unlike some, I do not allow it to dictate my freedom or happiness. I am resigned to expect it to not go away, would be thrilled if it did but not expecting it to happen. Regardless, I am hopeful it does someday and will always contribute to it’s demise with my resources.

          I get what I expect because I set my goals and they have nothing to do with the registry. My comment was my opinion and my hope is that other’s don’t get so focused on it to the point they are cowering in a corner. So what if people know you committed a sex crime? You screwed up. Don’t do it again. Move on. You are NOT a sex offender, you committed a sex offense. I stole a candy bar when I was in the 8th grade, doesn’t make me a Candy Stealer for life. If people are going to judge you, screw them and find people who won’t. Can’t find a place to live, find another place. Another job. Move forward as best as you can. That’s all.

      • Timmr

        I beg to differ. America was not built by those who were realistic, but by those who could realize what looks impossible.


      Actually the states can do much. Michigan should be a sign to that. It just takes a lawyer or advocacy group willing to file the suit and do the work.

    • New Person

      It would be nice if CASOMB actually utilized contemporary researched facts, but it does not.

      When 99% registrants do not re-offend, then what exactly is the point of the LIFETIME registration? When Janice sends a statement that there is clear evidence that 17 years is the max needed for determining recidivism, then why does LIFETIME registration continue to exist in a tiered system that is brought up today, not back in the 2003?

      This tiered proposition actually makes things worse for other registrants. The Michigan courts have deemed that enhancement “Ex Post Facto”. If ACSOL does support this tiered system, then it is sending a signal that these enhancements are not “Ex Post Facto”. All those who propose this bill will abuse the knowledge that ACSOL was in support of this bill, whose head lawyer is also able to speak at the Supreme Court Level. So if Janice is okay with the tiered system and added enhancements, then there is no “there, there” in regards to being unconstitutional.

      As of right now, ACSOL has not handprints on this tiered proposal. The creators of this proposal also noted it is set in stone. Should this tiering come to fruition, then ACSOL can use the Michigan defense to reveal enhanced punishment as well as unequal protections – why do some registrants just fall off the registry while others have to petition in court, which is added monetary cost to other registrants.

      Again, lost in all this is the fact that there is a 10 year wait for a petition to get off the registry… it’s called the Certificate of Rehabilitation, CoR. The problem is the judges and DA are involved in that petition process. We already know there are about 10,000 registrants who will be absolved if their conviction occurred before a specific time, 1987, iirc, which is 30 years in 2017. Ask yourself this question… why are 10,000 registrants who have been clean for over 29 years not awarded the CoR? Yet, under this new system, they are. Although, everyone after them still needs to petition… the exact same way as a CoR?

      No. There is something fundamentally mischievous and sinister about this tiered proposal. A 10 year wait is still the standard. The CoR was taken away (which makes no sense b/c that should always be available). Certain registrants will now pop up on Megan’s List. Others will be upgraded into tier 3 with no way of relief from the registry.

      It is the latter that should mean the most for ACSOL – Alliance for Constitutional SO Laws. Registration is not constitutional. Supporting this tier says, “well… tier 3, we have no alliance for you.”

      10,000 can be absolved via CoR, but they haven’t. Why? That is what everyone should be up in arms about. Also, no petition for them. Under what metric allows the state to do this? Is is an archaic metric? What about contemporary metric used by CASOMB about less than 1% re-offense rates for two consecutive years?

      Their censorship without transparency of logic and thought is scary, considering they’re dictating to all that this is set in stone.

    • Davidh


      You’re right about the federal level the federal government required that all States have a registry and there’s where the victory must be won I believe.

  118. mike r

    I dont mean to demean or insult anyone but damn I’m frustrated as hellllll with all the bs like go get your lawyers do it yourself and be realistic we don’t have a leg to stand on or a chance in helll of winning a real victory for a complete overhaul of the registry simply because it’s too big to much money and to many entities suckling off the teet of the scheme…just think about what your saying…if everyone in our countries history conceded defeat with or without ever fighting sometimes to the death for causes others believed would never prevail where do you think our country would be as far as rights are concerned..we would still have slavery,interment camps,segregation of all the races,no womens rights, still under kings rule, etc etc….think hard about what I said…we are Americans just like our predecessors at least I am and I will fight tooth and nail to the death for my god giving rights and it bothers the hellllll out of me hearing all you people including these organizations conceding defeat and refusing to fight for us….their the civil rights leaders,their the ones with the organizations who are supposed to be representing us….screw it I’m done pissing in the wind on here,at least for awhile… I cant stand to read some of these post…some of you people are so pessimistic and so defeated willing to throw in the towel before even putting up a real fight on the real issues… its depressing…go do it yourself then, build your own site then, blah blah blah…pethetic….

  119. Harry

    There something I do not understand. Why is anyone suing the governances for perpetrations of lies? We have supported facts that RC are far less dangerous than the government is claiming. This tiered registry bill, IML, AWA and just about all RC laws are based on lies. All governing bodies NEED to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE and cut the tree down and dig out roots and stop, just trimming the limbs.

  120. Chris F

    Isn’t anyone concerned that these tiers will start a new wave of anti-sex offender legislation aimed mostly at Tier 3?

    They will then have the advantage of calling the laws “narrowly tailored” and even Janice won’t be able to stop them, and may not even commit the resources to do so.

    Yep…the DA knows what he is doing.

    He knows that statistically from Texas numbers that judges will only approve of 1/3 of the requests to be removed from the registry (no matter how much any deserve to get off) and that by splitting everyone up into tiers you’ve divided up the offenders into smaller groups that won’t help each other.

    Doesn’t sound like moving forward, but may get a select few out of their nightmare until they change the rules again.

  121. mike r

    Harry you’re exactly right..ill repeat what I’ve said before I’m dumbfounded and it’s beyond comprehension that no one has or will challenge the Courts and the government on the exact issue you stated..they conceded defeat without even putting up a real fight…and yes Chris I myself am extreemly worried that when this bill passed,and I say when because it’s going to in some form, it’s going to open the door and bring a flood of old and new legislation im afraid is going to be aimed at tier two and three offenders and that that legislation will blow thru the process without any chance of being stopped outside of the courts…it will also make it that much harder to prevail in court also because like I’ve said the government will say it’s narrowly tailored only to those still on the registry who by their junk science and false or misrepresented data must pose a significant threat to the public or they wouldn’t be on the registry . we will once again become targets for legislators to pass laws with impunity…hate to be pessimistic and cynical but that’s reality….

  122. DPH

    Would like to review the..”BILL” in detail to see how they come to their conclusions and hope Janice and team will get to revisit the DOCS before it goes into SAC’s Senate/House/Gov. Before drafting completes. GOOD LUCK TEAM. Not all clear. Most comments in over some time here.

  123. HopingforHope

    Based on the nearly 300 comments so far, it appears that a majority of respondents are against this draft in its present form. If the Board decided to go ahead and support this and it became law, it is probably safe to assume that among those whose lives would be negatively impacted, many would feel that ACSOL sold them out and they would have a difficult time justifying further contributions to ACSOL. I’m not sure to what extent ACSOL depends on contributions to operate and fund their legal challenges, but I’m assuming it is probably significant. Supporting this draft could become a “cutting the nose to spite the face” kind of situation for the Board, which would not bode well for the future of the organization if it wants to continue fighting the fight. ACSOL is an organization we simply CANNOT afford to lose.

  124. mike r

    Janice what’s your opinion on the issues being discussed here? we’ve heard very little from your organization about our responses and concerns….please respond to our concerns and really take the time to explain exactly what you and your team really want to happen with the registry and why hasn’t anyone challenged the government justification for these laws that were only able to pass their original scrutiny because of misrepresentations of facts…you could actually help us know if we agree or disagree with your policies…these are big questions for me and a lot of others on this site..

  125. Nicholas Maietta

    Two counts 288(a) from same situation.. I don’t see that listed here. Definitely non-violent classification.

    Now I am thoroughly confused. Mine doesn’t seem to fit into Lifetime, but it’s also not listed in 20 year status. If by any luck i’m in 20 year status, then it means I would be off registry in just 3 more years.

    • Timmr

      I don’t know why ASCOL didn’t list it. In the draft bill it is under the 667.5 (c) violent felonies which are in tier II, unless you have a “high” (whatever that means, the norms for the Static 99 keep changing] recidivism prediction under Static 99.
      That is another objection to this bill, it doesn’t say what is to be done with those who don’t have a Static 99 score. Are they going to score us, too?

      • concerned citizen

        Not only does this bill add 667.5 under Tier II, but it also adds 1192.7 under Tier II.

        1192.7 offenses are often not as serious if they are not included under 667.5 (i.e. so long as they are not also listed under 667.5). In other words, the “violent” offenses under 667.5 are often not as bad as the “serious” offenses under 1192.7. Yet this bill treats “violent” and “serious” offenses similar.

        Violent 667.5 should be placed in Tier II. But the ‘serious’ offenses under 1192.7 should be placed under Tier I, so long as they also are not listed in 667.5. Because not all ‘serious’ offenses are ‘violent’ offenses. IMO, there is a big difference between the two. And this bill is negligent/remiss in pointing out the differences.

        So as it is now, in addition to the inclusion of the Static-99 scam, I cannot see the rationale to much of the concepts included in this bill. Therefore, I disagree with this bill as it is written.

  126. Gerald Cervente

    Nicholas Maietta I believe a member here stated they changed the classification of 288a to 288(a)
    a violent act.What a bunch of lying pieces of shit,I don’t see you in tier 2 but tier 3
    with the violent sex offenders,that means you register every 90 days.As another member here said
    and I believe hes correct,they will make laws that will effect tier 3 offenders,real bad ones.
    I don’t know how many people will move into the tier 3,if its say 30,000, it will get the attention of the dirty politicians,your life will hell,those that have families, it most likely will destroy them.
    Some people will leave the state,some can’t it will be a recipe for heavy violence.
    My self I only had one count of 288a in 1982,got 10 months jail time county,5 years probation,in theory if this bill became law,I would get kicked off,I may be wrong as the 288a charge may prevent me from getting kicked off,I may go into the 3 tier along with you.The bill needs to be clear its
    intent,I find it totally written in lawyer bullshit.I don’t support this bill until all its bad effects are clarified and what category those that have a single charge of 288a go in.

    • Not Really

      288a and 288(a) are different offenses. 288a is hardly mentioned in the draft bill except in conjunction with other violent crime as listed in Tier 3, like murder (187) in conjunction with oral copulation (288a).

    • mjk

      288a and 288(a) are apples and oranges. Aside from that, 288a changes a lot depending upon the letter and number in parentheses aftweward. For instance, 288a(b)(2) is oral copulation with a child under 16 years old. 288(a) is lewd acts with a child 14 or younger. The additional information added to this article does not address 288a in its tier assessment, but only addresses 288a in regards to forceable and a victim 14 or under in the footnotes. Reading the bill carefully and paying attention to the age of the victim (14 and under) and/or if violence was deemed to have been used are paramount. You must pay attention to punctuation (commas) and crossreference 187, 667.5 and 1192.7. Decoding the draft revised bill of PC 290 is more like a process of elimination.

      Once again, 288a and 288(a) are NOT the same charge. 288a has NOT been changed to 288(a).

      288a is a PC all of its own with its own set of subsections in parenthesis.

      288(a) is subsection (a) of PC 288, and 288(b) is subsection (b) of 288, etc.

      Know the difference. The parenthesis make a big difference in legalese. And, as always, so do the letters that follow.

  127. James

    I would like to note that this is maybe the first time anyone has asked any of us…what we might think.

    This being the case, reactions are strong, years of built up venting is occurring, as might be expected…but Ms. Bulicci must do what she and the board things is best overall. I trust them to think this through, I trust Ms. Bellucci to do what is best.

    Further, I sense that we will soon be entering a period of more Law and Order kind of politics….so, I’d like to get something in place before this kind of bad wave crests against us.

    Yes, it seems imperative that even Tier III be given a hearing to get off the Registry…but you can’t kill the baby because it isn’t pretty enough.

    Lastly, all I’ve ever wanted is for an honest chance to petition on my facts, (which certainly were bad enough…though I may still not see them as either unnatural or terrible…a crime to be sure, but not the end of the world either), and if there is an independent review…even by a DA and Judge….at least I get someone to look at it.

    We have never had this opportunity!

    I thank Janice for at least a partially open window to maybe change my life, and the lives of many others.

    Good luck to all.

    Best Wishes, James

    PS. Do try to get some relief for Tier III individuals, or, suggest a Tier IV…truly SVP’s…that is maybe the correct answer.

    • Not Really

      Well said.

      I would only add that the Static-99 in any form is likely to fall before long. There is too much art in it and not enough science.

      • Not Really

        Talking to myself. Here is an official rejection of the Static-99:$FILE/HD5.pdf

        Virginia’s Actuarial Risk Assessment Approach Is Flawed 29
        Virginia Uses the STATIC-99 to Determine Whether to Proceed in the Risk Assessment Process 30
        Actuarial Risk Assessment Instruments Have Some Predictive Value, But Cannot Precisely Predict an Offender’s Actual Risk of Future ReOffense 32
        Specifying Actuarial Instrument and Score in Statute Has Contributed to Release of Dangerous Offenders and the Assessment and Commitment of Potentially Lower Risk Offenders 34
        Virginia Should Remove the Designation of a Specific Instrument and Threshold Score From the Code of Virginia 39

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          Apparently the policy researchers in Virginia are a lot more diligent than the CASOMB of California. Having the Static in this bill is one of its most major weaknesses.

          • Timmr

            Thank you for bringing the Static 99 flaws to our attention. I am grateful. Again, I am not for slogans. I really want sound laws that are fair.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        I think calling it even “art” would be giving the Static way too much credit. The Static-99R is neither art or science. It is a scam. A scam I tell you!!

        • Not Really

          Agreed 100% but saying so is not going to convince anyone. The argument has to be something that will convince lawmakers and judges. That’s how almost impossible it is, but the information is out there. Our interests would be better served giving all4conlaws all the ammo we can find.

          Not that there is anything wrong with venting and in fact that is much healthier than a lot of other possibilities.

          Hansen himself once called it art in one of his own Static-99 papers. I just skimmed the 2016 Static-99 handbook and it is so convoluted it could be arbitrary and capricious to use it.

          Static-99R Coding Rules Revised, 2016

          My bet is that an Administrative Law Judge without all the baggage of bias would find it ridiculous art on its face.

  128. Bill Arthur

    I live in another state, but I believe I would qualify for Tier 1 and I have been registered in my state for more than 10 years after completing probation. Could I move to CA, register in CA, and then effectively be off the registry?

    The two prevailing laws seem to be:

    From the new draft bill:
    (4)(a) Persons required to register pursuant to Section 290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is assessed as equivalent to a California registrable offense describer in subdivision (c).

    And from the referenced current law Section 290.005:

    Except as provided in subdivision (c) or (d), any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, of any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state, based on the elements of the convicted offense or facts admitted by the person or found true by the trier of fact or stipulated facts in the record of military proceedings, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses described in subdivision (c) of Section 290, including offenses in which the person was a principal, as defined in Section 31.

    The draft bill says Tier 1 must register for 10 years. The question is will my registration in my home state count toward the 10 years? I can’t find anything in the law specifying this. It would seem contrary to the logic of the new bill to require me to start a new 10 year registration period.

    I certainly don’t want to call anyone’s attention to this apparent oversight in the new draft bill, because the legislature might do what Oregon has done, which is to exclude anyone moving to Oregon from the benefits of Oregon’s lenient law — with the stated purpose of discouraging sex offenders from moving to Oregon.

  129. Timmr

    Oooo, wow, is it getting steamy in here?

  130. anon

    Friends, I wouldn’t get too worked up about any of this. We are not going to decide this issue. And Janice isn’t going to decide it either. The legislature is. And they really don’t want to hear from us. According to the civics books, everyone’s voice will be heard in the legislature before a bill is passed. I don’t think that applies to us. They are either going to pass it or not and what is good for public safety has almost nothing to do with it. Whether or not it is good for us has absolutely nothing to do with it. What matters is the politics of it. If conservatives get worked up, they will kill it. I’m not very optimistic, but I suppose I will start to get hopeful once we have an author and it has passed out of a committee. Until then, situation normal.

  131. Roger

    I have a hard question for you level 1 and 2 RCs:

    If you were to get off the registry, would you leave us level 3 RCs to fight for rights by ourselves? Or would you still be a part of the fight until the registry is someday abolished?

    To be honest, I’m afraid to hear your answers, but I am hoping for the best.


      I’ve been on this crazy roller coaster for close to 25 years. I will more than likely fall into a tier 1. Indeed Rodger, if I am removed miraculousy by petitioning I will most certainly support and give as I have been to the cause., “soldiers never leave men behind” thank you Janice and to all those for your delegence.

    • pgm111

      I will not betray the cause. I will support RC and reformation of the laws until I die.

    • Harry

      No, I will have more freedom to be bold. In my 28 years of registering, I am among those whom had the lease hassles. I have read the horror of many that are or have been going through and especially among the later RCs, thing are really bad. I will be here untilthe day when the registry is abolished.

    • Eric

      I will fight for justice until I die. This is a civil rights issue.

      The registry doesn’t reduce crime. It does not make the community safer. It’s a jobs program for police, attorneys, therapists, polygraph examiners. Those people know very well that the registry system is a sham but they have mortgages to pay.

  132. mike r

    happy turkey day people…

  133. pgm111

    I have a question that pertains to those of us convicted in Federal court. How does the proposed Tier system work for us?

    For example, I was convicted in Federal court of Possession of Material Involving The Sexual Exploitation Of Minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B).

    I remain on Supervised Release and my SARATSO risk level is LOW.

    Given the above information on my personal circumstance, does the proposed legislation put me in Tier 1 or Tier 2?

    Another question to the many intelligent people on this forum: Given my personal circumstances, where should I move within the United States to minimize the effect of registration?

  134. mike r

    I myself will continue with my motion no matter what if only to pass it on to someone willing to use it…it appears I’ll be a level two so this isn’t going to effect how I proceed in court it simply means I’ll have to modify my arguments slightly..I’m not even doing it for myself mostly since the registry hasn’t had extensive repercussions like it has on others.. I really want to help others who are really suffering….when I win it will open the door for thousands of others….

  135. Stanley K.

    Too early to say, as this is only a draft, but I will preface this as a promising introduction for those who are lumped-in with people who are potentially very dangerous.

    I do sympathize with the arguments surrounding the Static-99 component of the bill. As I never was assigned a score per se, this wouldn’t affect me as maybe it will someone else. To be classified as dangerous, remain offensive-free for ten-plus years, and have the system lock you in based on that criteria alone is both damning and frustrating I can imagine.

    However, I can’t fathom why most individuals on this site expect a young man at 21-years-old, who had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old, for whom was four months away from her 18th birthday must be classified with individuals who molested and annoyed a child. Doesn’t make sense to me. All I can rectify is these individuals know damn well they have a tough road ahead of them, and I offer my full blessings to you all. If you’re doing what needs to be done to make yourselves better people, great! If you’re one of the ones who are crying and generally being social cancers, good luck to you all, as the registry isn’t going away no matter how much you pout and get angry.

    I didn’t make the laws that put me on the registry but I did break one. I take responsibility for what I’ve done and continue to do so. If the laws are changing to where I may get some level of relief, fantastic! I’m not running a crusade to abolish the registry; it’s not happening, and I fully understand as there are some bad apples out there. I know I’m gonna get some hate back on this one but I’ve read enough of the divisive comments on this site to finally speak up.

    Barring the elimination of the Certificate of Rehabilitation component, I support this legislation. I have no other responsibility to anyone else other than myself and my family. To think I need to keep myself up at night worrying about the guy down the street who violated a child is none of my concern. If this upsets anyone, I get it, as I would probably hate too.

    • Not Really

      Tell us what “molested and annoyed a child” means in your mind.

    • wonderin

      Stanley K. wrote: ” I’m not running a crusade to abolish the registry; it’s not happening, and I fully understand as there are some bad apples out there. “

      So please explain how the registry protects your family from these bad apples? Some of us, who share a different point of view, just might learn something.

      • Stanley K.

        I’m not in any position to educate.

        You either get it or you don’t.

        • Not really

          NO, you don’t get it. Your “young man at 21-years-old, who had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old, for whom was four months away from her 18th birthday” example would be different if he was charged with “molesting and annoying a child” because all someone has to do is talk about sex. When a 647a the max was 6 months in jail. What was the max for your charge?

          (I normally try to avoid the “my charge is better than your charge” defense because it is so circular and beside the point, but Stanley K. just begged for it.)


          You absolutely do not get it. People shouldn’t be registered like sheep no matter what they do. But your bad apples statement is deeper idiocy. You’re justifying the registration for hundreds of thousands of people so a few really dangerous can be tracked. But you don’t care if its right or just because fuck the guy down the street. Got it.

          The registry will be abolished so make sure you stick around so I can rub your nose in it when it happens. 🙂

    • Another R&J case punishment worse than needed...

      Your argument about why a person who was 21 while his girl was 17 and 2/3 years old when they were intimate is understandable when compared to others who have done worse, it is slightly irrelevant at this time because the law is written in CA where the age of consent is 18. Period. The fact they pool them together is odd, but that is the law. That does not make it right though necessarily.

      If the young lady wanted to help, she should help work to get this guy off of the registry through whatever means possible and work to change the law to where her voice should be strongly heard after she becomes 18 (and a voting member of society) by those in position to make a difference. Romeo and Juliet cases like this should be reviewed upon the younger person becoming 18. Telling those who are younger than 18 they and their voice does not matter is wrong, when we tell them they do matter regardless of the age.

      (Makes me wonder if most people under 18 know this CA law. Two underaged individuals could be charged despite consent. CA – the puritanical state! HA!)

    • NPS

      I am in accordance with you, Stanley K. I, too, am tired of the rhetoric among those who feel that even those with more mundane charges should have to continue suffering because their own more serious charges are keeping them on a TIER III. While I disagree with some parts of the bill (the idea of petitioning when we should just fall off or that lifetime registration is still on the table), I welcome the change because I would be a Tier I and off in 3 years. Of course I’m going to applaud anything that benefits me just as those who will be hurt are going to oppose it. But does that mean that once I’m off, I’m going to stop supporting ACSOL? Of course not. There’s still work to be done because I’d still be harmed by IML; it’s obvious that it still harms former RCs with certificates of rehabilitation. They are still being flagged. AWA still needs to go.

      RCs are not a monolithic group. I truly abhor those who have engaged in sexual activity with children (and by child, I mean pre-pubescent). I also find those who’ve engaged in incest as truly vile. They deserve a lifetime in prison.

      Do I think the registry will ever be abolished? I really don’t have an answer to that, but I hope it will be. I think the only answer to abolishing it is to have longer prison sentences for those who engage in violent rape of people of all age groups. I think that’s why some people like the Stanford swimmer get light sentences because judges know the registry is worse than time spent in jail.

      • Not Really

        The registry in California got its start because people abhorred sex crimes, and it was all inclusive for life. Some charges, like adult gay sex, have been removed. Most have not. Recent evidence proves the public registry does more harm than good and a police registry could be restored for much less money. I would rather the money be spent on evidence-based prevention where it can actually save children. By the time of registration the harm is done and it is too late.

  136. MG

    I’m for the tier registry. Its not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. As of right now we are stuck on the registry for life, at least with the tier registry there is hope for some to be able to get off. There are definite improvements that can be done, but it’s better to have tier registry in place and afterwards fight for more improvements. The process to get yourself off the registry after 10 or 20 years should be a simple and quick process, like just submitting a form and sending it in, and any reason for rejection should have valid reason and just “this person might commit another crime”. Tier 3 people should be able to move down tiers as well.

    We just have to remember it takes time for change to happen.
    I know a lot of you have been talking about CoR but how many people have really gotten a CoR?

  137. Not Really

    As many of you probably know, it is now possible for some sentenced under the Three Strikes law to petition for resentencing under Proposition 36. That involves a hearing that the petition in the draft bill may be modeled on. We don’t don’t know the details of the burden of proof. Here are the basics worth talking about. This is from

    Case Name: People v. Garcia , District: 6 DCA , Case #: H040765
    Opinion Date: 1/26/2016 , DAR #: 918
    Case Holding:
    The fact that qualified defendants who seek Proposition 36 resentencing are subjected to a risk assessment hearing, while defendants sentenced post-Proposition 36 are not, does not deny equal protection. In 2002, Garcia pled guilty to grand theft, and admitted prior strikes and prior prison terms, in exchange for dismissal of a robbery count and prior serious felony enhancements. He was given a life Three Strikes sentence. In 2013, he petitioned for Proposition 36 resentencing, supporting his request with expert testimony that he did not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if released. Based on the court’s review of Garcia’s criminal history, commitment offense, and poor conduct in prison, it found he remained a public safety risk and denied the petition. Garcia appealed. Held: Affirmed. Proposition 36 amended Penal Code sections 667 and 1170.12 to preclude the imposition of a life Three Strikes sentence unless the current crime is serious or violent, or the prosecution pleads and proves certain factors. It also created a mechanism whereby qualified defendants serving a Three Strikes term may seek resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.126). Garcia claimed that defendants sentenced prior to Proposition 36 are similarly situated to defendants sentenced after its passage, and it therefore violates equal protection to subject only the former group of defendants to a risk assessment hearing to qualify for resentencing. A statutory distinction between two groups regarding length of imprisonment is subject to a rational basis review test. With respect to Proposition 36, voters could have concluded that differences between the two groups of defendants warranted a distinction in punishment. There is no equal protection violation (agreeing with People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161).

    Section 1170.126 does not create a presumption that a qualified Three Strikes defendant will be resentenced, nor does the Sixth Amendment apply to Propostion 36 resentencing petitions. Garcia also argued that section 1170.126 creates a strong presumption that an eligible petitioner will be resentenced and that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying him a jury trial. The appellate court disagreed. In People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that section 1170.126 does not create a presumption in favor of resentencing. Instead, the “unreasonable risk of danger” determination is a hurtle a defendant must overcome to be eligible for sentence reduction. Thus, for defendants sentenced prior to Proposition 36, a Three Strikes life term remained the statutory maximum for Sixth Amendment purposes. The Court of Appeal here agreed with Kaulick. Penal Code section 1170.126’s emphasis on the court’s duty to evaluate whether resentencing would pose a danger to public safety reflects that a determination on that issue is a prerequisite to resentencing rather than an issue that may constitute a possible rebuttal of a presumption in favor of resentencing.

    The trial court properly imposed the burden of proof on the prosecutor at the risk assessment hearing. Garcia focused on a statement made by the trial court to the effect that Garcia had not done anything to prove to the court that he was not a danger, claiming the court improperly saddled him with the burden of proving the absence of unreasonable risk of danger. However, the totality of the trial court’s comments reflect it appropriately recognized that the prosecution had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any type of contested issue of fact that might be relevant to the question of risk of unreasonable danger.

  138. R. Barnett

    The inclusion of the controversial STATIC “tool” should be enough reason alone to reject this bill. It sets a potentially troubling precedence. Just how is a “high” STATIC-99R score alone adequate reason to place a person as Tier III? It is simply amazing how many “experts” think the static is a validated instrument. Most of the “validation” was done in questionable, limited scope studies with Hanson, Thornton, Helmus, or one of the other STATIC creators. The fact is that the STATIC is sometimes right at the “high risk” label (often in what seems to be mere chance); but it is mostly wrong, especially after 5 yrs. By the way, there are also many recidivists that score “low risk” on the STATIC. But we never see the state or Hanson honestly examine why. Probably because they will verge into the realm of having to admit the STATIC is not all that different from old time pseudoscience. The people at the SARATSO Committee are politically motivated and intellectually dishonest for selling the STATIC hoax.

  139. kat

    I say “Do a Trump”-
    “Ask for Everything, the whole enchilada, then negotiate down and get what you really need.”

    If left as is, Tier III people are viewed as “irredeemable”. People do change, incarceration changes people, counseling and treatment changes people. No one’s life, past, present or future should be based on the 10 question Static, and that’s what the Static does, ” portends to predict” what one “might” do in the future. If everyone’s past was a future indicator of their future behavior, I’d venture to say we would all be in a bit of trouble.

    If left as is, a Tiered Registry Bill such as this III tiered bill gives some people “No Chance” at a normal life despite any changes they may have made over the years. And when all hope is taken away from individuals, they feel they have nothing to lose and then consequences are always tragic.

    I suggest taking Tier III off the table completely.

    With Tiers I and II, people at least have some hope of getting off the registry.
    If you re-offend on Tier II, well, then you’ll probably end up back in prison or jail and your whole cycle of initial registration should start over again when you get out. Essentially, you loose the time you’ve already been on the registry and have to start all over. This would keep chronic offenders “chronically” on the registry.
    As far as public safety, the public is no safer no matter what tier someone is on. Tiers are just “labels” just like “sex offender registry” is just a label. No one is “safer” because of it.

    Janice, ask for what will benefit all, if we only ask for some, that’s all we’ll ever get. And to get things changed once a bill is enacted, well, we see how hard that is.
    Go for it, your work is much appreciated.

  140. pgm111

    I strongly suggest that the new proposed tiered system also have a feature that Tier 1 registrants NOT be included on the public registry. This is the case in New York and elsewhere. Can this important feature be included in the new legislation? Anyone share my opinion on this matter?

  141. Matt

    I suggest that we use the same tactic the legislators have used so successfully: Incrementalism. Meaning, if you take on the entire registry at once, it’s almost certain to fail. (I have my doubts about the tiered registry proposal, given what Californians just did with the death penalty vote.) If we chip away at it, bit by bit, we are more likely to positively affect more lives. One thing I noticed that is particularly troubling: Several pages in, the proposal says that registrants who have completed the time period for their tier may petition law enforcement and the courts to be removed from the registry. The presiding law enforcement agency can put up a fight, if they wish, and demonstrate to the court their belief that a registrant must be compelled to stay on the registry for reasons of “public safety”. Meaning, it’s NOT automatic. You have to ask to be released, and the DA can argue against that release. This is a fatal flaw. I don’t know whether it should change how Janice and company should or should not support the bill as written. But it’s important that people realize this is not an automatic thing. In my county, the DA will oppose every single attempt at relief. And they may be moderately successful in those attempts.

    • Huge flaw

      That is a huge flaw! Spot on with that…

      But what is their entire belief based on? Just the statistics of some test, e.g. Static-99, solely, when there are other tests that can be used in assessment? Ignorance of the real statistics? History? What exactly?

      They surely won’t look at the actual data published extensively because that works against them. They will probably use the “if it saves just one….” or “these person doesn’t fall in this particular percentage, but the other percentage; therefore, we believe…”. They will use tools that supports their position, not a neutral stance where fairness is involved and emotion, e.g. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy.

      Remember, court justice and laws are not based upon the truth (as they’re supposed to be), but the best story used to make something happen, even John Adams knew that in the young years of this country. You can see that by the omitting of true facts or the entire story. You have elected officials who refuse to hear and acknowledge the truth because they “can’t handle the truth!” when it opposes their platform. You should never ever expect a DA do ever endorse release for the fear of NIMBY (not in my backyard). If they did endorse, that is political suicide as a DA, but a great money maker if they went to or back to the defense side of the house.

      The one thing I would like to see are where the Romeo and Juliet cases could go with these petitions, where there is no real “victim”. If Romeo and Juliet are still together years later, will the court see the obviousness of the situation and grant release? What if Romeo and Juliet are not still together but it was consensual then and a parent was against it after finding out, e.g. a parent was pissed, pressed charges and used it as retaliation, and the Juliet says grant release? What would the court and DA do to oppose these particular releases? People forget it was not long ago these types of relationships existed commonly in our country’s history (you can find examples for yourself and perhaps already know of some in your own family).

      • CA consent for Romeo & Juliet

        Be nice to actually see CA automatically give the option to all R&J registrants for petitioning their release from registry if this bill makes it to law. The law should include as soon as the younger of the two people is 18, the registrant(s) should be able to petition for release so the younger voice can be heard in a court of law with some strength, especially since these are usually consensual relationships. After reading the bassackward CA law for statutory rape, which is where R&J people fall since they are under the CA age of consent (18), it is surprising more people are not charged and prosecuted (including where R&J are both under 18).

    • Timmr

      The tiered registry bills sold to us at the ASCOL meetings were the kind where people “fall” off the registry. Fall means with no effort on your part. With this proposal you have to get permission. That could mean some will expend a lot of effort to get off, if their DA can find cause and set the time to appear for a maximum of another five years. The DAs are likely to err on the side of caution, fearing they may let a closet J A Gardner off the registry and get blamed for it when something happens.

  142. Kevin

    Oh my Lord no! I am a currently low risk (static99R = 1) 288(a) offender, convicted 2004, no prior anything, no post anything, got 5 years probation, did no prison time, but I my address is listed. I have no residence restrictions. Trying to make it as a performer is hard enough with people looking me up on the internet. Looking at this, I would be put into a Tier 3 ?!?!?! High risk 90-day reregistration, FLYERS(!!!), etc. etc. Life in my neighborhood would likely become impossible, and where would I go?
    This makes it all much worse for me. Am I missing something? I can’t even…

    • NPS

      Yes, Kevin, you are missing something. Your charge will put you in Tier II because you only have the single charge. A second, separate charge would put you in Tier III.

    • Timmr

      I think you would be tier II if you had only one 288 (a) conviction, with no exact address, just zip code, but it looks like since the registration period starts at the end of probation, it would be 2029 before you can apply to be off.

  143. Timmr

    I was curious, does having a victim who is a stranger count for or against you in this sceme? It is listed as a criteria for placing certain former offenders in either tier II or III.


    In regards to the Internet listing of Megan’s Site. What does this new tiered bill have to say on that. Will all three tiers have their information disclosed or just tiered 3. Considering one at the moment is excluded from the site based on a none violant index office well over 20yrs ago which will more than likely fall in tiere 1 be placed on the website? I guess I could of easily just ask what tiers will be listed. Thanks for all your comments

  145. concerned citizen

    I just hope they take away the Static-99R from Tier 3. The Static shouldn’t be used as a sole determinant in deciding registration terms AFTER parole or probation.

    Sure, the Static could be used during the first 5 years after release in parole or probation in ONLY determining supervision level. But using it for any period after 5 years and/or using it to determine 10, 20, or lifetime registration duration is completely unacceptable.

    The Static-99R “tool” is/was not designed for the purpose that it is being used in this proposed bill.

  146. HopingForHope

    The registration clock does not start at the end of probation. The draft is pretty clear that it begins on the date of release from custody. Big difference.

    • Timmr

      Thank you. I was mistaken.

    • Matt

      I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I have seen many instances where probation (AKA supervised release) is still regarded as “in custody” That needs to be clarified.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0 aka "SARATSO" rhymes with Tabasco (but Isn't as delicious)

        At least for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus proceedings, “in custody” also includes any period on parole, probation, and post-community supervision. So Matt is correct.

        • Timmr

          I did several searches, defense blogs, government probation offices, etc., and the consensus is that being in custody means being physically held in jail or prison.

  147. Timmr

    Since ASCOL now represents registered citizens in all states, most of which have tiered registries, I am wondering how its support of this version with its requirement to have DA approval to exit the registry and also the heavy reliance on the Static 99 may look to registrants in other states? Maybe this is what makes it a Sopie’s Choice now, when a couple of years ago CARSOL was 100% behind lobbying for a tiered registry in California. This may not be just about getting some people in California off the registry, but how ASCOL is going to represent the interests of all registrants.

    • New Person

      Good point.

      With the Michigan decision, I think ACSOL should identify how parts of these proposals increase disabilities from where they currently are today. Also, ACSOL should demand the logical reasoning behind the tiering, so as to expose the lack of use of known research done by CASOMB as well as many other research papers along with recent court decisions.

      I keep forgetting ACSOL now encompasses all states. Many registrants from other states with tiering and ways off of tiering have chimed in. They don’t like it. Texas supposedly gave a way off the registry, but not many are getting off from it. That’s akin to our own CoR. With 10,000 registrants that come off the list due to time elapsed by this tiered proposal, it makes you question why are not many off already with the current CoR in place?

      It seems California is oblivious to look into this. I mean, I’d volunteer to to run a search on how many registrants have applied for a CoR, how many have been granted and how many have been denied. I want to see facts and patterns about this. Does ACSOL have this information? Did CaRSOL have this info? And how come we registrants do not know the success rates of the CoR?

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Timmr, we have asked for statistics from the CA Dept. of Justice regarding how many people have applied for a CoR and how many people have actually received a CoR. We have been told they do not have such statistics and it makes sense because CoR’s are applied for in court and not with the CA Dept. of Justice.

      • Timmr aka Tier 2 Humanoid Hazardous Substance

        Wouldn’t the State have a record of who got off the registry? Does the State get a letter from the judge of CoR awarded and it is up to the State to record the fact.

      • ca

        243.4 (a) reduced to a misdemeanor in 2008, 2009 convicted of felony 290 (b) failure to register.
        So i have a misdemeanor 243.4 (a) and a felony failure to register 290 (b)?
        anybody can help me with what tier level? much appreciated!


          ca, can u point me in the right direction on how u went about getting your felony reduced to a misdemeanor. Thanks

          • ca

            Just.. me: check if your registrable offense is a wobbler.
            look online, check for “wobbler offenses” in CA, if it is, file a petition with the court where you were convicted. good luck!

            • Question

              Ca, thanks for responding. Yes it seems like it is a wobbler, I didn’t go 2 prison. My concern of course is this new registry placing me in teir 2 which is Internet disclosure from what I take it, could b wrong though. After well over 20 years of Internet exclusion, all that I worked my tail off will be jeopardized if listed. After reading all comments so far it seems a lot are against this new bill while some are not. I’m forced to go into survival mode for my family ,home and job by doing what I need to do to avoid being plastered on the net and hopefully get this reduce to land in teir 1. And no people I’m not settling, I wish any registry didn’t exist, all I can do is donate as I have been and pray for the captives to be set free. Thanks ca!

        • GRR

          Janice has stated on this site that failure to register is not a sex crime thus, will not be used against you in determining your tier.

          I received a expungement reducing a 288(a) to a misdemeanor. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that the draft tier system is based on the original conviction and an expungement wont count.

          With this you would be a tier 2

          Hopefully, expungements will be taken into consideration when determining our tier level.

          • Timmr

            How or rather when did you get a 288 (a) expunged? I heard that was excluded.

            • GRR

              1994… Conviction was in 1988. I was given probation.

              I believe the politicians stopped expungments and COR’s for 288(a)’s in 1996 or so . I blew it by not applying for a COR immediately after the expungement.

              • Timmr

                Thank you. My lawyer told me I would be eligible for an expungement in 10 years. That was in 2000. How can they keep changing the rules?

            • Davidh

              I dont know about engagement but depending on the circumstances one can get COR

          • ca

            I thought all misdemeanor offenses were tier 1?????

        • Question

          243.4a felony 22 years ago, internet exclusion since. Could b wrong but it Looks like it places me in tier 2, does this mean I’ll be on Megan’s site? If so That would literally harm so much I’ve worked for. In fact I’ll loose my job. Any clarification would greatly b appreciated.

          • New Person

            if you lose your job b/c of this, then you have a reason to sue b/c it negated you employment.

        • Not Really

          “243.4 (a) reduced to a misdemeanor in 2008, 2009 convicted of felony 290 (b) failure to register.
          So i have a misdemeanor 243.4 (a) and a felony failure to register 290 (b)”

          If you got the felony 290 (b) because 243.4 was a felony, since you got it reduced, I wonder if that makes 290 (b) a wobbler too that can also be reduced. That is because failure to register is only a felony if the underlying offense is a felony. I might be bassakwards but it’s worth a look.

  148. hh

    Does anyone know or understand what will happen if you have a certificate of rehabilitation prior to this tier registry going into place?

    I’ve read through this a couple of times and it seems like the act of getting a CoR will change but it doesn’t nessasrily mention if you already have one.

    For example if you have registered for 15 years and are a tier 2 but have a cor will you automatically get removed or does the cor do nothing for you ?

    • Janice Bellucci

      We have been assured that anyone who has been granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation prior to the effective date of the new law will not be assigned a tier and won’t be required to register.

      • ocguy

        Making CoR recipients that qualified for removal register again??? That would even be an item of discussion? Shocking. Two thoughts, here.

        1. The people who are eligible to even apply for a CoR would only be in placed in Tiers I and II (many in Tier II would be ineligible for application right off the bat). The people for whom a CoR DID terminate the registration requirement would most likely only be in Tier I. Now there might be some freaky scenarios, but I think such assumption is safe.

        Since the minimum of 10 years must have passed from time of conviction (release – not sure) – and that is a minimum by a long while – by the time the CoR can even be applied for, let alone granted, the required time would have been up anyway (10 years for sure Tier I). How could such a person be required to again register?

        Is it not safe to assume that anyone who has already obtained a CoR and therewith terminated registration would be subject to less strenuous conditions anyway? However,

        2. On page 11, the first paragraph of the proposed 290.5 states “A person required to register under PC 290”. “required” – as in presently. Furthermore, a few lines later it states that a Tier I and II Offender may petition off after the prescribed time frames (10/20 years). It also states “The petition must contain proof of the person’s current registration as a sex offender”.

        Since a person who was granted a CoR that terminated registration cannot provide such proof of current registration, such a person would be suspended in some sort of purgatory and would be forever ineligible to petition for removal – after theoretically having been put back on following removal under much, much more stringent requirements. In other words, the registrant with a low level offense at least 10 years ago who lived a life that fulfilled the onerous CoR requirements would become a life time registrant. Just like a Tier III Offender. That is ludicrous.

        That is how I read this.

        • M.


          Not exactly. For example, I am personally eligible for 290 relief through a Certificate of Rehabilitation in a few more years. According to current law, I would be eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation 10 years after release into the community. Currently, I am only a few more years from such eligibility.

          However, under this proposed bill, I would be placed under Tier 3 solely because of my Static-99R score (otherwise, I’d be placed in Tier 1). It wasn’t even a specified offense under 290. It was a lifetime registration order pursuant to the “discretionary” provision of 290.006. It was a felony, non-violent, non-contact, first-time offense. And it seems that others on this board share somewhat similar scenarios.

          I have been told by a few attorneys that, at least under current law, I have a good shot. This is because I live in a county with a good record of certificates being granted, have held a full-time job, volunteer for a non-profit, completed counseling, completed my degree, and have lived crime-free (and a parole violation free period) since my first-time arrest.

          What’s funny is the Static erroneously scores me “high-risk.” Yet other risk assessmentS score me “low-risk.” It seems some people on here have already expressed their doubt about the validity of the Static-99R. For me, I simply do not trust the Static “developers.”

          • ocguy

            Your response does not apply to this mini discussion. I should have stopped reading after “WOULD be eligible to apply for a CoR in a few years”.

            This question is about people who already HAVE been granted a CoR, and not only that, one that has them removed from the registry due to their convictions not being excluded for removal in PC 290.5. In other words, people who are (present tense) NOT 290 registrants. That are not going to be added back on. That that is even a point of discussion is disturbing.

            The question was, and Janice’s answer had to do with putting them BACK on the registry. I would love to hear her further thoughts on this.

            It simply must be painfully obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp on logic that assessing decade long / lifetime future risk of a single person via a tool that has the word ‘static’ in its name and that by its own admission only has a shelf life of 10 years is silly. To put it mildly. But then again – logic and reason are out the door in this discussion. So anything is possible.

            After 10 years from conviction you would have to be re-tiered according to conviction(s) and possible re-offense alone, disregarding any Static-99 score. Lifetime is not necessarily lifetime. The CoR demonstrates this clearly. At which point you can petition off without the dog and pony show that is the CoR. Cool?

            Your anti Static-99 crusade is impressive, oh poster with many names…. for the life of me I cannot imagine a scenario as you describe (non mandatory, non-contact, non 667.5, etc) that does not only result in 290 registration, but also in a high score. Can’t be pictures covered under 311, can’t be weenie wagging, can’t be any conversation (covered under 647.6), can’t be meeting, is not touching, not physically abusing (contact) an animal…. care to enlighten?

            • M.

              Care to enlighten? Not really. Though, without minimizing the obviously wrong nature of my offense, I will tell you that I think 10 years registration is more than enough for what I did. In fact, in most cases, I think 10 years is more than enough for ANYONE but the most incorrigible.

              And I also think the Static-99R has it wrong. It has already done too much harm to too many people. And I fear that the Static, as well as other “tools” like it, if not stopped and exposed for what it is (i.e. a very limited tool), has the potential to do even more harm. This bill gives the Static too much power than it deserves.

              (BTW, it doesn’t take much to score “high-risk” on the Static. Especially if you were young at “release” [i.e., between the ages of 18 to 34] and have a “non-contact offence.”)

            • Daryl Grimes

              I’m not taking any sides but non contact offenses score higher on the static, no? The way I see it, the static 99 is a lot like what you hear on an out of range radio. When you try to scan on an out of range radio, what do you hear? Static. Static is pretty much worthless. What if the static is just a sick joke on everyone and that is how the static creators got the name? By listening to an out of range radio? You know, before I committed my crime, I drove across Canada, from Vancouver to Sydney, Nova Scotia and back. There was a lot of AM and FM static through most of Canada. Sometimes, if you were lucky you could tune into a station that was static and it would turn to something. Maybe that is what inspired the Canadian static 99 creators to call it static?

      • Political Prisoner

        I was reading the bill and I am confused with the start date for the years. I saw it stated it starts from the release from custody or the end or probation or parole which ever is earliest. I was released from house arrest in July of 2013, but I do not get off of probation until January of 2018. Whish dated would be used to start my counter for a tier release?

      • GRR

        Would that hold true for expungments also?

  149. how?

    Just how can the 10 questions of the Static scam predict future “risk?” Seems a lot like a scam to me.

  150. Alert

    A bunch of obscene phone calls can put one onto tier 3.

  151. pgm111


    Does the proposed bill call for Tier 1 RCs to be off the public website such as New York state? If not, can we push for that provision? What are the chances such a provision can be incorporated into the new law?

  152. danielle

    Question. If someone was convicted of crimes that the new registration would put them into tier 3- but it was one victim-family member- And their static score was low- would that mean they would be a level 3 ? In other words,is it both the static score And the offense- or one or the other- or is their discretion- like having been off parole for a good number of years?

  153. Matt

    I think everybody needs to take a very deep breath here folks. Many of the questions on this forum seem to be, “what does this do for me?” (As in, “it’s all about me.”) Janice has asked for input because she is trying to figure out whether to support this bill, or not, as a whole. For the ENTIRE group of people she is representing. We have a potential move towards the positive here. Maybe not for all, but for many. The real question is, does this bill move the majority of the entire group in a more positive direction, or not? I don’t know the answer. And I have read the bill several times. I have concerns about this bill as written. But it’s definitely a step in the right direction; for a huge amount of registrants. That said, it feels like it might be an attempt by law enforcement at “divide and conquer.” Again, I’m not sure. But everybody should try to take themselves out a step or two and look at what best for the whole group…..not just themselves. And By the way, I would qualify for Tier 1, and be able to apply for release in February of 2018. I’m still not sure this is the right move for the whole group.

  154. Bill Arthur

    As to being listed on the Internet website, the new draft bill says in 290.45 (a) (1) that it will be based on “information concerning that specific person’s current risk of sexual or violent re-offense, including but not limited to the person’s static, dynamic and violence risk levels on the SARATSO risk tools.” So, it sounds like a determination will be made for each individual, and that the Static-99R test will be the guide, more than Tier level. Comments? Janice, any idea?

    • pgm111

      Thank you Bill Arthur for responding to my question. It is not just about me but for many of us that are Tier 1 people. To respond to an earlier query, I will never abandon the fight and will always advocate for everyone caught in this wretched system.

      I feel like many of our questions in this forum are simply unanswered and we are unable to make a rational, educated assessment of the bill without more information.

    • pgm111

      Sorry Bill Arthur. I have read the bill section again and do NOT see any language that specifically excludes Tier 1 people from public disclosure on the Megan’s Law website.

      Just for the record, my question is not just about me, but for many of us that are Tier 1 people. To respond to an earlier query, I will never abandon the fight and will always advocate for everyone caught in this wretched system.

      I feel like many of our questions in this forum are simply unanswered and we are unable to make a rational, educated assessment of the bill without more information.


      Can you respond to my question? Are Tier 1 people excluded from public disclosure on the California website? What is the policy now regarding whether one is one public display or not?

      • Janice Bellucci

        Currently, information regarding individuals convicted of misdemeanor offenses as well as a small number of felonies are excluded from publication on the Megan’s Law website. According to the draft legislation, information regarding all individuals in Tier 1 would be excluded from publication that website regardless of whether their offense was a misdemeanor or a felony.

        • Concerned

          Janice, is it possible you can direct me to an attorney I can hire out in the San Fernando Courthouse area to handle reducing a felony (wobbler) Pc17b to a misdemeanor. I’ve emailed Chance O several times with the emai address you kindly provided with no answer. Any help in pointing me in the right direction will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks for all your work.

          • donhoh

            Although having an attorney will help, you can actually petition the courts for a reduction on your own. I had a Felony 288 registration status for over ten years. I stepped out on faith and believed that my God can do all. Not only did I not pay a dime to submit the paperwork, but was able to persuade the courts to reduce the felony into a misdemeanor based on the “Wobbler.”

            • someone who cares

              Donho ~ What were your steps in getting your felony reduced to a misdemeanor? Did you appear before the judge and did you have letters of support? What else did you provide? We would like to attempt this when off probation. I read that you can either appear in person, have an attorney speak for you, or have the probation officer send the motion in writing. Is that true and has someone gone through his probation officer with this? Thanks in advance for any tips.

  155. not in favor

    Tier 3 is so broad I believe a great majority could end up there. Their risk level could be low but the crime accused would put them on tier 3.. We must continue the fight for freedom and constitutional rights restored. Everyone has a right to a life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the “unalienable rights” which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.
    We have all fallen and come short weather we are willing to admit or not. Individuals need to be able to serve their time and move on with their life.
    Please ASCOL and all advocate groups do not stand behind this bill.
    not in favor

  156. Someone who cares

    It seems like most of us don’t really understand this bill and its potential harm. Some say we are technically all Tier III since we are on lifetime registration but I will strongly have to disagree. About 25,000 registrants are currently not disclosed on the public website. That will change if they were to be classified as Tier III and II and possibly even Tier I. Going back to what would benefit the majority, now we are looking at about 10 000 who might benefit and 25000 who would initially suffer a bigger punishment than they anticipated before they might benefit in 10 or 20 years from now. I say might as laws as we know change for the worse and are applied retroactively. So there will be thousands of formerly excluded refgistrants who will now suffer unemployment , harassment, embarrassment etc when they have lived a more or less quiet life until now? The public will now see them as dangerous people where they were never deemed such before. It just does not look like it will benefit anyone let alone the majority.

    • steve


      As someone who first thought 288 (a) would be tier 3, I would have agreed with you this won’t help the majority. But the fact is the majority are 288 (a) and it will give give them all “a chance” to get off the list. Most who have been on pre-internet all have gone through what you are describing, trying to get on with your life then boom you’re on the internet. It sucked, and yes there were a ton of fires to put out and it seems like it never ends.
      I don’t agree with one time non-contact offenders in tier 3. It’s going to be up to all of those who get off to be good citizens, which in turn, will hopefully help to get the non-svp tier 3’s off.

  157. Not Really

    It is possible no one can understand this bill well enough yet to be 100% for or against it. It is too necessary to make assumptions.

  158. someone who cares

    Steve ~ I understand that most of us want the bill to pass or be rejected based on what it will mean to each of us individually. Sure, there were pre-internet people who all of a sudden appeared on the public website when Megan’s Law came into effect. It sounds like you are saying that if these people had to go through it, then it is ok for others to endure the same shame if this bill passes. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We want to move forward and not backwards. It will be a step backwards for more than twice of the people compared to those who will benefit from it. I can understand that most of us are in it for ourselves, it is human nature and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I won’t judge anyone based on what side they are on. If the bill can be amended to not affect a person’s current standing, I would vote for it. If the bill will make it worse for a great majority, I will vote against it. Pretty simple. Those who are not publicly displayed need to remain undisclosed. Those who are displayed should have a chance to petition to be removed eventually. The Static 99R is ridiculous. How can someone who has been crime free for 20 years still score the same because the static questions stay the same? That makes absolutely no sense at all and is actually very embarrassing. Lots of things to be considered!

  159. Davidh

    After reading the Ohio’s proposal–I personally believe most here would be amenable to the legislation,if, and Ohio appears to put risk in the hands of the judge, they did that for us here. I think with this current legislation everyone has issue with static 99 and statutory placement, without a day in the court.

    As with Ohio make falling off the registry automatic at time intervals, provided no new sex offense; allow a person to appear before a judge to express his/her feelings as to why they are not a threat, the DA can still appear to represent the people. The purpose of the appearance would be for the removal prior to the tier expiration date, down grading of tier. no reliance on static 99, totally an impartial juror’s discretion.

    I know I’d sign up for that!

  160. mike r

    no no no should be the government’s burden to prove, with clear and convincing evidence standard that someone is a danger to the public….that is the onky way a registry can pass constitutional scrutiny..
    we are not professional lawyers or public speakers and I am sure a large number of people would be nervous and unable to articulate their case especially in court room setting..court rooms are very intimidating and like i said the burden of proof should be on the government who are trained public debaters..
    the entire judicial system is mired in enequality because the prosecution has way more experience than any public defenders and have and use their endless resources to win their cases..this is also something that someone needs to bring suit and challenge the Courts on this subject..

    • Davidh

      Mike R

      I didn’t mean to nor did I suggest one’s day in court couldn’t be represented by council, nor did I suggest that the” people ” shouldn’t have such a high burden to prove one is a risk.

      All-in-all I simply stated to eliminate the static 99 and to replace it with a day in court, make falling off the registry at timed intervals automatic, allow folks to petition the court prior to the statutory term limits to either be relieved or reduced in tier status–

      Yes I really did say all of that one just needs to read what’s in print, not what they want to see.

  161. mike r

    I know you did I just wanted to point out that a lot of people can’t afford attorneys nor can they effectively argue their case against professional public debaters such as DA and judges…the ability of petitioning the court alone is almost not a reality that most would be able to afford or do on their own little less to be able to successfully debate or prove that you meet all the requirements and don’t pose a significant risk to the public…that’s all I’m saying…I can pretty safely hypothesis that very very few will ever get relief under this petitioning the court standard outlined in this bill…this can in no way be construed to satisfy the procedural due process that each and every one of us deserve….not saying you stated against anything I just posted I’m just pointing out those factors.

  162. mike r

    man why does everyone have to be so condescending and relatively rude in their comments at least towards me..

    “Yes I really did say all of that one just needs to read what’s in print, not what they want to see.”

    Is it just me or is that statement uncivil and rude..makes me feel like you’re insulting my intellect by inferring that I can not read or comprehend what was said..i don’t know maybe it’s just me but I don’t think so..


      It’s just you Mike r. It’s the way you communicate things.


      To be fair, you’ve said some things that were seen as the same way. Yes it was a little snippy but id gain a thicker skin and/or give it back to them.

      Either way, I usually find the people saying “read it again” to have just not liked what’s being said. So yeah, most calling for better reading comprehension are usually the dumbasses that aren’t able to think their way outta a brown paper bag. Your mileage may vary.

  163. mike r

    never mind.. this has been a very productive and civil comments section so forget what I said and continue to focus on the topic before this turns into a bash mike r onslaught…lmfao

  164. anon

    Here is my unsolicited advice for the board: You should stay neutral. The role of the organization should be to provide as much detailed information about the bill as possible, such as the key dates, the key players, etc. To take a position in favor of the bill implies that you are leaving behind a significant number of registrants. The registry is useless and punitive and supporting a bill the keeps someone on is something of a betrayal to them. On the other hand, the idea of giving 70,000 registrants an offramp is quite alluring. In the end, the strength of the organization is the ability to speak as one. So we cannot just ignore the suffering of any registrant. Additionally, I question the value of our support of a bill. Which legislature will be swayed by our endorsement? I think the board should stay out of the lobbying business and stay in the information business.

    • Janice Bellucci

      ACSOL is an advocacy organization that conducts lobbying. Therefore, we will have a position on the Tiered Registry Bill and we will share that position with members of the state legislature despite requests by members of the CA Sex Offender Management Board and others to remain silent.

      • pgm111

        Thank you Janice for not being silent!

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        Wow. CASOMB would actually request that a civil rights organization remain “silent” on a bill? That seems disturbing.

        BTW, another (in my opinion) very shady organization is the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders Review Committee. Also known as “SARATSO,” it consists of unknown representatives from the California Attorney General’s Office, California Department of Corrections and REHABILITATION, and the California Department of State Hospitals. SARATSO and CASOMB are who peddles for use of the Static-99R:

        • Not Really

          Wow on the Static-99R!

          “3) Any recidivism included all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated.”

          So to know the far reaches of recidivism, meaning the most common recidivism, we would have to know what a “breach of conditional release” might be, how often it happens, and is it something that would terrify the people if they knew about it.

          Anyone know what these breaches might be? Is it possible parole and probation officers can keep control of the high recidivism statistic by violating offenders for mild or petty breaches? What would the statistic be if only re-sex offense were measured?

          • Not Really

            To add to my comment, this would seem to violate the purpose of the registry given that the registry’s purpose is to help law enforcement track new sex crimes by RCs. Most of the Static-99R, by counting all recidivism, including minor “breaches,” goes well beyond that purpose of the registry. Since it measures all risk, including minor breaches, could there be an equal protection issue because it falls into the landscape of all offenders?

            Once again, I think taking this to an Administrative Law Judge, since it is civil and not punishment, would be the way to challenge this. ALJs also wouldn’t have the confirmation bias baggage of having sentenced someone to life because of a bogus Static-99.

          • Mike

            It’s a vague phrase to be sure. I’m going to join in saying the Static is a scam. But it is quite troubling that CA SOMB, SARATSO, CDCR, DOJ are so invested into selling the Static 99R as some sort of “scientific” tool when it clearly isn’t. I don’t think the government really expected the sheep (which is how they often see us) to investigate the shallow statistics behind the Static 99 scam.

          • David Kennerly

            Where are you seeing this? Please link.

            • Tobin's Tools 2.0


              I had problems finding Not Really’s quote on the Static-99R scam’s Coding Rules. But I did a Google search and apparently it’s found on page 7 of the recent (UNPUBLISHED) “study” by the California DOJ, Carleton University, and R. Karl Hanson:


              It’s a good observation for sure. And I’m afraid the CA DOJ, Hanson, and his manipulative cohorts at Carleton University included “[a]ny recidivism includ[ing] all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated” for one reason:

              1. To exaggerate the Static-99R scam’s accuracy. Without the extra qualifiers, I doubt the DOJ would have been able to come up with figures substantiating the “high risk sex offender” label.

              What’s sad is that even with the over-inclusive phrase of ‘recidivism,’ this pseudo study is only examining the Static-99R scam for a period of ONLY five-years.

              Good job “Not Really.” Good eye. None of us caught this flaw until you pointed it out.

        • Timmr

          Am I right in saying they, CASOMB, SARATSO, like using the Static because it puts the power to determine the mental proclivities of the ex offender squarely in the hands of law enforcement rather than with a medical professional who has exstensive knowlege of mental health. Am I right, Static-99R can be scored by any law official to determine the possible behavior of an offender? Only a licensed physician was allowed to perform a psycological evaluation, at least before CASOMB.

          • Tobin's Tools 2.0


            I think you’re right. Also, there seems to be a lot of money and powers given to SARATSO (by the Legislature) in deciding that the Static-99R is allegedly an accurate “tool.” SARATSO, the CA DOJ, CASOMB, and CDCR has put a lot of investment, political capital, and credibility into making people believe that the Static is accurate. What’s troubling is that many (but not all) mental health “experts,” too, believe that the Static is an accurate tool. So much so that, at least in this draft bill, it should be used to classify Tier 3’s.

            What’s tragic is that they are all wrong. As you can see with the Karl Hanson/Carleton University/CA DOJ “study,” and their over-inclusive definition of “recidivism,” they have been so invested in selling the Static-99R that they’re willing to manipulate the very definition of “recidivism” in an attempt to induce a predetermined conclusion in trying to show that the Static is credible. To me, it seems a desperate attempt to continue to sell the Static-99R scam.

            Think about it. I’m sure there are many people in SARATSO, CASOMB, the CA DOJ, and CDCR who have spent much of their careers bragging about how great the Static scam is. For them to admit that the Static-99R is complete junk pseudo science — especially at this point — would make them all look really bad.

            This is not about the truth. It’s about politics.

          • Bruce Ferrell

            Static-99/R may ONLY be administered by a licensed mental health professional, trained in it’s administration. Mine was done during the too short period of the appellate court ruling on 8th amendment unequal enforcement. The lawyer dawdled and showed up to court with incomplete paperwork so I lost out… But I have a static-99!

            Law enforcement likes it because they can blame someone else if something goes wrong.
            They’re as risk adverse as anyone else these days

            • Timmr

              Good point, but it looks like it is structured so that even the clinician can not be blamed for an “objective” scoring, if something goes wrong.

      • JM of Wi.

        Since I am from WI. this will not directly affect me. Seeing some movement is nice. It shows me that we are making an impact. i tend to think that something else besides (helping the few registrants) is at the root of this. Obviously all politicians at this point seem to fear aligning with our cause. Getting some parallel language in this bill to aid in our cause may be helpful. Quoting reasons for change because recidivism rates used to fashion previous legislation were proved false etc. may help our cause. Also accepting the static 99 test in this legislation is hurtful. This may be an opportunity to help get this “tool” reformed. —— Good luck Janice with your decision. As long as I see positive action my support/$ is behind you.

  165. About Time


    While I feel for those that may not get off the list, here is my short story.
    My last offence was in 86, in Calif. Since then I have been clean, I have never been in a court for my own doings since then. Since then I have graduated from two Bible Schools, earned a Ph.D, Had my own Bible school. I have been living in same home for 22 years,(out of state) married to the same lady for 32 years, Get this, Pastoring a Church for 22 years. The State I live in has a tiered system and I am not even on it, I called the Police Dept. and they told me that I am not a risk but I have to reg. because it followed me from CA. Thank You Janice and Chance for all you are doing, keep up the good work.

  166. Chris F

    Mike R is right about “a lot of people can’t afford attorneys nor can they effectively argue their case against professional public debaters such as DA and judges…the ability of petitioning the court alone is almost not a reality that most would be able to afford or do on their own… ”

    Not only that, but even if you get a good attorney, the likelihood of a sex offender getting good representation is low, and the publicly elected judge granting it is even lower. These people have friends and family that won’t look kindly on them supporting a sex offender when they can’t be 100% certain they won’t re-offend and the judges have to get re-elected.

    The only way legislation will help get people off the registry is if it is automatic at a particular time or after particular events. Period. Sure, a few minor cases will miraculously get approval to be removed, but the majority will not. Quit kidding yourself that a “day in court” is all you need to show what a great person you have become because it won’t matter. I’ve seen it first hand in Texas. It doesn’t work.

    Until the right lawyers with the right clients get a good case in front of appointed lifetime judges like SCOTUS the relief to registered citizens won’t come.

  167. Mike

    This bill is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think many here are very astute to have pointed out the Static 99R’s use in classifying Tier III’s. This is really what this bill is about. A “risk” based registry. In theory “risk” based sounds great. But when it relies on junk science like the Static scams, then I’m afraid it ain’t no better than offense based registries. In fact I think this bill is a lot worse than what we have now. As of now, this bill seems completely intended to divide the movement against the registry. CA SOMB manipulation at its best!!

    Hope you people don’t fall for it. But it seems many have already taken the bait.


      Many more oppose it. You’ll always get people who don’t bother checking anything and blindly trust, those who don’t comprehend everything and the practical applications of it and those that are completely self-focusing.

      Gotta “ignore” that and push for what’s right.

    • anon

      According to the draft legislation, I would be off the registry immediately. But I oppose the bill because I simply don’t trust the DA or the courts or any politician. The bill is WAY too complicated and there are too man opportunities to screw us.

  168. ExpatRFSO

    I see a lot of push back on this from the people that it won’t likely help. It is not perfect, but 10,000 people dropping off instantly, and 60,000 people eventually sounds pretty good to me. Of course I hope that the vast majority of people remaining that don’t deserve to, and society is not helped by them being in the registry, shouldn’t have to register. I know I’ll get slayed by this, but there is no doubt that some people, a small fraction, the worst of the worst who do deserve, and society is helped, by them being on the registry.


      Yes you will and you deserve it. That’s exactly the kind of goofball thinking that has allowed this country to slip to where it is. The ends justify the means mentality.

      I don’t care what a person does, they deserve all of their rights back after they have satisfied their punishments. If you don’t trust them, then don’t let them out.

      You give zero incentive for an offender to stop by sticking their faces on a public site. Absolutely assbackwards thinking.

      As for the 60,000 “eventually” bit… Bullshit, this is nothing but a trojan horse. They’re maneuvering to get ahead of what they see coming.

      We’re at the initial stages of this shit unraveling. Kansas has spoke up, the 6th and now the 4th.

      Already we’ve had cases, if I’m not mistaken, that trounced lifetime registration so why not go after 290 itself? Why not a direct approach that would help far greater numbers.

  169. j

    So i see a tier 3 288 (a) as a “lifetime” if a person is a repeat offender (BUT) 288 (B ) is the same as ( a ) but by the means of force violence menace or fear, so what if the person had 1 conviction of 288 ( A ) and has already been on registry for 22 years? (since 97) and had no other sex related issues and never been to prison? i ask because i see that tier 3 also has that –forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14– *288 (B)—- so heres where im confused?? how can a person have 1 single conviction 288 (A) only time in trouble but tier 3 is also putting * (a) and (B) as 1 sentence?? 288 (A) is the intent to *NOW* 288 ( B ) is by means of force,, and court records show there was no force? -from california-

    *Janice please*

  170. mike r

    yeah abolish these people just don’t get it…you or I or anyone else for that matter can pound our fist and beat this horse to death and they still wont get it…Hey that fourth circuit ruling though…look out man because its coming….Just like you and I and a few others have stated where is the justification fr these laws???show us the empirical evidence and prove that we pose a significant enough risk to justify the registry, we have more overwhelming evidence that the registry is actually counterproductive then the government can bring in favor of its registry….Ive been right about every issue thats came up about all this crap and I hate to say it but Im telling you IML law suit the way it is and was argued will not prevail, this tiered bill is going to pass and does absolutely nothing for the remaining people except create the real possibility of becoming even bigger targets for these vindictive legislators, but the good news is is that there will be a challenge for the government to prove their case and support it with evidence and not just suppositions..Its coming….


      The challenge is to do it competently and still get ahead of the rest of the pack before things are whittled down. It’s a race to the finish line and unfortunately I’m dragging my body along with two broke legs financially.

      It’ll be years before I’m ready at this pace. Maybe you will beat me to it. 🙂

  171. mike r

    according to saratso their is supposed to be at least 5 or 6 tiers so there is really no telling what kind of pseudo junk tool they’re going to use….and what the heck they cant even find a study or statistical data from the US they are importing this junk pseudo science and statistics from Canada….so they just troll the world to find stats or prediction tools and pick one that fits their needs….not only is this so called tool pseudo science it doesn’t even reflect or take into account anything about the US’s research, findings, or stats.our experts,especially our statisticts and data here in this country paint a very different picture than Canada’s..they relied upon very limited studies that were mostly done years ago and were biased to boost these authors and creators credibility of this junk science…their recidivism rates were dramatically higher in their limited studies then all of our multitudes of studies by independent and even governmental seems we should be using our own data and conclusions instead of trolling other countries throwing what they say or have on the proverbial wall here in the US to see of it sticks…

  172. Glenn

    I oppose this bill. If ACSOL decides to support this bill, I will no longer support ACSOL. Period. This organization could decide to look after ALL registrants. Sure, this bill will help 10,000. But it’s at the expense of the rights of 30,000 people who will be singled out as Tier III! As a civil rights group, you people should not be doing this! Even though CA is a lifetime state, it still is a lot better than most other states. This tiered system will make it worse for a lot of people. And this bill is a lot worse than the lifetime law we have now. The mere fact that ACSOL seems set in leisurely throwing a bunch of arbitrarily defined Tier IIIs under the bus really has me troubled about the direction of this organization. The fact that corrupt police and law enforcement want a tiered registry should have us estimating what monster a tiered system may eventually evolve to. Since when have the police and sheriff been on our side? Cops don’t care about the Constitution. They are not anyone’s friends.

    • ExpasRFSO

      I have seen many people expressing frustration at ACSOL’s position and I just don’t understand it. This is a HUGE step in the right direction. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean ACSOL supports a tiered registry or that they will stop fighting for constitutional registration laws. They naturally prefer it over a lifetime registry for all registered citizens, and rightly so.

      If you are of the small majority that fit into tier 3 listed above and you think that a 19 year old who had consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or a person convicted of looking at child porn, or a person who flashed someone deserves to be treated the same as you, well then you are in the same league as the people who concocted these draconian laws in the first place.

      • Chris Germer

        Tiered registry is not good. So I disagree with you 100%. While I respect your position, there are some things you could consider to think about.

        For you, it might seem like a “HUGE step in the right direction.” But for others, this tiered bill is at the expense of other people’s rights. And only one law from CA evolving into a more draconian Adam Walsh Act state (with mandatory 90 day, 6 month, and 12 month registration periods). The proponents of this tiered bill keep failing to recognize that any tiered bill is an “unfunded mandate.” And to fund this mandate, the state has a big incentive to switch to Adam Walsh status to secure federal funds to pay for any modification to our current registry.

        And we should really be questioning whether a true civil rights organization would advocate for any law that would put thousands of people in a worse position than they were previously. Also, I disagree with your assertion that about 10,000 people who will be elevated to Tier III is a “small majority.” 10,000 people is a big number. Neither is the 60,000 Tier II’s, whose removal from the registry is far from guaranteed (given the politicization of our courts, as well as the many exceptions and guidelines under the draft that would keep any Tier II from eventually getting off). Also, what is to guarantee CA from extending Tier I and Tier II registration periods in the future, as they recently did in NY state?

        Also, for your information, the hypothetical case of “child porn,” as well as your other hypothetical case of someone who “flashed someone,” has a higher likelihood of falling into Tier III. That is because under the Static-99R, non-contact offenses are scored with greater severity. As are stranger and unrelated victims.

        So because scoring high on the Static-99R alone will get someone into Tier III, the last two scenarios that you use in your very own example has the ironic result of very likely arguing against the very position that you offer — as both would very likely falling into Tier III status (given that they are both non-contacts and tend to have stranger and unrelated victims).

        I don’t understand how that helps support your position that the tiered registry is supposed to be better?

        • Chris Germer

          Also, I just wanted to correct myself. The number would not be 10,000 people elevated to Tier III; but rather, there would be about 30,000 people given the Tier III label (which is obviously a lot worse).

          So to rebut ExpasRFSO’s claim that 30,000 people given the Tier III label is a “small majority,” I think you might be mistaken. Because 30,000 Tier III’s is not a small number. Neither is 60,000 Tier I’s and II’s.

          Also, to question Janice’s claim in the above post, why does she say that “about 60,000 registrants would ‘ultimately’ stop registering[?]” What is to guarantee that anyone, other than the about 10,000 pre-1987 offenders, will “ultimately stop registering?” If this law truly depends on the discretion of the Courts, and given the endless exemptions and qualifications under this draft, how can you say that 60,000 would “ultimately stop registering?” The reality is that very few of the 60,000 may be granted a petition to terminate registration duties.

          We need to be honest about this bill. Because it is being sugarcoated. When in reality, it is going to hurt and a disappoint a lot of people.

          • Chris F

            If the judges and prosecutors are anything like in Texas, than only 1/3 of those that meet all the criteria to be removed and have the support of treatment providers will actually get approved. Some judges just don’t do it, and some will only consider it for certain nuisance crimes.


            Excellent posts by you and Chris F showing the BS that’s floated before us.

  173. New Person

    So I was browsing the web and encountered this link:

    Although it founded low level registrants excessive (hey, why can’t we use this for California???), but it did comment on Tiers II and Tiers III in its ruling:

    Specifically, the Court held that requiring “all tier II and tier III offenders be registered for life without regard to whether they pose a current risk to the public” was excessive. As such, the statute had a punitive effect on Doe. It was this provision alone that led the Court to its conclusion that a risk assessment hearing was required.

    I didn’t know NH called registration punitive? The article was published March 31st, 2016.

    On another note, I found this article:

    The more courts differ in outcomes, the better the chances the SCOTUS will be forced to re-visit this issue.

    • New Hampshire punitive effect

      Can a punitive effect be equaled to being an actual punishment? That is the question a legal someone (e.g. judge, scholar or atty) with authority should answer in a decision no less, but in an interview would be just as helpful.

      It has been said the registry is not a punishment and has never been intended to be that way, but only exists for the safety, blah blah blah (you know the song and dance)…..Therefore, if it appears that way as a punishment and feels that way as a punishment, tough for you Mr. and Mrs. RC., it is only the collateral effect of it, not the intent. XOXO The Courts

      However, can you have an effect without the actual preceding item(s), e.g. a punitive effect without actually implementing punishment? No, you cannot, even without the intent as noted through empirical evidence. For a simple example, you cannot warm a room through a fireplace fire without a source, oxygen and fuel (the 3 things req’d) to provide the warmth without the unintended (positive) lighting effect on the room.

      You cannot have safety without unintended consequences (good and bad) that may need to be addressed down the line. If it is a good unintended consequence, you take credit for it and further it if needed. If it is a bad unintended consequence and it negatively impacts the environment, including people, it needs to be addressed for rectification to minimize or do away with the negative impact. How it is seen as negative is always up to debate (big or small) or none possibly. Not everyone will see it as negative; thus, the unintended consequence needs to be addressed. Once you show you can have a punitive (negative) effect without an actual intended punishment in place, you are making the punitive (negative) effect equal to a punishment in the end.

      (This is the great debate on a law’s letter, intent and spirit.)

      • Timmr

        If the intent of the law is not met, the registry does not save children, it even harms some, then the negative effects serve no other purpose than to limit the rights of citizens as mere retribution. Retribution is punishment. It is not a quality of regulation.

        • New Person

          Recall, all those fears that it could be punishment were all deemed conjecture by the SCOTUS, including not infringing upon housing and employment.

          Well, you are excluded from several employment as a registrant. We have proof that housing is a problem with the re:Taylor case in Cali, but to the letter of the law, Taylor only pertains to parolees.

          So everything the SCOTUS deemed conjecture at the time has gone well beyond. All the rules and regulations thereafter never take that into account, only the bending of the rules – it’s regulatory, not punishment. Remember, that was just for post cards. Nowadays, you are compelled to go into the police department at least once a year; and for some more than once. Well, now that’s crossed into actual service for the state.

          Regulation, but not punishment – compelled service due to dominance is prohibited as it’s called “involuntary servitude”. As stated specifically in both the US and California Constitutions, “Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.” Regulation cannot supersede involuntary servitude as it is stated any compelled service cannot be administered unless to punish a crime.

          The collateral damages initiate the bill of Attainder and social death aspects of law.

          Also, i found this tidbit in wikipedia:

          The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution;[21] even in Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Clause protected “the right to enter any other State whenever they [citizens] pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at any hour of the day or night without molestation,” but no African-American could have this right.[22]

          Once you’re out of punishment custody, then you regain the right to become a citizen again. Well, in Cali, a 1203.4 is supposed to relieve one of all penalties and disabilities because you’re considered rehabilitated. The privileges and immunities Clause lies within the 14th amendment. “Without obstruction” is very key here along with “to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at any hour of the day or night without molestation.”

          According to the 14th amendment, it appears that registration obstructs travel. with a 1203.4, you’ve actually have more claim as you’ve legally gained the rights as a citizen again as it’s stated within statute “relieved of all penalties and disabilities” (paraphrasing).

          There are so many laws on the books that judges and DA’s can be fully ignorant of the law. Again, I had to have an appellate lawyer re-affirm that once you’ve successfully completed registration, that the 1203.4 is automatically awarded to you by law (provided you qualify for 1203.4). The judge in my case was inclined to deny it. The DA in my case petitioned against it. The probation office wrote a recommendation saying I had done everything correct to their satisfaction, but highly recommended against the 1203.4. Odd thing is, the statute removed all three factions from playing any determinant in the 1203.4.

          BTW, I presume this will probably be the likely response for any registrant willing to petition off the registry. Do everything correct, but still deemed a monster. Still believe in this tier and petition ruse?

  174. jd

    How can one tell to which tier a person would be designated based on his Static-99 score? I saw a comment on here somewhere that a score of 5 would designate someone as a Tier 1, but a 6 would be a Tier 3. So what is a Tier 2? And where in the bill are these classifications by Static-99 score outlined? Perhaps I overlooked that section.

  175. Danielle

    Perhaps this is one of the last few comments before decisions are made about whether to modify,oppose or endorse this bill.let me remind everyone that the piling on of additional restrictions (sora,megans law,etc) is unconstitutional at both state and federal use the arguement that it is not punitive cannot hold up any longer. Additional restrictions and laws are ex post facto punishment. California may have a lifetime registration for all sex offenders presently but additional restrictions after ones conviction should not be applied. And its not right to alter registration time into tiers,singling out and changing who will get off in this ammount of years.many registered citizens would not have agreed to a so called plea ‘bargain’ had they known of these future restrictions as well as the public registry.everyone should get off registration after parole. The police have their own records. Thats enough. California,let your people go.there are other jobs than hounding people with the lowest recidivism rates. Easy money is often not good money.

  176. TT

    This tiered registration bill is actually worse than the lifetime bill that we now have. Oppose it! Do not support it!

  177. BSL

    I don’t understand the 1987 thing! I was sited for peeing in public type situation only. Nothing before, Nothing after. I never even went to jail. From court I was assigned a probation officer for 1 year and told to check in with the SO to register for life. I did community service and got off of probation in only 6 months because the Judge realized the insignificance in nature of my crime and I followed all the orders promptly. He told me he never saw anyone complete their community service as consistently as me and complete it so fast. I even went to counseling for a couple months and was given a report to hand in stating that I was not at risk to ever offend again. I wanted to put it all in the past after that first 6 months was over but for the last 23 years I’ve had to feel the shame and register as a SEX OFFENDER. I have been told it is not punitive, however, I live in a small to medium town. I know the Administrators at the local college. I actually have several police officer and sheriff friends that I’ve made over the years. Most of them don’t know anything about it. What if I get pulled over? I wanted to go to college many times and better my situation. But if I register with the campus police, Administration finds out, That person knows me and my family and where I work. They tell one person and I can get fired for being a SEX OFFENDER. When the ordinance was in place for distance restrictions to Parks and Schools with my kids, I would go paranoid that I was going to get in some kind of trouble. Every time see people In the back of my head i’m thinking SEX OFFENDER. SEX OFFENDER. I feel so bad inside and get depressed. I’ve done nothing to deserve these things! I don’t even have parking tickets! I have been held back in my education and many other things because of this. IT IS PUNITIVE!! I feel it every day! I have often thought of offing myself because of it. I would never do that but I’ve gone down that thought process many times. In conclusion: What did I do that makes me not fall off because I got convicted 1 time for misdemeanor indecent exposure in 1994. Where people that have done much worst but got convicted pre 1987 get to fall of and not have to petition. I’m being selfish because I want a Tiered System as I know I will be able to get this put behind me soon. But if I”m supposed to only spend 10 years and I’ve almost hit 23 years, why should I have to petition for relief? Why even say that a Tier 1 will be relieved of duty to register after 10 years if that is not really true?

  178. Eric

    I do not agree with this bill.

  179. Timmr

    This is the day. So what’s the word from the board: yea, nay or a little of both?

  180. Fed up

    Can someone enlighten me as to where I fall on this tiered system.. I can’t seem to be able to although I am assuming I’m tier one. Very low static 99 either 0 or 1, can’t remember, very low on mandatory SO class.
    charged with 288(c)(1) and 288a(b)(1)
    No prison. 5 years probation off in 4 years.
    Also does “time of completion of the designated tier runs from the date of release from custody” refer to incarceration time only or would that include probation, meaning time starts after release from probation?
    Thank you to whomever can answer these questions for me.

  181. Someone who cares

    I see more responses that are opposed to a tiered registry. Even those who live in states that currently have the tiered registry advise against it, and that should be our first clue. During the time a tiered registry would be introduced, I can just visualize all the new laws they will try to implement. It could even effect those “lucky” ones who might get off if they introduce new rules, which will be their rules of course. It will give them added ammunition. I am not in favor of this at all. It will also prove to them that a registry is necessary. I’d rather keep fighting to get it abolished all together. There are class action suits, mass action suits, and we are becoming more angry. Enough is enough!

  182. AB

    Does anyone know what the Static-99 scores are for Tier II?
    The main post only mentions the Static-99 scores for Tier III (well above average risk level).

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. Moderating 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, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, 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 [at] all4consolaws [dot] org

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

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