ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings

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

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

.Action ItemsACSOLCalifornia

Assembly Bill 558 (ML Web Site Exclusion) – Hearing Postponed Indefinitely

UPDATE 3/27: AB 558 hearing has been postponed indefinitely.

Update: AB 558 is scheduled for hearing by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 28.

Public Safety Committee contact info below.

Update 3/15: The hearing scheduled for March 21 has been postponed indefinitely.

Update 3/10: March 21 at 9 a.m. in Room 126 of the State Capitol. Please join us to speak in opposition to the bill. Plan to spend the entire morning there as it is one of many bills to be considered that morning.

Assembly Bill 558, which would significantly reduce the number of people who quality for exemptions from the Megan’s Law website, is expected to be considered by the Public Safety Committee later this month. Therefore, it is time to send letters and make phone calls to the members of that committee. Attached are a letter sent to Committee Chairman Jones-Sawyer about AB 558 as well as a list of committee members that includes mailing addresses and phone numbers. Please send your letters no later than March 17 if possible.

Sample Letter in Opposition to AB 558 (pdf)

Assembly Public Safety Committee

Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (Chair)
Dem – 59
Contact Assembly Member Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
Capitol Office, Room 2117
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059; (916) 319-2059
Tom Lackey (Vice Chair)
Rep – 36
Contact Assembly Member Tom Lackey
Capitol Office, Room 2174
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0036; (916) 319-2036
Jordan Cunningham
Rep – 35
Contact Assembly Member Jordan Cunningham
Capitol Office, Room 4102
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0035; (916) 319-2035
Lorena S. Gonzalez Fletcher
Dem – 80
Contact Assembly Member Lorena S. Gonzalez Fletcher
Capitol Office, Room 2114
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0080; (916) 319-2080
Bill Quirk
Dem – 20
Contact Assembly Member Bill Quirk
Capitol Office, Room 2163
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020; (916) 319-2020
Blanca E. Rubio
Dem – 48
Contact Assembly Member Blanca E. Rubio
Capitol Office, Room 5175
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0048; (916) 319-2048
Miguel Santiago
Dem – 53
Contact Assembly Member Miguel Santiago
Capitol Office, Room 6027
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-2053


Bill Would Eliminate Exclusions from Megan’s Law Website (AB 558)

Join the discussion

  1. AB

    Thanks so much for this info!
    Is there any official word yet on whether this would be retroactively applied?

  2. a mom

    I sent out my letters today! I hope for the best 🙂

  3. Harry

    Is there a MS Word version of this letter?

  4. Les

    I’m not a California resident but wanted to help in opposing the bill. I tried entering the jist of the sample letter on a web contact form for Sawyer, but it denied me based on zipcode.
    I welcome advice in how to help you oppose the bill. Keep up your efforts!

  5. TG

    I called the office today.

    The guy who answered said the best way to contact ALL the committee members is to email him.

    That email is:

    If you contact individual members, they won’t even listen to you if you’re not in their district.

    • Lake County

      I do believe this is true. They generally don’t read or consider anything sent from anyone not in their district. That goes for both federal and state government. Doesn’t make sense, they should represent the best interest of all effected citizens regardless of location once they are in office.

      • Fred

        To be able to enter web mail on a legislator’s website who is NOT your legislator, make up a street address and use same ZIP code that his DISTRICT (not Sacramento!) office uses.

    • TG

      While individual Assembly members listen only to their constituents, I think emailing them as members of the safety committee is the way to reach them.

  6. marie


    • Janice Bellucci

      Yes, Marie, this bill would be applied retroactively if it is passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor.

      • AB

        How soon would it come into effect if passed?
        What happens if the Tiered registry bill also passes?

      • ExpatRFSO

        Janice, this line seems encouraging:

        (IV) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), an exclusion application already granted prior to the effective date of the measure that adds this clause shall not be subject to recision pursuant to this clause.

        and then I think this is the paragraph (3) they reference which seems to negate the line above:

        (3) If the department determines that a person who was granted an exclusion under a former version of this subdivision would not qualify for an exclusion under the current version of this subdivision, the department shall rescind the exclusion, make a reasonable effort to provide notification to the person that the exclusion has been rescinded, and, no sooner than 30 days after notification is attempted, make information about the offender available to the public on the Internet Web site as provided in this section.

        It’s like saying “It isn’t unless it is.”

        What I can not discern is that if it will effect people that are already excluded, like myself (federal possession of CP in 2003) I am not sure why I am not on the website, I assume it has to do with being essentially an “out of state” conviction equivalent to a state misdemeanor at the time.

        • pgm111

          I was convicted of one count of CP in federal court (San Jose) back in 2008. I was not on the CA registry until September 2016. What explains this? Can anyone explain why I was not on for three years after lock-up and now I am on the site? I am happy you are not on the public registry but why not? Any info is helpful. Thanks.

          • Mr. D

            So is this proposed bill dead and no longer a concern or it simply postponed to a later date ?

  7. AB

    Will there be an opportunity to speak against this bill with the Public Safety Committee?

    • Janice Bellucci

      Yes, those who attend the hearing on March 21 will be able to speak against the bill. However, their statements will be limited to name, city and whether they support or oppose the bill.

      • JCrsn

        It’s unfortunate that we won’t be allowed to speak. Will there be any main statements that are allowed to be made in opposition during the meeting?

  8. B

    A similar version of this bill AB2569 apparently died on the floor. Does anyone know the circumstance of how that bill died/was defeated?

    It seems that AB558 is not getting the same attention AB2569 did but it’s even worse due to being retroactively applied. I will be making my calls and sending many letters and hope others supporting this cause do the same!

  9. Someone who cares

    So this bill would clutter the already unmanageable Megan’s law list even more? I will send letters soon.

  10. someone who cares

    Janice’s sample letter is really good, of course, but it would not sound like anything I could or would write and I want it to be more suited to my style of writing. Does anyone have a sample letter they sent? Thanks.

  11. JCrsn

    As someone noted before, will there be a chance to speak against this Bill?
    If the PSC passes when will it likely be scheduled to be put before the Legislature? Will there be time to lobby for at least amending the Bill so that it isn’t retroactive?

    This is a terrible Bill that only punishes the extended families of those already dealing with the registry in a needless, cruel and overly-punitive manner. It’s a move by Sharon Quirk-Silva to pad her political resume but she isn’t taking into account that it will immediately harm thousands and thousands of people.
    When will it be understood that the registry and the website causes more harm and ultimately more danger to society than it does any good?

    • Janice Bellucci

      The Public Safety Committee will consider this bill in a hearing to be held on March 21 starting at 9 a.m. in Room 126 of the State Capitol. Please join us to speak in opposition to the bill. Plan to spend the entire morning there as it is one of many bills to be considered that morning.

      • AB

        Janice, thanks so much for this info.

        I am planning to show up to show support.
        What is the standard procedure? Is everyone allowed to speak?
        Is everyone expected to speak, or can support be shown just by attending?

      • Tom

        Why aren’t you challenging the soars as illegal and unconstitutional presumptively and predetermined mental health laws and diagnosis that provides no mental health due process or treatment of any kind

      • Tom

        I would like to know why lawyers are not challenging these illegal soras by using the state and federal mental health laws. Clearly they are Appling presumptively and predetermined mental health diagnosis and conditions upon these persons.
        It is well establish ed law that when a person is subjected to conditional releases involving custody and control, supervision, management, and guardianship, and have control over a persons mental health the state must inform them, must give them an opportunity to be heard, and a means to challenge them.
        But here in soras they don’t tell you that you are being mentally diagnosed, or that you are under a regulatory mental health law, you don’t get a fair and impartial probable cause or jury trial or an individualized psychiatric evaluation or even an actual certified mental health diagnosis.
        This isn’t a registration law, it’s an illegal mental health law. Complete with a conditional release, custody, management, and far more restrictions than any other form of conditional release. It’s a scam of huge proportions and unconstitutional in every respect. These are the facts. Please help these people, as this so called justice system has destroyed enough people already.

  12. USA

    Let’s Make America Great Again! When I had my legal issue 20 some years ago, I respected the DA! She was very professional. I served some time in county and I was shocked by what I say! I witnessed officer abuse, harassment, officers lying and I was eventually put in protective custody! I possess a graduate degree and my minor is in Psych/Soc! Some years later, LA County jail was investigated by the FBI and the rest is history! The Judicial System her in California is overwhelmed. Many return year after year. The Courts sentence the individual, put them behind bars, treat the inmates like animals and later wonder why many return to a life of crime (jobless, harassment, lack of education/housing). I had never met someone incapable of reading/or writing until I went to jail. Society needs to change. I had always believed the US was a country of compassion. These lawmakers need to get with the program, educate themselves and think before they act! Changes like this could destroy a family! Wake up America!

  13. Eric Knight

    There is precedent from a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that states that adding individuals to a registry after the fact may be construed as “additional punishment.” This should be a major factor to defeating this bill, especially through Legal.

    • Timmr

      That is a great find. Include that with studies that show the public registries cause crime, and you reveal this bill to be particularly onerous.

  14. j

    so when was done done with my 6 months in county I was given the form to be relieved from megans website, that was 20 years ago, but I never submitted that form, my local PD submitted the same form last year on my yearly update but the officer said they are way backed up, so my question for Janet if i was available back 20 years why wouldn’t i be able to be excluded from the site now? this was a 1 time incident in my life, was not forced, i knew the girl, I just took the deal to register because I was 19 and completely naive and new into the system.

  15. JCrsn

    Janice or Moderator,
    If this gets passed through by the Public Safety Comm. what will be our options from that point and the timeline involved?
    Would AB 558 get effectively negated by the Tiered Registry bill if it gets passed?

  16. Jack

    I just saw a hearing by this committee on the California channel. The chairman is incredibly weak. He sides with the republicans on every single issue, even bills considering disorderly conduct. It will probably pass this committee for that reason. We need to pay even closer attention to Ms. Skinner on the senate side.

  17. Harry

    My letter was mailed today. They are not wordy and direct to the point.

  18. JCrsn

    So the hearing date is postponed indefinitely? What does this mean? Is this good news?

    The “Bill Status” of AB 558 on the California Legislative Information Page has no new info, where was the postponement posted?

    • Lake County

      And another one bites the dust. This is great news. I figured this bill would not go anywhere especially with ACSOL and so many of us advocating against it. Maybe politicians will start to realize that passing laws against us is no longer a sure thing.

    • Timmr

      Where did you here this? If this is true, then I can’t indulge in the fantasy that my one letter killed the bill, har, har — because I haven’t mailed it yet. I have the copies and will mail them tomorrow, even if the meeting is postponed. I spent about three hours on them. Don’t trust the phrase “postponed indefinitely.”

      • AB

        Hopefully we can get a little more clarification soon on what this means and whether we should still be sending in letters and calls at this time. I have friends and family calling in so it would be helpful to know whether I should tell them to hold off for now.

        Perhaps it’s due to conflict with the upcoming tiered registry bill?

      • Lake County

        Janice or someone posted this info at the top of this page. Updated today. I’ve found that “postponed indefinitely” is a nice way to say the author of the bill was told this will not pass and they withdrew it to save face. It’s not good for a politician to publicly have their bills rejected. Most bills die like this.

  19. AB

    Should we still make calls and send letters?

    • Janice Bellucci

      There is no need to send letters and make calls at this time.

      • AB

        Thank you for the reply, Janice.

        Hopefully the above statement is correct and this means that this heinous bill has/will be withdrawn.

  20. FactsoverFiction

    On the California Legislative website it still has no word on the postponement – it says the hearing is on 3/28/17.
    Should this be disregarded?

  21. TG

    So, is it on the 28th or has it been postponed indefinitely?

    • JCrsn

      It’s looking like it was just moved to March 28th, or at least March 28th is a “placeholder” date for now.
      So keep those letters and phone-calls ready.

  22. TG

    OK, everyone.

    I emailed the Public Safety Committee office today, March 20. Arnell, the guy who works there, said the bill is going to be heard on the 28th.

  23. Ab

    This is terrible news but thanks for getting official word.
    I wonder why this had been postponed at all but I suppose it doesn’t matter at this point.

    When should we get our letters and calls in by?
    Will there be a gathering on the 28th to state our opposition to the Bill?

  24. Timmr

    Glad I mailed my letters in anyway. Which brings up a thought. Maybe we shouldn’t wait for laws to come out before sending letters to legislators. We should send the thoughts we share here to their offices all the time. Send questions to the departments tha run this registry and demand answers. Sure, we should go to Sacramento for formal lobbying if we can, but many can’t for various legitimate reasons. Therefore write letters to the people making decisions. Send videos? Influence the dialogue with many registrant voices. Throw in a few references to studies or personal experiences. Keep it going andmake the registry a burden to those who favor it, as it has been a torment to us. Hey, many here write several paragraphs with great arguments. The legislators aren’t going to this site or the others for ex offenders and they need to hear this. The sites need to go to them.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      Hear hear! Hear him Hear him!

      Timmr is correct in stating that it is of the essence to Be proactive in for warning all law makers at your Local, State, & Federal levels at Large with I add & poait:

      Special attention focused on the Committees Key contact personnel such as:

      The Secretary of each Committee & their Personnel Assistant or Manager, as this is where many of the Key Decisions are made to Destroy or Redeem your Imbued from on High Titles & Rights to Privacy & Pursuit of Joy.

      I speak Truth

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  25. Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

    In this Match, Surprises are expected.

  26. AB

    Can we get the main post update so that people know to make their calls, letters, and opposition votes on the Committee Member’s websites?

  27. Roger

    When we lobbied this week, it was encouraging to see how none of the legislator’s staffs reacted positively to this bill. That is a nice change in attitude!

    As KM mentioned, it was cancelled during our lobbying. Coincidence? Maybe, but the attitude change we saw was real, and our long-term efforts no doubt contributed strongly to that.

  28. Jcrsn

    The Bill has been AMENDED which leaves related victims to still be eligible for exclusion however all other prior exclusions such as 647.6(a) misdemeanor, which I have, are still being threatened to lose the exclusion.

    I am terrified of this Bill and now it seems a step closer to being passed through due to these changes.
    What can be done?

    • Timmr

      This needs to be stopped. The more people off the public registry, the better society will be. The public registry hinders rehabilitation and punishes families and friends of registrants, not only registrants. Family members become victims of the registry, if they were not the direct victim of the crime itself. Double jeopardy for those who are the “collateral damage.” Call or write the members of the Public Safety Committee and instruct them to vote no…time is of the essence.

      • AB

        Given the way AB2569 went there is strong chance that the Committee will pass this through.
        We really need to double-down on voicing our opposition.

        The post should be updated to reflect the amended changes and the hearing date.

  29. 1

    The Internet exclusion has been the only thing allowing me to have lived as close to a normal life as possible with being a registrant. 19 years since my misdemeanor, isolated, offense. No jail, successful probation, no offenses prior or after…yet I’m now going to be exposed, despite living a crime free life outside of the one exception for which I paid my debt to society.

    How can this be retro active? If this passes, which I’m fearful that it will, will a lawsuit follow to stop it it? Like with the Internet identifiers bill from a few years ago, how a suit was filed and the bill was blocked from being inacted, can the same be done for this.

    Janice, can you please let us know if anything will be done to stop this if it passes? I realize this only affects some of us, as many are already included on the site. However, this is life changing for those of us who have never been included/exposed on the site before. Our lives will be ruined. Please let us know if there’s any hope to put a hold on it if it passes. Thank you.

    • AB

      Unfortunately AB 558 is not getting as much attention due to the looming Tiered Registry Bill as well as Bill 26, but to many of us who have been excluded this is terrifying.
      As you said, it only affects a smaller group of us but this Bill has real implications and will hurt not only many registrants needlessly but also their families.

      This intent for this bill is specifically so Quirk-Silva can pad her resume as being “tough on sex offenders!” regardless of what the reality of it is. It’s horrific that a single person, in mad selfish pursuit of her own career, can literally destroy the lives of thousands of people with a few edits.

      • 1

        @ AB –
        “Unfortunately AB 558 is not getting as much attention due to the looming Tiered Registry Bill as well as Bill 26, but to many of us who have been excluded this is terrifying.”

        Agreed! It doesn’t seem to be getting any attention at all from Janice and team, at this point, which is very concerning. As one of the “lucky ones” to have never been listed, much like you, I’m terrified about this passing. I really wish Janice would comment on this to let us know if there’s any hope of it being blocked once it passes. Is there any legal ground to stop it, like we did with the internet identifiers bill a few years back and if so, is she already planning to file the appeal to it immediately after it being passed? Upon passing, will we magically appear on ML site, immediately?

        As has been said already, this bill seems to only affect a small amount of us, so most aren’t commenting on it or likely even interested as it doesn’t change a thing for them. But, it’s completely life altering and by far the worst bill that’s been presented for those of us who have ML site exclusions.

        With only 4 days before the voting for this bill, please, Janice, can you provide us with any hope at all?

        • Update

          It seems that they’d rather hedge their bets on opposing the Tiered registry bill unfortunately instead of focusing on AB 558 at all.
          Been making several requests to update the main post over the past week but the post has not been updated to show that AB 558 is BACK ON and is RESCHEDULED for MARCH 28th.

        • Mr. D

          1 – it is a bit disconcerting to not have had any updates in the last few days on this proposed bill. And I realize that it’s a bit stressful for those of us who could be adversely affected. It was only a short time ago that Janice mentioned not to make any calls or write any letters regarding this bill so update from her would be very much appreciated! As it relates to implementation if I remember correctly in the text of the bill anyone affected would be sent a notice 30 days in advance notifying them of the intent to publicly post their information. Let’s hope it never gets that far.

          • Timmr

            Why isn’t there a big class action suit, civil disobedience or protests against this or the other laws that keep popping up on a regular basis? The politicians won’t change unless there are consequences for them. Writing letters and making phone calls is going to work as long as the politicians don’t realize we don’t represent the voters that keep them in office. There are millions of those that would not think twice about a registrant, unless some kid went missing and it is blaired on the news and around facebook that we are all evil beasts that need to be tamed.

  30. Jcrsn

    When possible can we get the main post updated so people know to voice their opposition?

  31. Hopefull

    I too was granted an exclusion, for a misdomeanor 311.11 (a) had four picture files of a sixteen year old on my computer that was found. Its been eighteen years now, no trouble before or since, just a speeding ticket like 10 years agao.

    It says in the bill that only felony 311.11 are to be included, am a reading this right?
    I suspect that we all will be exposed, then they wil just say am sorry we made a mistake, but once on the internet forever on the internet.
    This is gonna ruin and end the lives of many.

    Why now? is it just about votes

    • Joe

      You need to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Like yesterday.

      Seriously, expungement under 1203.4 is possible if convicted prior to 2014, 311 is not excluded for termination under 290.5, min. length of time is 7 years, no legal issues in almost 20 years looks good. Do it!!

      • Hopeful

        Hi Joe,

        Your right, got my record expunged back in 2004 for only five hundred dollars. Checked into the certificate of rehabilitation but, just dont have an extra eight to ten thousand dollars or maybe more laying around to hand over to an attorney only to have a judge and DA deny just because they can.

        Certificates of rehabilation are very rare for former RCs

        This is just wrong, this senator knows how many lives while be destroyed and possily ended, but she only cares about votes. My mom needs my help now, but once the my job disseaprs I guess she will have to get help elsewhere. This bill is wrong and wrote to tell them that.

        • Joe

          $8-10k sounds like a lot. Especially if you already have an expungement and need no felony reduction.

          You do not need an attorney. You can do this yourself, for free. It is not rocket science, but complicated and convoluted to the novice. Mostly format and deadlines.

          You can also contact the public defender in your county, they are to help with that process. However, budget cuts stretches them thin. Some have do-it-yourself guides to prepare.

          Another option is a post-conviction firm. This is a large one (no endorsement, just an option).

          Limited personal attention is what you get, but post-conviction stuff is all they do so they must be good at it.

          Best, and probably most expensive option, is a personal attorney. Like ACSOL President Chance Oberstein, who has been through the process himself. Of course he does not work for free.

          Yes, few RCs get a CoR, but that is because the vast majority are not eligible, and many of the ones who are have no idea it exists. This person has circumstances similar to yours and was successful.

          Of course, most of the ones that are eligible are not on the web site or zip code only, so they cannot be informed of their options, by either a business savvy attorney or a helpful do-gooder. Diabolical!

          I am not the gambling kind but I would put money on you getting it (per your description). But you won’t, for sure, if you don’t try. Good luck.

          • Hopeful

            Thanks Joe

            Your right again, nothing to lose but a bit of money attempting the COR.

            Gonna contact both recordbegone and Chance

  32. DYJ

    Can we PLEASE get this main post UPDATED so people know to make calls and emails? Today is the deadline to do so!

  33. Please help support

    Please make your calls and send emails to help oppose Bill 558!
    I just made my calls and it’s the easiest thing, you just call and state your opposition to AB 558 and give them your zip code. This took 5 minutes, so if you can please spare five minutes of your day to help oppose this bill!

  34. Mike D

    Does anyone one know what tier 261.5c/261.5d would be set in?

  35. USA


    I read your comment regarding the exclusion. The Megan’s website mistakenly put me on the web for 1 day (misdemeanor expunged/I’m deemed an other). I literally called the number they provide, immediately got a hold of someone and it was removed. If I recall, I faxed or emailed the info regarding my 17 B and expungement. I hope this helps

    • Hopeful

      Made some calls, but those that answered could not tell me if a misdemeanor 311.11(a) conviction for having four pictures files of a sixteen year would remove my exclusion for the website. I told them the way the bill is written is says only “A felony violation of Section 311.11.” and I had my misdemeanor conviction expunged, but still need to register and just need to make plans, the last person said I might need to speak to a lawyer to interpet the bills lanuage.

      If this is not retroactive punishment, what is

      Lifes over again

      If this is not retroactive punishment what is

      If this is not retroactive punishment, what is after the


  36. Nondescript

    If this law passes, how could they possibly make this retroactive?

    If we look at the Declaration of this law it states:

    “Registered sex offenders have used this loophole to avoid being on California’s Megan’s Law Internet Web site, therefore barring the public from knowing if and when a registered sex offender has moved into their communities”

    Ehm, ” loophole”? The law was written and provided for exclusions. The intent was clear. End of .

    Here is the very next and last line in the Declaration:
    (b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to require disclosure of these registered sex offenders on the department’s Megan’s Law Internet Web site”
    ” It IS the intent” implies a new intent. It has been ruled that a law can only be made retroactive if amendments are passed to clarify the intent of the original law. If substantive changes are made, they must apply the new law prospectively. ( thousands of registrants having their past convictions suddenly exposed on a website that is translated into every language spoken on the planet is, well, pretty “substantive”.)

    The fact that they have hurriedly made amendments to this bill is worrisome.



      What? Didn’t you read that part in the U.S. Constitution that says that no law shall be retroactive, unless you have committed anything deemed a sex offense?

    • Timmr

      Unfortunately, the existing law says exclusions can become invalid if the state changes the conditions. Sorry, I can pull up the exact section of PC290 later if you want.
      These are misguided, vindictive people we are up against. They are willing to increase recidivism by posting people online in order to exact revenge for some of their constituants.
      What can men do against such reckless hate?

      • Please Help Support

        In this case it’s not so much reckless as it is utterly ruthless – it’s a resume builder for Quirk-Silva.

        Clearly she realized that her first version of AB 558 was unlikely to get through so she amended it in order to make it more likely to pass. This bill would be a large “feather” in her political cap so she can advertise to the public that she’s “tough” on sex offenders – in reality she does not actually care about serving the public in an ethical manner or doing the proper research to understand the implications of what she’s doing.

        It’s one thing to have the blind fear, hate, and paranoia as a motivation but it’s an entirely more EVIL thing to exploit that fear and paranoia as a means of selfishly propelling one’s own career.
        Quirk-Silva is just another example of the problems with our current political system.

        • Harry

          “…thing to exploit that fear and paranoia as a means of selfishly propelling one’s own career.” Like insurance companies, ML website counterfeiters and live scan providers?

          • Jcrsn

            Yes, however it’s more even more sickening and absolutely EVIL when it’s used to actually change a legal precedent without regard for the incredibly complex ramifications that come from it.
            Quirk-Silva is following the same type of paradigm Hitler used – exploiting fear and terror on a state and federal level that can ultimately affect hundreds of thousands of people in dire, completely unnecessary ways… all for personal advancement.

        • Timmr

          Well, that last phrase came from the movie (and maybe the book) “Lord Of The Rings, The Two Towers”. King Theoden was trapped in Helm’s Deep with a meager amount of warriors, and thousands of orcs were at the gates determined to destroy him and his people. I used it to describe how bewildereded I am that people can exert so much effort to make life miserable for registrants for no good purpose. Nonetheless, even in that fantasy tale, the vast hatred was organized and driven by those greedy for power, hatred does not reach to the level of Evil until it is organized and driven for ill purpose.

  37. Nondescript

    Are you referring to this section Timmr?:

    5) If the department determines that a person who was granted an exclusion under a former version of this subdivision would not qualify for an exclusion under the current version of this subdivision, the department shall rescind the exclusion, make a reasonable effort to provide notification to the person that the exclusion has been rescinded.

    It states “under THE current version” ( as it was written back in 2004 or 2005- not sure the year)
    It does not state ” under A current version” or ” under A NEW version”

    And they are deceitfully describing exemptions that were codified into the original law, now as “a loophole”. A loophole in the law is a law that was written with ambiguity in the first place.

    Yes, well that’s what happens when we let another species take over our planet and have their minions disregard our supreme laws.

    They are not human.( not sarcasm)

    • Timmr

      You’re right, vague. Current as in any time in the future the conditions are changed, or current, meaning when the statute was signed into law? A date would clarify. That’s why we pay lawyers to interpret this stuff.

  38. Please Help Support

    I hope that people show up to show their support in opposition to AB 558 on March 28th this Tuesday in Sacramento!
    Janice and her team have shown us all time and time again that we CAN make a difference even if its just step by step! In order to do this we MUST show our support, we MUST give faces to these Committee members in order to get out of the heavy weight of the label that so horribly misrepresents the majority of us.
    The more we do this the more effective our voices will become.

    Please come out on Tuesday, March 28th in Sacramento at 9AM and voice your opposition to AB558!
    We really can make a difference when we work together.

  39. JCrsn

    For anyone who has previously shown up at one of these Committee Hearings can you give a brief description of what the standard protocol is?
    Do you merely wait in the Conference room until the Committee calls for those to speak their opposition to the Bill and then you simply just give your name and state that you oppose the bill?

    Do the doors close once the hearing begins preventing any late comers?

    • Roger

      JCrsn, here is how it works: we meet outside the hearing door 30 minutes early. There is a line. About 9:00 am the doors open and we can go in to find seats together.

      The hearings are usually crowded and fill the available seats, so if you don’t show up early, you may not be able to get a seat and will have to wait for someone to leave. You can check with the guard at the door.

      When our bill is called, the people supporting it speak. Then the other supporters stand in the microphone line. Each person tells their name, city, and that they support it. That’s it! no speeches needed–in fact they are not allowed.

      Then the same procedure happens to those opposing the bill.

      Then the committee asks questions, discusses the bill, and votes on it.

      • JCrsn

        Thank you for the information.
        How do we recognize others who are there in opposition to the Bill?

        • Timmr

          That’s where going to meetings and seeing faces pays off. Otherwise, I suppose you ask around who is opposed to the bill if you don’t recognize Janice, Chance or Frank. Also, you can step in and out of the room, but have someone save your seat.

        • Roger

          Someone (probably me) will stand outside the room with a small ACSOL sign.

          After 9am you will have to look for us in the room. Don’t worry, because you will see us all get up when it is time to give our names, cities, and our opposition. Just get up with us.

          • JCrsn

            Now that it’s been postponed again one has to wonder what the deal is.

    • Roger

      Also, please dress nicely. I wear a suit. It shatters expectations they have when we look respectable.

  40. AB

    Considering the way AB 2569 went, it is VERY likely the Committee will pass this Bill since they will not feel compelled to do otherwise unless others choose to stand up and oppose it.
    If those who aren’t directly affected by this Bill choose not show support how can support be expected for you in a similar scenario? Please SHOW up and voice your support!

  41. Harry

    I made my phone calls opposing both AB558 and SB26, today. I will be there in prayer.

  42. JCrsn

    So… what’s going on? It’s postponed again? The Bill Status page doesn’t seem to have any new info?

    • Roger

      It was postponed indefinitely. Of course, that means it could come back someday. If so, we will fight it.

  43. G4Change

    WOW…this has turned into a game of Whack-A-Mole!

    • Roger

      The world of politics is quite an eye-opener when you get involved.

      Getting involved helps to adjust our expectations to reality.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      I posit the gist of the “Bill Analysis” to aid in the context of the Day,

      Being action is required Now to Trumpet – “Probability Judgment” as opposed to “Limited Personal Intuitive Judgement”.

      Please familiarize yourself and others with the complete Bill Analysis Report as many other Points of Understanding can be utilized in conjunction with Probability Judgments to Strike Hard at the InJustice of The Day!

      AB 558
      Page 10

      “The Exemption Process Serves an Important Purpose Given the Breadth of California’s
      Registry Laws and Disparities in Who Must Register

      “To understand the importance of these exemptions, it is critical to understand the unique breadth of california’s sex offender registry laws and the current problems with the system. While the federal government and most states have adopted a tiered approach to registry, California continues to require lifetime registration for everyone. In addition, California requires registration for a broad array of offenses, including low level and consensual conduct, and California requires juveniles to register. For example, a 14 year old child can be convicted for a violation of Penal Code section 647.6 for consensual sexual activity that
      includes nothing more than touching with another child who is 13 years old and would be required to register for life.

      “California’s registry laws have disproportionate impacts on communities of color and the LGBT community. Recent research by the Center on Youth Registration Reform at Impact Justice found significant racial disparities in the youth impacted by California’s sex offender registry laws: they report that 76% of the children on the registry are children of color.2 Black youth are 6.5 times more likely to be required to register compared to white youth. In addition, because our registry has been in place for 75 years, some people are still required to register as a result of criminal prosecutions that targeted LGBT community members in the 1950s and 1960s. Even today, our law treats LGBT people more harshly: for the offense
      of statutory rape where the individuals were close in age, registration is required only if the conduct involved people of the same sex.3

      “In this context, eliminating completely the exemption process for posting a person’s personal information on the website will have unintended and harsh consequences. The current process is carefully tailored to apply only to people who have been convicted of relatively minor offenses and only if those people do not pose a high risk of reoffending. Moreover, the process ensures that the information posted on the website is more carefully tailored to the information that will be of use to the broader community…

      “Any Changes to Web-posting Should Be Considered as Part of Reforming the Registry

      2 Fact Sheet Racial Disparities in California Youth Sex Offender Registration, from Center on Youth Registration Reform at Impact Justice (2017).
      3 Maura Dolan, California Supreme Court sex-crime ruling criticized as unfair to gays, Los Angeles Times, January 29, 2015, available at AB 558 Page 11

      AB 558
      Page 11

      “Senator Lara and Senator Mitchell have introduced SB 695 to reform California’s sex offender registry. That bill would implement a tiered registry. Any change to the webposting process and requirements for the personal information of individuals required to register should be considered as part of reforming the registry.

      “For these reasons, we must oppose AB 558.”

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

    • Mr. D

      After going online and reading the summary of the bill as it was proposed I’m not surprised it was pulled again . There’s only one group supporting the bill and numerous others including LA County District attorneys office and the ACLU who oppose the bill. There are multiple references to SB 695 in there as well. I might be a bit over optimistic here but I have a feeling this bill might be dead.

  44. TG

    I called the Public Safety office today.

    The guy said the author pulled it because she “wanted more time with it.”

    That’s pretty scary.

    • 1

      This concerns me…not only has she pulled it once already to make revisions, but now again? It’s almost as though someone on the inside is whispering in her ear on what changes to make in order to get it passed. I mean, is it normal for them to pull a bill multiple times to make ammendments such as we’re seeing with this? Maybe it’s the pessimist in me, due to having been attacked so many times already with these bills, that tells me something shady is going on behind the scenes with this bill.

      • Roger

        1, come to Sacramento tomorrow and defend RCs with families. You will feel less pessimistic when you see firsthand that poorly-thought-out bills lead to multiple bill revisions, deferrals, withdraws, and all the other things that happen to bills in lawmaking are part of the normal process of negotiation.

        Reading conspiracies into the convoluted process is not helpful. Doom-and-gloom squashes hope.

        ACSOL stands for hope, which we do by getting into the legislative trenches and doing the hard work.

        1, will you stand with us tomorrow for the 5 seconds (yes, that’s all!) it would take to tell your name, city, and that you oppose SB 26?

      • Harry

        These glory seekers are getting an education, whether they like or not. Truths are now making their travels on once was a smooth road hindering, if not stoppable. Every time we visit, write and/or call more are being educated with facts and that will make our travels easier.

  45. Nondescript

    @Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

    Thank you for directing us to the bill analysis statement of opposition. I never even knew there was one.

    I always suspected that the people who committed offenses that got automatic internet exclusions were those that were eligible for a COR and the people who committed offenses for which you could apply for internet exclusions where for those that were convicted of “wobblers” that had an eventual legal path to COR. There was a good reason that this assembly lady doesn’t grasp. The LA District of Attorneys office opposes this bill. That is quite a clue.

    She”ll either try to tweak it again or has been told by her masters to abandon the effort. Probably the latter.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      Nondescript P.

      In this Match for The Rights & Titles of all Peoples their will be SurPrizes!

      Knowing this reality, we must “Push all Buttons, Pull all Switches”!

      Study Hard, Train Hard, Fight Hard!!!

  46. TG

    Ok, everyone:

    I contacted the guy in Quirk-Silva’s office who is working on the bill. I asked him what’s going on with it. He wrote back the following:

    “At this time Asm. Quirk-Silva is working on getting enough votes to continue to move the bill forward. We will keep everyone informed how we proceed next.”

    For whatever it’s worth.

    • JC

      Has anyone tried calling Asm. Quirk-Silva, or other authors of these terribly misguided bills, in attempts to voice opposition directly?
      Do they even take such calls?

  47. JC

    The Bill Status page now has the Committee placeholder date for April 18th, most likely Quirk-Silva will make further amendments in her attempt to get it passed.
    We must remain vigilant.

    • JC

      It astounds me how Asm. Quirk-Silva continues to try to exploit this horribly flawed registry system in the name of her own career advancement.
      Despite the Bill ANALYSIS showcasing how flawed and unwieldy the registry system is, Quirk-Silva is still trying to use fear-mongering tactics in order to pad her political resume. CASOMB, LA District Attorney both oppose her bill for pete’s sake. But it doesn’t seem to matter to her that even her own colleagues are understanding that a different approach with the Tiered system must be applied.
      It doesn’t matter to her all the unnecessary harm it causes, only her personal gain through any means possible.

  48. Nondescript

    April 18th. That’s the date for the hearing on the tiered registry bill.
    Is she tweaking it to be completely compatible with that one? So she can get credit for something? Or save face?

    • AB

      Considering one of the major objectives is to de-clutter the current registry of low-risk offenders in order to be able to monitor the truly dangerous more effectively there doesn’t seem to be much room for Asm. Quirk-Silva’s ridiculous, career-motivated amendments which only seek to unnecessarily increase the registry AND harm the families of those registrants.

    • Timmr

      Depends on if the meeting times are the same. Opponents can’t be in two places at one time. Probably more will attend the tiered registry bill meeting, leaving less opposition for 558.

      • Friend of ACSOL

        Timmr – If they schedule the hearings at the same time, I will be sure to attend the one on AB 558. I lobbied in Sacto against it on March 20-21 and will do everything I can to make sure this horror never sees the light of day.

        The website (public shaming) is one of the worst punishments they can throw at RCs and their families/friends. It is clear that this bill is spiteful and counterproductive, and many legislators can actually see that.

        • Timmr

          I agree, the public shaming part is the worst part of registration. Watching public testimony in favor of putting more people on the web site, I can almost see them salivating at the thought of making more people suffer. I can try to get a Southwest flight that doesn’t cost much, and if they postpone, I can use it another time.

  49. JCrsn

    AB 558 is scheduled for April 18th.
    Now that the Tiered Registry has been pulled it seems MUCH more important now to voice our opposition to this Bill.
    Should we start making more phone calls and emails now or wait till the week of the hearing?

  50. TG

    JCrsn and everyone!

    Make calls and send letters now! I called all the committee members’ Sacramento offices today. It’s very easy. All you do is say you want to put in opposition to a bill the assemblyperson will hear as part of the public safety committee.

    They ask your name and address. That’s all there is to it. I also sent letters to all of them AND to my own assemblyman.

    PLEASE NOTE that there is a new member of the Public Safety Committee – Heath Flora – so if you haven’t contacted him, now is the time.

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 *