ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings

Q4: 11/18 by phone [details]

.Action ItemsACSOLCalifornia

New Author Announced for Tiered Registry Bill

Senator Scott Wiener (Democrat, San Francisco) has agreed to author the Tiered Registry Bill. As part of that decision, the Senator gutted a prior bill he previously introduced, Senate Bill 421, and amended that bill with the language of the original Tiered Registry Bill.

“We thank Senator Scott Wiener for his courage in deciding to be the new author of the Tiered Registry Bill,” stated Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “His decision could increase public safety by making more efficient use of government resources.”

The Tiered Registry Bill recently attracted the formal support of both the California District Attorneys’ Association and the California Police Chiefs. The bill’s sponsor is Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey. The bill’s co-sponsors include the ACLU, Equality California, and a victim’s rights organization (CalCASA).

Senate Bill 421 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 25.

“We need ACSOL members as well as their loved ones to testify in support of Senate Bill 421 on April 25,” stated Bellucci. “Prior to the hearing, letters need to be written and phone calls made to members of the Senate Public Safety Committee.”

Bill Info

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421

Hearing Info

Tuesday, April 25, 2017 – 8:30 a.m.
State Capitol Building, Room 3191

Important: Please join ACSOL at 7:45 a.m. at the Starbucks on the corner of 12th St. and L St. or at the hearing room at 8 a.m.

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

Senator Nancy Skinner (Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2031
Sacramento, CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4009
Fax:  (916) 327-1997
E-mails to staffer: Zandra.Chavez@sen.ca.gov

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

TALKING POINTS

  • Tiered registry bill (SB 421) introduced April 17 – Sen. Scott Wiener
    • Sponsor – L.A. District Attorney Jackie Lacey
    • Co-sponsors – CA Sex Offender Management Board, Equality CA, CalCASA
    • Supported by CA District Attorneys Association, CA Police Chiefs Association
  • 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 – CASOMB
    • 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 would increase public safety and make more efficient use of law enforcement resources
    • Today’s registry includes individuals convicted of wide range of offenses
      • Non-contact, non-violent offenses such as “sexting” on a cell phone, urinating in public, and engaging in consensual teen sex.
      • Contact violent offenses such as sexual assault and rape
    • Tiered registry would require all individuals required to register under Penal Code Section 290 to remain on registry for 10 years, 20 years or lifetime
    • 46 of 50 states currently have tiered registries
  • Concerns regarding SB 421
    • Bill requires individuals to petition for relief from requirement to register while removal from registry “automatic” in most states
    • Bill provides discretion to DA’s who may object to filed petitions “if community safety would be significantly enhanced”
      • Bill does not include time limit for DA’s to object
      • Bill does not include definition or guidelines for “community safety would be significantly enhanced”
    • Bill requires judges to consider irrelevant factors when deciding whether to grant petitions
      • Noncriminal behavior before and after conviction
      • Sentencing factors such as age and number of victims, whether victim was a stranger
    • Bill allows judge to require new waiting period up to 5 years for resubmission of petition for removal

 

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    Good news! Let’s hope everyone gets what they want out of this bill at some point.

    • MY TWO CENTS

      It would be nice if the blatant flaws to the tiered registry will be fixed. Among the flaws that should be fixed: automatic removal from registry after 17 years offense free (regardless of tier), removal of petitioning process, removal of judges having the final say, removal of the DA being able to object, Static 99’s power to label someone high risk, the inclusion of the possibility that some might have to pay for ‘CA SOMB’ treatment programs, 20 year and lifetime registration requirements.

      Until these clear discrepancies are resolved, how are we to say (at least in totality) that a ‘tiered’ registry is going to be better?

      • Amol

        Because something is better than nothing… the first step gets the ball rolling, it changes the perspective of politics and public. Politicians/the public won’t make huge jumps… slow and steady has to be the game with this stuff.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          No, Amol, “something” is not necessarily better than nothing. This something is deviously designed to make sure that there never will be anything more. This is NOT a step to something better. All it is is a design to pull the rug out from under our best arguments, while deviously NOT giving us what it appears on the surface to give. Look at the details in it, the devil is in the details. You will get relief under this bill as often as people are able to get a COR — which is a rare thing.

          The people here who are so convinced this is incremental to something better just do not understand what they are dealing with, do not understand the state of politics here. The only reason this might be touched this one time is because of a unique confluence of things, including a call for real tiers (not these fake ones) from the federal government, and a bill designed to give far, far less than people here expect of this bill.

          All this bill does is extend the chance for ending your registration via a COR to those who would be in tier 2. The people who would be in tier 1, and whom the federal government does not even require registration, already can already stop registering once they get a COR. But a COR for a sex offense is a true rarity. This bill is being set up with the same standards for relief as a COR — this is not simply a tier, under which you would meet your tier, you stop registering. This is a COR mislabeled as a tier, and linked to the same time frames as a COR (except for four lesser offenses, for which this bill actually lengthens the registration time from 7 years to 10, a 42.8% increase in registration time!). And those who think the prosecutors will handle it any differently than they do a COR are seriously mistaken — there is no reason to think it will be handled any differently, the same standards are in place in this bill. And the prosecutors challenge everyone applying for a COR and fight them tooth and nail, and it is rare that someone can get a COR. You have to expect similar for these fake tiers.

          To get fake tiers under which you are going to find it difficult to get any relief, little different than a COR, will 100% undermine any further call to touch this issue ever again. This is a third rail of politics, elected officials touch it at risk of death, and they will not do so again, they will only say we already have tiers, but this is not tiers, this is just the COR we already have. We will be stuck with this fake tiers, hardly anyone will get relieved of registration after the first year (the first year will have an avalanche of petitions, so overwhelm the prosecutors, so more will get the relief that year, but not after that),

          If you think the politicians are having second thoughts about registration, then consider that they are now passing another bill to post even misdemeanants on the SO website! These are not politicians looking to be more reasonable about registration, these are politicians seeing a “tier” bill that does NOT provide what the supporters at this Website are mistakenly convincing themselves it provides. And they absolutely are not thinking of this as a step to something better later.

          There is no need for a step, they can simply conform to federal now and say that is the step, and that that is reasonable as syncing with the federal standard. Under that standard, the people in this tier 1 would never have to register, and those in tier 2 who would have to register (not all of them will have to register) could stop in 10 years, not 20, and would not need to ask permission. But the politicians are not doing that in this bill — and worse, we are not even advocating that, we are here only arguing not to advocate anything, we are arguing not to consider the details, just accept this bill, any old crap that comes along even if it undermines us! We are not thinking. And we definitely are not seeing the bigger picture or the third rail of politics. We are not going to get anything good as long as we refuse to advocate for it or refuse to put the ideas out there — or accept something designed to completely undermine anything more, as this fake “tier” bill does.

          • steve

            “No, Amol, “something” is not necessarily better than nothing. This something is deviously designed to make sure that there never will be anything more. This is NOT a step to something better. All it is is a design to pull the rug out from under our best arguments, while deviously NOT giving us what it appears on the surface to give. Look at the details in it, the devil is in the details. You will get relief under this bill as often as people are able to get a COR — which is a rare thing.”

            This is ALL your opinion and you know absolutely nothing how this will work. Reverse fear mongering (if there’s such a thing) didn’t think I’d ever see that here.

            • Lake County

              No one can truly determine how the courts will interpret any law our politicians write. Often politicians (many who are not lawyers) will write a bill in a simple manor which they think will adequately state the intention of the law. Many of them just aren’t smart enough to think ahead on every possible issue or consequence of the laws they write. But just because a Bill is missing details that the author didn’t consider, that doesn’t mean that authors intent is to conspire against the people the law effects. Most often Bills will easily pass the first committees because our politicians know that Bills get rewritten and adjusted as they move through the legislative process. If they stopped every flawed Bill in the first committee hearing, time would run out before the final draft could make it through to it’s final vote. This is the reality of how our Bills become Laws. The clock on all Bills is always moving quickly. As a bill moves through committees, we have to advocate for the changes we want while it’s moving forward. If we fight against a potentially good law and get it stopped before it has a chance to develop into something we want, then we are closing the door to having any progress.

              When we see a Bill being written that has the potential to benefit us, instead of us advocating against the Bill because of it’s flaws, we should be writing letters to the appropriate politicians stating we support the intent of the Bill but also explain your concerns with the wording, details (or missing details) and your fears of the unintended consequences of the Bill’s wording or intent. And always keep your letters focused on the important points without ranting.

              I think G4Change has a good detail that needs to be addressed in this Bill:
              “I see no language that addresses what someone who was convicted in CA can do if he/she now lives out of state.” I’m sure this is just one of many issues they did not consider but would rather get it clarified in this Bill rather than leave it up for the court to determine. If the author gets letters advising him of this issue, I would imagine that he would want to address it in future updates (if possible). Or they could decide you need to be a resident of CA like a COR.

              My main point is that we shouldn’t be fighting against this Bill until we know exactly what the final version will be. In the meantime send letters of support along with any of your concerns about the wording or details. Bills only get better with public input.

              • Anonymous Nobody

                You remind me of those people who can’t see the forest because the trees are in the way.

                Pay attention when you read the bill, consider the pattern of all the details, not merely each detail in a vacuum. And do not deny the details when you read them, they are real, they WILL be used, that’s why they are in there. That is a very consistent pattern of details that tells what this bill is designed to do, as opposed to the wishful thinking approach to reading it that some people here have. And that pattern and details must be followed.

                Further, the prosecutors already have proven what they will do with those details, as they have those same details for a COR — they will fight tooth and nail to deny you, just as they have with a COR, there is no reason to think they won’t, that is why they have insisted those details be in there.

                This isn’t tiers, it is just a COR with registration relief extended to tier 2 — and it should be labeled as that,a s a COR, as labeling it as tiers will bar us from ever getting real tiers, and it appears that that is why the prosecutors support this. The prosecutors have made it a rarity for anyone to get a COR. And with this bill setting the same requirements as a COR, there is no reason to think the prosecutors will handle it any differently.

      • Mark

        What is so important for all of us to realize is that we came within days of the tired registry bill being pulled for the next two years. The set back would have been devastating since we currently have so much support from previous opponents like the LA DA’s office and law enforcement. It was a small miracle that this new Senator chose to take on this bill and all the controversy that will ensue. I am so grateful. The way I see it is, once passed, then we can go on and challenge the 17 year drop off date as soon as we can. If we are all or nothing, then everyone will suffer. We need this victory now.

        • Harry

          If, this bill passes it will start a blue print that will put truth in action where the mainstream of society can see former sex offenders can be good neighbors without being watched. Eventually it will be easier to adjust the system with future legislations with less hostelry and more courage of lawmakers. With issues of other state tier system, what happens in CA does influence the nation.

          • New Person

            I’d rather Michigan influence the nation with Snyder, which actually contests the whole registry scheme and it’s unconstitutionality along with it’s lack of evidentiary proof for public safety.

            The tier mitigates punishment, but registering is still constitutional. Michigan transforms the ills that the SCOTUS imposed upon free peoples.

            • Timmr

              I think you are right, New Person. The impetus for reform taking place is for the state to have it’s cake and eat it too. With the growing number of successful challeges to registry laws, the executive and legislative branches are increasingly finding themselves on the wrong side of the constitution, while at the same time being overwelmingly on the right side of public opinion, fueled of couse by the media. In response, they are looking for ways to justify the victim authoritarian populism with constitutional orthodoxy. The bastard result, the tiered registry. It’s not about saving money or being effective. There is no epidemic. Money will be found for this experiment in moral panic, people will be hired, contractors will sign, just as money and contracts are found for the mother of all bombs (MOAB). We are a rich country and can afford a lot of folly. But how much more can sane people take without getting some serious moral vertigo, to look at what the constitution says and compare that with what is being done to twist it out of recognition.

            • tiered registry could backfire?

              I read that Mika Moulton wants to work with the committee to close the gaps and loopholes as to keep the “integrity” of the registry:

              http://www.kesq.com/news/new-sex-offender-registration-bill-passes-committee/463017795

              I worry that this tiered registry can end up backfiring. As it is there are a lot of unfair things about the tiered bill. The grass isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. I hope I am wrong; but what if we just end up having a tiered registry that is as bad as other states that have tiered registry?

      • James

        How is a tiered system better? Because it creates the framework for most registrants to get off the registry. Currently, there is virtually no means to get off the registry and something is better than nothing. In nearly every state, those convicted of certain offenses are required to register for life.

      • anon

        I think that initially, things are going to be relatively smooth for those in fairly dense counties like Los Angeles and San Francisco. Things could be tough in Kern and San Bernardino. Then the counties that make it too tough to leave the registry will see a declining population of sex offenders. Large cities dominate the legislature and will make corrections. But it will take time.

        First things first. Get the bill passed.

      • jo

        It’s better because some people will finally have a chance to get off the registry, which is a monumental achievement.

      • anon

        I know this seems obvious, but we don’t have much political power. We are not a beloved community. We are a despised community. There is one and only one chance a tiered registry bill can get passed: if law enforcement wants it and if we keep our mouths shut. The civics books tell us that government is of the people and we are part of the people and our legislative representatives have to listen to us. But that is the theory. In practice, they don’t want to hear from us. Sorry. They just don’t. I feel more hopeful about this bill than I have in the past, but we still have a long way to go. Let’s just lay low and not screw it up.

        • MY TWO CENTS

          Does it not worry you that law enforcement wants a tiered registry? This might tell you about a future of games that the DA and law enforcement plan to impose on registrants. Just read the tiered bill yourself and it should be clear.

          • anon

            I don’t view law enforcement as the enemy. The problem are ambitious right-wing politicians who view us an an opportunity. Law enforcement (mostly) just works to enforce the law. Sometimes people in law enforcement are also ambitious right-wing politicians (I’m looking at you, Orange County) and I know that some have had very bad experiences with law enforcement, but they are not our biggest problem. I think it’s obvious to everyone involved that registration laws have gotten way out of hand. Law enforcement has more important things to do.

            I am pretty familiar with SB 421 and acknowledge the enormous power that DA’s have retained in this process. But the bill was going nowhere without their leadership. So we get what we can get.

  2. ExpatRFSO

    Great news! See you all in Sacramento on the 25th!

  3. Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

    Interesting Person, Senator Scott Wiener is.

    He clerked for Justice Alan B. Handler on the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

    In 2015, Wiener was robbed of his cell phone on the corner of 16th and Valencia. He immediately began to negotiate with the would-be thieves, and got them to agree to accept $200 for the return of his phone. The foursome walked to a nearby ATM, where the transaction was caught on tape by the cameras at the ATM. A Wells Fargo security guard also observed the robbery in progress, and called the police. A woman and a man were later arrested and charged with second-degree robbery.

    If he is a good Practitioner of The Consent Ethic it would prove a Win Win for all parties involved.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Wiener

    The Only (Echad אֶחָד) Father Most High Fill Senator Wiener with Courage for True Justice Always (Olam עוֹלָם) Yehovah ! הבה נגילה

    I speak a True Song

    As Yehovah Lives, so should we

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael
    http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5769.htm

    • David

      (Son-child, please bear in mind that the religious thoughts with which you spice your comments tends to make many discount the value of your comments.)

  4. James

    Is this replacement bill verbatim from SB695?

  5. American Detained in America

    Janice, is this Tiered Registry Bill identical to the previous one where the decision to grant relief was in the hands of judges?

  6. Aero1

    No offense and I’m not trying to be negative but I’m not getting my hopes up anymore me my family already made plans to leave the state my mom will still be liveing here if it does happen mybe I’ll come back

    • JCrsn

      Be wary of whichever state you go to as California isn’t the only state where scrupulous politicians try to exploit the broken SO system for career advancement.

    • Drummer

      Aero 1….. where are you moving to if I may ask.

    • Mark

      You have every right in the world to be skeptical but for far too long, we, the 100,000 plus registrants have sat silently in the shadows of despair. I had to ask myself over and over again whether I was a victim of being on the registry, or a survivor. I decided a long time ago to fight and I have the battle wounds to prove it. And now, the time has come for us to either stand up and be heard or perish in the depths of Pariahville. Today was a very powerful moment when 17 of us came together at the Capitol in opposition of another bad bill even though it was passed anyway. It was the glory of the moment when we rose in opposition-where once there was no one-that was so awesome. At the same time I was speaking on behalf of all of us, I wondered how many were just too plain scared to come. Spend an hour a day learning what is being done on our behalf by those who know i.e. CASOMB report. More of us need to find our courage and participate in any way we can even if it is just to write a letter or make a phone call. Best wishes to you and your family.

  7. jon

    If it’s anything like the last terrible tiered registry bill, then I personally think this whole “tiered registry” idea is a bad idea.

    • JCrsn

      It’s a step better than the current nightmare of a system for many registrants.

      • jon

        And “tiered registry” has worked so well in other states? Not so and I don’t think CA will be any better. Only winners from this bill are those who have $$$, and those who make $$$ from the petition process. I am not fooled by this so called tiered registry. We now live in dishonest times in which “fake news” and “alternative facts” trump truth. To me, tiered registry is a false prophet.

        • JCrsn

          So you’re just going to hate on any attempt at reform without offering any actual constructive criticism.
          You may speak for yourself but this Tiered Registry Bill actually would help some registrants.

          If you’re not directly helped by this Bill I can understand your frustration but your claims do not hold weight across the board.

          • jon

            You saying that my “claims do not hold weight across the board” is just as valid as me saying the same thing to you. While this terrible tier might help “some,” it will also HURT some as well. Let’s not forget the petitioning process that may prove $$$, that -elected- judges have ultimate power to make a decision, and the other countless flaws to this bill. Even many of the other tiered states don’t have as complicated bill that ya’ll want passed. Yet even with the other straightforward states with tiered registry, are they really any better? Hope it works out for you, really do. But for now (and I say this as a person who has attended meetings and have donated my own money to this organization) I am out. Good luck to all.

            • JCrsn

              Yeah but *I* never claimed that it was helpful to ALL registrants whereas you were making general statements that applied to all of us.

              And perhaps that also frustrates you that some registrants may benefit from this Bill while you might not, however that really isn’t a good reason to hate on this registry. Unless you stand to be in a worse position than you are now, if that’s the case then you should state that specifically instead of lamb-blasting the whole thing and all that support it.

              Your frustrations may be understandable, but that doesn’t change the fact that this IS a positive step for many.It’s a fact that some of the other states have systems that ARE much better than what we currently have in CA.

              • MY TWO CENTS

                Hi JCrsn,

                You are implying that some tiered registry states are better than CA’s lifetime. Can you state which ones specifically? I ask because of the many other registrants I know who have lived or currently live in tiered states, those who I have spoke to have said that tiered registry opened a floodgates to more draconian and harsh sex offender laws. Not even one of the many I know have said good things about their tiered registry!!

                Like what the other person above said, what will make California different when it adopts a tiered registry? I’ve read the tiered bill and it seems filled with loopholes and exceptions that seem guaranteed to screw people one way or another.

                • JayJay

                  Tiered Registry opens the floodgates? To what? To longer and increased registration terms? True, that is no threat in California. Can’t really go beyond life, even if they try.

                  Other draconian laws applied retroactively? Yea, that can never happen in California. 🙂 Somehow a lifetime requirement protects against that?

                  Can you share how many of the people who have nothing good to say about the tiers are 10/20/25 year candidates vs life? Of course lifers are not in favor of thinning the herd. But even in the one-size-fits-all world of the registry, not everyone is, or should be the same.

                  • MY TWO CENTS

                    Apparently, JayJay, you’ve never heard of ‘narrow tailoring.’ With a tiered registry, new sex offender restrictions/laws that apply to Tier 2 and 3 will be narrowly tailored. So the government can always argue that greater restrictions on 2s and 3s are narrowly tailored and therefore pass constitutional muster.

                  • James

                    Tiered registry opens the door to what – longer registry? What is longer than lifetime registration, as is current?? Every state has either lifetime registration or tiered registration. Which would you choose? If someone is hoping that registration will disappear, don’t bet on that happening.

                • someone who cares

                  I am still on the fence about the Tiered Registry. They can pass it and say that some will get off the registry in 10 or 20 years, but that is a long time to introduce more laws, and they can easily take back their promise at any time as we have seen them do so many times. People are promised that they don’t have to register, and then the law changes, and they have to register. Some received an expungement and then the law states it will not relieve them from the duty to register. Again, I am still on the fence.

                  • MY TWO CENTS

                    Until the Ex Post Facto and not punishment thing are resolved, tiered registry will not fix the heart of the problem. Tiered registry only skirts the problem, it makes us play the government’s stupid games. For example, look at how many loopholes this bill has.

                • deegoh

                  Which states? Arizona for one. Years back, my probation officer suggested to me that I move to Arizona which I did. I found that although some form of a tiered registry exist, I don’t recall registrants having the option of removal from the list.
                  However, the system consist of 3 tiers with tier “1” comprised of low level offenders. Coming from California I was placed in the tier “1” category and it is without a doubt so much better than what I have experienced in the Golden State. To describe Arizona’s tier system, participants of tier “1” are not posted on the internet, there are no community notifications, and best of all, if you live in the same resident indefinitely, annual registration is exempt; instead, the registrant only has to update their drivers license annually. Now, for the other two tiers, there are public notifications by law enforcement and that consist of door to door notices, flyers and internet postings. If I leave California again, Arizona, Oregon, and Wash. are my likely designations.

                  • Greg

                    Up until about a year ago I lived in both Tucson then Phoenix as a Tier 2 and it sucked. Maybe for you as a Tier 1 it was ok, but as a Tier 2 we had to register twice a year and the Tier 3s had to register four times a year if I am not mistaken. I moved here to CA to be closer to family and because my now wife thinks it’s better to raise our family here. I think CA is way better than AZ, at least from my experience.

                    I don’t know about WA or OR, but I am obviously opposed to “tiering” the registry because I lived as a Tier 2 in Phoenix and Tuscon, and to reiterate tiered registry (I thought) is way worse than living in CA.

                    And the sick part is if the bill passes I am again labeled Tier 2? Sure this bill might help some of you, but it seems full of risk because this bill will make life worse for people like me. I know because I’ve lived it.

                  • MY TWO CENTS

                    I know a few registrants who live in Arizona and they tell me their registry is pretty bad. Also, rules and regulations in Arizona are very different from city to city, county to county. I also hear that T2 and T3 registrants have to register MORE than once a year. Maybe it was better for you because you are T1? But then again, was there not an article on this website that addressed the fact that Prescott, Arizona (regardless of tier) makes people register every month now? They are under a tiered registry and I don’t know how it made Arizona’s scheme better as you claim.

            • Steve

              There’s nothing stopping you from getting some representation and fighting this bill once it passes if it does. I think anyone who is uprgraded to a new tier would have a valid arguement. Good luck finding another organization that will support you like ascol does. Whether this bill helps you now or not I am confident Janice will continue to make it right for everyone or at least try.

        • Alex

          Some states have done it well and its automatic. I know a few people who have moved from such states to California and have later received an unsolicited document that they no longer have to register and that the information has been sent to DOJ to let them know that. The fact that this bill requires the person to petition the court and how tiers are assigned is somewhat ambiguously, is the issue here.

          • MY TWO CENTS

            Can you elaborate as to which states have ‘done it well?’ Just curious, as I’m pretty sick of this whole ‘tiered registry’ kool aid. I am also curious because I’ve spoke to quite a few people who live and/or have lived in tiered states and they complain about how much worse it is after tiered registry came to fruition. No offense but I trust their word over yours (since I personally know them).

            As it is, there are way too many flaws to this tiered registry and I don’t even know if they will be fixed before it is passed.

        • JayJay

          IIRC the “petioning process” in SB 695 specified that the petitioner had to prove they were properly registered at the time of petition – I find that reasonable.

          And then the District Attorney COULD object to termination of the registration requirement but had to PROVE that continued registration was in the interest of public safety. Not sure what that entails but that sounds like a tall order for someone who has not had a speeding ticket, let alone a criminal conviction or committed a sex crime in 10, 20+ years.

          Almost all single conviction registrants would be eligible for removal petition after max 20 years.

          Sure, there are some shortcomings in the language and room for improvement – about postings on the web site, as well as a big problem determining a lifetime registration requirement based on an instrument that specifically states – in its preamble – that it is only valid for 10 years after release. Which is nonsensical.

          However, overall this proposal is like night and day from and a vast improvement over the current system, for the vast majority of California registrants. ACSOL is right in supporting it.

          • James

            IF a DA claimed that merely being a sex offender meant that it was inherently in the public interest to keep them on the registry would then put the burden on them to prove that – usually by empirical data. This could be countered by evidence from various professional organizations – such as CASOMB.

            Further, all denials could be appealed – including to the federal courts.

            • Timmr

              I don’t know, it is not DA’s but federal officials that send out letters to other countries saying we are dangerous, only reason is the conviction itself. No other empirical proof. Noone has been able to make them prove anything yet. Seems like that would have been easy to challenge, too.
              Still, it seems standard procedure with all government officials to assume dangerousness by only the conviction if that conviction is for a sexual offense, and noone has been willing or able to successfully challenge it so far. Will DA’s go against that trend and the general consensus of their constituents? Many have run their campaigns on the promise of putting away sex offenders. I don’t think so, but who am I to say? Maybe they will change their habit from doing everything they can to put sexual offenders away to giving some of us a break. I have learned to assume the worst. I enjoy pleasant surprises but am tired of having hopes dashed.

              • New Person

                I thought this notion of public interest was debunked by Dr Ira and Tara Ellman’s research work that disproves the 80% recidivism rate along with CASOMB’s under 1% recidivism rate.

                Yet, we still have bills going to Sacramento making it worse for registrants on behalf of Public Safety.

                So until there’s a set standard as to what constitutes the need for Public Safety, rest assured the DAs will all think of something to make it worse for registrants to get off. DA’s nowadays still don’t give out CoR’s and that’s why California has ballooned in size of registrants.

                Fear, not statistics, is what drives people. No one cares about the truth until it is backed by some law. Hello, segregation was legal right?

                I will never trust the DA or probation system. Despite my completing probation successfully, probation still recommended that I not be given the 1203.4. The DA also did the same thing in not recommending me. The Judge, initially also inclined to deny me the 1203.4. It had to take my lawyer to specifically re-write my application to isolate one section where it said it is by law that I am given 1203.4. Only then did the judge begrudgingly rewarded me 1203.4.

                That’s how “fair” the system has been to me. I’m sorry, but I went through one judgement already. Why must I go through another judgement as if I was still incarcerated in jail wanting to be let out? There shouldn’t be a second judgement. That’s double jeopardy. Hey… Snyder even says so as well to the enhancements!

        • Mark

          It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man (or Janice and others), in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly…who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotions, who spends himself or herself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if they fail, at least fails while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory or defeat.

      • Mark

        You are so right. If only 10% get off the registry, that’s over 10,000 people. That’s a victory! Then we fight for the rest knowing that public opinion is finally swaying.

  8. Alex

    This whole thing is so frustrating. It’s ironic that the Supreme Court ruled that continued registration does not qualify as a punishment. I think most will agree that its the biggest punishment of the entire process.

    • New Person

      Actually, the SCOTUS said the length of registration should be fit the offense. Offenses vary, except in four states. In California, it’s all lifetime for every offender, regardless of risk. That isn’t what was agreed upon in the 2003 Smith decision.

      That’s the thing, registration has gone above and beyond what the SCOTUS deemed regulatory and will never cross the threshold b/c it’s sheer conjecture. Yet, only Michigan has finally sent up a court case to contest this. That’s it since 2003.

        • Amol

          *This map reflects the default minimum registration requirement for sex offenders in each state. In some states, however, certain offenders may petition for removal from the registry after a shorter period of time. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/sex_offender_registry_laws_by_state_mapped.html

          • Harry

            It appears to me this map lacks data. Example Oregon do have lifetime registration, however, few are on it. They do have provision for citizens convicted in Oregon to be removed from the registry and most are not on public website.

          • MY TWO CENTS

            Same with CA. CA has Certificate of Rehabilitation, so it’s not completely lifetime for all offenses. Why not simply extend COR so it applies to all sex offenders? Then rewrite legislation to make it so that there is more deference to the amount of time an offender has been offense free in the community? Point is, why do the legislators have to complicate things by incorporating requirement to possibly be required to complete CA SOMB ‘treatment’ programs, power to Static 99, 20 year and lifetime requirements, etc?

        • New Person

          Oh wow! Thanks for the map. I’ve taken what’s been said online as fact that only four states have a minimum lifetime registration.

          • MY TWO CENTS

            Your probably got that information from CASOMB. But CASOMB, as I’ve learned through my independent research, is not very accurate in the way they portray information. Just as CASOMB sells the polygraph, containment model, and Static 99 hogwash: their 4 state claim is not as straightforward as they make it seem.

            • Timmr

              What is the trend, overall in the country, towards longer registration terms or shorter?

        • Timmr

          The minimum lifetime states do not correlate well with more registrants per capita. It is somewhat true for Florida, with 600 to 800 citizens per registrant (1 in every 600 to 800 residents of the state is an RSO), a little above average, but not true of California, with 800 to 1000 citizens per registrant, a little below average. Maine, with a minimum 10 year registration has a high registrants per capita, 1 in 200 to 400. Alaska, with a 15 year minimum also has 1 in 200 to 400, Fairbanks with 1 in 235 people residing there is an RSO. Wyoming, listed on your map as having lifetime minimum has a very low density of registrants, 1 in over 10,000. Clearly, lifetime registration is not a determining factor in how many RSO’s are in a state.
          http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/sex/sex-offenders-per-capita-per-state/

  9. G4Change

    Janice and ALL at ACSOL: Thank you so much for your hard work in trying to keep this bill alive. And to Senator Scott Wiener, thank you for stepping up and sponsoring this bill.
    You all have my 100% support for this.

  10. RR

    Fingers crossed that this bill or some variation of it gets passed. I think the fact that a senator is picking up the baton and running with it (figuratively) is huge success. Back in 2015 when we tried to have a tiered registry bill passed it never received a single author, let alone a co author and other sponsors. I think there will still be many more hurdles to overcome in the coming weeks. It’s imperative that all remain resilient and supportive. Best wishes to a better future!

  11. Lake County

    Talk about a miracle. I figured that it was too late to find someone willing to submit this Bill. For those that may loose their exclusion if AB 558 passes, this tiered registry might be the only way to get back off. I’ll make my phone calls this week in support of this tiered registry. It’s not the Bill we really want, but it’s a chance for some (if not many) of us to get off that list.

  12. DPH

    It’s Back, thanks Senator Wiener!

  13. Concerned Mom

    This bill is not perfect but definitely is an important first step. If we don’t play their games, we can never win.
    I found a way to directly post my support and comments to the bill here.

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCommentsClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421

    • jo

      This is AWESOME, thanks for the link! Flood this with support people!

    • NPS

      I sent him my comments in support. I also asked him to consider those who have 1203.4 expungements. It makes no sense for us to continue registering when our motions have been granted thereby releasing us from further penalty of a criminal record.

  14. jo

    Please all take a few moments and politely thank Scott at his website. Don’t muck it up with political diatribe or long winded speeches about what the bill is or isn’t please just thank him for his bravery.

  15. Lost

    I’m so confused and have looked all over for my tier based on this format. I have been convicted of 288a(b) (1). No where does it list my tier, can anyone point me in the right direction. Many thanks and lets hope this year we finally break through.

    • Harry

      It would extremely helpful for us lay people that can not read law text, to have summary list of offenses that identified in each tier group.

    • NPS

      Tier 1

    • Alex

      @Lost, it looks like you fall under Tier 1 unless you had some enhancements. I’m also not entirely clear what effect your SARATSO may have on this. I THINK the SARATSO will mainly apply to new convictions after this goes into effect? It seems the single biggest impact SARATSO will have is for T3. A score of 6+ will land you here automatically (6+ is considered very dangerous). Otherwise, it might be considered as part of a formula along with everything else.

      • Greg

        That’a B.S. hysteria Alex. From my understanding Saratso score is derived from Static 99 scoring. I don’t know how you can say people given high Saratso score is “very dangerous” when it isn’t even clear what the Static 99 is measuring. The Static lumps all crimes together and risk factors were determined from U.K. and Canadian offenders from 1970s, then risk factors assumed to be true and applied to current offenders.

        Please don’t feed us hysteria based on phony junk science!

        • MY TWO CENTS

          My thoughts exactly. I think those SARATSO scores are complete junk science. Here is a good article from the ABA Journal that addresses ‘risk-assessments’ like the Static-99R:

          http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/algorithm_bail_sentencing_parole

          The American Bar Association article quotes Eric Holder, who was former Attorney General:

          “In 2014, Eric Holder, then the U.S. attorney general, articulated the uncertainty swirling around these tools in a speech given to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ 57th Annual Meeting. ‘Although these [risk assessment] measures were crafted with the best of intentions, I am concerned that they may inadvertently undermine our efforts to ensure individualized and equal justice,’ he said. ‘They may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.'”

          So how do ‘risk assessments’ in this tiered registry (i.e. Static 99/SARATSO) help people? It seems like it has the potential of doing more harm. It’s a slippery slope. Letting the Static-99R into this bill will give the government permission to use more of these junk sciences in the future. I’m pretty sure of this.

        • Alex

          @Greg, I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating what was written in the bill. They don’t didn’t specify the actual Static-99 number. It stated “well above average”. Typically, 6+ is what falls into that category. I agree that the Static-99 is BS but it looks like that’s going to potentially be one of the criteria when placing people in tiers. I myself am concerned about this point as I’m worried I may be placed in T2 because of my score (4) despite otherwise seemingly being in T1. Potentially being handed +10 years because I was 2 years too-young at the time of my offense makes me angry. If I was 2 years older at the time, my score would’ve been a 3, one category lower.

  16. American Detained in America

    If we leave it up to judges to decide whether someone is granted relief, then my concern will become that it isn’t truly a tiered registry but a way to boost income for lawyers and increase the demand for judges to handle all the cases they will get. I’m not convinced that many, if any at all, will ever see relieve under this proposal. I hope I’m wrong, but at the same time, I’m very skeptical if it’s the same as the previous one. Relief should be automatically granted to those who qualify under the tiers, not up to elected judges to decide.

    • Lake County

      This sounds automatic enough for me if you have met the minimum requirements to request relief. I doubt that every DA’s office in every County is going to automatically contest every application that qualifies. I supposed their might be a limited number of DA’s that might resist rubber stamping our applications, but they will need to show a valid reason. The court is required to grant the petition if no objection is filed with evidence of the petitioner not fulfilling this law’s requirements. And if you get denied in one County, you are able to move to another County to file your petition that has a more cooperative DA. We will know soon enough if any Counties are going to fight every petition. If the DA doesn’t contest your application, then I see no need to hire an attorney.

      “The district attorney may request a hearing on the petition if the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement described in subdivision (e) of Section 290, or if community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration. If no hearing is requested, the petition for termination shall be granted if the court finds the required proof of current registration is presented in the petition, provided that the registering agency reported that the person met the requirement for termination”

      As far as a COR, many of us have crimes that qualify for a COR, but are unable to provide the documents needed to prove rehabilitation. COR’s are difficult to get for most of us.

      • jo

        Exactly! The DA’s office is busy enough without investigating every request and not being able to come up with anything.

      • American Detained in America

        And if the reporting agency didn’t bother to report that the person met the requirements? I’m not convinced.

        • Lake County

          What if, what if, what if…..life is full of what if’s. No laws are ever written so well that they cover every question you may have for every possible situation. Some people just shouldn’t ever leave their house because what if they get hit by lightning…..If the purpose of the law is not being followed as intended, then challenges can be made. This law is a first step in the right direction. As I had already said, if your county does not cooperate, then take up residency in the next door county and apply with that DA. I have the feeling that no matter who wrote or how well a law like this was written, you would find fault in it. Lets get this law passed and see how it works and then we can work to fix any problems with it. All the negative talk against it may be for no reason. This law may work out better than we expect. Lets find out first!

          • Lake County

            Remember this Bill is Supported by CA District Attorneys Association & CA Police Chiefs Association. If our local DA’s or Police Departments are not following a law that their own Associations supported, then we should contact those agencies for assistance.

          • American Detained in America

            I’m on the registry in the first place thanks to bogus charge from an overzealous DA’s office that failed to provide proper information to my attorney and manufactured their evidence against me. I do get concerned about what ifs because I’ve lived many of those what ifs.

      • Alex

        Even just filing the paperwork can be confusing and still costly, even without a lawyer. It not being automatic puts a great burden on those without money and/or inclination to follow complex instructions. I pride myself on being able to follow complex instructions and figuring things out, but even I was confused about properly filing for a reduction and expungment.

        Also, and this is a HUGE also, almost no information is actually provided to registered citizens on changing rules and what to do. I wager vast majority do not even know about this bill nor will they know about it should it pass. And you’re local PD is certainly not going to let you know at your anniversary mark that you’re now eligible for potential filing. It places full burden on a person for state forced decisions.

        • Nondescript

          We live in a Corporate Fascist regime and they want to keep it that way. It is up to the individual to navigate their way through the myriad of laws they throw at us, and once ensnared to negotiate your way out if you can. It is about willing yourself into action, whether that be researching case law, actively joining a group that already has a captain at the helm or rebelling in small ways that weaken their authority over you.
          Most people have become far too complacent, and are too busy being entertained by their toys to care what is coming.

          If nothing else, the registry forces us to become hyper attentive ( which is a positive thing) The trick is to become hyper attentive without the fear so we can fight back.

          If people don’t know or care to stay abreast of information that could potentially harm them- that is their folly.

        • Lake County

          “just filing the paperwork can be confusing and still costly”

          Well any paperwork can be confusing, if it’s too confusing for you, ask a smart friend for help or ask for help at your local Public Defenders office. A paralegal may be able to help also for a small fee. You might even find some help here from fellow registrants after some of us have gone through the process. In California, if you are low-income and cannot afford to pay the fee to file your court papers, you can ask for a “fee waiver.

          There are 3 ways to qualify for a fee waiver:

          1) If you are receiving public benefits, like Medi-Cal, Food Stamps (CalFresh), Cal-Works, General Assistance, SSI, SSP, Tribal TANF, IHHS or CAPI;
          2) If your household income, before taxes, is less than the amounts listed on Form FW-001 in item 5b; OR
          3) If the court finds that you do not have enough income to pay for your household’s basic needs AND the court fees.
          http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-feewaiver.htm

          “almost no information is actually provided to registered citizens on changing rules and what to do”
          Many laws are added each year without anyone providing notice to each person the law effects. It is each citizens responsibility to make themselves aware of all these laws. It’s very easy to do a Google search of new laws added for your state each year. If you’re a registrant, you should at minimum read a copy of the new years 290 laws. It’s quite possible that we will be informed by our local registration office, by a notice on our annual state registration forms or most likely with information posted on the Megan’s Law website that has information posted for us here: https://oag.ca.gov/sex-offender-reg/forms

          Many police registration officers are very professional and friendly and I’d image they will be eager to inform us of the new law that will reduce their case load.

          • MY TWO CENTS

            In California, paralegals are not able to provide direct services to the public; they are only permitted to work for attorneys. Furthermore, if the DA objects will the state also pay for a ‘risk assessment’ which may cost from $1,500 to $2,000? It looks like that cost will be burdened by the registrant. And what if the DA objects? People will either be in a position to defend themselves -or- hire an attorney at one’s expense. Attorney will cost at least $5,000. The consequence to losing is having your petition rejected, and you won’t be able to file again for a period the judge says. (This tiered bill allows the judge to reject as many times he/she sees fit, so long as the DA rejects.)

            This tiered bill has a petitioning process that makes no sense. It should be automatic after so many years offense free.

            • Lake County

              “paralegals are not able to provide direct services to the public”

              Maybe they’re not supposed to help, but many do. In small counties they get away with helping the public with all types of self filings.

              And yes we would like removal to be automatic, but that is not being offered. Perhaps if they see that the tiered system is working, they will be inclined to make it an automatic process. I don’t blame them for being cautious, if those released from the registry recidivate, it will cause public outcry against the politicians that voted for this law. I don’t think at this time any politician will support any tiered system without putting it upon the court to ensure no one dangerous is relieved of registration.

              You have to remember that most of the public still believes that 80% of sex offenders will re-offend, that they can’t be cured and that they had molested 100 people prior to being caught the first time. We have a long way to go in teaching the public the true statistics. And we are just beginning to educate the media and politicians.

              • Lake County

                In my County we have several paralegal offices open to the public. One is called Attorneys Rn’t Us and they advertise as “Legal Typing Services” and list many types of cases they directly help the public with. My ex wife used them to file divorce papers. I suspect that you would find paralegal offices throughout CA offering services directly to the public. As long as they are not signing their name to any documents or representing anyone in court, it seems that they are openly getting away with offering low cost help.

          • fish in a net

            “Many police registration officers are very professional and friendly and I’d image they will be eager to inform us of the new law that will reduce their case load…”

            Where do you register? In Orange County (3 different cities over the last 20 years for a misdemeanor), I am lucky if the only thing that happens is a loss of 4 hours. Best experience, 4 hours of sitting and waiting as they ignore me. Worst, 12 hour “interview” that was after being registered for 10 years no additional offenses ever….

            • Jack

              “Professional and friendly” they say, what a crock! haha.

            • Lake County

              My County years ago took about 3 hour to register. We had to be searched and booked into jail in order to register. Now (last 10 years) they they have a full time registration officer that makes appointments that are convenient. They are friendly and professional and generally finish in about 1/2 hour or less. Like everywhere else in life, there are good people and bad people we have to deal with. I haven’t heard of any major issues with registration in a majority of CA Counties. Most of the problems seems to be the attitudes of officers and politicians in Southern CA.

              • Alex

                How well the annual registration process works greatly various from police office to police office. In my city the process usually takes about 15 minutes. I did mine the other day and it was about 20 minutes. But in the neighboring city the process is incredibly slow. Someone I know in the neighboring city took nearly two weeks to do his regular annual registration last year. He had to schedule an reschedule multiple appointments with several hours of waiting for some of them. It got to the point of being beyond the legal time frame and the head officer on duty had to reassure him that no warrant would be executed against him. The department was/is very unorganized for registration.

                • New Person

                  If you read the 2003 SCOTUS decision, going in-person annually was identified as punishment.

                  yet here we all are doing in-person annual registrations and no one is contesting this?

  17. Lost

    Thank You all for the update. There is still much concern about how we need to petition for removal. I feel there needs to be a 3rd party panel instead of a single judge. The judge can delay your removal based on their own personal assessment. I know many judges will want to make us jump through more hoops to get discouraged. Let’s hope we can make some amendments to help our community and we are humans as well. Hope!

    • American Detained in America

      The judges I’ve seen for example, one of which went as far as to admonish the DA’s office for their delays in turning over “evidence” to my attorney yet refused to dismiss based on their violation of my rights, and another who admonished the DA’s office again(same case) for their further attempts to railroad me in the case by manufacturing their own charges against me yet also refused to dismiss the case when he saw what the DA’s office was doing, and then the one who even went as far as to say “your motion may well prevail further along in the appeals court, and you’re welcome to pursue this further. I’d like to see that myself just to know if I’m making the right decision here” as he denied my motion to overturn the conviction. I have as much trust in judges as I do DAs to administer justice.

  18. michelle

    I have a learning disability and im trying to figure out my tier from this bill. I score a 2 on the static 99 and convicted 2 counts of 261.5(d) felony, went to prison. Only time ever in trouble. I dont see it on the list.

    -thank you

    • NPS

      Michelle,
      There is no Static99 for women and this tool is used exclusively for men.

      • American Detained in America

        A fact that represents the absurdity that is the Static-99 in the first place.

  19. mch

    Not enough…way too much discretion left up to judges. Didn’t trust them then, don’t trust them now. How about making this RETROACTIVE as the registry was? Many were put on the registry retroactively, how about they are taken off the registry…as in automatic drop-off? How about those receiving clearance by 1203.4 being dropped off automatically? We know registration is continued punishment, we know that at any given time a self righteous zealot can knock on our doors and try to bash our heads in with a hammer or bat, we know that our homes can be vandalized or burned, children harmed, we know that there are those subterranium creatures that will pop out with a gun to do us harm. We know that some LE dance with glee when a registered citizen is “offed.” 15 years for a victimless internet sting is ample punishment, so the price of a penalty is for life. Let the people go that have served their time.

    • fish in a net

      “We know registration is continued punishment, we know that at any given time a self righteous zealot can knock on our doors and try to bash our heads in with a hammer or bat, we know that our homes can be vandalized or burned, children harmed, we know that there are those subterranium creatures that will pop out with a gun to do us harm.”…

      And this is from the guys in uniform…

      I know EVERY interaction I have with cops, as soon as they see 290, turns into a circus. A simple traffic ticket, gets an hour in cuffs sitting on a curb while they go through my car. And when nothing is found, I get ticket for a dozen little BS things and a “get the F outa here” as a send off.

      COPS, every year I stay on the list I lose more respect. And just when I don’t think I can lose more, they prove me wrong.

  20. Aero1

    If you have committed a crime that makes you a level 3 sexofender your never geting off sad but true and when it comes to a tier registry it all just depends on your case and what really happened its not just the judges but district attorney and society ingeneral are looking at what you really did and depending on what your crime was you might deserve to be on there for life or your crime could be so ridiculous that you should be taking off immediately thats why we really need this tier regerstery to separate us from them is all im saying

  21. ReadyToFight

    @Anon,
    I understand your point of view.
    But being Passive is the reason we’re All here today.
    When one of us suffers, we All Suffer.

  22. ReadyToFight

    The thing is SO MANY of us live our lives as good/great citizens trying to fit in with a society that doesn’t want one of us living anywhere near them and a political system designed to keep us buried alive in our past.
    So many of us would jump at the opportunity to prove ourselves as free men and women. We just need the chance to do so.

  23. Rod

    For those of us who could not make it today, the Committee Agenda – Public Safety for 4/25/17 can be viewed here:

    http://senate.ca.gov/calendar?startdate=4-25-2017&enddate=4-25-2017

    Also, live audio stream from Senate Room 3191 can be heard here:

    http://senate.ca.gov/media/senate-room-3191/audio

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 *