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]

Janice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: It Was a Miracle!

On the floor of the Senate yesterday, the Senate passed the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421). It was a miracle! It was the first time, after three unsuccessful attempts, that a legislative body approved a tiered registry bill. The miracle maker is the bill’s author, Senator Scott Wiener, who assumed authorship of the bill after its original author withdrew.

It is Senator Wiener who saw and spoke the truth about the registry….how it is broken and bloated….so bloated that is has become useless. It is Senator Wiener who gathered the support of 27 senators, from both the Democratic and Republican parties, to stop 70 years of punishment…that everyone convicted of a sex offense in California must register for a lifetime.

During the debate of the bill on the Senate floor, Senator Wiener was praised for his courage by his colleagues, including Senator Nancy Skinner. Senator Skinner first bravely identified herself as a victim of sexual abuse. She then acknowledged that the registry has created many more victims in the form of registrants and family members who have suffered and continue to suffer from public humiliation, unemployment, homelessness and vigilante violence.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to Senator Wiener and the 26 additional senators who voted in support of the tiered registry bill. They include Senator President Kevin De Leon who did not vote on many bills that day but who demonstrated leadership by voting in favor of SB 421.

We also owe a debt of gratitude to the many co-sponsors of the tiered registry bill, including Equality California, the CA Sex Offender Management Board and CalCASA, a victims’ rights organization. Without their support, this bill would not have passed.

There is another group of co-sponsors to whom we are also grateful, but who we continue to view with caution. That group includes district attorneys and law enforcement officials who have made certain that their interests are reflected in the original bill and its amendments. There is an uneasy truce between us as we each struggle to maximize the benefits of the bill for our constituencies.

Although we recognize that there is much yet to be done before the Tiered Registry Bill becomes law, we celebrate today its passage in the Senate. For we know without that vital step, the bill would have been stopped.

Today we celebrate knowing that our efforts during the past five years have paid off, that we have been heard. We therefore look forward to the next steps of the legislative process with renewed vigor and dedication as we prepare to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up.

Senate Hearing

Join the discussion

  1. pgm111

    This is great news for all of us. One huge step in the right direction. My gratitude to you Janice and your team. Let’s keep this going!

    • Trish

      Screw u and your tiered bill! If you feel bad that’s good for what you do! Do not condem others or to sat it another way! Drag someone else down with you! Don’t be a coward! Women and others have more than enough say in matters already! It is time men’s struggles are known! Most men have these problems because this society is he// bent on focusing on women while hurting men’s lives. Period and we need to start recognizing instead of punishing!

  2. anon

    This really is a great victory. We still have more work to do in the Assembly, but breaking through on a floor vote is very important. Getting four Republican votes was quite surprising and I think it suggests an easier time in the Assembly.

    I have one concern about the bill as amended. It requires sending a copy of the motion to the DA in the county where the original crime occurred. We have always argued that registration is thinly disguised as additional punishment while our opponents have argued that it is only a public safety tool. How is notifying the DA in the original county useful unless they want to weigh in on the sufficiency of punishment? If registration is really a tool of public safety, what is important is the current circumstance of the registrant and not the circumstances of the original crime.

    That said, the bill is a big step forward and I’m glad it passed the Senate.

    • Janice Bellucci

      We are not surprise by the requirement to notify the DA in the county where you were convicted because there is a similar requirement now when someone applies for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. I have never heard of a DA in the county of conviction try to stop a Certificate from being granted and don’t expect it to happen when a petition for removal is filed.

      • Not really

        It is not like the entire conviction will be erased from the criminal record, and police will still have near instant access to criminal records if deemed relevant. So getting off the registry would not be some magic wand that prevents the police from knowing anything about future suspects. In fact, after removal from the registry it will be more like the old registry, when only police had access to it. The only difference will be the lack of public knowledge of old convictions. As far as I know, there is no evidence that public knowledge of convictions served to deter crimes. I am sure the opposite is true.

        Thank you all for your efforts.

        • Thanks for the minority

          Screw all who believe in the registry! Period! This should. BE said to all authorities! If you harm an ex offender directly or otherwise I.e. The law has no right to destroy a persons health, subject them to violence, prevent them from housing, block from employment, promote hysteria and violence, instigate riots! Provide pathetic and worthless counsel resulting in absurd long sentencing! In short if the law is an abuser ! They are guilty! Period! If the law exagerates to get convictions! Forcing a plea deal bottleneck system and with the help of a victumhood culture! Overpunishing! Is a federal offense! We the minority never lose our basic fundamental rights to protect our life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness, based on biased thought processes such as once a liar always a liar! 1 homosexual act must make you a homosexual! Petty Crimes in your youth makes you a career criminal! Stealing a few times in your youth makes you a habitual thief! E to. Etc!

      • James

        The question is is how would that apply to federal or out-of-state convictions?

        • James

          I meant the DA from the county of conviction. If it goes to the US Attorney, I suspect they would be guided by the federal SORNA.

        • Chris

          I was convicted in Ca. Moved to Oregon. Witch also has a 10 year period for my non contact crime.

          Was told by the state police before moving up as long as California requires me to register then I most register in Oregon.

          I would think California would be the same.

          • Joe

            Chris, that may be changing in Oregon with the new law that i think goes into effect January of 2019. I talked with the lady in Oregon and the impression I got is that everyone goes to the 10 year rule except for predators regardless of state of conviction and removals from the registry will be handled by the probation and parole people and not the courts. You might want to look into that. My impression was that the benefit of Oregon is that not everyone appears the website. That has been the bane of my existence in Florida I got off probation over 10 years ago.

      • New Person

        Although not a CoR, by my DA wrote a scathing letter to not recommend me from not getting a 1203.4. So coercive that even Probation wrote a letter stating that I did everything required of me, but still not recommend me for 1203.4.

        It wasn’t until an appellate lawyer confirmed to my lawyer that by law no one can deny me the 1203.4 when I’ve completed all the requirements after a successful completion of probation.

        The judge apologized to the DA that it’s law and granted me the 1203.4.

        That’s just for the 1203.4.

        Anyhow, I’ve been recommend to move to a different city before applying for a CoR. The reasons has been listed above. Now, there’s no point of moving b/c the DA will be the same one who would not recommend 1203.4 onto me even though I did everything correct.

        It’s because of that event that debased me of any sense of being normal. Now, I feel demoralized if this this amendment doesn’t change.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          By appellate ruling, 1203.4 is an “entitlement” as long as you “successfully” complete probation. It cannot be denied for any reason other than that you did not successfully complete probation.

          This is a major problem with this tier bill, it is not an entitlement, you can be denied, and it is written with the same standards as those for a COR, which is denied most of the time.

          • New Person

            Ummm… you’re reiterating my point.

            If my DA was adamant on me not receiving my “entitlement”, then imagine the fervor for my leaving the registry altogether.

            I’m positing a contrarian view to:

            I have never heard of a DA in the county of conviction try to stop a Certificate from being granted and don’t expect it to happen when a petition for removal is filed.

            Mind you, I already have a great lawyer tell me that I have to move out of my county and into a more favorable county before applying for the CoR. Well, according to this bill, the scenario is negated. This lawyer knows what it takes to successfully get a CoR. I think the DA’s already knew that registrants were doing this and included that language. (This is why I wished ACSOL put up statistical maps of granted CoR’s as well as denied CoR’s. That would also help in painting a picture for a Bill of Attainder case.)

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Oh, so this bill is written as a COR but merely being renamed a tier? OK.

        I will note, you don’t find many or any DAs where you were convicted fighting you on a COR — because every DA where you are currently carries the fight, they never support you.

        But if you start finding DAs where you are deciding not to fight you for relief, you better expect DAs where you were convicted very well might start picking up that fight. They called for adding that in because they intend to use it, they weren’t just wasting their breath, so don’t be quick to poo-poo that.

        • Interested party

          There is a significant difference in the COR and the tier petition. Currently for a COR we have the problem of proving we are no longer a threat. The current tier system as proposed requires the LE to prove we are still a threat.

          While this might seem a minor variation it gives us a significant advantage moving forward. How the DA offices and judges move forward with this as passed remains to be seen, but innocent until proven guilty is much better then guilty until proven innocent

          • Timmr

            Not right. The DA decides your fate, your criminal record, or lack thereof since your offense is not the deciding factor.

    • NPS

      Regarding “a copy of the motion to the DA in the county where the original crime occurred.” That’s my concern as well. I was originally adjudicated in Orange County. We all know that DA T-Rack is vehemently anti-RC and will do anything to keep people on the (hit)list. However, my entire case was transferred to San Francisco County where I completed my probation. It was the SF County courts that granted my 17b, 1203.3, and 1203.4.

      So which DA would I send a copy of the motion to? San Francisco, which received my case and ultimately dismissed it? or Orange County, where the case was originally adjudicated?

    • Robert R.

      I applied twice for a Certificate of Rehabilitation and DA from the county of conviction never responded.

  3. Robert Curtis

    I am thankful for all the hard work from ACSOL. Curious to know who was in opposition. Got to work on that.

    • Janice Bellucci

      The two Democrats who voted against the bill are Glazer and Newman. The nine Republicans who voted against the bill are Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen and Stone.

      • Harry

        Mr. Gaines, whom represents the district that I live in, is running for BOE in 2018 and I am sure he needed to appease Mr. Runner. He is a dead horse at best.
        I would like to thank Janice and her team for the work they are doing. I do not know how SB421 will effect me, however, there will be many that will benefit. HIGH 5 to Janice!

      • San diego

        I am not surprised to read Bates voted against the bill. She has parts of orange and San Diego counties. A bunch of us, along with family and friends, called her early in the week so she can’t say that constituents didn’t contact her.

      • Robert Curtis

        I got an appaulogy from Newman for his vote. He told me the Republicans and those fronting his recall from office would hold such a vote against him in the media. NOTE: Josh wanted to vote yes but politics were stacked against him to do so.

        • Janice Bellucci

          Thank you, Robert, for this update regarding Sen. Josh Newman. We appreciate the work you do educating him and others regarding the facts of the registry and the need for a tiered registry.

    • NPS

      My mom lives in Newman’s district. She had called and asked for his support of the bill prior to the senate vote. I told her he voted no. She says it’s not a surprise. Apparently he’s in danger of being recalled. Perhaps by voting “no” he’d think this would be his saving grace. Doubtful.

  4. wb

    VERY well said MS Janice B ,YOUR HARD WORK ALSO WAS AN IS PART OF THIS LAND MARK STEP FOR 290 REGISTRANTS, I PERSONALLY MET U 7 YEARS AGO AT A MEETING IN LA AT ACLU , NOTICED YOU HAVE SO MUCH PASSION AND FIGHT .CONTINUE THE GOOD FIGHT ,, THANXX FOR ALL

  5. Cool CA RC

    NEVER NEVER GIVE UP!!!

  6. Cool CA RC

    NEXT STEP = REMOVE THE REGISTRY TOTALLY!!

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Yes. Except there will be no next step, this is a one-time thing only, it is not going to be touched again, and this is a terrible tier bill, the worst imaginable. And I am certain this group is no longer going to devote effort to a better tier bill, all signs are that the leaders consider this now a done deal and can put it behind us.

      So people on offenses that do not need to register under federal law will continue to have to register, and for horrific time frames, 10 years, 20 years and more — 10 years is not 10 minutes, it is a life-destroying time frame (as it will destroy your entire life, not on those 10 years, your work career will be completely undermined, your social connections will be completely undermined. etc.) and 100% unsupported for the purpose or tiers.

      As I have said here for years, we should and should have conform to federal, only those offenses for which the feds require registration would have to register, and only for the minimum time frames the feds require. We never even presented this idea, no politician has even thought of or considered it.

      • New Person

        10 years is a lot. When you think about the prime of life, it isn’t all that long. 10 years… 20 years… that’s a lot taken away from you from occupations, 401k’s, etc… You really can’t move on in all aspects of life, especially mentally.

        You do your time. Then when you’re done, your time serving the state isn’t over. It continues.

        You’re compelled to serve the state after your punishment term has been completed. The registry isn’t punishment, but “it’s your duty to register” as per ML website. Another phrase for compelled service is “involuntary servitude”. In the US and California constitutions. involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

      • AJ

        @Anonymous Nobody
        First, note that I’m not a CA resident, so I don’t have perspective from your position. But, I was convicted in a non-SORNA state where I would have been on a 10-year, police-only registration. Due to personal choice and circumstances, I live in a fully SORNA-compliant state and am on a public registry for 25 years or possibly life (I haven’t bothered to check). Ok, to my thoughts…

        “[T]here will be no next step, this is a one-time thing only, it is not going to be touched again, and this is a terrible tier bill, the worst imaginable.”

        Yup, you’re 100% right, and there’s never a chance that anything can ever get better or change or that any legislators will ever consider any sort of relief from how things are.

        Oh wait, that’s what just happened.

        “We never even presented this idea, no politician has even thought of or considered it.”

        Who exactly is the “we” you’re mentioning? Given you go only by an alias on here, I have to assume you are not part of the ACSOL legal team or staff, and most likely didn’t take active part in working with them or any of the other entities that pushed this with the legislature. Did *you* present the idea to anyone? If not, you have zero room to complain that it wasn’t considered. With that in mind, what do you have beyond conjecture that no politician “even thought of or considered it”? Maybe there were back-channel discussions (read: you will never find out for sure) where politicians said the bill as passed is the furthest they can push for now.

        I cannot fathom for a second why anyone, you or otherwise, would poo-poo any step in the right direction and assume that’s the end of it and there’s nothing left but doom and gloom. I further cannot fathom how anyone can truly, reasonably believe that, aside from a court decision, there will be a magical lifting of registries.

        –AJ

        P.S. Remind me to come to you next time I need to borrow some money. With such pessimism, you won’t expect me to repay you anyway!

        • James

          “Anonymous”: you said no one even considered abiding by the federal SORNA, only. I am a realist and, in politics, we all need to be realists. It is Pollyanna-ish thinking to believe that we would get much more out of elected legislators. This bill would not have gone as far as it has without the endorsement of law enforcement. Many in the public wish we were locked up (or worse) forever. Be grateful for what we can get.

      • Timmr

        You brought up something about the Adam Walsh Act (I am assuming that is what you mean by federal SO law) that made me wonder. The reason given for not being federal SORNA compliant is that it would cost more than our lifetime registry. I don’t get that. SORNA allows for tiers and the present reasoning for SB 421 is that tiers save money. Anyone know why our present lifetime registry and this tiered bill that just passed saves more money than the Adam Walsh Act would. Why would that be?

        • Nondescript

          It’s probably because to be SORNA compliant requires a lot more than just dividing registrants into tiers. There are 14 requirements and Cailf currently meets just 6 of them. Some are costly. Some are ridiculous, and some are costly and ridiculous.

          A cut and paste from ” SORNA Substantial Implementation – 2016 California”

          [SORNA requires that when an offender resides in a jurisdiction, he or she must immediately update any changes to his or her email addresses, internet identifiers, telephone communications, vehicle information, and temporary lodging information.

          SORNA requires 21 advance notification of Intl travel. California does not require 21-day advance notice and does not provide proactive notification of intended international travel to the United States Marshals Service.

          SORNA also requires that offenders make in-person appearances at the registering agency based on the tier of the offense of conviction. Specifically, SORNA requires that SORNA Tier I offenders appear once a year, that SORNA Tier II offenders appear every six months, and that SORNA Tier III offenders appear every three months. (Hire more L.E)

          SORNA requires these items be listed on website: ( I would hope that they would have to be verified before posting on a shaming site- and quite costly to do so)
          1. Employer Address 

          2. School Address 

          3. Vehicle Information 


          SORNA requires email notification system or other method of systematic proactive community notification when an offender initially registers and updates their registration. – California does not do this

          SORNA requires a standard policy to investigate noncompliance with sex offender registration. In California, each local registry agency implements its own standard practices.]

          • Timmr

            Those requirements are egregious. I think it is unecessary that the federal legislature needs to standardize punishment of former sex offenders. It’s not their job. If the courts would set a norm and draw a line beyond which the states can not go, that would all be unnecessary. But they are still stuck in frightening and high, they’re all monsters, anything bad for registrants is good for public safety reactive thinking. I know some courts are better than others, but the norm has to change. Maybe the real problem is not sex offender laws but separation of powers.

            • AJ

              @Timmr
              “It’s not their job.”
              Pardon me while I try to remove the shock off my face that Congress is poking into matters beyond their concern. Just more of the same old abuse of the Commerce Clause and ignoring the 10th Amendment.

              –AJ

      • CA cool RC

        There’s always a next step.
        There will be too many RC and lawmaker may feel that it is not worth keeping the website up.
        We could start suing DOJ for every little mistake they keeps on making this might lead to saying hey this is not worth it. Spending million of dollars for couple guys on the list where this money can be spend on a better use.

        • New Person

          Talk about suing, has ACSOL followed up to see if California ML has correct updated information up yet? They have been dragging their feet to update it. So I’m curious if they have b/c we haven’t heard much about it for a while.

          • Timmr

            Arrrrrgh, if they can’t update the information with the data we give them each year, month or quarter, how are they going to be able to handle the thouands of petitions?

            • New Person

              We’re monsters, not US nor California citizens. That’s the only way we can be mistreated.

          • Cool CA RC

            Yes, they seem to update. I had a friend check and they put up the correct arrest date.

  7. AlexO

    Thank you everyone for helping get the bill this far! And thank you Janice for spending so much time trying to make our lives better!

  8. Matt

    Very well said, Janice. And thank you for all you and your people are doing for all of us. It is refreshing to see something that resembles progress after so long. I share the same concern you mentioned. There is still a long way to go, and there can be amendments that could turn what appears to be a good thing into very bad law. I am hopeful that people will do the right thing here. But I also understand reality, and I expect to be disappointed. Thank you again!

  9. JSCLASER

    Congratulations to us and thank you SO much Janice and the team!!!!!!!!!

    My only concern now is….Dropping off the registry should be automatic!

  10. David

    ⛤⛤⛤ And an enormous and eternal “Thank You!” to you, Janice!!! This would not have been even remotely possible without your tireless efforts, lawsuits, and lobbying on behalf of all Registered Citizens! ⛤⛤⛤

  11. James

    Thanks to you and the others for your efforts. I agree it is an uneasy truce between us and law enforcement and DAs – but, without that “partnership,” this bill would not have seen the light of day. It is not often that one can look down a list of supporters of a bill and see the ACLU, ACSOL, etc., listed right along with police and prosecutors.

    I suspect that the decisions on who to oppose for removal from the registry will really be made by police (via input to the DA). I suspect that most eligible will be removed without objection from the DA (which requires staff-hours to research and oppose in court). I suspect that they will only oppose those who they think are most objectionable to them.

  12. Lake County

    Thank you Janice and team for everything you have done for us. Without the advocacy of ACSOL we would not have had any input on this bill and it likely would not have passed the committees.

  13. DPH

    No one could of said it better Janice, all choice words THANK YOU and I already sent Senator Wiener a Happy Pride Month Thank You Card. When the Governor signs (not if), post Assembly, The Castro will have a party for all those that have endured and for those (including RC’s that are not GLBTQQ) GLBTPIA and lost (taken their own lives with fear and not seeing any light at the end of a long and narrow tunnel) lives over 290 for minor offenses with no person contact or consensual at of age. Lives may just be saved! A Great Start 2018

  14. ExpatRFSO

    Thank you Janice for your tireless efforts. You have no idea the amount of suffering and pain your efforts will mitigate, the amount of opportunity and hope you are creating.

  15. BWat.

    Janice,
    The DA here in Santa Clara county, stopped my application for a certificate of rehabilitation cold, wouldn’t even let it go in front of the judge. The case was a 288(a) from 1988.

    • Bruce Ferrell

      Mine is also 288(a) and by statute law, not eligible for COR.

      That MAY be why it was stopped cold.

      There was a tiny window where an appellate decision was active in which a COR was possible, but my attorney screwed the pooch (showed up with the petition but no supporting points and authorities) and that door got closed by the California Supreme court and the legislature before he corrected the “error”.

  16. Nicholas Maietta

    We envisioned that the pendulum will at some point start going the other direction. Over the next few years to a decade (must likely sooner), we’ll see a complete dismantling of registration laws. This is a fine example of the pendulum definitely going the other direction, after all these years. It is no longer neutral. This time, we have the support of some very important and influential people who understand what must be done to improve public safety. This is awesome.

  17. CA

    Question:

    If this bill does pass and becomes law, we won’t be able to PETITION to be taken of the registry,
    until July 2019?

    • AlexO

      The way I read this is that if you’re T2 you can’t petition to get off the net until you’re at least 10 years into your registration. If you’re T1, it seems like most of these people will be taken off the public site automatically (though there’s a question as to whether or not T1 people with 647.6 will be excluded from the web).

      If this fully passes, I don’t think it’ll be put into law until 2019 so the current web petitions should still be valid, if otherwise very limited (box 3 is what really limits it if you’re not the parent of the victim and I have zero idea how it actually interacts with people who received an expungement and/or 17b reduction as technically getting either is separate from getting off the net but seems weird to have a “clean” record if going through the regular background check but then everything you did still remains very public due to Megan’s Law if you don’t qualify for removal. Seems almost like an expungement/reduction is nearly useless in this case. If anyone has a explanation on how public web + expungement interact, please post about it.)

      • IKare

        AlexO,
        I’m not sure this answers your question, but I will share with you what I have experienced. After 20 years on the registry for a misdemeanor offense of 647.6. I successfully received a COR, and was relieved of my duty to register as a SO. This was after $10,000’s of attorney fees working with inept attorneys who really didn’t understand the law, but gave it their best. Quite likely, they were doing everything they could at the time, but more hurdles and differing interpretations of the law made their attempts unsuccessful.

        However, if you pull an employment background check on me, you will still find that twenty years ago my case was dismissed/disposed. You will also find a record of a second arrest for failing to register. That was dismissed/disposed. There are over 700 employment background companies. While I have addressed 350 of them, successfully with a letter that states they are reporting erroneous information, and thus had that information removed, it is like shooting fish in a barrel to guess which background check a prospective company will use and what will be reported on that check.

        Having all your court documents showing that under California law you are considered rehabilitated, and have your full rights of citizenship restored, means nothing to employers.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      The process starts in 2018 with your 2018 registration. But no, you will not get relief from registration until sometime during 2019 — IF you get relief, this is not automatic any more than a COR is automatic.

      • New Person

        I’d like to challenge the petition as a form of “unequal practice”.

        10,000 get off due to “time served” and the rest have to petition? There shouldn’t be two standards.

        • Nondescript

          Some courts have ruled that unequal practice is perfectly fine if a new law is written to apply unequally to people in the same class or category as long as a reason is articulated in that law and it must be “plausible” . I don’t read anything in this tiered bill articulating a reason for giving a tier 2 registrant automatic relief after ” time served” plus 10 years. A tier 1 registrant with ” time served” plus 15 years must, however ,petition.

          The only reason I can think of as to why they are allowing automatic relief ( and deservedly so) to these longtime registrants, is that access to records and case files to go digging into just aren’t there anymore. They would have to reassess these people based on factual data since their conviction which is unlikely to turn up anything worth pursuing. Probably the way a DA is trained and motivated is that the more info they have on a person already on record, the more stuff they have to make a case.

  18. mike r

    I hear BWat. I bet the DA where I was convicted will do everything they can to thwart any of my attempts at relief after the battle I put up during trial. making judges recuse themselves and attempting a fire my public pretenders several times as well as file suit against the DA personally. ya they aren’t going to be to thrilled if I have to come up before them again. oh and plus the fact i forced them to resentence me because the DA falsely claimed my offense was considered a violent felony when it wasn’t..ya they really liked me..

  19. CA

    How Does the California Governor’s Veto Process Work
    Overview

    The governor’s veto process is part of the system of checks and balances instituted in the U.S. government and reflected at the state level: governors have the authority to veto bills passed by the legislature. The threat of veto has a powerful influence on legislation, although recent California governors have only vetoed about 7 percent of bills passed by the legislature.

    Legislative Veto

    The choice to veto a bill after passage by the California legislature is at the governor’s sole discretion. If the governor decides to veto a bill, it returns to the legislature. The legislature may then attempt to override the veto; this requires a two-thirds vote in both houses, and is very difficult to obtain. Since 1946, just seven veto overrides have been successful. An important element of California gubernatorial override authority is the ability to veto the budget, as passed by the legislature. California governors have line-item veto authority, meaning they can veto portions of a bill or budget without vetoing the entire thing. In addition, the governor has the authority to reduce or completely eliminate items in a budget or bill — but cannot raise budget items.

    Exemptions

    In California, as in many other states, several types of items are exempt from the governor’s veto. This means that gubernatorial approval is not necessary for legislation passed by the houses; the governor has no veto power in these instances. The California governor does not have the authority to veto proposed amendments to the California or U.S. Constitutions. Also exempt are initiative measures, referendum measures, concurrent resolutions — which do not have the force of law — and joint or individual Senate or House resolutions.

    Deadline

    To keep the legislative process moving, the State of California has imposed a strict deadline on the governor’s veto authority. When the legislature is in session, the governor has 12 days — from the date the bill is passed to the governor’s office — to choose to sign or to veto legislation. The governor has until the subsequent working day to sign or veto if the 12th day is a Sunday or holiday. If the 12th day occurs when the legislature is adjourned — adjournment is usually on August 31 — the governor has until September 30 to act. If the governor fails to act within the stated time frame, the bill automatically becomes law.

  20. CA

    JUST WANTED TO POST MY EARLIER COMMENT, SO WE CAN BE PREPARED WHEN IT GETS TO THAT LEVEL!!!!! FOR EDUCATION TO MY FELLOW REGISTERED CITIZENS!!
    KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!!!!!!!

  21. HopingForHope

    What impact will this have on the status of AB 558, if any?

  22. Robert R.

    I just want to say thank you to Janice and her legal team. You folks keep us registrants on course and create a winning strategy. We are in the thick of it and for me emotions can run wild. Many blessings be upon you.

  23. G4Change

    Janice and all at ACSOL: YOU are a miracle; you are our miracle. Thank you for ALL of your hard work!

  24. michael

    And Ill bet about 85% of people on the registry cant afford the $3000+ dollars for a attorney and all the paperwork and psych eval to be able to “get off” the registry !!!

    How many on the registry can barely afford to live here ? little own had a Public Pretender for a attorney ?

    Lets see I get SSID, Can barely afford GAS and REGISTRATION for my car and insurance, little own paying THOUSANDS of $ for a atty, paperwork etc… all to get off the reg !!

    • James

      Well Michael better get busy mowing yards, washing cars etc, will save that up in no time.

    • C

      Why are you collecting SSID? Can you work and, if you do, does it preclude collecting SSID? There are so many ways to earn money, especially if one is motivated and I can’t think of a better motivator than getting off the registry.
      Good luck!

    • Jtc

      Good point, most are unemployed and if, degree(s) or not, minimum wage. Not enough to live in Calif where work is. Let alone the homeless folks. And many others on SSI by themselves not or also barely making it. Some without vehicles. Worth saving for. State should pay for Pscyh Evals since that RC paroled from the State System. Maybe they plan to have clinics in 2018 for helping those that cannot help themselves and financials.

    • Notgivingup

      I do agree with many about the tiered registry ( That it is good news) but remember if you have struggled with employment while on the registry what makes this the silver bullet that will suddenly allow you to find a decent job? It will be a great thing to see many drop off but are you Michael saying that the reason most RCs are struggling is because they are RCs and not because they cannot think outside the box?

      There are millions of people in this country that struggle with employment, I know RCs that have their own business, some are small and some are middle range mom and pop type, there is a wide range from lawn services, window cleaning services for commercial business, holiday murals, such as painting Santa’s, snowmen etc on business windows, most that do this start around November 7 and go through new year, they stay amazingly busy and do quite well for 2 months of work, they are now expanding for Easter and the 4th of July. Others have small nick knack shops, one person owns an art and craft store that is very successful in our area, small bakery, welding business, construction, remodeling small commercial jobs, tree trimming services, Car wash detail business (that does an average of 6 to 8 cars a day at $125 per auto on ½ ton trucks+ $50 to $60 for small cars)., Auto repair, paint and body, 2 that I know go around and assemble furniture for stores. One has a parking lot cleaning service that handles 100s of businesses. 1 has a garbage disposal business.

      Yes most of these jobs have manual labor written all over them but it is a living. Then there are the ones that continuously struggle even when they had jobs at one time or the other but did not apply themselves to succeed. Yes the deck is stacked against many RCs but the ones who have become successful did not give up, did not stay on their knees, they stood up and went for it because they had nothing else to lose, they can protect their families much more if they stand up. It will always be my take that everyone has a small amount of money they can donate to the cause and at least that is doing something, we do not have a choice to sit on the side lines.

      Just think if people had not pulled together ACSOL would not have been able to accomplish as much as they have, yes it took Janice and Chance to lead but it took the troops to finally pull together and fight with them. I think all who gave their time, energy and money deserve a big thank you also. I want change just like you and the others but my life is actually pretty good most of the time, it would be real easy to sit back and do nothing but hunt and fish, play golf and work, then go back and fish some more with family and friends but the madness that is happening would not go away for me or others that are so beaten down. Sometimes I can understand why some simply try and forget about this mess but even with this victory(we hope)there is still plenty more to do.
      2019 is not that far away and many will have the chance to plan ahead, wish everyone the best of luck.

  25. T

    Great job, but don’t let your guard down and we must keep going with the fight.

  26. New Person

    Janice, Chance, and company, thank you for all your work. I hope you continue to amend the tiered bill to tailor around scientific research than arbitrary numbers and procedures.

  27. mk

    good for those who this bill passing will help.
    Sadly it will not help my husband.
    Im just wondering how much harder it will be for him and me to try to live a somewhat normal life.
    Just want him off parole.

    • New Person

      mk,

      In recent years, Janice and Chance as well as the whole ACSOL group (formerly CARSOL) have made great strides for all registrants.

      They challenged presence restrictions, which means you can go to a park now! They challenge presence restrictions. They recently challenged a law banning registrants from going onto any grade school campus. They are also challenging the exclusion of registrants from early release from prison.

      ACSOL will not stop to continue to fight for registrants. Last year, Janice was approved to be able to do cases at a Federal level! She also has on the ACSOL board Dr Ira and Tara Ellman, the authors who discovered the SCOTUS used a false fact from an unqualified person!

      Life will never be normal and being on parole does make it tense. In time, hopefully, life can get back to normal as possible. Yet, in the meanwhile, please do keep coming onto the website to get more information as well as possibly participate in calling congressmen and such when needed. That is one way you can help your husband – by standing up and speaking up for him.

  28. Beenagreatdad

    Has any one here had to fight California Family Code 3030? This was just brought to my attention that this law exists when I filed for divorce. I need to know if anyone has successfully challenged this because it seems unfair that after raising my children I’m given supervised visits because of something that I was convicted of 20 years ago. Please left me know if you have info on how to defend against this.

    • James

      I faced it and battled it – though was somewhat unsuccessful (my custody case was complicated, though). In all but the most egregious cases, even if the child is the victim, reunification is a goal. The burden falls upon the offender-parent, however, to prove that they pose little risk. Empirical data and personal data helps. Means by which this can be battled is evidence of therapy received, arguments that the criminal conduct was less egregious, wishes of the children, a good, pre-existing relationship with the children, evidence that your case falls within Tier 1 (showing evidence that your offense is deemed less risky), willingness to be supervised during visits, etc. I went to a child custody mediator, with experience in reunification cases, for assistance – which was beneficial.

  29. mch

    As with others I’m grateful for the hard work by Janice and others that helped get this bill to this point. I am also curious because there is a lot of confusion and “what if’s” that we’ll all have to deal with. This may benefit some, it may not help some at all, and few will be left without any hope at all. I am not hopeful, but I am cautiously optimistic Either way, my life will not change much. Maybe this is the tip of the iceberg and there is more to follow.

  30. James

    Many questions about the applicability in specific cases. Keep in mind that the bill can be amended in the Assembly and that, even if not amended and if passed, there will be some interpretation by the DOJ and DAs, along with, likely, some litigation. It is impossible to say, exactly how this will all work out until the final version is (hopefully) passed and reviewed.

  31. Robert R.

    I have faith that one day society will look back at the Megan Law Website and Passport identifiers with regret. The public registry is certainly cruel and it is the totally wrong approach to mitigate sex related crime. This SB 421 will give many of us and our loved ones relief and for this I am grateful.

    My father told me about growing up in Arkansas with separate drinking fountains and entrances for “Colored” folks. Today this is unimaginable. Have faith my friends, justice will eventually prevail. Love you all.

    • Timmr

      Thank you, Robert.

    • AJ

      @Robert R. (Redford? 🙂 )
      +1. I agree, and think we’re actually on the front end of that cultural shift. Truly, thanks be to God!

      –AJ

  32. Eric

    Ayes: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, De León, Dodd, Galgiani, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Pan, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

    Noes: Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Glazer, Morrell, Newman, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone

    No Votes Recorded: Lara, Portantino

  33. IKare

    Let me add my heartfelt “Thank You Janice” to the mix. This represents a huge step for people on the registry.

    However, it is only one small step for those convicted of a sex offense. There are still hurdles of employment to overcome. With most companies doing background checks now, even though you are not on the registry, a background check showing even a dismissed case is enough to keep you from being hired.

    Not being able to find employment will prevent many from seeking relief because they will not have the money to pay for the attorney’s fees to be removed. It would be nice if registrants had a simple process to insure they were promptly removed from the registry.

    I would like to see that expungement of a case means that it is erased from all records everywhere, except those used by law enforcement.

    To the person who stated “access to case files and records just aren’t there anymore”. In this day an age of technology it is nothing to pull up records from 25, 30, or even 40 years ago. Sadly, those false convictions, or arrests made because in the day there was a focus on finding people guilty because of a DA wanting a feather in their cap, a vote for election, won’t ever go away. While state employment laws prohibt potential employers from using criminal records beyond 7 years from being used to discriminate against you in hiring, it is still done. I have had two offers on the table, worked with my lawyers to make sure I was not misleading or misrepresenting my misdemeanor conviction (of 25 years ago ) and had both offers pulled from the table without a reason except, ” We have decided to go another direction.”

    Regardless, I am very appreciative of the work of Janice and the team, and all the people on this site who band together to make our voices heard so that our rights are not continually eroded.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @IKare and Others – ACSOL hopes that everyone knows and understands that IF the Tiered Registry Bill is based, ACSOL and other organizations will seek to obtain resources to help registrants prepare and file petitions for removal from the registry. We expect only a small percentage of those petitions to be challenged by District Attorneys and when that happens, we hope to provide direct or indirect assistance to registrants who must appear in court in support of their petitions. Please be patient. Our resources are currently directed at passage of the Tiered Registry Bill and the bill won’t take effect until 2019. That will give us time to seek the resources that will be necessary.

      • Cool CA RC

        So for now, we wait until this is passed then we go straight to the public defender office and see if they will help? if not, we contact you correct?

        • Nondescript

          Thank you Janice.

          And for all those who have financial concerns about this petition process thingy, Calif penal code says this regarding COR’s.

          [4852.08. During the proceedings upon the petition, the petitioner may be represented by counsel of his own selection; if he has no such counsel he shall be represented by the public defender, if there is one in the county, and if there is none, by the adult probation officer of the county or if in the opinion of the court the petitioner needs counsel, the court shall assign counsel to represent him. ]

          • AlexO

            Keep in mind that some counties actually make you pay back for public defender services. So double check to see if it’ll cost you anything before committing if money is an issue.

    • davidh

      You cant o much about the conviction, anyone convicted of a felony suffers the same issue. But being off a registry is a Hugh deal.

      After the State is cleaned up with the registry thing, the real enemy is the federal government, next!

  34. Bruce Ferrell

    Now that the bill has passed the Senate, what is the next step?

  35. NotLikingCA

    I don’t really know how things become law. The Senate passed it, so now what? Does the Assembly have to pass it? Then the governor signs?
    The post mentions “the next steps in the legislative process” but doesn’t explain what those steps are.

    • Interested party

      The short answer is you are correct.

      Once a bill passes one house of the legislature then it must start over in the other body of the legislature. In this case I believe the bill must go through the assembly public safety committee and then the fiscal committee if it passes both then the floor of the assembly.

      If it passes the full assembly then the bill will move to the governor’s desk. The governor can have go into law either by signing the bill or not signing it. He could also veto the bill in which case the bill goes back to the legislature… I believe both legislative bodies would have to vote on the bill again with a 2/3 majority to override the veto.

      One other complication is if the assembly amends the bill the senate and assembly would have to work out the difference in the bills and then vote to approve the compromised bill and then to the governor.

      Feel free to correct if I have got anything wrong … been a long time since high school civics class

  36. j

    so there is a mention to petition before ones birthday (after 2019) *if passed* so is it a 30 day? 2 week? 1 week before that particular persons birthday to begin that petition? or on the birthdate? and after the person petitions for relief will he/she need to appear/go to police station/court /take one final picture? or simply go to public defenders office-fill out form and wait for a call or receive a letter saying everything is done & over?

  37. Robert R.

    I have not seen any discussion here about the website exclusion provision
    for tier two registrants. If I am citing correctly it is in Sec. 4 Section 290.46 (d)(1).
    The way I read it – if a tier two registrant does not commit another sex offense during ten years of registration, then the registrant can petition to be excluded from the website.

  38. NB

    The way I read this bill sb 421,it includes the same as ab 558 and 647.5 will be included on web

  39. Jonah

    Seems the majority of registrants will be put into tier two based on the conviction and static 99 score and will only be able to petition for tier one if they meet all of the very specific criteria, right? Kind of blows considering the criteria is very specific.

    Can anyone confirm this? Another question does the static 99 risk level trump the conviction type, because my conviction (288a) will put me into tier two, however my static 99 risk level is a 1 – contradictive information leaving me confused as to where I would land?

    • AlexO

      Some sections of 288a are Tier 1. Subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 288a are Tier 2.

      At the moment, we’re not exactly sure how much importance will be placed on Static-99 outside of tier 3 where a score of 6+ by itself is enough to be placed there.

      Tier 1 & 2 seems to be mostly offense driven.

      • Mot

        I have an attempted 288(a) which was the result of a police sting. There was no physical contact with another person (minor) and there was no requirement for restitution. Any idea which Tier the new law when passed with assign me? I was released in 2003 and there was not Static99 at that time

        Thanks for any input

        • AlexO

          I believe you should be T1. The bill mentions 288a as initially being T1. There are two versions of this 288. There’s 288(a) which is lewd or lascivious act with a minor, and there’s 288a(a) which is oral copulation. I believe the first one (the one you have) is T1. The second one I can’t specifically find in the bill but many have mentioned it’ll be T2.

          • Timmr

            I got 288(a) placed in tier 2 by a process of elimination. It is listed as one of the violent felonies, so at least tier 2. If you don’t have two separate convictions it is not tier 3 — unless you have a high 99 score.

            • Mot

              Timmr Not sure the fact that there was no child; rather a sheriff playing a child on line, and they could only charge an attempt due to no live victim makes any difference. I was released in 2003 before the Static 99 was in force. So as it show on Meghan “attempted 288(a)

              • Timmr

                Will try to ask that at the conference call tomorrow.

              • Timmr

                Well, I just found this. I don’t know if attempted 288 means the same thing as conspiracy to commit 288, but conspiracy to commit 288 (a) is listed here as tier 2:
                https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cdss.ca.gov/agedblinddisabled/res/Tier2_Crimes.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjeoI3LwrzUAhUX5mMKHV1eDmIQFghhMAk&usg=AFQjCNGMC6zltvzhpz9LmmSqG2SST4mYrA&sig2=u0wxy0szH2ILilrvtNFwFA

                • AlexO

                  I’m not understanding what this list is saying. Is everything on the list tier 2? Because that’s pretty much every sex offense available and different than SB 421 lists.

                  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

                    @AlexO

                    The PDF appears to be a document created by the California Department of Social Service with regard to as it states:

                    “TIER 2 EXCLUSIONARY CRIMES
                    Violent or Serious Felonies, Offenses Requiring Registration as a Sex Offender and Felony Offenses for Fraud Against a Public Social Services Program Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 12305.87”

                    That I infer “excludes” a person from benefiting from their services.

                    I could venture to say it does not have any bearing on the results of passage of SB421 and it becoming law in California.

                    As Yehovah Lives, so should we

                    • Timmr

                      Would cause some confusion, one government office using terms regarding classification of the convicted, that mean something different to another department or to the public, or maybe these terms are already known to the deep state.

  40. JC

    We need clarification on how 647.6 applies to the Tiered Registry as amended.
    Will Tier 1 647.6 misdemeanor registrants be published on the public site as possibly written in the Tiered Registry bill?

    Please, this question has been asked for weeks without a real answer. We need clarification.

    • Janice Bellucci

      As currently written, SB 421 does not require individuals on Tier 1 to be listed on the Megan’s Law website.

      • AlexO

        That’s great news! Thank you for answering this, Ms. Bellucci!

        If you have time, could you let us know what this section then means in regards to T2, the internet, and 647.6?

        “(c) On or before January July 1, 2019, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is otherwise described in, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 and who is a tier two offender, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, and with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases…”

        Hopefully they won’t change the bill to include more people on the internet. I think most will agree that being publicly listed is the worst part of our punishment (and I refuse to to acknowledged registration as anything but punishment).

      • JC

        Thank you so much for the answer, Janice.
        So it seems that 647.6 misdemeanor convictions will NOT be published on the public website if Tier I, as was previously speculated.

  41. NB

    The way I read this bill 647.6 will be on the website. The senates analysis of this bill says tier one will be excluded except specified offences. 647.6 is specified in with tier two.

    • AlexO

      That part could also be a clarification/extension that Tier 2 will not be excluded those that are tier 2 due multiple 647.6 convictions. I don’t recall who it was that initially pointed out the possible nuance between using “or” and “and”. “Or” would mean any of the things. “And” could mean a combination of these things, as in you have this, this, this, and that. The section of the bill in question uses “and”. Hopefully what Ms. Belluci state is a true and correct interpretation of the current bill’s text.

    • JC

      I didn’t see that anywhere in the state analysis part, where did you find the reference to 647.6?
      Are you just referring to the amended bill?

  42. WB

    where would one conviction for a 288[a] LEWD N LASCIVIOUS CHILD UNDER 14.. A 13 YEAR OLD VICTIM 18 YEAR OLD PERPETRATOR 1988 IN RIV COUNTY . PLACE ME ON THE REGISTRY???

    • AlexO

      What’s your Static-99 score? If it’s less than 6, then you’re likely tier 2 (otherwise it’s tier 3). But given that your conviction is in 1988, you should be able to file for relief as soon as this law goes live, if you’re tier 2. If you’re tier 3, and the only reason your tier 3 is because of your Static-99 score, then you should be able to petition to be placed in tier 2 and then petition to be removed.

      • WB

        ok thanx for the info ive never been tested for a static 99 score ??

        • AlexO

          Static-99 didn’t exist back then and isn’t supposed to be used 10+ after the case. So that likely puts you into tier 2 barring something random. So it looks like if this passes and becomes law as is, you should be able to petition to get off the registry.

          • WB

            thanx hopefully it passes this time . this has been a 30 plus year nitemare ,, new stuff thrown on me every 5 years that I never pled too ,,

          • JAB

            Hi Alex,
            I just recently started hearing all the information about the possible changes that could help so many of us and families. I have a 288 (a) lewd conduct under 14 and a misdemeanor 647.6 from 6/93. This is the same case just one Felony and one misdemeanor. I have never had any other arrest or convictions since 1993. I do not have a score as my conviction is over 24 years. If this bill were to pass, Would I be eligible for applying to get off the registry since it’s been 24 years since my conviction? I am not assigned a tier due to the length since conviction, would I be at 1, 2, or 3 tier? I’ve also heard some Senate or other members feel that 288’s should still be on the registry for lifetime? Have you heard this? And a big thank you to Janice. I cannot tell you how this registry has destroyed my life.

            • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

              JAB

              I suggest listening to the latest Conference Call Recordings which Janice from my impression states that at this point in time the assigning of Tiers is still to fluid to make a ascertained conclusion.

              If SB 421 is made the law of California, The California Dept of Justice will begin processing Petitions to be removed in 2018 but again I would venture to say the Issue is not set in Stone or Concrete.

              Here is the link for your consideration:
              http://all4consolaws.org/acsol-conference-calls/

              I speak truth

              As Yehovah Lives, so should we

              • Timmr

                They are probably not going to make 288’s lifetime, but who knows. They are not going to get many off the registry if they exclude 288 (a)’s. Find someone to look through the names on Megan’s list. At least in California, the most common of the offenses seems to be lewd and lascivious acts with a minor, or 288(a). If that remains lifetime, how are they making the registry more lean and effective? Putting 288’s on tier 3 would put law enforcement backing this bill in an awkward position. But it is all speculation, we can only wait and see, ACSOL is doing what they can to make sure this bill doesn’t degrade any further.

                • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

                  Timmr has spoken well:

                  “But it is all speculation, we can only wait and see, ACSOL is doing what they can to make sure this bill doesn’t degrade any further.”

                  I concur, and add:

                  It is part of the design within the Human Condition to defer to Be A Determinist & Predictionist in conjunction with the Desire Not to accept that Life is Full (blessed) or Emptied (cursed) by Lifes Nature of The Unknown or Unforseen Outcomes & Development where over Short or Long periods of Time is Subjective to the individuals position in Life.

                  This Denied Acceptance of Lifes Uncertainty is a Source of many Actions & Reactions of varying Extremes.

                  Coupled with the Empowerment & Assests of the Resources of a Large Government Apparatus-

                  Has caused many violations & offences to The Rights & Titles of the US Constitutions for its Citizenry.

                  I speak a True Song

                  As Yehovah Lives, so should we

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 *