ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online Next Call: May 5 (Int. Megan's Law) - Mar 8 Recording added Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q2: 4/8 in Sac, 5/15 in SD, 6/16-17 in LA (Conference) [details]
CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Tiered Registry Bill Could Help More Than 90 Percent of Registrants

It has happened at last!  A tiered registry bill has been introduced in the state legislature.

Before looking at the substance of the bill (Senate Bill 695), it is important to look at those who are offering and supporting it.  The bill’s authors are two powerful members of the state Senate — Senator Ricardo Lara, who chairs the Appropriations Committee and Holly Mitchell, who chairs the Budget Committee.   The bill’s sponsor is the most powerful district attorney in California, Jackie Lacey of Los Angeles.  And the initial supporters of the bill are law enforcement organizations who wield significant power in the state capital.

It is important to note that the sources of this strong level of political support have not always been our allies in the past.  For example, we remember clearly when Senator Lara voted in favor of a bill we opposed (Senate Bill 267).  We also remember that law enforcement led the charge to defeat two previous tiered registry bills.

Therefore, it was with a sense of skepticism and concern that we analyzed the tiered registry bill that was introduced yesterday.  Could a bill with such a pedigree actually help those on the registry today?  The answer is a resounding yes.

While not perfect, this tiered registry bill could provide relief for more than 90 percent of those on the registry today.  The bill would automatically terminate the requirement to register for more than 10,000 individuals convicted prior to 1987.  In addition, the bill would make more than 90 percent of today’s registrants eligible to petition for removal from the tiered registry after 10 or 20 years provided they don’t re-offend.

The imperfections in the tiered registry bill must be addressed.  For example, the bill requires Tier 3 registrants to remain on the registry for a lifetime.  This requirement is not supported by empirical evidence which clearly establishes that a registrant in the community who has not re-offended in 17 years is very unlikely to re-offend.

In addition, we believe the bill provides district attorneys with too much discretion when they object to a petition.  The bill also treats those who offend as juveniles the same as those who offend as adults.  Further, the bill increases the tier level of an individual based solely upon risk factors that adversely impact young gay men and others.

We will address these and other imperfections as an advocacy organization, however, we need your help to obtain a tiered registry that helps as many registrants as possible.  Please send letters now to members of the Senate Public Safety Committee.

by Janice Bellucci – Read all of Janice’s Journals

A list of Senate Public Safety Committee members (.doc) and Talking Points (.doc) to address in your letter are available below:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

Senator Nancy Skinner (Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2059
Sacramento, CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4009
Fax:  (916) 327-1997

Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.651.4038
Fax: 916.651.4938

Senator Steven Bradford
State Capitol, Room 4085
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4035
Fax: (916) 651-4935

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4019

Senator Holly J. Mitchell – Co-Author
State Capitol, Room 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4030
Fax: (916) 651-4930

Senator Jeff Stone
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 651-4928

Senator Scott D. Wiener
State Capitol, Room 4066
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4011

REASONS TO SUPPORT A TIERED REGISTRY

  • Tiered registry bill (Senate Bill 695) introduced on Feb. 17
    • Senators Ricardo Lara and Holly Mitchell authors
    • Bill supported by CA Sex Offender Management Board
  • Current registry provides public with “False Sense of Security”
    • More than 90 percent of those who assault a child are family members, teachers, coaches, clergy and are NOT on sex offender registry
    • Less than 1 percent of sex offenders on parole commit another sex offense – CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation
    • Only 5.3 percent of all sex offenders commit another sex offense – U.S. DOJ
  • Tiered registry for sex offenders would increase public safety and save $115 million annually for state and local governments
    • The registry includes many individuals who pose little threat to society such as those convicted of the non-violent crimes of “sexting” on a cell phone, urinating in public, and engaging in consensual teen sex.
    • The registry also includes individuals who pose significant threat to society such as those convicted of multiple sexual assaults against children and adults.
  • Tiered registries exist in 46 of the nation’s 50 states and successfully protect the citizens of those states
    • California is only 1 of 4 states with lifetime registries along with Alabama, South Carolina and Florida.
  • Tiered registry would end a life-time sentence for registrants who do NOT pose current harm to society
    • Registrants often lose their jobs and/or housing solely because they are registrants.  Section 8 housing not available to individuals listed on a lifetime registry (like California).
    • Some registrants are physically harmed, even murdered, by vigilantes.
  • All individuals required to register under Penal Code Section 290 would remain on the registry for at least 10 years
    • Those convicted of low level offenses could leave registry in 10 years
    • Those convicted of moderate level offenses could leave registry in 20 years
  • A tiered registry would continue life-time registration for those who pose a current significant harm to society

Join the discussion

  1. NPS

    Ugh…I can’t stand Scott Weiner. He was our (San Francisco) county supervisor and he successfully criminalized acts that were once legal; now they’re registrable offenses. He may be a Gay Liberal San Franciscan, but don’t let that fool you. He is anti-RC.

    • Son of Libetry Child of Freedom

      NPS

      In this Match for Freedom & Liberty, surprises are expected.

  2. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    The “risk factors” that affect young gay men also adversely affect first-time/non-contact offenders, who also receive an extra one point under the Static-99R scam. Non-contact offenders receive a one point penalty that violent and/or contact offenders perversely do not incur.

    The tiered registry integrates, by giving more credibility to, “the static risk assessment instrument forsex [sic] offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.” See Cal. Penal Code 290(d)(3) of the draft bill.

    Note how CASOMB expertly phrased the above excerpt by specifically avoiding the phrase “Static-99R.” The draft bill gives CASOMB and SARATSO — the latter of which which includes unknown representatives from CDCR and the California Attorney General’s Office — wide discretion in selecting a replacement for the Static-99R when it is eventually discredited. Maybe in 10 years, Karl Hanson will come out with the Static-100. By then, how many rights have been violated by the Static-99R? In sum, this tiered bill would permit SARATSO to come out and use any type of future “static” test, without legislative approval.

    By demanding a registry predicated on “empirical evidence,” I propose that ACSOL oppose any integration of an actuarial instrument — such as the Static-99R — that lumps all types of offenders (violent/non-violent and first-time/recidivist) together. If ACSOL allows the Static-99R to be used, it is — indirectly — advocating, though covertly, for a registry that would still lump all types of “sex” offenders together.

    Even for violent offenders, the Virginia legislature has discredited the Static-99R (not even accounting for its use on non-contact offenders — which CASOMB intends to do):

    http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/20d0de7a436ff22c85257863004afe71/$FILE/HD5.pdf

    In a *published* medical journal, professors from USC and Duke Medical School have discredited the Static-99R:

    http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf

    In a published opinion, the New York Courts have discredited the Static-99R:

    http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_29290.htm

    Yet CASOMB and SARATSO still peddles the Static-99R scam, often referencing to Karl Hanson’s very own work to “validate” his very own “accuracy.” (Do you see what’s wrong with this?)

    It should be pretty obvious to anyone (at least anyone with some basic common sense) that 10 questions can’t predict human behavior… especially more than five-years into the future.

    (California has only evaluated the Static-99R for a five-year interval. The Static-99R is only designed to be used up to a 10 year period after release. Yet CASOMB wants the Static-99R to determine whether one should be required to register for life!)

    Life is not “static.” And very few things are definitively “set in stone.”

    • DPH

      TT2.0, you always have something factual to say opinionated but backed by facts and links!
      Tobin, you are educated and realize that their are some major loopholes here. Appreciate your comments.

    • Son of Libetry Child of Freedom

      Tobin’s Tools 2.0

      People often work hard to Obtain & Guard Information they already have and Avoid New Knowledge.

  3. Alex

    “Resounding yes?” It COULD help. But this bill COULD also easily hurt. I am just wondering where Acsol got its data that this bill “could help more than 90 percent of registrants.” As much as I have supported Acsol & Janice in the past, I think this tiered registration bill is a risky and dishonest piece of legislation. So I will be writing to oppose. It should also be concerning that the DAs want this bill.

    • NPS

      I will be writing letters in complete support of this bill. Thank you, Janice, et.al. for your years of dedication to our community.

    • New Person

      In California, if you are a registrant, then you register for life. You can petition in 10 years for a COR, but we have no data of success/fail rates. Under the current model, you can be denied the COR indefinitely. (Yes, this is a violation of the California Constitution for your right to pursue and obtain privacy b/c you are never going to obtain it with constant denial.)

      With this current tiered bill, about 10% of the current registrants will be designated as a tier 3 registrant, who will have to register for life.

      Tier 1’s have a 10 year period before petitioning off the registry. The max for denial is five years. So the max a tier 1 registrant can be on the registry is 15 years.

      Tier 2’s have a 20 year period before petitioning off the registry. IIRC, it’s also a five year max denial. So the max a tier 2 registrant can be on the registry is 25 years.

      This is why ACSOL says it “could” help 90%. Laws often change, though, see NY who voted to extend the 10 year period to an additional 10 years. Why? The registry is legal in their view.
      .
      .
      .

      Now, with those time periods set, ACSOL has stated it still does not follow empirical evidence. Dr. Hanson has researched that the maximum years of “tagging a person for surveillance” is 17 years. Tier 1s can be denied up to 15 years. Tier 3s still have to register for life. The tiers are not created scientifically. (You know how John Roberts and SCOTUS use the scientific metric that registrants rates of re-offending is “frightening and high” to pass the legislation of making the registry legal and not punitive.)

      Another empirical evidence that ACSOL needs to continue to reiterate is the California’s own research team, CASOMB, and its results of less than 1% recidivism rate.

      Then finally, ACSOL can probably attack the idea that this bill treats registrants not on equal grounds. 10,000 registrants will automatically be removed from the registry because they have not re-offended under a certain time. But anyone after a certain date will have to petition off the registry. That’s two different standards and makes no consistent sense. How can one set of registrants not need to petition, but another set with the exact same conditions met do have to petition?

      • Timmr

        I read the text to mean the maximum the district attorney can postpone reapplication of petition is 5 years, not how long he can deny the petition. Intervals of five years can add up to a long time.
        “( 4) If termination from the registry is denied, the court shall set the time period after which the person can repetition for tennination[sic], which shall be at least one year from the date of the denial, but not to exceed five years, based on facts presented at the hearing.”
        ‘Repetition’ is the operant word . There is no limit to how many five year repetition wait times they will make you file. And, if the basis for denial is a criminal or non-criminal factor in your past, that is going to be impossible to improve your record.
        Still, noone is going to challege the constitutionality of the present lifetime registry. It has been too long now, the oportunity is gone. There has only been working around the edges, such as challenging the residency restrictions. A new law will open up new legal opportunities for challenges as happened in Michigan. That’s just my opinion, obviously. I’m not a legal strategist.

        • New Person

          oh snap!

          Thanks for catching that! So the next petition can be delayed for a max of five years, but it has nothing to do with denial. You can be denied continually?!

          I hope Janice and ACSOL catches this b/c it can be a loophole to “protect the public”.

          Now with that information stuck in my head, then it does pose how different one set of registrants are treated over another despite facing the same conditions.

          hey… we’re behaving like intern para legals (not really, but it makes me feel good to believe I’m helping in the process of pointing or helping someone else point things out).

          • Timmr

            Well, I don’t see any cap on number of times they can deny you. I wouldn’t expect that. They are not going to limit their options, would they.

            • Tobin's Tools 2.0

              Precisely Timmr. The tiered registry bill is not about limiting their options. The tiered registry is about *increasing* the state’s options. Unfortunately, this tiered registry dangerously provides the government with the flexibility to do as please with those who are labeled “sex offender.”

              This tiered registry bill is designed with many loopholes, exceptions, qualifications, contingencies (i.e. the flexibility to move crimes between tiers without the usual ex post facto protection), and phrases that will be subject to years of appellate interpretation. It’s game theory at work.

              • Son of Libetry Child of Freedom

                Tobin’s Tools 2.0 the Ugly Truth is:

                People & Blind Seats aka Judges accept any explanation as long as it fits the facts.

              • Timmr

                I was a little skeptical about your claims that you can have a score of six on the static 99 with one first time offense. So, I went to the actual form and sure enough, that can happen. That’s ridiculous. That’s something out of 1984.

              • Timmr

                What I learned from land use activism that can be applied here is the importance of bringing into the public record the impacts of a proposed government action at the earliest possible opportunity. It not about just saying yea or nea to a project, and coming back later and saying, oh but wait, I forgot to mention this, but building a foundation for later action in the public record. Activist lawyers know that it is not about putting out fires, but putting away the arsonist.

              • Jayson A.

                Tobin’s Tools – I’m afraid that you might be right. But you also forgot to mention what’s happened in NV and NY state. They simply made the tiers register for longer periods when most were about to get off. Unfortunately, idk if the people who support this bill are really looking at the overall consequences of this bill.

    • DPH

      Alex, let’s say…..sixty-two percent or less.
      New Person, let’s say <5%, less than.
      Ratios change, each time an audit is completed.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      10 percent is still 10,000 people. Minimizing the damage that this bill will do to 10,000 people — by boasting how this bill “could help more than 90 percent” — does not seem right. As someone else said, this bill is not without strings. This bill is at the “expense” of 10,000 people.

      (I kind of wonder what proportion of the 90 percent of registrants will *actually* be able to successfully “petition” from the registry.)

      • Janice Bellucci

        To Tobin’s Tools – If the tiered registry bill does NOT become law, 100 percent or 104,000 people now on the registry will remain on the registry for a lifetime.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          Janice,

          I hope that you fight the Static-99R. That’s my biggest gripe with this bill. The Static-99R is extremely flawed. It’s okay to use it to determine parole or probation supervision levels. But using the Static-99R to determine tier level, regardless of whether an offense is a non-contact and first-time offense (without taking offense-free years in the community into account), is misusing this quasi-scientific “risk assessment.”

          California has only tested the Static-99R for a period of five-years (albeit with seemingly deductive methods that rely on statistical manipulation). The “developers” of the Static tests state that it is only designed to be used 10-years following release. It lumps all types of offenses (violent and non-violent) together. Yet despite its extremely limited design, it is going to be used to determine lifetime registration under this tiered bill!

          How can the Static-99R ostensibly forecast lifetime “risk,” when California only tested it for a period of five-years using a very limited — and non-transparent — sample in an unpublished academic paper?

        • James

          Janice…..

          What about the some people who qualify for CORs? It’s not like all 104k will be on the registry for life as you say.

          I can imagine thousands who qualify for COR who will no longer qualify if this bill bases (or have to wait 20 yr like me). Are you taking that in account??

        • Tony

          Janice, if this bill passes, will it be retroactive for RC’s who have already had to register. i.e. I’ve already had to register for 5 years. I get classified as tier 1. Do I have only 5 more years to go?

    • Trader Joe's

      I don’t feel it’s appropriate to sugarcoat that “more than 90 percent of registrants” “could” be helped by a tiered registry. I would disagree. In reality, I think more like 20%, maybe up to 30%, will be helped while 70% to 80% will be significantly hurt or be in an unchanged situation (not accounting for lost hope, worsening laws that target higher tiers, or wasted attorney or possible “certified” therapy fees leading to a rejected petition/s for that matter).

  4. DavidH

    With all this at what point in time is one deemed not a SO–seems to me they can always call you back via legislation.. It’s as if one is in this perpetual condition

    • New Person

      ohhh…

      so are you suggesting that not only do registrants get off the registry, but also get a pardon?! That seems like the only way to escape a law that is not called punishment and has no way to reigning itself in, right?

      the 1203.4 is supposed to restore you back to who you were before your offense, but apparently legislation says nope. 1203.4 doesn’t mean what it says it means and you need to continue to registry b/c you’re not rehabilitated.

    • DPH

      DavidH, you are SO correct, look at those (including me) that were ADDED on when ML’s came out. Avail. to the PUBlic before and now worldwideweb. We were already fingerprinted and photographed and RC’s PRIOR to 290 time. NO SECRET, just given out to all (and those websites to make $). Just more dangerous to RC’s.

  5. Rick H

    Thank you for all that you are doing Ms. Bellucci.

  6. mike r

    so if this bill passed will we not see effects until july 2019 or will the changes take effect as soon as the bill passes????

    • NPS

      I take it to mean that it won’t take effect until 2019.

      I recall a fews ago before Ammianno was termed out, his proposals for a tiered registry showed an effect taking two years.

  7. Derek W Logue of OnceFallen.com

    “Could.” Until they do like NY state does and move the goalposts. The moment the first person is eligible for registry removal, expect a media shitstorm. HJanice thinks this is bridging the gap between us and our enemies, I see this bridge as built over the river Kwai. And I hear the train coming.

    • Steve

      The real shit storm will be when someone gets off then re-offends. I think it will be imperative to put out statistics every year when nobody re-offends and it needs to be hammered down their throats.

      • Timmr

        That is why the real answer is to show the registry has no effect on re-offense. Study after study. And oppose the political theatrics. There would be no way to prove the registry tiered or flat, would have prevented re-offense if and when it happens, and it is going to happen. It is like those past civilizations believing that droughts come about by not having sacrificed enough virgins to the gods, and throwing more or less off the pyramid proportional to crop loss. Indeed, someone tell me why most of the registries in the US are tri-lateral. Must be something magical about that.

    • Ranger11bv

      I was always wondering: is it worth getting just 10% of the Cali registry and let the other suffer???

  8. J

    Just what I thought! Great job, Janice.

  9. David

    I see this as a foot in the door. Once we can start getting RCs off the Registry and all the Chicken Little politicians’ sky doesn’t fall, that will be a great success. Let’s continue following a two-track approach: hammer away at & weaken these bogus Registries, while at the same time pursuing legal battles to ultimately having the Registries declared unconstitutional. By battling on several fronts simultaneously – and with increased media coverage of costly & ineffective Registries – eventually members of the general public will start asking themselves, “Hey, what’s all this about Registries being costly, ineffective & unconstitutional? I want to learn more about this issue.”
    Like the battle for marriage equality, this needs to be pursued on several fronts at once…..including individual personal outreach.
    Many thanks to Janice, Chance, and ACSOL first helping to move this forward.

  10. Hope at last

    Thanks to Janice and friends, this is the first real hope in ending the gut wrenching feeling I’ve had every day for the last 24 years. I faithfully completed therapy, received a 1203.4, and obtained exclusion from the website. I still get compliance checks, I still get the stink eye at my annual registration, and I was refused entry to Mexico in 2015. My forgiving family has suffered right alongside me, in spite of my best efforts to shield them. This is the best news yet! Thank you Janice and team for your unwavering tenacity to be instrumements of change and uphold the U.S. and California constitutions!

  11. a mom

    Even though I would like to see the whole registry abolished, I did write to all the senators above in support of the bill. I think we have to start somewhere and that somewhere is with Janice, her crew and their efforts combined. Lara’s info wasn’t there but I wrote to him also thanking him for introducing the bill. God help us all!

  12. Steve

    So will the procedure be…apply…get denied…then a court hearing?

    • Janice Bellucci

      Steve, the procedure for some will be submit a petition and then obtain approval from a judge. For others, the district attorney will object to the petition and a hearing will be held. Even in this situation, the judge, not the district attorney, will make the final decision.

      • American Detained in America

        As long as the decision to remove us from the registry is in the hands of judges, I think it would be wise for none of us to hold our breaths.

    • Curiouser

      Apply, have DA decide not to oppose, and its done. If DA opposes, have hearing, have JUDGE decide to deny or approve. If approved, done. If denied, the judge can tell you when you get to come back to try again, anywhere from one to five years.
      Rinse
      Repeat

  13. Stephen

    You’ll still have to live with the AWA Hanging over your head like a dark Cloud.

  14. JG

    I’m curious. Does anyone know of a case where someone had a very mild charge requiring registration and was given a lifetime registration sentence and they challenged the constitutionality as applied to them? I’d be interested to see a case where someone challenged the constitutionality of registration based on the way it was applied. Example. In my case I was charged with a misdemeanor, no jail time, no requirement to have a psychiatric evaluation, no statement at any point in the record that I might be a danger to society, 2 years of court probation (not even formal probation with an actual probation officer), no mandatory therapy, no restrictions stated other than the normal don’t break the law and yet – lifetime registration. I’m not listed on the public site, but of course there are two things that primarily affect me now after serving my 2 years of probation successfully. 1) stuck in my current job. If I get fired I would lose my house because I could not possibly pass a background check. And 2) cant travel internationally now due to IML. I actually tried to travel to Mexico a couple years ago with my girlfriend and was put right back on the next plane back to the US. At that time I had no idea that Mexico would deny my entry. Anyhow, curious to know if anyone has challenged the constitutionality of a lifetime sentence as applied to them or if anyone has tried to file for expungement “in the interests of Justice.”

    • David

      JG, except to certain self-determining countries such as Mexico, yes, you can travel internationally. I was able to travel to Europe recently, even after the imposition of IML.

      • JG

        My passport is expiring in around 3 weeks. I haven’t attempted to renew since I’m concerned about getting some sort of marking indicating my Scarlett Letter. I wonder if anyone has tried to renew and what happened. I’d love to know what countries I can still travel to!

    • drifter

      Here is a case of an ex attorney getting off the registry and getting his license back to practice and defend cases similar to his.
      This was back in 2013
      http://www.ocregister.com/news/oberstein-338377-certificate-court.html

    • fiveyearsin

      I enjoyed reading your situation as mine is extremely similar. My charge a misdemeanor, my probation 3 years informal, and yet lifetime registration. I did apply for and was granted expungement after the three years were completed. Which felt like a very positive step and allows me to not disclose my record on many job applications. I plan to apply for my COR after the ten years has passed (almost 5 down now!), and am trying to keep my head up with my eye on that prize. I am on edge about the newly introduced AB558 as I am currently excluded from the ML website. I just wanted you to know you aren’t alone, and that while you and I may in many ways be lucky, I still feel that “lifetime registry” is an overbearing punishment and weight to carry. I would also loveto hear of someone contesting the constitutionality of it. Although, I’d guess the counter to “does the punishment fit the crime”? is some crud like “Registration is not a punishment, its a protection for everyone else”.

  15. Aero1

    I think this is the best news i ever heard in my life I’ve been a RC since I was 17 I pray it passes

  16. We deserve better

    For me, this bill would increase my punishment from what I’ve read of it. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted anything but this is how I have read it. I have a 243.4(a), reduced via 17(b) and got my 1203.4. My First and only trouble with the law. It has been 7 years since my release from county jail and I had 3 years probation successfully completed and completed my required “Counseling”. I currently qualify for exclusion from the ML website. As the law is now after 10 years I can submit for my COR. With this new tiered registry coming into effect 1-1-19 if it passes, I would no longer qualify for exclusion from the ML website and would be put on it until the 10 year mark from my release, so another 18 months on the ML website despite me being deemed previously to not be a danger enough to need to be listed. I will then have to refile the paperwork for exclusion to be removed again. They wont be in any rush to remove me after the 10 year time period so it will most likely be longer. What changed? Nothing, just the law. I didn’t commit any new offenses, no new victims. As I said before, with the current law I can file for my COR after 10 years, with the new law it will be 20 years. So I will not be supportive of this new law because it INCREASES my punishment. I can only assume there are likely hundreds, if not thousands of others in the same situation as I am in. Unless and until this is addressed I will not be supportive of this law. In my opinion, if we were deemed not dangerous enough to be listed on the ML website before this law we should continue to be allowed not to be listed. Make it only for new Registrants only. I hope also to be kept to the previous 10 year until COR, but I doubt either of these will happen. I have worked hard and made tremendous strides in my life and am hand making items for some of the most well known companies in the world and this bill would likely destroy all of my efforts and I don’t know if I have the strength to start all over again. Thanks for reading and I look for forward to any responses.

    • Joe

      Did you actually READ the bill?

      1. Any misdemeanor conviction would be Tier 1. A felony conviction for 243.4 would also be Tier 1 – as it is not listed in PC 667.5(c) or PC 1192.7(c). See proposed 290(d)(1)(A) in Section 1.

      Meaning you would get off (unless the DA had VERY good reason to oppose and the judge agreed) in 10 years. Yay.

      2. If you are under the impression that eligibility to apply for a CoR is synonymous with receiving a CoR you are delusional. Last couple I am familiar with the local DA was ranting and raving after 20+ years (for reduced misdemeanors).

      Most registrants (many of whom committed offenses I would consider much less egregious than a felony conviction of 243.4) are forever ineligible for a CoR. The CoR process is inherently unfair, ambiguous and arbitrary. For you, for all.

      3. Proposed 290.46 in Section 4 deals with the web site. Subsection (b) states that Tier 3 offenders will be listed with full address. Subsection (c) states that Tier 2 offenders are listed with Zip Code ONLY.

      Furthermore, if a Tier 2 offender, “he or she has not, subsequent to conviction on the registerable 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 department, for exclusion from the Internet Web site.”

      Tier 1 offenders are NOT at all considered for publication on the web site. Woo hoo.

      That is a yuuuge improvement. Some examples

      Conviction: current – proposed
      Misdemeanor 243.4: not listed – not listed
      Felony 243.4: Zip Code (exclusion possible) – not listed
      647.6: Zip Code – not listed
      288a(b)(1): not listed – not listed
      288(a): Full Address – Zip Code (exclusion possible after 10 years)

      4. ACSOL should do what they feel is best for the majority. The majority of offenders are convicted of offenses that makes them NOT EVER eligible for a CoR. This will give most a way off. And even if one person were “thrown under the bus” – so be it. Otherwise it is life for all.

      It is normal that you are only interested in your personal situation, aside from misreading the bill and spreading non-truths. But that is not how the organization operates. Will this new angle (unless I am wrong – anyone?) change your position on this bill?

      Having said all this, I do not see anything that would preclude ACSOL to continue efforts to declare the entire registry unconstitutional. I support them and am grateful for their efforts!

      • Drummer

        JOE, thank you for that.

      • Mr. D

        Hi Joe – fantastic summation thanks for taking the time to break down and analyze as you see the current proposed version.

        Was curious on what your perception of the bill is as it relates to 1203.4 expungement. I’m still trying to get a better feel for if you had a felony reduced to a misdemeanor and then the misdemeanor is ultimately dismissed how that will affect your tier rating initially. I would hope that the felony piece would not count or exist for purposes of determining the tier. But I’ve also come to expect the worst as it relates to penalizing us for a past.

      • Nondescript

        Thank you Joe.This is the way I interpret it as well.I think there are many registrants who were convicted or pled to “wobblers” and had their felonies reduced by a judge to misdemeanors at some point . Once reduced, it is a misdemeanor for ALL purposes. Felony 243.4 is available for exclusion by application from the website- while misdemeanor 243.4 is not available for application exclusion but is AUTOMATIC exclusion.

      • We deserve better

        I admitted didn’t read this latest version of the bill but the one that was posted last month I believe it was. I assumed it wouldn’t have changed that much. Having said that I have read the area you mentioned and when you ONLY read just that section I agree, however reading further it seems to me that I do believe I am right and let me put the passages where it says so and you can then help make sure I am interpreting it correctly or not.

        1. Section 1 Part 2(a) reads:

        (2) (A) A tier two offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years. A person is a tier two offender if the person was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) that is also described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7. or that is an offense described in subdivision {a) or (d) of Section 243.4. Section 285. subdivision (Q. (g). (h). or (i) of Section 286. subdivision (c) of Section 288. subdivision (0. (g). (h). or (i) of Section 288a. subdivision {b). {d). or (e) of Section 289. or subdivision (c) of Section 653f.

        That part there that says “or that is an offense described in subdivision {a) or (d) of 243.4.”

        That’s the part that I’m reading that tells me all 243.4(a) whether a misdemeanor or felony will be an automatic tier 2. It does not specify either one so I would assume it means both. Am I misinterpreting this?

        2. If not then as per the bill I would be posted once again on ML, albeit not fully but more than enough. Here is the text of the bill stating that I will indeed be placed on the website until my 10 year term is up. Both are in Section 4, first being 3(c) and the second is 3(d).

        is a tier two offender. as described in paragraph C2) of subdivision (d) 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, criminal history, the community of residence and ZIP Code

        and

        (d) (1) If a tier two offender successfully completes no less than the first 10 years of registration as a tier two offender following his or her release from custody on the registerable offense. pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290. and he or she has not. subsequent to conviction on the registerable 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 fonn approved by the department. for exclusion from the Internet Web site.

        It does seem to me based on these text that my statements in my first post seem to be correct. Here is the text directly from the bill showing why I am interpreting it the way that I am. Please explain to me how and if I am incorrect in my reading of this.

        If I am correct then there are only what I can presume are ALOT of 243.4(a) registered citizens that will now have their punishments increased just to give others that have more as you put it egregious crimes a chance. I’m sorry that it does not make sense to me that people who have been convicted of so called “lesser” crimes be punished more just to give the “worse” crimes a chance.

        No I do not presume that just because I am eligible for a COR means that I will be granted one, and that is a part of the problem and an issue that does need to be addressed and resolved. If we have completed everything successfully and stayed out of trouble and been “good” citizens then we should have the ability to move on with our lives. If that means being punished even more so later if someone does re-offend then I’m all for that.

        I appreciate all the work that has gone into this bill and look forward to a time of real advancement, but it is difficult to stand by something that will seemingly negatively impact you.

        • New Person

          This is where you have a case and the lawmakers will get into hot, hot heat. You can use the Michigan decision that state they have increased your penalty, making it ex post facto.

          It’s up to us registrants to sue for terribly written law if it comes to past.

          This is akin to the residency restrictions that Janice and team have been fighting such that there is a law set and the cities made it worse. Well, Michigan set the tone by saying the increase in penalty is an increase in punishment, thereby making it ex post facto.

      • Peter

        Uhh… it sure reads that he’d fall into the 2nd tier. So he’d have to wait 10+ more years with the tier registry before he MIGHT get relief vs. the current Certificate of Rehab relief that he might get. Funny thing is I don’t think Joe is right. Joe is clearly wrong. Before we thank people for their jailhouse attorney opinions, let’s make sure they are right to begin with. Also ironic that Joe accuses the OP (poster) of ignorance by questioning, “Did you actually READ the bill?” Yet Joe is the one who doesn’t seem to see that this tiered registry will harm the OP (We deserve better). It’s pure arrogance. A lot of arrogance and mistruths behind those trying to sell this law.

    • Lake County

      I hope I wont have to keep repeating this, but the exclusion you are worried about loosing is likely to end soon anyway with AB 558 (Feb 14, 2017). This bill would delete these exemptions. I fully expect that this bill will pass. This is definitely a feel good law that will show that our politicians are tough on crime. I used to be exempt from the website, but after 10 years, they changed the law and placed me unexpectedly on the website. I lost my job and my friends. Anyone that expects the exemption they now have to last forever is being foolish. This new bill is my only chance and many others only chance of getting off ML website and having a chance of a somewhat normal life. We’re a long way from abolishing the registry all together.

      • Timmr

        If they pass AB 588, a move as ridiculous as the Muslim ban, why would you think that they are going to potentially let 90,000 off the registry?

        • steve

          Isn’t it redundant to the tiered registry plan??

          • Timmr

            Yes, the tiered draft has the exclusions in it, because that is existing law that it isn’t changing, but if 558 passes they’re (the exclusions) gone from existing law, so gone from the tiered bill also, unless they re-draft it to put them back in. Does that make sense?

  17. Agamemnon

    To those wary of this bill, I say: It’s a step in the right direction.

    It’s not the end of the fight by any means, but it will be for many. And I say this as a person who believes they will more than likely end up on the third tier.

  18. Ralph Lackey

    Is anyone else disturbed w/ how this post just cavalierly threw 10% of registrants under the bus? Sure only 10% will be made to suffer being elevated to Tier 3; but that’s still about 10,000 of our brothers and sisters. I don’t know how Janice and team can just leisurely sweep these people’s rights under the rug and ignore the fact that this bill, with all its egregious flaws and imperfections, is still at the expense of other people’s rights. Seems a bit contradictory to call acsol a ‘civil rights’ organization. What ever happened to “We’re all in this together?” I guess that was all for show.

    • Lake County

      No I’m not disturbed. Janice and others will still continue to keep fighting for that 10% and will need to continue to fight the flaws in having any registry, flaws in this law and flaws in all future laws. This is only a first step in the fight. You can’t expect to get rid of the registry all at once. The public and politicians wont allow that to happen. If the removal of tier 1 and tier 2 registrations doesn’t increase the offense rate, then it will be easier to get level III removed. Unfortunately, any high publicity re-offense committed by anyone removed from the registry can cause any reforms to be reversed.

      • Son of Libetry Child of Freedom

        Lake County your judgment that:

        “If the removal of tier 1 and tier 2 registrations doesn’t increase the offense rate, then it will be easier to get level III removed.”

        Is a focus for the Discipline that should be practiced by the Enslaved once Set free and it must not be forgotten.

        As Yehovah Lives, so should we

      • Janice Bellucci

        Well said, Lake County! As the tiered registry is reviewed by committees, ACSOL will continue to lobby for an off-ramp for Tier 3. If our efforts are not successful and Tier 3 remains a lifetime requirement, we will continue to work on behalf of those placed in Tier 3.

        • Jayson A.

          It was explained to us a few months ago that a tiered registry will only be supported if it reflected evidence.

          Now, I’ve read this bill. The tiered registry bill is worded differently than the first. But all of the undesirable traits of the first bill are in this second (just worded different).

          So nothing has changed. We all have to petition, which will cost many of us a lot of money in lawyer and shrink fees. Some people are put in a worse position with this tiered registry. Worst of all, no guarantees with this bill.

          Why is it all of a sudden Janice and ACSOL are trying to get us onboard this bill? These are two inconsistant positions of Janice and ACSOL toward essentially the same draft, worded different, with the same exact flaws.

    • Matt

      Janice and friends are trying to help the most people possible. Your assertion that she is “Throwing people under the bus” is totally absurd. If you take a population of 100,000 registrants, and the efforts of this team can move 90,000 of them in a generally good direction, that’s a pretty successful effort. Nobody is ditching anybody here. Changes in the laws against us have taken decades. Changes in the other direction will take time too. This is incremental. Calm down. If this bill passes, it will help tens of thousands of people to have a chance to get on with their lives in a better way.

      • Jayson A.

        You’re right, “throwing under the bus” might not be the right term. Because no bus is big enough to run over 10,000 people. You’d need something bigger than a bus, like maybe a fleet of Caterpillar bulldozers.

        I really feel like Janice and ACSOL has pulled a fast one / bait and switch with us who don’t agree with this terrible tier bill. Now after saying they support it after wanting something based on evidence, they want our support? Do you people really think it’s OK to play with our hopes, promise us something, then break your promise just a few months later by advocating for a bill so badly designed that you were at first against? Exactly what changed??

        • Mr. D

          Jason A. – Unfortunately it’s not an all or nothing proposition. It’s going to be have to be done piecemeal. And again unfortunately some folks will see an end result that benefits them while others will continue to have to absorb this unfair form of punishment. But at the end of the day if this legislation passes many of us will benefit from the end result. I’m sure the implementation will be a bit of a rocky road to begin with until the process is repeated overtime, then I believe the path will become smoother to gain approval for removal.

    • Roger

      Ralph–and my fellow RCs who think we should not support a tiered registry–you seem to believe we should hold out for a perfect solution with no intermediate steps. You say “Abolish the registry today! Throw out all anti-RC laws immediately!”

      But that is an idealistic fantasy world. That’s NOT how we get people to change their attitudes towards RCs. There is no beautifully-crafted legal argument that can be made to judges that will completely abolish all registries tomorrow, because most judges have the SAME FEARS of RCs the public has.

      Yes, we fight bad laws in short-term fights, but the courts and lobbying will NOT give us lasting change. Even when anti-RC laws can be fought back in the courts and by lobbying, politicians will endlessly create MORE because the public has been brainwashed to fear us as unchangeable monsters.

      Homosexuals succeeded over many years in greatly diminishing hysteria and fear of them by the public. They didn’t change public perception just by filing challenges in court.
      We can follow their example!

      The ONLY way to get lasting change that will cause the pendulum of hysteria to swing back the other way is for ALL of us to support ACSOL in working for INCREMENTAL CHANGE over many years.

      Here is MY OPINION on how to shrink the registry to a tiny size:

      (1) We have to support a tiered registry that allows thousands of low-and-medium level RCs get off the registry over time. This will prove over time to the public that there will be NO RISE in sex offenses when we are released.

      (2) The fear of the public will lessen as they gradually trust low-and-medium level RCs.

      (3) With less pressure on politicians to make anti-RC laws, we ask politicians to modify the registry to make it possible for most level 3 RCs to get off the registry.

      (4) When the public sees that removing level 3 offenders from the registry does not cause an increase in offenses, their fear will drop enough to allow RCs not on parole or probation to leave the registry.

      (5) As public trust of RCs builds, politicians will be more willing to make the registry very tiny, only for RCs on parole or probation and SVPs.

      (6) Someday even RCs categorized as SVPs could be given the chance to leave the registry.

      Again, this will take YEARS, not just a few brilliant court challenges. But it will be a LONG-LASTING change, based on real trust we will have earned from the public.

      I am saying this as a level 3 who is willing to watch 90% of my fellow RCs leave the registry while I wait for my chance someday. I am not selfish enough to want them and their families to suffer under the registry just to make it easier for me to hide in a crowd of RCs.

      So let’s stop theoretical arguments against a tiered registry and get behind Janice and ACSOL.

      Let’s start the process of real change and get real freedom!

      • Lake County

        Great comment Roger! I agree 100%. No politician and no member of the public will support Tier III registrants in getting removed from the registration unless we can first show that level I and II offenders are successfully reintegrating into society without a noticeable rise in recidivism. But we are all in this together and must do our part to never re-offend. We must prove we are forever rehabilitated. We are still fighting against attitudes from the public that often believes that sex offenders can’t be rehabilitated, that all should be locked up for life, castrated and even given the death penalty. This perception by the public will take many years to prove they are wrong.

        Life is short and we are an aging group of people that need relief from this nightmare now. That is why I support the tiers. Waiting to find the perfect case SCOTUS will consider to reverse the registry will take many, many years. Many of us may not live long enough to see that happen.

        • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

          I concur,

          And posit the subject of “The 4th. Estate” aka The Media Outlets world wide do not have a “Check or Balance” to control creating Hysteria that they directly profit from.

          In Southern California you have Individuals like “John & Ken” on AM 640 constantly putting forth Out-Dated Facts and by the Omission of New Knowledge support Implicit Rules of Thumb that only serve the Established Elite throughout American Society that then Project these False & Misguiding Ideas to the world at large.

          These Avenues & Paths need a Ritual Cleaning.

          As Yehovah Lives, So should we

        • Timmr

          I never want to re-offend, not because it would make it problematic for this incremental strategy you have, but because it caused real lasting damage to those I love, and I don’t want to see it happen again.
          Most registrants I have to believe feel the same way, as seen by the low re-offense rate. There is no way I can control the actions or the emotions of others.

          • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

            Timmr

            The Reality:

            Man is a Deterministic Device born into a Probabilistic Universe.

            The Endowed Elite of “The 4th. Estate” will & have Countered your belief that

            “There is no way I can control the actions or the emotions of others.” With:

            There is a way We can control the actions or the emotions of other.

            This is how The Mass Media have monetized every Position they Hold just as a Commodity Trader in Chicago creates from a Declining or Inclining trend of a price of any commodity into their Daily Bread.

            I posit a additional Reality:

            The hand writing is on the wall but the contrast between the plaster and the latent invisible ink requires a Particle to develop it so it can be seen by the minds eye.

            A addition Reality:

            Everything that has come to pass on our Paths must have been inevitable.

            That being said, we must be proactive in this Match.

            May the Only Eternal Father Possessor of Heaven & Earth Who formed light & created darkness be with us.

            As Yehovah Lives, so should we

        • Tanya

          I agree. The public opinion seems to be moving in the direction that the sex offender registration is so diluted by people with minor crimes, the violent sexual predators are being lost in the crowd. We need to take advantage of this minor swing in public opinion to improve the lives of any offenders who have served their time. I don’t even know what tier I will be. The STATIC-99 is not reliable for females, so I assume they will stick me in tier II. This may not help me, but I would love to see anyone be able to get out of this never-ending nightmare.

      • Janice Bellucci

        Thank you, Roger, for your valuable insight and example of selflessness. Although you will not be helped immediately, you understand the value of helping more than 90 percent of today’s registrants end their requirement to register. You also understand that those who remain on the registry will be supported while they are there.

      • JDub

        I strongly disagree Roger…

        It is obvious that there will always be some sort of disagreement between registrants… more likely than not, based on how the registry affects us individually, and our families and friends. Just as with our incarceration, the burden I carry with respect to the registry, is just as heavy on the shoulders of those who may seem to have a lesser, or even greater burden than me. No one registered citizen is more or less important than any other, nor is the burden that the registry imposes.

        It is obvious that there is no perfect solution short of abolishing the registry. And I would think that we all would agree to that fundamental fact. Still, I believe that as the saying goes… ”If we don’t stand for something, we will fall for anything!” “Idealistic fantasy world…?” Perhaps…

        I respectfully take exception to the general comparison between the struggles of homosexuals and registrants. Being Gay myself, I have a good idea of the battles won and lost by those LGBT martyrs before me, and the battles still being fought today. However, in our country, the government does not require Gays to register as we register… foreign countries are not notified when Gays are traveling… Names, addresses, pictures, employers, and the “type of gay” are not public information as is our information is so readily and publicly available to anyone – including minors.

        You are right, “Homosexuals succeeded over many years in greatly diminishing hysteria and fear of them by the public.” However, in many cases that fear and hysteria exists still today.

        Follow their example. Sure… absolutely. What was it they were fighting for? Equal rights! Recognition! Did they compromise? No! In each and every action and protest, the underlying goal was equal rights and equal protection. They never stopped yelling it… they never stopped demanding it!

        “The ONLY way to get lasting change that will cause the pendulum of hysteria to swing back the other way is for ALL of us…” is to continue to demand equal protection and equal rights. We have done our “time” and served what was required, yet our government continues to add to our punishment… We cannot settle! When is enough – enough?

        We can change the minds of individuals, but only the court can reverse the damage caused by government.

        Your idea on how to” shrink the registry to a tiny size” is somewhat simplistic. The vast majority of people seem to not even view the registry. It has always been the small group of “Professional Victim Advocates” who scream the loudest. To them, no matter what we as registered citizens do, we all should burn in hell. As with the homosexuals you alluded too, we registered citizens must continue to get the courts involved… and we must remain firm in our resolve. Just as with the prison system, who will not change unless the courts orders change… we must force change through the courts.

        In the meantime, if we must have any registry at all, would it not be better to address any public access to the registry? To return it to law enforcement eyes only? Would that not help alleviate some of the burden and fear that all registrants, and their family and friends – regardless of level I, II or III, have?

        As you so aptly stated: “Let’s start the process of real change and get real freedom!”

  19. Aero1

    A lot of people are not going to like
    this comment but I don’t care all the people who know they’re going to be labeled a tier 3 registered citizen if this Bill were to pass your the type of registered citizens I’m trying to keep from being labeled with no offense but tier 3 registrant are the ones that make it hard for everybody else with there multiple convictions and God knows what else I’m a father and I have three kids and I wouldn’t feel safe with them not being publicly displayed Megan’s Law website and if and eighteen-year-old guy hooks up with a fifteen-year-old girlfriend in high school I don’t think he should be on there for the rest of his life maybe 10 20 years okay for Life that’s insane

    • judgmental much?

      To correct you, it will still be very much possible to fall into Tier 3 as a first time offender w/ no other criminal history. All you would need is a high enough Static 99 score. Things like being young at the time of a crime and release, being homosexual and having a male victim, having a non violent offense (oddly enough) and not having lived w/ a significant other for a minimum of 2 yrs. are enough to get someone enough points to fall into Tier 3 regardless of crime. The Static doesn’t take into account offense free years after conviction, therapy, remorse, etc.

  20. Eric

    The registry scheme under this bill is unfounded, expensive, inhumane. 20 years for a non-contact offence, one without a flesh and blood victim? Amnesty for those convicted prior to 1987, no matter their crimes? The lengths of time should be halved. No one should live without hope of removal from the registry.

  21. mike r

    Janice if passed will it take until July 2019 before these changes are implemented??????????????

    Thank you…….

  22. Bruce Ferrell

    Would anyone who has written letters to the members of the public safety committee be willing to share them as examples for the use of others?

    • Roger

      Bruce, the reason Janice didn’t give a sample letter is that most people would use it unchanged or only with a tiny amount changed.

      Politicians give little weight to form letters.

      We must all customize our letters. It is more work, but they carry far, far more weight than cloned ones.

  23. Don

    So from what I see if you have 288a( C )you are going to be tier 3? Can anyone help me on this?

  24. JDub

    ACSOL’s belief system is clearly stated:

    We Believe

    >No sexual abuse is ever acceptable.
    >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.
    >Money spent on purely punitive measures would be better used for prevention, healing, and rehabilitation.
    >We do not now nor have we ever had a relationship with the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)

    While I hold tight to the position that the registry is to be abolished… is ACSOL and others who “support” RC’s want to acquiesce to a bill that still goes against or core belief… then, at the very least if no one is willing to abolish the registry, then put every law breaker… no matter the crime… no matter the age… no matter the person… including law makers and law enforcement… on a publicly accessible website… Equal Protection – right?

    I am deeply concerned about our (ACSOL and other RC supporters) credibility when we essentially give up and say “It’s not perfect, but it’s something.” How does this look? How will this work when we agree to such bills then later argue against it? This will be thrown right back in our face!

    Granted, I am no politician, but even as this bill is being submitted, others are be drafted and proposed that will harm RC’s and their families…

    I say NO! No to this bill! Anything sort of abolishment of the registry should be unacceptable for all RC’s and their supporters. However, I do understand that baby steps must be taken to eradicate the cancer that is “registration”. That being said, If we must have a registry, and since no viable legitimate proof has been provide since the inception of the “publicly accessible” registry that it has done what its supports claim it does for the protection of the public, then at the very least our (all RC’s) position should be the complete and total removal of all registrant information from public access. The only access for such “registration information” should be for “authorized” law enforcement personnel only.

    Having such information, which was original for law enforcement purposes, avaiable has reated essentially a vigilante atmosphere… Despite providing for “punishment” for “abusing” registry information, it still is being used against law abiding RC’s and their families.

    Again… I say no! Equal protect for all… or protection for none! Either no registration… or regjister everyone! If registration is to be an absolute in our society, then at the very least, it should not be made so easily available to the public.

    One final note, as for IML, the United states fails to protect its own citizens by provided information about its citizens to foreign countries, and essentially keeps locked up within our own boards.

    • New Person

      I want the registry to be deemed unconstitutional b/c it’s a form of involuntary servitude (since it cannot be categorized as a punishment). So we’re on the same page there.

      We’re not on the same page about Janice or ACSOL.

      Janice has always been about terminating the registration. There are videos online on past conferences where Janice is adamantly speaking against the registry and wants to bring it down sooner than say how long it took to make the government to acknowledge internment camps were unconstitutional. Last year, Janice was approved to be able to be recognized as a lawyer at the Supreme Court level. Recently in a thread, Janice made note that she will be using Illinois’ judgement and statement about criminalizing normal behavior is unconstitutional.

      Janice and team want registration deemed unconstitutional. In the meanwhile, she’s also trying to help registrants to get off the registry while her and her team are trying to prove registration is unconstitutional. The fight against registration and being unconstitutional is the war. Wars don’t end quickly. It’s a long and strategic battle. Within the wars are smaller wars, let’s called them battles.

      Those battles are like righting residency restrictions to fit state law or presence restrictions. A tiered bill is one of those battles. Currently, registrants are contracted to service the state for life in California. There’s a scarce amount of people who are able to terminate that contract through Certificate of Rehabilitation (CoR). This tiered proposal has the potentiality to terminate the contract with the state for 90% of the registrants after 20 years.

      The tiered proposal is just that… a proposal. Janice and team have stated that if there is a tiered proposal then they want it at least based upon scientific research. Isn’t this the second sentence you quoted up above,

      Sex offense laws and policies should be based on sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia.

      Mind you, Janice and team actually have no input here to the construction of the bill. But the fact there already have been amendments to the proposal is a great sign that Janice, team, and other registrants have voiced their thoughts on this bill beforehand is amazing, to be honest. Rest assured, Janice and Team will be informing public safety of these researched findings (especially CASOMB’s less than 1% recidivism rates) to abide by. With the Karl Hanson research work, the maximum time under surveillance is 17 years. Not only that, but California Constitution states people have an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy – under this bill blazing does not give the opportunity to pursue and obtain privacy for tier 3s.

      Janice and team have given us hope where once hope was bleak. We can go to parks in California where we once couldn’t before. She and her team are building us up. This website has brought us all together so we’re not feeling alone in all of this. There’s confidence building to where you can voice your frustrations as well as get mad at ACSOL for not going in a certain direction. We didn’t have that before ACSOL (CaRSOL).

      The ultimate goal is to terminate registration for good in the USA. In the meanwhile, Janice and team are trying to help mitigate as many unduly consequences upon us registrants. Yes, Janice and team know the devil is in the details when it comes to the government, which is why she is there for all California proposals speaking on our behalf with research based work as evidence.

      I appreciate all that Janice and her team does and will do. I will never accuse Janice of never wanting to take down registration as it is one of her ultimate goals (again, there’s video of her stating so in an RSOL conference). When there’s only 10% of the original registrants left, Janice and her team can still be counted upon to continually fight for them. Janice and her team are in it for the long haul. Let’s try not to belittle their credibility, please.

    • Roger

      JDub, we have to start with this imperfect bill, NOT as a permanent solution, but as a MEANS to an end.

      I understand your feelings about wanting perfect solutions now. But I encourage you to not allow your fear of to blind you to what we know is true based on history: Incrementalism is the ONLY way to reach LASTING change. Anything else is DENIAL about basic human nature.

      The American Civil War officially ended slavery by force, but it didn’t change the attitudes of millions of people, so it took a century of blacks being abused before they won civil rights in the 60s, which they are still fighting to improve.

      You want idealistic solutions, but they will all FAIL, because they ignore this fundamental truth about humans: We humans are creatures who are run by their feelings (especially FEAR!), not of logic. We rationalize what we want to believe with contorted logic.

      Doesn’t that explain the hysteria against us in the face of facts?

      The tiered system is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in this culture of anti-RC fear to lay the foundation for building trust with the fear-fulled public and politicians.

      Without the tiered system–flawed as it may be–EVERYONE continues to suffer–FOREVER.

      I hope you don’t really mean that you would want 105,000 RCs plus their families until you are guaranteed immediate freedom from the registry. If I was that self-centered, then i wouldn’t be willing to fight bills that wouldn’t affect me directly.

      A “me first” attitude will destroy the progress we have made united and grind our progress to a HALT.

      You said “when we agree to such bills then later argue against it”. You are ignoring the strategy we can pursue, not to throw the registry out, but to incrementally change it. As Level 1s and 2s are released, we can point out to the politicians that there is no wave of new sex crimes as a result of the tiers. Then we can ask for more relief. Our success in California can spread throughout the nation and world, because they are all watching us. California has been the cutting edge on many social issues. This can be the next one.

      Magic thinking leads us to a pit of despair. Incremental change is a ladder out of that despair.

      Please support us, JDub. We are fighting for all our futures, not just for a few.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        I don’t think anyone is looking for a “perfect solution” (at least not me). I think it is fair that we demand an “evidence-based” registry. The reality is that this tiered registry *does not* make its classification based on *current* risk; it classifies based on *past* crime.

        Equally flawed, if your crime isn’t as “bad” to even land into either Tier II or III, this bill is permitting the state to use the Static-99R — a flawed “actuarial assessment” according to the legislature of Virginia, an appeals court in New York, and highly-esteemed MD and PhD professors from USC and Duke University (who *all disagree* with the Static-99R) — to increase your Tier level to Tier III.

        The inherent flaw of the Static-99R is found right in its name: “Static.” It assumes that you are of the same maturity as when you were sentenced and/or were released from jail or prison. All the “risk factors” were taken at either sentencing or release from jail/prison. The score takes no consideration for how long you’ve been offense-free in the community.

        What’s strange is that the “developers” of the Static-99 tests claim that offense-free period in the community is the most significant factor in determining whether one will be a recidivist. Yet their very own test does not even include it as one of the “risk factors.”

        This is very strange and not consistent to me.

  25. Harry

    If this bill passes and signed in 2017, why we not able to benefit from it beginning January 1, 2018?

    • New Person

      It takes time to enact probably b/c they have to create a new entity, redo the whole system, as well as create the whole petition process thing.

      Unlike the IML where they already had Angel watch do the bidding for them to where all they do is say “enact now” when it passed, the tier proposal is just a proposal right now and nothing created beyond that at the moment.

      • Harry

        Still we should be able start clearing ourselves January 1, 2018. The courts are already in place, DA office are in place. It would take a few days to created petition form to have it ready by January 1, 2018. All other laws that are passed and signed during curtain year are effective the January 1 following.

  26. Pgm111

    It’s been several days since the new Tiered registry bill has been introduced. Perhaps more of you have read the bill. I have not had time yet.

    Will someone please tell me if names and photos of Tier 1 registrants will be displayed on the public registry?

    Thanks for taking time to respond.

  27. James

    How truthful are the talking points?? I see at least one that isn’t a true thing: CA is only 1 of 4 states with lifetime registries along with Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida.

    ~~~~~

    I moved back from Missouri 2 yr ago and they don’t have a tiered registry either. It’s all lifetime in Missouri too. So that talking point needs to be fixed?

    I know back in 2014 Missouri did try to change their registry to tier but they never did it and to this day Missouri is still lifetime without a tier.

    Funny thing is I also lived in Utah and Arizona after I got out of jail…. for a yr each in Salt Lake and Flagstaff…. both in tiered states…. and their SO registration laws SUCKEDDD even more than Missouri and Cali even though they were tiered. In Missouri and Cali very little restrictions except having to go to PD to register. So I can tell you firsthand that just because a state is tiered, it isn’t better!! Just ask any SO from a tiered state!!

    In Utah and Arizona TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS…. most targets only tier 2 and 3s (and I was tier 2 in both). So I know what it’s like to live in tiered states and as you can imagine I am skeptical about this law.

    I moved back to Cali to be with family and because I didn’t know I had to live in Cali for 5 yr straight before applying for COR? At least that’s what my $500 per hr attorney told me. So for now I will love and work here…. hey the weather isn’t bad!

    Now when this tiered registry passes I will have to wait 20 yr total, so 10 more yr to apply to get off instead of 3 yr that I have to wait under the law we have now. So it looks like if this tiered registry passes my wait to apply to get off goes from 3 to 10 more yr!! Lol?? Funny thing is I haven’t even been arrested or done anything stupid since I was arrested for my SO and that was 10 YR AGO in 2007!! If I get this right I would need to wait 7 yr longer under this bill when passed!!

    HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE BETTER?!? Tiered registry won’t help my case and I have to wonder if it hurts me…. then it probably will hurt other people too??

    James

    • Mr. D

      James – i’m not certain that I understand your post . While there are a lot of complexity is as it relates to a potential tiered registration system, if you’re living in California you’re never getting off under the current system. So if you’ve moved back from Utah or Arizona and are concerned about additional years the reality is a tiered registry system has the potential to allow you to get off the registry.

      I hope after you review the proposed legislation further that your opinion on it will change for the better.

      • James

        Mr. D & RFS…..

        You are both lying or don’t know what you are talking about. A COR does get some people off the registry under the law we have now (if your crimes qualify)!! You 2 need to do your research!!

        You are trying to spin this wacky tiered bill by trying to tell me that I should read the bill more when I have!! I’m not a fool. Just because I disagree with this bill don’t lie to me and tell me that a tiered registry is my only hope because it’s not!!

        I have one of the best lawyers (Eisner & Gorin) and he told me I do qualify for COR to get off 290 with the law that we have now. I trust him because he literally saved me in 2007 from many, many years in prison to a few (hard) weeks in L.A. County jail. What he says is gold!!

        10 yr is the minimum for me and I would qualify now but because I don’t have 5 yr continuous Cali residency I have to wait another 3 yr added to the 2 yr that I’ve had since moving from Missouri. My lawyer said that CORs are granted if they are done properly. When I went to carsol meetings I met 3 fellow 290s who got CORs after waiting 10-13 yr….. so it isn’t impossible like you 2 make it seem. The 3 from the meeting I mention don’t ever have to register in CA….. so if the law we have now already let’s some 290s off….. then the shenanigan tiered bill is giving us something some of us already have but packaging it up like a turd!!

        James

    • Alex Payne

      I can relate with you James. I share very similar feelings AGAINST this tiered registry. I have extensively read the bill (and I’m sure you have as well) and I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to see the many loopholes and inconsistencies of the tiered registry before us. I don’t know what to tell you except that you are not alone in feeling how unjust this bill is. The way I read your post, you will no longer qualify for 290 relief through a certificate of rehabilitation after 10 years, but you’d be placed in the 2nd tier and would have to wait 20 years for possible relief instead? That’s also interesting that you say that Missouri also has a lifetime registry but it isn’t listed in the fact sheet? I would think Janice’s data is up to date?

      • Timmr

        Didn’t someone mention Oregon has a tiered system, but all stay on for life? I don’t know what is worse, living under a repressive regime for 20 years with restrictions that equal or exceed those of parole or having to go sign your name every year at the local police station for life and basically being left alone for the rest of the time.
        What I would like to see accompany this bill is a moratorium on new restrictions on registrants, some kind of acknowledgement of retroactive punishment. They don’t seem to be needing our support to enact this bill, but if they did I would say, Ok, you have it, you have given the DA’s a back door to keep a registrant on the registry indefinately, now give registrants some guarantee that this isn’t going to open up a whole new battalion of new regulations on tier 2 and 3’s.

        • James

          That’s what I’m saying. I lived in AZ and UT and they just passed a lot of bad and terrible laws targeting the 2s and 3s. The tiered registry is gonna open the floodgates of new and more terrible laws just like in every other state with a tiered registry. Do you really think Cali will be any better??

          James

      • James

        Alex…..

        Thank you my friend. I do trust that fairness & truth eventually prevails. I don’t like a tiered registry because I’ve had the experience of living through 2 tiered states and they were horrible!! A lot of people selling this bs bill are not being honest and misrepresenting fact in regards to what this tiered registry is really about.

        I will be putting this in the hands of God and trust the fair outcome prevails….. even if it takes years. A tiered registry isn’t the way to go. I’m harmed by this bill but I also know that there will be many, many others that won’t benefit but will be made worse off with this bill. There are a lot of better ways to do this. I’ve lived in tiered states and it was hell compared to Cali!! But by the looks of it, a lot of you might end up learning the hard way. By then I will find no satisfaction in saying “I told you so.”

        James

    • RFS

      You are misinformed if you were told getting a COR gets you off the registry. It does not. That said, it is not a 3 vs 10 year question for you. If this tiered registry helps 90% as Janice believes, of even 80% or 70%, it’s good. I believe that and I’m not sure I would even be one of those.

      • Alex Payne

        RFS, you are dead wrong. There are SOME people under the current law (and NOT the tiered registry) that gets off the CA state registry if they are granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Read CA Penal Code 290.5: “(a)(1) A person required to register under Section 290 for an offense not listed in paragraph (2), upon obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3, shall be relieved of any further duty to register under Section 290 if he or she is not in custody, on parole, or on probation.” This is the law right now.

        • Curiouser

          It is accurate that some people are relieved of the requirement to register via a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Equally true is that there are some persons who, while they qualify for the Certificate, it will not give them relief from the registration requirement. In addition, there are those who cannot even GET a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

          Also true is the fact that the people who are 1) eligible for a Certificate and 2) for whom it will bring relief shrinks each time a new law is enacted that impacts that eligibility. Such is the case of the 2014 decision which took away the ability for some CP offenders to have their charge expunged under 1203.4 PC. The expungment is needed to gain relief from registration via Certificate of Rehabilitation. Under the proposed tier system, a great many of these persons will at least be ELIGIBLE to petition for relief. At this moment in time, under the law that exists now, MOST REGISTRANTS CANNOT EVEN PETITION FOR RELIEF.

          So how many actually have earned relief from the requirement to register via COR? I have no idea. I do know that not a single registrant has been granted relief from said requirement in Orange County, where I happen to reside. Not one.

          An attorney is not required to petition a court for a COR. It can be done pro per. Same with the proposed petition for removal, once a term is completed. It’s an easy choice. Pay a attorney or do it yourself. Either way, there’s no guarantee that it will be successful. But money is not an issue here. If you can’t afford an attorney for a COR, you can’t afford one for a petition for removal.

          One difference? Under the proposed tier system, there are parameters in place that a judge must adhere to in rendering a decision. Under the current system, it is completely at the whim of the judge to grant or deny a COR. It is utterly capricious.

          The COR is a unicorn. It is mythical. And with each passing year, each passing law, it is becoming even harder to find. As far as this particular argument is concerned, the proposed tiered system is much better than the COR.

          • Alex Payne

            Curiouser, again you are dead wrong. Obtaining 1203.4 is not prerequisite to earning a Certificate of Rehabilitation. If it ease, please cite the statute or case that proves me wrong. As far as the “parameters” under the tiered registry you mention, nothing says that a judge “must” or “shall” grant a petition if they are met. They are simply guidelines. Finally, the Certificate of Rehabilitation isn’t a “unicorn.” I happen to know of a few who was granted one. Yes, the chances of earning one depends largely in the political situation in the county of your conviction. It’s easier to earn one in Los Angeles or San Francisco County (than, say, Orange County). But what makes you think the differences of success in earning relief through a Certificate of Rehabilitation will change vs. the petitioning process under the tiered registry? The patchwork and political differences between counties will still exist with the tiered registry. The parameters you mention are nothing other than guidelines.

            • curiouser

              No, Alex, I am NOT dead wrong.

              Title 6, Part 3 of 4852.1(b) reads:
              “A person convicted of a felony or a person who is convicted of a misdemeanor violation of any sex offense specified in Section 290, the accusatory pleading of which has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, may file a petition for certificate of rehabilitation and pardon pursuant to the provisions of this chapter if the petitioner has not been incarcerated in a prison, jail, detention facility, or other penal institution or agency since the dismissal of the accusatory pleading, is not on probation for the commission of any other felony, and the petitioner presents satisfactory evidence of five years’ residence in this state prior to the filing of the petition.”

              There’s your statute.

              Now, I never said a judge “MUST” or “SHALL” grant a petition for relief. I said there will be parameters that the judge must adhere to in rendering his/her decision to grant or deny said petition. As it stands now, the judge can deny it no matter how much rehabilitation a person shows. In fact, a poster on this site has detailed several times how the judge in his case stated that he (the judge) had no reason to deny the COR, yet denied it anyway.

              And hey. Great that you know ONE OF THE FEW individuals who have actually been granted a COR. That just proves my point. The FEW who have been granted one, from the FEW who are eligible. At the very least, the new proposal will at least increase the number of people who will have a CHANCE to seek relief from registration, a far cry from the FEW who now have the chance to become one of the FEW to actually get one.

              The odds may not be any better under a new system of actually being granted one than the odds are now, but more will have a chance for relief. That’s a heck of a lot better than the status quo you cling to.

              • Tobin's Tools 2.0

                But is adhering to said ‘parameters’ subject to discretionary review of People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228, 234 (1993) [“Abuse of discretion” present only when a judge makes a decision that is “arbitrary or capricious or ‘exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.’”] ?

                If so, it will be very difficult to prove that a judge erred in deciding to deny a petition (or petitions). It wouldn’t be much different than a judge exercising her/his discretion to deny a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

                As a somewhat analogous scenario, refer to how judges decide to deny or grant probation under California Rules of Court, rules 4.413 and 4.414. Then see how judges exercise their discretion, with Courts of Appeals always affirming (i.e. protecting their buddies in the lower courts):

                People v. Medina, No. C080952 (CA3 Dec. 27 2016) [unpublished, though recent: “To establish abuse, the defendant must show that, under all the circumstances, the denial of probation was arbitrary, capricious, or exceeded the bounds of reason.”]
                http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C080952.PDF

                People v. Superior Court (Du), 5 Cal.App.4th 822 (1992) [“A trial court has broad discretion…”]
                https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/1594

                People v. Cazares, 190 Cal.App.3d 833 (1987) [“The reviewing court must find that the trial court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in exercising its discretion.”]
                http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/190/833.html

                All decisions that protected the lower court, even when many of the ‘parameters’ in above cases were not adhered to by the lower court judge.

            • Alex Payne

              LOL Curiouser! You just proved my point that you have no clue what you’re talking about. Firstly, you cited the statute wrong. You said “4852.1(b)” when the statute is actually 4852.01(c). LOL! Secondly, read the statute more C A R E F U L L Y. It simply says that a registrant who earns a 1203.4 may file for a COR if they haven’t “been incarcerated in a prison, jail, detention facility, or other penal institution or agency since the dismissal…”. It says nothing about requiring 1203.4. That’s why some people who were sentenced to prison qualify under 290.5. For the controlling statute you’d have to refer to 290.5: “(a)(1) A person required to register under Section 290 for an offense not listed in paragraph (2), upon obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3, shall be relieved of any further duty to register under Section 290 if he or she is not in custody, on parole, or on probation.”

              • Curiouser

                Maybe you should find an attorney to better explain things to you. However I must applaud you for catching the fact that I omitted a “zero” in quoting the statute that proves my point. Good job!
                Now, I doubt that I will be able to explain this to you, but i’ll try:
                Starting with 290.5(a)(1):
                “A person required to register under Section 290 for an offense not listed in paragraph (2), upon obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3, shall be relieved of any further duty to register under Section 290 if he or she is not in custody, on parole, or on probation.” This establishes only that you must obtain a COR pursuant to 4852.01.
                On to 4852.01. Check subsection (c) again. It details that anyone convicted of the enumerated offenses is NOT eligible for a COR, and can only obtain relief under (d) via governor’s pardon.
                4852.1(b) is simple. Anyone convicted of any felony, and any misdemeanor sex offense, who has had their accusatory pleading dismissed via 1203.4 PC, may filed for a COR on the condition that 1) since the time they’ve obtained their 1203.4 PC dismissal, they have not been incarcerated again; 2) is not on probation for the commission of any other felony; 3) meets the residence requirement of five years; is eligible to file a petition for a COR. It doesn’t get much clearer. The 1203.4 expungment is required.
                290.5 PC is not the controlling statute. It states what steps you need in order to gain relief from registration, and it sends you to the controlling statute: 4852.1.

                By the way, your spattering of “lol’s throughout your post tells me enough about you to know who I’m dealing with. I’m sure you’re disappointed this cite doesn’t allow for emoticons.

                I await your next sarcastic and ill-informed reply

                • Curiouser

                  Oops. Forgot that darn extra “zero” a couple of times.

                • Drummer

                  Curiouser, Alex Payne,, since your on the topic of COR. I just been granted a 17b and 1203.4 on a 22 yr old offence. Would you guys know how long do I have to wait to apply for a COR? Thanks for your input.

          • Timmr

            You are right in this case, right now a one time 288 (a) violator can not petition for a COR, but with this tier bill he can. Hopefully, they don’t start moving tiers up as this goes through the subcommittees. I’m afraid many legislators will not pass this bill until all ‘child related’ offenses are in tier 3. Call me pessimistic, but it is hard to believe politicians will change their patterns that easily, and suddeny leave the path they have been on for a couple decade now . This is most likely an opportune time to pass this bill. Everyone’s focused on the antics in the White house.

            • Tobin's Tools 2.0

              That’s what they recently did in Nevada’s tiered registry. About eight months ago, about 2,700 Tier I offenders were elevated and reclassified as Tier III offenders:

              http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/sex-crimes/ruling-allows-nevada-sex-offender-registration-requirement-changes-take-effect

              About the same time, Nevada’s tiered registration law evolved and Nevada became a more draconian Adam Walsh Act (AWA) state via-AB 579:

              http://www.jeffjaeger.com/law-blog/2016/07/nevada-enacts-new-sex-offender-tiers/

              This point was brought up by others (as well as myself) in previous posts. That by adopting a tiered registry, California becomes only one law closer from adopting AWA. With Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who has supported harsh sex offender laws — I often wonder whether he will influence for greater federal funding incentive as to convince California into becoming an AWA state.

              The way I see it, the tiered registry is a perfect setup — a precursor — from California being one law away in joining the AWA states.

              • Timmr

                There are no bad consequences, just incentives, for a politician to ignore evidence and just lay more punishment on people with certain convictions — so it is still going to happen as long as the other two branches of government tell them it’s OK, its all legitimate regulation.

                • Lake County

                  Timmer, “This is most likely an opportune time to pass this bill. Everyone’s focused on the antics in the White house.” lol, you are so correct. The White House has the entire country distracted right now. Perhaps fortunately, I don’t think this distraction will go away for the next 4 years. Unless something happens to cause Trump to focus on us.

                  • Timmr

                    Traffickers seem the next target, and although we have nothing to do with trafficking, that means targeting registrants?

        • RFS

          I am not “dead wrong” Alex and I am not “lying” James. I guess I am guilty of making a blanket statement. Yes, it does depend on the crime and the vast majority will not qualify. I have a COR. It was actually pretty easy to get, except for the money part. If all we needed was to wait 10 years and get a COR we probably wouldn’t be having this tiered registry conversation in the first place. Anyway, I hope either or both of you can “be relieved of any further duty to register” and/or get off these damn websites, more power to you.
          I know I’m in the minority when I stick up the tiered system. I see it like we’re all on this deserted island and a ship shows up that can only rescue a percentage of us. I am not going to be the one to say, hey, if we all can’t go you have to stay on this island and die with the rest of us.
          Lastly, I believe in Janice. She does way more for us for nothing vs. what the lawyers do for $$$. She is more “golden” than any of our lawyers.

    • Michael

      It’s also not true for South Carolina. I am a resident of South Carolina and I know for a fact that they DO have a tier system. There is a Tier II and a Tier III, both of which require lifetime registration.

      ….

    • Trader Joe's

      It’s not true that “California is only 1 of 4 states with lifetime registries along with Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida.” Look at this link, courtesy of American University (doubt much has changed since 2014):

      http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/uploads/2014/8/13/screen_shot_20140813_at_12.25.40_pm.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.25.40_pm.png

      I count 14 states (yes, Hawaii too) with lifetime registries, many with a petitioning process for SOME to get off the registry. Not significantly different from California’s certificate of rehabilitation that SOME people can get with existing law.

      So it’s not 4 states with lifetime registries. It’s more like 14 (FOURTEEN) states with lifetime registries!

      Please don’t fudge the numbers in trying to sell this terrible “tiered registry” law!

  28. PIA

    REVISED TO: TIERED REGISTRY BILL COULD HELP maybe 5-10% PERCENT OF REGISTRANTS

    Because a MAJORITY of 290’s can not afford the APPX $3-5K for a attorney to petition the court for this filing, as MOST were convicted using a PD/ALT PD.

    • Alex Payne

      PIA, I agree with you. However, I think a petition like this could easily cost more than $5,000 once all the expenses are added up. The sick part about paying all that money is that there are no guarantees after filing for a petition. A judge could easily deny a petition, year after year. Relief should be automatic! This was one of the reasons Janice was against it a few months ago. Nothing significant changed with the newest draft, so it is puzzling to see that she (and others in Acsol) now wants us to support this tiered registry disaster after initially pointing out its many flaws. To me, I am thinking the attorneys see this as a potential money making scheme.

    • Lake County

      OMG people, it’s not that hard to file your own petition to the courts for anything. I imagine they may even make a standard application form. And with all petitions, the court routinely waves all filing fees for those without funds. Also, most Public Defender’s offices will likely offer free services to the poor. Unless the DA wants to contest your petition, it’s going to be granted. If this Bill passes, there is going to be a stampede of us filing requests for termination. I doubt the DA’s office has the manpower to contest all of the first batch of petitions. And if we see that the petitions are routinely denied, I’m sure Janice will step in to help us since the purpose of this Bill is to reduce the high numbers of people on the registry. Obviously not every DA’s office will act the same way. We will soon know which DA’s will and won’t contest our petitions. Maybe it will be best to avoid filing in some counties. If some DA’s and Judges are too stubborn to allow relief from registering, then perhaps the only option is to move to another County. (not an easy thing to move, but at least it gives us an option). If the Bill as written is not properly administered, Janice will continue to fight for us.

      • Drummer

        Lake County… thank you for your words of encouragement. I concur.

      • Timmr

        Damn, esse. You think Janice can do everthing for us!

      • Alex Payne

        How are you so sure the DA wouldn’t have the manpower? They can always file for extensions claiming that they have too many 290 petition cases. The judge will grant it and your case will remain on the docket. Also, I’m pretty sure the Public Defender will not be able to help in representing the indigent. Gideon v. Wainright only extends to right to counsel in trial and direct appeals stages, so it’s fair to assume the public defender would not represent those who cannot afford an attorney. The point that I’m trying to make is that the petition requirement should be automatic. It shouldn’t be left to a judge elected into office.

        • Lake County

          Well I agree, it should be automatic, but it’s not. I’m not giving up on this chance to get my life back. Once they see that the recidivism rate stays low, they will be less afraid to make this process automatic. This Bill does not have the details in it we all want, but it will at least give us some hope in a better life. It’s a start. And maybe with the recent Federal cases in our favor, someday this public registration may end. But SCOTUS doesn’t always rule the way we think they should.

          And many Public Defender Offices do help the poor with petitions. They don’t have too, but many, if not most do. Check it out!

        • Just a few thoughts...

          Many people don’t remember or know you can also seek the ability of a paralegal to assist with paperwork, which is inherently cheaper than an atty, to ensure it is correct the first time before your file. Yes, there is some cost related to it, but many work from home and do it part time as well as full time. You can also seek a law school assistance center where law school students help those who are not able to fund an atty.

          Of course, if you are able to do the paperwork yourself and file, obviously that is the best option if you are financially strapped. Then you should make yourself available to others as they want to do their paperwork since your experience has been learned and should be shared.

          If someone can track statistics for those who are filing and being rejected vs accepted (approved) as this process starts and goes on, that would be helpful to many, but it has to started as soon as the process is open. The court system and their minions won’t track them for you.

          Just keep that in mind….

          • Tobin's Tools 2.0

            In California, a paralegal is prohibited from providing direct services to the public. (I work in a firm — though *not* as a lawyer — so I know.)

            However, in California, you *could* hire a licensed document assistant (LDA). Hiring an LDA will likely cost a few hundred dollars. However, the LDA may *only* be hired to complete the required documents for your petition(s). The LDA is prohibited from advising a client on case strategy. Further, an LDA is prohibited from representing a client in Court. Thus, if the District Attorney requests a hearing: you are either on your own -or- you would need to hire an attorney at your expense.

            Based on my reading of the bill, there is a possibility that a judge may order a current risk assessment. A risk assessment is obviously something that you cannot do on your own. So at minimum, if the District Attorney requests a hearing, you may need to cough up funds to pay for a forensic psychologist to conduct a risk assessment. Risk assessments typically cost about $2,000.

            Obviously, if a hearing is requested, I do not think it is a good idea to go head-to-head with the District Attorney. Theoretically, the District Attorney has unlimited resources at their disposal. The District Attorney has the experience and education to outmaneuver you. Barring aberrational circumstance, you would probably be better off hiring an attorney.

            If successive petitions could be filed immediately after possible denial, then it might be worth taking the risk to see if you could do it yourself. But according to this bill, a Court may deny successive petitions between one to five years for an unlimited amount of times. Periods of five year denials can add up to 10, 15, 20 years etc…[.] Thus, there is a conceivable consequence to not properly presenting a petition under this proposal. The consequence being that you would not have lost the opportunity to live life as an unregistered citizen had the petition been properly presented to the Court. (In the parlance of economics: time is money.)

  29. Chris F

    It sounds like it won’t work as planned, but may set the stage for better challenges in the future.

    My first thought was that giving in and accepting the tiers would make it harder to challenge the entire scheme. That may not be the case.

    The two most ridiculous parts of the bill may help pave the way for legal challenges that abolish the registry:

    1) Letting all those off for offences convicted prior to 1987 – This sounds like a relatively easy “equal protection” challenge since that number is arbitrary. What about those convicted just after but that is because their trials were dragged on by prosecutors? Doesn’t sound fair that two people committing a similar crime at the same time could end up with two completely different outcomes. Also, since the 1987 date is arbitrary, how can you say two people that committed the same crime can receive such different treatment based on dates? If the registry is “regulatory” and not “punitive”, then it fails to regulate by letting those off with an arbitrary date of conviction.

    2) Letting judges/prosecutors decide if someone can get off the registry – Didn’t work in Texas. Only 1/3 of those who met much more exhaustive criteria than California actually were approved by the judge to get off. They had to have a length of time on the registry greater than the already long federal guidelines and exceeded it. They had to get recommended by a sexual treatment provider. They had to get recommended by the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment. Obviously, judges will lose elections if they appear soft on sex criminals so it is in their best interest to NOT let you off. Perhaps, once a few years goes by of almost no offenders getting off in California there will be a chance for a lawsuit. What good is a way off if even those most qualified still don’t get off?

    • Timmr

      There is not that much of an equal protection issue unless a tier 1 or 2 is made to be on the registry for 30 (actually 32) years or has had to spend a lot of money to fight to get off after the ‘minimum’ time has expired. Note they use the word minimum. If you are tier 3 and pre-1987 you are still lifetime. If you were convicted pre 1987 and tier 2 you are ten years over your term, tier one would be twenty years over at passage of this bill. One can say it is only fair that they should not have to petition, having done at least 10 more years than is required of the bill. Still if your conviction was in 1988, and you were denied release from the registry you would have a claim, being say 9 years over your term compaired to someone 10 years over. Not much difference. I doubt many of those over 20 years will be denied. That would be begging for an equal protection challenge. They will focus on the younger ones, I think.

  30. Jimmy

    This may or may not be of any help to those living in California. I live in Colorado and follow this site because it seems to be the most active and helpful in the US that I can find. In terms of a tiered registry, Colorado has one which seems, very closely to follow federal guidelines. I recently petitioned to be removed from the registry here. My conviction was for possession of CP back in 1999 and it was a Federal conviction. I wrote the petition myself, compiled all the relevant case law etc. Being paranoid, I did pay my lawyer from 15 years ago to review and file the petition, but he changed almost nothing. I really thought this would drag on for at least months if not years. But almost shockingly for me, the petition was granted (with the 5 year reduction for no subsequent convictions) with no protest from the DA. I am still trying to adapt to not being on the registry. It opens up paths that I thought were forever closed to me. My point being, don’t give up on being off the registry; keep in mind that if you are not on paper still, you can move to other states that might be more liberal about registration laws. If California implements a tiered registry that follows Colorado’s, it could give hope and relief to 10’s of thousands. But it will depend very much on the judges who are making determinations in those districts. No perfect answers.

    • Lake County

      Congratulations Jimmy, so glad to hear of your success! I like your idea of writing your own petition and paying an attorney to submit it. If you’ve done all the work for the attorney, I can’t imaging that the average criminal attorney wouldn’t submit the papers for you for only a small fee. We can’t just sit around waiting for someone else to get us off the registry. Filing our own petitions is possible and not as hard as some might imagine. We at least need a law that allows this to be a possibility. I’m glad to see that you still come here to keep up on these issues even though you no longer have to register.

  31. concerned about the costs

    THIS BILL IS A MONEY MAKING SCAM!!! One of the things we would need to do is finish a sex offender “treatment” program before we all petition off. Look at 290.5(a)(3) & 290.5(b)(2): “The court shall determine whether continued registration is necessary, based on the following factors: whether the offender has successfully completed a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program.” Why has anyone not brought this up??? How much is this all going to cost??? Specifically, how much is it going to cost to attend & complete one of these hokey pokey “treatment” programs???

    • Timmr

      Well mine cost $140 per month and lasted for 5 years. That was back in the early aughts. I don’t even know if it is now CASOMB sanctified, because CASOMB wasn’t in existence yet when I completed that program. Maybe I’ll have to go back and get properly treated. I have been offense free for 17 years, but of course, that could be a fluke.

      • Lake County

        I paid $160 a month for once a week individual treatment for 6 months. The therapist was board of me so she ended treatment early. That was in 2002 I think. I know that most pay much more than that over a minimum of 18 months these days. Every County is different.

    • Lake County

      Well I assume no one prior to 1987 was in a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program and they are said to be taken off automatically. There was no Sex Offender Management Board treatment program when many of us went to our required therapy treatment. So I must believe that the therapy we were required to receive at that time is valid. Now if someone never went to any treatment program, that would be a issue. That’s where the DA will likely contest your petition. So I guess you would have to convince the judge of your low risk since the initial judge didn’t require therapy. This may have to be one issue that the courts will have to decide. No law made these days is so clear and constitutional that they are without judicial review. Even our current 290.015. (a)(5) law still has reporting internet identifiers published in official text (that portion on hold). Some details will always need to be interpreted by the courts and rewritten by the legislators. Lets get them to actually pass this Bill, then we can work out the interpretations in court. With any luck, we can get them clarify some of these details in the Bill while it is still in committee. This is definitely an issue that you can ask for clarification on when you write your letter to the committee members and your state representative.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      My estimate is that a sex offender “treatment” program will cost between $5,800 to $9,400. Most sex offender treatment programs last between 6 months to one year. Therapist fees are at least about $100 per hour. Group sessions cost about $50 each. Polygraph exam cost at least $200 each. Forensic assessment is about $2,000 (which should include Static-99R and ABEL).

      6 month program:
      – individual/group sessions [$600 x 6] = $3,600*
      – polygraph = $200
      – assessment/report = $2,000
      – 6 MONTH TOTAL COST: $5,800

      12 month program:
      – individual/group sessions [$600 x 12] = $7,200*
      – polygraph = $200
      – assessment/report = $2,000
      – 12 MONTH TOTAL COST: $9,400

      *Based on monthly cost:
      – 4 individual sessions per month ($100 x 4) = $400
      – 4 group sessions per month ($50 x 4) = $200
      – TOTAL PER MONTH: $600

  32. Nondescript

    @ concerned about costs
    You left out 2 important words

    Re: Tier 1 and 2….”successful completion, IF ANY, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program”

    (290.5 b2 describes a subset of tier 2 people that were under 21 at the time of their offense who can petition early, at the 10 year time period- i.e. Romeo/Juliet cases.)

    • concerned about the costs

      AH GOTCHA!! Though it doesn’t change the fact that it is still in 290.5(b)(2), which is what I quoted, and a judge still has to see “successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program,” EVEN IF YOU ARE TIER I. So can anyone tell me how much going to a sex offender “treatment” program cost?? I live in a 290 group home where all of us have been crime free & out of incarceration for at least 7 years now (I’m at 8). We all read this bill out loud together and we think it is way risky and gives no guarantees. What will keep a judge from saying “Finish a certified sex offender treatment program & reapply in 5 years”? So HOW MUCH IS THIS “TREATMENT” PROGRAM GOING TO COST US?? If I apply for a petition, I want to cover ALL my bases so I’m not denied. Estimates anyone?? I don’t mean to be pessimist but there are just too many reasons to get screwed by the tiered registry!!

      • Lake County

        So are you saying several of you at this 290 home were never required any treatment program?

        • concerned about the costs

          I didn’t say that. ALL OF US WENT TO TREATMENT, but none went to a “Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program”. All the court and p.o. made me do is take 2 mnths counseling. The crazy part is how the old man we live with, who caught his cases in 1978 and 1981 as an 18 and 21 y/o will get screwed by the tiered registry. He will be made TIER III!! This man is our house manager, takes care of the home, works 12 hr warehouse days even when he’s 57, has adult children, a wife he can’t live with cause no one will rent to him… this bill REALLY screws him. We ALL EVEN DONATED TO THIS ORGANIZATION EVEN THOUGH WE MAKE PEANUTS $10 TO $20 PER HR… This is how you treat your followers?? This bill is B.S.!! As for me I need to save money for the petition. Anyone give estimate for cost of this special “treatment” please??

      • Janice Bellucci

        Please focus on the phrase “if any”. A judge cannot use as a negative factor no treatment when there was none required or even available at the time.

        • Lake County

          Thank you for your interpretation Janice. I don’t believe the drafters of this Bill meant for the “certified program” to be an issue. It seems that many here want to find issues with this Bill that don’t exist. I guess it’s hard for many to believe there is going to be a way off the registry for the majority. Many here do believe that the public registry will eventually be found unconstitutional and when that happens, the level III’s will get off too.

        • concerned about the costs

          JANICE THAT’S ONLY TRUE FOR 290.5(a)(3). Where is “if any” in 290.5(b)(2) and 290.5(c)? There is no “IF ANY” in those 2 parts!! Everyone read 290.5(b)(2) and 290.5(c)!! See it for yourself. Those 2 parts ONLY say: “whether the offender has successfully completed a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program.” There is NO “if any” in those 2 parts of the law. Plain and simple. Our youngest will fall under 290.5(b)(2) because he caught his case as a 19 y/o with a younger minor. He is now 28. Point being 2/4 (half) in our home will be hurt more with this bill. Just because it doesn’t hurt YOU it doesn’t mean this mean this bill won’t hurt OTHERS. This bill DOES hurt others which makes it just plain wrong when we’ve all been law abiding for many years!! This law shouldn’t put people (or anyone for that matter) in a position to pay thousands out of their wallet to MAYBE get off. Getting off the registry should be a right that NO ONE should have to pay for (treatment and atty fees)!!

          • D

            Concerned – you are right in what you say but not in what those sections are for. Let me see if I can explain.

            Both sections 290.5(b)(2) and 290.5(c) are only for “lowering” one’s tier, not for getting off the registry. The former (290.5(b)(2)), is for people that were convicted of tier 2 offenses, but happen to meet some qualifications like being under 21 when crime was committed. In that case the person can request to be moved from a tier 2 to a tier 1. That same person can wait out the full 20 years as required by tier 2 and follow the requirements in 290.5(a)(3) to petition to get off the registry. The later (290.5(c)), is for tier 3 offenders who get out of prison early and do 10 years on the registry, and want to request to be moved to a tier 2. Both of these cases are not the “normal” petition to get off the registry, they are “lowering” the tier, and in the author’s (of the bill) eyes require extra “work” above the “normal” petition.

            I hope this helps, and note that I have still not made up my mind about this bill, just wanted to help with understanding it.

            • concerned about the costs

              OK so even worse. Our youngest can only file a petition to drop down from II to I at the 10 year mark BUT not to get off. Meaning he would need to wait 20 YEARS TOTAL to MAYBE get off. Meanwhile the old man at our house who deserves to get off than all of us is stuck at TIER III LIFETIME. Me and the other man in our house are stuck at TIER II meaning 20 YEARS wait to MAYBE get off? So eventually we have to ALL hire expensive lawyers and if the youngster wants to drop to TIER I he has to pay for a “Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program”. What if we 3, except the old man, apply at the 20 year mark and the judge denies us for xx years and tells us to do a “certified sex offender treatment program”? What in this law will stop the judge from doing this?? SEE, WHAT I’M SAYING IS THIS BILL IS TROUBLE DOWN THE ROAD!! As it is we are all getting by paying 3000 a mo in rent, 4 in a house, working all day with barely enough to save. We can’t afford to so call “petition”!! SCAM!!!

              • Timmr

                I’ve thought about this ‘if any’ phrase and in the context of the sentence it seems to be there to recognize that some may not have the required treatment, but that does not preclude them from getting off the registry. Nonetheless, I can see your concern, concerned. The treatment part is in a list of positives that can terminate your registration requirement. Without having one of these, your chances are weaker, though it is true not outright precluded. By not having the approved treatment program, some stick in the mud DA could use it to delay your release from registration, especially if some part of the orginal crime or your static 99, ‘if any’, bothers her. Noone knows what each DA will do, that is why in part I don’t like how this bill is written with a back door to keeping people on the registry, depending not on verifiable findings but by how much each DA will weigh each factor if any. It is unequal application of the law built right in it. DA’s making judgements of guilt or innocence for crimes that may or may not happen. But like all this stuff, it is just considered regulation, not parole or probation. This is an issue of equal protection. I would much rather see this written like the exclusion from Megan’s web site: you meet the basic requirements, originating crime qualifies for the tier you are on, no new problems with the law and boom, you are off the registry. Why we need to please the CASOMB by giving our stamp of approval, instead of conditional approval with reservations, I don’t understand, my friend.

                • Lake County

                  I though it was quite clear that CASOMB and the authors of this bill know about Janice’s reservations about this bill from the last time she met with them. They told her they were not willing to make more modifications based on her/our reservations and concerns on this bill. So for now, this is the bill we are stuck with. Maybe we can persuade a committee member to request modifications we want. That’s our only option.

                  • Janice Bellucci

                    One necessary step to persuade members of the Public Safety Committee is to meet with them on March 20 and 21 when we lobby in the State Capitol. Both before and after those meetings, however, those on the registry along with their loved ones need to send letters and make phone calls to the committee members. Please do that ASAP. The names of the committee members, their contact information and “bullet points” regarding the bill are available on this website.

                  • Timmr

                    Yes, it is important for them to know what ASCOL thinks, but it is important they hear the range of concerns from all registrants. It is important for us to get used to going before the leaders and claiming our individual first amendment rights.

  33. Eric

    All said, I just don’t see the justification of having SO’s register when people with violent crimes, robbery, assault, weapons, gangs, drug dealers, drunk drivers, and such who all have a much higher recidivism rate and are a much greater danger to public safety don’t have to register, don’t have a public registry, and when they finish probation they are welcomed back into society. I think there needs to be some justification as to why one crime is punishment for 10 or 20 years to life after release–in many cases no contact and no violence was committed–while other more dangerous crimes have no additional punishment. This is just a mass hysteria that politicians are playing off of the public’s fears.

  34. Drew

    Janice, I’m very concerned about this. I was convicted of a 288(A) and 243.4(A) over 20 years ago. I’m considered High Risk currently but have been registering with my local PD for so long that they don’t even bother with me. I’ve got two different Psychological evals and both has rated me no risk, and even my 99R got me at a negative score. I’m now afraid that If this Tiered system goes into effect, I will be classified as a Tier 3 and this may end up making my life worse…. perhaps even having the local PD start paying house visits.

    What are the chances of someone with my convictions being lesser than a Tier 3?

    • C

      I’m in the same boat. 30-year old conviction and registering since ’94. Never had a static 99, but taking the test on my own I get a negative score. Psych I had during parole never produced any kind of risk assessment, that I known of. In fact I requested my records when trying to move to Canada a few years ago and all CDC records were destroyed, they said.
      Despite busting my butt to make the most of things and maintain a positive outlook, I’m really not interested in being rebranded High Risk. Who knows what that could lead to? For one thing, the additional press will drive people who would not ordinarily visit the web site to research their friends and neighbors and I’ll be outed all over again.

    • Drew

      Janice, do you care to respond to my original post? I’d like your feedback please. Or anyone else care to respond that might have some solid answers… or close.

  35. ReadyToFight

    I agree Eric,
    There’s a serious double standard and a blindness/Ignorance in the system.
    I know ppl that came home from a murder charge. Their quality of life is far better just in the fact that once parole is up, they are free to move and go wherever they like.
    I know ppl with Multiple DUI’s and other than some damn fines and taking some classes they pretty much are unaffected.
    It’s the effing title of Sex Offender that strikes an ominous chord in the hearts and minds of others. It’s a focal point that causes ppl to imagine endless perversions from the corners of their own minds regardless of the truth.

    • Tired Of Hiding

      Because they know that they themselves are just unregistered sex offenders and very happy to be that way.

      As long as someone else gets the label they can feel superior and have the added bonus of having someone to look down on and direct their fear and hate on.

      Public shaming is the oldest trick in the book to keep large groups of people in line and governments have used it since day one. In fact it is politics 101.

  36. Trader Joe's

    Here is another “talking point” that doesn’t make sense: “A tiered registry would continue life-time registration for those who pose a current significant harm to society.”

    How does Janice expect us to use that talking point when it is clearly not the case. How can we honestly say that those that remain Tier 3 “pose a current significant harm to society?” This tiered registry bill doesn’t even give the right for a Tier 3 to have an immediate individualized hearing to determine whether a person really does pose “a current significant harm to society” to be placed into Tier 3. Blindly labeling someone a Tier 3 is more of a political act because it allows the politicians (and in this case even Janice) to villianize this group and rationalize lifetime registration for some (while not for others).

    This talking point just shows me the true colors of this organization. Acsol is willing to support a bill that will harm some of the very people it pretended to help in past, by creating a whole new Tier 3 label, by broadly saying that they “pose a current significant harm to society” just so Acsol can push their “tiered registry” agenda. I can imagine a few of these soon-to-be Tier 3 people helped support Janice’s efforts in the past only to be stabbed in the back with this bill.

    Whatever happened to “We’re all in this together?”

  37. AB

    Can the Static-99 score push a Tier I to a Tier II?
    Or is the Static-99 score only factored in terms of designating a Tier III?

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      Strangely, under the proposed tiered registry bill, the Static-99R is given power to push a Tier I straight to a Tier III. Further, under this bill, the Static-99R may be used as the *only* factor in determining a Tier III. This is found in 290(d)(3)(D) of the draft:

      “A tier three offender is subject to registration for life. A person is a tier three offender if any one of the following applies: […] The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”

      One simple solution to hamper the Static-99R from increasing Tier I’s to Tier III’s is to make the following amendment:

      “The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument, provided the registrable offense is listed as a violent offense under subdivision (c) of section 667.5.”

      (Note: I propose adding: “provided the registrable offense is listed as a violent offense under subdivision (c) of section 667.5.”)

      In theory, the above suggested change to 290(d)(3)(D) would prevent non-contact, non-violent, first-time offenders from being classified as Tier III. Non-contact, non-violent, first-time offenders do *not* belong into Tier III!

      I propose the above amendment.

  38. DRob

    Not sure yet how to feel about this Bill. Originally my charge (in 2015) was lewd and lascivious for attempting to molest, but when the plea bargain came in, they added kidnapping. I had been drinking at at 6am on a Saturday, I picked up the child (victim) as I had been driving around giving people rides. Long story short, there was no contact, I was scared out of my mind because I had never had a criminal background, so I took the plea and did 7 months county. Never understanding how all this was going to effect me for the rest of my life. Even years later, I get people finding out where I live and the punishment continues. The latest was my car getting vandalized. It just never ends. Everyone thinks they know my situation and what happened just by finding me online, but they bundle us up all together. Nonetheless, I try to stay strong and push the limits on how I can thrive. Not sure how this new Bill is going to help me. Stay strong everyone. If you live a good life, good things will happen.

  39. Aero1

    I’d be really surprised if this bill doesn’t pass if it doesn’t I would recommend for everybody to move out of California until it does it’s one thing to deal with the social stigma at school or at work or dating someone but after all that when you go home and have to deal with your neighbors and the community man that’s Overkill .. truth is without a lot of money or alot of family and lot of support eventually they’ll pick every registered citizen off one by one

  40. Anonymous Nobody

    I see this bill is rife with problems and prosecutorial hate that is going to blindside a lot of people.

    One major one is that this is not set up a pure tiers. It is set up as smoke and mirrors, as it is more like a COR than like tiers. That checkpoint at the end of your tier, the court hearing, is specifically set up like a COR, the presecutor can argue that you remain a danger and should have to continue registering, regardless of your clean record throughout registration, just like they always do for a COR. The bill specifically says that! Oh, that argument by the prosecutor might be uncommon in the overwhelming flood of cases in the first year, but after that, all we have here is the equivalent of an earliest opportunity to apply for a COR, kind of like a first opportunity to apply for a pardon, but you might be denied and have to try several more times.

    Also, and in particular, anyone registering anywhere outside California for an offense in California, even a single misdemeanor from 1944 for which the federal government does not require registration, will get no relief ever under any circumstance. This is because this bill deviously shunts aside actual reasonableness, sensibleness and compassion in favor of hateful prosecutorial checkpoints to make sure California can have the pleasure of personally oppressing those people for at least 10 years for even the most minor of offenses, no matter how old — no matter even that these people have no subsequent offense, so already have long since passed the test of time.

    The bill is NOT designed with the primary purpose being public safety and that shown simply by how old your offense was or your last offense was — but this is all that matters. It is too surgical and with checkpoints that instead leave it designed to make sure no one avoids suffering oppression in California, and is being used as a net to cobble up all those people and oppress them, despite their offense being many, many years ago and nothing since — its more important to punish them — oh wait, registration is not punishment, that’s right — than recognize the issue has been resolved, the person has passed the test of time, California registration or not.

    This net appears to be designed to nail anyone in California who has avoided the oppression – but again, who cares, since they already have passed the test of time — just make this like a statute of limitations, who cares about making sure oppression is suffered if the test of time has been passed, the problem has been solved, if their danger period immediately after the offense is history. If registration is truly not punishment or a sentence, than that is all that matters. Anything more shows that registration actually is punishment.

    Gee, even the relief for in-state registrants whose last offense was more than 30 years ago is designed like that. That should simply be a general and immediate amnesty for any offense from more than 30 years ago (actually, from more than five years ago — there aren’t even any legitimate studies showing 10 years accomplishes anything more than five, after five years, hardly anyone for any offense, including sex offenses, recidivates!). But instead, you must show you have registered in California for at least 10 years, and you can only initiate that relief by going in within five days of your birthday in 1918 and registering, and you must live here now in order to do that, and a year later you should be able to stop registering — so if you move or otherwise trigger a registration requirement during that year, you have to go in again. This for offenses from more than 30 years ago, maybe a simple misdemeanor from as long ago as 70 years!

    Forget about a net to snare people who have not offended in more than 30 years, who cares, problem is already solved, the net simply proves registration is punishment, a sentence — but that is the only way prosecutors can think.

    I have to think that part of the net is aimed at nailing all the people who decades ago were relieved of their registration requirement by getting an expungement under 1203.4 – which used to absolve you of the registration requirement. That relief was lifted for felons at about the same time frame as this 1987 mark for the old-case relief in this bill, and in the early side of the mid-1990s for misdemeanors. It was decidedly applied retroactively when registration went national in the mid-1990s under Bill Clinton. I expect there are lots of those people who do not realize they are now required to start registering again — they are probably the bulk of the people the state says have not been registering! If they haven’t spent all their time looking into the details of this stuff — stuff they put behind them maybe many years earlier and never looked back — they will not know they were supposed to start registering again, even though they had worked for and met the standard for relief and attained the relief and stopped registering.

    In fact, now that I thought that through, this bill absolutely should immediately restore that relief to those people! My god, they worked for it, they earned it, they got it — and years later it was taken away as part of the registration hysteria and retroactivity. Gee, to now try to nail those people and oppress them for 10 or more years — that is unconscionable, and it is unconscionable to overlook that in this bill, and instead try to nail them for not realizing they were supposed to start registering again, and now make them register and for at least 10 years!

    A clause relieving all those people, provided they have no subsequent registerable offense, must be added to this bill! This bill must recognize and rectify that gross injustice of taking away that previous relief! You have to realize, all those lower level offenses that got probation got maybe a year or two of probation, and then got their 1203.4 relief and stopped registering. This bill leaves them facing a resumption of registration until they hit at least the 10-year mark, which will probably mean a full 10 years as I doubt there is any record around any more showing they registered for a year or two in 1981. That is unconscionable to deny them relief in this bill, and instead make them register for at least a decade to get any relief.

    How can we now not be arguing for a clause to that effect to be added? How can the legislators not agree to include that in this bill, it would simply correct an incredibly gross injustice?

    On another matter, under this bill, even minor misdemeanors are being handled as one size fits all, they too are a “danger” to society, poor demeanor. Gee, they should simply be dropped from registration at this time, the federal government does not require registration for them. Instead, this bill is chasing them down and making sure they suffer California oppression for at least 10 years. Who even cares if some misdemeanant who hasn’t offended in more than 30 years has ever registered, who cares if some misdemeanant from five years ago has registered. Forget about it, just do a general amnesty for the old cases, even more, just use this opportunity to drop them from 290, along with all other offenses for which the federal government does not require registration — save the state and local police departments all the money of doing that pointless registration, all for poor demeanor!

    How can we not be demanding this at this one and only juncture when 290 is being rewritten — we will never get another chance to argue this, the legislators must at least hear these ideas!? Instead, this bill uses its relief as a prosecutorial tool to set up checkpoints to pointlessly catch people to make sure they suffer oppression, checkpoints that serve to deny others any relef, such as those out of state but registering for offenses in California, and put burdens even on those who eventually might get the relief, such as the requirement that those whose offenses were more tan 30 years ago must go in and register in 2018 anyway, and wait a year beyond that to stop registering.

    Mind you, the only point of those checkpoints is hate; since the people already have passed the test of time, it is only to make sure those people do suffer oppression – that outlook makes it a sentence, punishment. This is not about solving a problem and public safety, it is about punishment — these checkpoints prove that. You can’t now impose registration on people whose offenses were 30, 40, 50 years ago and have no offense since that, whether they are out of state or even if in state, and argue it is not for purposes of punishment. And in many cases, at least as pointed out for those who had been able to stop registering many years ago because they got 1203.4 relief and did not know the law now makes them start registering again, you cannot of good and honest conscience chase them down now and nail them when their supposed offense is actually a gross injustice done to them by taking away their previous relief.

    This bill and its checkpoints is set up as if it were addressing an escapee who has failed to serve his/her sentence! This bill is giving less than it seems, as providing for an extension of your tier once you get to its limit. We, of all people, cannot overlook this in a frenzied rush to pass anything the prosecutors want, any old crap at all. These points absolutely MUST be addressed.

    • Roger

      Anonymous Nobody, listen to the recording of the Tiered Registry conference call when it is posted. Janice answered a number of issues you brought up.

      Bottom line:

      (1) SB 695 is a rare opportunity to give 90,000 families the chance to get off the registry.

      (2) It will be hard enough for it to pass through legislators who fear being called soft on sex offenders, but it would be positively shameful for some RCs refuse to help because SB 695 doesn’t meet their expectations. In politics, everyone compromises to move forward. No compromise = no change and years more suffering.

      (3) ACSOL will continue to speak out and fight for improvements. No law is unchangeable.

  41. ReadyToFight

    Janice, now that you can stand before the Supreme Court, will you be tackling the facts on Recidivism anytime soon to set the record straight?

    • RS

      Your question doesn’t make sense. Are you expecting that Janice can now just walk into a SCOTUS hearing and declare that they got their recidivism info wrong? SCOTUS has already received briefs in recent cases stating the true recidivism rates are very low. The short 30 minutes each side has is really only to provide an opportunity for the judges to ask additional questions based on the many briefs they receive on a case. As Justice Ginsburg recently said at a public discussion about her recently published book, “I only ask questions to bring up points that might get the other Justices to decide the case my way”.

  42. Roger

    Anonymous Nobody, I recommend you listen to the recording of the Tiered Registry conference call when it is posted. Janice answered a number of issues you brought up.

    Regarding your statement, I have No PROBLEM with anyone making comments on this website, and I am not a moderator.

    But I DO have problems with keyboard activists who TROLL MAJOR NEGATIVITY and piss all over recommendations made by the most experienced professional in sex offender legislation: Janice.

    Why am I angry with what you trolled? Because all your toxic negativity takes HOPE away from the 105,000 guys trying to get off the registry. This bill is vital to ACSOL’s strategy.

    Janice has PROVEN STRATEGY, based on her expertise. YOUR strategy is to make unfounded, melodramatic statements but no positive action.

    Remember this: Hammering out pages of negativity on your keyboard IT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE.
    You wrote a line Emperor Palpatine could have said with an evil, intimidating smile: “I can’t tell you my experience in politics, government and law. But I would recommend you not presume.”

    If you really had experience in politics and government, you would not put down ACSOL members as ignorant by saying:
    “This is the first AND FINAL step. Inexperienced people won’t see that.”

    Then you wrote “we were flat out nixed from even getting to have any input on what was being recommended to the legislators for a bill!”

    BUT you ignored the fact that we WILL be giving input in Sacramento on March 20 and 21. Will you be there, or will you just keep pouring your negativity all over what ACSOL is accomplishing at you sit at home in your computer cave?

    Here, you project your own despair upon every politician:
    “our issues are far worse for a politician than that, they would rather eviscerate Social Security than touch our topic. This will NOT be taken up again”.

    My guess is that you don’t know who the author and co-author of this bill are. And you don’t know their motivation why they support it. RIGHT? I didn’t think so.

    I’m wondering what your goal is by saying these lies passionately and with absolute conviction, but NO EXPERIENCE, NO EVIDENCE, and NO ALTERNATIVE. Ego building?

    Maybe I should recommend that Janice step down and let you run ACSOL based on the “experience in politics, government and law” you can’t tell us about.

    So what will it be: work with ACSOL to give 105,000 RCs hope for the future, or keep trolling baseless crap?

    I hope you deflate your ego and choose the former. I would be proud to work with you on a future of hope for us.

    • Moderator

      The recording is added. You can listen to / download it here: http://all4consolaws.org/acsol-conference-calls/ ***Moderator***

      • DPH

        Thank you, thank you Moderator, it is appreciated adding it early for us all! Thanks

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      Roger I concur with your observations.

      In addition I posit the Reality regarding the human condition with regard to “Prediction”

      We should take into account that Yehovah formed Human Beings as a Deterministic Device out of the earth of which He formed the material ground to follow Probabilistic Laws.

      If we consider “Hindsight” we should be aware that it can contain from our own personal position in life & time – “Biases”

      Furthermore we are inclined to take the facts we observed & neglect the many more facts we did Not or could Not Observe and make them fit a confident-sounding narrative.

      This “Ability” formed into our minds by Yehovah to explain that which we cannot predict is a Subtle, Barrier (Hasatan) or flaw in our Human Reasoning.

      It is then necessary to Acknowledge this “Ability” And that it is Not a Blessing (Barak) but actually the “Ability” is a Curse (Arar).

      The reason being that this “Ability” Falsely Leads us to believe that our personal lives are more certain & secure and thereby we take more Risk leading us to Calamity!

      For if we can Explain tomorrow what we can not Predict today, without any added information except the facts of the actual outcome, then this outcome must have been determined in advanced by Yehovah and we should have been able to predict it.

      The Fact that we can not predict, similar to the events of the founding of the registry 70 years ago, is taken by our minds as an indication of our limited intelligence Rather then to take into account the uncertainty that exits in the world or cosmos.

      Imposing False Order upon random events that is: Creeping Determinism.

      If we tread down the Path of seeing the Past as SurPrise-Free our road ahead in the future will be Full (Barak) of Ugly SurPrises.

      We are Not Entitled as humans to receive a Accounting of The Business and WhereAbouts of:

      Yehovah The Most High Possessor of heaven & earth Who formed light and created darkness.

      Therefore in conclusion:

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  43. Anonymous Nobody

    I was so focused on other things that I overlooked another MAJOR and devious issue with this tier proposal, truly devious: It eliminates the out from registration for all those lesser offenses for which obtaining a COR currently will let you stop registering. This means anyone who was able to stop registering by getting a COR will have to start registering again if this bill is passed, and will only be able to stop registering again if and when they meet the standards set up in this bill to stop and are granted the relief by the court. This bill changes the state of the law, which changes whether those people do not have to register because of the COR – it changes it so they do have to register.

    So technically, if this bill is adopted as-is, and takes effect on Jan. 1, then all those people would have until Jan. 5, the five-day grace period you have once your registration requirement is sparked, to go in and register or be subject to prosecution for failure to register. This is NOT hyperbole, this is reality. And this is NOT the first time this kind of thing has happened, I have been pointing this out here for years. And if you think you can expect some common sense and leniency about this situation from the prosecutors, have you ever seen that from them in tha past?!

    I expect all offenses that now can stop registering once they obtain a COR will be Tier 1 offenses. Of those, most had to wait 10 years to get the COR, so they have met their tier time — as long as they are currently registering in California when they now seek relief anew; but for some offenses, such as indecent exposure, they could get a COR in seven years and stop registering (this is a problem of this tier proposal, it actually lengthens the time you have to register for those offenses from seven years to 10 years! We are backing a measure that lengthens the registration time!), so would have to register for three more years before seeking relief under this new standard. The state of the law if this tier proposal passes as-is means all those people who stopped registering after getting a COR will now have to start registering again and will have to be evaluated under the testing, and will have to file in court (fees, a lawyer) to seek relief from registering under the new standard for relief. That COR that relieved them before will no longer provide them relief if this bill is passed as-is, so they lose that relief they previously had been granted, and will have to seek relief all over again.

    This is just like what they did 25 years ago when they changed the standard in place then, under which people could stop registering once they got 1203.4 PC relief, an “expungement,” and then subsequently made everything in 290, including the new standard, retroactive. All those people who had obtained that relief over the previous 50 years suddenly were required to start registering again, and continue to have to do so to this day. Gee, if any of those people were subsequently able to stop registering after getting a COR, they again are having their relief taken away, a second time, and again must meet a different standard and yet again apply to the court and beg for relief!

    I can only imagine when the next change will come along and they have their relief taken away yet again! People think these things can’t happen, but they already have happened and now they are about to happen yet again! I have warned in these threads for years about this! This new standard being instituted is retroactive. These people will have to resume registering and continue to do so until they file for and obtain relief yet again under the new standard.

    How about adding a clause to this bill to the effect: “Anyone who at any time prior to 2018 met the standard to stop registering that was in place at that time shall not have to register for that offense regardless of any change in the standard subsequent to their relief.”

    This is the kind of basic fairness that even many right wing Republicans would support.

    If we would just speak up and advocate rather than cheer, this now is a chance not only to correct the injustice this bill is about to do but to also finally correct the injustice from 25 years ago — finally — as the issue of the two time frames is one and the same, and the older one is still in play even after this bill is passed. This is an injustice that was attempted to be fixed in Doe v. Harris for those who had obtained relief by getting a 1203.4 “expungement,” for at least those who entered plea bargains, but which our state Supreme Court denied — and which we here said we would continue to fight for. Well, this is the time and place to fight for what we said we would fight for! This can go a long way to getting what Doe v. Harris did not get.

    We cannot be so blinded as to simply cheer on this proposal rather than demand any number of changes in it, this latest one a pretty serious one.

    We at least need to have this bill rewritten to correct this, to retain the relief from registration for all those people who previously could stop after getting a COR. And of good conscience, we MUST, we MUST take advantage at this time also to correct the very same egregious injustice imposed on all those who previously met the standard for relief from registration by obtaining a 1203.4 “expungement”; that standard was good for felons until the mid-late 1980s and misdemeanants until the early-mid 1990s.

    Many of those people who stopped registering after their “expungement” probably don’t even know they were supposed to resume registering, and might be walking around under danger of being stopped for who knows what, their violation that they don’t even know about being discovered and land them in jail — gee, they could get nailed simply if they applied for a passport under the new IML law!

    That is, it might be old now, but those people are still in serious danger, whether they know it or not. Who knows how many of those have moved to another state in the past many decades, from where they can’t even get out from under registration under this bill ever — but this corretion now will get them out. We must incorporate into this correction the same correction for these people who previously had been relieved of the registration requirement by obtaining 1203.4 relief — no matter that I’m sure the Justice Department will say that no one actually faces that Catch 22; that is a lie, they do, I expect many of them whether in-state or out-of-state, and if the Justice Department thinks not, then they should have no problem adding that relief in as they won’t lose anything. The only justification for them to fight adding in that relief is because they know it will help some people — which would only prove my case.

    But note, if those people who lost their relief from registration via expungement get this correction but with the stipulation that they still must meet their tier, many of them could be facing 9-10 (or maybe more) years of registration before they can get that relief again, as their time on probation would have been only 1-2 years or so. The Justice Department will lie and poo-poo this concern, but it is real and serious, and if they think non-existent, then they should not mind this correction being granted. They fought such a correction back in the mid-1990s when 290 was made retroactive, so they do intend to hang anyone caught up in that net. And even now they are not just making an amnesty for all tier 1 and tier 2 offenses older than 30 years, they are still handling it as a sentence, as punishment, and requiring a showing that you currently are registering in California and for at least the amount of time for your tier, or else you must complete your sentence first, before you can have your first “parole” hearing.

    Please, people, stop being blinded in your approach to this tier proposal!

    • Joe

      Good comment, as always, but right off the bat this “anyone who was able to stop registering by getting a COR will have to start registering again if this bill is passed” is incorrect.

      First paragraph in the proposed bill:

      “…unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5.”

      https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB695/id/1524108

      • Roger

        Well said, Joe.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        No, you have misread it. 290.5 is NOT a COR. The COR statute is NOT 290.5. A COR is Sec. 4852.01. And under this bill, a COR will no longer get you out from under registration, this bill lifts that as a means to stop registering. 290.5 is the relief for the tiers — if you get it, which is sounding more and more like a big IF.

        My point is that some people already had been relieved of registration by getting a COR — under sec. 4852.01. This bill is eliminating that relief; they will still have their COR, but it will not relieve them of registration. They will have to realize this, go in and register in January, and then go through the tier process. And if they don’t go in and register by Jan. 5, they will be subject to prosecution for non-registration because under this bill, they lose their relief from registration come Jan. 1, that relief is being stricken from 290.

        I’m not surprised you missed that — like I said, I did too at first.

        • Joe

          I see your point… and an important one it is. It reads as if this sentence “…unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5.” (currently, registration termination under PC 290.5 follows a CoR under PC 4852.01) is referencing the proposed PC 290.5.

          What needs to happen is that the sentence in the first paragraph NEEDS to reference either the previous / existing PC 290.5, or the language in the proposed PC 290.5 needs to be re-numbered.

          Why? According to

          [PROPOSED] 290.5. (a) (1) A person who is required to register pursuant to Section 290 and 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 minimum registration period. The petition shall contain proof of the person’s current registration as a sex offender.

          A person previously relieved of registration under PC 290.5 following a CoR under PC 4852.01 can, thusly, NEVER even petition for relief, as they are not currently registered as a sex offender. Leaving them in some sort of purgatory.

          I believe that ACSOL President Oberstein is such a person, relieved of registration after a CoR. Could he weigh in on this, perhaps?

          • Tuna

            Perhaps this bill should be amended to say: “Unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5 or had previously been terminated pursuant to Section 4852.01” ? Would this not grandfather in those who already have been relieved from registration via a CoR?

          • Anonymous Nobody

            I suggest the bill be amended to add the clause I proposed above. That clause would solve this COR issue AND the exact same issue that was never solved when they did the same thing to those people who had gotten relief under 1203.4 PC. It is inexcusable not to cover that and fix it now too, don’t use language to limit it to the COR only — the issue is the exact same thing. And in the 1203.4 issue, anyone who got 1203.4 prior to the date of the change that eliminated that as a means of relief would be exempt from registration once again and they already had earned and obtained. That is, it is not difficult to know who gets that relief, although I guarantee you the prosecutors will say it would be overwhelming to figure that out.

            But I note, there is a pattern throughout this bill. This elimination of the COR as a means of relief and making those people go through this new method is NOT a mistake. This is intentional, as it was intentional when they did it to 1203.4 relief as well. This bill is rife with these things all through it. As I have said from the beginning, this bill is a prosecutor’s dream bill, and it is very deviously crafted to slip that past your eye. All they are doing in with this bill is redefining the word “tier” to be what we already have as a COR — they are not giving us actual tiers! They are simply using the word “tier” to fool you.

    • New Person

      Anonymous Nobody wrote:

      we MUST take advantage at this time also to correct the very same egregious injustice imposed on all those who previously met the standard for relief from registration by obtaining a 1203.4 “expungement”; that standard was good for felons until the mid-late 1980s and misdemeanants until the early-mid 1990s.

      If you can find someone who had to re-register due to this change in the law, then they can now invoke the Snyder case (Michigan) that says any change in respect to registration is deemed punishment.

      I’m terribly confused why “your case is dismissed”, but your conviction exists to be shared with IML b/c you’re still registering. Your conviction exists in respect to registering. If the rebuttal is that registration is not punishment, then by law, I do not have to comply to compelled service once I am out of custody. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. If my neighbor is free and doesn’t ever have to register, then why must I register as a free person? Why must I continue to SERVER THE STATE when my obligations of my punishment were completed? The California and US Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude.

      Mind you, we’re not even paid for said services. Well, that ventures into slavery b/c a) we have no compensation and b) the term for registration is for life. The state and government are making money off of our state service. Someone is making money in creating programs to be online, to make paper for all the paperwork, the ink or toner for the paper work, the man power to process said paper work, as well as compliance checks. Let’s not forget the mandatory counselling that must be paid for too.

      Slaves were harvesting cotton to make money for their masters. Registrants are harvesting themselves to make money for their masters (the state and any affiliated to make money off of registrants).

      Are free people banished from free travel, open housing and job availability, or participate in family school functions? If not, then why are free people who are compelled to register not share those same freedoms as free citizens?

      • Anonymous Nobody

        If I can find them? EVERYONE who got probation for a registrable offense from 1944 to the 1980s or 1990s date of the change is involved in that — whether they know it or not. That will be lots of people, whether they have been caught yet or not. I suspect most of those numbers they say are not registering are those people.

        As for 1203.4 dismissing the case, first, the federal government has never recognized a California expungement. Second, even the California appellate courts now many times have said 1203.4 is NOT an expungement, they say it does NOT dismiss the case despite the language in it that says the case is dismissed. They say the conviction remains, that you are merely relieved of certain disabilities of the conviction.

        This is because they see a conflict in 1203.4 in that it retains some “punishments,” such as a felon still cannot possess a gun and others. The courts say that if punishments are retained, then the conviction remains as the punishments cannot be retained otherwise. They could have gotten rid of the punishments, but they instead chose to get rid of the relief. As a result, California does not have an expungement law.

  44. Anonymous Nobody

    As I look more into this tier proposal, it is becoming ever more obvious it is NOT a tier proposal. This is an incredibly devious proposal to block us from real tiers. This proposal is little other than a word game, redefining a COR as tiers. That means this is simply giving us what we already have, the possibility of a COR.

    You are not going to find “90%” of registrants getting relief from registration under this proposal any more than they get it under a COR.

    A tier proposal would let people out automatically after they finish the time for their tier. But that is NOT what this does. This sets up a possible court review — to be determined by whatever prosecutor you are stuck with, such as Rackauckas in Orange County — pretty much as deep and intrusive as a COR. Consider what the law will now say MUST (“shall” means “must”) be considered in any court hearing at the end of your tier:

    “In determining whether to order continued registration, the court shall consider: the nature of the registrable offense; the age and number of victims; whether any victim was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender for less than 24 hours); criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registrable offense; the time period during which the person has not reoffended; successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; and the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.”

    So, even what your offense was can be used as a reason to deny you the relief!
    That makes your tier irrelevant, it is just a COR time frame to be allowed to apply, but to be denied! The nature of your offense is already known in deciding how long you must register to get this relief. As a tier, its already supposed to have been decided that that time is enough for that offense. But its not, under this bill your original offense can be a cause to deny you this relief! And absolutely, if your offense was a higher one, and they let you plea bargain to a lower one, you now are going to be judged on that higher one, on the “nature of your offense.” If that is your situation, you better start getting used to the idea that you are not going to get out of registration at the end of your tier, that dismissal of the charge you got in the plea bargain is not going to be worth as much as you thought — absolutely, that is exactly why the prosecutors put that language in this bill, to in effect put you on trial on that dismissed charge after all.

    Gee, they can even use your PRIOR or subsequent perfectly LEGAL conduct (behavior) as a reason to deny you this relief! That is, even though you have now learned to not cross the line, never violate a law, you have proved via the test of time that you can keep yourself contained within the law, that is not good enough! That’s good enough for everyone else on the planet, but that is not good enough for you, you must be better than that just the same as you must be to get a COR. That is, for example, what consenting adults do legally and in private behind closed doors can now be used to deny you this relief — or whatever else it might be that the prosecutors want to assert or wherever else you might do it. Any of the requirements of a COR can come in under that language — all those requirements for a COR are considered to be “relevant.”

    Mind you, if you had ANY criminal “behavior,” not “conviction,” since your registrable offense — and it does not need to be a registrable offense or even sex related — that can be used to deny you this relief. It even specifically writes that clause so that that criminal behavior does not even need to be “relevant!” Only the non-criminal behavior must be “relevant,” whatever that means, and that’s another point, that is just too vague, that will allow anything that’s surrounded with some hyped up language.

    And of course, the bit about your current assessment by SARATSO. This is a major, this means your tier time is irrelevant — other than to deny you what your SARATSO score says you should have a LOT sooner. This makes the tier proposal nothing but a smoke screen, only your SARATSO rating is relevant! And the various things that get you negative points on that are unconscionable, such as simply that you are single – – tell me, how many women want to marry, or have anything to do with, a convicted sex offender who is registering and suffering compliance checks!?

    Gee, it even requires the court to consider the time period during which you have not reoffended, as in does the court agree with the times set for the tier! But that is what the tier time is supposed to already have decided, that that amount of time is plenty enough, it is not supposed to be overruled by a judge with a different opinion of, or less respect for the tiers, a judge who wants a longer “tier” to decide you are safe.

    And again, I note, they are NOT dealing with this as a time frame from your offense or release, which is all that should matter and which a tier would be. They are measuring this as the amount of time you have registered, as in a sentence, and even more specifically, that registration must be in California, as in a sentence to California. I have advocated since day on that a real tier should be measured as time from offense or release, not time on registration – bad attitudes produce bad bills. A tier is supposed to mean you have passed the test of time, not that you have served enough of your sentence. A tier should be more like a statute of limitations that a sentence. Gee, those people who were not prosecuted before the statute of limitations ran get full relief from all of this, but those who suffered the conviction are now to suffer more if they registered out of state or maybe just didn’t start registering again in the mid-1990s when their previous relief under a 1203.4 “expungement” was lifted, but they never realized it was lifted and that they were supposed to start registering again. All this because this is not being handled similar to a statute of limitations, as in how long have you not reoffended, you have passed the test of time, period.

    These things just make this tier proposal nothing but an indeterminate sentence! That’s not what a tier proposal is supposed to be. This is making this relief nothing but the earliest time you can have your first parole hearing. None of this should be involved in a tier proposal, this is all for a COR. A tier proposal is supposed to be more like you have reached the end of your sentence, they cannot hold you any longer. A COR is what is supposed to be more like a parole hearing. The prosecutors have come in on this proposal and played word games, simply taking out the COR as a means of relief and calling what had been relief via a COR a tier, but handling it like a COR. Gee, it even conforms to the times for a COR, except for the lesser offenses that before this bill could have gotten relief in seven years — those we are now being lengthened to 10 years, getting the COR at seven years will no longer end registration for those people.

    Yes, this change is taking away any relief one might have gotten from a COR. If you got a COR and with that were allowed to stop registering, under this bill, you will now have to start registering again come Jan. 1 and, if or when you get to the end of your tier, you will have to file for removal from registration, and possibly have to suffer this court hearing — its up to the prosecutor, although I would hope, since you already got a COR, they don’t demand the hearing, but I would not bet on it, especially if you had some behavior they don’t like, perfectly legal or not, after your COR.

    And another egregious thing completely unrelated to tiers this bill is exploiting is to take away the relief from being posted on the Internet that some registrants applied for and obtained. That is now being taken away, and they will again be posted on the Internet! This is like when they took away relief from registration obtained via a 1203.4 “expungement,” required those people to start registering again. And now this bill will be taking away relief from registration attained by getting a COR.

    And how many years will it be before relief you might get under this tier proposal is taken away? As the state high court said in Doe v. Harris, you should know you can lose this relief at any time via subsequent changes in the law. That has already happened in the past for all those who had obtained relief via 1203.4, it is now about to happen for all those who were relieved via a COR, and it is now about to happen for all those delisted from the internet after applying for and earning that relief. And we are not complaining about this!

    This is NOT a tier proposal. This is NOT attitudes changing to be more reasonable, this is just a shell game.

    There are loads of details all through this change that have nothing to do with tiers, and which no one is focusing on but do make our situation worse.

  45. Cool CA RC

    This is all to confusing can’t we just get rid of the registry once and for ALL?

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      Cool CA RC

      The “Confusion” you sense:

      con·fu·sion
      kənˈfyo͞oZHən/Submit
      noun
      1.
      lack of understanding; uncertainty.
      “there seems to be some confusion about which system does what”
      synonyms: uncertainty, incertitude, unsureness, doubt, ignorance; formaldubiety
      “there is confusion about the new system”
      2.
      the state of being bewildered or unclear in one’s mind about something.
      “she looked about her in confusion”
      synonyms: bewilderment, bafflement, perplexity, puzzlement, mystification, befuddlement;

      Was put in place by the combined efforts of the Politicians, Judges, Law Enforcement, Attorneys, & Your Fellow Country Men in order to Destroy your life & that of your Loved Ones as they are from Their perspective Guilty By Association & merit and deserve to suffer with you.

      If the Politicians, Judges, Law Enforcement, Attorneys, & Your Fellow Country Men were to be Forced to Account for their Evil (Want Creating) Ways or Paths they would posit: “Extra-Judiciary Punishment”

      But Truth be told it is simply a form of practicing “The Ethic of The Avenger” that is to say “Revenge”, a child born of “The Conquest Ethic” in contrast to the correct practice of “The Consent Ethic”.

      This of course goes completely counter to The True Justice of The Torah found in the 5 books of Moses in the Old Testament of which The Founding Documents of The United States of American form it’s basis or that were based by The Founding Father of our reasoning for freeing ourselves from serving The King of England, head of The British Empire. The Torah is the Fountain of our Freedoms, it is a Fact & Reality of our recent past history.

      Fixed Objective Morals, Laws, or Paths of Correct Conduct put in place by a Eternal אחד (Echad) One Creator in heaven. is our Nations Stated Fixed Point that Forms Certainty, Security, & Sureness in our lives.

      Revenge is not ours to take: Deuteronomy 32:25 makes this clear.
      http://biblehub.com/ylt/deuteronomy/32.htm

      Knowledge of your personal position in life relative to the Creator is what will set you free & clear the confusion these Wicked Servants have formed & created to destroy their fellow country men.

      I speak Truth

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

      • Cool CA RC

        Thanks for sharing .. You have an very interesting point of view.

      • Timmr

        Con. Fusion. To pour together (in Latin). Mixing things up or maybe seeing things as they really are, like a child would before the world is separated into names. Disordered. Whole. Indivisible. Chaos. Chaos was, according to Greek mythology, the origin of everything, and the first thing that ever existed, as nameless formless as the void. Fusion, mingling mixing, like swirling atoms in the sun, making heavier elements through implosion. Changing. Churning. Ocean surf. Con-fusing. Life.

  46. Janice Bellucci

    Joe and Roger, I agree with you completely. The tiered registry bill will not affect anyone who has already been granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

    • Joe

      Now that I have thought about it and re-read the proposed bill language I am no longer sure I was correct.

      Where in the bill does it state that those previously granted a CoR – which terminated the registration requirement – are exempt? I believe the intent is there, but the actual, un-ambiguous language is not. Am I missing it?

      Can you advise, please?

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Janice, I think you have overlooked something here. And like I said, this is NOT the first time they have changed 290 to do this kind of thing; it was definitely on purpose when they did it about 1203.4 PC, which they did separately once for felonies and later for misdemeanors. And we can fix both issues with the simple clause I proposed above (and now slightly tweak):

        “Anyone who at any time prior to 2018 met the standard to stop registering that was in place at that time and gained that relief shall not have to register for that offense regardless of any subsequent change in the standard.”

        That clause would solve the same issue they did both times, both the COR and 1203.4. And I certainly hope the legislators’ sense of justice when they hear about this will make it an easy sell to add. Something like this very basic fairness certainly ought to be an easy sell no matter the prosecutors’ objections.

        The tweak is to make it clear that the registrant actually got the relief, not simply could have. That is because the 1203.4 way was dependent on the state of the law in a separate statute back then, 1203.4 did not say anything about 290 so neither did the court’s 1203.4 order. Once you got 1203.4, you simply stopped registering, you didn’t have to tell anyone, they knew you got 1203.4, they put it on your rap sheet. In reality, 290 was only lifetime for those who did not get probation.

        • New Person

          Also, it is not stated within 1203.4 that you must continue to register.

          The very “specific language in 1203.4” states:

          “… and as noted below,” designated all exceptions on the beneficiaries of those awarded the 1203.4. For gun people, if you earn the 1203.4 and felony reduction, then you can own a gun again.

          There should be a civil action as to the mistreatment of registrants to not share the equality of all those convicted and no longer convicted.

          • Anonymous Nobody

            1203.4 has never said anything about registration. In past years, that was a separate statute, separate from both 1203.4 and 290 (I’d have to look up that old statute number). It said you did not have to register if you had 1203.4 relief for either a felony or a misdemeanor. First, they took out the word “felony,” and later they nixed the entire clause, meaning “misdemeanor” too. And a few years ago, what remains of that statute was merged into 290.

            And at this point, you will find it difficult to even trace that history. And none of the legislators in the Legislature today were in that office when expungement was lifted as a release from registration, I doubt any or much of any of them even know.

            • New Person

              That would be great if you can discover those statutes! I’d be thankful if you can share them.

              Still, the point stands about 1203.4 and exceptions to 1203.4 benefits – nowhere is it listed within 1203.4 as specifically stated the exceptions are listed “and as noted below”. The law favors the layman’s interpretations.

              I’m simply identifying any registered layman has a rightful stake in the interpretation of the law. Also note, in 1203.4, it does inform you which sex offenses cannot apply for 1203.4. Why is that in this statute as opposed to a parallel statute? What’s the purpose of specifically including this exception within 1203.4 and not including the continuance to register? The law becomes contrarian and layman logic points that the only exceptions need to exist within 1203.4.

              Yet judges are human. Will the judge(s) actually follow the rule of law that renders a convoluted law with contrarian actions to favor the layman’s interpretation? If you read the law as it is from a layman’s POV and also notice there are specific exceptions to registrants, but not the continuance to register, then the law is confusing if one has to register.

              The statute is a contract. I expect the law to uphold said contract. I did not write the law, but I am making sure the government upholds the specifically written contract. It is not my fault the lawmakers were “ignorant of the law” to not include the continuance to register as the law states the only exceptions are noted within 1203.4, specifically, “… and as noted below” verbiage.

              A parallel example…
              Miranda rights exists for all.
              Another statute says that Miranda rights cannot be applied to registrants.

              Welp, there is a conflict.
              1203.4 benefits exists for all convicts (with specific exceptions written within the law).
              Another statute stats that 1203.4 benefits cannot be applied to registrants.

              Crazy when you substitute a different law in place of 1203.4 and how terrible it truly looks. It seems there is no equality if you’re a registrant.

        • Timmr

          As someone said and I repeat (in a liberal paraphrase), some of us scumbags are prohibited from getting a dismissal, expungement or COR as it is. Even if we got probation. Maybe with the new system, we can at least apply for its equivalent after 20 years. Registry building leaves a bad taste in my mouth, so I am not going to be involved in it. I would prefer we keep pointing out the harm registries do to the people on them and to public welfare in general. That is it.

          • Roger

            Timmr, ACSOL has a workable plan of action that will help make possible an incremental decrease in the number of people on the registry.

            Your smug comment “That is it” tells me you are financially well off enough to be on the registry the rest of your life without facing unemployment and homelessness. You can be an armchair general for the rest your life, stoking your ego by pissing on the hard work of others, and following your SINGLE action item of telling people how bad the registry is–which of course ACSOL has been doing for years.

            Please stay in your dark troll cave and hammer out never-ending troll crap on OTHER websites.

            You are not welcome here.

            By the way, when you get off the registry someday due to the long-term plans and hard work by ACSOL, I hope you have the grace to feel shame.

            • Mr. D

              Roger – Really?

              Maybe I missed something in Timmr’s post but let’s not get too emotional. Current laws and proposed legislation can adversely affect all of us in a negative way. Suggest we all focus on moving forward and improving the overall quality of life for RSO’s.

            • Timmr

              Well ban me if you are the one who plays that role in ASCOL and you feel I threaten your organization for some reason. Until then, I will continue to voice my opinion here, although you only seem to want a choir, not a forum along with the few others that still comment here.

            • David Kennerly

              Please Roger, let’s not demonize one another.

              Timmr is not a “troll” nor is he “smug” nor is he “armchair” (you met him at the rally in Oakland against IML).

              He has serious and legitimate grievances with the terror-state, as do we all. He has a different interpretation of the tiered registry system under consideration than you and me, although I have come to support the proposed legislation very reluctantly, as you know, identifying within it much potential for its subversion by government agents. Still, and for reasons stated previously, I think that it offers the most hope today for immediate, though limited, justice and for moving the Registry towards eventual dismantlement.

              I would say that he has as much right to argue against it as we do to support it and that we would do better to foster community here than to impose an arbitrary litmus test upon membership.

              I value both of you as contributors to this movement.

              • Timmr

                Thank you David. I like your original well reasoned position on this tiered bill to stay out of putting your name on it. Roger’s position is also well thought out. But I think the incremental strategy is more pie in the sky than just outright taking a position of banishment. I think they are both going to lead to improvements, but i question their relative effectiveness in the long run. I know everyone is emotionally exhausted by this tiered registry discussion, but no one but Roger has discussed the strategy separate from just the bill. You have probably read this, but others may not have looked at this somewhat opposing criticism of the incremental strategy.
                http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/08/dont-just-get-kids-off-the-sex-offender-registry-abolish-it/

                • David Kennerly

                  Thank you Timmr!

                  Although I didn’t quite understand what you meant by “I like your original well reasoned position on this tiered bill to stay out of putting your name on it. ” That’s a bit of a head-scratcher 🙂 Perhaps you can clarify that.

                  I had not seen the Judith Levine piece in Counterpunch and so I do thank you for that. As usual, she very astutely grasps the nettle of the issue and I absolutely do agree with her, especially as she articulates it here:

                  “Incrementalism, or taking small steps, has often been posited as the pathway to justice–“Wait. We’ll make reforms now and work on the wider problem later.” Incrementalism can work. Reforms are necessary because they improve daily existence for the people inside the system—in court, in juvenile or immigrant detention, in jails and prison. But organizers must constantly calibrate the tension between reform and radical change, and the dangers of reform without a vision of radical change. By cleaning up a fundamentally corrupt institution, reforms risk legitimizing the institution, often just enough to make it politically palatable. ”

                  Her concerns for incremental approaches, especially when they involve the formation of alliances with people who are clearly not our friends and which strengthen, and legitimate, illiberal and oppressive positions which are not our own is, of course, the real danger and the source of my own serious misgivings about the tiered registry. Ultimately, my hope with “tiers” is more modest than that of its most ardent supporters here, seeing in it an opportunity – a calibrated opportunity, to use Levine’s term – to inflict upon the registry the opening salvo in a death by a thousand cuts in the form of individual legal challenges. If there were any plausible alternatives to the tiered registry bill which would shut down the registry completely then I would wholeheartedly support that, instead. But as you know, there is nothing else on the horizon that affords any such opportunities at all.

                  • Timmr

                    Sorry, I wasn’t able to express the nuanced point I was trying to make. It is a conundrum. Let me use an analogy. You first said we should irritate, but stay out of supporting the the CASOMB, I think that is what you where saying. Takes a grain of sand to make a pearl. If you coddle the clam, you maybe get nothing. The organization may get a seat on the CASOMB, but alienate those who are the constituents needed to further fight to reduce the registry, those left on the registry, the 2’s and 3’s and even 1’s who can not get approval to get off because of their DA’s or find that the length of the tiers has been lengthened.

            • New Person

              Roger,

              Timmr has a great point: “Is registration constitutional?”

              That’s the heart of the matter.

              The tiered proposal implies that registration is constitutional. Here’s a comparative parallel that probably best describes what Timmr, others, and myself feel about the tiered proposal.

              slavery = lifetime registration
              segregation = tiered proposal
              Rosa Parks = those who oppose the tiered process

              Segregation was stating things were “separate, but equal” was constitutional. Well, apparently between the convicts, there also a exists a “separate, but equal” idea… except, it’s not equal. No convicts, former convicts, or people with cases dismissed were continued to be monitored as a whole after release from custody. No other convict groups are forced to be banished from locations on earth from living or being present. No other convict groups are excluded from attaining any job like any other free person.

              Right now, the US Government and all State Government are mentally abusing all registrants as they’re no longer under custody, but are still referred to a form that is not true – Sex Offender, Predator, or Monster. That is not any registrants’ current status if they are no longer under custody. This idea that registrants can never be rehabilitated was spawned by the SCOTUS in 2003 with the use of unsubstantiated data that was proven false.

              Once out of custody, you cannot freely move unmolested because you have to continue to register should you decide to move, in-state or out-of-state. All these extra banishment penalties are not considered punishment if you are a registrant. You are being shamed every single day after you have already paid your dues.

              In California, it is for life. A lifetime term that exists OUTSIDE OF CUSTODY?! A lifetime contract on a free person??? This type of contract length does not exist anywhere save SLAVERY. California registrants are not paid to do their compelled service to the state, but there are many who gain financially upon the compelled free service of registrants. How is that not slavery?

              Look at the 1203.4. It is supposed to dismiss your conviction. That is what the language under 1203.4 says. Yet, it carries no value if you are a registrant aside from writing on a form, “No, you were never convicted.” Registration was legalized because the state is only sharing what is public, according to the 2003 SCOTUS decision. 1203.4 states your conviction does no exist, so there is no public information about you. Yet you continue to register because you conviction still exists in the government’s eyes. Your information is pushed to the IML because you are on the registry. Yet, the producers of the IML state they are only pushing “public information”. If you gained 1203.4, then you have no public information – well, that is what the distinct language states in 1203.4 and there no exceptions about continuing to register within 1203.4.

              With the 1203.4, registrants are not being treated equally to those other convicts who EARNED the 1203.4.

              None of the penalties or disabilities change with the tiered proposal. In fact, you can be denied indefinitely to be relieved from the registry. No where in the proposal does it state there is a maximum amount of times you can be rejected. All the DA has to state is the following line, “It is in best interest for Public Safety.”

              That is all the DA has to state. No one cares about the truth of the recidivism rates. A California judge did not care about it at all because they followed the disingenuous standard set forth by the 2003 SCOTUS decision.

              Also, you are missing the context about the tiered proposal. 10,000 registrant will automatically be removed from the registry. WHOA! Wait… why? I thought registrants have a high recidivism rate? Why are 10,000 registrants being release without contest? And why are the rest of the registrant subject to petition to be off the registry? Why are registrants being treated differently based on year of conviction (or former conviction) to a newly created law? What is the point of the registry if 10,000 are removed, but still continue to have lifetime registration?

              Why? Because we are not treated as equal citizens.

              slavery = lifetime registration
              segregation = tiered proposal
              rosa parks = those who oppose the tiered registry

              Mind you, Janice and team still want to abolish the registry. They are trying to do both, abolish the registry and get as many registrants off the books. Although a tiered proposal sounds relieving, we all have read that in New York a legislation extended those tier 1s for an additional 10 years to be removed from the registry just when those tier 1 registrants have done 10 years on the original tiered legislation. In Texas, the relief rate is low and the cost to be relieved was high.

              I don’t trust the government. I mean look at where we’re at a now. See how draconian registration is now compared to 2003. Look at how the IML was not opposed, but the travel ban from seven countries is being deemed unconstitutional. I thought US citizens were supposed to be valued higher than non-US citizens? My case is supposedly dismissed, but I do not share the same rights and freedoms of my free neighbors.

              I want those proposing the bill to review the effectiveness of registration when using CASOMB’s own statistics of recidivism rates. That’s one of the most important comparisons worth noting. Then compare the recidivism rates amongst other convicts. If there are any groups with higher recidivism rates than registrants, then the registration scheme should be dissolved. Why? B/c all those other groups have never had registration long before and do not have one now. Any surveillance after prison or jail is still a part of their punishment custody, but that isn’t the case with registrants.

              And, as others have noted, with Static-99, the younger the person, the higher the recidivism rate. CASOMB is trying to get all juveniles off the registry. That seems quite a bit contradictory to the risk assessment that the whole state of California is using. But what is the point of a risk assessment when you are still given a lifetime registration as if you are no different from the worst possible thought?

              I’m with Timmr. Registration is unconstitutional. If the state of California is accepting of the tiered proposal, then it suggests that they did not do their due diligence in scientific based research as well as comparative analysis of the registration scheme altogether. They did not take into account the Snyder case or any of Janice’s victories in California. Presence restriction struck down. Housing restrictions struck down. Soon, job restrictions will be struck down too, I hope.

              With California being known as a liberal state, they are fighting tooth and nail to be closed minded. All registrants are suffering from some form of depression as well as have developed some PTSD due to all the stigmatization of being labeled a present danger to society, forms of banishment from locations, living, or employment, as well as travel, domestically or internationally. It’s very clockwork orange mental abuse.

              A non-registrant wrote about his ordeal of being mis-identified as a registrant. Yes, he had ordeals with travel as well as domestic commerce (YMCA gym). But he also has the capacity to say he isn’t a registrant to his mental health. He can simply say he is not one, but just has to wait for confirmation. As a Californian… I was and still am afraid to go by a park even though Janice and team won presence restrictions. I hate my birthday.

              I feel Timmr’s anger, but I’m way too depressed to be angry.

              • Timmr

                A quote for New Person:

                “April is the cruellest month, breeding
                Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
                Memory and desire, stirring
                Dull roots with spring rain.
                Winter kept us warm, covering
                Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
                A little life with dried tubers.”

                DISBELIEF: Registrants in northern areas may recognize the emotions generated in the first stanza of T.S. Elliot’s poem, “The Waste Land”. Here in sunny Southern California it may read “March is the cruelest month.” When the hills turn from pallid yellow to vibrant green, the registrants know another year is plodding forward with more of the same. Another year facing the prospect of what new vile laws will spring out of the legislative docket, another year when the officer knocks on their door to remind them they are not allowed the freedoms of other citizens.
                It is also the tax season, and the depression of not having enough money to pay their taxes is better than not having an income at all because of the registry, is better than not having shelter to keep out the wet sky over their homeless heads. Here in America, land of dreams come true and promises fulfilled!
                DENIAL: On the other hand, this year can be the best year ever if I just don’t stir the ant nest to much and plan for success. Things do get better, the pendulum swings without our constant prodding.
                Maybe we all need to just cool off and smell the roses, take and iced tea and act as if this year is going to be the best ever.
                A TRADE OFF: I can live with this. Just means I have to be embarrassed once in awhile and take a lower job than I know I can do. I don’t have to be able to go to all the countries of the world. Be thankful we can go to any or are not in jail.
                ANGER: If you are annoyed by my pessimism then please read something else. People are dying because of this registry and the assurance that wait and things will improve does not go far enough for many; and as long as the Constitution allows this to be a form of regulation, then the laws will propagate fear and resentment in the registrant and his family.
                GUILT: This is not an indictment of those sacrificing their lives to help out, things would be even worse if they simple left us to enjoy the desert wildflowers or the beach and got on with their own dreams. It is a reminder, just like tax season, that the penalties are still there, there is a lot more to do to weed out the last noxious germ of registrant regulation. I am sure I am not doing enough myself.
                DOWNER: I am depressed too, New Person. Already there has been SB26 and AB558 popping up. Also the officers approached my gate. They always pick an otherwise beautiful day to approach, although I seem to have developed a premonition that they are going to show up. Maybe I just expect things to have been different after paying my dues and being a law abiding citizen. Those who are not subject to such regular invasions of the last space we can call our own in this regulatory prison-scape should not be expected to understand why we push to have them banned.
                WHAT IF? I am sure, New Person, that you, like me have developed an emotional resilience. I go through the stages of grief pretty quickly now and have become skilled in working through them, mainly through writing.
                It is not as bad as it looks, but still bad. SB26 and AB558 have been canned for now. There is a bill to potentially relieve many from the viscous cycle of registration. And there is still the taint of IML hanging around like a fart in a sealed room. Many are finding a new purpose in activism and have surmounted the odds to find good employment and partake of the general bounty this country can still afford to many. Keep thinking and acting to the fullest of your ability. What more is there?

        • Curiouser

          Yeah. The 30-plus year attorney who has made it her life’s work to fight against the registry and the laws that oppress registered citizens, who knows more about PC 290 than pretty much anyone in the state, and who scrutinizes every proposed bit of legislation like a biblical scholar analyzing a piece of scripture “overlooked” something.

          Oh, and even if she DID overlook something, which she doesn’t, her colleague, the criminal defense attorney who is president of this organization, one of the few who obtained a Certificate of Rehabilitation and made his way off the registry, and who knows more about PC 290 than pretty much anyone in the state, would let her know.

          We get it. You hate this proposed bill. Now bash away, but do us a favor and keep it to under 35 paragraphs.

          • Lake County

            Curiouser,

            What, you don’t think all the critics here (that got themselves here in the first place) know more than Janice and team? (lol) The biggest critics of ACSOL seem to be the ones that are most afraid to use their vast expert knowledge to submit their own petitions for relief or file their own lawsuits against the registry. Janice and the advocates in other states will someday get the public registry removed, but it takes time. I think she has done an amazing job so far. I can’t imaging how bad things would be for us now without her.

            Remember, Janice and Chance are good attorneys who don’t have to take on this very unpopular advocacy for us. She could decide to abandon us at any time and with all the criticism she gets, I wouldn’t blame her. She has much more patients putting up with all the negative comments then I do. She truly deserves our support and encouragement.

          • Anonymous Nobody

            Just a correction, and no intent to diminish. And first I say, I highly respect Janice et al, I consider her a godsend whether I agree with her or not. That said, you overstate when you say her background is as a lifelong fighter against registration. No, her background is as an aerospace lawyer. She is more recently turned to this fight — gee, how long has the group been around now, maybe a decade, not sure even that long? And I very much thank her for doing so and for all her efforts.

  47. JC

    I don’t know if it has already been mentioned but the tiered registry bill is scheduled for public safety committee hearing on April 18.

  48. Chris F

    I know some people are saying they could be put back on the registry by this bill.

    If that happens, in today’s climate of the registry being acknowledged as “punishment”, wouldn’t it be challenged under “Double Jeopardy” as well as issues of fairness and finality under “Due Process” ?

    From what I see : “The double jeopardy clause protects against imposition of multiple punishment for the same offense – ”

    See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation05.html#3

    • New Person

      In California, anything registrant related is not punishment. The California judge who deemed the IML constitutional reiterates that registration is not punishment and that all registrants currently carry the propensity to re-offend at all times domestically and internationally.

      Technically, the IML is triple jeopardy b/c registration is double jeopardy.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Today’s climate is that the Supreme Court says it is not punishment. Both state and federal high courts. They both have ruled it can all be retroactive. And it is retroactive all the way back to 1944.

      • New Person

        Actually, the SCOTUS said it’s not punishment under specific rulings in 2003.

        SCOTUS used a 7 factored threshold about regulatory scheme v punishment. Of those 7, they focused on 5 factors. Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/84/case.html

        A review of the 5 main factors:
        1. “the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public.” Implication: Only your conviction is the reason why one is on the registry.

        2. “Second, the Act does not subject respondents to an affirmative disability or restraint.” Examples of this are housing, presence, and occupational restrictions. And there’s this direct quote as well, “Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person.”

        3. “Third, the Act does not promote the traditional aims of punishment.
        While the Act does differentiate between individuals convicted of aggravated or multiple offenses and those convicted of a single nonaggravated offense, these broad categories and the reporting requirement’s corresponding length are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.” Note the proponent for this third act is the “recidivism rate” and there is differentiation between those convicted – not a blanket penalty/disability.

        4. ” Fourth, the Act has a rational connection to a legitimate nonpunitive purpose, public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community. That the Act may not be narrowly drawn to accomplish the stated purpose is not dispositive, since such imprecision does not suggest that the Act’s nonpunitive purpose is a “sham or mere pretext.” ” The pretense is sex offenders have a high recidivism rate and it’s simply conjecture that these non-punitive measures will ever amount to punishment b/c they never have occurred (the same line of thinking with the IML and ripeness).

        5. “Fifth, the regulatory scheme is not excessive with respect to the Act’s purpose. The State’s determination to legislate with respect to convicted sex offenders as a class, rather than require individual determination of their dangerousness, does not render the Act punitive. Moreover, the wide dissemination of offender information does not render the Act excessive, given the general mobility of the population. The question here is not whether the legislature has made the best choice possible to address the problem it seeks to remedy, but whether the regulatory means chosen are reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective. The Act meets this standard.” Here, the SCOTUS actually labeled the regulatory scheme a scheme that affects a “class”, not individuals. Recall, all sex offenders have an 80% recidivism rate. Therefore, the SCOTUS can generalize all sex offenders into one class.

        ********************************************
        Today in California:
        1. 1203.4 conviction dismissal removes your conviction from the public as it no longer exists. But you still have to register as a sex offender. This runs contrary to 2003 application.

        2. There apparently where no restrictions to movement, housing, or employment in 2003. You were not subjected to show up in person to register either in 2003. Guess what now? Janice and team had to fight presence restrictions and housing restrictions, but some housing restrictions exists. There is an employment restriction (such as a janitor at a school). You do have to show up in person to register nowadays.

        3. Recidivism risk assessment rates are the determinant for the corresponding length of registering. In the 2003 decision, the number bandied about recidivism rates for sex offenders was 80%. CASOMB revealed under 1% for the past two years. Around 1% for the past four years, partly because they designated ‘not registering’ as a re-offense offense. Yet in California, your risk assessment is just lipstick on a pig b/c you are subjected to a lifetime term of registering. That completely runs contrary to the corresponding length noted in the 2003 decision.

        4. Public Safety is the reason why the registry can exist b/c of the 80% recidivism rate. According to many research work, sex offenders have the second lowest recidivism rates among all convicts. Guess this renders the Public Safety notion quite moot. I mean, many will contest some incidences go unreported, but the same can be said of murderers, and yet they’re still the lowest recidivism rate.

        5. SCOTUS stated that registrants do not need to be treated individually, but rather as a class. Why? Because of the 80% recidivism false fact they utilized. If 80% of that convicted population is re-offending, then we can classify them as one group/class. The SCOTUS does not see this as punitive to treat registrants as a class, rather than individual citizens. We now know the true recidivism rates. But we also know it is this factor that makes a blanket statement on all registrants.

        *********************************************
        Factor 5 is very surprising. The SCOTUS grouped all sex offenders as one class. They literally said we can use Bill of Attainder for the mistreatment of individualized citizens.

        Anyhow, Michigan’s Snyder case does compare what is occurring now with what was levied at 2003 decision. Everything levied at 2003 has been proven wrong today. We are not individual citizens with the 2003 decision. We are a class… a second level class of people who do not deserve to be treated as individuals. The SCOTUS’ 2003 decision said it is LEGAL TO TREAT REGISTRANTS AS SECOND LEVEL GROUP.

        The SCOTUS did trample on our constitutional rights and bent over backwards to do so. They did so with unsubstantiated statistics. They permitted involuntary servitude after custody ended. They denounced us as individuals and regulated all of us as second level people – not citizens, b/c citizens have individual rights. SCOTUS made permanent that re-integration into society would not be possible because they used incorrect facts as well as no longer thought of us as individual citizens with US constitutional protections. We are forever monsters by the SCOTUS 2003 decision. And it is promulgated into the IML.

        okay… this realization has made me even more depressed.

  49. Los Angeles County

    If Janice or team can answer this question please. I was concerned about the exclusion from Megan’s Law website would be taken away once the tiered registry is implemented in California. So I read the latest SB 695 bill and from what I read, registrants can still apply for exclusions if they are tiered 2? For my situation, I would be place on tier 1 so does that mean I can apply for exclusion from Megan’s website? Currently I am excluded from Megan’s website. Please reply. Thank you.

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 *