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]

ACSOLCalifornia

Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421

Hearing dates have been set for Assembly Bill 558 (AB 558) and Senate Bill 421 (SB 421) by the Public Safety Committees.  Specifically, the Senate Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear AB 558 on June 27 and the Assembly Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear SB 421 on July 11.

“The best opportunity to stop AB 558 from becoming law is to speak against it during the Public Safety Committee hearing on June 27,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “In addition, it is important to send letters and make phone calls to the members of that committee.”

The hearing for AB 558 is expected to begin on June 27 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 3191 of the State Capitol.

“We must show our support for the Tiered Registry Bill, SB 421, by speaking in support of that bill at the Public Safety Committee hearing on July 11,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein.  The hearing is expected to begin at 9 a.m. in Room 126.

“It is now time to send letters of support to the members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee,” stated Bellucci.  “If possible, please send a signed and dated letter to all 7 committee members.”

Assembly Public Safety Committee

(for SB 421)

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (Chair)
Dem – 59
Capitol Office, Room 2117
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059
(916) 319-2059

Tom Lackey (Vice Chair), Rep – 36
Capitol Office, Room 2174
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0036
(916) 319-2036

Heath Flora, Rep – 12
Capitol Office, Room 3149
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
(916) 319-2012

Lorena S. Gonzalez Fletcher, Dem – 80
Capitol Office, Room 2114
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0080
(916) 319-2080

Bill Quirk, Dem – 20
Capitol Office, Room 2163
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020
(916) 319-2020

Blanca E. Rubio, Dem – 48
Capitol Office, Room 5175
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0048
(916) 319-2048

Miguel Santiago, Dem – 53
Capitol Office, Room 6027
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053
(916) 319-2053

Senate Public Safety Committee

(for AB 558)

Senator Nancy Skinner (Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2031
Sacramento, CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4009
Fax:  (916) 327-1997

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

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

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

Senator Holly J. Mitchell
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

Join the discussion

  1. JC

    Is this our last chance to defeat AB 558?

  2. TG

    I am so scared of AB 558. It will be the end of my life if it passes.

    Janice, should we also come to the AB 558 hearing?

  3. Patsy

    I wish I could understand the criteria…I read and it is greek to me. How will this affect a person arrested in 2008, of one count of chiild porn, first offense…spent six years in Federal Prison, on probabiotion now almost three years…made no mistakes…works….monitored computer….college grad and college history teacher…prior to arrest. I have tried to understand if he will be assessed by Static 99. This is all so confusing. I have done my duty to call, write etc, to pass this law. But I still don’t know where my son fits in. I have called and written to Janice….and never receive an answer. Does anyone know?

  4. my say

    Not 100% sure if I am reading this right but isn’t kind of strange that 2 laws, that seem to be at odds (with each other) should come up at the same time and both progress so far?

    If I am wrong, please correct. But to simplify, it seems one says no tier ones on internet and the other gets rid of exclusions for tier ones.

    so “if” they were to both pass, what would happen?

    • Timmr

      I suppose they would have to go back and reconcile the two somehow. What I think is the assembly will have to ammend SB 421 to conform to AB 558 which they approved, that is if they wish to approve the tiered bill also. Then I guess it would have to go back to the Senate amended for approval.

      • JC

        That’s still speculation at this point, let’s defer to Janice and other expert legal opinion here.

        • Timmr

          From the California State Legislature website:
          CONFLICT
          During a calendar year, when two or more bills amend the same code section, they are said to be in conflict. Technical amendments must be taken to each bill prior to its approval by the Legislature in order to ensure that all changes proposed by the enacted bills take effect (see chaptering out, double jointing).
          CHAPTERING OUT
          When, during a calendar year, two or more bills amending the same code section become law, the bill enacted last (with a higher chapter number) becomes law and prevails over (“chapters out”) the code section in the bill or bills previously enacted. Chaptering out can be prevented with the adoption of “double jointing” amendments (see conflict, double jointing).
          DOUBLE JOINTING
          Double jointing refers to technical amendments necessary when two or more bills propose to amend the same code section (i.e., are in conflict). Double jointing prevents the problem of chaptering out (see Chaptering Out, Conflict)
          http://www.legislature.ca.gov/quicklinks/glossary.html

          • JC

            This is still speculation, again let’s refer to Janice and Co. for actual expertise.

        • Timmr

          Speculation and skepticism is part of learning. Experts also disagree or are just plain wrong sometimes and the best thing a lay person can do is go to the source.
          An example, a speaker at the ACSOL conference yesterday declared the chairman of the appropriations committee has the power to put bills in the suspense file. Kind of misleading. Just looked at glossary for suspense file and it says:
          “SUSPENSE FILE
          A bill or set of bills, with a fiscal impact, set aside in Appropriations Committee by a majority of Members present and voting. These bills may be heard at a later hearing.”
          Majority of members, not chairman.
          Keep questioning, my friends.

          • JC

            There’s a difference between when you’re speculating about something that may needlessly amplify fear.
            You are not an expert here so it doesn’t really help to throw blind darts trying to hit the target. Nor does it help to claim that experts don’t know anything either.

            • Timmr

              I don’t know what your expertice is, but you are wasting your words on me, and vice versa.

              • JC

                I’m not the one making speculations, and let’s try to not make this about ego.
                We’re all fighting a common enemy, there’s no need to try to create unnecessary fears.

          • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

            @ Timmr

            It appears your statement:

            “I suppose they would have to go back and reconcile the two somehow”

            Has come to fruition and your prediction has became a Truth.

            I must say it’s enjoyable to be illuminated by your reasoned Foresight & educated Vision.

            I speak a True song

            As Yehovah Lives, so should we

            • Timmr,

              Thank you. And back at you, I enjoy your well
              reasoned, spiritually punctuated well metered enhancement of biblical and other iconic judicial references, composed in a way I can inadequately describe as poetic, humorous, respectful, down to earth footnoted rhapsodies I think Americans forgot how to compose after Mark Twain died. The meme is to speak safely and shackle that which might offend, even if true unto what we know by adding 1+1 to be 2. Thank goodness we are still free to emancipate the voices within us.

    • AlexO

      It might not be a problem. From the way I understand AB 558, it has to do with the application for exclusion. SB 421 only deal with exclusions for tier 2, and even then its already pretty strict. Tier 1’s automatically being excluded is part of the law and not an application.

  5. Friendly Advice

    Just sent all my letters in opposition for AB 558!

  6. Friendly Advice

    Just sent all my letters in favor of SB 421!

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you, Friendly Advice, for writing and sending letters in support of SB 421 and in opposition to AB 558! You are a shining example of someone who has shown up, stood up and spoken up.

  7. pgm111

    I am ready to send letters to the Assembly and Senate in support of SB 421 and against AB 558. Is there a good letter template available that I may use? Any great talking points that I may use to save time? Thanks for your help.

  8. PillarOfSociety

    I want to write letters and be proactive about opposition of this bill but Im not sure I fully understand it. Could someone clear this up for me?

    In an earlier article I thought that ALL internet exclusions were being retracted. Now as I read the text in the bill it seems like all theyre doing is amending the current version to prevent sex offenders with certain crimes from being excluded from the site (i.e. misdemeanor child molestation).

    So it seems there are only a fraction of offenders at risk of being “exposed” and it has no impact for the ones that have successfully been removed under this amended bill.

    I have an expungement which led to being removed from the website. My crime was noncontact. Either way Im going to write these letters but Id like to be educated on the subject.

    • Nondescript

      Bill 558 as currently written applies to one offense (pc 647.6 misdemeanor) losing their internet exclusion. They originally tried to to take away the ability of several other offenses from obtaining/ keeping their exclusion ( 311, 243.4 felony, and 288.1) but subsequent amendments to this bill kept those exclusions intact. Still a filthy piece of legislation that will negatively and needlessly impact registrants and their families however much of a “fraction” they are.

      • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

        As always you are on Point & Speak truth.

        I can only suggest Highlight the fact of the Unjustly effect “Innocent” Family, “Innocent” Friends, “Innocent” Neighbors who are punished without cause.

        As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  9. AlexO

    All the letters for and against have been written and sent. Now to keep our fingers crossed things go our way without any further negative amendments.

    I’m still really leery about that addition of 647.6 clause under Tier 2 internet exclusions as well as giving the court leeway on classifying people beyond their actual penal codes; I have a a felony 311.4 and misdemeanor 647.6 (going in for reduction and engagement soon) with an underage victim who was a stranger, and Static-99 score of 4 (yay for getting a point and a classification bump because at the time I was two years too young) Going by the codes alone, I should be tier 1. But that consideration leeway has me worried I may be placed into tier 2. 10 years is a huge bit of difference between the two, not to mention potentially being listed on the public site or not.

  10. Anonymous Nobody

    If we had done as I have pushed here for years, and instead of this harsh and I would say unconstitutional (as cruel and unusual punishment for those in tier 1 and even 2, and probably even all the rest) tier bill instead pushed for conforming California law to the federal requirements of who must register and for the minimum times in the federal law, we would not have to deal with the threat of 558 — because ALL those people threatened by it would not even have to register any more, as the federal government does not require registration for those offenses. (And of course, that would also take them out of the federal IML law, and all the other disabilities of registration.)

    It could have been a simple and sellable approach, pointing out it would be giving relief only to the lesser offenses whom the public does not even know must register and doesn’t care about — but we don’t seem to really want to eliminate registration, even for lesser offenses, we simply want to lessen it a little, or just the time frame, for some, but not too lessened, since we are pushing in the tier bill to make mere misdemenants register for at least 10 years and maybe more — and that actually INCREASING the time they must register from 7 year to 10 years for some of those offenses that now can stop with a COR after 7 years!

    In fact, under the tier bill, those who have been able to stop registering because they have a COR at 7 years will now have to start registering again and wait until they reach 10 years of registration — and that in California — and then ask for permission to end again, and hope they do not get a challenge. (Just like happened twice before, when relief from registration that was earned and obtained as part of 1203.4 relief was later taken away and people were required to start registering again. Except, those people don’t necessarily know that and will find out the hard why by getting arrested at some point. They might have had only a year of registration originally, then the 1203.4 relief — but under this tier plan, they will have to do 9 more years of registration before they can even ask for relief — because the tier bill requires you prove registration, not simply show offense-free time from last offense; the tier bill requires that you complete a sentence rather than show good conduct.) We LIKE this, so much so that we are pushing for it — instead of the much easier and more definitive approach I have proposed here for years and this group has ignored, an approach that would allow us to turn all our guns at the federal government and become a real force for registrants in all the states.

    We have failed to lead the conversation and point it in the proper direction. We let the prosecutors have complete control of it, and they have done so with gusto and evil intent and design of the bill.

  11. JC

    If you have not done so please send your letters to the senators in opposition to AB 558!
    They need to be sent basically by tomorrow to get to the senators on time.
    Please do so, if you have not and help fight this awful bill!

  12. David

    I mailed my “Please oppose AB 558.” letters to the Senate Public Safety Committee members today and I phoned each of them as well. I encourage everyone to do the same. Please everyone: let’s overwhelm them with an avalanche of letters and calls! We’ve done it before let’s do it again!

  13. AB

    Please call the Senators today and voice opposition to AB558!
    It’ll take just a few minutes, it’s the easiest thing to do.
    Please call and send letters TODAY if you haven’t done so!
    Please help us fight this bill.

  14. Lake County, CA

    I just wanted to re-post this as written by pgm111 since this is a better place to post this. Thanks pgm111, I will use this (with some changes) to send my letters. It is always best to customize all cut and paste letters just a little.

    Lake County, CA added note: (Send to each public safety member above, if one of these members is in your district, you can email or call them also. I also suggest you put “Public Safety Committee” (with Chair/Vice Chair title if appropriate) on the address label of each letter as that will increase the chances that they will consider (read) you letter since it is policy in State and Federal government not to read or respond to letters from anyone not directly in their district). Normally when politicians receive letters from non-constituents, they look up your address and forward it to your representatives office.

    June 23, 2017

    Great news! Now it is time for a full court press to make SB 421 a reality. Below is a copy and paste of my letter to California senators.

    Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
    Capitol Office, Room 2117
    P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA
    94249-0059

    Re: SB 421 – Tiered Registry Bill

    Dear Chairman Jones-Sawyer,

    I strongly urge you to vote YES on Senate Bill 421. Here is why:

    1. According to the California Depart of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 0.8% over a five year time scale.

    2. 95% of all sex crimes are committed by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy – not people on the sex offender registry.

    3. The current registry scheme provides public with false sense of security and does not serve the interests of protecting the public.

    4. A tiered registry system would actually increase public safety and make more efficient use of scarce law enforcement resources

    It is now time to reform California’s archaic sex offender registry. A yes vote on SB 421 will help achieve that laudable goal.

    Thank you.

    Full Name
    Street address
    City, CA ZIP

  15. David

    UPDATE on SB-421? Is there any news on SB421? Is it still scheduled for a hearing next Tuesday, July 11th?

  16. David

    🛫 Okay, I’m heading to Sacramento! 👍

  17. Janice Bellucci

    The Assembly Appropriations Committee will consider the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421) on Aug. 23. The committee does not allow public testimony and is expected to move the bill to its Suspense File on that day. With luck, the committee will remove the bill from that file on a later date so that it can be considered on the floor of the Assembly between Sept. 5 and Sept. 15. Please call members of the committee now to ask for their support of SB 421.

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 *